User:Mediator/handoff

''The User:Mediator role account is a collective work. Anyone voluntarily listed as one of the User:Mediator/candidates may edit this page on an equal-status basis with the incumbent. Other edits will be considered but may be reverted without notice. Anyone may list themselves as one of the User:Mediator/candidates. Doing so indicates support for this role account and position. It need not indicate support for the current incumbent doing the job. Comments to or about them should go to User_talk:Mediator. Other collectively authored pages are role, spam, benefit of the doubt, best practices, strategy, tactics, watchlist, and User:Mediator/candidates.''

User:Mediator is committed to handoff this role account to one or more of the current candidates for the role, at some future time when it is agreed how that candidate will themselves turn the account over to another.

Various methods for this might include:


 * A draft - randomly selecting one of the candidates to serve the role for a span of time, and sanctioning them if they refuse to do so.


 * A vote using some voting system or consensus method to decide (secretly) which willing candidate should take the role, and for how long.


 * A bribe, in cash or Paypal, paid to the current User:Mediator to get them to leave. This would put the account in the hands of the highest bidder.


 * Some kind of competition or game, such as russian roulette to choose the next User:Mediator, as a prize.


 * Each week the current User:Mediator sets a random 4 digit password, and the first to guess the password is the new User:Mediator.


 * Other ideas?

I think that the role of The Mediator is different from that of a mediator. It can involve different skill sets. Whereas mediators in general will be able to work between conflicting parties to achieve a common solution, I can see the User:Mediator function as becoming something akin to a court registrar. Keeping track of who's doing what, and knowing who's currently available for assignment may require certain organizational skills that we do not all have and which some otherwise skilled mediators may lack. &#9774; Eclecticology 20:28, 2003 Oct 10 (UTC)


 * That is a reasonable conclusion. Perhaps using the user name Mediator is a bit deceptive as there is some perception that one is reaching a mediator, when in fact it is an administrative role that is part of the "powers that be." A mediator is one who works with both sides of a dispute in neutral, conciliatory manner, not someone who is informing problem users that they need mediate their problems with the community.


 * Ah, but "their problems" are not with "the community" but usually with What Wikipedia is not. In this sense, the Mediator is kind of a nice social approximation of a User:Editor.  But with an explicit User:Mediator/benefit of the doubt - not an "absolute-sounding ethic".  The manner, yes, can be neutral and conciliatory, and process fairness is very important.  But is an adversarial process, such as author vs. editor, prosecutor vs. accused, the right way to go?  Maybe not.  A slightly explicitly biased Mediator seems like a correct reflection of reality here - and where that bias is systemic or damaging the reputation of the encyclopedia *as* an encyclopedia, well, the bias may not be "slight". - the incumbent.

Perhaps User:Mediator could be easily confused with User:Prosecutor by someone who has been accused of bad behavio(u)r? User Advocate


 * For this exact reason, the incumbent User:Mediator has already proposed that problem users be renamed users in conflict. Ed Poor agreed.  However, to keep this role relatively neutral on policy matters, the incumbent suggests that the User:User_Advocate or Ed himself make that change. - the incumbent