Tue 14th July 2009, 5:21pm
QUOTE(sbrown @ Tue 14th July 2009, 7:53am)
QUOTE(gadfly @ Tue 14th July 2009, 7:46am)
"Position of power" means that if this were implemented, admins would have to disclose their identities. Now what interesting consequences might then happen, and would they be good or bad? (Can children below the age of consent in their jurisdictions consent to having their identities made public, for example?)
Theres a lot to be said for identifying admins but Im just proposing Arbcom and checkusers at present.
May be you should include admins as well so that you have some slack in terms of concessions in any negotiation, to let the opposers think they have partially succeeded, as it may increase the chance that the proposal for Arbcom and checkusers gets through? Of course, I think admins should really be included with Arbcom and checkusers, and I think it would be well worthwhile if it brought about a real discussion regarding age of consent, maturity, and administrators' powers.
In reality, however, I suspect none of it will get through as the whole shebang seems to be terminally and possibly irretrievably dysfunctional, due to the crazy way in which wikipedia was set up and never modified. It needs someone or some bosy with sufficient power and insight to merely change the rules to something more appropriate, let those who object merely bugger off, and then remove themselves completely from the set-up to enable a proper structure to be implemented which deals with accountability and so on.