Our favorite troll is raising Cain as User:Mediator.
He has created a couple dozen pages on Mediation, including his "invitations" to participate in this new "role account." Some of his ideas are valuable, some lack consensus, some are not neutral and cheapen the concept of mediation. For example, he was critical of one user's language skills and suggested that they refrain from editing the English Wikipedia.
However, the content he has posted and its value are beside the point.
The point is, we've banned him three times.
I suggest that the usual technological measures for dealing with edits from banned users be employed. Pursuant to existing policy, the pages he created should be deleted and his other contributions rolled back.
And if anyone can confirm that User:Mediator is not 142.177.etc., I'll submit my apology and buy the next two rounds of drinks.
Louis
Well, let's make it a priority to figure out if it is him, and I think it's time for me to start pursuing some legal means here.
And if anyone can confirm that User:Mediator is not 142.177.etc., I'll submit my apology and buy the next two rounds of drinks.
By all means, let's be reasonably sure first, but I think we have to be very firm in this case.
--Jimbo
Im not entirely keen on the beef with 24, save that his arguments and comments were sharp enough to warrant a detailed response from Jimbo on meta-- much of which read like "mine website-mine rules." I understand he made some legal threats, though I'm not sure what the real deal is. Is it that he was just a troll-adding little content?
Would there be any problem (situation permitting) for user 24 to re-join the collective, as Adam and even RK have had the opportunity to do? Would it not be more practical?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote:
Would there be any problem (situation permitting) for user 24 to re-join the collective, as Adam and even RK have had the opportunity to do? Would it not be more practical?
Stevertigo, I don't think you understand what's going on here.
I tried. I let him come back as EofT for as long as we could take it.
Part of the problem is that he will not email me, he will not join the mailing list, he will not take part in dialog. He calls people racists and control freaks. He postures about being interested in policy, but then he always makes it perfectly clear that he intends to ignore any policy that he doesn't agree with.
More than once, he has frightened people, including me, by making remarks implying a personal level of intimidation. He likes to speak of death for people who disagree with him, and says things like "There is no co-operation with such people." "They were warned."
More than once, he has been accused of writing things that were tantamount to death threats.
Because of him, I have issued strict instructions to my wife not to open mysterious packages, should any arrive.
Say what you will about Adam or H.J. or anyone else who has been banned, they were not frightening in any way. Adam and I have an ongoing semi-friendly dialogue in private email, arguing about politics and what not. H.J. wrote to me for months on end asking me to help finish erasing her name from the website, etc.
But this guy, well, he's in a category all his own, I'm sorry to conclude, and I think there is very little chance of him learning how to behave in a civilized fashion.
--Jimbo
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Stevertigo, I don't think you understand what's going on here.
Well, that's why I asked. :-)
I tried. I let him come back as EofT for as long as we could take it.
I see. I was under the impression that EofT was a 'covert re-assimilation' and that he was doing fine for a while-- until his meds ran out.
Part of the problem is that he will not email me, he will not join the mailing list, he will not take
part in dialog. He calls people racists and control freaks. He postures about being interested in policy, but then he always makes it >perfectly clear that he intends to ignore any policy that he >doesn't agree with.
This is quite a contradiction-- Im getting the picture.
More than once, he has frightened people, including me, by making remarks implying a personal level of intimidation...
More than once, he has been accused of writing
things that were tantamount to death threats.
Ok-- Now I remember (just glimpses though) An appropriate response would no doubt call for more direct measures. But these have no doubt been tried.
But this guy, well, he's in a category all his own, I'm sorry to conclude, and I think there is very
little chance of him learning how
to behave in a civilized fashion.
Thats a shame. Because when he was (for lack of a better word) "well," he seemed both intelligent and (somewhat) amicable, if not exactly constructive.
Thanks, ~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I tried. I let him come back as EofT for as long as we could take it.
Part of the problem is that he will not email me, he will not join the mailing list, he will not take part in dialog. He calls people racists and control freaks. He postures about being interested in policy, but then he always makes it perfectly clear that he intends to ignore any policy that he doesn't agree with.
More than once, he has frightened people, including me, by making remarks implying a personal level of intimidation. He likes to speak of death for people who disagree with him, and says things like "There is no co-operation with such people." "They were warned."
More than once, he has been accused of writing things that were tantamount to death threats.
But this guy, well, he's in a category all his own, I'm sorry to conclude, and I think there is very little chance of him learning how to behave in a civilized fashion.
What has left me pissed off in this whole episode is not the simple fact that EofT or his multiple incarnations were banned. Before the User:Mediator page happened, my association with him was never more than casual. I had no basis for either supporting or opposing his ban, though I did respond to what seemed like speculative accusations until I was satisfied that he had been properly identified. In the discussions about the User:Mediator I was more concerned about the obfuscation from the lawyer games that Alec was playing; these seemed to be an attempt to kill the idea by introducing unnecessary complications. I do, nevertheless, allow for the likelihood that User:Mediator might have in due course proven himself disingenuous.
I visited the article on Ed Poor's recommendation on the mailing list. Pursuant to the idea that it was a "role account" I added my idea in goood faith, as did several others. The page has its own reason for existence quite apart from the identity of the person who started it. Martin and his vengeful colleagues have been so blinded by their hatred of User:142... that they completely ignore anyone who contributed there, and the whole subject of the discussion. It is clear that for them who says something is a lot more important than what is said.
Ec
Pursuant to the idea that it was a "role account" I added my idea in goood faith, as did several others. The page has its own reason for existence quite apart from the identity of the person who started it.
Yes, well, we can certainly talk about the "role account" idea. If it is a good one, we could adopt it.
I personally am not convinced by the idea, but I also admit to have not studied it all that hard.
--Jimbo
Please recall that, in his guise as EntmootsOfTrolls, he made threats to sic Palestinian terrorists on RK. Death threats are not grounds for reinstatement.
RickK
Stevertigo utilitymuffinresearch2@yahoo.com wrote: Im not entirely keen on the beef with 24, save that his arguments and comments were sharp enough to warrant a detailed response from Jimbo on meta-- much of which read like "mine website-mine rules." I understand he made some legal threats, though I'm not sure what the real deal is. Is it that he was just a troll-adding little content?
Would there be any problem (situation permitting) for user 24 to re-join the collective, as Adam and even RK have had the opportunity to do? Would it not be more practical?
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Our favorite troll is raising Cain as User:Mediator.
An unproven allegation. It would be just as fair if I speculated that you were a reincarnation of User:Clutch, or worse that you were yourself EofT trying to stir discord by stirring up dissension.
He has created a couple dozen pages on Mediation, including his "invitations" to participate in this new "role account." Some of his ideas are valuable, some lack consensus, some are not neutral and cheapen the concept of mediation. For example, he was critical of one user's language skills and suggested that they refrain from editing the English Wikipedia.
I don't recall seeing where he made that last criticism, but then those pages are already becoming lengthy. Being valuable and lacking consensus are not mutually exclusive concepts. So far, what's on those pages is still at the proposal stage. Also whoever it is has expressed willingness to pass on the role account to someone else. There have been no takers so far. If one appears I hope that it won't be someone who jumps to accusations so quickly
However, the content he has posted and its value are beside the point.
No! It is the point
The point is, we've banned him three times.
But only if it's the same person.
I suggest that the usual technological measures for dealing with edits from banned users be employed. Pursuant to existing policy, the pages he created should be deleted and his other contributions rolled back.
Hmmm! So what hidden agenda is there in this attempt to suppress all these mediation proposals?
And if anyone can confirm that User:Mediator is not 142.177.etc., I'll submit my apology and buy the next two rounds of drinks.
You have the burden of proof backward. It's up to the person making the accusation to prove that he is. Innocent until proven guilty.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Our favorite troll is raising Cain as User:Mediator.
An unproven allegation.
Well, it's been proven now, with clear evidence from the access_logs.
You have the burden of proof backward. It's up to the person making the accusation to prove that he is. Innocent until proven guilty.
Sure, but I consider this proven now.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Our favorite troll is raising Cain as User:Mediator.
An unproven allegation.
Well, it's been proven now, with clear evidence from the access_logs.
You have the burden of proof backward. It's up to the person making the accusation to prove that he is. Innocent until proven guilty.
Sure, but I consider this proven now.
Very well, but this sort of checking should have been done in the first place. These kind of accusations are all too often completely speculative.
At the same time, I think that he had some very useful ideas in that complex of articles. What can we do to get the greatest benefit from those ideas?
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Our favorite troll is raising Cain as
User:Mediator.
An unproven allegation. It would be just as fair if I speculated that you were a reincarnation of User:Clutch, or worse that you were yourself EofT trying to stir discord by stirring up dissension.
I had thought the same thing!
<twilightzone> But I considered another possibility: Maybe LKWR is in fact 24/EofT disguised as a moderate voice--setting up User:Moderator (after reading en:Wiki of course) as a patsy/decoy personality. After demolishing "Moderator" this would allow 24/EofT to re-join the collective with a clean slate altogether! ~No one would suspect~ </twilightzone>
LKWR:However, the content he has posted and its
value
are beside the point. EC:No! It is the point
Hahaha! Judge the messenger, or the message?
LKWR: The point is, we've banned him three times.
EC: But only if it's the same person.
It may be hard to tell.
I suggest that the usual technological measures
for dealing with edits
from banned users be employed. Pursuant to
existing policy, the pages
he created should be deleted and his other
contributions rolled back.
Hmmm! So what hidden agenda is there in this attempt to suppress all these mediation proposals?
It is strange that LKWR (supposedly new) seems so familiar with existing policy, and his echoing of that old (wrong) stigma--that any work under suspicion of being by a banned user must be eradicated with extreme prejudice-- is just too... whats the word....?
You have the burden of proof backward. It's up to the person making the accusation to prove that he is. Innocent until proven guilty.
This is exactly right Ray. Among the sharper tacks in the sack you are!
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
But I considered another possibility: Maybe LKWR is in fact 24/EofT disguised as a moderate voice--setting up User:Moderator (after reading en:Wiki of course) as a patsy/decoy personality. After demolishing "Moderator" this would allow 24/EofT to re-join the collective with a clean slate altogether! ~No one would suspect~
24 can't make more than a dozen contributions without resisting his various demons, even when he's trying to play the "moderate voice."
Hahaha! Judge the messenger, or the message?
It is unfortunate that the project loses the benefit of his unique perspective and his insightful commentary as a result of the need to protect itself from his stubborn, iconoclastic side. At this point he's probably too far gone to save, and a good deal of community effort has already been expended to try to work with him.
Hmmm! So what hidden agenda is there in this attempt to suppress all these mediation proposals?
Those who believe there is value there could perhaps rework the articles into a more acceptable form. My agenda is simple: we need a community-based means of dealing with article disputes. 24 was trying to install something by fiat instead. Big hat--no cattle, as they say in Texas.
It is strange that LKWR (supposedly new) seems so familiar with existing policy, and his echoing of that old (wrong) stigma--that any work under suspicion of being by a banned user must be eradicated with extreme prejudice-- is just too... whats the word....?
Well, I don't believe the material should stand based on its own merits either, regardless of authorship, but we could spend the next two weeks trying to get everyone to agree on that.
<Ray> You have the burden of proof backward. It's up to the person
making the accusation to prove that he is. Innocent until proven guilty.
<Jimbo> Sure, but I consider this proven now.
Very well, but this sort of checking should have been done in the
first >place. These kind of accusations are all too often completely
speculative.
I was quite sure of my conclusions, and raised the issue first at User_talk:Mediator, where he had an opprotunity to refute it, which he did not.
Beyond that, there was little I could do to check my facts, since I don't have access to the server logs. What more do you believe I should have done before raising the allegation here?
--- Louis Kyu Won Ryu
Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Very well, but this sort of checking should have been done in the
first >place. These kind of accusations are all too often completely
speculative.
I was quite sure of my conclusions, and raised the issue first at User_talk:Mediator, where he had an opprotunity to refute it, which he did not.
Beyond that, there was little I could do to check my facts, since I don't have access to the server logs. What more do you believe I should have done before raising the allegation here?
My apologies for having misjudged what appeared to be overenthusistically authoritarian.
I still stand by what I suggested at my contributions to the various "Mediator" articles. I would still make a distinction between "The Mediator" and a mediator perhaps even to the extent of renaming the former as "Registrar" to distance ourselves from the unsavory aspects of just who User:Mediator really was.
I believe that there is an answer to your question that can be found in the very articles that we are discussing. The biggest heat from these situations arises when there is a public accusation that a contributor is a banned user. The Registrar should have access to the server logs. Thus, when you suspect that this has been happening he can be contacted in confidence to check the facts. At this stage of proceedings his only power would be to respond with a simple "yes" or "no". That would put the ball back in your court to decide what, if any, further steps should be taken in accordance with established policies.
I happen to feel that a lot of time is wasted debating public accusations. Putting these things before the public demands public response, and that almost always will result in a polarized community.
Ec
See [[User:Mediator/ban]]. He's now making legal threats of libel against Jimbo Wales. I have banned his IP address, 142.177.78.145
RickK
Louis Kyu Won Ryu lazolla@hotmail.com wrote: Our favorite troll is raising Cain as User:Mediator.
He has created a couple dozen pages on Mediation, including his "invitations" to participate in this new "role account." Some of his ideas are valuable, some lack consensus, some are not neutral and cheapen the concept of mediation. For example, he was critical of one user's language skills and suggested that they refrain from editing the English Wikipedia.
However, the content he has posted and its value are beside the point.
The point is, we've banned him three times.
I suggest that the usual technological measures for dealing with edits from banned users be employed. Pursuant to existing policy, the pages he created should be deleted and his other contributions rolled back.
And if anyone can confirm that User:Mediator is not 142.177.etc., I'll submit my apology and buy the next two rounds of drinks.
Louis
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search