Lars Aronsson wrote:

Somebody with the IP address mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":

...

And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A****** user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a point,

Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make an investigation into who really sent that message.

It did not seem stupid or obnoxiously fatuous to me.

It appeared political and diplomatic. Further comment below:

Ed said:

In respect to Karen and other lovers of small, soft, or furry creatures, let us rein in our salty language.

Interesting. Ed has voluntarily agreed to desist with behavior that he and others find potentially damaging to Wikipedia.

A standard which trolling regulars sometimes fail to meet when having disagreements with others.

IMHO It is not stupid to attempt to get along with others. Many people consider turnabout fair play. I do not find this stupid either, but this may be rather transparently self serving.

And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A****** user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a point, i.e., that our social contract has loopholes that can and will be exploited.

The point was effectively made. I had missed "TMC"s previous contributions but was aware that we lack any means of ratifying community policy, applying consistent education and enforcement efforts, and even vary substantially in how we inform novices and regulars alike that we think they are in error relative to currently prevailing community expectations (which change rapidly with the weather and the influences of newcomers).

No lasting harm. I also have currently not invited minors to participate here as I am not yet satisfied that an effective, pleasant, educational environment has been established uniformly for longer than microseconds.

So Ed's actions highlighted an existing problem by making it a bit worse temporarily.

Stupid? Perhaps not. A flu shot lowers your resistance to the flu temporarily to produce a more robust immune system. Timing is everything .... well sometimes it is something anyway.

I apologize to all for using illegitmate means to dramatize my point.

I contend this is a fallacious and erronius statement which I now assume was made with good diplomatic intentions.

I mean it is possible I suppose that Ed stupidly made a mistake .... it is not paranoid to assume he is sneaking up on us again to make another point if he has already admitted doing so once ... is it?

There is no legitimate authority on this site beyond that fact that Mr. Wales through Bomis owns the server, hard drive, and bandwidth we are using.

Despite Mr. Crockers allegation that I am a liar I suspect he will confirm the approximate truthfulness of the above statement if you ask him nicely or else explain why it is untruthful and provide you with the complete truth as he sees it.

If there is no legitimate authority or means of establishing policy or procedures which it is expected legitimate actions will fall within .... then how can there illegitimate means of making a point? We are reduced to expediency and Ed's actions seem to have provoked some discussion of issues pertinent to resolving some widely percieved problems.

Personally I think the time for growth serving diplomacy is past. We have a substantial community who has bought into the Wikipedia concept and our current progress is being stalled by unnecessary strife, discord, and confusion regarding how to establish a legitimate governing authority for our community. With clarity those who agree can contribute in a better constrained environment and those who do not agree can move on .... possibly prior to buying in via uncompensated contributions to the database. Would any consider a site designed to receive uncompensated contributions from non citizens prior to banning them for failing to respond to the cabal's dictates an abusively exploitive situation?

Mr. Wales does not own me or GPL'd source code or the FDL'd database. Thus there are limits to the influence which can be brought to bear by appeal to the owner.

Since one of our rules is to disregard the rules nothing Ed or "TMC" have done can be viewed as "illegitimate".

Does it follow that since we have no rules and people can always move on that there is no way to abusively exploit casual drop in users?

I do not find this attempted misstatement of Ed's in support of diplomacy "stupid". Merely ineffective at this time in the context of larger goals implied by our Wikipedia mission.

So .... nobody attempt to use Ed's fallacious admission of illegitimate means as a means of convincing me that my methods are illegitimate. Better simply to allege troll or liar until sufficient community support has materialized for a lynching party.

Unlike TMC, I am perfectly willing to be bound by the rules that others make. I am an absolutist -- rather than a relativist -- and I am obligated by my religious beliefs to avoid actions which harm others for my own benefit, and to carry out actions that benefit others (even to the point of self-sacrifice)

I require due process, appropriate symmetry, and the consent of the governed before I am bound by self discipline by rules others make.

I have committed to having no rules beyond peer pressure as per the existing contradictory and confusing policy statements and repeatedly informed (usually rudely in kind) Larry in public (and Mr. Wales in private correspondence) that "Larry says ..." or "Jimmy says ..." is insufficient to dictate my behavior.

This is apparently not an uncommon situation. Prior to Larry leaving the project in his paid capacity he was requesting from the community the authority to enforce his decisions upon people who ignored them. It does not appear to me that he proposed to establish any legitimate means of deriving authority from the consent of the governed at large (beyond a few/prevailing majority amongst the valuable regular contributors on the mailing list and the owner) or any due process beyond an email complaint to the owner or the community mailing lists.

I have not yet been banned despite Mr. Wales (and Larry, and Mr. Crocker, et. al.) expressed low opinions of me, so clearly we currently have room for some diversity of views and opinions. Should Mr. Wales or Bomis sell us (Wikipedia.com or .org) to Larry at some point in the future this may change abrubtly without notice depending upon what the P'hds, the Board (of elite P'hds), or Larry come up with in regard to "troll" allegation and L&L (labeling and lynching) party policies.

Thus I will refrain from offending Karen and from frustrating Uncle Mike's desire to use Wikipedia as a teaching tool for children. I myself long ago decided not to let my children use Wikipedia, for the very reasons Karen and mirwin gave -- and which I dramatized with the F.A. episode.

Let me clarify a bit: On the overall scale of things the occasional tidbit of pornography and foul language in inappropriate places is less important to me than the overall tone and approach of the community.

Kids learn by example and I have no desire for the types of uncivil behavior which routinely erupt at this site (IMO largely because we have no legitimate means of establishing what comprises civil behavior and then routinely curtailing or damping violations) to damage my family and friends kids.

As citizens, we have the responsibility to teach them to be effective citizens and how to get along in society at large. It is my opinion that as Wikipedia is currently structured it would only reinforce bad habits that all children must learn to put away if they are to be productive, prosperous citizens. Indeed, it seems to bring out some of my poorer behavior (ala usenet) and thus I have been recently self rationing my personal exposure somewhat. Actually, usenet might be fairly restful when I am on sabbatical from Wikipedia .....

In conclusion: Lars, I do not find Ed's post stupid. Rather I find it rather ingenious in a myriad of ways from a diplomatic, political, and pedagogical standpoint.

I find your suggestion that Ed take action to please you because you are too ignorant or uncreative in your thought processes to find any merit in his post rather lacking on your part. If you disagree then I suggest you either leave to avoid stupid people like me and Mr. Ed ( poor humor I know ... I did it again; stupid, stupid, .... this will crack we stupids ... ahem) by leaving Wikipedia, or undertake to educate us at your leisure.

In my stupid (ironically/sarcastically or perhaps stupidly self alleged should go without saying but in the interests of clarity I wasted some bandwidth here) opinion, you may might find the undertaking educational, even if Ed and I are fast learners. Of course, we may need more than shouted unsubstantiated allegations of "stupid", "troll", etc. to make readily apparent rapid progress by your possibly exacting self defined standards.

Regards, Mike Irwin, aka the lying troll