User talk:Hephaestos/Archive20040715

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thanks for the nice comment. I served on the Wood for three years and it just didn't seem fair that the other ships had entries and she didn't. Wikipedia is an interesting community. It took me a week of reading to figure out the "right" way of doing things, but I think it was worth the extra time. I'm looking forward to participating in the community. We'll see how it works out. Thanks again. :-) Ocon 05:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. It was nice to see an edit to my user page that wasn't vandalism or a revert. :) Angela.

Heph, I responded to your comment on my talk page via email a week or two ago. Hope you got it. UninvitedCompany 14:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did, thank you, it was encouraging.  :) - Hephaestos|§ 15:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WP:RFROAA

(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, —No-One Jones 14:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] natural justice

i didn't realise it was a contentious topic, i thought it was accepted legal principle. am i missing something? cheers Erich 04:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is, but I don't think our article does it justice yet, so I'm uncomfortable linking to it. - Hephaestos|§ 04:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you fancy taking a crack at it? I think the principle might have something to say to the debate we're having. Thanks, Mark Richards 18:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! Quodlibetarian

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for blocking Lir. It's appreciated. :) Neutrality 05:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Troll watch

I award you this barnstar:

Image:Barnstar.png

for continuing work at keeping Wikipedia troll free. RickK 07:33, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks so much for nominating one of my images for featured pictures - I was really pleased to see it there. I've been hoping that one of my photos would be seen as good enough :) Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 21:32, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removing my votes

Please don't remove votes people have made merely because they forgot to sign them. anthony (see warning)

You removed Jmabel's of 22:12, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC). Secretlondon 23:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Comment

I have been subjected to a Requests for Comment at [1]. I just wanted to let you know in the interest of full disclosure because you were involved in the matter. Best regards, --H. CHENEY 04:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalising user pages

Heph, I don't think people should vandalise your user page, and I don't think you should vandalise others'. I know you want this user banned, and that they annoy you, but until the policy and community support that, stop baiting them. You're looking for conflict that isn't there. If you respond, then you've been trolled. Rise above it. ;)Mark Richards 02:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bull. The contents of that user page consist of vandalism. They need to be removed. - Hephaestos|§ 02:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, Heph, you are obviously trolling. You are blanking a user page of a user who has not been banned, because it annoys you, probably to get a bite, so that they will blank your user page and so on. Grow up. Think through what possible good can come of this. Mark Richards 02:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am blanking a diatribe that basically says "Wikipedia sucks". Why do you have a problem with this? Do you think "trolls are the answer"? If so why are you here? - Hephaestos|§ 03:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have to agree with it to think that people should be allowed to say it. It is a bizarre analysis of the situation that I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I should vandalise it. It is not vandalism in itself, just an odd rant. Your actions can have no good outcome. Stop feeding trolls. Mark Richards 15:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allowing trolls to continue posting graffiti on this site is feeding them. The best way to cut them off from "food" is to block them from editing. - Hephaestos|§ 16:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd point out that your logic is flawed, but there is a more serious problem with your facts. You are not blocking them from editing. You are vandalising their userpage, presumably to cause conflict, which is trolling. Stop it. Mark Richards 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm vandalising nothing, I am removing vandalism. If you think what's on that user page is not a bad-faith addition made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, you probably need to read it again until it sinks in. I'd also thank you to lose the delusion that you can order me around. - Hephaestos|§ 18:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heaven forfend anyone should try to get you to stop throwing your weight around, no matter how much trouble you cause. Think about the effects of what you are doing, and the likely results. You are behaving like a troll, and I think you should seriously examine your motivations. Mark Richards 18:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh please. If you're serious, start an RFC to have my admin privileges removed. I'd start one on you if I thought it would do any good, in my opinion you are far and away the worst administrator we currently have, you've used your privilege and position for nothing but dragging down the quality of Wikipedia ever since you got them. - Hephaestos|§ 20:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, classic Heph trolling. Avoid the question, respond with abuse. Mark Richards 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heph is mean and bossy sometimes. One time on IRC he flamed me until I left. :*( Sam [Spade] 19:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this somehow relevant to anything on Wikipedia? - Hephaestos|§ 20:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, your aggressive bully-boy tactics are not appreciated. Mark Richards 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark,

While I do not wish to take sides in this conflict in particular, I would like to point out that Hephaestos is a longstanding contributor whose commitment to the project and its goals is beyond question. While some consider him insufficiently tolerant of users whose contribution is yet to become clear to us, he often at the same time acts while a silent majority remains, well, silent. I would encourage you to consider your words carefully as you share your concerns regarding Hephaestos.

UninvitedCompany 01:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(anon troll rant deleted by Erich 08:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC) see archive if you realy want to)

Do you rant like that in a classroom as well? - Hephaestos|§ 02:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your call to civility UC, thanks. Mark Richards 17:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] edit conflict, censorship of incitement?

Between 02:55 and 08:13, 6 Jul 2004 User:Hephaestos and User:Mark Richards reverted a user page at least 5 times in an edit war. I hope both of you are profoundly embarrased. You are both supposed to be leading by example and I am appalled.

  1. Are you planning on repeating this sort of behaviour?
  2. What steps are you planning to take to avoid future outbreaks?

(i have posted this on both user pages)Erich 06:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


1. I don't make a habit of edit wars; I think my last one was sometime in 2002. So no, not unless extenuating circumstances (such as here) present themselves.
2. None. I was removing vandalism. Richards was putting the vandalism back. You can make your own judgment on that; however I knew full well that I was risking a three-day ban, and if I get one well I deserved it didn't I? I think it would be nice if the community were to make an example of both of us in this situation, but frankly I don't think they have the guts. - Hephaestos|§ 13:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone should recognize publicly that too few editors and admins defend us from the few bozos here for fights and psychodrama. Don't let it get you down. The reverts were a peccadillo given the provocation you were removing. Thanks. Alteripse 22:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos, you shouldn’t misinterpret an unwillingness to act as a lack of 'guts'. Swift action over the Internet doesn't really have much to do with courage now does it? Given you track record though, I'd have thought a warning would be more appropriate than time-out at this stage. If you two start up again though I’ll be baying for blood myself. As for "I was removing vandalism. Richards was putting the vandalism back", well that's just bull. You two were edit waring. Plain and simple. Did you look at this proposal? (note that it includes an increasingly short leash for reincarnations) and is in addition to existing vandalism policies (although your definition of vandalism is not in accord with mine. your comments/edits would be genuinely welcome. (you too Alteripse!) best wishes Erich 22:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My definition of vandalism, FWIW, is here. - Hephaestos|§ 02:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Trolls say controversial or unpleasant things (often on discussion pages or in their user space) in order to attract predictable responses or flames. See internet troll. Please don't feed the trolls." - I'm interested in whether you really think someone saying controversial or unpleasant things (since you can't know their intentions) is vandalism. Mark Richards 02:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evidently you're skimming again. "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." - Hephaestos|§ 02:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I read that, but since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 02:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that anybody could take the diatribe on that page as having been made in "good faith". - Hephaestos|§ 02:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, but let's get back to the point, which was, since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 02:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're overlooking the "attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" part. - Hephaestos|§ 03:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so, since I can't know the intent of the writer. But let's get back to the point, which was, since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 03:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you think he did it "accidentally". Again, bizarre. Please explain to me how someone could write that as a good-faith contribution to the encyclopedia. - Hephaestos|§ 03:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why dont you two conduct a quick poll of some sort to see if users should be allowed to have content critical to wikipedia and wikipedia admins on their user and talk pages? You could both formulate a 150 word statement of your prososed positions, with links to relevent policies and examples. You could draft your statements in view of each other and ammend your own statements until you were both satisfied you had articulated your points and responded to counter arguement. By mutual agreemnet you could raise the 150 words, but I think that should be enough. How about it? Erich 03:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with content critical of Wikipedia; I have a problem with bald-faced incitement to try to destroy Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with content critical of individual Wikipedia admins, but I do have a problem with content critical of the group of Wikipeida admins as a whole, or critical of the idea of having admins at all, as opposed to total anarchy. So I guess I can't draft a statement to that effect. - Hephaestos|§ 03:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

sure, well I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why not explain that? I'm only suggesting 150 words, not a doctoral thesis Erich 05:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get backed into defending the content, since I don't agree with it. Where we part company is whether people should be allowed to be critical of the concept of having admins. I think they should be. It's healthy to air a range of opinions, even bizzare and off the wall ones. I don't think that having that range of opinions posted is a threat. Mark Richards 17:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Heavens Mark, who was asking you to defend the content? I have taken the extreme liberty of highlighting what, to me, seems the summary of your own expression of your positions. Perhaps that could be a starting point for a 150 word? (Hephaestos, I am aware this is your talk page, so feel free to tell me to bugger off). Guys this is an important issue that all society wrestle with. Why don't we work together to get a robust comunity consensus on it? Erich 03:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] two observations

While once again I neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with either Mark or Heph, I offer these observations.

First, material such as that which Heph cut from User:The Trolls of Navarone is best understood in context. Context, in this case, includes this:

  • About 90% of the text in question has been taken verbatim from previous diatribes placed on the meta by User:24.
  • Related material (generally, material flatly critical of Wikipedia governance and administration) has been widely posted on Wikipedia, the meta, the mailing list, and various other wikis such as Meatball, Consumerium, Ferment, and probably more, over the course of the last two years. (also, #wikipedia, the Webby awards, etc --Martin)
  • Any sort of freedom of expression argument is patently false because this viewpoint has been put forth widely.
  • Such material is critical of meta:foundation issues, such as NPOV, the presence of administrators, and Jimbo's ultimate authority. Discussion of such issues is unhelpful, because they are defining matters for the project that cannot be changed.
  • Experience has shown that people who post such material, anonymously or as socks, are uninterested in actual discussion of the points raised.
  • The repeated posting of this material by anons and sock puppets, as is the case here, might lead casual readers, particularly Wikipedians new to the project, that these views are more widely held than they actually are. There are at most a handful of signed-in contributors to Wikipedia with any sort of positive track record who subscribe to this POV.
  • Such repeated posting is therefore both disingenuous and harmful to the project.
  • The repeated posting of it, over the last two years, anonymously and via socks, by a handful of malcontents, in a wide variety of inappropriate forums, has become extremely tiresome to longstanding contributors.

Second, it is not unusual for newcomers to the project, who are unfamilar with the context, to take Mark's point of view. I myself held such a point of view when I was new to the project. Over time, I find that I agree more and more with Heph's point of view. I can think of several other Wikipedians who have made similar transitions.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 04:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah the dulcet tones of reason and experience! well if that rubbish is just a cut and paste of material already posted somewhere else on wikipedia, then why not replace that rubbish with a link to it? While it is tempting to name the page childish rantings of a borderline personality against Wikipedia, perhaps Unedited writings against Wikipedia not in accord with community consensus might be more expeditious, and there it can stay? if this started to look like a google bomb campaign then the link needn't be made live (ie have the text of the URL but not an actual hyperlink) Erich 05:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised by how insecure this kind of thing seems to make people. I don't think we should be afraid of questioning of basic assumptions, even if they seem fringe and lunatic to us. Mark Richards 16:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Erich - interestingly, that's precisely what MeatballWiki has been doing for some time - consolidating the material on a single page. Not because we love Wikipedia (we don't), but because the author was uninterested in Meatball:BarnRaising, so it just got in the way. This worked well enough there, certainly. Perhaps we can import that solution, and move everything to meta:Case of a Wikipedia troll? Heph, Mark, would this be satisfactory?

I feel that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and user pages are not provided for the purpose of soapboxing. So I have no problem with people removing rants, whether they be against Wikipedia, America, or the price of eggs, and in articles, user pages, talk pages. Whether it is worth getting in a revert war over them, is another question - but I guess this has become a matter of principle now. Martin 20:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it were a completely irrelevant rant, then maybe, but a rant about the organisation of Wikipedia, or ideas for reorganising it surely could go on the userpages. Some users have essay subpages - this might be a better place for it I suppose. I think the principle that opinions about Wikipedia should be allowed to be voiced, as long as they are not personal attacks, or truly offensive (I mean in the range of tubgirl!). We should not be afraid of criticism or ideas. Mark Richards 21:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinions about Wikipedia are allowed to be voiced. The "troll heirarchy" has been posted all over the place - one is not afraid of it so much as bored. The world view that claims that trolls are good, that there is no such thing as virtual community, and so forth can be expressed once, and only once. Scattering it about a hundred different places is just spam. Just as we feel free to delete spam from corporations, so we should feel free spam from a persistent individual with an idiosyncratic world view. Fortunately, as Wikipedia-related ranting is on-topic on meta, so we can compromise by centralising such ranting in a single place on meta. Martin 23:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

dumb question number 2: is there currently a once? Erich 07:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
still curious about if there is a once... Erich 08:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bored? So don't read it, that's the thing, you don't have to. It's not a fight you have to pick at all. If we removed everything from anyone's userpage that was posted anywhere else we'd be in major trouble. The thing is, that there is no threat at all to letting people voice their opinions on their userpages. Deciding what opinions can and can't be voiced there is a potential threat. Mark Richards 00:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Martin, in re your idea, please feel free to copy anything from the talk page here over to meta or wherever you think it might get more readers and thereby maybe do some good.

I'll voice my opinion on the subject once more and then I'm done. Since about April, there have been legions (to borrow a term) of accounts made by people who are not here to work on the encyclopedia, to improve it, or to benefit it in any way. They are here simply to attempt to make it less a valuable resource and to harass those people who are honestly trying to make good contributions. Moreover it is clear, in virtually every case, that this is what they are doing. This is clearly against policy against vandalism, and it needs to be dealt with much more firmly and quickly than it has been thus far, or else this site is just going to become a graffiti board.

So far these people have been taking a mile; we do not need to give them even an inch. - Hephaestos|§ 00:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

go on Heph, do me a favour and have a look at Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors. I think the main strength of it is to allow rapid definition (by the sysops) of which users need to be quickly shown the door. Erich 07:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's its main strength, and a good one. However 24 hours is a slap on the wrist, they'll just come back tomrrow. No provision on how to achieve agreement among three admins either, where the discussion should take place etc. And frankly, I don't think some of these people rate warning when it's obvious what they're doing. - Hephaestos|§ 02:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
ah well, that is where the the escalating penalties come in... and the penalties for presumed reincarnations. By the fourth offence, they don't get a warning and they get a 96 block on each single step out of line (they have to offend once or we don't know they are there!). The benefit is that by the fourth attempt, there is a clearly documented litany of misdemeanors, plus numerous warnings. Even bleeding hearts like me and Mark, are going to complain if people are clearly losers. Then it's just a case of taking all the collected evidence to the AC for and the AC should be able to rule pretty smartly if the rolling 96blocks are considered inadequate.
I agree the mechanism for admins to discuss is not clearly spelt out. I guess it would be on a related talk page. (?) Ultimately it is the URLs to the diffs that say what needs to be said. (both the counterproductive edits and clearly productive edits). Each sysop can scan the evidence (diffs) for themselves pretty quickly to draw their own conclusion. So I guess I was thinking it wouldn't need much chat. do you think it is something you think you may be able to support? best wishes Erich 03:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support of my administrator nomination on RfA. I sincerely appreciate your support. Best wikiwishes, Neutrality 05:04, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify Heph, I was thinking of moving the stuff from user:The Trolls of Navarone (and so forth) to meta, for example, if you we can't get agreement from Mark on simply deleting it. Martin 11:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it's already there, isn't it? - Hephaestos|§ 16:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Some is there, and some of it may have been deleted. Please don't use the meta as a garbage disposal. I and several others are trying to clean up some of the discussions there, a process that requires considerable effort, and it doesn't help matters when pages are re-added. UninvitedCompany 01:29, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not that I want to see this stuff preserved per se, simply that I don't think the precedent of admins being alowed to blank user pages and then protect them simply because they bore or annoy them is a good one. Mark Richards 00:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir's page bores and annoys me, you don't see me blanking it. You don't read, do you? - Hephaestos|§ 01:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
err.. Heph, don't you think "You don't read, do you?" is a bit uncalled for? I gotta tell you, looking in from the periphery it seems a bit harsh. Although Mark could add 'disagree with' to 'bore or annoy'. Erich 06:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I realised after I wrote this that really Hephs concern is that this content is encouraging other users to 'troll'. So I guess we should discuss the merits of 'is it OK to remove material from Wikipedia that encourages other users to disrupt it'... mmm sounds like a good topic for a poll? what do others think? is this the crux of the issue? Erich 22:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No I don't think it's harsh. If he really thinks boredom and annoyance or even "disagree with" are the reasons I was blanking that exhortation to wreck the site, he obviously did not read the passages you yourself boldfaced. - Hephaestos|§ 15:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'Bored' was a direct quote from someone who agreed with your opinion - appologies for the appearance that it was attributed to you. I thought that it did annoy you, appologies, still, replace those words with 'dissagree with' and my point still stands. The thought that users should be allowed to blank opinion on other's userpages simply because you don't like it is a horrific one. It is not an 'exhortation to wreck the site', it is a fairly incoherent rant about abusive sysop power, and and ill thought out proposal for an alternative. I read it, it is somewhat annoying, most is boring, none of it is so offensive it needs to be deleted. Get over it, turning yourself into the caracature of tyranical abusive sysops doesn't help. Mark Richards 16:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark, the page in question is not the user page of a contributor, it is material that has been placed in the User: space under a user ID that has made no meaningful contributions. Therefore, the same protections do not exist. And I think we've all made it clear there is more involved than the page serving to "bore and annoy." Please see my contribution, above, regarding the context of the deleted material. UninvitedCompany 18:39, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi UC - I could reply to your points in detail, but it would lead to a discussion of the relative merits or not of the material, something that I don't really want to get into, except to say that it is a critique of some aspects of Wikipedia. I think it is legitimate for a user to post criticisms and suggested remedies, regardless of whether you or I agree with them. Btw the user has made some valid contributions. I don't see anything in any of what is written that justifies its removal, other than that it annoys us. It is clearly not a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia, this is just another fight that is being unnecessarily picked. What kind of precident do you think is being set? There are many user pages that I find annoying. For example, I find that Heph's rejection of the principle that we should assume good faith on his user page undermines one of the central principles that the community is built on counterproductive. Should I blank his userpage? Of course not, I get over it, and I don't look for unnecessary fights. Mark Richards 19:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

see the above proposal for a poll topic. (Now Mark, for what its worth, this time I think you are being a bit unfair with the 'I don't look for unnecessary fights') Erich 22:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
) Well, it comes down to a matter of opinion again - clearly, if I thought it was unnecessary, I wouldn't do it! Trolls are not a big problem right now, they never have been. Troll-baiting is however. Mark Richards 22
46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is laughable. If the place weren't infested with trolls, what would there be to "bait"? (Not that they seem to require any "baiting".) - Hephaestos|§ 02:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

strewth. you two are behaving like kids! I'm starting to form the opinion that you'd rather try to score minor points of each other than move towards something constructive. Here are some suggestions:

  1. Firstly, can you emphasise the things that you agree on rather than the points of disagreement? When you read a post rather than scanning it for minor points that you can criticise the author for, look for things you can agree on and try to clarify the scope of your agreemnts.
  2. Secondly, if you do disagree with something important, can you try to explain why?
  3. Thirdly, can you put some effort into articulating the issues that you disagree with?
  4. Fourthly, well there is no forthly... I'll just give up. Erich 08:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your perseverance Erich! I think that H and I probably both agree that we are tryign to create an environment that fosters creativity and positive contributions to the 'pedia. The major point of disagreement seems to be on what, if any, threats to this there are. I've not been able to find any evidence, either in the list of missing Wikipedians or anywhere else that there are any cases of serious damage to the 'pedia, or anyone leaving because of 'trolling' (of course, no one seems to be able to agree on what that even is). Heph obviously feels that 'trolls' are a real threat, but I see over-zealous admins and the threat of small groups of admins acting without accountability as much more of a threat. Missing Wikipedians lists several people who say that this is the reason that they left. I feel that we need to evolve a better way of dealing with unproductive editors, but increasing the ability of people to ban others is not going to help. If anything, it will make it worse.
At the heart of it I think this is the issue between Heph and I, it is a very different vision a) of what the problem is, and b) of the kind of solution we would want, both practically and philosophically.
Is that fair Heph? Mark Richards 16:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians is not complete. Relatively few people have self-listed there, though many of those who have cite the "Wikipedia administrators" as one of their reasons. Most of the people who cited such reasons were in actual fact frustrated with the community, and only ran afoul of administrators after flouting community norms. In general, such frustration most often afflicts those who make ill-considered edits (usually with POV problems) and find themselves in edit wars to defend them; administrators become a target when they try to mediate or protect affected pages.

Many if not most of the people listed at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians were listed by their closer colleagues in the wake of their departure. Such listings rarely cite any reason. Among those who self-list, the most respected and most prolific contributors are those who are least likely to cite any reason at all for leaving, since they have the maturity to realize both that there is never any single reason and that it is ineffective to attempt to serve as a change agent while leaving.

User:Zoe left the project for over a year as a result of exactly the same sort of badgering that you are presently subjecting User:Hephaestos to. I noted that User:MyRedDice scaled back his participation considerably after a particularly brutal series of personal attacks by a troublemaker (this long before the arbitration committee existed). User:JHK left due to an overall deterioration in the level of discourse, though the immediate cause was due to embarassment over some poorly handled content that was offensive to some. Many others who remain have scaled back their involvement, notably User:Jwrosenzweig and User:172, due to frustrations with troublemakers.

I am reluctant to name names like this and hope those listed will forgive me. I do it because you, Mark, seem unwilling to accept any assertions without this kind of detail.

Stick around the project for a while, and maybe when a troll posts a discriminatory slur on one of your friends' talk pages, you'll see the light. The hurt is real and affects a substantial share of the most valuable contributors.

UninvitedCompany 18:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi UC, I'm not for a moment trying to dismiss the damage caused by discriminatory slurs or personal attacks, but it seems that this sort of thing, along with other vandalism and personal attacks, is covered under existing policy. There is no need for more powers to deal with this since these users can already be banned for their behaviour. I brought up the Missing Wikipedians since it was listed on one of the 'Troll polls' that seem to be proliferating right now. Mark Richards 18:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm confused. Do you support some method for administrators to ban people for discriminatory slurs and personal attacks without utilizing arbitration? At present there is no such mechanism.

I certainly support taking action against users who make personal attacks, whether by arbitration or individual action. I do not see this as 'trolling'. Do we disagree on terminology, or is this an area where we are in heated agreement? ;) Mark Richards 19:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, Mark, upon rereading Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, I find your assertion regarding its contents even more puzzling, as nearly all those listed there were administrators themselves at the time of their departure (if memory serves), and I cannot figure out who you were referring to in your assertion that "Missing Wikipedians lists several people who say that [small groups of admins acting without accountability] is the reason that they left." There is one who mentions the mailing list, another User:RK, who was not an administrator, and some obtuse references to "egotistical users." UninvitedCompany 18:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I raised it simply because it is listed as evidence that users had been 'driven off by trolls'. Perhaps I drew to strong a conclusion from it. My point was simply that it is certainly not unambiguous evidence of a rising tide of damagin 'trolling'. Mark Richards 19:13, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/e/p/User_talk%7EHephaestos_Archive20040715_efde.html"