User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

"value systems" for wikipedia are best discussed on one of the wikipedia mailing lists. LittleDan

A hasty conclusion! So wiki is not a good enough medium to discuss values in? If this is true, and mailing lists are better, why should there be anything at all in the wikipedia list of ethics articles ? There is some group who uses a mailing list, yes, but that group is not the group that cares to be challenged on its ethics, no, hoom, hm. But do as you will. Or what is "best" as you see it. EofT

Petty issue moved to User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism

Thank you for your excellent edits to the CSA, voluntary simplicity, and related articles, and for your note on the companion planting page. Kat 17:32 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You are welcome, hoom, very welcome. These are critical subjects and I am glad that no one wrote on them hastily. There are other holes, for instance links to non-existing articles from urban economics and gardening and such, that I hope you can help us fill in. Gardening is mostly a matter of digging new holes and filling them with only a small seed, yes. Patience is rewarded. EofT

I have lately got interested in NPOV disputes. Trying to resolve them has led me into very interesting controversial areas, where NPOV is a challenge. I find it interesting that some think NPOV is a religion, or automatic, or an excuse to demand that others back up obviously true statements, while they (who demand this) make bizarre claims. It seems to take a lot of work to make this NPOV thing work. This is the first large scale wiki online service to try it, so there is no guarantee it can work. Lots of people seem to dispute that NPOV makes any sense, but, many concerns are answered over on meta: or by paying more attention to Wikipedia:Itself, that is, Wikipedia as it sees itself. I am also making a point of identifying ad hominem argument where it is leading to censorship, and wading in to try to make this into a tamer NPOV dispute where possible. So far this seems to lead to better articles. EofT

So, if you find any dispute strange or contentious, let me know about it. EofT

Thanks for your article fr:Consumerium. Juxo 11:47 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Another petty issue moved to User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKology - Summary: RK applies standards to others he does not apply to himself, RK is doing Israel no favours

Kat wishes to draw your attention to meta:More heat than light. Kat 19:59, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the contributions to the new list (list of information technology management topics). They are appreciated. However, I am going to delete one item, the title you added, because it is really does not describe the contents of that section. So far the list is divided into e-commerce topics, e-business topics, and e-marketing topics. All of these involve information management. mydogategodshat 21:46, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

True. But managing "data" and "information" and "knowledge" and "action" are all different things. I prefer the more general term signal infrastructure to information technology, sincere there is no distinct field of managing digital data and bits without also managing analog spectrum and bodies. EofT
I'm sure you have good reasons for wanting to rename the discipline, but if we call it signal infrastructure no one will know what we are talking about. Information technology management (or I.T. management) is the common name for the field. That is what people are familiar with. That is what it is called in most university business programs. Businesses refer to their I.T. departments. If we call it something else, no one will be able to find the information they are searching for. mydogategodshat 18:51, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Eek. I do not suggest changing the name here! Just stating my own preference. Certainly it is better than social ecology of wireless communications which is the title of a paper on this topic that was recenly published. As for what IT is, well, IT is just a virus, isn't IT? It does usually nothing of value. There is both a productivity paradox and a presentation paradox and also to a degree a connectivity paradox, all of which say "gee we spend so much money on this why does it not pay off for us? better spend more on more computers". And this is what the universities teach. Perhaps if it was properly named they would not teach that. LOL. EofT

Thank you for your note. I have given more thought to the series of issues involved than I care to admit. The points you raise are good ones, though I see them mainly as mechanical issues. I realize the perils of voting systems, for example, though I do not claim to be enough of an authority on such matters to speak or write about them. More thought and care would be needed, with input from the community, but the broader issues are:

  1. Most of the present participants are more interested in writing articles than writing an encyclopedia and cannot see the forest for the trees;
Agreed, but, see Wikipedia:Itself and Wikipedia:link editing for a broader view. There is some thought going into self-organization too. See especially m:twelve leverage points to see where you can do some good. EofT
  1. There needs to be a less painful, more effective way to resolve edit disputes where consensus cannot be reached, as without a safety valve people will get mad enough to leave; NPOV is a farce for reasons you and I can both see
Not a farce, but not a whole answer either. Try m:Natural point of view or Disinfopedia's spectrum for alternatives. This will at least give you terminology to use. EofT
Neither of these properly addresses balance or proportionality. Wikipedia struggles mightily with those, and few understand their importance. The business of telling both sides of the story is what has passed for journalism in a good deal of the mainstream media, too. The trouble is, there are usually more than two sides to a story of any complexity, and however many sides there may be, all are not equal. Examples abound, but the one that comes to mind is Gun control, where User:libdemplus is trying to move the right-field foul marker another standard deviation to the right. The center gets lost in an article outlining opposing POVs. Kat
  1. Many of the most valuable contributors have already left over these and related governance issues.
Such as the authors of some of the meta links above. But, they left us their wisdom, so, let's use it. Else they were truly striving in vain. EofT

These sorts of issues, and policy matters generally, are bound to become all the more important should the project grow.

Wholly agreed, but, there is all of m:governance to consider. It seems sound enough. But no one is using it. EofT
Perhaps the problem is its placement on the meta. What makes an article such as m:governance any more meta in nature than Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style or its talk page? Kat

I did review many of the links you mentioned, indeed I did so before writing the heat than light piece. It would appear that there is no serious ongoing discussion of these matters because most of the people who disagree with the status quo have simply left. With the exception of "24," whatever user name he may be operating under now :-), no one seems to take these matters seriously enough to discuss them.

Well, I think many good users have been driven off, and more by bad sysop behaviour than by so-called trolls - in fact that lovely m:troll definition made me laugh like hell and inspired my name. And what about User:Anthere and User:mirwin and User:The_Cunctator and User:MyRedDice and User:172, all of whomn have made major contributions to some governance discussions. EofT
Yes, and look where it got them. For the most part, they've been outshouted by the teeming horde and have to push the edge of the civility envelope just to hold their ground. Martin is the only one of the bunch that tries to keep a hand on the tiller on any sort of a regular basis, any more. Besides, as a group, they represent (as you do yourself), the anarchist, inclusionist view in polar opposition to the clubby martinets running the show. The discerning balance, a midpoint, is missing. We need a Thomas Jefferson to show us how to retain our freedom yet still have an effective means to make decisions and stick to them. Kat
I suspect there have been several such TJs, but, they have been driven off. Hm, must you include distasteful "MeatBall links" ? I find the MeatBall people quite repulsive, not least for their self-righteousness. They are much worse than the people here, who are trying at least to do something other than navel-gaze. I think also there are more options than "anarchist, inclusionist" and "clubby martinets" as you so neatly put it. The "discerning, balance, a midpoint" can only arise from systematic survey of values, obviously, to see what "parties" we fall into, and how those are or are not representative of the users we supposedly serve. More comment on that below. EofT

The board manual, in particular, seems to be an effort to codify the status quo and assemble an organization with a mission to emulate Wales. Brings to mind the years of wondering at Disney, after Walt Disney's death, "what would Walt do?" And it wasn't until they got over that, that they were able to start running the company like a business again.

True. But the only serious radical alternative, m:governance, really got no attention at all, even from those who claimed to sympathize with "24". So it's not surprising. Every group likes to believe in itself, not outsiders. Let them. But don't leave. Read the old stuff by Cunctator, mirwin, 24, 142, etc., and come to your own conclusions, and try to improve what they left there. EofT
The whole meta site is a fossil. The articles there, including m:governance are out of date, and the absence of any recent discussion discourages people from contributing. I'm not even sure that any of the recent participants read it. Kat
Maybe not, but, that doesn't make it fall out of date. For myself I thought when first read it that it could be improved, but, stability was far more important in a governance method. So I said nothing. But I don't get what you mean about the thing itself being out of date. Hm, I can see how m:worst cases can fall out of date, since they have all already happened at least partially.  :-D And m:threats no one paid attention to, although, there are scattered files like m:regime change and m:How to Destroy Wikipedia which are fun to read. But the cases in m:best cases have surely yet to be realized, and m:visions? Well, those are so far off I think they cannot be obsoleted. Maybe the problem is obsession with newness, so that, someone can say something useful and timeless, and just because no one is actively disputing it, it "falls out of date" to become "a fossil". Which of course rewards only the creation of more bad copies. That is a problem with the "free software" ethic itself, and much more so with the "open source" insanity. "Free documentation" or "open content" takes a midpoint, a balance as you put it, with such tricks as the Invariant Sections. I like that midpoint, so that's why I stay. I think the GNU GPL itself actually has the mechanisms required to deal with governance and the signals it requires. EofT

-=0=-

For my part, it's been a fun experiment in many ways. I have been watching the process for a number of decisions where the best outcome seemed clear to me, and am disturbed by the quality of decisions made. The refusal to deal with the matter of adult content in a responsible way, for one, and the continuing tolerance of blatant, shameless spamming of the 'pedia by Boyer for another,

C'mon, Boyer is an artist, it's his *job* to get attention. So what? He is providing a useful test case. It's not like everyone is doing the same, and if they did, policy could easily enough put an end to it. EofT
He himself is not worth the brain time. The issue is only useful as a red herring. Once the encylopedia content actually matters in the real world, contributors like Boyer will come out of the woodwork seeking to inflate and deflate the importance of their favorite issue, and otherwise bend the media to their own ends. The fruit loops are, arguably, the ones who destroyed usenet, and they'll come here in droves as soon as project gains enough prominence. When we have a couple dozen greenpeaceies, animal rights freaks, born-again Christians, and historical revisionists here under a serious, long-term, personal mission to promote their cause, the true test will come. The inclusive, nonjudgemental treatment of all potential content plays right into their hands. Kat
Where there is no consensus on any concept of fairness, there can be no judgement nor exclusion that is perceived to be fair. As for the born-agains, I think creationism is fair to them, historical revisionists will delight in the way staid Western lies have been hacked up to give full credit to Islam, animal rights "freaks" will have a hard time freaking out about Great Ape personhood or ape genocide which explain the more rational elements of their view very rationally, and as for "greenpeaceies", well, when they get here, I'm on their side, and death to heretics who don't sort their trash. EofT

the inability to agree on some changes to the main page. I chose these as bellwether issues for determining the effectiveness of the project's management; and by extension whether the project is really worth supporting.

I can't disagree with choosing one's signal issues in advance and forcing oneself to judge a project based on performance only on those issues. That is good science. But only if you chose them before you got emotionally involved. ;-) EofT
I did, at least for the Boyer issue, which I chose as a red herring before my first post on the topic. In all fairness, I didn't make quite as deliberate a decision on the other two. Kat

If the community can't come to grips with these sorts of trivial issues, there is no way it will be able to confront any real challenge that might appear. I doubt I will contribute much more, though I suppose I'll still edit a few pet articles here and there. I am not in a position to invoke my MeatBall:RightToFork at the moment, though I have given the idea serious thought. There is really no point trying to work things out with Wales or the Regulars, as they already have their minds made up.

Perhaps you are confused though. Is there a "community"? If so, where? If one expects there to be a "community" then maybe one expects behaviour or consideration that is simply not there, and so gets more disappointed. This was to me the most useful thing "24" said. Perhaps reading that early made it a bit easier to take the various abuses of strange characters that prowl here. EofT
True. Some say that a community only arises when people defend jointly against a shared physical threat. But the original point remains even if we substitute another noun. "If Wikipedia can't come to grips..." I'm motivated by results, by producing something of value from which others can benefit. Kat

I suppose I'll find somewhere else to hang my hat. Maybe I'll expand my personal website with some more articles.

Best Regards Kat 03:05, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you not to leave. You are needed *because* those other folks have left or gone low-key (like User:mirwin who sticks his head in once in a while), don't burn out on issues that aren't actually critical. Many issues that you point out can be relieved by a better m:public relations strategy, as 142 seems to think, if that's indeed one person. Bringing more balanced views here can't be bad, that should be everyone's quest. So if you leave, leave happily and recommend that two hundred more trolls show up and hack! EofT
I appreciate the encouragement. I'll watch for a while. I still have my pet articles. Kat
At the very last, on leaving, you must hand over your account to an exceptionally vicious troll, who may defend your watchlist with aplomb. EofT

_____________________________

moved from User:EntmootsOfTrolls page.

Thank you for the very useful comments on my page.

You're welcome. I sure I made up for my kindness with that blast on Talk:law and economics. But I do believe that we need this dialogues on here, now, and that nothing in the coverage of all these theories can improve unless they encounter each other here, and strongly interlink and contrast with each other. So our disagreements are exactly why I welcome you. EofT

My goal to provide balanced entries but of course, we all have biases. I can see how difficult the political philosophy entry could easily become. Perhaps, I was thinking that I might add lot's of links & appropriate substructure where those interested in other perspectives can expand.

As you wish. But there is much etiquette about deleting text. It's better to rewrite it, and to *move* things that you think belong somewhere else, to where you think they belong. Be bold. And expect to get blasted. I am hardly the worst of the trolls. EofT

I am not sure about the etiquette of these things, but I am assume you will feel free to delete this comment after you read it. user:Lsolum

Etiquette is to leave talk on the talk page, as I've moved it, and to keep it visible for posterity. It's actually considered a breach of protocol to delete talk unless it is actually so far out of protocol itself (specific threats of violence, "outing" someone who has not claimed an identity by assigning them one, copyright violation) that it threatens the whole project. EofT

Hi EofT, I am compiling a list of subjects that I think you might be interested in. It is List of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics . Can you give me help with it? mydogategodshat 02:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good god, what a title! Is it not enough to just have a list of business ethics topics and make clear that they are at different scales or time frames or something? Not every corner store owner needs to consider all of the historical class struggle to decide how to respond to a wage increase request, and, certainly, no executive has time to ponder all the philosophy of business and re-read his books before making a time-pressing major decision. A note at the beginning of the list saying "this is the scope of this list, dammit" is usually enough. Another alternate title would be list of business philosophy topics but that would not please those who see business philosophy itself as a simple excuse to do what ever you want in the name of "business". EofT
I am naming it based on what is in the list, not what sounds good. I envision the articles covering the closely related areas that are typically refered to as business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business. These are the terms that people are familiar with and I think it would be unwise not to use them. The other option is to compile three seperate lists, but these topics are so closely intertwined that there would be too much redundancy. Calling it Business ethics is OK but then we would have to limit the articles to just business ethics articles. I do not agree with you that no readers will be interested in political economy subjects (like the fair distribution of income, distributive justice, and wealth taxes). Nor do I agree with you that no readers will be interested in philosophy of business subjects (like the societal role of business enterprise or the relative importance of cooperation verses competition). As for naming it "business philosophy", this term is not clear. It usually refers to an individual businesspersons' frame of mind or ideology. The topics in the list will all be abstracted from the individual level, to make them generalizable and therefore useful to the reader, so this name would not be appropriate. mydogategodshat 21:09, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, we've discussed some of this before. As long as list of business ethics topics is a redirect, no great harm done if they arrive somewhere with a longer title. But I hate to think of anyone typing in that longer name, important as the full scope is. Also law and economics has some topics of interest, and political choice theory - either might easily influence a business decision - including donations to politicians, or structuring a business to exploit tax law or anticipate a tax law change. EofT
I think this is a first : I agree with every one of your comments. The redirects from the three seperate areas are a good idea. I will do the redirects if you havn't already done so. And law and economics and political choice theory topics would certainly fall within the scope of this list. Any assistance you can give in finding more articles to include would be appreciated.mydogategodshat 15:09, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A first, but not a last. Peer review by those with opposing views really does work, as does deliberative democracy, as proven in the Wobbly shop and all of academia. For those with enough patience, it's ideal. Thanks for sticking with it. EofT

I saw the mischaracterization of the GFDL in the PR and let it stand during my other edits. PRs are not NPOV and there is no expectation on the part of their audience that they be balanced or include all facts. The GFDL is what it is, and no PR can change it.

Not sure what you are talking about. I mention some features of the GFDL above. Were these misrepresented in some PR? By which I presume you mean public relations? Wikipedia is in plain violation of the GNU FDL several ways. I don't expect they would get its terms right in any public statement. I agree with some of your concerns here though, regardless of where they came from. EofT

And the day Wikipedia tries to weaken the content relicensing is the day I leave, period. The RightToFork and the goal of replentishing the public domain are too important. I left some otherwise interesting forums at Yahoo and elsewhere out of a sense that my content was being used to solicit advertising to make money for someone else.

Wikipedia's rules are defined by the GNU GPL itself. They cannot require what the GNU GPL doesn't. They can specify that nothing you have added via this interface (wikipedia.org) is a front-cover text, back-cover text, or invariant section. That is what everyone agrees to when they click "save" - else imagine the horror as User:RK and User:JoeM added many Invariant Sections full of slanted stuff, ignoring the requirement that such a section not challenge or extend the Primary Section material itself. Personally I am less concerned with other people making money, than with them using text for some political purpose exploiting the easy-editability. It's quite easy to change the tone of an article by adding "not". EofT
But, they could do that other ways - Wikipedia can't prevent anyone from taking its GNU FDL text base and supporting those other GNU FDL features with some other interface, and, they have to make it easy to fork by providing the source text of the encyclopedia. That would be desirable, and might properly manage a lot of Secondary Section commentary, say by different political points of view, but, the present software doesn't handle it. EofT

IANAL but the GFDL doesn't quite fit right for reasons that have been discussed. My reading is that a site could use Wikipedia for content and only identify 5 major authors for the project as a whole without any need to try to ascribe authorship to each article. But it's all a tempest in a teapot, really, because the potential to sue for damages is undermined by the free distribution and other legal technicalities.

Who gets sued? And yes, it may well be that 5 major authors could be identified for the project as a whole, to technically satisfy that provision. Or just 5 board members or something, who bear actual legal responsibility for the content's harms. But it is of little concern to me. Someone will do this right, eventually, and use the GNU FDL text base as a starting point. Will that be the present crew? I don't know. Does it matter? Probably not. Who cares? What matters is building a large GNU FDL text base that is mostly accurate and worth the time of serious scholars to correct. EofT
What matters is building a large GNU FDL text base that is mostly accurate and worth the time of serious scholars to correct. I haven't been able to think about anything else for the last three hours. Kat 18:58, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKs_big_lie - Summary: RK lies to the mailing list in his second attempt to get me banned for simply pointing out facts, and correcting some of his various breaches of established protocol; Wales requests a clean paper trail - I don't know what more he needs; I respond in kind to trash RK posts, labelling my own comments as hatespeech and harassment as a joke; I consider RK to be carrying out a propaganda campaign.

Good luck with your ongoing dispute with RK. I take no sides in that matter because I am not involved and do not wish to pass judgement.

Dante (the original) had something to say about that. If you are interested in the proper governance of Wikipedia, you must at least be concerned about the proliferation of libel to many pages, and the posting of lies to the maiing list. If you don't care about these things, then, you and I should really not discuss governance at all. As Confucius thought any governance begins with honesty and language used only to advance truth or at least correct what can be proven false. EofT

However, as something of a meta point, I offer these observations:

  • Much of the friction would appear to have its roots in disputes over articles.
  • There would appear to have been one or more attempts on at least one party's part at a sucker punch.
  • Wales' advice to back off and give each other some good ole Califoria space, IMO, misses the mark. It does nothing to resolve the substantive differences over article content that are at the root of the matter. Of less significance, it does nothing to clarify the standards of conduct. (As a side point, this is the sort of advice that works in a group of 10 people but not in a group of 100. Someone who is an expert of sociology or group dynamics could maybe explain why).
  • I see this as an example of the fundamental shortcoming of the present power structure as summarized in m:More heat than light. Whether or not you support the alternative mechanism proposed there, perhaps you'll agree there is a large set of mechanisms, which while not ideal, are an improvement over the present.
  • As I have pointed out before, this sort of thing is only going to get worse when the content actually matters. What are we going to do when some grass-roots group organizes a whole army of editors -- hundreds of them -- different people, IPs, etc., and they all show up over a six month period to advocate a particular POV about -- Isreal, George Bush, Abortion, Evolution. To paraphrase a comment someone made on the mailing list, we must have mechanisms to deal with such an influx before it takes place or we will face the same fate as usenet, and increasingly, public e-mail.

Kat 02:34, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:troll war where these issues can continue to be debated.

From this point, I choose to follow User:MyRedDice's lead and move all further comment on RK to Wikipedia:Community_case RK where it belongs. For now. I will assemble what's above, and other comment in places like User_talk:Ed_Poor, and maybe some mailing list dialogue, eventually into an essay on the Shun: concept and why it is fully appropriate for Wikipedia. EofT

I love all the links you keep adding to Simple English in various places. Keep it up - we need some more editors over there. :) -Angela

Hello Entmoot

Actually, I read the particular page just about 15 mn ago, and was busy...trying to translate the point of view page on disinfodia in french.

"Is it more useful to do the trolling or to stop it ?""

User:EntmootsOfTrolls/sign is my comment on the matter. EofT

That depends on the situation. When there are plenty of useless or dangerous trolls around, it is useful to make a case of them and try to stop them

If there are plenty and they provide useful impact on the group, it is useful to help them or at least to make it possible for them not to be blasted out of the community before they have given all the best fruits. When they have made their point, they usually go away by themselves.

If there are no trolls around, it is perhaps useful to favor trolling.

True. Very weise. EofT

All depend if we are talking of good trolls or bad trolls, the good and the bad not being measured in amounts of insults or cp infrigment, or npov violations or breaches of wikipetiquette, but absolutely in terms of what they can bring to wikipedia, in which direction they impact the system.

True. But when these things get discussed, one's contributis are ignored. EofT

The english wiki is rather in the first case. The french has been in the second case imho, in july and right now. Except not numerous are the people who realise this troll is to treasure right now :-) Look at that absolutely delightful page in progress here. More examples are in the talk page. Perhaps, Wikipedia should have a book, "how to keep a troll in working conditions" :-) Just joking of course LOL.

Will think of your page.

It's not "mine", it's a general Wikipedia:Sysop reading list. Critical. EofT

User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia is the new name for the post-EofT Libelpedia. I answer to Wales, and ask that he make the choice RK demands.

Goodbye to User:Kat, User:Anthere, User:MyRedDice, User:Lsolum, User:mirwin, User:Ed_Poor, User:Angela, User:Stevertigo, User:Kosebamse, User:Jiang, User:172, User:Graft, User:Silver Maple, User:Netesq, User:Mydogategodshat, User:The Cunctator and other generally constructive influences. Nothing more to say about anything.

Troll on, and never forget your MeatBall:RightToFork -- the technical/logistics hurdles are not as bad as they are said to be. Poke your head in now and again, if you can stand it; perhaps things will improve. If you want to stay in touch and have a permanent e-mail address you can share, you could send it to me using the E-mail this user doodad, and I'll reply in kind. Peace. Kat 20:27, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Remember, What matters is building a large GNU FDL text base that is mostly accurate and worth the time of serious scholars to correct. Anything that gets in the way of that, including the so-called "community", must be utterly swept aside without mercy. Serious scholars will not put up with libel or uncorrected or unsubstantiated assertions on the record they can't correct. They will therefore not put up with User:RK nor the rule of the GodKing.


uh ?!? Why good bye ?
I was "banned" long ago.  ;-) I stuck around only to prove a point which is now well proven. It is up to "them" to make a choice now. Not up to me to show it to them.
  • You can't quit at the same time I do, people will think you are me. You must stay. Angela
Angela, why is your page blank ? My, I really don't get it now... (are you coming to help us on the fr wiki full time then ?)
That's a cogent concern, but, perhaps it is good if you, me, and all other famous trolls are confused to be the same person - we can merge into a full m:legion of trolls and exercise a Wikipedia:Right to fork together.

I also regret kq and tc very much. Right, that place is no fun anymore.

Before we fork off, the Legion of Trolls' disapproval mechanism proposal probably needs our full attention. It makes more sense to extend the emergent protocols here, than try to lay on a protocol of approval from academia, which must lead us to groupthink.

---

More on: ban pages. User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/on_ban_pages

While I disagree with Angela's general opinion on /ban pages, I suggest that you leave my version of that page. The ball is in RK's court at this point. Martin 19:36, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
As I said before, I would do whatever I could to help. I can certainly leave that page alone, so long as its Page History remains untampered with. There is some value in making a backup copy of it so that someone can prepare a full and detailed history of each and every event where protocol was violated or judgemental language contrary to dictionary or legal definitions was used. EofT

The willow which bends to the tempest often escapes better than the oak which resists it. --Sir Walter Scott

Ah, true. But if one is an oak, one is an oak, and remains so, regardless of consequences. See Wikipedia:list of central issues on some oak-like stuff. EofT
Hey, Mr. Oak, these from list of ethics topics are yours to discover: abuse of trust, blaming, education ethics, family values, family role, global debt, Global Ethic, knowledge society, mercy, moral equivalent or moral equivalence, partnership culture (see dominator culture), Passion Play (see passion play), peacemaking, rational ethics, relationship ethics, Risk Society, Rules Girl, rural development, faction (politics) and tendency (politics), values, verbal abuse, and since you like Confucius youcan elaborate on li, yi, ren. Knock off a couple a day, rather than piss into the wind so much. Nice work on simple view of ethics and morals, by the way. I tried to fill some holes. - 142

Hey, I asked you to lay off of RK, and you agreed. But since then, you have called him names ("liar, libeller, whining child") and generally escalated the situation in a number of ways. This must stop. You will be banned if you don't drop it.

I advise you: don't insult him, don't talk about him at all, don't visit the pages that he visits, don't agitate to have him banned, because your own poor behavior actually makes that less likely the more you act this way. You're in the wrong here, and I don't intend to put up with it.

Let me explain this part again, because it seems to have not sunk in: leave a clean paper trail means -- make sure that your own behavior is unimpeachable. When you call him names, *you* are violating the rules of Wikipedia, and so it is *you* I must threaten with a ban. It simply clouds the issue.

Jimbo Wales 14:14, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC) (Reinstated now: Jimbo Wales 13:50, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC) )

It was moved to User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia, where it was answered, not deleted. I do not delete serious stuff. I answer it. But, events have rolled on, so let me explain this part to you again, since you have now permitted those who have been assembling this so-called "clean paper trail" you claim to desire, to be sabotaged:
I am not "in the wrong". It is you who are "in the wrong" in several ways:
First, you call for a clean paper trail and let it be continually moved and then ultimately deleted - forcing User:MyRedDice to beg to have it back, after he went to a good deal of effort to assemble it. Even if it's recovered, your confusion on the issue of "whether to have /ban pages" versus "whether to permit those who wish to do so to track obnoxious behaviour at all" has caused some people to jump through hoops. Make a choice.
Second, you tolerate rather persistent abuses, notably, putting big chunks of text in the wrong place to serve a political point, counting on the non-magic of NPOV to sort it out, even among those who do not respect it and say that they wish precedents or sympathetic-main-article rules (more like the I-E) to stand. NPOV is not magic. It requires diligence and energy and diplomacy to preserve. So threatening to ban those who are abused for upholding these conventions, and clearly being challenged in unethical ways? Please. There is a good example in Talk:ethics. There has been more than enough patience granted the POV censors and twisters. Who is denying what edits they made, claiming intent after the fact, hiding their own comments, etc.? Make a choice.
Third, I cannot "avoid articles RK visits" if, as with ethics, and simple view of ethics and morals, he follows me around and deliberately cuts out chunks of text, adds POV edits, and then complains to you. If you fall for that, you are his dupe. Make a choice.
Fourth, you have let this situation drag out for far too long. You should either do as RK required, and ban me, and let him run riot, OR do as I request, and institute some measure to deal with him that does not force good people like User:Anthere, User:MyRedDice, User:Angela, User:Netesq and other valuable contributors to clean up his trash. Make a choice.
Fifth, if you permit lies and libel to be published about someone here, and delete or depress their responses, then, you are technically incurring some kind of liability. That doesn't mean much to me *yet*, as my name is not on these comments of RK's, but your own behaviour and that of others suggests that you are willing to let names be thrown around and attached to pseudonymous userIDs. A poor privacy practice. Make a choice.
So, all that said, ban away, so you can have your User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia, run by him, free of me. And I'm very pleased, indeed honoured, if I can take the heat for simply stating the truth. I just don't recognize your 'due process', Mr. Wales, nor see much of it going on. I see people like User:MyRedDice and User:Netesq, who understand it, trying to apply it, and being sabotaged by some idea of fairness or compromise with sabotage and yes one might say outright evil imposition of one view of say ethics on everyone.
I am not here to answer to you. I am here because the GNU FDL says I can access this text and work diligently on it, without fear of people like you who waffle on important and long-standing issues. You ban me, I go fork, or go underground, and from what I can see, I'd take the very best people with me, and you'd still be stuck with the trolls. Have fun. EofT

[edit] Several Mistakes

EofT, you are laboring under several misapprehensions.

  1. A "clean paper trail" does not mean a page on which you discuss your battles with others and argue that you are right and they are wrong. Rather, it refers to the totality of your contributions to this website: every new article, every edit, every talk page comment, every page deletion or text move (i.e., "copy and paste" to another page). Each of us judged by the community on the basis of our individual paper trails.
  2. Don't take on Jimbo. You can't win. It's his "living room", and if you kick up too much of a fuss he'll ask the other guests to show you the door. If you wish to debate, that's fine, but do it politely, please.
  3. The Gnu licences doesn't give you any rights whatsoever at this website. You can copy and change to your heart's content elsewhere, of course -- no one's denying that -- but no one has a "right" to post on Jimbo's servers. That is a privilege, one which he can withdraw at any time and for any reason.
  4. Threatening legal action is a poor tactic. As a successful businessman, Jimbo understands the legal status of his hobby very well. In other words, Wikipedia can't be held liable for comments which its contributors post. Ironically, if there's anyone who might incur liability on that note here, it would be you -- *sigh* if only you understood this, all of this discussion would be, er, "moot".

Please try to understand. --Uncle Ed 13:40, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As EofT is under a ceasefire, Ed, you shouldn't expect a reply. Martin 13:53, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
A ceasefire which he is respecting till now. I don't think it is a good idea to tickle someone in these conditions.

I would have a word in private with you regarding a subject of mutual concern. Got an email addy or public key? Respond here or at User_talk:Alt.syntax.tactical. BTW, just happened to see your edit at conspicuous consumption and approve. Alt.syntax.tactical 01:55, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/t/User_talk%7EEntmootsOfTrolls_ab30.html"