On Wednesday 15 October 2003 20:00, Poor, Edmund W wrote: I believe that he is following this list, so you have just told him that you are afraid of him. What is the next thing that you will do for him? :)

Poor, Edmund W wrote: There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and anyone who is using one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some official function is doing something very un-wiki indeed. We can talk about the idea of role accounts *here* if people are interested in the concept. Maybe it's a good idea. But it must not happen in this way. Since that account was EofT, 24, etc., it was banned already. It looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad idea. --Jimbo

I believe that we have reached the point where we should be evaluating the idea on its merits alone, rather than on the basis of its source. We have danced around the "good contributions from bad people" conundrum and never reached any sort of consensus, and I don't think it's necessarily important here. I would also point out, as a brief aside, that EofT's behavior falls short of the criminally threatening behavior that has been ascribed to him. I recall getting this message on my answering machine some years ago from an anonymous caller: "I'm going to blow up your fucking house, man." Literally. Those exact words. Now, that was a little troubling, but the cops didn't follow up on it much and said that they hear about a lot of calls like that. The point being, that the stuff that EofT wrote fell considerably short of that rather more direct message I once received. There is plenty that 24/142/EofT did that justified a ban. There is no need to exaggerate or make stuff up. Well, yes, they can and should. And many do just that. One of the things I would like to change about the Wikipedia community, if I could, would be to cause there to be greater overall support for those who step in and try to mediate edit wars and other content disputes. Generally, it is a thankless job today. A real tarbaby. You try to help out with some neutral, reasoned involvement, and you tend to get a bunch of gooey tar stuck to yourself and your clothes. By way of example, I have made a genuine attempt to help out with the RK and JiL matters. I have so far been called a heavy handed, an anti-semite (by RK), and a troll (this last by two separate users). My words have been called unfair. I have been accused of having a hidden agenda. I believe there are about half a dozen contributors who have generally been disparaging in their comments about my activities, and one (Ed Poor) who has been publicly supportive. I suppose I should learn to have a thick skin and not pay any attention to this sort of thing. But even if I do, such responses serve to discourage people from mediating or otherwise getting involved in messy conflicts. It scares the well-balanced, sensitive, moderate, rational people away from tough articles. == Discussion about the mediation process == The discussion of mediation and arbitration process reached something of a sequence point a week or two ago when Jimbo asked for nominations and volunteers for these roles. I for one have been waiting to see what happens next before continuing the conversation about mediation/arbitration process. I continue to believe that the project would be well served by some sort of article dispute resolution process, and that many of our more intractable problem users have become what they are in part out of frustrations with disputes over articles. Louis