Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this? I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate level of detail I would be happy to venture an opinion. But precluding that, you are asking the views of a group of people who probably do not have a full (or event partial) view of the facts of this case... for which you are asking for a global response.... And you are then wondering why they question this issue! I think there is no question is cases such as this; lay the details plainly, and screw any pussy footing around the details. If this individual has a history that means BAD THINGS will happen, I feel details will sway more than allusions. Tom On 4 June 2011 00:36, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l- > > boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg > > Sent: 04 June 2011 00:10 > > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister? > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Scott MacDonald > > <doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> > > > On Behalf Of George Herbert > > >> Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but > > >> taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language > > >> Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for > > all > > >> the same reasons that real life identity theft is bad. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Woah > > > > > > Taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language > > > Wikipedia IS real life identity theft!!! > > > > > > Remember, Wikipedia exists in the real world - not just in the one it > > > creates. > > > > they are only allegations until proven in a real world court. and > > that has not happened. > > > > -- > > John Vandenberg > > Utterly irrelevant. > > Poetlister (or Mr Baxter, or whatever) pretended to be a woman - and used > pictures of a real person of his acquaintance, without her permission - and > this screwed up "assume good faith" and "there's only allegations" approach > meant that we disbelieved the complaints made to us on behalf of the person > concerned. That's on top of the socking, harassment, and lies he told the > community. It looks like you are not recalling or aquatinted with the facts > here. > > No, they have not been "tested in a court of law" but they remain clear and > logical conclusions from evidence (and if I recall) the admissions of the > individual concerned. Please let's stop making excuses for this. > > I suspect others will be in a better position to fill you in than I am. > > Scott > > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
