I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list
mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have
scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on
discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on re
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> Per the new posting limits <
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html>,
> each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on
> moderation. Anthony has reached 30 posts. He has been p
With our last board meeting falling a little later in the year than
usual, and coming close to holidays, I'm a little late in giving this
brief report on what happened. As you know, the board approved the
audited financial statements for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, and those
were posted on the W
Per the new posting limits <
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html>,
each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on
moderation. Anthony has reached 30 posts. He has been placed on moderation
for about the next 19 hours or so (until ab
Hi, Laura. I'll stay out of the main discussion here, but I just wanted
to address one point as a bystander who has spent a lot of years
involved with Internet startups:
Laura Hale wrote:
> [...] There are other places we would like to approach.
> (And if you have ideas for who would be a good f
On Nov 29, 2009, at 11:04 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Questions that I'd like to see
> discussed on a large scale are:
>
> * Do we want any new projects? Right now? In the future? Ever?
> * If so, do we only want projects that follow traditional reference
> book models of organizing information? (e
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Laura Hale wrote:
> This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
> family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy
> wiki.
> As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would really
> probably b
> Bad editors are often allowed to edit for years before they finally get
> indefinitely banned. I'm not getting into specific details, that's far
> outside the scope of this thread. Even this comment is pushing it.
I agree that we often wait far too long to ban disruptive editors, and
I also ag
Foundation level issue is whether or not a community have the right to exclude
a specific class or category of users from editing based upon unsubstantiated
claims of potential misbehavior?
From: George Herbert
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun,
> > [I] am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.
>
> Please elaborate.
Bad editors are often allowed to edit for years before they finally
get indefinitely banned. I'm not getting into specific details,
that's far outside the scope of this thread. Even this comment is
pus
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on
> Wikipedia harms the project.
The issue isn't that "[a certain kind of] activism harms the project."
Most POV "activism" by definition is "harmful" from an
objective/neutral point of view. And what constit
In a message dated 11/29/2009 12:55:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
> The media, in the United States at least, has a constitutionally
> guaranteed right to not be fair.>>
My use of the word "fair" was to be applied to ourselves, not to the media.
It is not fair fo
In a message dated 11/29/2009 11:43:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
> We don't block incarcerated prisoners. Prisons do that, to protect
> themselves and the public. Prisoners know how to do online fraud, and are
> good at it.>>
*Some* prisons do it, some do the exac
In a message dated 11/29/2009 5:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
> But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an
> investigative journalist could have done it.>>
But you're assuming that they could then apply "guilt by association" which
would throw egg on o
Beth wrote:
> If we allow self-identified pedophiles to edit our projects, particularly
> those who insist on proclaiming this proclivity on-wiki - we are
> permitting & even facilitating pedophile advocacy.
What about those who do *not* issue such proclamations on-wiki?
__
George William Herbert wrote:
> It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are appropriate
> or necessary for the Foundation to deal with.
If the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has created a policy
prohibiting editing by all known pedophiles, I believe that it has
overstep
I wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a pedophile could edit with
> > the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors
> > in good standing?
Anthony replied:
> No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.
Please elaborate.
> >
I think a lot of people are missing the point.
The entire aim of "pedophile advocacy" is to get non-pedophiles to view
pedophilia as a "life style choice" or something akin to "a sexual
orientation".
It's not. The practice of pedophilia is illegal pretty much everywhere.
If we allow self-identif
Without picking on anyone in particular, I urge everyone to go back
and reread Brad's comment earlier.
This conversation is following the path that public discussions on
this have repeatedly before.
It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are
appropriate or necessary for the Found
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Are you suggesting that it's unlikely that a pedophile could edit with
> the degree of productivity that that we ordinarily demand of editors
> in good standing?
No. I'm am saying that the ordinary demands are far far too low, though.
>> I do
Anthony wrote:
> > > This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in
> > > reality,
> > What is?
> A perfectly productive pedophile editor.
What do you mean by "perfectly productive"? We don't ban editors for
being less than perfect in their contributions.
Are you suggesting t
I'd toss in there "lack of realistic expectations from your project",
especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This alone can
account for much of the other things you view as "breakdowns".
-Dan
On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
> I'm going to post a clarific
I'm going to post a clarification as there seems to be some confusion
regarding my post:
After we got back the original e-mail from some one at the WMF, we were
asked by four or five parties to try to continue along with the process in
order to present WMF with a kind of case study for this proces
2009/11/29 Laura Hale :
> As for where Fan History's proposal to join WMF stands now, we're not sure.
> The mailing list conversation died. Strategy wiki's only commentary has
> been regarding getting us off the blacklist for Foundation projects.
>
> Sincerely,
> Laura Hale
I think it's time to s
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:40 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>> This is a hypothetical which I don't believe will ever arise in reality,
> What is?
A perfectly productive pedophile editor.
>> and certainly not often enough that there is a harm in simply blocking
>> pedophiles on sight.
>
> In a message dated 11/29/2009 5:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
>
>
>> But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an
>> investigative journalist could have done it.>>
>
> But you're assuming that they could then apply "guilt by association"
> which
> would t
'06 wikiversity
From: Jon Davis
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 12:19:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Perhaps she mistook the meta proposals for strat. Where, by all accounts,
Anthony wrote:
> The subject is "Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy".
Obviously, the discussion's scope has expanded.
> I've opted to participate to dispel the notion, suggested by you, that a
> perfectly productive editor was blocked simply because the editor
> happened to be a pedoph
I wrote:
> > Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how was
> > it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it?
Fred Bauder replied:
> It was authored by the Arbitration Committee and posted on the
> Administrators' Noticeboard several years ago.
Please provide a link
Perhaps she mistook the meta proposals for strat. Where, by all accounts, a
proposal with nothing going on for the last year are lively, considering
there are proposals on there dated as far back as 2004, a number of them
dated 2006. For those who aren't terribly active in our community, seeing
so
On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
> There are proposals that have been there a
> year, that have no votes, with no comments on them.
I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Strategy wiki wasn't even set up a year
ago.
It was created in July. Proposals weren't accepted until almost Augu
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Laura,
>
> It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement."
> Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
>
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation
policy, it's a comm
>
> Just as a point of interest, do we block people currently
> incarcerated from editing?
>
> I have a vague recollection that one of the most voluminous
> contributors to the original edition of the Oxford English
> Dictionary, was actually a prisoner...
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
>>> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.
>>
>> "All IP addresses owned or
Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy wrote:
>
>
>>> Let's just have Paedo-Wiki and be done with it.
>>>
>>> We have wikis for over 200 languages. It would be wrong not to allow
>>> paedos to express themselves.
>>>
>> I recognize your sarcasm, but not your poi
Laura,
It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement."
Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy.
Fred Bauder
> This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
> family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on stra
On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
>> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.
>
> "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and
> its associates, bro
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.
"All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and
its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were
open
In addition to Brad's very good points, I'd like to point out, if it hasn't
been already, that any discussion on this topic also inevitably generates
external criticism of "Why does XXX editor protect pedophiles"? (or even
substitute Wikipedia for XXX editor).
Nothing good can come of this con
>> > Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was "the right thing."
>> Fortunately, that's not my problem.
> It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to
> participate.
The subject is "Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy". I've
opted to participate to dispe
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or
>> it
>> might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case.
>
> Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how
> was it established? Did the ArbCom itself author
Fred Bauder wrote:
> An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or it
> might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case.
Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how
was it established? Did the ArbCom itself author it?
> If a c
This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF
family, based on my experiences via e-mail, on the list and on strategy
wiki. This isn't as coherent as I would like.
To give some back story that might not have been as obvious in our initial
proposal, we were interested in jo
(My last message incorrectly insinuates Nihonjoe himself is a
paedophile, due to momentary confusion when I was writing it.
Disregarding that, my arguments remain.)
--
Yours cordially,
Jesse (Pathoschild)
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Jesse (Pathoschild)
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I see a strong
Hello,
I see a strong moral streak underlying many of the arguments in favour
of banning this editor, with unsubtle arguments fronting the idea that
paedophiles are inherently evil and can do no good. These arguments
are not convincing to me; no group of people is inherently evil.
Paedophilia does
> "appeal" - someone said something that highly surprised me.
> Apparently, the AC of enwiki 'endorsed' the blockade, but still you
> consider an appeal realistic? I'm sorry, but I would find the chance
> of honest ruling very low, nearing zero, in case if that same group of
> judges first endorse
Although I do think that at the end of the day, it might be better for
the community of editors to keep this kind of disruptive people
blocked, I would like to counter some of the arguments I have heard in
this discussion.
"danger to our children" - come on.. If he (I assume it is a he?)
wants to
47 matches
Mail list logo
