.
Best,
---
Jake Wartenberg
j...@jakewartenberg.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the
individual in question is not disruptively editing.
---
Jake Wartenberg
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:37 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg
j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote:
I am not talking about pedophilia activism, but instances where the
individual in question is not disruptively editing
This would be a great thing for the foundation to clarify. We should
probably go by the text and not by how the policy is linked to on a
template. It states *This policy may **not be circumvented, eroded, or
ignored on local Wikimedia projects.*
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Benjamin Lees
their
orientation (for lack of a better word).
---
Jake Wartenberg
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it.
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project
I wasn't saying we should.
---
Jake Wartenberg
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Jake Wartenberg
j...@jakewartenberg.com wrote:
That is, pedophiles will always be
able to edit unless we radically change the nature
