As they say, He is dead to me. Fred
> If anyone thinks The Kohser is just a maverick who asks awkward > questions, and rather more relevantly did some sockpuppetry and ran a > breaching experiment doing "unhelpful" edits to unwatched articles, > please read the thread at > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2010/Questions#Thekohser > > I have no problem with former vandals returning, one of the attendees > at our last London meetup started their wiki career winning a contest > amongst their schoolmates by doing 47 vandalisms before being blocked. > > But before considering the return of thekohser I would like a better > answer to the question I posed to him last year: > >>There's a lot of discussion on EN wiki about the compromised admin >> account that recently came into your possession. >Would you be willing >> to tell a check user whether you acquired it by purchasing it or by >> compromising it, and if you >purchased it who you purchased it from, and >> if you compromised it how you did so? > > Tolerance of dissent and forgiveness for former miscreants are both > important feature of our community, but just occasionally it makes > sense to ban people. I'd be opposed to Greg Kohs returning unless I > had assurance that he'd fully explained to our checkusers how he > obtained that compromised admin account, and some assurance that he > was unlikely to doing anything similar again. > > Regards > > WereSpielChequerss > > On 23 July 2011 19:01, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to >> [email protected] >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> [email protected] >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> [email protected] >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian (Mike Dupont) >> 2. Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian (Huib Laurens) >> 3. Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian (Andre Engels) >> 4. Re: Greg Kohs and Peter Damian (Mike Dupont) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:17:50 +0200 >> From: Mike Dupont <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian >> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List >> <[email protected]> >> Message-ID: >> >> <CAF0qKV3nvKKZN0boR-Wp3ZBRRrDigbfW5=i4psk_2xqw-ew...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list >> archive, >> so I am reposting it. >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html >> >> Mr Kohs pointed this out here : >> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460 >> thanks, >> mike >> --------------- Original Text ---------------------------------- >> >> Hello, >> >> >From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some >> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to >> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint. >> >> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to >> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away >> because it is uncomfortable. >> >> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these >> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many >> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not >> fair to the people involved. >> >> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and >> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the >> list. >> >> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts >> >> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable, >> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy. >> >> The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such >> accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more >> credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is >> any merit in what they say. >> >> This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions >> needed >> ones. >> >> Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful, >> Spam etc, lets call that evil content. >> >> But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted >> did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not >> notable. >> >> We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being >> deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad >> content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content. >> >> Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the >> Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted >> and gone forever without proper process or review. >> >> In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning >> of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people >> from information that they want and need in an unfair manner. >> >> Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in >> Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every >> television show, is that what you really want? >> >> I think there should be room for things in places that are not not >> notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also >> need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not >> mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like >> like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the >> Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even >> if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of >> people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving >> the project of important information because they are not able to get >> started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating >> political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a >> chance to be heard. >> >> We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the >> conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust. >> >> thanks, >> mike >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
