>From the terms of use " We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice. " On Nov 27, 2014 10:34 AM, "regu...@gmail.com" <regu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I dont think its illegal, its just that it doesnt have any legal standing > at all. The terms of use used to have a condition for it yearsvago but that > was removed. > > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device > > > > > > ------ Original message------ > > *From: *JJ Marr > > *Date: *Thu, Nov 27, 2014 10:25 AM > > *To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the > participation of women within Wikimedia projects.; > > *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF > > > > ArbCom isn't illegal. I have no idea how you'd be able to appeal an online > pseudotribunal to an actual court. It baffles the mind, especially since > they provided clear rationale and the WMF is allowed to associate with > whoever they want. I'm fairly sure that the hypothetical case would > probably be dismissed extremely quickly. > On Nov 27, 2014 3:13 AM, "Jim Hayes" <slowki...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> yes , >> i would say that arbcom might be unaware of how negatively it will be >> viewed >> clearly newyorkbrad was angling for block both sides, >> to make it easier to block the "unblockable" >> and the majority appears to have tilted in one direction. >> keep in mind that a life ban worked real well on betacommand >> >> as for "new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks" >> i'll believe it when i see it, just as when i will believe Jimbo Wales' >> talk at wikimania. >> >> at this late date, it is show me - soft is hard. >> we can plan a culture change, off wiki if necessary, but the revanchism >> will be ugly. >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Gorman <kgor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly >>> don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a >>> depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with >>> essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the >>> participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. I know there's >>> been some debate in the past about whether or not ENWP specific issues are >>> appropriate for this list, but I believe this is a large enough one to be. >>> >>> Best, >>> Kevin Gorman >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < >>> danc...@frontiernet.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable >>>> civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement. >>>> >>>> One wonders if it's really time for someone to just initiate a >>>> discussion on AN as to whether the community's patience with him is >>>> exhausted enough to community-ban him indefinitely, regardless of the >>>> outcome of any ArbCom case. We have done things like this before--after one >>>> such editor prompted multiple suggestions that he be banned among the many >>>> opposes he received when he ran for ArbCom with the premise of effectively >>>> abolishing it by voting against hearing any new cases, I initiated that >>>> discussion, which led to the editor in question pretty much jumping before >>>> he was pushed. >>>> >>>> And I say this as someone who has never interacted with him in any >>>> meaningful way, at least not for years, but sees and hears him increasingly >>>> discussed as the *one* user who represents all the shortcomings of our >>>> disciplinary processes. Whether he is a genuinely toxic person or not seems >>>> to be a matter of some debate, but I think there is no doubt that the >>>> perception that he is has increasingly mooted that question. >>>> >>>> Of course we could also consider the suggestion Jimmy had in his >>>> closing speech at Wikimania this year that we deal with toxic people on the >>>> site who also happen to be good content creators by giving them their own >>>> wikis where they, and anyone who wanted to work with them, could develop >>>> and improve whatever content they wanted to.for reimportation. Maybe part >>>> of the problem is that we offer too limited a choice of >>>> >>>> (And per other emails, this is really beyond the scope of this list, so >>>> any followups should probably directed to me personally or taken on-wiki. >>>> Besides I don't want to ruin anyone's Thanksgiving, regardless of whether >>>> you celebrate it or not--we all deserve a break). >>>> >>>> Daniel Case >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >>
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
