The idea is not bad (especially on wikis that might have more low-hanging
fruits), but it might need some work to make it work (e.g. anons cannot
create a new article on enwiki, and seeing these red links without the
ability to write the articles might be annoying to them).
There is something
In the wake of this RfB on the English
Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Nihonjoe_4we
really need some clarification from the foundation on this issue.
It's
my personal view that in general these kinds of situations fall pretty
clearly under the Non
Jake,
It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless
they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the
project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus,
an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales.
In
Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on
Wikipedia harms the project.
Fred
Jake,
It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless
they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the
project. Such bannings usually require
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
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.
There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who
were elsewhere identified
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.
There are
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
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:37 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
There are a
So you are taking a stance based on one particular class of criminal behavior?
Following your reasoning, we should be blocking all self professed
hackers/crackers too. They might do something illegal for jollies to disrupt
the community, so lets block em!
I am going by the text. The Credit Card Usage Policy and the Pluralism,
Internationalism, and Diversity Policy also carry that boilerplate, but they
very clearly do not apply to the projects. Indeed, the Code of Conduct
Policy specifically states that it not a policy for community members.
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.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
It's important to keep in mind what the enforceability (or lack thereof) of
whatever determination we make will be. That is, pedophiles will always be
able to edit unless we radically change the nature of the project. All we
can do is prevent them from using their real identities or declaring
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 of the project.
What?
Radically change Wikipedia because of paedophiles?
Change it how?
When someone's about to make an edit
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
Andre Engels wrote:
If [allowing self-identified pedophiles to edit] brings the project in
disrepute, then so be it.
Fred Bauder replied:
It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project.
By that logic, we ought to disallow public editing altogether. After
all, wikis (and Wikipedia
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 11:57 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
but what sort of project are we left with?
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.
Bod Notbod 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 point.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com 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 point.
Well, I guess I just
Bod Notbod wrote:
Well, I guess I just don't know where this conversation is going.
A paedophile might know a lot about the Spanish Civil War and could
usefully add stuff.
A murderer might know a lot about Pokemon.
A rapist might know a lot about physics.
It's not like we're going to
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we
dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the
wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany
their
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:25 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. When users edit the wikis to reflect
pro-pedophilia/pro-murder/pro-rape/pro-anything (or anti-anything)
agendas, that's when it's appropriate to act (regardless of whether
they've provided advance indication
George William Herbert wrote:
We have one single class of editors who, as a class, for
non-wiki-behavioral reasons, we ban. This class' participation is
problematic both for our other users safety and for Wikipedia's
reputation and integrity of content.
Integrity of content? Please
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 12:06 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com 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
Let me make a few basic points here.
1. Obviously, we usually have no way of knowing what an editor's personal
beliefs or even activities are, unless he or she voluntarily discloses them.
2. At least on English Wikipedia, and I assume on other projects where the
issue has come up, there has been
Thats baloney. It is a slippery slope. You are making a distinction based on
what might happen, and prejudging a class of individuals. This doesn't help
wiki, but sends a message that some people are less worthy than others.I don't
like it is not a valid reason to disenfranchise people on
John Vandenberg wrote:
What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics?
And edits the articles in accordance with policy?
Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential
targets? i.e. people that live in the same locality.
Are the edits in accordance with
Newyorkbrad wrote:
There is also the fact that many users who go out of their way to describe
themselves as pedophiles may or may not actually be such at all, but are
simply trolling for reactions or to create controversy over whether they
should be blocked or not.
What about users who make
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 8:28 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
John Vandenberg wrote:
What about a known paedophile who knows a lot about kiddie topics?
And edits the articles in accordance with policy?
Or a known murderer or rapist who edits biographies of potential
targets?
I wrote:
Are the edits in accordance with policy?
Anthony replied:
Which policy? If someone inserts a sentence into an article without
including a reliable source, have they broken policy?
I'll rephrase the question:
Are the edits discernible from those that we expect from a contributor
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:28 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
What about users who make no on-wiki mentions of their pedophilia?
I can't believe nobody's told a wikipaedophile joke yet.
I went to the Edinburgh Festival a few years ago, watched a stand up
comedian, and he asked does
Ryan's block wasn't the first one, or even the first indefinite one.
Your point being?
Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit
inappropriately appears to be incorrect.
___
foundation-l mailing list
Anthony wrote:
Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit
inappropriately appears to be incorrect.
I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban (and unless I've missed
something, Ryan hasn't cited past on-wiki issues as a factor).
It appears that the user has not edited
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Your understanding...that the user in question did not edit
inappropriately appears to be incorrect.
I'm referring to the rationale behind the ban
Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner
advocating pedophilia
With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to
Anthony wrote:
Then I'm merely clarifying for anyone else who read your comment literally.
Okay, but I don't see the relevance.
It appears that the user has not edited Wikipedia in a manner
advocating pedophilia
With over 10,000 edits, I can't be troubled to look hard enough to say
one
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 10:35 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
especially since the right thing has been done, and this user has been
indefinitely blocked.
Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing.
Fortunately, that's not my problem.
I wrote:
Obviously, not all of us are certain that this was the right thing.
Anthony replied:
Fortunately, that's not my problem.
It is, however, the subject of a discussion in which you've opted to
participate.
___
foundation-l mailing list
38 matches
Mail list logo
