On 9/9/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote: The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in and of itself. Why the double-standard? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for taking care of this with so little mess.

On 9/9/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: > On 9/9/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions >> more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the >> same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins >> reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and >> a minority just see conspiracies and cabals. >> > The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin > people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as > to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in > and of itself. Why the double-standard?

On 10/09/2007, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: If these hurtful/rude/attack/libelous/whatever comments are on Wikimedia servers, I suggest they be excised. (Disclaimer: I have not read them personally, so I can't judge what they are.) When it comes to the safety / health / feelings of individual human beings, the encyclopaedia is not involved - what matters are the individuals. Consensus is all well and good for talking about encyclopaedia articles, but that doesn't give the Wikipaedia community the right to start destroying real people's lives. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Armed Blowfish wrote: Could you please explain why I have received this, and several other messages two or three times? I know that I take a liberal view in regards to list moderation, and that you like to send a lot of messages, but little purpose is served by sending the same message multiple times. Ec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.

Thats not even related to this thread. You've lost the trivia debate months ago, get over it, you're dragging it into unrelated threads now. Bit immature, dont you think? Now, this topic is new and unrelated. Try to stay on topic.

On 9/10/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > Brock Weller wrote: > >> 'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how >> coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on >> anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it >> secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. >> He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims >> from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for >> taking care of this with so little mess. >> > I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments > from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on > something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him > an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments. > > I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a > right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here > personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such > claims. > > If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why > make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? > What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting > together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a > handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others > should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old > way of doing things. > > Ec >