[Wikipedia-l] User watch

[Jaap van Ganswijk]

At 2002-09-10 16:54 -0700, Julie Hofmann Kemp wrote:
>As for all the nasty comments about banning Helga -- well, first, this particular playground belongs to Jimbo and BOMIS

No it doesn't: Jimmy and Bomis may host it, but they don't
own it. Or they should have made it more clearly when I
joined it. I am the author of a site about chips and it's
hosted by about 30 mirror sites. They own not one iota
of the contents of what they mirror. My 'original site'
is hosted on the server of a Dutch internet provider and
it doesn't own any of the copyrights of my site.

If Jimmy thinks he has certain rights I'd really like
to hear about that.

> -- if Jim wants to make a rule and enforce it, that's his prerogative.

No it's not. He may decide no longer to host the site.
Of course he is also welcome to help run the organization,
but he's not the dictator in a small tropical mini-state.

If he thinks otherwise, I'm interested to hear about ir.

>The fact that he waited so long to take such an action is admirable,

Yes. He has been very tolerant. Perhaps too tolerant. ;-)

>although I think a serious threat at an earlier date might have helped to define the actions worthy of a ban.

Indeed.

>Moreover, the fact that Jim is willing to allow the people who use the playground to help define the rules of participation is generous and encourages wikipedians to feel part of a larger good.

Ah so you believe in this benevolent dictator stuff?

>Still, this is a little community, and communities generally need some rules and boundaries to keep people from feeling put-upon.  No one has any inalienable rights here, except the right (and perhaps the obligation) to leave if they don't like how things are done.

Is your real name perhaps: Eva Perron? Or Eva Braun?

It's my oppinion that any matters of importance like
those of politics, science, economics, philosophy
should not be dicussed with women.

One should never engage in serious discussions
with women anyway. They are not genetically
equiped for it.

>That said, I think that, if bans are to be used, there should be a clear statement of the kinds of things that warrant a ban, as well as a posted escalation process (like  a formal warning that the person is being considered for a ban, request to join the list, etc.).

On this matter I completely agree with you and wished that I had expressed it so NPOV-like...

But well, uhm, we guys, we like fighting, testing each other out,
we will have to go hunt the next day to get the meat
and we need to be able to rely on each other 100%.
You women only have to dig up roots etc.

Greetings,
Jaap

PS. Try not to write in HTML please...