http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u...
11) While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implict there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar reasonable criticism of the project.
Support:
1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 3. the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 10. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 11. Neutralitytalk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 12. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 13. Slight grammatical tweak. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
Yes. That will certainly help the situation.
There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
Yes. That will certainly help the situation.
It will help me get on with my life... or be bored out of my mind.
There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
I disagree with the idea that there is a problem with saying one is a pedophile on one's user page.
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
Steve
This sets a bad precedent. If someone decides they don't like gay people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we should let it happen again.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This sets a bad precedent. If someone decides they don't like gay people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we should let it happen again.
No-one has said that. Don't twist people's words. No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This sets a bad precedent. If someone decides they don't like gay people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we should let it happen again.
No-one has said that. Don't twist people's words. No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is not just wanking.
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is not just wanking.
Pray, how does saying "look at me, I'm a paedophile, look at my pretty box" help us to build an encyclopaedia?
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is not just wanking.
Pray, how does saying "look at me, I'm a paedophile, look at my pretty box" help us to build an encyclopaedia?
How does arguing with me help us to build an encyclopedia? Cease now or you will be banned.
You are asking the wrong question. The real question is whether such a thing HURTS the encyclopedia. And the answer is a resounding no. It may make some anal-retentive conservatives avoid Wikipedia, but that shouldn't be a problem. We don't need to be seen as good by the press. We just need to produce a good product in the article space.
And, pray tell, how did Jimbo's knee-jerk ban of Joeyramoney help us build an encyclopedia?
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their userpage
Well obviously they are. On the evidence page for the userbox page, someone cites examples of several people who do precisely that, and have absolutely clean block logs. Nobody is hunting down these people and preventing them from editing Wikipedia. You were blocked, not for being a pedophile, but for trolling.
Now now. You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or "Accused pedophiles.
nobs
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
On 2/8/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Now now. You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or "Accused pedophiles.
nobs
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
Um, what? What do you mean?
-- Sam
Recently a noted journalist threatened a libel suit over being included [[Category:Gay writers]]; now given the propensity of the ArbCom to accept evidence from sockpuppets (as in my case) to make decisions, what would stop a user from placing a "This user is a pedophile" template on his user page with a sockpuppet, then sue for defamation. But, who needs rules or proceedures.
nobs
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
Now now. You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or "Accused pedophiles.
nobs
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
Um, what? What do you mean?
-- Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This sets a bad precedent. If someone decides they don't like gay people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do
is
point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too,
didn't
we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before,
we
should let it happen again.
No-one has said that. Don't twist people's words. No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
-- Sam
I thought that's what started this whole mess.
--
Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that's what started this whole mess.
Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full decision on the matter.
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that's what started this whole mess.
Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full decision on the matter.
-- Sam
The decision on the matter is not the same as what prompted discussion of the matter. My point was that what started this whole mess was someone getting blocked for the simple reason that they were a pedophile. Am I missing something here? Pete Mackay said: *Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts criticism.* ** This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was mentioning. All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically correct, or you risk a block. That is, if this precedent does get set.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
I thought that's what started this whole mess.
Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full decision on the matter.
-- Sam
The decision on the matter is not the same as what prompted discussion of the matter. My point was that what started this whole mess was someone getting blocked for the simple reason that they were a pedophile. Am I missing something here? Pete Mackay said: *Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts criticism.* ** This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was mentioning. All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically correct, or you risk a block. That is, if this precedent does get set.
If the userpages are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation (and this certainly is), and add nothing to the project, yes, fine, remove the information.
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
--
Sam _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
Yes. It's a line. It's arbitrary. It's needed.
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
Yes. It's a line. It's arbitrary. It's needed.
-- Sam
Okay, I was just making sure I understood what you were getting at there.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Sam Korn wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
Yes. It's a line. It's arbitrary. It's needed.
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Ec
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is American, yes. That is why I drew the line there. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's better than anything else I've seen.
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is
legal.
Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is American, yes. That is why I drew the line there. Yes, I know it isn't perfect. But it's better than anything else I've seen.
-- Sam
If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to do it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to the laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to do it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to the laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.
It doesn't make much sense to me. By all means enforce US copyright laws. But banning Chinese users because they profess to breaking US laws? Nonsensical.
Steve
"Steve Bennett" wrote
Nonsensical.
Yeah, well, that's what you get.
The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter. Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for a high proportion of Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some rough idea of what is expected, and the realisation that the system is relatively forgiving in the case of good-faith mistakes. Do we codify 'relatively forgiving'? Hell no.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter. Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for a high proportion of Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some rough idea of what is expected, and the realisation that the system is relatively forgiving in the case of good-faith mistakes. Do we codify 'relatively forgiving'? Hell no.
I think this is extremely well put.
Perhaps it should be noted that some admins force certain editors to become "trolls" through provoking, but it seems that no-one cares about the provoking part -- only about the other end that violates the policy of this-and-that. Many people, for instance, feel offended when they are being warned in public, on their talkpage. Most people, I believe, don't like to be given ultimatums. In my opinion, we should try to protect the integrity of the Wikipedian and have them warned in private. I also disagree with the block images that are added on talk- and user pages.
Further more, as I said above, I don't think that it's good to have admins that provoke editors only so that they can block them. And yes, there are such admins. Unfortunatelly, it seems that the people with authority (stewards and above) are most impressed by the work of the admins, instead of those who just want to edit articles.
Anittas
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
charles matthews wrote:
The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified
set of rules on an
issue, so they can subvert the spirit while
adhering to the letter.
Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for
a high proportion of
Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some
rough idea of what is
expected, and the realisation that the system is
relatively forgiving in
the case of good-faith mistakes. Do we codify
'relatively forgiving'?
Hell no.
I think this is extremely well put.
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge # # http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
"STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA" wrote
In my opinion, we should try to protect the integrity of the Wikipedian and have them warned in private.
Neither you nor I nor anyone knows all the private email that goes on.
That would be because it's private. In fact there is a high premium put on the transparency of doing the business in public. What do you think? Are people more polite in private, or on the site where everyone could see?
Further more, as I said above, I don't think that it's good to have admins that provoke editors only so that they can block them. And yes, there are such admins.
Maybe you're right. We should all show restraint.
The basic rule that experience teaches is that when good behaviour matters most, it is least likely.
Unfortunatelly, it seems that the people with authority (stewards and above) are most impressed by the work of the admins, instead of those who just want to edit articles.
If it comes to a dispute, the record of what admins write on the site is of great importance. I don't find your position entirely consistent.
Charles
STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
Perhaps it should be noted that some admins force certain editors to become "trolls" through provoking, but it seems that no-one cares about the provoking part -- only about the other end that violates the policy of this-and-that.
Generally admins who are misbehaving are more difficult to deal with than newbies. They tend to believe that their experience makes them right, or that a discussion that went their way several months ago is the final word. Occasionally newbies have good ideas about an old way of doing things; they should be given a fair hearing. I am often hesitant about calling a sysop on his behaviour when I know his reputation for arguing; it may not always be right, but such disputes can be exhausting. I would prefer spending my time on more creative contributions.
Many people, for instance, feel offended when they are being warned in public, on their talkpage.
The warning should be preceded by a polite comment about what you see as the problem, and offering to open a discussion on the matter. Respectful "Please"s are very helpful. Leaving room for the possibility that the person may be even remotely correct gives a positive impression. Punitive consequences should only rarely appear in the first notice.
Most people, I believe, don't like to be given ultimatums.
Especially when it's done rudely.
In my opinion, we should try to protect the integrity of the Wikipedian and have them warned in private.
Nothing wrong with making the comments public if they're done politely.
I also disagree with the block images that are added on talk- and user pages.
I'm not familiar with this practice.
Further more, as I said above, I don't think that it's good to have admins that provoke editors only so that they can block them. And yes, there are such admins.
Admins who make premature blocking threats should probably be blocked themselves for the same amount of time that they use in their threats.
Unfortunatelly, it seems that the people with authority (stewards and above) are most impressed by the work of the admins, instead of those who just want to edit articles.
Impressed? ... or just plain fatigued?
Ec
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I am often hesitant about calling a sysop on his behaviour when I know his reputation for arguing; it may not always be right, but such disputes can be exhausting. I would prefer spending my time on more creative contributions.
You're not the only one who thinks this way, Ray.
To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a content conflict:
1. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
Geoff
On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling geoff@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a content conflict:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other
articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
I have definitely thought of that strategy, but usually do this instead: 1. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Forget all about it.
I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to find a different article.
Steve
On 2/12/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling geoff@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a content conflict:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other
articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
I have definitely thought of that strategy, but usually do this instead:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many
other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Forget all about it.
I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to find a different article.
Steve
oh it's nicer than:
1.Figure out your opponent's sleeping patturns 2.keep triggering edit wars with them just before they would otherwise log off for the night.
-- geni
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, geni wrote:
On 2/12/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling geoff@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a content conflict:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other
articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
I have definitely thought of that strategy, but usually do this instead:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many
other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Forget all about it.
I admit to having executed that strategy also. Or its variant (following on your steps 1-3 above):
4. Remember that I was concerned about a given article many months ago, & out of curiosity have a look at it. 5. Discover one of the following: a. My opponent has left Wikipedia for reasons unknown; b. Another editor has gotten involved & either made my opponent see reason or get hauled before the ArbCom for Not laying Nice; c. Another editor has gotten involved & the article is changed in new ways.
I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to find a different article.
While that is probably the mature thing to do, I've found that there is a psychological cost to constantly running away from fights. And that leads to the impulsive decision to stay & get involved in some truly stupid fights over content. I tell myself that I'm following my strategy -- even if I end up following Steve's -- in the hope my ego won't see it as a retreat.
oh it's nicer than:
1.Figure out your opponent's sleeping patturns 2.keep triggering edit wars with them just before they would otherwise log off for the night.
Ugh. Not something I've experienced, nor would I want to. I assume you found a solution that did not involve violence by long-distance proxy.
Geoff
On 2/13/06, Geoff Burling lywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
Ugh. Not something I've experienced, nor would I want to. I assume you found a solution that did not involve violence by long-distance proxy.
Geoff
Sure. Who needs sleep anyway?
-- geni
On 2/13/06, Geoff Burling lywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
While that is probably the mature thing to do, I've found that there is a psychological cost to constantly running away from fights. And that leads to the impulsive decision to stay & get involved in some truly stupid fights over content. I tell myself that I'm following my strategy -- even if I end up following Steve's -- in the hope my ego won't see it as a retreat.
It depneds how you look at it. By completely abandoning one article to the stubborn, I can do some productive work on ten others.
Sort of like how a politician can spend all day arguing with one person who probably won't vote for them anyway, or spend it talking to 100 undecideds.
Steve
On 2/12/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/12/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling geoff@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a content conflict:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other
articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
I have definitely thought of that strategy, but usually do this instead:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many
other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Forget all about it.
I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to find a different article.
Steve
oh it's nicer than:
1.Figure out your opponent's sleeping patturns 2.keep triggering edit wars with them just before they would otherwise log off for the night.
-- geni
Best one I've seen is:
1) Talk to a fellow admin about it on IRC. 2) Revert. 3) Have the fellow admin protect.
Happened quite often before the introduction of three revert rule enforcement. Now colluding pairs can simply team up directly.
Anthony
geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: On 2/12/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/12/06, Geoff Burling wrote:
To mention a related strategy, I wonder just how many veteran contributors have adopted the following tactic for prevailing in a content conflict:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other
articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Revert opponent's edits while carefully leaving any later contributions intact. 4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 as often as needed.
Not to argue that this is the best way to deal with unreasonable partisans, but I can't be the only one who has done this.
I have definitely thought of that strategy, but usually do this instead:
- Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many
other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. Forget all about it.
I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to find a different article.
Steve
oh it's nicer than:
1.Figure out your opponent's sleeping patturns 2.keep triggering edit wars with them just before they would otherwise log off for the night.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I preferred:
1. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. See that other editors have restored what I was trying to do (because I was right all along:) )and that I needn't do a thing.
:)
The only downside is where you are up against those trying to make a point rather than make a good, well-referenced article, when you end up with:
1. Silently acquiese to opponent's edits; after all, there's many other articles in need of attention. 2. Wait x number of weeks. 3. See that other editors have removed all the references from the bit you added (so that it looks like it's entirely unsupported), added lots of dubious unreferenced information, and added some stuff you can't even understand (let alone consider whether you agree with it or not).
Of course, in that instance, the article's deteriorating anyway, and you're unlikely to stop the rot.
Jon (now over at Wikibooks, which seems far calmer, and where it is easier to get things done)
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Steve Bennett" wrote
I have however had that strategy applied against me. It's very
frustrating, and boils down to some kind of siege warfare. Best to find a different article.
It often is better to move off, than to edit when a page is crowded or an edit war is causing over-reaction. But long-termism about WP articles is hardly an evil-minded strategy. You know, using the watchlist, adding quotes when they come up in other reading, filling in red links instead of squabbling about prominence and ordering in the main article, all that good stuff.
Charles
Jimmy Wales wrote:
charles matthews wrote:
The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter. Fortunately, percentagewise,they don't account for a high proportion of Wikipedians. Most people can get by with some rough idea of what is expected, and the realisation that the system is relatively forgiving in the case of good-faith mistakes. Do we codify 'relatively forgiving'? Hell no.
I think this is extremely well put.
Apologies for bluntness, but I think it is sophistry to explain why admins who followed process and precedent were 'punished' while those who did not weren't.
That being said. We have now established new standards. It is decreed by both yourself and the ArbCom that userpage statements similar to 'This user is a pedophile' bring the project into disrepute and editors who harm the project in this way have no right to contribute.
Since this has not been the case to date quite a number of such 'verbotten' comments and users have accumulated and must now apparently be be purged. Has any thought been given to how this pogrom should be accomplished?
As I understand it the following statements (going back months and even years) are now expressly forbidden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zanthalon "Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuxOfTKGL "Lux is male, and is a girl orientated, non-exclusive pedophile. This means that he is attracted (both sexually and otherwise) to both adult and non-adult females. His primary attraction is pre-pubescent females."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silent_War "And, as any who know me by this alias know, I am a pedophile, mainly a girllover."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rookiee "I'm an activist in the Childlove Community. I am a pedosexual and boylover. I host a podcast titled Pedologues which aims to objectively look at the issue of multi-generational relationships and how it relates to child sexuality, western society and law. I'm a self-admitted pedant."
No doubt there are others. Also, have any other 'categories of disrepute' been established? Should self-described NAZIs, rapists, and/or Menudo fans be similarly excised from the community?
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
Apologies for bluntness, but I think it is sophistry to explain why admins who followed process and precedent were 'punished' while those who did not weren't.
Apologies in return. I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their hands tied. Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations. Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.
Charles
Are you thinking of [[Wikipedia:No binding decisions]]?
Steve
On 2/11/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
Apologies for bluntness, but I think it is sophistry to explain why admins who followed process and precedent were 'punished' while those who did not weren't.
Apologies in return. I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their hands tied. Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations. Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
charles matthews wrote:
Apologies in return. I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their hands tied. Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations. Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.
While there must always be room for flexibility and re-assessment there are also reasons that every established legal system on the planet relies heavily on precedence. No, I am not suggesting that ArbCom should follow a legalistic design (any moreso than it does already), but the logic behind the principle of precedence applies in any case.
A few months back there was an intense discussion about pedophiles on Wikipedia... which allowed them to stay openly. That was a precedent. The various user pages where editors have identified themselves as pedophiles yet not had these statements removed or their accounts blocked over long periods of time were precedents.
We CAN change the situation (and apparently now HAVE done so), but the precedents should not be ignored. The 'bad actors' in this were largely following what were, in truth, the established norms... but were then judged against standards which simply did not exist at the time they made their decisions. That is capricious and inherently destructive.
As for 'extrapolations':
"While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar reasonable criticism of the project."
That's from the final decision. The pedophile userbox, as I recall, contained the text 'This user is a pedophile'. Thus, the only 'extrapolation' here is that the statements I listed were "like" that one. I can't imagine that anyone would claim they are not. So... why are exceedingly similar statements being treated in completely different ways? Again, it seems capricious... did we establish standards solely for the purpose of shaping the outcome of this single case?
No, ArbCom should not have their 'hands tied' by precedent. However, acknowledgement of it's EXISTENCE would probably help them to arbitrate without being arbitrary.
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
The 'bad actors' in this were largely following what were, in truth, the established norms... but were then judged against standards which simply did not exist at the time they made their decisions. That is capricious and inherently destructive.
No, no. There has to be a connection with a reality principle: bad judgement leads to consequences. Otherwise we cannot get on with the big project. 'Capricious' is managing to look down the telescope the wrong way. There has _always_ been the principle that 'be bold' applies to editing, but admin powers are to use with great caution. I mean, this goes back to the days Larry Sanger was on the project!
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
No, no. There has to be a connection with a reality principle: bad judgement leads to consequences. Otherwise we cannot get on with the big project. 'Capricious' is managing to look down the telescope the wrong way. There has _always_ been the principle that 'be bold' applies to editing, but admin powers are to use with great caution. I mean, this goes back to the days Larry Sanger was on the project!
<sigh> But Charles, that clearly isn't the principle on which 'penalties' were based. If it were then why did David Gerard receive no penalty? Physchim62? Doc glasgow? MarkSweep?
David Gerard has stated that he did not know that there was already a wheel war going on when he first deleted the template... he saw it and nuked immediately without checking. He also described both the template creator and the person using it as 'vile trolls'... and the people discussing the matter on WP:AN as 'a consensus of the stupid' (paraphrasing in both cases, but accurate) - he has since, laudably, acknowledged that he was surprised to find that they WEREN'T actually trolls and that he (and many of us) could have been more diplomatic. How does all that square with the need for "great caution" which ostensibly got the others into trouble?
El C was clearly not particularly 'cautious' in making nasty comments to Carnildo and retributively blocking him, but received only a "reprimand".
Et cetera.
The fact that every admin who was on 'Jimbo's side' was given a pass (except for El C's 'reprimand') seemed to suggest THAT as the dividing line rather than 'caution'. Yet, of those receiving penalties, only Karmafist took action after Jimbo had stepped in. Hence my statement that most were judged against a standard that did not exist at the time they took their actions. To me the 'cautious' approach would be to follow procedure... NOT indefinitely blocking someone for things not covered under blocking policy and which a strong consensus (whether 'of the stupid' or no) opposed / NOT deleting templates out of process while a vote is going on and no applicable 'speedy' criteria exists (again, T1 was created after the fact). THAT'S cautious. Stopping to discuss and follow process. Mocking such as 'wiki-lawyering' seems to reduce "caution" to 'correctly guessing how the powers that be will rule on the situation'... with none of those nasty 'hand tying' precedents to serve as guides for such a guess. :]
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
The fact that every admin who was on 'Jimbo's side' was given a pass (except for El C's 'reprimand') seemed to suggest THAT as the dividing line rather than 'caution'.
Sorry, I just switch off when people start up with the 'given a pass' talk. I don't think there was ever a question raised against David Gerard's judgement. If you can't see why, it's the end of the conversation.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
Sorry, I just switch off when people start up with the 'given a pass' talk. I don't think there was ever a question raised against David Gerard's judgement. If you can't see why, it's the end of the conversation.
Oh, I think I can see why, but yes... that'd be the end of the conversation.
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
charles matthews wrote:
Sorry, I just switch off when people start up with the 'given a pass' talk. I don't think there was ever a question raised against David Gerard's judgement. If you can't see why, it's the end of the conversation.
Oh, I think I can see why, but yes... that'd be the end of the conversation.
Just for everyone else, then. There is no 'moral equivalence' about it. This has been about content and form, and those puzzled presumably thought that sticking to 'form', and disregarding what was really happening, was somehow OK.
The ArbCom is as sane as ever, and has a perfectly good mandate to act here.
Charles
On 2/12/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Just for everyone else, then. There is no 'moral equivalence' about it. This has been about content and form, and those puzzled presumably thought that sticking to 'form', and disregarding what was really happening, was somehow OK.
I'm surprised that this has to be pointed out, really. I shouldn't be. We're becoming so process-bound and wrapped up in groupthink that applying commonsense to a situation is not only seen as unusual, on occasion it is seen as *destructive*.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I'm surprised that this has to be pointed out, really. I shouldn't be. We're becoming so process-bound and wrapped up in groupthink that applying commonsense to a situation is not only seen as unusual, on occasion it is seen as *destructive*.
Your 'common sense' contradicts my observed reality... both before and after the event.
It is 'common sense' that we indefinitely block people for saying they are pedophiles? It is 'common sense' that any such statements are forcibly removed? So... why does this 'common sense' apply to one incident and one incident only - while not applying to virtually identical cases which have existed for years and, indeed, continue to exist?
Suddenly, out of nowhere, this became 'common sense'... despite being contradictory to all process and precedent. People were punished for failing to perceive this 'common sense'... but now, just as swiftly as it came, the 'common sense' has vanished and we've still got people who opnely declare themselves pedophiles and nobody says 'boo' about it. Forgive me for my foolishness, but I do not understand your 'common sense'.
Stop and consider how it looks from the outside. It looks like a rule was made up on the spot to justify one side of a wheel war and punish the other... and yes, that appearance IS destructive. As evidenced by the people who left (Radiant) or became hostile (SPUI). The benefit of being 'process-bound and wrapped up in groupthink' is that it does not
inherently< appear capricious. Even if we accept that 'the powers that
be' are imbued with some higher perception of 'common sense' than the community in general... by definition it is NEVER going to appear that way to the majority who do not share this special wisdom.
On Feb 12, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
Your 'common sense' contradicts my observed reality... both before and after the event.
It is 'common sense' that we indefinitely block people for saying they are pedophiles? It is 'common sense' that any such statements are forcibly removed?
Er, no. It's not. We don't. One admin did, it made a giant shit-storm of controversy. The 1-week block of Joeyramoney (the user who was originally blocked) by Jimbo (for trolling, not for saying e was a pedophile) was removed, when people calmed down, and was not supported by the ArbCom. See the decision at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war - it does not ask that Joeyramoney be blocked, either permanently or temporarily. No other username has been blocked for saying they are pedophiles. If you can show me some "observed reality" that contradicts this, please do.
As for removing, "any such statements", that's bound up in the ongoing userbox mess - AFAIK (I may be wrong about this), we haven't, and we don't, remove textual statements by a user saying e is a pedophile. At various times, userboxes expressing this have been removed, or argued about, or deleted, or recreated - I claim this falls under the ongoing userbox mess, not anything specific to pedophiles, or pedophiles on Wikipedia.
Jesse Weinstein
"Conrad Dunkerson" wrote
It is 'common sense' that we indefinitely block people for saying they are pedophiles?
You know this is about a wheel-war, not that. Form and content. Some idiot creates a userbox, and because of the 'sacred' quality of the userbox form, some other idiots rush to undelete it. As has been frequently been pointed out, the _content_ hasn't been policed in the way you suggest.
It is a complete violation of common sense to wheel-war about this, rather than discuss matters. Dragging red herrings across the issue helps not at all.
Charles
Without precedents editors and the ArbCom are free to make the same mistakes over and over again. How does a reliable source defines that?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Of course Wikipedia can't seem to agree with itself on that either.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Attributed http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Attributed
nobs
On 2/11/06, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their hands tied.
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to
do
it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to
the
laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.
It doesn't make much sense to me. By all means enforce US copyright laws. But banning Chinese users because they profess to breaking US laws? Nonsensical.
I was thinking more along the lines of being sued because we "facilitated" drug users in some way, not because they said they smoked weed.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
Jay Converse wrote:
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to do
it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to the
laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.
It doesn't make much sense to me. By all means enforce US copyright laws. But banning Chinese users because they profess to breaking US laws? Nonsensical.
I was thinking more along the lines of being sued because we "facilitated" drug users in some way, not because they said they smoked weed.
If you follow the same argument it would be wrong to facilitate pedophilia, but one could still say that he is a pedophile.
The reasons for doing something should go beyond fear of punishment or of being sued. Being consistent with one's own personal ethical standards is far more important.
Ec
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that
someone breaks
US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
Yes. It's a line. It's arbitrary. It's needed.
But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
The line is arbitrary. But it makes more sense than "imposing" Danish or Chinese or Neopolitan or Thai upon all Wikipedia, given that WP is located in the US and most editors are US.
Pete, Hungary
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Korn
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that
someone breaks
US law should be forbidden as well.
Like "This user smokes weed"?
Yes. It's a line. It's arbitrary. It's needed.
I hate to be a curmudgeon - no, really! - but paedophilia isn't actually illegal under US law. Not unless you act upon the impulse. I mean, the bible says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your heart, but I think US law demands the action as well as the thought.
And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?
I'm just wondering where to draw the line, and whether it should be straight or curly-wurly.
Pete, anxious to comply
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I hate to be a curmudgeon - no, really! - but paedophilia isn't actually illegal under US law. Not unless you act upon the impulse. I mean, the bible says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your heart, but I think US law demands the action as well as the thought.
And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?
I'm just wondering where to draw the line, and whether it should be straight or curly-wurly.
To be honest, I wasn't thinking of paedophilia here.
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?
That's very much in dispute right now. Federal law says that smoking weed is always illegal, while some state laws sat that there are times when it's legal. Court decisions have gone both directions, and some police departments have stated that they will not enforce the federal law on the subject.
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
Mark Wagner wrote:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?
That's very much in dispute right now. Federal law says that smoking weed is always illegal, while some state laws sat that there are times when it's legal. Court decisions have gone both directions, and some police departments have stated that they will not enforce the federal law on the subject.
Strictly speaking the Canadian law is that it's illegal to possess weed; it's not illegal to smoke it. Of course it's difficult to smoke weed that you don't have in your possession. If it's legal in the country where the act would be performed it's not illegal to advocate it.
There is a large part of the world's people who seriously resent the extraterritorial application of US law. US copyright law can be applied because it's not extraterritorial.
Ec
On 2/9/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
If the userpages are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation (and this certainly is), and add nothing to the project, yes, fine, remove the information.
Reputation in which culture? Is this a western-centric policy?
Where did I say it should be limited to a culture?
And if it is western-centric, so what? We have to draw a line in my opinion. So I'm drawing one. Yes, it's arbitrary. But it makes sense. The vast majority of people will not fall shy of it anyway. This is in the user namespace, not articles. As the pro-userbox brigade have said so loudly: NPOV does not apply to the user namespace.
-- Sam
On 8 Feb 2006, at 22:10, Sam Korn wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing. I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia - maybe I should go and rob a bank).
Justinc
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing. I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia - maybe I should go and rob a bank).
Is IAR an admissible defense in court? :)
Justin Cormack wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, at 22:10, Sam Korn wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing. I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia - maybe I should go and rob a bank).
Free room and board can save you a lot of worries.
I'm glad to hear that when you are working for Her Majesty that way you are allowed to spend your time constructively. Some countries, including ones which still have the death penalty, would prefer not to have rehabilitation interfere with the society's thirst for revenge.
Ec
On 2/10/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006, at 22:10, Sam Korn wrote:
I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US law should be forbidden as well.
Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing. I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia - maybe I should go and rob a bank).
Obviously there are times when this is not applicable. But, in the majority of cases, it is not useful to Wikipedia for users to proclaim that they break the law. It's a public relations exercise, not a legal necessity. And to say that you are in prison is quite different from saying "I break the law regularly".
-- Sam
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was mentioning. All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically correct, or you risk a block. That is, if this precedent does get set.
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
-Matt
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was
mentioning.
All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically
correct, or you
risk a block. That is, if this precedent does get set.
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
A common example is that while you have a right to freedom of speech, you don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be removed. After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual freedoms get sacrificed for the common good. This is going to apply to any community above a certain size, and I would find it hard to imagine any community similar to this one where putting an "I am a paedophile" poster up on your front door is not going to provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community.
If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be drawn, then we should accept it. We can discuss the precise location of the line, but I still think it needs to be drawn.
Pete, walking a fine line
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be drawn, then we should accept it.
Have you considered it may be possible for the ArbCom to bring disrepute on Wikipedia through bad decisions?
nobs
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Smith
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be drawn, then we should accept it.
Have you considered it may be possible for the ArbCom to bring disrepute on Wikipedia through bad decisions?
The example of the US President is before us. It pains me to see a great liberal democracy being vilified around the world, but there it is. If the people elect the government, then the people shouldn't complain too loudly about the consequences of their actions. Bide their time and wait for the next chance.
I think the ArbCom gets things wrong pretty often, actually. But in hindsight, I can't say I blame them - the job involves a lot of stress and time, especially when it is unpaid.
What would you have to replace the current management structure?
Peter, seriously
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was
mentioning.
All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically
correct, or you
risk a block. That is, if this precedent does get set.
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
A common example is that while you have a right to freedom of speech, you don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be removed.
The reason you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is not because it causes disruption and offense, but because it could cause a panicked stampede, leading to real physical harm.
Which doesn't apply to Wikipedia.
People are entirely too touchy here.
After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual freedoms get sacrificed for the common good.
Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the long run.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of The Cunctator
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was
mentioning.
All of a sudden, userpages now need to be politically
correct, or you
risk a block. That is, if this precedent does get set.
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any
"right" to free
speech, but because it helps the project; it aids
communication and
makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
A common example is that while you have a right to freedom
of speech,
you don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be removed.
The reason you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is not because it causes disruption and offense, but because it could cause a panicked stampede, leading to real physical harm.
IOW, disruption and offence.
Which doesn't apply to Wikipedia.
We should browbeat and harass people rather than physically smack them over the head?
People are entirely too touchy here.
After all we are a community, and sometimes small
individual freedoms
get sacrificed for the common good.
Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the long run.
If we let the community decide what is best for it, so long as the ultimate goal of writing an encyclopaedia remains foremost, then surely we will find the common good?
Wikipedia is not an iron-fisted dictatorship under the heavy hand of Jimbo, nor is it a theocracy under the all-seeing gaze of the ArbCom. Usually the community sorts things out at street corner level and it is only the problem cases that come to the attention of admins, the ArbCom and as a last resort, Jimbo.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a lot more common sense and a lot fewer rules, but I suspect that common sense doesn't scale, judging by the way things are going here.
Pete, commoner
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: The Cunctator On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
A common example is that while you have a right to freedom
of speech,
you don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be removed.
The reason you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is not because it causes disruption and offense, but because it could cause a panicked stampede, leading to real physical harm.
IOW, disruption and offence.
Um, no. Disruption and offense are not the same thing as battery and manslaughter. Try to understand the difference.
Which doesn't apply to Wikipedia.
We should browbeat and harass people rather than physically smack them over the head?
Huh?
People are entirely too touchy here.
After all we are a community, and sometimes small
individual freedoms
get sacrificed for the common good.
Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the long run.
If we let the community decide what is best for it, so long as the ultimate goal of writing an encyclopaedia remains foremost, then surely we will find the common good?
Not necessarily. Again, history doesn't support that thesis.
Wikipedia is not an iron-fisted dictatorship under the heavy hand of Jimbo, nor is it a theocracy under the all-seeing gaze of the ArbCom. Usually the community sorts things out at street corner level and it is only the problem cases that come to the attention of admins, the ArbCom and as a last resort, Jimbo.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a lot more common sense and a lot fewer rules, but I suspect that common sense doesn't scale, judging by the way things are going here.
I essentially agree with the above.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
People are entirely too touchy here.
After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual freedoms
get sacrificed for the common good.
Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the long run.
If we let the community decide what is best for it, so long as the ultimate goal of writing an encyclopaedia remains foremost, then surely we will find the common good?
Not necessarily. Again, history doesn't support that thesis.
The Wisdom of Crowds tends to fall apart when fears are involved. Scared people are too easily willing to give up freedom when they feel threatened, whether or not the threat is valid. Politicians know very well how to exploit that.
Ec
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
A common example is that while you have a right to freedom of speech, you don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
I fail to see the similarity. Someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is likely to cause lots of panic and angst as hundreds of movie goers all try to reach the fire exists. In the rush some might be injured or even die due to suffocation or being trampled to death. Peoples valuables might be looted and for sure, they will all have their movie experience destroyed.
I still fail to see how writing pedophile on your user page has anything in common with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
If something on a userpage cause disruption and offence, then it should be removed. After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual
What you are saying is that the word pedophile causes disruption and offence. If that is true then this email thread must have almost disrupted Wikipedia to death since it contains so many instances of pedophile. I'd say that words by themselves neither cause disruption nor offence. It is people that willfully participates in the act of being offended or disrupted. You can't remove your responsibility for your own thoughts and place it on some word.
freedoms get sacrificed for the common good. This is going to apply to any community above a certain size, and I would find it hard to imagine any community similar to this one where putting an "I am a paedophile" poster up on your front door is not going to provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community.
Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a gay", "I'm hating you", "I'm liking your daughter", "I'm doing it with your mum", "I'm better than you".... etc.. etc... etc...
But the awesome thing is that, despite the "righteous outrage" any of those posters up my front door would "provoke," I'm still 100% free to put them there. The law protects my right to put almost any poster I want on my front door. Wikipedia works like that too. You might say that the right to call yourself whatever you want is not necessary for building an encyclopedia. I think you are wrong because an atmosphere of free speech is necessary when trying to collect and organise all the available information in the world.
If the community, through the ArbCom, decides that a line has to be drawn, then we should accept it. We can discuss the precise location of the line, but I still think it needs to be drawn.
I agree. But I don't agree that the location of that line should be more limiting than what US law permits.
-- mvh Björn
On 2/17/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
I fail to see the similarity. Someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema is likely to cause lots of panic and angst as hundreds of movie goers all try to reach the fire exists. In the rush some might be injured or even die due to suffocation or being trampled to death. Peoples valuables might be looted and for sure, they will all have their movie experience destroyed.
You may prefer this analogy: You have the right to say "I am a fish". You don't have the right to publish "I am a fish" on the front page of your national newspaper. Why? It's not your newspaper. Wikipedia is not yours either.
pedophile. I'd say that words by themselves neither cause disruption nor offence. It is people that willfully participates in the act of
Words carry information. That information can be disruptive and offensive. Let's not get too technical.
being offended or disrupted. You can't remove your responsibility for your own thoughts and place it on some word.
I think using inflammatory language on a user page and claiming that it's not offensive is a better example of "removing responsibility for your own thoughts".
Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a gay", "I'm hating you", "I'm liking your daughter", "I'm doing it with your mum", "I'm better than you".... etc.. etc... etc...
"I'm a Muslim" is offensive? Eep.
put them there. The law protects my right to put almost any poster I want on my front door. Wikipedia works like that too. You might say that the right to call yourself whatever you want is not necessary for
That's where you're dead wrong. There is no implied or explicit right to free speech. Quite the opposite - many policies limiting exactly what you can and can't say.
Hopefully that clarifiies a bit.
Steve
goers all try to reach the fire exists. In the rush some might be injured or even die due to suffocation or being trampled to death. Peoples valuables might be looted and for sure, they will all have their movie experience destroyed.
You may prefer this analogy: You have the right to say "I am a fish". You don't have the right to publish "I am a fish" on the front page of your national newspaper. Why? It's not your newspaper. Wikipedia is not yours either.
If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether publishing "I am a fish" on your user page is allowed or not? Why doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as the next one? AFAIK there is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.
pedophile. I'd say that words by themselves neither cause disruption nor offence. It is people that willfully participates in the act of
Words carry information. That information can be disruptive and offensive. Let's not get too technical.
Information has no moral value, it is neutral. It is the consumer of the information that may *choose* to being disrupted or offended. Each and everyone is responsible for how he or she interprets the information and what "mood" that puts him or her in. Within reasonable limits of course - false information, hatespeech and goatse is not good and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
being offended or disrupted. You can't remove your responsibility for your own thoughts and place it on some word.
I think using inflammatory language on a user page and claiming that it's not offensive is a better example of "removing responsibility for your own thoughts".
No it isn't. Every Wikipedian is responsible for what he or she writes on his or her user page. He or she is not responsible for how offended readers of his or her user page *choose* to become.
Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a
"I'm a Muslim" is offensive? Eep.
I did not write that. I wrote that such a poster would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community." Muslim, just like all the other epithets I listed, is information and carries no moral value.
put them there. The law protects my right to put almost any poster I want on my front door. Wikipedia works like that too. You might say that the right to call yourself whatever you want is not necessary for
That's where you're dead wrong. There is no implied or explicit right to free speech. Quite the opposite - many policies limiting exactly what you can and can't say.
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
-- mvh Björn
On 2/17/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a
"I'm a Muslim" is offensive? Eep.
I did not write that. I wrote that such a poster would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community." Muslim, just like all the other epithets I listed, is information and carries no moral value.
"Jew", "Muslim", and "American" are now "epithets", similar to "Nazi", "racist" and "pedophile"? And there's "no moral value" associated with being a pedophile or a racist or a Nazi?
Amazing.
Jay.
On 2/17/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
"Jew", "Muslim", and "American" are now "epithets", similar to "Nazi", "racist" and "pedophile"? And there's "no moral value" associated with being a pedophile or a racist or a Nazi?
"American" and "Muslim" are epithets along the lines of "Nazi" and "paedophile"? As Steve Bennett said, eep.
-- Sam
On 2/17/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
"Jew", "Muslim", and "American" are now "epithets", similar to "Nazi", "racist" and "pedophile"? And there's "no moral value" associated with being a pedophile or a racist or a Nazi?
"American" and "Muslim" are epithets along the lines of "Nazi" and "paedophile"? As Steve Bennett said, eep.
Either you are deliberately misconstruing my words or you don't understand what I'm writing.
Where I live, any of the following posters would "provoke righteous outrage from a fairly large proportion of the community: "I'm a pedophile", "I'm a Nazi", "I'm a socialist", "I'm a racist", "I'm a communist", "I'm a Jew", "I'm a Muslim", "I'm a American", "I'm a gay", "I'm hating you", "I'm liking your daughter", "I'm doing it with your mum", "I'm better than you".... etc.. etc... etc...
In the intolerant community where I live, the labels American, Muslim, Nazi and pedophile (among the other listed) on someones front door would all "provoke righteous outrage ... " I personally, believe it is very bad to be a Nazi or a pedophile, I don't think it is any bad at all to be an American or a Muslim. That is my *personal* opinion, and I believe that my view on what labels are "bad" are not shared by the rest of the world. Therefore, I do not want Wikipedia to decide which values of X in "I'm a X" on someones user page is acceptable. If you want Wikipedia to decide that, then please list the values of X that are acceptable and the values of X that are unacceptable.
Also, I checked a dictonary for the word "epithet." Epithet is a synonym for label (term used to characterize a person or thing) such that as "American" in "George Bush is an American" is both an epithet and a label. That was what I meant when using the word epithet. I also found that epithet can be used in a derogatory way such as moron can be an epithet for a person you don't like.
To reduce the likelihood of further misunderstandings, please assume that I'm not a hater of Americans or Muslims. OK?
-- mvh Björn
On 2/17/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether
Wikipedia is, to the best of my knowledge, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.
publishing "I am a fish" on your user page is allowed or not? Why
Jimbo. He delegates most decision making on that to the community, but definitely holds the final say.
doesn't my opinion carry as much weight as the next one? AFAIK there
Not if Jimbo is the next one :)
is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.
There isn't a rule against it, but it doesn't mean you have a right to either. Well, that's my interpretation.
Information has no moral value, it is neutral. It is the consumer of the information that may *choose* to being disrupted or offended. Each
Well that's one way of seeing it :)
and everyone is responsible for how he or she interprets the information and what "mood" that puts him or her in. Within reasonable limits of course - false information, hatespeech and goatse is not good and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Sure, I can wander down the street waving a stick and anyone who "chooses" to get hit by it is responsible. Not a very useful model for building a community IMHO.
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
I think you're mischaracterising free speech. You can say what you want on the inside of *your* front door. I'm fairly certain that if you wrote a detailed plan for assassinating the president on the outside of your front door, you would regret it once the police found out.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
Not true. We have policies for civility and that includes not using offensive language, personal attacks etc. We don't guarantee anyone a swearword-free environment, but we do try and make it pleasant.
Steve
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether
Wikipedia is, to the best of my knowledge, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.
I agree. But the Wikimedia Foundation only owns Wikipedia in one of thre three following facets of Wikipedia:
1. Wikipedia, the worlds biggest collection of organised information. 2. Wikipedia, the great community who have created #1. 3. Wikipedia, the trademark and the servers used to run #1.
You argued that since I am not a member of the Wikimedia Foundation I don't have the write to write "I'm a fish" on my user page, if I recall. Also, to the best of my knowledge the Wikimedia Foundation has not banned writing "I'm a fish" on my user page. And since you are not, AFAIK, a part of the Wikimedia Foundation you really can not ban writing "I'm a fish" on my user page.
Do you understand? The question of ownership is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Neither you nor I are owners, therefore please do not try to make it sound like your opinion is the Wikimedia Foundation's one.
is no Wikipedia-rule against writing pedophile on your user page. I thought that was the whole reason for this email thread.
There isn't a rule against it, but it doesn't mean you have a right to either. Well, that's my interpretation.
IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights. You have crime and consequence. If you do X you will receive Y. If you murder someone you will get between 4-20 years in prison. If you drive to fast you will get a fine. You have the right to do anything that doesn't have a consequence. Actually, you can do whatever you want but if you are caught you'll suffer the consequences. Wikipedia rules and policies works similarilly. It doesn't state what rights users have. It states what we will do to users that commit actions that has consequences.
Your talk about right is irrelevant. The question is whether writing pedophile on your user page has a consequence or not.
Information has no moral value, it is neutral. It is the consumer of the information that may *choose* to being disrupted or offended. Each
Well that's one way of seeing it :)
If you ever take the time to go through the archives for wikien-l you will find hundreds of threads where people have tried to objectively assign an offensive value to some item. Is an image of clitoris offensive? Is an image of autofellatio offensive? Is a swastika offensive? Are the Muhammed cartoons offensive? All attempts to measure offensiveness has failed. What is extremely offensive to someone isn't offensive at all to someone else. It is very hard to see above ones own cultural values, but if you do you will see that I'm right.
and everyone is responsible for how he or she interprets the information and what "mood" that puts him or her in. Within reasonable limits of course - false information, hatespeech and goatse is not good and is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Sure, I can wander down the street waving a stick and anyone who "chooses" to get hit by it is responsible. Not a very useful model for building a community IMHO.
Try another analogy because this one just doesn't make sense.
I think you're mischaracterising free speech. You can say what you want on the inside of *your* front door. I'm fairly certain that if you wrote a detailed plan for assassinating the president on the outside of your front door, you would regret it once the police found out.
I don't know the technical name of the crime, but I do know that it is a crime planning to assassinate the president. It has nothing to do with free speech.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
Not true. We have policies for civility and that includes not using offensive language, personal attacks etc. We don't guarantee anyone a swearword-free environment, but we do try and make it pleasant.
A long time ago, in a thread similar to this, someone said that he was offended by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine because he had a latent drinking problem. He and many others (me included) shouldn't visit certain parts of Wikipedia if we don't want to be offended. If you are offended by someone saying that he or she is a pedophile, then I don't think you should visit Wikipedia at all.
-- mvh Björn
On Feb 17, 2006, at 4:03 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights.
I don't know where you live, but that's definitely *not* the case in, say, the United States. In the United States, rights are a very important part of law. In fact, the United States was founded based upon the philosophical foundation that the *purpose* of law is to protect people's rights. That's why the US Constitution has a "Bill of Rights" that state, in no uncertain terms, that people have certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court are concerned with what rights people have and how those rights conflict or interact.
On 2/18/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 4:03 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights.
I don't know where you live, but that's definitely *not* the case in, say, the United States. In the United States, rights are a very important part of law. In fact, the United States was founded based upon the philosophical foundation that the *purpose* of law is to protect people's rights. That's why the US Constitution has a "Bill of Rights" that state, in no uncertain terms, that people have certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court are concerned with what rights people have and how those rights conflict or interact.
Again IANAL but I believe you are right. But for normal trials in the US, is the constitution really involved? If you do something that the normal law does not forbid, but that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to do, can the judicial system then decide whether doing so is legal or illegal?
Steve Bennet said that there is no given right to write whatever you want on your user page. I said that it hasn't been stated in any Wikipedia law that writing pedophile on your user page is forbidden. Considering those two facts (and no other facts such as "blatant trolling") I believe that a normal judicial system would *not* find writing pedophile on your user page forbidden. Yes?
-- mvh Björn
IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights.
I don't know where you live, but that's definitely *not* the case in, say, the United States. In the United States, rights are a very important part of law. In fact, the United States was founded based upon the philosophical foundation that the *purpose* of law is to protect people's rights. That's why the US Constitution has a "Bill of Rights" that state, in no uncertain terms, that people have certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court are concerned with what rights people have and how those rights conflict or interact.
Again IANAL but I believe you are right. But for normal trials in the US, is the constitution really involved? If you do something that the normal law does not forbid, but that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to do, can the judicial system then decide whether doing so is legal or illegal?
That depends. First off, the US Constitution (specifically, the Ninth Amendment) says that you have certain government-protected rights above and beyond what the Constitution specifically protects. One example that the courts have upheld is the "right to privacy", which allows you to buy contraceptives, have an abortion, or have sex with men without governmental interference.
So yes, in general, under US law you have the right to do anything as long as you aren't committing a crime or a tort. You can't be convicted of something that isn't expressly prohibited. (Where rights come in is like this: if there's a law prohibiting having sex with men, and you're convicted of it, you can take it to an appeals court, and the court can decide that your constitutional right to privacy invalidates the law against having sex with men.)
Steve Bennet said that there is no given right to write whatever you want on your user page. I said that it hasn't been stated in any Wikipedia law that writing pedophile on your user page is forbidden. Considering those two facts (and no other facts such as "blatant trolling") I believe that a normal judicial system would *not* find writing pedophile on your user page forbidden. Yes?
Wikipedia is not a judicial system. It's a wiki, and a wiki that the Wikimedia Foundation is unconditionally in charge of. If you don't like it, take a database dump and start your own wiki.
Philip Welch wrote:
IANAL: In conventional IRL law you usually do not talk about rights.
I don't know where you live, but that's definitely *not* the case in, say, the United States. In the United States, rights are a very important part of law. In fact, the United States was founded based upon the philosophical foundation that the *purpose* of law is to protect people's rights. That's why the US Constitution has a "Bill of Rights" that state, in no uncertain terms, that people have certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. Most cases that make it to the Supreme Court are concerned with what rights people have and how those rights conflict or interact.
Again IANAL but I believe you are right. But for normal trials in the US, is the constitution really involved? If you do something that the normal law does not forbid, but that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to do, can the judicial system then decide whether doing so is legal or illegal?
That depends. First off, the US Constitution (specifically, the Ninth Amendment) says that you have certain government-protected rights above and beyond what the Constitution specifically protects. One example that the courts have upheld is the "right to privacy", which allows you to buy contraceptives, have an abortion, or have sex with men without governmental interference.
So yes, in general, under US law you have the right to do anything as long as you aren't committing a crime or a tort. You can't be convicted of something that isn't expressly prohibited. (Where rights come in is like this: if there's a law prohibiting having sex with men, and you're convicted of it, you can take it to an appeals court, and the court can decide that your constitutional right to privacy invalidates the law against having sex with men.)
How do women feel about the law against having sex with men?
(Where rights come in is like this: if there's a law prohibiting having sex with men, and you're convicted of it, you can take it to an appeals court, and the court can decide that your constitutional right to privacy invalidates the law against having sex with men.)
How do women feel about the law against having sex with men?
Yeah, I realized that halfway through, but decided to keep it in because "the law against having sex with men, but only if you happen to be a man yourself" was too long-winded.
Philip Welch wrote:
(Where rights come in is like this: if there's a law prohibiting having sex with men, and you're convicted of it, you can take it to an appeals court, and the court can decide that your constitutional right to privacy invalidates the law against having sex with men.)
How do women feel about the law against having sex with men?
Yeah, I realized that halfway through, but decided to keep it in because "the law against having sex with men, but only if you happen to be a man yourself" was too long-winded.
A court could also decide that the only kind of sex that does not violate the right to privacy is masturbation. ;-)
Ec
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
On 2/17/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/17/06, BJörn Lindqvist bjourne@gmail.com wrote:
If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it? Who gets to decide whether
Wikipedia is, to the best of my knowledge, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.
I agree. But the Wikimedia Foundation only owns Wikipedia in one of thre three following facets of Wikipedia:
- Wikipedia, the worlds biggest collection of organised information.
- Wikipedia, the great community who have created #1.
- Wikipedia, the trademark and the servers used to run #1.
You argued that since I am not a member of the Wikimedia Foundation I don't have the write to write "I'm a fish" on my user page, if I recall. Also, to the best of my knowledge the Wikimedia Foundation has not banned writing "I'm a fish" on my user page. And since you are not, AFAIK, a part of the Wikimedia Foundation you really can not ban writing "I'm a fish" on my user page.
Do you understand? The question of ownership is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Neither you nor I are owners, therefore please do not try to make it sound like your opinion is the Wikimedia Foundation's one.
Actually, the charter of the Foundation appears to indicate all of us are members of the Foundation. Maybe you mean "not a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees"? And I think much of the rest of your post is a strawman -- Steve only pointed out a fact (Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation); he didn't ban (or say he could ban) you from putting "I'm a fish" on your userpage. And while you certainly can do that, the Wikimedia Foundation can very well ban you from doing it. So, yes, the question of ownership is very relevant to this discussion, especially since you brought it up ("If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it?").
John
On 2/18/06, John Lee johnleemk@gawab.com wrote:
Actually, the charter of the Foundation appears to indicate all of us are members of the Foundation. Maybe you mean "not a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees"? And I think much of the rest of your post is a strawman -- Steve only pointed out a fact (Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation); he didn't ban (or say he could ban) you from putting "I'm a fish" on your userpage. And while you certainly can do that, the Wikimedia Foundation can very well ban you from doing it. So, yes, the question of ownership is very relevant to this discussion, especially since you brought it up ("If Wikipedia isn't mine, then who owns it?").
Thanks, you clarified perfectly.
Steve
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
I don't know what you do for a living, but suppose you have an office at work. Do you get to put "almost any poster you want" on the front door of your office? Not at any workplace I've ever known of.
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
I don't know what you do for a living, but suppose you have an office at work. Do you get to put "almost any poster you want" on the front door of your office? Not at any workplace I've ever known of.
This has been gone over before.
Wikipedia is not a workplace and it is not workplace safe Wikipedia may be offensive to you
Look in the mailing list archives for answers why Wikipedia must be like the two statements above for it to operate.
-- mvh Björn
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
I don't know what you do for a living, but suppose you have an office at work. Do you get to put "almost any poster you want" on the front door of your office? Not at any workplace I've ever known of.
This has been gone over before.
Wikipedia is not a workplace and it is not workplace safe Wikipedia may be offensive to you
Look in the mailing list archives for answers why Wikipedia must be like the two statements above for it to operate.
I don't know what you think Wikipedia is, but I always thought Wikipedia was a project to write an encyclopedia. In that respect, the Wikipedia: and User: namespaces are definitely like a workplace— just as a workplace exists for the purpose of facilitating work, user pages exist *for the purpose of facilitating the writing of an encyclopedia*. I dunno, what do *you* think they're for?
As for "Wikipedia is not safe for work" and "Wikipedia may be offensive to you", those refer to the *encyclopedia*, and they're there because any compilation of the sum of human knowledge is bound to contain information that will offend someone. That doesn't give us license to offend *other contributors* for no good reason, when that sort of offense gets in the way of our goal: to build an encyclopedia.
We have articles on racism, and those articles contain material that's offensive simply because the fact that racism exists is a bad, offensive thing that we are fully documenting. That doesn't give me license to express racist opinions on talk pages or on my userpage-- if I do so, I'm getting in the way of building an encyclopedia by pissing off the people I'm supposed to be collaborating with.
Exactly, it is not user boxes, but offensive user boxes.
Fred
On Feb 17, 2006, at 5:38 PM, Philip Welch wrote:
That doesn't give us license to offend *other contributors* for no good reason, when that sort of offense gets in the way of our goal: to build an encyclopedia.
We have articles on racism, and those articles contain material that's offensive simply because the fact that racism exists is a bad, offensive thing that we are fully documenting. That doesn't give me license to express racist opinions on talk pages or on my userpage-- if I do so, I'm getting in the way of building an encyclopedia by pissing off the people I'm supposed to be collaborating with.
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
I don't know what you think Wikipedia is, but I always thought Wikipedia was a project to write an encyclopedia. In that respect, the Wikipedia: and User: namespaces are definitely like a workplace— just as a workplace exists for the purpose of facilitating work, user pages exist *for the purpose of facilitating the writing of an encyclopedia*. I dunno, what do *you* think they're for?
If you mean workplace as in office, then NO. Neither the Wikipedia: nor the User: name spaces are like a workplace. The behavioral guidelines of most offices are so strict that not 0.01% of what is allowed on Wikipedia would be allowed there. If you mean workplace as in "a place where people do work," then yes, maybe. But be aware that porn workers also has a place where they work.... The workplace analogy is just stupid and doesn't work.
As for "Wikipedia is not safe for work" and "Wikipedia may be offensive to you", those refer to the *encyclopedia*, and they're there because any compilation of the sum of human knowledge is bound to contain information that will offend someone. That doesn't give us
Contributors to any compilation of the sum of human knowledge is bound to contain individuals that will offend someone. Defining who the offensive individuals are is tricky. But it seems like you want to define them by the labels they attach to themselves.
We have articles on racism, and those articles contain material that's offensive simply because the fact that racism exists is a bad, offensive thing that we are fully documenting. That doesn't give me license to express racist opinions on talk pages or on my userpage-- if I do so, I'm getting in the way of building an encyclopedia by pissing off the people I'm supposed to be collaborating with.
Regretfully, there are quite a few sick perverts around the world. Are they disallowed from contributing to Wikipedia? Are they disallowed from telling the world that they are sick perverts on their user page? You are hand-waiving about that hate speech is not allowed on user pages but no one has contested that! The question is whether you can write "sick pervert" on your user page. Is the answer YES or is it NO?
-- mvh Björn
Most constitutions (the one in the US for example) explicitly guarantees every citizens right to free speech. Most countries also have laws that makes saying and publishing certain things illegal. In most countries with "free speech," you are allowed to put "almost any poster you want on your front door." Similarly, Wikipedia allows you to put almost any description of yourself you want on your user page.
Quite the contrary, it is important to emphasize that there is no protection for offensiveness for anyone.
This kind of liberty is important for governments to grant because
(A) They have a monopoly on coercion and (B) They do not grant you a right to fork, and they do not always grant you a right to leave.
Neither of which applies to Wikipedia.
"If you don't like it, leave" doesn't apply to federal governments, and an oppressive government can really hurt you. The analogy between Wikipedia and a government, or the US Bill of Rights is completely out of place.
Ryan
May it please the God-King, the Court's Judgement is as follows:
Henceforth the Court shall recognise that all Parties to this Thread, whether past, present or future, are Fish, having the Qualities of Fish and the Rights , Duties and Debentures of Fish. They are hereby empowered to place on their Userpages, whether by Hand, Flipper, Claw, Pincer, pectoral Fin, Pseudopod, Mandible, or through any other Means available to Fish, being Denizens of the Water, or by any Agency natural or supernatural, the Words "I am a Fish" in English or any other language generally comprehensible to Wikipedians of the common Sort (see [[WP:FISH]]).
Signed this day of February, the Year of our Lord
Tony Sidaway
Clerk of Court of the God-King Jimbo (Piscatorial Division)
On 2/19/06, ABCD en.abcd@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/18/06, Tony Sidaway wrote:
(see [[WP:FISH]]).
You do realize that [[WP:FISH]] is an actual, working link, right? :)
I kinda guessed it would have something appropriate.
You searched for "WP:ABCD" [Index]
No page with that title exists.
You can create this article or request it.
On 2/18/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
May it please the God-King, the Court's Judgement is as follows:
Henceforth the Court shall recognise that all Parties to this Thread, whether past, present or future, are Fish, having the Qualities of Fish and the Rights , Duties and Debentures of Fish. They are hereby empowered to place on their Userpages, whether by Hand, Flipper, Claw, Pincer, pectoral Fin, Pseudopod, Mandible, or through any other Means available to Fish, being Denizens of the Water, or by any Agency natural or supernatural, the Words "I am a Fish" in English or any other language generally comprehensible to Wikipedians of the common Sort (see [[WP:FISH]]).
Signed this day of February, the Year of our Lord
Tony Sidaway
Clerk of Court of the God-King Jimbo (Piscatorial Division)
In support of this, I have created {{user fish}}
-- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:20:28 +0100, you wrote:
I still fail to see how writing pedophile on your user page has anything in common with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
I'd say the weeks of debate provoked by doing that has shown beyond doubt that it is every bit as disruptive, but what do I know?
Guy
On 2/17/06, Guy Chapman guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I'd say the weeks of debate provoked by doing that has shown beyond doubt that it is every bit as disruptive, but what do I know?
Well, minus the death and injury part, perhaps?
It's still an argument on a website. Not a very productive one, of course.
-Matt
I still fail to see how writing pedophile on your user page has anything in common with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded cinema.
I'd say the weeks of debate provoked by doing that has shown beyond doubt that it is every bit as disruptive, but what do I know?
It has been shown beyond doubt that many people like to argue about meaningless things on the Internet. But that's not news. And I really don't think you or anyone else can blame the Wikipedia-pedophile for us wasting time, can you?
-- mvh Björn
"Matt Brown" wrote
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free
speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
Exactly. Perhaps we need to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a democracy, _and is not an experiment with how far freedom of speech can be pushed_ (understood: on a website in the Global Top 20 that soared past AOL in January).
Charles
Matt Brown wrote:
You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and makes people happy. You never did have the right to say anything you pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
There's nothing particularly new about that proposed finding.
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
But Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider.
There's no simple formula that can tell us where to draw the line on various things, but we have looooong experience now to show that good people can agree to disagree and will, quite naturally, adjust their behavior for the good of the project and for the desire of harmonious relations with others.
Irritating people like to be as obnoxious as possible to prove various dubious points about free speech and having a tolerant culture. Sometimes they'll cross the line, and sometimes they won't. The rest of us can try to be kind to them and hope they get bored with it as much as possible.
The _last_ thing we need is a detailed legal formalism within the project about what is acceptable. I just ask people to, you know, knock it off and try (a) not to annoy people and (b) not to be too annnoyed by others.
We have important work to do. :)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
On Feb 11, 2006, at 3:22 PM, SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
Jimmy, thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced SPUI to stop contributing ;)
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
Good riddance.
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
Good riddance.
Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:31 PM, SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332 Good riddance.
Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
Dammit, Jimbo, why didn't you make your stance clear a year ago?
-Phil
Snowspinner wrote:
On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:31 PM, SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332 Good riddance.
Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
Dammit, Jimbo, why didn't you make your stance clear a year ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Marti... Hello, lynch mob.
On 2/12/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, lynch mob.
Need to update your wikispeak dictionary
lynch mob=bunch of people who those with power want to ignore and indeed can ignore.
I am dissapointed by the behaviour of a number of people in this thread. -- geni
On 2/11/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
Good riddance.
Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
Thank God Jimmy doesn't speak German very well. Now if only I can learn it.
Anthony
SPUI wrote:
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
Good riddance.
Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
*nod* I apologize to you then for wasting your time.
On 2/12/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SPUI&oldid=38917332
Good riddance.
Thanks for making your stance clear. If you had done so over a year ago, I would never have wasted my time here.
*nod* I apologize to you then for wasting your time.
You know, someone else's antagonism doesn't give you the right to act like a jerk. Especially when you hold all the cards. But it does make you want to tear your hair out trying to be a nice guy all the time, doesn't it?
On 2/11/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
You weren't banned because of moral panic. Your userpage wasn't deleted because of moral panic. Your talk page hasn't been protected because of moral panic. All these things happened because you decided to engage in trolling instead of discussion. And trolling isn't allowed on Wikipedia.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/11/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Also very well put. We've always been quite relaxed about such thing, even to the point of putting up with blatant trolling from people like SPUI because he's so sweet and cuddley. ;-)
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
You weren't banned because of moral panic. Your userpage wasn't deleted because of moral panic. Your talk page hasn't been protected because of moral panic. All these things happened because you decided to engage in trolling instead of discussion. And trolling isn't allowed on Wikipedia.
I was having some fun in my userspace. You decided to react badly to it.
G'day SPUI,
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/11/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Jimmy. Thanks for fueling the recent moral panic that convinced me to stop contributing.
You weren't banned because of moral panic. Your userpage wasn't deleted because of moral panic. Your talk page hasn't been protected because of moral panic. All these things happened because you decided to engage in trolling instead of discussion. And trolling isn't allowed on Wikipedia.
I was having some fun in my userspace. You decided to react badly to it.
"Having some fun"? Worl, trolling *can* be fun. Hell, I've enjoyed it myself (*not* on Wikipedia!).
Having fun is not necessarily harmless. You trolled, quite blatantly, and you know it. Crying because your silliness wasn't tolerated is *most* unbecoming.
-- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
No-one has said that. Don't twist people's words. No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
I thought that's what started this whole mess.
Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts criticism.
Pete, pointing out the bizarre but crucial details
"Jay Converse" wrote
This sets a bad precedent.
See for example [[argument from setting a precedent]].
If someone decides they don't like gay
people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we should let it happen again.
See for example the actual charter wording, as being quoted in one of the decisions.
It is in any case 100% obvious that gay people are not going to be banned.
Charles
To even consider that the guidelines are draconian also implies that they have been tried before. The question is that do such ideas work. The reply obviously is not everybody agrees that they work, and they don't want to go backwards repeat history.
We need new ideas and new systems developed to handle information without censorship and to put a definite bounds on "disreputable," as it (by past experience) may deemed to mean one thing or another thing from time to time. It is a decision by ArbCom, but it is not stable in implementation.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_u... We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
Yes. That will certainly help the situation.
There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get blocked.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get blocked.
Apparently she had various issues with calling others honkeys and the like though.
SPUI wrote:
geni wrote:
On 2/8/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get blocked.
Apparently she had various issues with calling others honkeys and the like though.
Deeceevoice didn't get blocked, either. She's editing today in fact,. You can be quite annoying without getting blocked. That doesn't make it a good idea to be annoying. We put up with a lot, but that doesn't make trolling a good thing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
SPUI stated for the record:
We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more "disreputable" until I am blocked.
I predict that you will succeed very quickly.
- -- Sean Barrett | Those who cannot remember the past are sean@epoptic.org | condemned to learn it from Oliver Stone movies.