Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem is that he *is* engaging in behavior that would normally get someone blocked. He's posting libel off-wiki [...]
[[Wikipedia:No Personal attacks]] states that off-Wikipedia personal attacks are a side issue and do not fall under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia. Whatever is decided, I request that policies are in sync with each other.
Andries
What they do outside Wikipedia may not be in our jurisdiction, but whether we allow people who engage in illegal activities off-wiki something we can control. It makes no sense: If I attack someone on their talk page I get blocked, but if I do it on some random internet forum I can get away with it? That's just playing into the hands of troublemakers.
Besides, haven't email attacks been used as evidence to get someone blocked. Is email on or off wiki?
Mgm
On 4/20/07, Andries Krugers Dagneaux andrieskd@chello.nl wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem is that he *is* engaging in behavior that would normally get someone blocked. He's posting libel off-wiki [...]
[[Wikipedia:No Personal attacks]] states that off-Wikipedia personal attacks are a side issue and do not fall under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia. Whatever is decided, I request that policies are in sync with each other.
Andries
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What they do outside Wikipedia may not be in our jurisdiction, but whether we allow people who engage in illegal activities off-wiki something we can control.
What illegal activities are alleged here? This is a new one on me.
Bad wording on my part. I was referring to his attempts to out editors and his legal threats. If we allow legal threats as long as they're outside the wiki, the NLT policy really isn't helpful at all.
Mgm
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
What they do outside Wikipedia may not be in our jurisdiction, but
whether
we allow people who engage in illegal activities off-wiki something we
can
control.
What illegal activities are alleged here? This is a new one on me.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Bad wording on my part. I was referring to his attempts to out editors and his legal threats. If we allow legal threats as long as they're outside the wiki, the NLT policy really isn't helpful at all.
I don't think we do. The Brandt unblocking has been described by Jimbo as an initiative aimed at stemming such threats by seeking rapprochement. It doesn't mean we're soft on some of the very nasty and petty things he has done.
I think a lot of people are troubled that Jimbo adopts this approach, which seems like casuistry. There are all kinds of valid qualms that can and should be expressed about this. It's a gambit, in my view, an attempt to resolve a very deep and longrunning dispute by reciprocating a positive gesture and permitting a reasonable request.
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I think a lot of people are troubled that Jimbo adopts this approach, which seems like casuistry. There are all kinds of valid qualms that can and should be expressed about this. It's a gambit, in my view, an attempt to resolve a very deep and longrunning dispute by reciprocating a positive gesture and permitting a reasonable request.
casuistry?
On 4/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I think a lot of people are troubled that Jimbo adopts this approach, which seems like casuistry. There are all kinds of valid qualms that can and should be expressed about this. It's a gambit, in my view, an attempt to resolve a very deep and longrunning dispute by reciprocating a positive gesture and permitting a reasonable request.
casuistry?
Pragmatism. An unpopular but necessary tool of diplomacy.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/20/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I think a lot of people are troubled that Jimbo adopts this approach, which seems like casuistry. There are all kinds of valid qualms that can and should be expressed about this. It's a gambit, in my view, an attempt to resolve a very deep and longrunning dispute by reciprocating a positive gesture and permitting a reasonable request.
casuistry?
Pragmatism. An unpopular but necessary tool of diplomacy.
Casuistry = Wikilawyering
Pragmatism = Ignore All Rules.
Ec
On 4/20/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Casuistry = Wikilawyering
Pragmatism = Ignore All Rules.
I'll admit that I stepped into a minefield when I referred to casuistry. Both casuistry and pragmatism have become associated with hypocrisy at one time or another. Both are distinguished by their emphasis on the effects of an action rather than its compliance with immutable moral principles.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
What they do outside Wikipedia may not be in our jurisdiction, but whether we allow people who engage in illegal activities off-wiki something we can control. It makes no sense: If I attack someone on their talk page I get blocked, but if I do it on some random internet forum I can get away with it? That's just playing into the hands of troublemakers.
Besides, haven't email attacks been used as evidence to get someone blocked. Is email on or off wiki?
Yes, it can be legitimate to block someone for off-wiki activities. Our tradition has been to try to mostly avoid it as being overly intrusive into the lives of editors, but it really depends on the context and complex judgment calls. That's what the ArbCom is for. It is a depressing and difficult job.
--Jimbo
Yes, it can be legitimate to block someone for off-wiki activities.
Our
tradition has been to try to mostly avoid it as being overly intrusive into the lives of editors, but it really depends on the context and complex judgment calls. That's what the ArbCom is for. It is a depressing and difficult job.
--Jimbo
I do not consider arbcom decisions that diverge much from existing policies as legitimate. The [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attack]] policy states that off-Wikipedia behavior is a side-issue. If you do not agree with that policy then please try to change it. Arbcom decision that diverge much form existing policies are unfair and erode the moral authority that the arbcom now has.
Andries
On 21/04/07, Andries Krugers Dagneaux andrieskd@chello.nl wrote:
Yes, it can be legitimate to block someone for off-wiki activities.
Our
tradition has been to try to mostly avoid it as being overly intrusive into the lives of editors, but it really depends on the context and complex judgment calls. That's what the ArbCom is for. It is a depressing and difficult job.
I do not consider arbcom decisions that diverge much from existing policies as legitimate. The [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attack]] policy states that off-Wikipedia behavior is a side-issue. If you do not agree with that policy then please try to change it. Arbcom decision that diverge much form existing policies are unfair and erode the moral authority that the arbcom now has.
It's usually considered as part of ascertaining a pattern of behaviour, i.e. is this person an irredeemable dick? have they done the same thing over and over elsewhere and now it's Wikipedia's turn? are they being sweetness and light on Wikipedia itself but blatantly encouraging attacks elsewhere? etc., etc. It's corroboration as to character.
- d.
I do not consider arbcom decisions that diverge much from existing policies as legitimate.
Existing policies include IAR, so it really is impossible to diverge from them. I think we can trust ArbCom to use IAR correctly. ArbCom try and do what's best for the encyclopedia, they aren't there just to enforce policy.
On Apr 21, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Andries Krugers Dagneaux wrote:
I do not consider arbcom decisions that diverge much from existing policies as legitimate. The [[Wikipedia:No Personal Attack]] policy states that off-Wikipedia behavior is a side-issue. If you do not agree with that policy then please try to change it. Arbcom decision that diverge much form existing policies are unfair and erode the moral authority that the arbcom now has.
A side issue? Not exactly. The policy clearly says:
"Wikipedia acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the entire community, and to an editor's relationship with it. While an editor may not be directly penalized for off-wiki attacks, such attacks may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence in the dispute- resolution process, including in Arbitration cases."
Attack fellow editors off-wiki, and AGF goes out of the window, and these actions will be taken as aggravating factors in ArbCom decisions. That is not a "side issue" IMO.
-- Jossi
Andries Krugers Dagneaux wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
The problem is that he *is* engaging in behavior that would normally get someone blocked. He's posting libel off-wiki [...]
[[Wikipedia:No Personal attacks]] states that off-Wikipedia personal attacks are a side issue and do not fall under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia. Whatever is decided, I request that policies are in sync with each other.
Hmm, I am offline at the moment, but it has always been my position and the position of the ArbCom (mostly, not everyone has always agreed about the details of course) that (a) we should not seek to police what Wikipedians are doing on other websites generally, and (b) off-Wikipedia behavior (such as harassment, "outing", etc.) is relevant to the Wikipedia banning process.
We trust the ArbCom to act thoughtfully, and we have some checks and balances in place.
--Jimbo