Unfortunately, the evidence by Theresa knott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch/Ev…
and my own experience with Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin does not lead me
to believe it was a polite warning. Rather than simply stating that
they have to do it, and following through, they repeated the threat
(one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
).
I read this as an attempt to drive off an opponent in a content
dispute, pure and simple.
Sxeptomaniac
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:43:19 -0500, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are many, many different professions with affirmative reporting
> requirements. I've been using the word 'warning' instead of
'threat'
> because threat implies a particular tone that is entirely different. A
> warning might be "You've mentioned you work in the Air Force, but
> please be aware that if you provide more completely identifying
> information about yourself I or others may have to report you." Now,
> thats polite, isn't a threat and is issued in a situation where "just
> go ahead and do it" doesn't apply.
>
> The reason the "whole conversation has been about the former" in this
> case is because that is most closely what happened (between OM and VO)
> *and* it is the situation with policy implications. (On-wiki
> incivility is dealt with by policy, off-wiki non-harassing incivility
> is irrelevant). I'm satisfied with what Mike Godwin wrote, which is
> that if politely issued it is wrongheaded to construe policy as
> prohibiting warnings of a legal obligation.
>
> For examples of some professions who must report information in
> various situations: Physicians, lawyers, judges, psychologists, school
> administrators, teachers, social workers, guidance counselors,
> essentially all law enforcement, military personnel. This class
> obviously includes many millions of people, so it makes sense to
> adjust the policy to account for the affirmative reporting requirement
> issue.
> Nathan
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 5:15 PM, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2008 2:00 PM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > (Unless you were told to make the threat in exchange for your family's
> > > life? ... Yes, I'm being facetious. :) )
> > >
> >
> > It still wouldn't be ethical. It might be necessary, but it wouldn't be
> > ethical.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --jpgordon ????
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:47:37 -0500
> From: Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Notability etymology and history (was Re:
> WP:EPISODE)
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <71cd4dd90801031447x656bce6ck4fa66b148456e728(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 1/3/08, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2008 9:19 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I also thought of something while waiting for your response. If
> > > maintenance is the problem, wouldn't protection be better than
> > > deletion? Instead of deleting 80% of articles on "universities"
to
> > > reduce the maintenance load, why not protect them on a rotating
> > > schedule where 20% are unprotected each day during a five day period?
> > >
> >
> > WP:CREEP aside, sounds like a maintenance nightmare, unless it could be done
> > by bots. IMHO it would be better to coordinate maintenance in a useful way
> > rather than skipping a coordination attempt and going right to protection.
> >
> It'd definitely have to be done by bots, if not coded into the
> software. And yeah, doing a better job of maintenance would be a much
> better solution. I only presented protection as a better solution
> than deletion for dealing with problems of vandalism.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:06:24 -0500
> From: gwern0(a)gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Interesting fact
> To: kmw(a)armory.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20080103230624.GC10702@localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On 2007.12.30 11:03:14 -0600, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> scribbled
0.7K characters:
> > On Sunday 30 December 2007 07:33, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> > > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:58:39 +0000, "Thomas Dalton"
> > >
> > > <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 26/12/2007, Nachman <nachman.chayal(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > The quote was "Hello, we found your name on Wikipedia.
You're the new
> > > > > CIA job fair representative."
> > > >
> > > > That would be an extremely stupid policy... so it's probably
true.
> > >
> > > After all, the "intelligence" in their name doesn't refer to
the sort
> > > that is measured by IQ tests.
> >
> > Has it ever occurred to you all that perhaps people whose life work is
> > intelligence gathering might actually know more about it than a bunch of
> > random jokers on the Internet?
> > --
> > Kurt Weber
> > <kmw(a)armory.com>
>
> [[Open Source Intelligence]].
>
> No. No, not really. I suspect I dropped that idea somewhere along the line - although
I couldn't tell you whether it was the cyborg cats, the remote viewing, the MKULTRA
and more covert programs, the sponsorship of heroin and cocaine criminal syndicates (to
say nothing of the right-wing dictatorships), the poisoned cigar and wetsuits, or what
which specifically disabused me of that idea.
>
> --
> gwern
> OIR man transfer Meade ADIU Team VGPL DST plutonium MD5
>