Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate level of detail I would be happy to venture an opinion.
But precluding that, you are asking the views of a group of people who probably do not have a full (or event partial) view of the facts of this case... for which you are asking for a global response....
And you are then wondering why they question this issue!
I think there is no question is cases such as this; lay the details plainly, and screw any pussy footing around the details. If this individual has a history that means BAD THINGS will happen, I feel details will sway more than allusions.
Tom
On 4 June 2011 00:36, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg Sent: 04 June 2011 00:10 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of George Herbert
Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for
all
the same reasons that real life identity theft is bad.
Woah
Taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language Wikipedia IS real life identity theft!!!
Remember, Wikipedia exists in the real world - not just in the one it creates.
they are only allegations until proven in a real world court. and that has not happened.
-- John Vandenberg
Utterly irrelevant.
Poetlister (or Mr Baxter, or whatever) pretended to be a woman - and used pictures of a real person of his acquaintance, without her permission - and this screwed up "assume good faith" and "there's only allegations" approach meant that we disbelieved the complaints made to us on behalf of the person concerned. That's on top of the socking, harassment, and lies he told the community. It looks like you are not recalling or aquatinted with the facts here.
No, they have not been "tested in a court of law" but they remain clear and logical conclusions from evidence (and if I recall) the admissions of the individual concerned. Please let's stop making excuses for this.
I suspect others will be in a better position to fill you in than I am.
Scott
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l