This list is for people who support the project, not those who are actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.

On 10/17/2010 11:01 PM, MZMcBride wrote: While I think this reply could have been a bit more tactful, the sentient is well founded:  This list includes a fair bit of dissent and controversy over the role of the Foundation in regards to the operations of the various Wikimedia projects.... controversy that in some cases I've started in the past in various capacities.  *I* have offered dissenting viewpoints on several key things in the past, so if it is those who are actively criticizing the foundation or the actions of "project leaders", perhaps I ought to be the next one banned from this list?

If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

________________________________ From: Austin Hair <adhair(a)gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was > banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled? Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely unable tto keep his contributions civil, and caused more flamewars than constructive discussion. Peter Damian is only on moderation, and we'll follow our usual policy of letting through anything that could be considered even marginally acceptable. We really are very liberal about this—otheerwise you wouldn't have heard from Mr. Kohs at all in the past six months. I'm sure that my saying this won't convince anyone who's currently defending him, but nothing about the decision to ban Greg Kohs was retaliatory. I'll also (not for the first time) remind everyone that neither the Wikimedia Foundation Board, nor its staff, nor any chapter or other organizational body has any say in the administration of this list. I hope that clears up all of the questions asked in this thread so far. It is not about defending anyone but about the fact that the "I know bannable when I see it" theory of moderation is unconstructive and leads to dramafests. The next ban is the one that will likely cause a real flame war. I suspect *more* people would be on moderation if any sort of objective criteria were being used. The lack of explanation over this bothers me so much because I suspect that you *can't* explain it. It seems to be the sort of gut-shot that hasn't been thought through. Moderate more people based on real criteria, rather than how you feel about them. Birgitte SB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote: Wow, I don't know. On the one hand, you're right, the list should be for people who support the project (*). On the other hand, this ban appears to possibly be in retaliation for Greg's whistleblowing with regard to the Q2 Consulting contract, and it seems to me that that action *was* constructive, in that it points out the lack of an important policy, even if it ultimately turns out that no actual wrongdoing took place. Maybe it was the right decision (**), but even so, the timing was horrible (***). (*) Including those who support the project but believe that major changes ought to be made. (**) I'm not sure if Greg falls into "those who support the project but believe that major changes ought to be made" or not. (***) See http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-directo… , which was published after the ban was announced, but which describes an IRC conversation which took place before the ban was announced.