Andre, I think you and I are doomed to be forever confused with each other.
Austin
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adhair@gmail.com
Dear Andre,
I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate.
Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adhair@gmail.com
I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate.
Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
What precisely is a "lead operator", and who appoints one into that position? It is a phrase that is new to me, Ottava Rima.
AGK
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 08:29:18PM +0100, AGK wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeffrey Peters 17peters@cardinalmail.cua.edu Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Foundation-l To: adhair@gmail.com
I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and your inability to appropriately moderate.
Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful.
Sincerely, Jeffrey Peters aka Ottava Rima
What precisely is a "lead operator", and who appoints one into that position? It is a phrase that is new to me, Ottava Rima.
AGK
Hmm, we had a similar issue with ru.wikibooks at one point, where some people thought they were "in charge", and had to be removed.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:51, Kim Bruning kim@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Hmm, we had a similar issue with ru.wikibooks at one point, where some people thought they were "in charge", and had to be removed.
Apart from Jeffrey acting really quite weird I believe there should be at least a round of trying to convince him that his views need serious revision. (Not about copyright, mind you, but about calling others names, starting ad hominem debates and offtopic rants and considering himself the leader of the pack.) Good contributors shouldn't be driven away even if they became obssessed or believe they're gods. Maybe he needs a vacation (a longer one), not a kickban.
Good contributors have earned the "right" to spend some time on them before we administratively kick them out. Try not to handle such things too lightly.
ps: "Take my advices, I never have used them anyway."
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29:28AM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote:
Good contributors shouldn't be driven away even if they became obssessed or believe they're gods. Maybe he needs a vacation (a longer one), not a kickban.
Vacation is fine.
Good contributors have earned the "right" to spend some time on them before we administratively kick them out. Try not to handle such things too lightly.
No, they have not. VestedContributor is an antipattern.
sincerely, Kim Bruning
As many of you are aware, Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at [[Commons:Sexual content]].[1] It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - if you haven't read it yet, please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon.
Dcoetzee has requested feedback from the English Wikipedia, and we'd appreciate it if you can all help spread the news to your own local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you!
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content
I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you sought to limit by placing Jeffrey on moderation.
He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the list, as you are probably aware, emails are still copyrighted.
-Peachey
Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions?
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:53 AM, K. Peachey p858snake@yahoo.com.au wrote:
He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the list, as you are probably aware, emails are still copyrighted.
-Peachey
On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions?
The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a physical letter you can give that letter to anyone you like, since it is a piece of tangible property that you own (unless you've signed a non-disclosure agreement, or something). However, giving someone an email involves copying it, so copyright becomes a factor. I think forwarding an email without permission is, technically, a copyright violation in any jurisdiction that hasn't created an exception to the usual law for it (I suppose some jurisdictions might interpret sending an email as including an implied license to copy it, so don't require a statutory exception, but I don't know of any such interpretations). What jurisdictions have such exceptions, I don't know. Google will find you plenty of discussions (some reasonably well-informed) about this issue.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions?
The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a physical letter you can give that letter to anyone you like, since it is a piece of tangible property that you own (unless you've signed a non-disclosure agreement, or something). However, giving someone an email involves copying it, so copyright becomes a factor. I think forwarding an email without permission is, technically, a copyright violation in any jurisdiction that hasn't created an exception to the usual law for it (I suppose some jurisdictions might interpret sending an email as including an implied license to copy it, so don't require a statutory exception, but I don't know of any such interpretations).
In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole discussion, if it is related to the mail in question.
What jurisdictions have such exceptions, I don't know. Google will find you plenty of discussions (some reasonably well-informed) about this issue.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole discussion, if it is related to the mail in question.
Sure, but I think "creative expression" is usually interpreted very broadly. It doesn't have to be artistic or anything, just something more than raw facts presented in the same way anyone else would present those facts.
I would have thought almost any copying (such as what the software routinely does on, say, this very e-mail) would be at worst "fair use".
???? COPYVIO ???? follows On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole discussion, if it is related to the mail in question.
Sure, but I think "creative expression" is usually interpreted very broadly. It doesn't have to be artistic or anything, just something more than raw facts presented in the same way anyone else would present those facts.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
???? COPYVIO ???? ENDS
On 27 June 2010 21:30, Dennis During dcduring@gmail.com wrote:
I would have thought almost any copying (such as what the software routinely does on, say, this very e-mail) would be at worst "fair use".
You've copied the email as a by-product of replying to it to provide context. I think that is very clearly fair use. Copying an email in order to send it to new people doesn't sound like fair use to me.
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you sought to limit by placing Jeffrey on moderation.
I only actually forwarded one e-mail, which I found relevant given the prior slew of misaddressed e-mails—which found their way onto the list through no fault of mine.
Had I known it would have resulted in additional tangents, rather than everyone simply chuckling and moving on, I would have kept it for my own amusement.
Austin
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org