It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list: 1. no obscene user names; and 2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who: * announces from the outset that our project is doomed * makes no constructive suggestions of his own * demands power -- but won't say why
We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still fresh in our minds.
Ed Poor
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:32, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
- no obscene user names; and
- no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Also, no user names that are valid IP addresses, whether IP6 or IP4. This can easily be enforced in software. Such a user name would confuse the user contributions page.
phma
|content-class: urn:content-classes:message |X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 |X-MS-Has-Attach: |X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: |Thread-Topic: [Wikipedia-l] TMC |Thread-Index: AcKL/dLHa3FoEXhRTkGBSgG5I8FAegABNtOQ |From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com |X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2002 17:32:16.0282 (UTC) FILETIME=[C67F57A0:01C28C03] |X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.wikipedia.org id gAEHO1h11627 |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:32:16 -0500 | |It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list: |1. no obscene user names; and |2. no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Satire that can be understood by the authorities is quite properly prohibited. -- Ambrose Bierce, I think.
| |Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who: |* announces from the outset that our project is doomed |* makes no constructive suggestions of his own |* demands power -- but won't say why |
Indeed.
|We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still fresh in our minds.
Not to mention the alternate name for Ed Poor incident.
| |Ed Poor |_______________________________________________
"Poor, Edmund W" wrote:
It's easy. We just agree on the mailing list:
- no obscene user names; and
Perhaps we should cc our definition of obscene to those fools in the U.S. Judicial branch and Congress.
- no using double entendres to evade rule #1
Where should we document these rules?
Personally I do not think the mailing list is adequate ratification to reduce future problems of this nature. This is sort of our existing process is it not?
The mailing list advises Mr. Wales.
Why should we bend over backwards to accommodate someone who:
- announces from the outset that our project is doomed
If he is right and articulates clearly why he is right then we can take action to avoid our phophecised fate.
- makes no constructive suggestions of his own
I thought I saw some constructive suggestions implicit in some of his actions and statements.
- demands power -- but won't say why
A reason is needed to scratch an itch?
We should learn from the TMC episode, as it comes now to close, while it's still fresh in our minds.
Agreed. Also, documentation from previous incidents may exist in the mailing list archives should we decide to get systematic or pedantic with regard to any reengineering of existing processes.
Regards, Mike Irwin
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org