[Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Marc Riddell michaeldavid86 at comcast.net
Wed Oct 20 12:58:06 UTC 2010

Let's see what we've got here:

A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god; an "Executive Director"
who answers only to this "Board"; a group of "Moderators" who claim (with a
straight face) that they are "independent", but whose "moderations" are
clearly designed to keep the first two in a favorable light; and, dead last,
you have the people who, not so ironically, create the substance of the
thing that makes the first three possible. This setup sounds achingly
familiar. And, like all similar setups throughout history, is set up to

Marc Riddell

on 10/20/10 12:44 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at vam at fct.unl.pt wrote:

> Brigitte,
> I agree with you. You raised some very good points.
> Sincerely,
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
> At 03:47 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>> ________________________________ From: Austin
>> Hair <adhair at gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Foundation
>> Mailing List <foundation-l at 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 at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list