[WikiEN-l] Re: When Powerful Jewish or Social-Marxist-PC Lobbies Censor the Internet....

[Anthere]

Daniel Mayer a écrit:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>I am very aware of this. I know it is currently a proposition.
>>
>>But here, you claim that it has been the case from the very beginning, 
>>and this is obviously very untrue.
> 
> 
> No it is not - that is a matter of some debate. The proposed rule is aimed at
> codifying what was obvious to begin with (that the ArbCom has jurisdiction over
> the English Wikipedia mailing list). Whether or not that means a ban on
> Wikipedia automatically extends to WikiEN-l is another issue. 

You (Mav) are correct that there is a difference.
But, may I suggest that if there is no automatic extension, how will the 
decision to extend be taken ? Usually, you (the arbcom) takes time 
before banning someone. If the arbcom has juridication :
Will you (the arbcom) have to discuss it for 3 weeks before banning from 
ml a banned user getting wild on the list ?
Or will it be the decision of one member of the arbcom only ?

Someone will have to take the decision somehow. If in the end the 
moderator himself takes the decision to do so, that means the 
juridication extension is symbolic.

Why would be the benefit then ?
What are teh arguments for not letting moderators do the job ?


>>On the other hand, we banned people from the list due to poor behavior 
>>*on* the list.
> 
> 
> Yes and Paul Vogel demonstrated very clearly an inability to behave correctly
> *on* the list. Thus his hard ban was extended here as well. 

I think Paul Vogel was banned here mostly because of his behavior here.
The moderators could have taken the responsability to ban him from here, 
even though he was not banned on wikipedia.

I think possibly, what will happen if we decide the arbcom has 
juridication here, the moderators could just be hands of the arbcom, and 
possibly hesitate to ban without an arbcom official decision.

Would have a moderator banned him from here from his own decision ?


>>I consider the whole idea a very ***bad*** idea, and wonder what will be 
>>next. Will you also claim that the arbcom have juridiction over irc ?
> 
> 
> No - I have argued *specifically* against that and I'm fairly annoyed by your
> insinuation that *I* am trying to conduct a power grab. 

Not you (Mav) specifically. This is absolutely not your type Mav :-)
But that the arbcom propose to change the rules and ask to have 
juridiction here as well, is in effect a power grab yes.

Whether it is good or not good is a matter of opinion definitly.

However, when a group change rules to have more power, it is in effect a 
power grab attempt. No ?


>>Sorry, but this is really something I do not second *at all*.
>>At the most, I'd say that the english mailing lists moderator should 
>>feel *very confident* to ban from the list a user banned from 
>>en:wikipedia if he begin to be bugging everyone seriously.
> 
> 
> Just as an admin should feel *very confident* to block a person from the
> English Wikipedia if that user was under a hard ban. I don't see *any*
> difference at *all.*

You may not. But did a moderator felt confident he could ban the guy in 
this case ?


>>Just in case, I will myself not recognise valid the juridication of the 
>>arbcom over any mailing list other than the english mailing list. For 
>>example, it should be the role of the moderator of wikipedia-l to ban a 
>>user, and certainly not of the english arbcom.
> 
> 
> THIS IS THE ENGLISH MAILING LIST!!! :) And that is the *only* mailing list the
> ArbCom could possibly have jurisdiction over - as I stated already. 
> 
> -- mav


Anthere will wait patiently till the banned user Lir begins to mess on 
wikipedia-l ;-)