Arbcom has completely lost its mind

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
160 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Arbcom has completely lost its mind

SPUI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages

11) While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implict
there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring
the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls
into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar
reasonable criticism of the project.

     Support:

        1. Raul654 16:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        2. Fred Bauder 16:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        3. the Epopt 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        4. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        5. SimonP 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        7. Charles Matthews 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        8. Dmcdevit·t 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
        9. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
       10. Jayjg (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
       11. Neutralitytalk 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
       12. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
       13. Slight grammatical tweak. James F. (talk) 19:37, 7 February
2006 (UTC)

     Oppose:

     Abstain:

We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
"disreputable" until I am blocked.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Steve Bennett-4
On 2/8/06, SPUI <[hidden email]> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.

Yes. That will certainly help the situation.

There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being
written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be
solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

SPUI
Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 2/8/06, SPUI <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages
>>We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
>>correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
>>disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
>>the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
>>"disreputable" until I am blocked.
>
> Yes. That will certainly help the situation.

It will help me get on with my life... or be bored out of my mind.

> There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being
> written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be
> solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.

I disagree with the idea that there is a problem with saying one is a
pedophile on one's user page.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Jay Converse
In reply to this post by Steve Bennett-4
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being
> written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be
> solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.
>
> Steve
>
This sets a bad precedent.  If someone decides they don't like gay
people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is
point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't
we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we
should let it happen again.


--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Sam Korn
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This sets a bad precedent.  If someone decides they don't like gay
> people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
> established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is
> point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't
> we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we
> should let it happen again.

No-one has said that.  Don't twist people's words.  No-one is being
banned just for being a paedophile.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

geni
In reply to this post by SPUI
On 2/8/06, SPUI <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.

It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get blocked.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

SPUI
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
Sam Korn wrote:

> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>This sets a bad precedent.  If someone decides they don't like gay
>>people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
>>established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is
>>point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't
>>we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we
>>should let it happen again.
>
>
> No-one has said that.  Don't twist people's words.  No-one is being
> banned just for being a paedophile.

People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their
userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is
not just wanking.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

SPUI
In reply to this post by geni
geni wrote:
> On 2/8/06, SPUI <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
>>correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
>>disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
>>the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
>>"disreputable" until I am blocked.
>
> It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get blocked.

Apparently she had various issues with calling others honkeys and the
like though.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Jay Converse
"Jay Converse" wrote

>This sets a bad precedent.

See for example [[argument from setting a precedent]].

>If someone decides they don't like gay
people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is
point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't
we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we
should let it happen again.

See for example the actual charter wording, as being quoted in one of the
decisions.

It is in any case 100% obvious that gay people are not going to be banned.

Charles


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Rob Smith-3
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
Now now.  You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or
"Accused pedophiles.

nobs

On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by SPUI
On 2/8/06, SPUI <[hidden email]> wrote:
> People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their
> userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is
> not just wanking.

Pray, how does saying "look at me, I'm a paedophile, look at my pretty
box" help us to build an encyclopaedia?

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Sam Korn
In reply to this post by Rob Smith-3
On 2/8/06, Rob Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Now now.  You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or
> "Accused pedophiles.
>
> nobs
>
> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.

Um, what?  What do you mean?

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

SPUI
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
Sam Korn wrote:
> On 2/8/06, SPUI <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their
>>userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is
>>not just wanking.
>
> Pray, how does saying "look at me, I'm a paedophile, look at my pretty
> box" help us to build an encyclopaedia?

How does arguing with me help us to build an encyclopedia? Cease now or
you will be banned.

You are asking the wrong question. The real question is whether such a
thing HURTS the encyclopedia. And the answer is a resounding no. It may
make some anal-retentive conservatives avoid Wikipedia, but that
shouldn't be a problem. We don't need to be seen as good by the press.
We just need to produce a good product in the article space.

And, pray tell, how did Jimbo's knee-jerk ban of Joeyramoney help us
build an encyclopedia?
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

MAURICE FRANK
In reply to this post by SPUI



 
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

On 2/8/06, SPUI  wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.

Glad you've noticed. This is what a stream of short-lived and quickly-purged visitors to Wiki have already known for months. When it is recognised by former core devotees of Wiki, that's because its truth has been demonstrated more and more.

 


               
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Rob Smith-3
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
Recently a noted journalist threatened a libel suit over being
included [[Category:Gay writers]]; now given the propensity of the
ArbCom to accept evidence from sockpuppets (as in my case) to make
decisions, what would stop a user from placing a "This user is a
pedophile" template on his user page with a sockpuppet, then sue for
defamation.  But, who needs rules or proceedures.

nobs

On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/8/06, Rob Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Now now.  You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or
> > "Accused pedophiles.
> >
> > nobs
> >
> > On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.
>
> Um, what?  What do you mean?
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Jay Converse
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > This sets a bad precedent.  If someone decides they don't like gay
> > people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
> > established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do
> is
> > point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too,
> didn't
> > we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before,
> we
> > should let it happen again.
>
> No-one has said that.  Don't twist people's words.  No-one is being
> banned just for being a paedophile.
>
> --
> Sam


I thought that's what started this whole mess.

--
> Jay Converse
> I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Sam Korn
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I thought that's what started this whole mess.

Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full
decision on the matter.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Peter Mackay
In reply to this post by Jay Converse
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
> > No-one has said that.  Don't twist people's words.  No-one is being
> > banned just for being a paedophile.
 
> I thought that's what started this whole mess.

Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or
she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts
criticism.

Pete, pointing out the bizarre but crucial details


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Jay Converse
In reply to this post by Sam Korn
On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I thought that's what started this whole mess.
>
> Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full
> decision on the matter.
>
> --
> Sam


The decision on the matter is not the same as what prompted discussion of
the matter.  My point was that what started this whole mess was someone
getting blocked for the simple reason that they were a pedophile.  Am I
missing something here?
Pete Mackay said:
*Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or
she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts
criticism.*
**
This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was mentioning.  All of
a sudden, userpages now need to be politically correct, or you risk a
block.  That is, if this precedent does get set.





> --
> Jay Converse
> I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

Sam Korn
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > I thought that's what started this whole mess.
> >
> > Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full
> > decision on the matter.
> >
> > --
> > Sam
>
>
> The decision on the matter is not the same as what prompted discussion of
> the matter.  My point was that what started this whole mess was someone
> getting blocked for the simple reason that they were a pedophile.  Am I
> missing something here?
> Pete Mackay said:
> *Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or
> she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts
> criticism.*
> **
> This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was mentioning.  All of
> a sudden, userpages now need to be politically correct, or you risk a
> block.  That is, if this precedent does get set.

If the userpages are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation
(and this certainly is), and add nothing to the project, yes, fine,
remove the information.

I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
law should be forbidden as well.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234 ... 8