Mailing List Archive

Which is more likely to happen in some countries than others.

Though, I do agree that it is a silly reason to oppose in light of his
quite reasonable concessions.

-Dan
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:

> I would say the likelihood of him being the target of the Iranian
> govt is
> the same as him being kidnapped by some terror group and tortured
> for his
> access, which could happen in any country...
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Mido <mido.architect@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> it doesn't make any sense that one could think of such a reason to
>> oppose.if
>> you trust his abilities and good reasoning, give him the extra
>> tools to
>> help
>> as he's willing to do so.
>> Also, he promised he won't do checkuser in Iranian projects which
>> is the
>> most critical power to misuse.
>> this is a global project, you can't justify everything from only your
>> perspective.
>>
>> Mido
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:20, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> geni wrote:
>>>> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>>>>
>>>>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that
>>>>> support such
>>>>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ting
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
>>>> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
>>>> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
>>>>
>>>> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a
>>>> potential
>>>> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
>>>> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's not the point we are talking about here. There are
>>> absolutely no
>>> data to rectify that the Iranian gouvenment would force a Wikimedia
>>> Steward to leak personal privacies of other Wikimedians. That's the
>> point.
>>>
>>> Ting
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/ "Share your knowledge"
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Alsebaey
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>>
>> Ting
>
> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
>
> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.

And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
not acceptable.
Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any
user using these should be blocked.

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/2/12 Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net>:
> And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> not acceptable.

I wasn't aware that any of those were nation states

> Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any
> user using these should be blocked.

Allegations? Allegations that the Iranian government is less likely to
play nice than say the japanese one? Allegations that are candidates
are human beings and therefore not entirely resistant to the kind of
techniques the likes of the Iranian government can deploy.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in the
American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny
people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many
countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we going to deal with
this ?

The mistrust of Iran is as valid as the mistrust of the United States of
America. How are we going to deal with this? Is it acceptable to allow for
this kind of hostile notions? If it is acceptable, should we not deal with
such arguments consistently and assess each country in the same way ?
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/12 geni <geniice@gmail.com>

> 2009/2/12 Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net>:
> > And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> > Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> > or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> > not acceptable.
>
> I wasn't aware that any of those were nation states
>
> > Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any
> > user using these should be blocked.
>
> Allegations? Allegations that the Iranian government is less likely to
> play nice than say the japanese one? Allegations that are candidates
> are human beings and therefore not entirely resistant to the kind of
> techniques the likes of the Iranian government can deploy.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Hoi,
> There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in
> the
> American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny
> people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many
> countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we going to deal
> with
> this ?
>
> The mistrust of Iran is as valid as the mistrust of the United States of
> America. How are we going to deal with this? Is it acceptable to allow for
> this kind of hostile notions? If it is acceptable, should we not deal with
> such arguments consistently and assess each country in the same way ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
Actually, I do not think this issue has any solution. Though I perfectly
agree that the sentiment is unreasonable, the same users could just cast
no-votes without motivating them, and get out just fine. It has of course
more impact if one not just votes but also motivates his/her vote, but I
am not sure in this case the motivations really played any role, it looks
like users have already made up their minds.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore
them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides
on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/12 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>

> > Hoi,
> > There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in
> > the
> > American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny
> > people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many
> > countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we going to deal
> > with
> > this ?
> >
> > The mistrust of Iran is as valid as the mistrust of the United States of
> > America. How are we going to deal with this? Is it acceptable to allow
> for
> > this kind of hostile notions? If it is acceptable, should we not deal
> with
> > such arguments consistently and assess each country in the same way ?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> Actually, I do not think this issue has any solution. Though I perfectly
> agree that the sentiment is unreasonable, the same users could just cast
> no-votes without motivating them, and get out just fine. It has of course
> more impact if one not just votes but also motivates his/her vote, but I
> am not sure in this case the motivations really played any role, it looks
> like users have already made up their minds.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly
in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of
rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through
consequences and accepting responisibility.

When people are brave enough to vote, it can be expected that they can argue
their case as well. When they cannot, it is easy to argue that they do not
get the intricacies of a situation. When only the position of people is
known, the reason for such a position can be dramatically different. One
reason to vote against is that the argument is not taken far enough an other
reason is because the argument is taken too far.

Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/13 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>

> > Hoi,
> > When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> > ignore
> > them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> > decides
> > on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
> > this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> Hoi Gerrit,
>
> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> but are too shy of their English to express them.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an
opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial
slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that
white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is
"scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense
to just hold such an opinion.

Mark

skype: node.ue



2009/2/12 Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net>:
> geni wrote:
>> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
>>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
>>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>>>
>>> Ting
>>
>> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
>> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
>> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
>>
>> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
>> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
>> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
>
> And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> not acceptable.
> Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any
> user using these should be blocked.
>
> Yann
> --
> http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Hoi,
> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> ignore
> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> decides
> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
Hoi Gerrit,

I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
but are too shy of their English to express them.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I apologize for the typo in your name, I am apparently still asleep.

Cheers
Yaroslav

>> Hoi,
>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>> ignore
>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>> decides
>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
>> consensus,
>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
> Hoi Gerrit,
>
> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> but are too shy of their English to express them.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the
holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not
mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions
everywhere.

It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to express
them. Our projects are not a platform for agitation. I do welcome the
blocking of obvious discriminatory practices in any of our projects.
Thanks,
Gerard

2009/2/13 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>

> Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an
> opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial
> slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that
> white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is
> "scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense
> to just hold such an opinion.
>
> Mark
>
> skype: node.ue
>
>
>
> 2009/2/12 Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net>:
> > geni wrote:
> >> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
> >>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
> >>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
> >>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
> >>>
> >>> Ting
> >>
> >> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
> >> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
> >> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
> >>
> >> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
> >> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
> >> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
> >
> > And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> > Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> > or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> > not acceptable.
> > Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any
> > user using these should be blocked.
> >
> > Yann
> > --
> > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly
> in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of
> rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through
> consequences and accepting responisibility.

As I have written before, I disagree with "Ignore All Rules" because
there are some rules that should NOT be ignored. Ignore all rules is a
good rule when applied to rules about what the lay-out of Wikipedia
pages should look like. Not when it is applied to rules that ensure
that people in positions of responsibility, like Steward, have the
trust of the populace.

--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com> wrote:

> As I have written before, I disagree with "Ignore All Rules" because
> there are some rules that should NOT be ignored. Ignore all rules is a
> good rule when applied to rules about what the lay-out of Wikipedia
> pages should look like. Not when it is applied to rules that ensure
> that people in positions of responsibility, like Steward, have the
> trust of the populace.

Or as another way to look at it: Ignore All Rules has the important
additional phrase to it, for example on the English Wikipedia (the
original form) it says:

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Before invoking IAR, one should look at the consequences. Is it in the
good of the projects and the foundation to break the rule? I don't
think that in this case it is. Yes, we might lose a potential good
Steward because of it, but in my opinion the risk of losing people's
trust in the Steward selection process weighs heavier.



--
André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Andre you make a good case why "ignore all rules" must be used carefully.
People express the opinion that Iran is the enemy and by inference Iranians
cannot be trusted. This is a great example of an opinion that is detrimental
to our projects. In my opinion we need an Iranian chapter as much as we need
an US American chapter. As with any chapter, there is a need for a hands off
approach to the projects that are relevant to the Iranian public. As our
Wiki culture has its origin in the USA, we need local people to explain how
our Wiki culture fits in the Iranian culture.

We need great content in the fa.wikipedia, we need people of the
fa.community to be prominent in our global community. We need more informed
content about Iran in the English Wikipedia. If anything making **Mardetanha‎
a steward is too important an opportunity to miss.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/13 Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Andre Engels <andreengels@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > As I have written before, I disagree with "Ignore All Rules" because
> > there are some rules that should NOT be ignored. Ignore all rules is a
> > good rule when applied to rules about what the lay-out of Wikipedia
> > pages should look like. Not when it is applied to rules that ensure
> > that people in positions of responsibility, like Steward, have the
> > trust of the populace.
>
> Or as another way to look at it: Ignore All Rules has the important
> additional phrase to it, for example on the English Wikipedia (the
> original form) it says:
>
> "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore
> it."
>
> Before invoking IAR, one should look at the consequences. Is it in the
> good of the projects and the foundation to break the rule? I don't
> think that in this case it is. Yes, we might lose a potential good
> Steward because of it, but in my opinion the risk of losing people's
> trust in the Steward selection process weighs heavier.
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

So we don't believe in freedom of expression?

When somebody in a position of authority abuses that power and
discriminates, yes, their power should be removed and possibly they
should be blocked. But in the case of someone saying "I vote no
because this person is black", their vote should just be discounted.
They are entitled to their opinion.
skype: node.ue



2009/2/13 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the
> holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not
> mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions
> everywhere.
>
> It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to express
> them. Our projects are not a platform for agitation. I do welcome the
> blocking of obvious discriminatory practices in any of our projects.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> 2009/2/13 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
>
>> Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an
>> opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial
>> slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that
>> white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is
>> "scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense
>> to just hold such an opinion.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> skype: node.ue
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/2/12 Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net>:
>> > geni wrote:
>> >> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>> >>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
>> >>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
>> >>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>> >>>
>> >>> Ting
>> >>
>> >> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
>> >> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
>> >> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
>> >>
>> >> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
>> >> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
>> >> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
>> >
>> > And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
>> > Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
>> > or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
>> > not acceptable.
>> > Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and any
>> > user using these should be blocked.
>> >
>> > Yann
>> > --
>> > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
>> > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
>> > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
>> > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
If people want to express themselves in a discriminatory way, they can do
soelsewhere. When people vote against someone with the motivation that the
person is black, then indeed we are better off without him. I am all in
favour of freedom of expression, but this is not a debating club.
Discriminatory opinions and practices are not acceptable and consequently
votes expressing such opinions and practices are not acceptable either.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/13 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>

> So we don't believe in freedom of expression?
>
> When somebody in a position of authority abuses that power and
> discriminates, yes, their power should be removed and possibly they
> should be blocked. But in the case of someone saying "I vote no
> because this person is black", their vote should just be discounted.
> They are entitled to their opinion.
> skype: node.ue
>
>
>
> 2009/2/13 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> > Hoi,
> > The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the
> > holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not
> > mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions
> > everywhere.
> >
> > It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to express
> > them. Our projects are not a platform for agitation. I do welcome the
> > blocking of obvious discriminatory practices in any of our projects.
> > Thanks,
> > Gerard
> >
> > 2009/2/13 Mark Williamson <node.ue@gmail.com>
> >
> >> Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an
> >> opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial
> >> slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that
> >> white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is
> >> "scum", or any opinion like that, it shouldn't be a blockable offense
> >> to just hold such an opinion.
> >>
> >> Mark
> >>
> >> skype: node.ue
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2009/2/12 Yann Forget <yann@forget-me.net>:
> >> > geni wrote:
> >> >> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
> >> >>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support
> such
> >> >>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I
> don't
> >> >>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ting
> >> >>
> >> >> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
> >> >> record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the
> >> >> assassination the citizen of another country for example).
> >> >>
> >> >> The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential
> >> >> threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about
> >> >> annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything.
> >> >
> >> > And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> >> > Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> >> > or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> >> > not acceptable.
> >> > Such allegations should not be accept in any Wikimedia projects, and
> any
> >> > user using these should be blocked.
> >> >
> >> > Yann
> >> > --
> >> > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
> >> > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
> >> > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre
> >> > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > foundation-l mailing list
> >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek@gmail.com>:
>
>> The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
>> they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
>> police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces
>> and secret services of democratic countries also use to force their
>> citizens (and other countries citizens as well) to reveal various
>> information, so we can use this argument against almost any country.
>> Maybe global checkuser function should be given to Wikimedia Office?
>> (Like Wikimedia Office actions function?)
>>
> For a western government the cost of the PR mess is unlikely to
> outweigh any benefits. There are also various other issues that mean
> that such interference is unlikely (the CIA legally can't touch
> wikipedia since it is US based and I doubt any other intelligence
> agency wants to annoy the US).
>
> So any attack from western countries is going to have to come through
> fairly open legal means. Court orders and the like. Court orders tend
> to be public which gives us a chance to react before the problem
> rather than after.
>
>
You seem to have forgotten the anti-terrorist paranoia built into the
Patriot Act where, among other things, a library can be required to
provide a record of the books you have taken out and forbidden to let
you know about the demand.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>> ignore
>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>> decides
>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>
> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> but are too shy of their English to express them.

As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If
my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.

The most important points can often be made with very few words. That
has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
seldom at a loss for words.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
position is yours.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>

> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> >> Hoi,
> >> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> >> ignore
> >> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> >> decides
> >> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
> consensus,
> >> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> >> Thanks,
> >> GerardM
> >>
> >
> > I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> > majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> > unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> > but are too shy of their English to express them.
>
> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
> practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If
> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
>
> The most important points can often be made with very few words. That
> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
> seldom at a loss for words.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
> when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
> motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
> position is yours.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>

My comments were directed to both sides of the issue. I agree that the
misperception which you describe is far too common, but so too is the
tendency for being tediously repetitive.

Ec
> 2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge
>
>
>> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>>>> ignore
>>>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>>>> decides
>>>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
>>>>
>> consensus,
>>
>>>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
>>> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
>>> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
>>> but are too shy of their English to express them.
>>>
>> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
>> practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If
>> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
>> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
>>
>> The most important points can often be made with very few words. That
>> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
>> seldom at a loss for words.
>>
>> Ec
>>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
It is easy to prevent such a perception. It is just by referring to the vote
of someone else who provides the motivation you agree with. In this way you
prevent an unfortunate perception and you are not being tediously
repetitive.

The bottom line is that it is in your interest to guard your reputation by
preventing your association with positions that are not acceptable.. to you.
At the same time when unacceptable arguments are used, the person evaluating
the vote and the arguments has to have a clue as to your intentions. When
your motivation is valid but unknowable, you run the risk that your vote is
ignored.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net>

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
> > when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak
> and
> > motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
> > position is yours.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
>
> My comments were directed to both sides of the issue. I agree that the
> misperception which you describe is far too common, but so too is the
> tendency for being tediously repetitive.
>
> Ec
> > 2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge
> >
> >
> >> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hoi,
> >>>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> >>>> ignore
> >>>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> >>>> decides
> >>>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on
> >>>>
> >> consensus,
> >>
> >>>> this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> GerardM
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I agree with you but this is not what is written in the rules. The
> >>> majority of votes for and against every condidate are basically
> >>> unmotivated. Which btw also makes sense since some people have opinions
> >>> but are too shy of their English to express them.
> >>>
> >> As much as I agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerrard on this, in
> >> practice it can't work. I voted on this nomination without comment. If
> >> my belief has already been adequately expressed by others, it serves
> >> little purpose for me to engage in repetitious verbiage.
> >>
> >> The most important points can often be made with very few words. That
> >> has the unfortunate consequence of appearing weak while complainers are
> >> seldom at a loss for words.
> >>
> >> Ec
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l