Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Ryan Kaldari]

If you guys want to invite Kohs back to the list, I'll be happy to 
unsubscribe myself.

In case you've forgotten, at the same time he was blocked from the list, 
he was in the middle of trying to hire people to astroturf the 
internet[1] with absurd accusations about the Foundation (many of which 
were outright false). Does this sound like:
1. someone who wants to contribute to a constructive dialog
2. someone with an axe to grind

I'll give you 3 guesses, no 2.

[1] 
http://www.freelancer.com/projects/Internet-Marketing-Link-Building/Thirty-news-site-comments-with.html

Ryan Kaldari

On 7/24/11 1:21 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I don't really feel it's appropriate or necessary to have another
> Kohs-related thread on this list (for a variety of reasons), but while
> there's one here and active, I'll post the following, at the request of Mr.
> Kohs:
>
> 
> Kohs rightly asked, immediately prior to his being banned from this list,
> what was uncivil or antisocial about any of the final five posts by Kohs to
> Foundation-l?
>
> * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061602.html
> * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061461.html
> * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061456.html
> * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060702.html
> * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060441.html
>
> Nobody has dared to answer this.  Will anyone ever do so?
> 
>
> A fair warning to other mailing list readers: I haven't clicked any of these
> links or investigated this issue (whatever it is). But I'm fairly sure it's
> kosher to post on behalf someone who's unable.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[phoebe ayers]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Andre Engels  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker  wrote:
>> >  I have a hard
>> > time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
>> > community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>>
>> I agree with your premise here, however, chapter board members are
>> elected by their membership (afaik, that occurs in all chapters), so
>> their membership has the obvious recourse of electing someone else.
>>
>
>
> Hardly. I don't know what my chapter's opinion was in selecting the
> chapter-selected members, I don't know who from the board members did
> anything about it anyway, and besides the board has been chosen for other
> things they're good at than selecting board members.
>
> So if I don't agree with the chapter-selected board members, my recourse is
> to vote down board members of my own chapter that may or may not have been
> involved in the choice of my chapter to support or not support that board
> member, disregarding other, probably more important factors to choose that
> chapter board member. Doesn't sound to me like a very high of accountability
> to me or other chapter members...
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com

So, uh, maybe I haven't been reading F-l as closely as I should have
been, but this seems to have come out of nowhere, in response to a
thread from October? Did I miss something?

At any rate, if you or others would like to talk about the
chapter-selected board members (of which I am one) I'd be glad to do
so, but let's start a new thread -- this is confusing, as I'm pretty
sure it doesn't have much of anything to do with Kohs/Damian.

-- phoebe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Fred Bauder]

>
>  Well maybe you can point out what exactly he did to get himself banned
> from this list?
> When it occurred I also had the same reaction that I still have.  It
> didn't make sense to me.
> It still doesn't.  His presence here was not disruptive to me.

It disrupted discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation, the purpose of
the list.

Fred

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Bauder 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
> Sent: Sun, Jul 24, 2011 2:00 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Although he reneged on his offer to buy
>>
>> http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers#
>> The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol
>>
>> I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by
>> unbanning
>> him.
>>
>> I agree with the sentiment that the ban was over reaching and
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> Will Johnson
>
> He has a long track record of trashing any limit of constructiveness or
> civility set. Kind of like inviting an alligator to a birthday party.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Wjhonson]

 Well maybe you can point out what exactly he did to get himself banned from 
this list?
When it occurred I also had the same reaction that I still have.  It didn't 
make sense to me.
It still doesn't.  His presence here was not disruptive to me.


 


 

 

-Original Message-
From: Fred Bauder 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Sun, Jul 24, 2011 2:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian


>
>
>
> Although he reneged on his offer to buy
>
> http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers#
> The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol
>
> I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning
> him.
>
> I agree with the sentiment that the ban was over reaching and
> inappropriate.
>
> Will Johnson

He has a long track record of trashing any limit of constructiveness or
civility set. Kind of like inviting an alligator to a birthday party.

Fred



___
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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Fred Bauder]

>
>
>
> Although he reneged on his offer to buy
>
> http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers#
> The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol
>
> I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning
> him.
>
> I agree with the sentiment that the ban was over reaching and
> inappropriate.
>
> Will Johnson

He has a long track record of trashing any limit of constructiveness or
civility set. Kind of like inviting an alligator to a birthday party.

Fred



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Wjhonson]

 
Although he reneged on his offer to buy 

http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers#
The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol

I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning him.

I agree with the sentiment that the ban was over reaching and inappropriate.

Will Johnson

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[MZMcBride]

I don't really feel it's appropriate or necessary to have another
Kohs-related thread on this list (for a variety of reasons), but while
there's one here and active, I'll post the following, at the request of Mr.
Kohs:


Kohs rightly asked, immediately prior to his being banned from this list,
what was uncivil or antisocial about any of the final five posts by Kohs to
Foundation-l?

* http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061602.html
* http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061461.html
* http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061456.html
* http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060702.html
* http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060441.html

Nobody has dared to answer this.  Will anyone ever do so?


A fair warning to other mailing list readers: I haven't clicked any of these
links or investigated this issue (whatever it is). But I'm fairly sure it's
kosher to post on behalf someone who's unable.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Phil Nash]

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> As someone said previously, the mailing software truncates stuff
>> after the
>> word "From", if it begins a sentence, probably because it thinks
>> that's part
>> of the mail header.  No conspiracy or cloak and dagger stuff, just a
>> bug that probably ought to be looked at.
>>
>> I'd take this opportunity to ask if there's any other background to
>> what Kohs is talking about there.  I know that he twists stuff and
>> he's an expert
>> at making himself look the victim, but I've seen that particular
>> story a couple of times and the way he was quickly kicked from IRC
>> does look pretty
>> bad.  What, if anything, is he omitting from the story?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Craig Franklin
>
> He wanted to make a business of writing ads (articles with a favorable
> point of view) on Wikipedia for commercial clients, and to a certain
> extent, has.
>
> Fred

And worse than that, has bragged about it. Even I, a fairly naive content 
editor, would have realised that that is anathema to the purpose of 
Wikipedia.. But the difference is that I am an honest contributor, and 
banned by ArbCom, and he is a dishonest contributor, and banned by the 
community. You go figure  the difference.

PS, Greg, please feel free to sue; I have plenty of time to defend since I 
can no longer deal with vandalism on WP these days. I'll even let you know 
the name of my attorneys for service. Make my day.




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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Fred Bauder]

> As someone said previously, the mailing software truncates stuff after
> the
> word "From", if it begins a sentence, probably because it thinks that's
> part
> of the mail header.  No conspiracy or cloak and dagger stuff, just a bug
> that probably ought to be looked at.
>
> I'd take this opportunity to ask if there's any other background to what
> Kohs is talking about there.  I know that he twists stuff and he's an
> expert
> at making himself look the victim, but I've seen that particular story a
> couple of times and the way he was quickly kicked from IRC does look
> pretty
> bad.  What, if anything, is he omitting from the story?
>
> Cheers,
> Craig Franklin

He wanted to make a business of writing ads (articles with a favorable
point of view) on Wikipedia for commercial clients, and to a certain
extent, has.

Fred


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Craig Franklin]

As someone said previously, the mailing software truncates stuff after the
word "From", if it begins a sentence, probably because it thinks that's part
of the mail header.  No conspiracy or cloak and dagger stuff, just a bug
that probably ought to be looked at.

I'd take this opportunity to ask if there's any other background to what
Kohs is talking about there.  I know that he twists stuff and he's an expert
at making himself look the victim, but I've seen that particular story a
couple of times and the way he was quickly kicked from IRC does look pretty
bad.  What, if anything, is he omitting from the story?

Cheers,
Craig Franklin



On 24 July 2011 04:01,   wrote:

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 19:17:50 +0200
From: Mike  Dupont 
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
   
Message-ID:
   
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list archive,
so I am reposting it.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html

Mr Kohs pointed this out here :
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460
thanks,
mike
--- Original Text --

Hello,

>From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.

People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
because it is uncomfortable.

Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
fair to the people involved.

Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
list.

http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts

Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.

The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
any merit in what they say.

This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
ones.

Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
Spam etc, lets call that evil content.

But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
notable.

We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.

Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
and gone forever without proper process or review.

In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.

Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
television show, is that what you really want?

I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
the project of important information because they are not able to get
started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
chance to be heard.

We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.

thanks,
 mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Casey Brown]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Huib Laurens  wrote:
> Don't think Austin has anything to do with this. While its strange
> that a mail is gone.

He doesn't. It's a known bug. It happened because the person started a
line with the word "From".



-- 
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Mike Dupont]

I dont subscribe to mr kohs views, but I just reposted it for the record.
mike

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Huib Laurens  wrote:

> Don't think Austin has anything to do with this. While its strange
> that a mail is gone.
>
> But a list moderator nor administrator cant delete mails from the archive.
>
> 2011/7/23, Mike  Dupont :
> > It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list
> archive,
> > so I am reposting it.
> >
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html
> >
> > Mr Kohs pointed this out here :
> > http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460
> > thanks,
> > mike
> > --- Original Text --
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
> > interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
> > conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
> >
> > People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
> > do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
> > because it is uncomfortable.
> >
> > Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
> > interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
> > people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
> > fair to the people involved.
> >
> > Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
> > well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
> > list.
> >
> >
> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
> >
> > Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
> > that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
> >
> > The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
> > accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
> > credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
> > any merit in what they say.
> >
> > This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
> > ones.
> >
> > Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
> > Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
> >
> > But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
> > did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
> > notable.
> >
> > We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
> > deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
> > content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
> >
> > Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
> > Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
> > and gone forever without proper process or review.
> >
> > In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
> > of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
> > from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
> >
> > Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
> > Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
> > television show, is that what you really want?
> >
> > I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
> > notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
> > need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
> > mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
> > like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
> > Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
> > if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
> > people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
> > the project of important information because they are not able to get
> > started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
> > political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
> > chance to be heard.
> >
> > We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
> > conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
> >
> > thanks,
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Mike Dupont <
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
> >> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
> >> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
> >>
> >> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
> >> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
> >> because it is uncomfortable.
> >>
> >> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
> >> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
> >> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
> >> fair to the people involved.
> >>
> >> Just look at t

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:25 PM, John Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker  wrote:
> >  I have a hard
> > time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> > community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.
>
> I agree with your premise here, however, chapter board members are
> elected by their membership (afaik, that occurs in all chapters), so
> their membership has the obvious recourse of electing someone else.
>


Hardly. I don't know what my chapter's opinion was in selecting the
chapter-selected members, I don't know who from the board members did
anything about it anyway, and besides the board has been chosen for other
things they're good at than selecting board members.

So if I don't agree with the chapter-selected board members, my recourse is
to vote down board members of my own chapter that may or may not have been
involved in the choice of my chapter to support or not support that board
member, disregarding other, probably more important factors to choose that
chapter board member. Doesn't sound to me like a very high of accountability
to me or other chapter members...

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Huib Laurens]

Don't think Austin has anything to do with this. While its strange
that a mail is gone.

But a list moderator nor administrator cant delete mails from the archive.

2011/7/23, Mike  Dupont :
> It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list archive,
> so I am reposting it.
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html
>
> Mr Kohs pointed this out here :
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460
> thanks,
> mike
> --- Original Text --
>
> Hello,
>
> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>
> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
> because it is uncomfortable.
>
> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
> fair to the people involved.
>
> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
> list.
>
> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
>
> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>
> The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
> accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
> credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
> any merit in what they say.
>
> This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
> ones.
>
> Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
> Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
>
> But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
> did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
> notable.
>
> We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
> deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
> content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
>
> Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
> Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
> and gone forever without proper process or review.
>
> In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
> of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
> from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
>
> Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
> Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
> television show, is that what you really want?
>
> I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
> notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
> need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
> mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
> like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
> Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
> if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
> people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
> the project of important information because they are not able to get
> started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
> political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
> chance to be heard.
>
> We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
> conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Mike Dupont > wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
>> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
>> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>>
>> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
>> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
>> because it is uncomfortable.
>>
>> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
>> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
>> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
>> fair to the people involved.
>>
>> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
>> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
>> list.
>>
>>
>> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
>>
>> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
>> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>>
>> The Wikimedia

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Mike Dupont]

It looks like my message here was truncated from the mailing list archive,
so I am reposting it.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061709.html

Mr Kohs pointed this out here :
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34460
thanks,
mike
--- Original Text --

Hello,

>From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.

People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
because it is uncomfortable.

Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
fair to the people involved.

Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
list.

http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts

Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.

The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
any merit in what they say.

This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
ones.

Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
Spam etc, lets call that evil content.

But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
notable.

We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.

Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
and gone forever without proper process or review.

In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.

Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
television show, is that what you really want?

I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
the project of important information because they are not able to get
started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
chance to be heard.

We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.

thanks,
mike


On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Mike Dupont  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
> interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
> conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>
> People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
> do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
> because it is uncomfortable.
>
> Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
> interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
> people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
> fair to the people involved.
>
> Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
> well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
> list.
>
>
> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
>
> Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
> that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>
> The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
> accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
> credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
> any merit in what they say.
>
> This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed
> ones.
>
> Of course there is material that should be deleted that is ha

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Chad]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:44 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Steven Walling wrote:
>> Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is
>> and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles
>> IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the
>> announcement on Foundation-l earlier).
>
> For Christ's sake, another channel?
>

Of course! It was pointed out earlier today that we probably
need #wikimedia-irc-channels to coordinate the creation of
new channels ;-)

-Chad

(PS: I suggested creating a new wiki for it :p)

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Ryan Kaldari]

I thought it was 3 or 5 out of nine (depending on your definition of 
community).

Ryan Kaldari

On 10/20/10 3:44 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Can you explain your statement more? Since only one or three seats are 
> selected
> by the community out of nine(depending on your definition of community)?
>
>
>
> 
> From: Guillaume Paumier
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 9:05:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small
> correction:
>
> Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
>
>> Let's see what we've got here:
>>
>> A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god
>>  
> No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
>
>

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Can you explain your statement more? Since only one or three seats are selected 
by the community out of nine(depending on your definition of community)? 




From: Guillaume Paumier 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 9:05:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Hi,

I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small
correction:

Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
> Let's see what we've got here:
> 
> A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god

No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.

-- 
Guillaume Paumier


___
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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[MZMcBride]

Steven Walling wrote:
> Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is
> and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles
> IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the
> announcement on Foundation-l earlier).

For Christ's sake, another channel?

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[John Vandenberg]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:22 AM, George Herbert
 wrote:
> ..
> I am unconvinced that we have an actual problem [with chapter seats], but it's
> entirely appropriate and on topic for Foundation-L to discuss this.

fwiw, here are the two amendments.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendments_and_board_structure

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Bylaws_amendment_February_2010

was there discussion on foundation-l before those resolutions?

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[John Vandenberg]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Risker  wrote:
>  I have a hard
> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.

I agree with your premise here, however, chapter board members are
elected by their membership (afaik, that occurs in all chapters), so
their membership has the obvious recourse of electing someone else.

The process of Chapter-selected Trustees should be transparent,
requiring that each chapter reports its vote either publicly or to
their respective members.  This may already be happening, but my vague
memory from the last round of Chapter-selected Trustees suggests that
this needs to be reviewed.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker  wrote:
> On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
>> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
>> > bylaws
>> > to indicate that.
>> >
>> >
>> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
>> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
>> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
>>
>> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
>> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
>> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
>> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
>> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
>> majority.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
> large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
> responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
> revoke their representation.
>
> Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
> representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
> very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
> belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
> meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
> that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
> definition of "community member") are members of chapters.  I have a hard
> time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
> community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.

The "chapters vs open community" question is entirely valid - however,
they're clearly from outside "The Foundation" and from "The Community"
writ large.

If it's felt that the chapters as an intermediary organizational role
aren't helpfully representing the wider community interests, then we
can more widely revisit if that's an appropriate or reasonable way to
elect those board members.

I am unconvinced that we have an actual problem here, but it's
entirely appropriate and on topic for Foundation-L to discuss this.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Risker]

On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker  wrote:
>
> >
> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
> > bylaws
> > to indicate that.
> >
> >
> Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
> positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
> selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.
>
> I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
> community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
> as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
> means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
> are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
> majority.
>
>
>

Three board positions (30% of the board) are elected by the community at
large. They are the only members of the board who have a direct
responsibility to the community, and there is no method for the community to
revoke their representation.

Two board members (20% of the board) are elected by a tiny number of
representatives of chapters (the chapter representative election process is
very opaque). I can't find any numbers that confirm exactly how many people
belong to chapters, and whether or not all of their members would otherwise
meet the definition of "community member", but it is widely acknowledged
that only a small percentage of Wikimedians (i.e., those who would meet the
definition of "community member") are members of chapters.  I have a hard
time understanding why people think chapters are representative of the
community.  They're representative of people who like to join chapters.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[John Vandenberg]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Steven Walling
 wrote:
> Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is
> and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles
> IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the
> announcement on Foundation-l earlier).

If this is the IRC meeting listed here, it is 1700 UTC

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours

..which is 4am in my neck of the woods.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Muhammad Yahia]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker  wrote:

>
> The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
> board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
> bylaws
> to indicate that.
>
>
Section (G) states: Board Majority. A majority of the Board Trustee
positions, other than the Community Founder Trustee position, shall be
selected or appointed from the community and the chapters.

I think this directly says that the board ultimately answers to the
community. Now you may say that the definition of community is not as broad
as you may like given that some seats go to the chapters , but that still
means that our community -as organized in a certain form given the chapters
are all community controlled AFAIK- holds power to elect the board
majority.

-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Steven Walling]

Just a reminder: If you're interested in issues like what the Board is
and who it answers to, you should definitely be in the Movement Roles
IRC meeting tomorrow (1500 UTC in #wikimedia-roles, see the
announcement on Foundation-l earlier).

Steven Walling

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
>>>
>>>
>> Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
>
> Not really...there's subsection (A), which is pretty broad.  And then,
> there's Section 8: "Any Trustee may be removed by a majority vote of
> the full membership of the Board."  And of course, "These bylaws may
> be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a
> majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or
> special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is
> given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at
> such meeting."
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Anthony]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role,
> I would not have stood for election.

Right, well, you should have paid more attention when the community
was stripped of their membership in the WMF, then (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alex756).

> As to finances, "stashed away" suggests that you consider the financial
> reporting and the transparency not adequate.

You misunderstood.  The financial reports are where I found out that
the money is being stashed away.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Anthony]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>>
>> How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
>>
>>
> Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?

Not really...there's subsection (A), which is pretty broad.  And then,
there's Section 8: "Any Trustee may be removed by a majority vote of
the full membership of the Board."  And of course, "These bylaws may
be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a
majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or
special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is
given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at
such meeting."

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Risker]

On 20 October 2010 15:59, Muhammad Yahia  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
> >
> > How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
> >
> >
> Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?
>
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..09General_Powers
> .
> <
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..09General_Powers
> .>
>
>
> --
>

 Ummm. The board has 10 members, of whom 3 are selected by the community at
large, and 2 are selected from the tiny segment of the community who act as
representatives of chapters. The remainder of the current 10 seats,
including the Founder seat, are filled by the selection of the board itself.
The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the bylaws
to indicate that.

Risker/Anne

[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role,
I would not have stood for election.

As to finances, "stashed away" suggests that you consider the financial
reporting and the transparency not adequate. When you consider the
expenditure on hardware, bandwidth and salary only for operational needs and
when you compare that with any of the websites that are of similar size, you
will find that the WMF operation is ultra efficient.

As you know, the WMF does more then just running operations, this gets paid
as you can find in the facts that have been reported. If in addition to all
this there is all this cash hidden away, then it is really amazing. There
are indications how this is possible; Danese for instance indicated that she
is working hard to minimise the amount needed for the new computer centre.
Only the "right" people are hired. Given the speed of the staff, it is
crucial to work hard at getting the right people in. As this takes more time
then often desired, money is saved.

The numbers of our chapters are growing, the numbers of our projects is
growing. We have a strategy, we do important work together. No, not
everything is how I like. I however aim to be a part of the solution and
this motivates me to blog, to help out, to stand for election.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 20 October 2010 21:32, Anthony  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier
>  wrote:
> > No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.
>
> How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
>
> In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors.  But even
> then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation
> running for a while even if no one donated a penny.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Muhammad Yahia]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony  wrote:

>
> How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory.
>
>
Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws?

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#Section_1..09General_Powers.



-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Anthony]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier
 wrote:
> No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.

How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory.

In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors.  But even
then, there are millions stashed away which could keep the foundation
running for a while even if no one donated a penny.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[George Herbert]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Marc Riddell
 wrote:
> You are very right, Virgilio. The body of work, of the Project, is quite
> salvageable; as well as ultimately sustainable. But it is quite clear that
> the present management doesn't have the slightest clue, nor apparently, the
> vaguest interest in learning, how to work with people, beyond their own
> hubris-driven circle. That's where the change needs to begin if sustainable
> is the goal.


I disagree; the project is internally very tolerant of criticism.
It's not tolerant of abuse.

Kohs is both a critic and abusive.

His criticism includes disagreeing on commercial / paid editing, use
for promotional purposes, and management style of the project; he has
contrarian but discussion-worthy points there.  They have been and
will undoubtedly continue to be discussed.  It also includes a
contrarian internal audit approach, which I feel has been somewhat
sensationalistic but at least indicated we had someone who was paying
attention to details I for one don't have time to.

I won't go into details on his abuse, other than to note that he got
blocked and banned off the projects repeatedly and has been moderated
and criticized for abusive behavior on the mailing lists repeatedly
and over a multiyear period.

There are internal critics, and will always and necessarily be
external critics.  To be an internal critic, one must both be
interested in sticking around inside (Kohs was) and willing to abide
by reasonable internal behavior standards.  At the very least, Greg
was pushing the envelope or borderline on the latter.

If that behavior is a defining factor of your interaction with the
community - and Greg was rarely able to suppress it for long - then at
some point the community has a right to redraw the line of who's
inside and who's outside.

Greg can continue his critical functions and policy discussions just
fine from an external position.  I am sure he will.  I encourage that,
to the degree that contrarianness and having a critic willing to look
at programs and budgets is useful.  I always have read what he's
written, on that basis.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Marc Riddell]

You are very right, Virgilio. The body of work, of the Project, is quite
salvageable; as well as ultimately sustainable. But it is quite clear that
the present management doesn't have the slightest clue, nor apparently, the
vaguest interest in learning, how to work with people, beyond their own
hubris-driven circle. That's where the change needs to begin if sustainable
is the goal.

Marc


on 10/20/10 2:16 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at v...@fct.unl.pt wrote:

> Marc,
> 
> I agree with you. I would rephrase your statement as the present
> setup is not sustainable. You can only fool some of the people some
> of the time... There are many bells ringing, many whistles blowing,
> lots of lights going on and off. It is foolish not to give them a
> second thought and make amends while there still time and
> opportunity. Sometime down the line it will be too late. We're making
> a sincere and honest effort here. The last thing we want to say is "I
> told you so," but the audience keeps on screaming "Kill! Kill!" Its
> hard to hear anything else over the crowd roar.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
> 
> 
> At 13:58 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>> 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
>> fail.
>> 
>> Marc Riddell
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Virgilio A. P. Machado]

Marc,

I agree with you. I would rephrase your statement as the present 
setup is not sustainable. You can only fool some of the people some 
of the time... There are many bells ringing, many whistles blowing, 
lots of lights going on and off. It is foolish not to give them a 
second thought and make amends while there still time and 
opportunity. Sometime down the line it will be too late. We're making 
a sincere and honest effort here. The last thing we want to say is "I 
told you so," but the audience keeps on screaming "Kill! Kill!" Its 
hard to hear anything else over the crowd roar.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


At 13:58 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>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
>fail.
>
>Marc Riddell


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Virgilio A. P. Machado]

Mike,

Very good. I subscribe to everything you wrote and I'll second any 
proposal you or anyone else makes in that direction.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado


At 07:30 20-10-2010, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
> From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
>interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
>conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
>
>People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
>do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
>because it is uncomfortable.
>
>Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
>interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
>people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
>fair to the people involved.
>
>Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
>well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
>list.
>
>http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
>
>Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
>that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.
>
>The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
>accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
>credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
>any merit in what they say.
>
>This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones.
>
>Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
>Spam etc, lets call that evil content.
>
>But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
>did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
>notable.
>
>We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
>deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
>content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.
>
>Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
>Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
>and gone forever without proper process or review.
>
>In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
>of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
>from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.
>
>Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
>Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
>television show, is that what you really want?
>
>I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
>notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
>need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
>mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
>like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
>Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
>if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
>people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
>the project of important information because they are not able to get
>started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
>political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
>chance to be heard.
>
>We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
>conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.
>
>thanks,
>mike


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Erik Moeller]

Greg has a long, unmitigated and unambiguous record of trolling,
spamming, harassment, and abuse. Revoking his access to WMF resources
in yet another instance was entirely correct and appropriate, although
arguably it should have happened much sooner and more consistently. As
Fred pointed out here just a few days ago, most recently, Greg openly
solicited bids from "web manipulators" whom he intends to pay to post
pre-written negative comments to news stories about Wikipedia, with a
very clearly stated motive to drive traffic to his revenue-generating
sites.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061616.html

Thanks to the list mods for making the call. I appreciate that people
seek for our organization and our projects to aspire to such a high
standard of ethical behavior that even clearly unethical and
profit-driven behavior and trolling is seen by some to fall within the
tolerable norm, as long as it occasionally draws attention to issues
that may merit discussion, no matter how much time and energy is
wasted, and how much shit is thrown. That's not a principle that has
ever applied to Wikimedia projects, however. If you miss Greg, you
know where to find him, and I'm sure he'll return here frequently with
throwaway email accounts as well.
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi,

I don't want to go further off-topic, but I'd like to make a small
correction:

Le mercredi 20 octobre 2010 à 08:58 -0400, Marc Riddell a écrit :
> Let's see what we've got here:
> 
> A "Board" that appears answerable only to some god

No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community.

-- 
Guillaume Paumier


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Samuel Klein]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Marc Riddell
 wrote:

> As I understand this Forum, it is for discussing all issues related to the 
> Foundation
> that controls the Project we are all working on. The Community should be able 
> to
> openly discuss all of the laundry that belongs to it - both clean and dirty.

It should, and regularly does...


Robert Horning writes:

> This is a years (nearly a decade?) old mailing list with a rich and
> varied history and a whole lot of participants.  The degree of
> toleration for dissent can and ought to be a central aspect to the
> governance of these projects, and in fact is one of the reasons why I
> still participate in one degree or another on the various projects.

Nearly a decade!  Yes, this is also one of the reasons I am proud to
be a wikimedian.  So I assume that moderation here is not from
intolerance of dissent.  Discussions or dissent about contracts, jobs
and any Foundation policies are historically on-topic.

SJ

-- 
Samuel Klein          identi.ca:sj           w:user:sj          +1 617 529 4266

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Marc Riddell]

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
fail.

Marc Riddell

on 10/20/10 12:44 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado at v...@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  To: Wikimedia Foundation
>> Mailing List 
>> 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
>>  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@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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Mike Dupont]

Hello,

>From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.

People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
do that. We don't want to have important information deleted away
because it is uncomfortable.

Banning him makes it less likely for him to be heard, and these
interesting points which are worth considering are not heard my many
people : this is depriving people of critical information, that is not
fair to the people involved.

Just look at this article for example, it is quite interesting and
well written, and why should it not be visible to everyone on the
list.

http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts

Deleting and banning people who say things that are not comfortable,
that does make you look balanced and trustworthy.

The Wikimedia foundation should be able to stand up to such
accusations without resorting to gagging people, it just gives more
credit to the people being gagged and makes people wonder if there is
any merit in what they say.

This brings up my favorite subject of unneeded deletions versions needed ones.

Of course there is material that should be deleted that is hateful,
Spam etc, lets call that evil content.

But the articles that i wrote and my friends wrote that were deleted
did not fall into that category, they might have been just bad or not
notable.

We have had a constant struggle to keep our articles from being
deleted in a manner that we consider unfair. Additionally, the bad
content is lost and falls into the same category as evil content.

Also there should be more transparency on deleted material on the
Wikipedia itself, there is a lot of information that is being deleted
and gone forever without proper process or review.

In my eyes there is a connection between the two topics, the banning
of people and the deleting of information. Both are depriving people
from information that they want and need in an unfair manner.

Instead of articles about obscure events, things, and old places in
Kosovo you have a wikipedia full of the latest information about every
television show, is that what you really want?

I think there should be room for things in places that are not not
notable because they are not part of mainstream pop culture, we also
need to support the underdogs of Wikipedia even if they are not
mainstream, Mr Kohs definitely has something to say and I would like
like to hear it. And the Kosovars have something to say even if the
Serbs don't want to hear it. The Albanians have something to say even
if the Greeks don't want to hear it, etc. There are many cases of
people from Kosovo and Albania driven out of Wikipedia and depriving
the project of important information because they are not able to get
started and the contributions are so far way from the dominating
political viewpoint of the opposite side that they don't even get a
chance to be heard.

We need to make a way for these people to be heard and to moderate the
conflicts better, that will make Wikipedia stronger and more robust.

thanks,
mike

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Virgilio A. P. Machado]

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  To: Wikimedia Foundation 
>Mailing List  
>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 
> 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@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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Birgitte SB]

From: Austin Hair 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
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  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 to 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—otherwise 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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Austin Hair]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan  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 to 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—otherwise 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.

Regards,

Austin

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Fred Bauder]

On reflection, I guess I (I, not the Foundation), envision our public
mailing lists as being for all who are involved and interested, casually
or intensely, as well as for observers are simply monitoring our on-going
discussions, and who may, from time to time, wish to comment or initiate
topics.

The difficulty arises with trollish and disruptive behavior and bad faith
grading into malice. With respect to malice, keep in mind that a person
engaged in a campaign intending to harm may have and use substantive
issues for that purpose.

Bottom line, it's a judgment call, and not easily done, or defended.

Fred


> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder 
> wrote:
>> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
>> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated
>> ways.
>> Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster
>
> Wow, I don't know.  On the one hand, you're right, the list should be
> for people who support the project (*).  On the other hand, this ban
> appears to possibly be in retaliation for Greg's whistleblowing with
> regard to the Q2 Consulting contract, and it seems to me that that
> action *was* constructive, in that it points out the lack of an
> important policy, even if it ultimately turns out that no actual
> wrongdoing took place.
>
> Maybe it was the right decision (**), but even so, the timing was
> horrible (***).
>
> (*) Including those who support the project but believe that major
> changes ought to be made.
>
> (**) I'm not sure if Greg falls into "those who support the project
> but believe that major changes ought to be made" or not.
>
> (***) See
> http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
> , which was published after the ban was announced, but which describes
> an IRC conversation which took place before the ban was announced.
>



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Anthony]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder  wrote:
> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
> Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster

Wow, I don't know.  On the one hand, you're right, the list should be
for people who support the project (*).  On the other hand, this ban
appears to possibly be in retaliation for Greg's whistleblowing with
regard to the Q2 Consulting contract, and it seems to me that that
action *was* constructive, in that it points out the lack of an
important policy, even if it ultimately turns out that no actual
wrongdoing took place.

Maybe it was the right decision (**), but even so, the timing was
horrible (***).

(*) Including those who support the project but believe that major
changes ought to be made.

(**) I'm not sure if Greg falls into "those who support the project
but believe that major changes ought to be made" or not.

(***) See 
http://www.examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/wikimedia-foundation-director-admits-to-sweetheart-contracts
, which was published after the ban was announced, but which describes
an IRC conversation which took place before the ban was announced.

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Nathan]

If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was
banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?

Nathan

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[phoebe ayers]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Robert S. Horning
 wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 11:01 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
>>> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
>>>
>> Please don't stupidly spout off about the purpose of this list. Or if you
>> insist on doing so, at least have the decency to be accurate. There is
>> absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing
>> list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome. The view
>> you're putting forward is simply and unequivocally wrong.
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
> While I think this reply could have been a bit more tactful, the
> sentient is well founded:  This list includes a fair bit of dissent and
> controversy over the role of the Foundation in regards to the operations
> of the various Wikimedia projects controversy that in some cases
> I've started in the past in various capacities.  *I* have offered
> dissenting viewpoints on several key things in the past, so if it is
> those who are actively criticizing the foundation or the actions of
> "project leaders", perhaps I ought to be the next one banned from this list?

I cannot speak for the list administrators. But criticism, especially
thoughtful criticism, is of course both welcome and healthy in general
in our projects, and personally I would love to see more nuanced and
thoughtful criticism as the basis of many more conversations about
where the Foundation and projects should go.

But I do note that Austin didn't specify the reasons that Kohs was
banned, so I don't think that it's particularly useful to raise
fearful scenarios. In the last few years that I have been actively
participating in Foundation-l, I've found it quite lenient not only
towards critics but also towards troublesome posters, even trolls. So
I doubt that Kohs' critical views towards the projects contributed to
his banning; there are plenty of other ways that someone can become
unwelcome in a community, including harassment of other members of
that community. I don't know what the specific situation in this case
was that triggered this action at this time, but I trust our list
administrators to make thoughtful decisions based on a long history.

regards,
Phoebe

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Robert S. Horning]

On 10/17/2010 11:01 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
>> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
>>  
> Please don't stupidly spout off about the purpose of this list. Or if you
> insist on doing so, at least have the decency to be accurate. There is
> absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing
> list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome. The view
> you're putting forward is simply and unequivocally wrong.
>
> MZMcBride
>
While I think this reply could have been a bit more tactful, the 
sentient is well founded:  This list includes a fair bit of dissent and 
controversy over the role of the Foundation in regards to the operations 
of the various Wikimedia projects controversy that in some cases 
I've started in the past in various capacities.  *I* have offered 
dissenting viewpoints on several key things in the past, so if it is 
those who are actively criticizing the foundation or the actions of 
"project leaders", perhaps I ought to be the next one banned from this list?

This is a years (nearly a decade?) old mailing list with a rich and 
varied history and a whole lot of participants.  The degree of 
toleration for dissent can and ought to be a central aspect to the 
governance of these projects, and in fact is one of the reasons why I 
still participate in one degree or another on the various projects.  
Indeed it is when intolerance has happened is when I've seen various 
projects or sub-projects start to die.

On occasion there might be somebody engaging in actions that are simply 
so over the top that it is necessary to take some action.  Without 
supporting or being critical of the current action, to which I don't 
feel I have enough information to pass judgment, I certainly hope any 
such action to block or restrict another person is something done with a 
sober mind and well thought through before the action is taken.  I 
remember when this was completely unmoderated to a degree that would not 
be tolerated today simply because of spam and pure junk.  If it becomes 
merely a pruning exercise to make more like minded people, you can count 
me out.  Until then, at least know that there are a great many reasons 
why people read and contribute to this list.

-- Robert Horning

Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4cbbdc684885f337a37st05vuc

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Birgitte SB]

- Original Message 
From: Austin Hair 
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List 
Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 7:05:18 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

Hi guys,

After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.

Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
moderation for the indefinite future.

Austin


You guys really need to get out of the echo chamber.  You don't even bother to 
try and articulate what you are trying to accomplish with moderation any more.  
Obviously everyone involved has written Greg Kohs off as inherently evil, so I 
won't waste my time with nuance on that subject.   But you might want to 
actually define your goalposts to prevent the predictable dramafest that will 
occur in the near future when someone who has not been labeled as evil begins 
grappling with them.  The foundation-l forum obviously has a broader population 
than wherever the adminstrators extensively discuss these things and none are 
mind readers.

Birgitte SB



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[MZMcBride]

Fred Bauder wrote:
> This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
> actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.

Please don't stupidly spout off about the purpose of this list. Or if you
insist on doing so, at least have the decency to be accurate. There is
absolutely no issue with dissent on this list (or on any Wikimedia mailing
list). Thoughtful critics and criticism should always be welcome. The view
you're putting forward is simply and unequivocally wrong.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Fred Bauder]

This list is for people who support the project, not those who are
actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways.
Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster, and
if Peter contributes something interesting and helpful it can be
approved.

Fred

> Hoi,
> I certainly welcome Mr Kohs absence from this list. His brinkmanship is
> well
> known, he is not welcome on two projects as well and he boasted recently
> that there are still projects open to him. Getting rid of a troll is imho
> beneficial to the atmosphere.
>
> Mr Damian uses hyperbole to the extend that you would believe there is
> nothing good to be found in Wikipedia. His posture as a superior mind has
> become increasingly boring. I hope he will consider his options and
> decide
> to tone down this rhetoric. This might make him relevant again I hope. If
> not tough.
>
> So I am one to welcome the move by the list administrators and I am happy
> to
> support their action.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 18 October 2010 02:05, Austin Hair  wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
>> enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
>>  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>>
>> Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
>> moderation for the indefinite future.
>>
>> Austin
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I certainly welcome Mr Kohs absence from this list. His brinkmanship is well
known, he is not welcome on two projects as well and he boasted recently
that there are still projects open to him. Getting rid of a troll is imho
beneficial to the atmosphere.

Mr Damian uses hyperbole to the extend that you would believe there is
nothing good to be found in Wikipedia. His posture as a superior mind has
become increasingly boring. I hope he will consider his options and decide
to tone down this rhetoric. This might make him relevant again I hope. If
not tough.

So I am one to welcome the move by the list administrators and I am happy to
support their action.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 18 October 2010 02:05, Austin Hair  wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
> enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
>  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>
> Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
> moderation for the indefinite future.
>
> Austin
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Mon, 18/10/10, Virgilio A. P. Machado  wrote:
> I strongly disagree with both
> decisions.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
> (Vapmachado)
 

While I appreciate the situation the moderators are in, I'm afraid I disagree 
too -- in particular in Peter's case, whose contributions generally seem 
intelligent and constructive. 

Greg's contributions may be provocative, but a culture that is able to tolerate 
provocation and dissent without losing its composure is healthier than one that 
cannot. That includes being able to deal with the occasional searching question 
from someone like Greg. 

I realise the moderators' aim is to prevent disruption. And I am aware that 
back-and-forth discussions about putting a member in an online discussion group 
on moderation are one of the most tedious and unproductive types of discussions 
to have. It's something that can make moderating an online discussion group a 
truly invidious task, making the most well-meaning moderator feel their job is 
not appreciated.

That is not so.

But I feel compelled to point out that falling prey to groupthink* is often a 
more hazardous fate for a group than suffering disruption.

Andreas

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

 
> At 01:05 18-10-2010, you wrote:
> >Hi guys,
> >
> >After extensive discussion among the list
> administrators, we've
> >enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a
> mailing list member.
> >  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on
> Foundation-l.
> >
> >Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and
> will remain on
> >moderation for the indefinite future.
> >
> >Austin
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Marc Riddell]

on 10/17/10 8:05 PM, Austin Hair at adh...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
> enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
> Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
> 
> Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
> moderation for the indefinite future.
> 
Why? Would you like to share your reasoning with the rest of us? When
someone else decides that what another person has written isn't suitable for
someone else's eyes - what else do you call it but censorship. The only
reason words are ever banned is out of fear of the consequence of their use.
Has either of these persons threatened anyone with harm? As I understand
this Forum, it is for discussing all issues related to the Foundation that
controls the Project we are all working on. The Community should be able to
openly discuss all of the laundry that belongs to it - both clean and dirty.
This way, we may not always like what we hear, but we can always trust that
we are hearing it all.

Marc Riddell


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

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Virgilio A. P. Machado]

I strongly disagree with both decisions.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado
(Vapmachado)


At 01:05 18-10-2010, you wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
>enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
>  Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.
>
>Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
>moderation for the indefinite future.
>
>Austin


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

[Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

[Austin Hair]

Hi guys,

After extensive discussion among the list administrators, we've
enacted, for the first time, a permanent ban of a mailing list member.
 Greg Kohs is no longer welcome to participate on Foundation-l.

Peter Damian has also been moderated once again, and will remain on
moderation for the indefinite future.

Austin

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