Hoi,
It is easy to prevent such a perception. It is just by referring to the vote
of someone else who provides the motivation you agree with. In this way you
prevent an unfortunate perception and you are not being tediously
repetitive.
The bottom line is that it is in your interest to guard your r
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
> when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
> motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
> position is yours.
> Thanks,
> G
Hoi,
There are valid reasons why you might be against this candidate. However,
when arguments are used that you *can not* agree with, you should speak and
motivate your vote. The alternative is that people think an unacceptable
position is yours.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/13 Ray Saintonge
> Y
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> Hoi,
>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>> ignore
>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>> decides
>> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
>> this means that it
geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz :
>
>> The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
>> they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
>> police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces
>> and secret services of democratic
Hoi,
If people want to express themselves in a discriminatory way, they can do
soelsewhere. When people vote against someone with the motivation that the
person is black, then indeed we are better off without him. I am all in
favour of freedom of expression, but this is not a debating club.
Discrim
So we don't believe in freedom of expression?
When somebody in a position of authority abuses that power and
discriminates, yes, their power should be removed and possibly they
should be blocked. But in the case of someone saying "I vote no
because this person is black", their vote should just be
Hoi,
Andre you make a good case why "ignore all rules" must be used carefully.
People express the opinion that Iran is the enemy and by inference Iranians
cannot be trusted. This is a great example of an opinion that is detrimental
to our projects. In my opinion we need an Iranian chapter as much a
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
> As I have written before, I disagree with "Ignore All Rules" because
> there are some rules that should NOT be ignored. Ignore all rules is a
> good rule when applied to rules about what the lay-out of Wikipedia
> pages should look like. Not
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly
> in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of
> rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through
>
Hoi,
The pope has it right when he does not accept at all the notion that the
holocaust did not occur. People may have this opinion, but that does not
mean that you have to accept that they may express their opinions
everywhere.
It is one thing to have unacceptable opinions, it is another to expre
Blocked? I don't think we should ever block anybody for having an
opinion. If they push their POV in articles, fine; if they use racial
slurs repeatedly, sure, but even if someone is of the opinion that
white or black or Asian people, or women or men or anybody else, is
"scum", or any opinion like
Hoi,
There is this "rule"; ignore all rules. There is a point to it. Particularly
in situations where an injustice is likely to happen, the blind following of
rules can be quite inhuman and at best an excuse for not thinking through
consequences and accepting responisibility.
When people are brave
I apologize for the typo in your name, I am apparently still asleep.
Cheers
Yaroslav
>> Hoi,
>> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
>> ignore
>> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
>> decides
>> on the outcome how certain votes ar
> Hoi,
> When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to
> ignore
> them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who
> decides
> on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
> this means that it is not only about simple majoriti
Hoi,
When people vote and do not provide arguments why it is reasonable to ignore
them in circumstances like this one. In the end it is the person who decides
on the outcome how certain votes are valued. We are working on consensus,
this means that it is not only about simple majorities,
Thanks,
> Hoi,
> There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in
> the
> American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny
> people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many
> countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we goi
Hoi,
There are people I know who put more trust in the Iranian people then in the
American people. Now, it is completely unacceptable at this time to deny
people from the USA the possibility to become a steward. There are many
countries who are not trusted to do right. So how are we going to deal w
2009/2/12 Yann Forget :
> And how this relate to the status of stewarship?
> Would you accept that someone be rejected because he is Muslim or Jew?
> or because he is black or white? This is exactly the same to me, i.e.
> not acceptable.
I wasn't aware that any of those were nation states
> Such
geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>>
>> Ting
>
> Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human ri
Which is more likely to happen in some countries than others.
Though, I do agree that it is a silly reason to oppose in light of his
quite reasonable concessions.
-Dan
On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:26 AM, Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> I would say the likelihood of him being the target of the Iranian
>
I would say the likelihood of him being the target of the Iranian govt is
the same as him being kidnapped by some terror group and tortured for his
access, which could happen in any country...
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Mido wrote:
> it doesn't make any sense that one could think of such
it doesn't make any sense that one could think of such a reason to oppose.if
you trust his abilities and good reasoning, give him the extra tools to help
as he's willing to do so.
Also, he promised he won't do checkuser in Iranian projects which is the
most critical power to misuse.
this is a globa
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> But then I guess there alre already checkusers on fa.wp?
Nope. Candidates were not able to get enough support; which has much
more with the situation in the community than with anything else. At
fa.wp candidates very rarely pass RfAs
geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
>
>> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
>> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
>> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>>
>> Ting
>>
>
> Prejudice? We know Iran's record
> For a western government the cost of the PR mess is unlikely to
> outweigh any benefits. There are also various other issues that mean
> that such interference is unlikely (the CIA legally can't touch
> wikipedia since it is US based and I doubt any other intelligence
> agency wants to annoy the
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/2/9 geni :
>> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
>>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>>> cannot be influence by a person against him is
sorry this was ting not geni i quoted...
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM, oscar van dillen wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what
>> ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege.
>>
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>
> If there's any sign that a steward had misused his previlege, for what
> ever reason, he would instantly lost that previlege.
>
>
yes indeed.
if i remember correctly it was in 2005 that i removed as a steward someone's
adminbit
2009/2/9 Tomasz Ganicz :
> The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global checkuser, so
> they can theoretically be used to trace users when forced by secret
> police of an non-democratic country. However, various special forces
> and secret services of democratic countries also use to f
Cary Bass wrote:
> I would suggest that the "current tendency to remove 14 current
> stewards" is inaccurate--firstly, the retention requirement should not
> be the same as to pass initially, and this chart uses a 78% percentage
> to pass in both cases, whereas a 50% tendency should be sufficient
2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
> Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such
> an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't
> know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project.
>
> Ting
Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's
>
> > 2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk :
> >
> >> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
> >> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward
> to do
> >> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
> >> Ziko
>
> If there's any sign that a s
2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk :
> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
The "real danger" is that stewards have access to global check
geni wrote:
> 2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk :
>
>> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
>> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
>> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
>> Ziko
>>
>
> Thats the danger for
geni schrieb:
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
>
>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
>>
>
> True but it's based
2009/2/9 Ziko van Dijk :
> If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
> single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
> something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
> Ziko
Thats the danger for a western government. In the case
If I understand it right, Wikimedia or other stewards can trace what a
single steward is doing. Even if a dictatorship forces a local steward to do
something, there is the danger that this becomes public.
Ziko
2009/2/9 Ting Chen
> Robert Rohde wrote:
> > Looking at the summary and comments, I a
2009/2/9 geni :
> 2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
>> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
>> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
>> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
>
> True but it's based on reality
2009/2/9 Ting Chen :
> I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
> born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
> cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
True but it's based on reality rather than predudice.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Al Tally wrote:
>
> You were expecting good arguments? :)
>
> -
On meta elections? Not me.
--
Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation
today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> I dislike this argument very much...
You were expecting good arguments? :)
--
Alex
(User:Majorly)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.
Robert Rohde wrote:
> Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that
> Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from
> people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in
> Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest
Looking at the summary and comments, I am struck by the fact that
Mardetanha [1] is getting a significant number of oppose votes from
people who believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a Steward to live in
Iran. Including comments that the Iranian government might arrest and
torture him for his acc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a summary of the steward elections and confirmations so far. The
> elections are open February 1 to 22, at <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009> and <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
Hello,
This is a summary of the steward elections and confirmations so far. The
elections are open February 1 to 22, at <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009> and <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm> respectively.
902 unique users have participated in the elections
46 matches
Mail list logo
