Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-10-25/News and notes

Discuss this story

Mailing list dispute[edit]

It should be noted that at least one of the editors who have been arguing against Kohs' blocking on Foundation-l appears to have been a sockpuppet of himself [1], putting forth (among other arguments) that "Kohs will likely return with sockpuppets on the mailing list. He is relentless when prodded."[2]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tisk tisk. What an a. ResMar 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know mailing lists have communication value, but how much real info can the foundation's mailing list support when it seems pretty much anyone can post to it? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. Regrettably, it seems the Wikimedia mailing lists have largely become a place for trolls and banned users to complain about Wikipedia; important discussions about Wikipedia are probably better had on Wikipedia itself. Robofish (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, interesting. Kohs has been a thorn in our side for years, one of those people right on the borderline of trolldom. If someone is clearly a troll, they are unanimously blocked and we move on. If they are clearly not a troll and useful to the community, there is no issue, and we move on. If they're on the borderline, we spend years debating whether or not they're a troll, a far worse result

. Stevage 12:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is the concept of "troll" is too often stretched to mean "harsh or unpopular criticism". Not everyone believes this equivalence, but enough people do so that it's a factor in the above debates (which is not to say it's the only factor in such debates). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godspeed, Godwin![edit]

Whatever the background for Godwin's sudden departure (and Gardner's cryptic announcement doesn't leave much of a clue), Wikimedia is losing a man of principle, integrity and, not least, humour. Godspeed to you, sir! Lampman (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not widely known that Mike also played a critical part in the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts, helping me to secure representation and thereby ensure the maintenance of the PD-ART policy that has brought many important works to our articles. I wish him the best in the future. Dcoetzee 00:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Thank you Mike. Whatever may come you set a very high standard and fought for what Wikipedia believes in. Whoever follows will need awfully big shoes..... FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]