Talk:Public speakers

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives of this page


2009

2010

The restoration of Thekohser as a speaker.[edit]

I have reviewed the previous discussions here about the listing of the variously blocked or banned User:Thekohser as a speaker, and consensus had been to leave him in the list. I see no reason why that consensus would have changed, and since it was standing for some time, I believe it should have been discussed before removing it. I see that the removal was repeatedly supported by an admin who also protected the page and blocked a restoring editor, which is a problem in itself. Because it was the prior status quo, and because a change has not been discussed, I am restoring the material and ask that anyone who wants to remove it discuss it here first, and not revert war. I do not object to accurate material describing Mr. Kohs' status, provided that speakers are treated neutrally. Thanks. --Abd 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone who is blocked/banned cannot really be seen as someone who is a candidate to be a speaker for the Foundation. Quite a few people seem to agree --Herby talk thyme 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Mr Kohs has a grand reputation that effectively makes him incompatible with whom we want to count as part of our community. He is a troll. While he was active on Meta he actively undermined people and from my perspective, good riddance. Leaving him on this list is materially supported by people who are still on the fringe of active users on Meta. It would be good to lay Mr Kohs as a speaker to rest. GerardM 09:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The speaker page emphasizes that these are not speakers "for the Foundation." There is no necessity that a speaker on this page be a "part of our community." I'd urge editors to be careful about asserting that their own opinions are the opinions of "our community." Does "our" refer to "us,", and is this "those with whom we agree," or does it refer to some special faction, such as highly privileged editors, or does it refer to all editors? Is someone who is blocked on some wikis and not on others a "part of our community"?
I will, however, review the history of this controversy; consensus should be the judge here, not the opinions of this or that faction. The arguments presented here against inclusion seem to have been presented before, see this whole discussion page, and are now being re-asserted, as if all the contrary comment and history did not exist. Raising the same question over and over is disruptive, especially if the new, changed position is asserted without discussion. I thank Herbythyme and Gerard M for, now, discussing this before acting. That's an improvement. --Abd 16:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am always happy to discuss things when others are :) --Herby talk thyme 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What you are all still missing is that this page is about living persons, rather than wiki users. It follows that (1) any damage to the neutrality of this page must be undone forthwith, no matter how often, and (2) administrators that have or had any dealings with a user who also happens to be a living person mentioned on the page, have a clear conflict of interest and should best stay far, far away. Guido den Broeder 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

dear abd, i saw several good arguments for removal, but no arguments for restoring other than pointing to a past situation; in view of the new recent situation where this user is permanently banned it seems to me logical to remove this "promotional entry", which suggests him to be a public speaker, to be found as present on wikimedia projects, which he is no longer. very best, oscar 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I confess so far I agree completely with Oscar. --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh.) As discussed before, there ARE no 'users' on the page, just people. If you want a List of speakers liked by Herby, create it in your own userspace. Meanwhile, could you perhaps undo the latest BLP violation? Mr. Hillgentleman needs some convincing. Guido den Broeder 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
as this metawiki is stated to be for the coordination of wikimedia projects, any user or person permanently banned from all wikimedia projects does no longer belong on this metawiki list. any such entry is misleading, and such promotion should be done on a different non-wikimedia website. oscar 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of meta is slightly wider than that, see the front page: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia Foundation's projects, and coordination and documentation of related projects. See, for instance, List of largest wikis as another example of a page that contains info from beyond the borders of the WMF. (And btw, none of us is banned from all WMF projects.) Guido den Broeder 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
as you quote: "the global community site", so not for users permanently banned from this community (not just metawiki) for disruption at that indeed. oscar 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That determines who's editing here, not what's on the pages. You know that of course, you just want as many opportunities to lash out at one of the speakers on this talk page as you can. Guido den Broeder 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
please stick to rationales and arguments, and refrain from personal attacks. oscar 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahem. Guido den Broeder 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now be nice, folks. Oscar, the person in question is not "banned from all Wikimedia projects." And it is entirely unclear that this would be relevant even if he was. There is no question but that the person is a critic of Wikipedia, and if someone wants a critic for a panel discussion, for example, he's a notable one. I think that the personal opinion of Jimbo was mistaken for a ban; The accounts of the person are not globally locked, and it's up to each individual project to decide whether or not to ban. Some have, some have not. I will, when I have time, detail the arguments and positions given previously on this talk page. These issues have been covered before. However, if it were to become the consensus here that the person should not be listed, I'd want the list to state specifically that critics and banned users have been removed. We do want to be open and transparent, right? --Abd 03:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Herby and oscar. I'd like us to confirm basics as follows:

  • This page offers speaker candidates on Wikimedia for the purpose of its outreach, this is genuinely a promotional page. The benefits and merits of the community and projects should be considered.
  • Meta is just not for documentation. Its content is expected to reflect the view of community (not NPOV) beyond the general tendency of that this kind of list could be interpreted a sort of recommendations from the community.
  • Also in regard of this particular person we've seen his disruptions and lies. The recent lie I remember is on Wikimedia Fundraising campaign. Despite of his claiming he hasn't done nothing positive.

From the community view I think there is no good reason to help his promotion in danger of spreading lies and false information. He should be therefore removed, just not because he is critics. Just because he is just not a part of our community, just a random troll. Sane criticism should be distinguished from self-promotion and lies. --Aphaia 04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aphaia, as I said before to Oscar, if you want to change the purpose of Meta you should take that up elsewhere. No vote on this talk page can accomplish that. Now, if you want a page that lists 'speakers in good standing as an editor' or some such, you can of course create that. It is, however, not this page. Mr. Kohs is not 'a random troll', but someone who carries some weight. He is a competitor of mr. Wales, like Larry Sanger of Citizendium and yours truly (Wikisage) who both also got blocked recently for 'trolling'. You might want to read en:Gregory_Kohs. His speeches have always been of good quality, as far as I'm aware, which is the only thing that matters here. Furthermore, note that both Oscar and Herby have a conflict of interest with this page since they have concerned themselves with one or more of the living persons in their capacity as a WMF administrator.

People, there are two ways to go from here:

  1. you respect the page for what it is and stop editing the entries supplied by the speakers;
  2. you keep editing the entries. We will then move the page to a location where you can't touch it.

Any further attempt to remove a single entry of a genuine speaker defaults to door number 2. Guido den Broeder 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"We"? Are you representing more people than just yourself here? Finn Rindahl 10:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
it seems on the contrary to be rather you guido that factually has a conflict of interest here, since you added yourself as one of the "public speakers" on this controversial page. oscar 13:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Speakers are supposed to provide their own entry. I've mentioned this before. Guido den Broeder 14:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
exactly, and that's why you have a coi trying to preserve this promotional page. oscar 15:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the concept. I have only one interest; you and the other WMF administrators here have two. Guido den Broeder 16:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It's my belief that organizations benefit from open discussion by critical voices, whether we personally like the speaker or not. I support the inclusion of Mr. Kohs as a speaker on these grounds. (BTW, I would think that Aphaia's discussion of a person's veracity might be something they would want to consider blanking — this is not a proper place for such.)  --Stanistani 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)