body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Phil Boswell wrote:
<snip>
> One interesting argument on the original VFD was that no article about a
> website can be verified through a link to the website itself. The specific
> datum quoted was "number of users". One would be intrigued as to how many
> websites it would be possible to determine the number of users through any
> source **other** than the website itself? One would also be intrigued as to
> how many websites have their existence verified through peer-reviewed
> published papers as suggested in the same discussion...

Should we apply the same standards of verifiability to articles about TV
shows, computer and video games, and software?

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0PlZbMAAH8MeUlWAQhCnAgAq5N3EJTeDK3rlZXwD1ZFycRD7z7kmD7S
D3GiFHb9MT0CHN87+nA+lbLZK2VCGDSV+Cmq+tqHSVElwI72Hy/oxOIVKU4gbDAN
YvEEC9nn0qQOtIDnGgsGGc1D23ZsYy68vDy8JoNp0Vn2gekLMDtqDqZz4PBQS3kx
b0HJUGkyjWuIrc9jEo1Zz5nM2toEQCkAAuRgr4kbwivZqOyxUNXscBv7T2o/WhA1
J2Vz+CkJGORCeM7gVmlKrAbGFLHVMNaO1GdKY7r6T6WintxqX1DcjSxutg4yUIVC
13lgFuwrUjggq+oBX1cCZxqvImyHQnR23l3ohDHWuV/QvkAd49sScQ==
=/kxo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Enigmopedija -- is it appropriate? (serbocroatian
	question)

body:
Hi all,

Since there is currently no shwiki-l, I am sending my message here.

I would like to know if http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigmopedija is
really encyclopaedic (not that article, but the contents of the
so-called "Enigmopedija"), or appropriate for Wikipedia.

Many of the entries are about abbreviations (kratice) which should
probably be redirects instead, or anagrams (for example, the page
"Sarajevo (u enigmatici)" is a list of anagrams of the word
"Sarajevo").

In addition, it seems that the majority of the entries in
"Enigmopedija" are copyvios: they are copied verbatim from "Leksikon
zagoneta?a Jugoslavije" (by Stjepan Horvat), which I am guessing is
copyrighted.

Mark

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Enigmopedija -- is it appropriate? (serbocroatian
	question)

body:
Ahh, and most of the articles on "Shortpages" are from Enigmopedija.

Mark

On 06/10/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since there is currently no shwiki-l, I am sending my message here.
>
> I would like to know if http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigmopedija is
> really encyclopaedic (not that article, but the contents of the
> so-called "Enigmopedija"), or appropriate for Wikipedia.
>
> Many of the entries are about abbreviations (kratice) which should
> probably be redirects instead, or anagrams (for example, the page
> "Sarajevo (u enigmatici)" is a list of anagrams of the word
> "Sarajevo").
>
> In addition, it seems that the majority of the entries in
> "Enigmopedija" are copyvios: they are copied verbatim from "Leksikon
> zagoneta?a Jugoslavije" (by Stjepan Horvat), which I am guessing is
> copyrighted.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: wikien-l

from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?

body:
I wouldn't mind. Most of everything I do on wikipedia is mechanical,
janitorial stuff (new pages patrol, copyvios, greeting newbies, some
imagetagging, etc.) This would essentially be the same, just alot more
work per case. I'm also an intelligent bloke, with very little history
of disputes and a thorough knowledge of wp-polices and practices.

I'm sure I'm not alone, lots of people do staggeringly amounts of
braindead, mind-numblingly boring stuff all the day.

--gkhan

On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > > One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
> > > retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
> > > present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As
> > > it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
> > > ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
> > > "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
> > >
> > > Fred
> >
> > I'll second that!
>
> Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough
> to be useful at it?
>
> The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of
> irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage,
> nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give
> it over to others to make the decisions.
>
> I don't know anyone willing to do that.
>
> It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and
> responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a
> better job, more prestige, and more pay.  But on Wikipedia, everything
> is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn
> you much.  If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can
> be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
>
> --
> Michael Turley
> User:Unfocused
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
You know, I think the word advocacy is not really fitting, it's more
like a clerkship what we are talking about. It's not like the person
would be searching and trying to find evidence or make up arguments
himself, he/she would just be given the evidence and be tasked to sort
through it, organize it, find the important diffs an explain what is
happening in them. It's not like they should argue the case.

--gkhan

On 10/6/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> The Peter principle would be hard at work here. Any decent advocate
> would seem to destined to be an arbitrator, but in fact the skills
> are different. Advocacy is presentation of a point of view,
> arbitration is deciding between points of view. Lack of application
> to digging though mountains of evidence does not vitiate
> understanding of appropriate choice of alternatives.
>
> Fred
>
> On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott <theresaknott at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
> >>> retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
> >>> present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the
> >>> parties. As
> >>> it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
> >>> ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
> >>> "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
> >>>
> >>> Fred
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'll second that!
> >>
> >
> > Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough
> > to be useful at it?
> >
> > The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of
> > irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage,
> > nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give
> > it over to others to make the decisions.
> >
> > I don't know anyone willing to do that.
> >
> > It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and
> > responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a
> > better job, more prestige, and more pay.  But on Wikipedia, everything
> > is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn
> > you much.  If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can
> > be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Turley
> > User:Unfocused
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Single Sign-On

body:
On 05/10/05, Johannes Ernst <jernst+wikipedia.org at netmesh.us> wrote:
> >> 2) Is this the right mailing list to discuss this?
> >>
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists,
> this list is 'for any WikiMedia development issues, technical
> discussions, ..." which is what I'd like to discuss.

Hm... note that "Wikimedia" (a foundation, and the projects it runs)
is not the same as "MediaWiki" (a piece of software). Whenever I see
"WikiMedia", I suspect something of getting mangled, or somebody of
getting confused, because the foundation doesn't capitalise itself
that way, so it's like a cross between the two(!) See
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Names

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The New Cliche: "It's the Wikipedia of..."

body:
On 05/10/05, Han Dao <wikipediankiba at gmail.com> wrote:
> So Wikipedia enter the english dictionary as a common noun o.O

Well, not a common noun as such - that would be if people actually
talked about it being "a wikipedia of" (which they do, occasionally,
usually when they just mean "wiki"). These are using Wikipedia as a
reference point for analogies, in the same way as "the Rolls Royce
of", or the more nuanced "the Titanic of"; the comparison is still to
the real Wikipedia/Rolls Royce/Titanic, not some generic concept.

Which is lucky, because if it really did become uncontrollably generic
"we" couldn't claim it as a trademark any longer, which would suck.
Whereas this, as the article implies, is something of a compliment.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Will Wikipedia Swallow Google?

body:
On 05/10/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Arthur is a correspondent to take seriously.  The article reads slightly
> > curiously, as if WP was a glorified web directory.
> >
> > Charles
>
> It can be used for that.

But shouldn't, according to long-standing policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

As for "outsourcing our search function", don't we already do that,
every time the servers start slowing down? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
you - and I haven't RTFA['d]; it is 1am here, after all...

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: geni

body:
On 10/6/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> But shouldn't, according to long-standing policy:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
>

I know. However that policy results in us makeing an effort to select
only the best external links which means that we end up being usable
as a web directory.

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
Why would we start a Tetum Wiktionary first? Wiktionaries generally
don't hold new contributors as well.

Mark

On 06/10/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> > 1. I notice that whenever one uses an accent in a Category, it puts
> > it all out of order.  For instance, if I wish to write ?frica in the
> > Category - it ends up after Z rather than amongst the As - is there a
> > trick to fixing that up?
> >
>
> Yes, re-writing the string comparator in PHP...
>
> >
> >
> > 2.  Is there a wikipedia for Tetum, the official language of the
> > newest member of the United Nations, East Timor?
> >
> >
>
> Not sure^H^H^H^H^H yet. The article on en: [[Tetum language]] doesn't
> have ISO 639 -1, -2 or SIL codes. It's listed in [[ISO 639]] as "tet"
> for -3.
>
> It would probably be best to start a Tetum wiktionary first...
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEVAwUBQ0TqzLMAAH8MeUlWAQh99Qf/R9kYzLdlDYRx9vlgCpWiP2l0Paw+4VMo
> 5M2rZUeKdQ7QnjFG+3Ih0ChniKNcplIqfYoWFKQCcCYtUo6z36NTuC5AieYpCPM8
> dv0KEb/oVDVFHUocovWsrfPiQG7I3BPirJE+vF4qY2wz/hpzo4BHGDyqtgxgdeMc
> 9gBiWgrTVfRC990wGG3ncjnlIaI8pnia2KzP/XP+uNQAiNDjJ/dRQu4dM+jDS+Ju
> b7muAfwaW2DCGdvHXn41DthXkm11POzPGk4n5giphI+X8PQxIFKAYXsJXmPqjNGN
> Z2yKXTQp9vZx2TNmo+xgYxz88B36TUZVt1/ZJH+r4p+DKIi1nFV1dA==
> =WIIL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tag-teaming (was: Fvw's abuse of admin powers)

body:
> Let's not continue subject tags that imply someone is guilty. Most of
> the time it's a baseless complaint from someone who was banned or
> blocked for a very good reason.
>
> I have changed the Subject in the e-mail thread as follows:
>
> * Tag-teaming (was: Fvw's abuse of admin powers)
>
> And when you reply to _this_ message, please strip off the part in
> parentheses, so it looks like this:
>
> * Tag-teaming

Maybe the next reply can strip it off.  By accusing Fvw of abuse I was making a point, and that point was not the Fvw is somehow worse than other admins, but rather to make the point that using a system to implement 24 hour blocks that for a long time has been known to routinely block people for much longer is an abuse of admin powers.  Regardless of the fact that some oppose the 3RR rule, when the prescribed punishment is a 24 hour block, putting someone in a system that almost certainly will result in a longer block without careful monitoring and intervention by the admin is abusive.  Of course having to track the times to make sure this abuse does not happen is a burden for the admins, and they should not be put in this position.  The admins should insist the blocking software be fixed, or refuse to use it, rather than abuse either by intent or oversight.
                        -- Silverback


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
I don't have figures. But I have experience.

I am sure that people such as Pippu d'Angelo will be able to testify
for you how much more engrossing it is to edit Wikipedia, and how much
easier it is to proliferate, than Wiktionary.

Wiktionary is a record of language; Wikipedia is a record of
everything else using language as a medium.

People who love to write will obviously enjoy Wikipedia more as there
is more opportunity for long articles.

Mark

On 06/10/05, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well Mark,
>  I am sure you have figures on that. You have obviously done loads of
> research on this. Or you prefer as usual to have Wikipedias. That is in
> itself fine but please leave off with spreading FUD.
>  Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On 10/6/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why would we start a Tetum Wiktionary first? Wiktionaries generally
> > don't hold new contributors as well.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 06/10/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA256
> > >
> > > Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> > > > 1. I notice that whenever one uses an accent in a Category, it puts
> > > > it all out of order.  For instance, if I wish to write ?frica in the
> > > > Category - it ends up after Z rather than amongst the As - is there a
> > > > trick to fixing that up?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, re-writing the string comparator in PHP...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2.  Is there a wikipedia for Tetum, the official language of the
> > > > newest member of the United Nations, East Timor?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not sure^H^H^H^H^H yet. The article on en: [[Tetum language]] doesn't
> > > have ISO 639 -1, -2 or SIL codes. It's listed in [[ISO 639]] as "tet"
> > > for -3.
> > >
> > > It would probably be best to start a Tetum wiktionary first...
> > >
> > > - --
> > > Alphax                      |   /"\
> > > Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> > > OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> > > http://tinyurl.com/cc9up     |   / \
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> > >
> > >
> iQEVAwUBQ0TqzLMAAH8MeUlWAQh99Qf/R9kYzLdlDYRx9vlgCpWiP2l0Paw+4VMo
> > >
> 5M2rZUeKdQ7QnjFG+3Ih0ChniKNcplIqfYoWFKQCcCYtUo6z36NTuC5AieYpCPM8
> > >
> dv0KEb/oVDVFHUocovWsrfPiQG7I3BPirJE+vF4qY2wz/hpzo4BHGDyqtgxgdeMc
> > >
> 9gBiWgrTVfRC990wGG3ncjnlIaI8pnia2KzP/XP+uNQAiNDjJ/dRQu4dM+jDS+Ju
> > >
> b7muAfwaW2DCGdvHXn41DthXkm11POzPGk4n5giphI+X8PQxIFKAYXsJXmPqjNGN
> > >
> Z2yKXTQp9vZx2TNmo+xgYxz88B36TUZVt1/ZJH+r4p+DKIi1nFV1dA==
> > > =WIIL
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> > QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> > POSSIT MATERIARI
> > ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 10/6/05, actionforum at comcast.net <actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Regardless of the fact that some oppose the 3RR rule, when the prescribed
> punishment is a 24 hour block, putting someone in a system that almost
> certainly will result in a longer block without careful monitoring and
> intervention by the admin is abusive.

Oh this is surely an incredibly nitpicking attitude. If the block lasts a
bit longer than you expected, you can go and read a book or a newspaper or
something. Why the tearing hurry to get back to the wiki? The block is there
to tell you to cool it.

You seem to be straining so very hard to find admin actions abusive, that
you don't consider that the admin actions serve a useful purpose. That
purpose is not to measure out time in equal portions, as an egg-timer might
do, but to keep people who have been making abusive edits away from the
wiki. . Were it not for the editor's eagerness to tear back into the wiki
and perform yet another useless revert, he wouldn't have been blocked in the
first place.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How many Arbitrators should we have?

body:
May I suggest they be called administrators and that they be selected
in the same way they always have been. Some of our existing
administrators will find this work productive, many will not. One
caveat, if someone signs up for a case and does not participate
significantly everyone else should not have to wait and wait and wait.

Fred

On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:43 PM, Michael Snow wrote:

> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
>
>> I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to
>> it)
>> and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff
>> and
>> to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the
>> ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
>>
>>
> This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
> We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my
> term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
>
> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Tag-teaming

body:
Silverback makes a good general point:

> ... [snip]  By accusing Fvw of
> abuse I was making a point, and that point was not the Fvw is
> somehow worse than other admins, but rather to make the point
> that using a system to implement 24 hour blocks that for a
> long time has been known to routinely block people for much
> longer is an abuse of admin powers.  Regardless of the fact
> that some oppose the 3RR rule, when the prescribed punishment
> is a 24 hour block, putting someone in a system that almost
> certainly will result in a longer block without careful
> monitoring and intervention by the admin is abusive.  Of
> course having to track the times to make sure this abuse does
> not happen is a burden for the admins, and they should not be
> put in this position.  The admins should insist the blocking
> software be fixed, or refuse to use it, rather than abuse
> either by intent or oversight.

This can be addressed by encouraging (requiring?) Admins to log all
their 3RR blocks in one place. It could be a section of:

* [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions]]

Like:

* [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions#3RR]] - a section of the project page
* [[Wikipedia:Account suspensions/3RR]]-  a subpage of it

If it's a section, then everything is on one page, and we'll see "recent
changes" to it. Admins and others can watch the page.

If it's transcluded, then we can "watch" the 3RR blocks separately.

Uncle Ed
Developer Emeritus
Former Bureaucrat
Administrator
Mailing List admin
...and all around nice guy! :-)


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
On 10/6/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the autoblocker causes so much problems for 3RR blocks, then we
> could ask the developers to make autoblocking optional. Have a nice
> clickable 3RR box in the block screen which switches off autoblocking
> for 3RR blocks.
>
> Of course, if one would follow a 1 or 2RR this wouldn't even be an issue.

I'm not inclined to care a whole lot.  People who hit the 3RR have
already gone beyond reasonable editing.  Whether they get blocked for
24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me.

Kelly


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:

>Kelly Martin wrote:
>
>
>>I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to
>>it) and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy
>>stuff and to organize the cases into a form so that when they do
>>appeal the ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling
>>the case.
>>
>>A few Arbitration Assistants would not be remiss, either.
>>
>>Kelly
>>
>>
>I really like this idea. It seems to work pretty well in the U.S.
>courts: The higher court would simply refuse to hear the appealed case
>unless they think something went /procedurally/ wrong in the lower
>court. This would give us near-infinite scalability while still
>maintaining accountability for the higher "judges" if you will. There
>aren't really any drawbacks either. I would be in favor of creating a
>proposed policy to this end.
>
>
Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth.
They judge on points of law rather than facts.  It would be up to the
lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material
that is often raised.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability

body:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's what I saw, too.  Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen
> motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather
> than insist on one's own version.  I know it has been for me at least
> once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the
> property.  ;-)    It helps me pay attention a little better.  (!)

That's what it's supposed to be.  Unfortunately, it's far too often
used by editors as a club: if someone makes an edit you don't like,
maneuver them into being the "first to revert" and then revert-war
them until they cross 3RR one step ahead of you, then report them.
Bam, he's  blocked, and all you have to do to win the edit war for 24
hours is get a friend to revert his last edit.

I'm frequently tempted to block BOTH parties in situations like this,
one for blocking the 3RR and the other for gaming it.  Unfortunately,
there's a number of admins who engage in this sort of behavior, and
I'm not really interested in getting into a block war or putting up
with the whining (and the RFCs) that I'd almost certainly get were I
to do this.  As a result, I tend to avoid enforcing the 3RR at all.
As do a lot of the other admins I talk to.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tag-teaming

body:
On 10/6/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> This can be addressed by encouraging (requiring?) Admins to log all
> their 3RR blocks in one place.

We already do.

Kelly


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 10/6/05, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, this is precisely why it's a 3RR rule, not a 1RR or 2RR rule :P
> This kind of editing is very common and to be encouraged, you two
> communicated with eachother and worked out an agreement. However, if
> any of you had, instead, actually broken the 3RR there would have been
> atleast 7 reverts (4 for the one who broke the rule, and 3 for the
> other) of the article. That is not healthy. The 3RR is there to force
> editors, just as it did with you guys, to work stuff out, outside of
> the edit summaries.
>
> Unfortunatly, not everyone has the amount of common sense you guys have :P

That's what I saw, too.  Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen
motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather
than insist on one's own version.  I know it has been for me at least
once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the
property.  ;-)    It helps me pay attention a little better.  (!)

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
Yes, that's a question of mine as well.  Can we have some variable in system
messages indicating the alphabetical order of a language?  I know Danish,
Swedish, English, and German all have differing orders (ess-tsett, a with
the dot over it, etc.), and if there were a way to write in the order for
sorting within that one wikipedia, that'd be great.

Something like:

Abc?efg..... for one wiki, and (a?)bcd(e?)...for another, where the
parentheses indicate equivalent letters between them.

My two cents worth.

James

Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> 1. I notice that whenever one uses an accent in a Category, it puts
> it all out of order.  For instance, if I wish to write ?frica in the
> Category - it ends up after Z rather than amongst the As - is there a
> trick to fixing that up?
>

Yes, re-writing the string comparator in PHP...

>
>
> 2.  Is there a wikipedia for Tetum, the official language of the
> newest member of the United Nations, East Timor?
>
>

Not sure^H^H^H^H^H yet. The article on en: [[Tetum language]] doesn't
have ISO 639 -1, -2 or SIL codes. It's listed in [[ISO 639]] as "tet"
for -3.

It would probably be best to start a Tetum wiktionary first...

- --
Alphax                      |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEVAwUBQ0TqzLMAAH8MeUlWAQh99Qf/R9kYzLdlDYRx9vlgCpWiP2l0Paw+4VMo
5M2rZUeKdQ7QnjFG+3Ih0ChniKNcplIqfYoWFKQCcCYtUo6z36NTuC5AieYpCPM8
dv0KEb/oVDVFHUocovWsrfPiQG7I3BPirJE+vF4qY2wz/hpzo4BHGDyqtgxgdeMc
9gBiWgrTVfRC990wGG3ncjnlIaI8pnia2KzP/XP+uNQAiNDjJ/dRQu4dM+jDS+Ju
b7muAfwaW2DCGdvHXn41DthXkm11POzPGk4n5giphI+X8PQxIFKAYXsJXmPqjNGN
Z2yKXTQp9vZx2TNmo+xgYxz88B36TUZVt1/ZJH+r4p+DKIi1nFV1dA==
=WIIL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles

subject: Ant:  [Wikipedia-l] Kinaray-a wikipedia

body:
--- wikipedia-l-request at Wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:17:43 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de>
> Subject: Ant:  [Wikipedia-l] Kinaray-a wikipedia
> request
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
[snip]
> Don't worry, Vincent. Tuf-Kat was only trying to
> make
> the main requests page a little more concise as was
> overflowing already. Moving Kinaray-a off the main
> page was probably a little premature as it was still
> attracting new supporters and only lacking another
> native speaker.
I'm not worrying too much ;) But I am trying to help
Kinaray-a speakers get their own wp. Things look like
nobody informed the Yahoo group mentioned in the
request.

>
> As a general rule of thumb I think every request
> should be left on the main page for at least a month
> (unless a request is complete nonsense, of course).
>
> Best,
>
> Arbeo
Thank you very much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vincent "Bentong" S. Isles   Chemistry & Physics Teacher
bentong_isles at yahoo.com      http://bentong.topcities.com
         56-C San Miguel St. Cebu City, Philippines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Unsa ang tinuod nga pagkamakinasodnon?  Kini mao ang
pagdapig sa budaya [culture] batok sa mga buot mopasipala
niini, langyaw man kun isigka-Pilipino.
           Mabuhi ang pinulongang Sinugboanon!
      SCRAP THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL LANGUAGE POLICY!
          STOP THE FORCED LEARNING OF TAGALOG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abag sa Sinugboanong Wikipedya | http://ceb.wikipedia.org

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Deborah MacPherson

subject:
[Wikitech-l]
	Re: 5. Map of Wikipedia (Urs Richle)/Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 27,
	Issue 6

body:
Dear Urs Richle,

What I want to do is make a picture of the linkages in layers you
could turn off or on to see how they go together in XTM, RDF or OWL.
Somewhere between these will be the best fit/clearest picture.

I could not get through to your email or find you on
http://tecfa.unige.ch/. Please let me know how to reach you to
continue this discussion so we can create one or two concrete examples
to post.

Sincerely,
Deborah MacPherson

On 10/5/05, wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org
<wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to
>         wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         wikitech-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ranking articles using machine-generated
>       stats (Evan Martin)
>    2. Re: Single Sign-On (Johannes Ernst)
>    3. Clarification: Single Sign-On (Johannes Ernst)
>    4. Re: Clarification: Single Sign-On (Rob Lanphier)
>    5. Re: Map of Wikipedia (Urs Richle)
>    6. Re: Clarification: Single Sign-On (Johannes Ernst)
>    7. MediaWiki OpenID patch (Dan Libby)
>    8. Re: Re: How to add a button in the existing text editor
>       (?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason)
>    9. Re: Re: How to add a button in the existing text editor
>       (Amruta Lonkar)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:17:24 -0700
> From: Evan Martin <evanm at google.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ranking articles using
>         machine-generated stats
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <9f43d19d0510051217n10249becpf0378e4326fb859 at mail.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/5/05, Neil Harris <usenet at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> > Neil Harris wrote:
> > > The corpus-based measures are particularly interesting; they mean we
> > > don't need to bug Google for a million search keys.
> >
> > Although if anyone from Google is monitoring this list, and wants to
> > give me a Google Account with 1.25M search keys, I'd be happy to set off
> > the appropriate script... or send it to you to run.
>
> In any case, the number of results reported is a very approximate
> estimate.  See, for example,
> http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-02-08.html#n72
>
> I think it'd be much easier to use a standard measure of usefulness:
> look at access logs on wikipedia's end.  If article A gets twice the
> number of hits per day as article B, it would seem natural that
> someone would be twice as likely to look it up in a paper-based
> encyclopedia.  (There are certainly exceptions like hot news stories
> or controversial topics during a revert war, but I think it'd take you
> a long way...)
>
> I like Neil's list too, but that, as they observed, is a lot more work.
>
> -- Evan, monitoring this list :)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:49:46 -0700
> From: Johannes Ernst <jernst+wikipedia.org at netmesh.us>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Single Sign-On
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <21696F4B-DC98-4379-9688-0AB28FE3491B at netmesh.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >> 2) Is this the right mailing list to discuss this?
> >>
>
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists,
> this list is 'for any WikiMedia development issues, technical
> discussions, ..." which is what I'd like to discuss.
>
> MediaWiki-l seems to be "for people with questions about their own
> installation of MediaWiki" which isn't really what I have in mind.
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>   http://netmesh.info/jernst
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 12:55:55 -0700
> From: Johannes Ernst <jernst+wikipedia.org at netmesh.us>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Clarification: Single Sign-On
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <54252862-1866-4F67-B6D3-250D1BB39FF8 at netmesh.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I heard three different views on SSO wrt MediaWiki/WikiPedia so far:
>
> 1) The different Wikipedia sites (e.g. en.wikipedia.org and
> de.wikipedia.org) should require a user only to log on once. Once
> logged on the user should be known across those Wikipedia sites (and
> only those).
>
> 2) A MediaWiki installation (e.g. in an enterprise) would like the
> MediaWiki user management subsystem to participate in an SSO
> environment (e.g. an enterprise single-sign-on system).
> Auth_Plugin.php and various LDAP projects seem to have made some
> headway there.
>
> 3) A Wikipedia user (and any MediaWiki user) should be able to "bring
> their own" identity, which MediaWiki software should recognize. The
> advantage of this is that it includes the previous two items as
> special cases -- and because there's nothing special about Mediawiki
> with respect to logins: every website has that problem, and would
> like the problem to go away.
>
> I'm interested in #3, specifically using URL-based personal digital
> identities (such as the URL of their blog). How would one practically
> go about doing this? [I'm new to how the wikipedia software projects
> typically work out]
>
> Some background is here:
>      http://cis-berkman.editme.com/
>      http://openid.net/
>      http://lid.netmesh.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>   http://netmesh.info/jernst
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:28:49 -0700
> From: Rob Lanphier <robla at robla.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Clarification: Single Sign-On
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <1128544130.7396.13.camel at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> Hi Johannes,
>
> I'm not part of the core development team (in fact, I've only submitted
> a couple relatively insignificant patches).  However, this is an issue
> I've been tracking pretty closely.  Nevertheless, don't take this as
> anything other than as the very possibly incorrect observations of a
> fringe participant.
>
> The SSO activity has been somewhat dormant for a couple months now, but
> is probably can be resurrected if someone (you?) volunteers to shepherd
> the effort.  My understanding is that Brion would like to implement an
> AuthPlugin for SSO.  OpenID/LID/etc would be a probably be a phase two
> sorta thing; phase one is reserved for intra-Wikimedia SSO.
>
> If someone (you?) were to say, implement a LID server and client for
> MediaWiki, that would give it a big head start over other potential
> solutions.  It wouldn't be the simplest solution to intra-Wikimedia SSO,
> but it would work, assuming that the LID libraries are mature enough to
> deal with Wikimedia's demands.  If such a solution were to get
> substantial testing outside of the Wikimedia realm of servers, that
> would be a big argument for the maturity of the solution.
>
> I myself was working on this type of thing a lot more a couple of months
> ago, but put that work on hold to work on a MediaWiki election plugin
> I'm close to releasing.  I'll eventually want to return to auth work,
> but don't see that happening in the next month or two.
>
> Rob
>
> On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 12:55 -0700, Johannes Ernst wrote:
> > I heard three different views on SSO wrt MediaWiki/WikiPedia so far:
> >
> > 1) The different Wikipedia sites (e.g. en.wikipedia.org and
> > de.wikipedia.org) should require a user only to log on once. Once
> > logged on the user should be known across those Wikipedia sites (and
> > only those).
> >
> > 2) A MediaWiki installation (e.g. in an enterprise) would like the
> > MediaWiki user management subsystem to participate in an SSO
> > environment (e.g. an enterprise single-sign-on system).
> > Auth_Plugin.php and various LDAP projects seem to have made some
> > headway there.
> >
> > 3) A Wikipedia user (and any MediaWiki user) should be able to "bring
> > their own" identity, which MediaWiki software should recognize. The
> > advantage of this is that it includes the previous two items as
> > special cases -- and because there's nothing special about Mediawiki
> > with respect to logins: every website has that problem, and would
> > like the problem to go away.
> >
> > I'm interested in #3, specifically using URL-based personal digital
> > identities (such as the URL of their blog). How would one practically
> > go about doing this? [I'm new to how the wikipedia software projects
> > typically work out]
> >
> > Some background is here:
> >      http://cis-berkman.editme.com/
> >      http://openid.net/
> >      http://lid.netmesh.org/wiki/Main_Page
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Johannes Ernst
> >
> >   http://netmesh.info/jernst
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:24:29 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Urs Richle <mail at sheherazade.ch>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Map of Wikipedia
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <loom.20051005T215425-113 at post.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> deborah.macpherson <deborah.macpherson at ...> writes:
> >
> > I am interested in making a map of Wikipedia in order to
> streamline the content,
> > provide an overview of different areas, and connect
> Wikipedia to digital archives
> > maintained by museums and laboratories all around
> the world. For more information
> > please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CDT_proposal .
> >
> > If you would like to collaborate, or if you
> already have similar efforts underway,
> > please contact me.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Deborah MacPherson
> >
> >
> > *************************************************
> >
> > Deborah MacPherson, Projects Director
> > Accuracy&Aesthetics, A Nonprofit Organization for the
> > Advancement of Education, Cultural Heritage, and Science
> > www.accuracyandaesthetics.com
> > www.deborahmacpherson.com
> >
> > mailing address: PO Box 52, Vienna VA 22183 USA
> > phones: 703 585 8924 and 703 242 9411
> > mailto:debmacp at ...
> >
> > The content of this email may contain private and confidential
> > information. Do not forward, copy, share, or otherwise distribute
> > without explicit written permission from all correspondents.
> >
> > **************************************************
> >
>
> Hello,
> I'm working on a project to visualize the semantic network of
> MediaWiki-content. I tested the SpecialPage implementation of the
> Touchgraph-applet on
> http://wiki.sheherazade.ch/index.php/Spezial:Touchgraph (thanks to
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fxparlant/Touchgraph).
> My idea is to use the Topic Maps (XTM)-standard to describe the
> semantic network. XTM allows a more complex description of all
> different kinds of links then the XML-file used by Touchgraph.
> Applications like Omnigator from Ontopia (http://www.ontopia.net)
> are able to read and visualize XTM-files.
>
> The seconde idea is to propose a list of different links for an
> article and the XTM-file by a webservice (compare RPC-interface of
> JSPWiki --> http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/WikiRPCInterface).
> I will use the NuSOAP-library for this.
>
> Does someone work on a similar project to describe the semantic
> network of MediaWiki-content with XTM, RDF or OWL?
>
> Does someone work on a webservice-extension for MediaWiki?
>
> Please contact me.
>
> Urs Richle
> ww.sheherazade.ch
> TECFA, University of Geneva, Switzerland
> http://tecfa.unige.ch/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:23:12 -0700
> From: Johannes Ernst <jernst+wikipedia.org at netmesh.us>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Clarification: Single Sign-On
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <B34D3C5B-E6E5-4250-BF15-B150369BD775 at netmesh.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> > The SSO activity has been somewhat dormant for a couple months now,
> > but
> > is probably can be resurrected if someone (you?) volunteers to
> > shepherd
> > the effort.
>
> As it turns out, Dan Libby of videntity.org just 20 minutes ago
> published a MediaWiki patch
> to allow for OpenID-based SSO.
>
> http://wiki.www.videntity.org/wiki/MediaWiki_OpenID_Patch
>
> > If someone (you?) were to say, implement a LID server and client for
> > MediaWiki, that would give it a big head start over other potential
> > solutions.
>
> You are probably right, but from my perspective, this isn't a matter
> of a "land grab" before "the other guy" gets too much market share
> with their protocol, whatever it may be ;-) [I might be exaggerating
> your point here ...]
>
> In my mind, the question is "what can we do to reduce the number of
> usernames and passwords that users have to use, how can be increase
> user convenience, how can we reduce spam and other bad stuff, how can
> we build cool new social stuff" on top of what hopefully will be a
> globally interoperable, privacy-protected, user-controlled identity
> infrastructure that pretty much everybody can buy into. We're trying
> to proactively do our part here ...
>
> >   It wouldn't be the simplest solution to intra-Wikimedia SSO,
> > but it would work, assuming that the LID libraries are mature
> > enough to
> > deal with Wikimedia's demands.  If such a solution were to get
> > substantial testing outside of the Wikimedia realm of servers, that
> > would be a big argument for the maturity of the solution.
> >
>
> You are making a good point, and this is one of the reasons I posted
> to the list here -- how would one get any of this deployed with
> acceptably low risk to the operation of wikipedia? And for my own
> better understanding: how has that been done in the past by this
> project?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
> -------------- next part --------------
>   http://netmesh.info/jernst
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:31:43 -0600
> From: Dan Libby <danda at videntity.org>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki OpenID patch
> To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <4344463F.9000607 at videntity.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi all, I've created a patch for OpenID login to MediaWiki. ( 1.4.10 )
>
> Details here:
> http://wiki.www.videntity.org/wiki/MediaWiki_OpenID_Patch
>
> cheers!
>
> Dan Libby
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 22:08:00 +0000
> From: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: How to add a button in the existing text
>         editor
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <51dd1af80510051508m3160296fg80b1bc8e8b93ed94 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 10/5/05, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> > Maybe Avar can add the hooks, I am sure he likes them :p
>
> Yummie hooks...
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed,  5 Oct 2005 18:29:30 -0400
> From: Amruta Lonkar <gtg808u at mail.gatech.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: How to add a button in the existing text
>         editor
> To: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason     <avarab at gmail.com>, Wikimedia developers
>         <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <1128551370.434453ca09f98 at webmail.mail.gatech.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I am still a little confused. I went through the getEditToolbar() method. From
> what i understand the buttons in this tool bar will add the appropriate tags
> when inserting/writing an article. What i was hoping to do was, when a user
> clicks on the button associated with references, it will pull up the page i
> have created in extensions. This is just a form where the user can enter
> relevant information related to a reference.
>
> Ashar could you tell me how i should go about doing this. I am just a beginner
> so am stuck on these little things.
>
> thanks,
> Amruta
>
>
> Quoting ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 10/5/05, Ashar Voultoiz <hashar at altern.org> wrote:
> > > Maybe Avar can add the hooks, I am sure he likes them :p
> >
> > Yummie hooks...
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikitech-l mailing list
> > Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Amruta
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
> End of Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6
> *****************************************
>

--

*************************************************

Deborah MacPherson, Projects Director
Accuracy&Aesthetics, A Nonprofit Organization for the
Advancement of Education, Cultural Heritage, and Science
PO Box 52, Vienna VA 22183 USA
www.deborahmacpherson.com

The content of this email may contain private and confidential
information. Do not forward, copy, share, or otherwise distribute
without explicit written permission from all correspondents.

**************************************************


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Gerard stated for the record:

> On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>>- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
>>>falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
>>>frequently can't or won't learn.
>
>
>>Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had
>>reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he
>>made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong.
>>You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain
>>the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]].
>>"According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called
>>against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other
>>words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called
>>"out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than
>>three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How
>>is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three
>>reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be
>>blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3
>>times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I
>>be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your
>>warning?--Freemarkets  11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
>
>
>
> What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At
> least not the first time.

Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | It is dark, and you are likely to
 sean at epoptic.com | log off the wrong account.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRU+jMAt1wyd9d+URAtYOAJ4k5auqmO1VeuFVNj9jMvC1Wq9PHQCfdYTE
F/J4nxsoB4YM1Ir0SDSAmNE=
=fgTQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's what I saw, too.  Perhaps the threat of 3RR was an unseen
> > motivation to encourage everyone to actually try to work it out rather
> > than insist on one's own version.  I know it has been for me at least
> > once, so even if I don't get bitten, the guard dog helps secure the
> > property.  ;-)    It helps me pay attention a little better.  (!)
>
> That's what it's supposed to be.  Unfortunately, it's far too often
> used by editors as a club: if someone makes an edit you don't like,
> maneuver them into being the "first to revert" and then revert-war
> them until they cross 3RR one step ahead of you, then report them.
> Bam, he's  blocked, and all you have to do to win the edit war for 24
> hours is get a friend to revert his last edit.
>
> I'm frequently tempted to block BOTH parties in situations like this,
> one for blocking the 3RR and the other for gaming it.  Unfortunately,
> there's a number of admins who engage in this sort of behavior, and
> I'm not really interested in getting into a block war or putting up
> with the whining (and the RFCs) that I'd almost certainly get were I
> to do this.  As a result, I tend to avoid enforcing the 3RR at all.
> As do a lot of the other admins I talk to.

Maybe we should add the "guard dog" analogy to the rule, since guard
dogs sometimes go a little outside the bounds of their confines at
unexpected times.  This would also support admins such as yourself,
who are attempting to apply the spirit of the rule rather than just
enforcing to the letter.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Ryan Hudy

subject: [Wikitech-l] Changes to the Skin Preferences section

body:
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I have created a skin that uses a
form that enables users to add necessary classification markup. The issue I
have is that I need to set/change the preferences listing so that this skin
is the default and cannot be changed by the user through the preferences
section. Is this possible?

Ryan


from_name: Ryan W. (Merovingian)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement.

body:
I agree whole-heartedly.  Reverts should really only be seen from trolls and POV-pushers, who find the edit summary or talk page irrelevant.

--Ryan

> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement.
>
> > I'm not inclined to care a whole lot.  People who hit the 3RR have
> > already gone beyond reasonable editing.  Whether they get blocked for
> > 24 hours or a week is not that great of a concern to me.
>
>
> Seconded. The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. It *really
> doesn't matter* if the article is on [[m:The Wrong Version]] for a
> while longer. It really doesn't. Consistently running up 3 reversions
> every 24 hours is prima facie evidence of failure to work with others.
>
>
> - d.

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized
> at Wikipedia IS stupefying.  There's a lot to think about and remember
> when you just get started.

I never really noticed that.  I was here for months before I read all
that much of policy.  There are quite a few I still haven't read and
I've been an admin since June.

If you have some basic common sense, and access to a trusted peer
group (i.e. Kat, who *has* read all of the policy and is easy to talk
to on IRC...) who also has common sense, you barely need to read the
published policy.

Kelly


from_name: Phroziac

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alphax wrote:
> Agreed. If we can't trust admins, who *can* we trust?

Wiktionary admins! ehehe. Remember the incident? :)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
(Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRS/fVLzO3sKvVBcRAhA2AJ9jF0dV7Zab3BzvjpHF9vlQ/1UUXACdFF4F
AzqFuE8Pr4VmkBzOr/N91eY=
=I6zB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock my account or mark pages so I can extract
	the	content

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jack Lynch wrote:
> you can view the source of apage w/o being unblocked. There is a
> button which says "view source" or some such instead of "edit". Try
> that.
Actually it still says "edit", and blocks your IP for 24 hours every
time you click it...

- --
Phroziac                    |   /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2    |   / \
(Computer clock currently thinks it should be set to UTC.)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRTEfVLzO3sKvVBcRAs1pAJ4rjhzTEzvSJ3dhAU7MwiLybaN6MACgi5Pb
wcRTOzoFntqTJB/9Wgav9yU=
=luYg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 10/6/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Appelate courts also do not permit new evidence to be brought forth.
> They judge on points of law rather than facts.  It would be up to the
> lower ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material
> that is often raised.

I don't guarantee that the ArbCom would elect to refuse to consider
new evidence on appeal.  However, just having the case marshalled for
review through the process of the preceding magisterial process will
immensely help the ArbCom in its determinations.

The other appeal to a tiered system is that it will scale far better
than most of the other proposals I've seen.  Any system which has
ArbCom as a court of original jurisdiction is going to have scaling
problems in the long term, IMO.

Kelly


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ray Saintonge wrote:

> points of law rather than facts. It would be up to the lower
> ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of irrelevant material
> that is often raised.
>
> Ec

I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are trying to say.

Michael Snow wrote:

> Kelly Martin wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current size (or close to it)
>> and establish lower courts to filter off the relatively easy stuff and
>> to organize the cases into a form so that when they do appeal the
>> ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time marshalling the case.
>>
>>
> This is roughly what I suggested prior to the election last year:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
> We would simply need to figure out the number of magistrates (my
> term for the people on the next level down) and how to select them.
>
> --Michael Snow

I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is
now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all
that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can
call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)

Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any
administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending
against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said,
this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be
thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the
satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.

Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRVzN6MKb8lYmCtcRAsfDAJ4wMmAYMqxLltYU7Mf7tAbYDQNTfACgnh8T
gGTIqpfvtsPIiD/vp4atReg=
=4l65
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Marco Chiesa

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:

>1. I notice that whenever one uses an accent in a Category, it puts it all out of order.  For instance, if I wish to write ?frica in the Category - it ends up after Z rather than amongst the As - is there a trick to fixing that up?
>
>
>
>2.  Is there a wikipedia for Tetum, the official language of the newest member of the United Nations, East Timor?
>
>
>
>pippu d'angelo
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
Hi Giuseppe,
  you can write [[Caegory:xxx|Africa]], it will be sorted as if the
articl was named [[Africa]].

Cruccone


body:
On 10/6/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should add the "guard dog" analogy to the rule, since guard
> > dogs sometimes go a little outside the bounds of their confines at
> > unexpected times.  This would also support admins such as yourself,
> > who are attempting to apply the spirit of the rule rather than just
> > enforcing to the letter.
>
>
> No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence)
> expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its
> electric fence nature.
>
> Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at
> [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than
> three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something
> completely wrongly.

The electric fence analogy gives people the false impression that they
can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it.
This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few
minutes after the first.

I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right
next to the fence like so many think they are.  Electric fences don't
move when necessary to protect the Wiki.  3RR does (and should) move
occasionally.

Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise,
much like we sniff out sock puppets.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Gerard wrote:

>
> Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to
> understand:
>
>
> "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric
>fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users
>an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse
>reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly
>discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with
>others."
>
>- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
>falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
>frequently can't or won't learn.
>
Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had
reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he
made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong.
You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain
the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]].

According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called
against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other
words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called
"out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than
three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How
is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three
reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be
blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3
times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I
be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your
warning?--Freemarkets
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Freemarkets&action=edit>
11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRV8+6MKb8lYmCtcRAhZyAJ0b95k7VqVkea+PyUI2uyDyJUOWAwCghN4h
scQW0/ZNcZTWq2MPBPcohug=
=nna5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 10/6/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No. The current wording (including the bit about the electric fence)
> > > expresses the spirit quite accurately, down to the bit about its
> > > electric fence nature.
> > > Bottom line: unless it's to fix simple vandalism as defined at
> > > [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]], there is no right way to revert more than
> > > three times in 24 hours. If you break 3RR, you are doing something
> > > completely wrongly.
>
> > The electric fence analogy gives people the false impression that they
> > can walk *just up to the edge* and even reach their finger toward it.
> > This is why we keep seeing fourth reverts at 24 hours and a few
> > minutes after the first.
> > I'd rather we were more clear that people are not "safe" walking right
> > next to the fence like so many think they are.  Electric fences don't
> > move when necessary to protect the Wiki.  3RR does (and should) move
> > occasionally.
> > Further, a guard dog can catch the scent of an intruder in disguise,
> > much like we sniff out sock puppets.
>
>
> Honestly, I think that anyone who reads [[WP:3RR]] and fails to understand:
>
>     "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric
> fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users
> an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse
> reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly
> discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with
> others."
>
> - is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
> falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
> frequently can't or won't learn.

Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized
at Wikipedia IS stupefying.  There's a lot to think about and remember
when you just get started.

That's why I think a guard dog analogy is better; it allows for
quicker understanding without thinking about it.  Intuitive
understanding is better than anything that requires thought.

(Also, when the dog is provoked to go beyond the fence, he doesn't
always bite just the intruder; sometimes he bites everyone in the
immediate area.)

I'll leave it at that; if anyone's interested, contact me and I'll
help rewrite a temp page before proposing a change.  If not, that's
fine, too.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: David Gerard

body:
Carbonite wrote:

>I agree with Tony that it would be difficult to sustain a very large number
>of arbitrators. However, if we had an efficient system for replacing
>arbitrators, I could see maintaining a "steady state" of 25-35. Replacements
>could be appointed by Jimbo, be elected as alternates during the regular
>ArbCom elections or we could utilize a system like the one suggested by
>Dragons's Flight.

At present we have the election, then people drop out, then Jimbo
drafts people to cover until December. So far the draftees have been
appointed following detailed thought and discussion amongst the
existing and previous AC on the AC mailing list (which contains all
present AC and any past AC who want to be on it.) About half shudder
in horror and say "No thank you!" which doesn't surprise me. I'm not
sure it's a sustainable method in the long run. Also, en: is far too
big for us to know everyone even a bit.

(This may create worries of cabalism amongst the AC. Let me assure
you, speaking from the view inside the sausage factory, that the AC
members frequently agree on things even less than admins do. Oh boy.
But we do respect each others' general cluefulness.)

- d.


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>One of the things which would greatly  improve  functioning and
>retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and
>present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As
>it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the
>ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as
>"evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.

The catch is of course that concise, coherent, joined-up thinking is
often the problem editors' precise weak point ...

- d.


from_name: Nyenyec N

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in non-English
	Wikipedias

body:
Hi,

In HuWiki there's an ongoing debate over trademarked images, such as
company logos. On the one hand, they're usually copyrighted so they
shouldn't be uploaded, on the other hand they can be used to
illustrate encyclopedia articles about the specific company without
the fear of anyone suing us.

I know that they cannot be uploaded to commons (since they're
copyrighted) and I think the German Wikipedia also doesn't allow such
images, since they don't have a free license.

I'd be really interested in reading about what decisions the other
language versions of Wikipedia made and why.

Can someone point me to a place where I can discuss this (preferably
in English)?

Thanks,
nyenyec


body:
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>You know, I think the word advocacy is not really fitting, it's more
>like a clerkship what we are talking about. It's not like the person
>would be searching and trying to find evidence or make up arguments
>himself, he/she would just be given the evidence and be tasked to sort
>through it, organize it, find the important diffs an explain what is
>happening in them. It's not like they should argue the case.

Something like this (helping organise a mountain of evidence into
something that makes sense) has happened before on an ad hoc basis. In
the Baku Ibne case earlier this year, Tony Sidaway did a fantastic job
of showing clearly WTF was going on (editor being harassed by a couple
of obsessive trolls) and got a vote of thanks for it. I couldn't make
head nor tail of it before that. As a general process, there's the
question of (1) who does it (2) the clerk inadvertently (or
advertently) putting their own POV on things in the process. But it's
an idea worth thinking about. Even if it smells like instruction
creep.

- d.


body:
>I fail to see how having more arbitrators would do anything but cause the
>process to be less efficient. The only reason we have more than one
>arbitrator is because it's more democratic that way, not because it's more
>efficient.

It's not for "democratic" reasons, it's so that there's a diversity of
opinions and POVs on the committee. One person can't know everything
or see everything all ways.

- d.


body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>Title of a column in today's London Independent, by technology correspondent
>Charles Arthur.  Oh, BTW, it's favourable to WP.

Analyst wank: the subgenre of business and technology reporting where
a columnist comes up with a good headline then writes a flight of
fancy making it sound like a plausible idea. Ones that don't happen
are forgotten and ones that do happen make the columnist look
amazingly prescient.

That said, it does raise the issue of what people want from a search engine.

- d.


from_name: Jack Lynch

body:
I'd been hoping for a long time that the position of adminship would
be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire
thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism,
ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that
admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest
at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the
reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating
hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage
volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order
to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy
reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such
an unrewarding process.

Jack (Sam Spade)

Agreed. If we can't trust admins, who *can* we trust?

- --
Alphax


from_name: Giuseppe DAngelo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
1. I notice that whenever one uses an accent in a Category, it puts it all out of order.  For instance, if I wish to write ?frica in the Category - it ends up after Z rather than amongst the As - is there a trick to fixing that up?

2.  Is there a wikipedia for Tetum, the official language of the newest member of the United Nations, East Timor?

pippu d'angelo

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi, antispam, antivirus, POP3


body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Turley wrote:

>
> There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".

All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?

- - Ryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRWcC6MKb8lYmCtcRAj+qAJwNIyHKpwtcXOd8bFIr3CvSERNl1QCgpucA
u9V2kIgrAWwpekdTszlV/m0=
=CMUM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: steve v

body:
Whatever the name or the composition and size caps,
there seems to be general agreement that the dispute
resolution process needs to be expanded --most likely
into a tiered system. This basic agreement needs to be
validated by confirmations not just on this list, but
by a site-wide vote using the vote machine.

While that gets in the works, I think its appropriate
to formalize all the various proposals for how this
expansion could or should work --such as Ryan's
seniority-tiered idea or my notion of separating
committees deal with reviewing policy from those
dealing with conflicts of personality.

SV
PS: I'd suggest even formalizing a process whereby the
community (with a permissive wave of JW's scepter) can
proceed with any use of the voting machine it feels is
appropriate.

--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > points of law rather than facts. It would be up to
> the lower
> > ranking tribunal to sort through the mass of
> irrelevant material
> > that is often raised.
> >
> > Ec
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you
> are trying to say.
>
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
> > Kelly Martin wrote:
> >
> >> I would prefer to keep the ArbCom at its current
> size (or close to it)
> >> and establish lower courts to filter off the
> relatively easy stuff and
> >> to organize the cases into a form so that when
> they do appeal the
> >> ArbCom doesn't have to waste as much time
> marshalling the case.
> >>
> >>
> > This is roughly what I suggested prior to the
> election last year:
> >
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/017170.html
> > We would simply need to figure out the number of
> magistrates (my
> > term for the people on the next level down) and
> how to select them.
> >
> > --Michael Snow
>
> I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and
> everyone on what is
> now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the
> language isn't all
> that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed
> through, they can
> call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned.
> :-)
>
> Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of
> letting this be any
> administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA
> actions pending
> against him) who volunteers for the job. Like
> Michael Turley said,
> this wouldn't be a job that most people find
> appealing. It would be
> thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't
> even have the
> satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at
> the end.
>
> Ryan
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
> http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>
iD8DBQFDRVzN6MKb8lYmCtcRAsfDAJ4wMmAYMqxLltYU7Mf7tAbYDQNTfACgnh8T
> gGTIqpfvtsPIiD/vp4atReg=
> =4l65
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: DF

body:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
wrote:
>Michael Turley wrote:
>
> >
> > There are a lot of current administrators that
I've either voted to
> > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their
RfA that I
> > would never consider supporting in the position of
an arbitrator.
> > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get
handed the authority
> > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can
(by blocking,
> > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been
less "no big deal"
> > and a lot more "let's screen these people very
carefully".

> All right, then. How would you suggest we choose
them?

I also agree with what has been said by Turley and
others.  Arbitration is not something I would trust to
every admin, and there are at least a couple admins
that I would shudder to see given binding judicial
powers.

How about a mixed system?  First, have a Supreme Court
(or whatever we want to call it) whose membership is
fixed in number and determined through an election
process such as governs Arbcom now.  And then have
lesser courts/magistrates/whatever confirmed through a
process of community consensus such as occurs in RFA
now?

-DF


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
I think of a webdirectory as a place where any link can be entered.
Wikipedia only selects the best.

On 10/6/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com> wrote:
> > But shouldn't, according to long-standing policy:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
> >
>
> I know. However that policy results in us makeing an effort to select
> only the best external links which means that we end up being usable
> as a web directory.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: How many Arbitrators should we have?

body:
The Mediation Committee cant be called "a failure"
because it wasnt built to work in a manner that can be
verified in terms of its overall success. "Success" in
mediation often means getting over one hump, only to
find another two weeks later. Successful mediations
are often comparable to watching a "molasses ko",
while unsuccessful mediations at least progress from
chaos to
arbcom. MC views werent meant to be binding, hence RFM
wasnt actually designed to "work."

SV

--- Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:

> I ment that the mediation commitee has generally
> been a failure, and
> its method of determining membgership has been a key
> factor in that
> failure. Recently one or 2 members hjave taken an
> interest in things
> and some improvement has occured, but they are
> '''FAR''' from an
> example to be emulating.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> > The current mediation process doesn't work very
> well, for exactly
> > those reasons, and should not be used an an
> example of what to do w
> > the ArbCom. They are making changes and
> improvements, but it is
> > despite, rather than because of their selection
> process, that it is
> > occuring.
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
> >
> > Can you clarify what you mean, Sam Spade? Thanks.
> >
> > Flcelloguy
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
You have flawed notion that admins don't vandalize or edit war, and
that anons and layusers don't step in and correct such abuses.

Sometimes they get popular by sharing the same socio-political
paradigm. Sometimes they get that way by being boring, and not having
been involved in conflict. MOST often they get that way the same way
people get popular in school, by chatting alot, and making friends.
Which of these shows their inherent abilities as adjudicators?

As to this last, I suppose your trolling? Suggestions like that
underscore why an clique of net-friends should not have a monopoly on
the reigns of power here.

Jack (Sam Spade)

>
> Jack Lynch wrote:
> > I'd been hoping for a long time that the position of adminship would
> > be done away with, in favor of something more wikilike. This entire
> > thread betrays the basics of why the wikipedia works (anti-elitism,
> > ability of everyone to edit). These proposals perpetuate the idea that
> > admins are somehow more competent for having won a popularity contest
> > at RfA. That simply is not true, and eventually you'll discover the
> > reason why the wikipedia works, and the nupedia didn't. Creating
> > hegemony to the benefit of the few is no way to encourage
> > volunteership. Skilled contributors don't donate their time in order
> > to be made to feel like 2nd class citizens. Your damn lucky I enjoy
> > reading the encyclopedia so much, or I wouldn't be wasting time w such
> > an unrewarding process.
>
> Oh, so you would rather that we let everyone vandalise and edit war
> without restraint?
>
> If RfA is a popularity contest, how did the people that "won" get so
> popular in the first place?
>
> And while we're at it, are you in the habit of conducting "experiments"
> to press admins's buttons, to see just how much crap they are willing to
> tolerate?
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\


subject: [WikiEN-l] Old VFD-type discussions on talk sub-pages

body:
On 10/5/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have just discovered that a bunch of these have been obliterated as an
> unfortunate side-effect of an entirely right-minded drive to delete orphan
> talk pages.
>
> The particular page which I stumbled across is
> [[Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete]] which can be
> viewed here (if you have the right credentials :-):
> *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete
>
If I read this correctly the AFD/VFD discussion was put on the talk
page when it belonged on a A or VFD subpage. Why was it there to begin
with.

I don't particularly like moving old VFD discussions to AFD either. It
obscures their age.

--Mgm


from_name: Paweł Dembowski

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
> Hi Giuseppe,
>   you can write [[Caegory:xxx|Africa]], it will be sorted as if the
> articl was named [[Africa]].
> Cruccone

But what if, for example, in Polish letters like ?, ? or ? are not
sorted under a, l and c but are treated as separate letters? ? is
sorted after A, ? after L and ? after C.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Old VFD-type discussions on talk sub-pages

body:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm"  wrote:
On 10/5/05, Phil Boswell  wrote:
> I have just discovered that a bunch of these have been obliterated as an
> unfortunate side-effect of an entirely right-minded drive to delete orphan
> talk pages.
>
> > The particular page which I stumbled across is
> > [[Talk:Constitutional_Charter_of_Serbia_and_Montenegro/Delete]]

...which I have now moved back to the appropriate VFD sub-page. I also took
the liberty of topping and tailing it as per current practice.

> If I read this correctly the AFD/VFD discussion was put on the talk
> page when it belonged on a A or VFD subpage. Why was it there to begin
> with.

Actually it started out as a sub-page of VFD and for some strange reason was
moved to a sub-page of the talk page of the article.

> I don't particularly like moving old VFD discussions to AFD either. It
> obscures their age.

The age should be obvious from the contents. I have no personal problem with
mass-moving VFD discussions to AFD, assuming that naming conflicts are
sensibly dealt with: I see it as simply a rather extended move operation :-)
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fvw's abuse of admin powers

body:
If the autoblocker causes so much problems for 3RR blocks, then we
could ask the developers to make autoblocking optional. Have a nice
clickable 3RR box in the block screen which switches off autoblocking
for 3RR blocks.

Of course, if one would follow a 1 or 2RR this wouldn't even be an issue.

--Mgm


body:
Without those ordinary "idiots" you wouldn't have an encyclopedia to
play in. Your resort to an ad hominem (and an absurd and unresearched
one at that, how about you look into me and who I am before making
attacks) clarifies the quality of your argument.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 10/6/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Jack Lynch wrote:
> > You have flawed notion that admins don't vandalize or edit war, and
> > that anons and layusers don't step in and correct such abuses.
> >
>
> I never said that they *don't* - that's what RfC and Arbcom are for.
>
> > Sometimes they get popular by sharing the same socio-political
> > paradigm. Sometimes they get that way by being boring, and not having
> > been involved in conflict. MOST often they get that way the same way
> > people get popular in school, by chatting alot, and making friends.
> > Which of these shows their inherent abilities as adjudicators?
> >
>
> I would have said that they get popular based on the quality of their
> skills in contributing to the encyclopedia.
>
> > As to this last, I suppose your trolling? Suggestions like that
> > underscore why an clique of net-friends should not have a monopoly on
> > the reigns of power here.
> >
>
> I could ask you the same thing - your attitudes towards admins seem
> remarkably similar to those of one particularly notorious troll who
> claimed to be "experimenting" to prove their hypothesis that "admins are
> evil".
>
> "Power to the people" is a great idea, until you realise that "the
> people" are idiots.
>
> - --
> Alphax                      |   /"\
> Encrypted Email Preferred   |   \ /     ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613  |    X   Against HTML email & vCards
> http://tinyurl.com/cc9up    |   / \
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQEVAwUBQ0Tui7MAAH8MeUlWAQjv4Af9FFTDGe++j+DbpQNXUCeC2ZEgz4ThKcDE
> O1fKdC8Lb0s6x2EPiNiJnpUbuYrQDGS7joofJPuy0HbJtscfqX7VurSX18qt9z++
> VP75jp7wN20UXx7YdO6rWOnVl8chBgSFjN/on+ZbSdy2xMXNLhu3cZlxSBLBsSy6
> 1tYNtstFahkRjzkMHsf93oMThiBNT75sG8jaNKAMWmYE9ehkKpa2gc1egABjLSHs
> znVCHtymrYK1EVOLiyp83o6IYDIW2d0ettIkLvDiFuUx7gz3wUafLhVn4RCpGJu+
> mTZuz1Y0K5xnnzm9rXX8QNFmUblbX4dyl3OCSKMnWpyLiLk+lPRQcQ==
> =0w7z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


references:
<di0gej$p2e$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<fb7fdd9c0510060225lb90e698v7bbe437b7b40cb1c@mail.gmail.com>
	<4344EEC6.1060905@gmail.com>

body:
On 10/6/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Their age should be evident by the nicely timestamped closing comments.
>
I guess that's true, but I don't see how mass moving deletion
discussions is at all useful. Having a link telling people about VFD
and a button to check the other page would be a lot easier and a lot
less work.

--Mgm


from_name: Ole Andersen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
On 06/10/05, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> But what if, for example, in Polish letters like ?, ? or ? are not
> sorted under a, l and c but are treated as separate letters? ? is
> sorted after A, ? after L and ? after C.

You might want to sort by AZZZ or somesuch - not pretty, but workable.
And you'll have to re-sort when the code is changed, of course.

--
http://palnatoke.org * Ole Andersen, Copenhagen, DK
CV: http://palnatoke.org/CV.doc
ICQ: 86989486 phone: +45 22 34 72 92


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would
> never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.  If I'd
> thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to
> arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page
> locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a
> lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
>
> Keeping adminship "no big deal" has to include keeping the authorities
> granted to them in the same general class.

I'm also in agreement that the notion of letting any admin volunteer
to act as an adjudicator on any dispute is a bad idea.

First, you have the issue that adminship is currently "no big deal".
If we give admins the right to make unilateral binding decisions (even
if subject to appeal) with the full authority of the ArbCom, then
suddenly adminship is no longer "no big deal".  We'd really need to
reconfirm all our current admins to this new standard, and I bet a lot
of them would fail to meet it.

Second, allowing people to pick and choose what issues they will offer
justice on is an open invitation to bias.  If a candidate jurist has a
POV on a particular issue, he will want to judge it in order to impose
his POV.  I oppose any system in which assignment to cases is on a
voluntary basis; all of our jurists should take the cases as they
come, with the option (and obligation) to recuse in case of conflict.

As to the problem of getting people to want to serve as magistrates
(which is, frankly, a really nasty job, almost as bad as that of
arbitrator, and with less prestige and power): the one selling point
is that it stands to reason that magistrates will naturally be the
most probable candidates to become future arbitrators, and are likely
to be called on to serve as temporary arbitrators to fill vacancies
and so forth.  Combine that with the fact that there are some crazy
people who enjoy being jurists, and I think we can scare up enough
qualified people to at least blunt the storm somewhat.

And, on top of that, I will personally buy a round of drinks for
anyone who serves as a magistrate, at every Wikimania I attend. :)

Kelly


from_name: Michael Turley

body:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> I was thinking of calling them "arbitrators" and everyone on what is
> now ArbCom becomes a "senior arbitrator". But the language isn't all
> that important to me. If we can get the idea pushed through, they can
> call it whatever they want as far as I am concerned. :-)
>
> Right now, I'm not too opposed to the idea of letting this be any
> administrator-in-good-standing (say, one with no RFA actions pending
> against him) who volunteers for the job. Like Michael Turley said,
> this wouldn't be a job that most people find appealing. It would be
> thankless and difficult, and a magistrate wouldn't even have the
> satisfaction of getting to make a final decision at the end.

There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would
never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.  If I'd
thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to
arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page
locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a
lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".

Keeping adminship "no big deal" has to include keeping the authorities
granted to them in the same general class.

Further, I don't think I should be excluded as a possible arbitrator
simply because I have no interest in the toolbox of an admin other
than rollback.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> I came here alone; I didn't have trusted peer group to guide me.  Some
> people are more bold, some more cautious.

Well, I started without a peer group.  It was a few months before I
discovered the IRC channel.  Sometimes I wonder what would have
happened if I hadn't.  I probably wouldn't be here anymore; I nearly
left in March over a dispute, largely brought on by my lack of
understanding of How Things Work.

Kelly


body:
On 10/6/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, the amount of policy a person has to absorb to become socialized
> > at Wikipedia IS stupefying.  There's a lot to think about and remember
> > when you just get started.
>
> I never really noticed that.  I was here for months before I read all
> that much of policy.  There are quite a few I still haven't read and
> I've been an admin since June.
>
> If you have some basic common sense, and access to a trusted peer
> group (i.e. Kat, who *has* read all of the policy and is easy to talk
> to on IRC...) who also has common sense, you barely need to read the
> published policy.

I came here alone; I didn't have trusted peer group to guide me.  Some
people are more bold, some more cautious.

I wanted to make sure my edits were "proper" before committing them,
after all, they are in the edit history FOREVER ;-), so I did more
than an afternoon's worth of reading before my first logged-in post.
My initial thoughts were "What would be worse for establishing your
reputation than having a crappy first edit?"  Yet I still neglected to
use an edit summary!  Doh!

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 unrelated questions

body:
Well Mark,
I am sure you have figures on that. You have obviously done loads of
research on this. Or you prefer as usual to have Wikipedias. That is in
itself fine but please leave off with spreading FUD.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 10/6/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why would we start a Tetum Wiktionary first? Wiktionaries generally
> don't hold new contributors as well.
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/10/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> > > 1. I notice that whenever one uses an accent in a Category, it puts
> > > it all out of order. For instance, if I wish to write ?frica in the
> > > Category - it ends up after Z rather than amongst the As - is there a
> > > trick to fixing that up?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, re-writing the string comparator in PHP...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. Is there a wikipedia for Tetum, the official language of the
> > > newest member of the United Nations, East Timor?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Not sure^H^H^H^H^H yet. The article on en: [[Tetum language]] doesn't
> > have ISO 639 -1, -2 or SIL codes. It's listed in [[ISO 639]] as "tet"
> > for -3.
> >
> > It would probably be best to start a Tetum wiktionary first...
> >
> > - --
> > Alphax | /"\
> > Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> > OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
> > http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iQEVAwUBQ0TqzLMAAH8MeUlWAQh99Qf/R9kYzLdlDYRx9vlgCpWiP2l0Paw+4VMo
> > 5M2rZUeKdQ7QnjFG+3Ih0ChniKNcplIqfYoWFKQCcCYtUo6z36NTuC5AieYpCPM8
> > dv0KEb/oVDVFHUocovWsrfPiQG7I3BPirJE+vF4qY2wz/hpzo4BHGDyqtgxgdeMc
> > 9gBiWgrTVfRC990wGG3ncjnlIaI8pnia2KzP/XP+uNQAiNDjJ/dRQu4dM+jDS+Ju
> > b7muAfwaW2DCGdvHXn41DthXkm11POzPGk4n5giphI+X8PQxIFKAYXsJXmPqjNGN
> > Z2yKXTQp9vZx2TNmo+xgYxz88B36TUZVt1/ZJH+r4p+DKIi1nFV1dA==
> > =WIIL
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> It took me a few days to realise it used a version control system and
> that the edit summary was equivalent to the CVS commit message ;-)
>
>

I think I reported my first edit on ViP, because I was nervous about
removing something I thought was tangental to an article.

-Snowspinner


body:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Michael Turley wrote:
>
> >
> > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
>
> All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?

By the same process we do now, just create more vacancies to fill.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Turley wrote:
>
> >
> > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
>
> All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
>
> - - Ryan

I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request
process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general
agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool
of people to draw from.

I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be
a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would.
It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality
required.

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]

--
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams