from_name: Philip Welch

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA
	notice	(Forwarded email)

body:
On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:

>>>> Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff
>>>> claimed
>>>> as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
>>>>
>>> [[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
>>>
>> Doesn't apply becuase it has already been tried:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_proposal
>>
> Simply giving legal advice is not the practice of law.  Practice would
> require doing it as some kind of business.

It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because
the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal
advice.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Scott Stevenson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions?

body:
Resid,

>From what I understood of jayjg's previous message, admins assumed good
faith with you for too long and Wikipedia paid the price by having to spend
time dealing with your repeatedly disruptive behavior until the community's
patience was COMPLETELY exhausted. In that sense his message was perfectly
correct.
-Scott Stevenson

On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Jay,
>
> Welcome in. Do you think you got into the discussion
> from the correct place? I think I was trying to
> emphasis on the importance of discussing the proposal
> itself and taking it as a first step in the
> development of a better one. Anyways...
>
> There are some people with lack of short memories. It
> is OK under standard conditions at which they only
> need some automated behavioral patterns. It might be
> hard for them, though, when they are involved in some
> sort of discussions. They, for example, can easily
> forget what they said a minute ago? Can you imagine
> that?
>
> In your previous message about Salaadin, you are
> complaining about conspiracy theories he has in his
> mind about Jews. I do not mind your ethnic origin, so
> your concerns are understandable to me. You are on the
> other hand do not hesitate to construct your own
> conspiracy theory here: 'new kind of abusive editors
> trying to push their POV via the back door'. We have
> no chance other than showing respect to your
> conspiracy theory, of course, because it is yours
> and not against Jews. Who wants to be blamed for being
> an anti-semitist? Yours should be just fine...
>
> Would I bother luxury and comfort of your mind if I
> ask how you think these new abusive editors will abuse
> something and will make their hidden agenda a policy?
> Or do you know how a policy becomes a proposal in
> Wikipedia?
>
> I think, I could diagnose a problem in Wikipedia and
> could suggest a fix for it. I hope it attract some
> attention and works at the end. I am not able to make
> a suggestion for you (a good editor working for
> good of Wikipedia wihtout any doubt and in turn the
> humanity like you) other than; just follow the main
> policies such as 'assume good faith'.
>
> Best,
>
> Resid
>
>
> >From: jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing
> solutions?
> >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:27:13 -0400
> >
> >On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > Dear Scott,
> > >
> > > What is your panic for?
> >
> >What's worse, you
> >appear to be one of the new breed of that kind of
> abusive editor, the
> >kind who feels that if they can't push their POV and
> other policy
> >abuses onto Wikipedia by force, they will do it via
> the back-door,
> >through policy change.
> >
> >Jay.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice
	(Forwarded email)

body:
On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:36:22 +0200, you wrote:

>Yes, he doesn't have a case, and is of absolutely no threat to us
>whatsoever. Which totally destroys any reason we could possibly have
>for mocking him publicly.

Damn.  He so richly deserves some public mocking.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Roger Luethi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:01:26 +0300, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> > The problem there, now that I think about it, is that Paris should not
> > be in the category "Paris" (as was pointed out by someone else).
>
> Actually, if we consider "Paris" a thematic category, then it makes
> sense for Paris to be in it, since it certainly fits the theme.

Heh. Valid point, and it seems that many editors would agree with you.

> In fact, we _could_ have a parallel taxonomic category tree that focused
>   solely on geography, with "Districts of Paris" being a subset of
> "Places in Paris", which in turn is a subset of "Places in France" (but
> _not_ "Cities in France") and "Places in Europe" and ultimately
> "Places".  So we'd have a tree of taxonomic "Places in [Region]"
> categories, each one having subcategories named either "[Divisions] in
> [Region]" or "Places in [Subregion]", with the root of the tree being
> "Places".  (I'm torn on whether we'd need a second-level category
> "Places on Earth", though.)

[[Category:Subdivisions by country]] does something like that.

> The plural/singular distinction may not be ideal, but does feel very
> natural in many cases.  It's not without problems, though: what about,
> for example, the category "Sheep"?

Now _that_ is fortunately a minor problem. Call one of them "sheep
(thematic)" or something. It's not like namespace collisions are unheard of
in WP.

Roger


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] HTML normalization, transclusions, nesting

body:
>The lists of templates matching the above criteria, the Jython script I
>used to
>run the counts, and a pre-extracted set of templates for those of you who
>don't
>want to download a 2-gigabyte file just to get 9 megs of compressed
>templates
>are at http://leuksman.com/misc/templates/

>-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

A quick view show several templates with a horrible markup syntax. They are
not closed due to ignorance!
Or you can see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_China with
left <tr> where its open and starts as a wiki table, then changes to html
table and finsih with wiki again. Maybe someone html-only adding rows...

Some unsense notes: When i started, i prefered html tables as i understood
them. Wiki table syntax is not as easy as writing text or formatting quotes.
I have also seen people uploading tables as images. Html tables are also
easy-copied from html-exporting programs.


from_name: Anders Wegge Jakobsen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Some statistics I wish I had...

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

> Platonides wrote:
> > "Steve Bennett" wrote:
> >> Do we have a database dump pre-formatted for this kind of statistics?
> >> That is, simply date, page, user and edit summary for every edit,
> >> without the actual diffs or current page content.
> >
> > I'd support such kind of dump, the history but without the text of the
> > version.
>
> This is actually generated as a temporary file during the dump process, but
> they're not currently kept. If you guys want, I can have it keep them instead
> perhaps. The next one won't be for a few days, though.

 I run some offline statistics for dawiki, and I could use such a
dump. If article size could be included, it would be a nice bonus, but
even without that, it would be a help.

--
// Wegge

Min begrundelse for at betragte Arne Wilstrup som en paphat:
<http://wiki.wegge.dk/Usenet_personligheder>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
	userbox

body:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:54:11 -0700, you wrote:

>One RFC?  Sure.  One particularly upset complaintant?  Sure.
>Your kickback from the community is far, far past that.

The community?  Whoa!  Tony pisses me off, too, but I can see when he
has a point - which is pretty much always.  Take a deep breath and ask
what we are here for.  Social networking?  Glory?  Ego?  Or to build
an encyclopaedia?  In each of the numerous cases where Tony has wound
me up, it has been because he unilaterally did something which was
good for the encyclopaedia, and "fuck process".  I think that may even
be a direct quote from him.

A lot of the people who kick back against Tony via these RfCs are
problem editors, just like a lot of the whining that goes on here and
at Wikipedia Review is from frustrated POV warriors.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Ilmari Karonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Types of categories

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> The problem there, now that I think about it, is that Paris should not
> be in the category "Paris" (as was pointed out by someone else).

Actually, if we consider "Paris" a thematic category, then it makes
sense for Paris to be in it, since it certainly fits the theme.

But I do agree that the category "Paris" should not be a subcategory of
"European capitals", since the things in the "Paris" category (with one
possible exception) are not European capitals.

> Hmm, the difficulty is deciding what "subcategory" really means. I
> assume you're getting at the fact that a taxonomic subcategory should
> simply be getting more specific, and leading to more specialised
> subjects (so "Capitals of Europe" might have subcat "Capitals of
> Western Europe" or "Capitals of the European Union"), maintaining the
> "X is a Capital of Europe" mantra.
>
> In this case, it would seem best that "Districts of Paris" was a
> category of the thematic category "Paris".

...which could, however, be a subcategory of "France", which in turn
could be a subcategory of "Europe" -- all of these being thematic
categories, and each theme being a subset of its parent theme.

In fact, we _could_ have a parallel taxonomic category tree that focused
  solely on geography, with "Districts of Paris" being a subset of
"Places in Paris", which in turn is a subset of "Places in France" (but
_not_ "Cities in France") and "Places in Europe" and ultimately
"Places".  So we'd have a tree of taxonomic "Places in [Region]"
categories, each one having subcategories named either "[Divisions] in
[Region]" or "Places in [Subregion]", with the root of the tree being
"Places".  (I'm torn on whether we'd need a second-level category
"Places on Earth", though.)

So, to summarize what I believe has been proposed:

Taxonomic categories (plural):
  * Subcategories are subsets (and always taxonomic).
  * Members are instances.

Thematic categories (singular):
  * Subcategories are subthemes (thematic) or sets of related things
(taxonomic).
  * Members are related things.

The plural/singular distinction may not be ideal, but does feel very
natural in many cases.  It's not without problems, though: what about,
for example, the category "Sheep"?

--
Ilmari Karonen


from_name: Steve Summit

subject:
[WikiEN-l] "refactoring" signatures (was: cancelation of the
	deletion review of the satanism userbox)

body:
George: you might as well give it up.  Yes, Tony has an attitude
problem (he proved as much when he declared "I don't have an
attitude problem"), but: he is never ever in a million years
going to admit it.  I still haven't decided if it's because he's
constitutionally incapable of realizing it, or because he loves
playing coy and making points.  Anyway, I agree, it's annoying as
hell sometimes, but the consensus seems to be that his good
points make up for his bad points, so we mostly put up with him.

Tony: I agree, cutsie sigs are as annoying as hell, too, but: are
they *really* that big a problem in the grand scheme of things?
Worth raising this much ruckus over?  Surely someone who's been
editing Wikipedia as long as you have is adept enough with a mouse
cursor in an edit window to skip nimbly over and around them as
necessary.  Let the kiddies have their fun; they're not hurting
anyone or impressing anyone who matters, anyway.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Breaking promises (was Re: Where we are headed)

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
> This is an example of why I find the questions "Who voted for it?" and "Who
> voted against it?" immensely troubling. In a true democratic system, the
> secret  ballot allows people to vote their conscience, rather than voting for
> popularity, material reward, fear of censure, and whatnot.
That doesn't make any sense; the Board *represents* a community; it is
not itself a community engaging in pure democracy amongst its members.
The community can't very well figure out whether its interests are being
represented unless it's made public which members have been representing
which positions.  This is why in the "real world" the votes of
Parliaments and Congresses are made public.

-Mark


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>  In each of the numerous cases where Tony has wound
> me up, it has been because he unilaterally did something which was
> good for the encyclopaedia, and "fuck process".

But enough of my good points.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-06-05

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!

Passed 338 of 349 tests (96.85%) FAILED!


body:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem
> for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using that
> justification, of late.

That obviously isn't even remotely true.  Look at the latest RfC:
people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to
remove useless and intrusive formatting.  I'd say "fuck process" here
because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the
simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless
crap.


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
On 6/4/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> This all depends on how rigidly you look at the term "source".
> Scientific American does not typically have a lot of footnotes, but it
> does give opportunities such as this for further exploration. Are you
> saying that this makes the magazine less credible?
>
> Ec

Scientific American generally gives far more references than most
other science magazines I can think of (Discover is generally on or
below SA's par, and Science News is definitely way below)

~maru


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

references:
<NMENLBGDKAFGBDHEPOBNOEDADBAA.erikzachte@infodisiac.com>
	<b80736c80605312105l432e7c58yec39677bc6462028@mail.gmail.com>
	<44822044.7030601@wikia.com>

body:
On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > So, Wikimedia is shaped by people who feel that the very philosophy
> > that made WP a success is not applicable to organizations.
>
> And Erik wonders why I felt that he misrepresented my views in that meeting.

With all due respect, I wasn't talking about you above.

> The main beef that I had with Erik in that log was that he represented
> to the people there, that I felt that we should not recruit for the
> executive director position from within the community.  That was
> shocking to me, because I am strongly committed to our deep community
> roots and deep community focus.

My comments on IRC were based on your own statements, on IRC and on
the mailing list. When the CEO position was discussed, I pointed out
that there are qualified people in the community who can acquire some
of the additional skills needed, while being able to connect to
Wikimedians better than a complete outsider. I gave our current CFO,
Daniel Mayer, as an example.

To this, Daniel responded:

"While it would be nice to have a Wikimedian fill this role, I don't
think that is a critical thing for the board to consider."
[http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-January/005831.html]

Your response was: "I think that's exactly right." You then continued:
"There are people out there with decades of experience with
public-facing international charities with a strong community focus
who can very quickly be trained in our community norms.  And if they
already know about Wikipedia, and have edited, then so much the
better."

I think, based on these comments and some on IRC about the
community/organization split, the statement of myself that: "I doubt
[Jimmy] will care much for looking in the community for an
[Administrative Director]" was justifiable. Certainly, I do not feel
that your reaction -- to write on a public wiki page that I "deeply
misrepresented" you, and "that anyone reading this should take with a
huge grain of salt everything, and I mean absolutely everything, that
[Erik] said" was appropriate, or an example of how members of the
community should be engaged.

Even you will probably admit that you have a history of making vague,
non-committal statements, and of course there are good reasons for
doing so. However, vagueness opens up the potential for
misinterpretation. It is hardly fair to blame this on those who are
trying to make sense of your comments.

And your remarks in this thread have been exemplary for the same kind
of vague, non-committal statements of reassurance. Instead of "I think
we should have two more community-elected members by the end of
August", you'll say something like "We continue to be deeply committed
to the ideal of increasing the number of people on the Board, and
whether or not these are community members is secondary to  meeting
our charitable goals and thoughtfully finding the most qualified
people to help us do so" (made up quote). Well, what does something
like this tell us? Does Jimbo want more community-elected members?
Does he want to bring in someone he feels is right for the job? What's
going to happen? Same with the CEO question.

Frankly, there's a need for less Jimbospeak, and more concrete
promises and commitments on the public record.

> I think a lot of people feel tthat the foundation is opaque because they
> choose to not get involve

When the SP committee was created, I immediately expressed my interest
in joining. I saw the hope that this was a long needed step away from
exactly the kind of centralization and micromanagement that had led me
to resign as CRO (and which now seems to be generally acknowledged). I
pointed out my record working on Special Projects, from many different
kinds of partnerships to their technical realization.

I was told by Danny, immediately, that he would oppose me, that I had
"quit Wikimedia", that the committee was "beneath me". You also told
me, privately, that you did not want me on SP. Does that make me feel
welcome to help? If someone who _wants_ to help, who _has_ a record,
faces these barriers, how much harder is it for those who are not well
known, but yet highly qualified?

GerardM, who has a more impressive track record in special projects
than I do -- there would be no Kennisnet partnership and no
WiktionaryZ project without him, applied for membership and was
rejected. Frankly, this is not an example of an open organization that
accepts the most qualified people to do the right thing. It's an
example of "face by face" selection processes. No amount of rhetoric
is going to change that.

I agree with you, of  course, that the organization is not becoming
more opaque. It is becoming bigger and involving more people, and that
is good. But the potential for  Wikimedia is to be so much more than
just a shell for a few projects. The potential for Wikimedia is to
build hundreds, thousands of partnerships, to form knowledge networks,
to engineer the technology that will be needed to take free content to
the next level. Quite a lot of this work _needs_ to be done within the
context of the WMF, not the projects, because that is how you can
engage people in the outside world. This cannot be done with the
current organizational model.

InstantCommons (see [[m:InstantCommons]]) is a perfect example of
that. We met with Kennisnet in February, and they basically said "Wow,
good idea, let's do it! But, we would like the WMF to authorize it."
Since then, the project has been in organizational limbo, moving
slowly as molasses through several layers of bureaucracy, from SP to
Legal to SP to Board and back again, with complex contracts being
drawn up when all that needed to be done was giving them a call and
letting Gerard manage the project. This is about building a
relationship with a developer in Ghana, who could have started work on
this project as early as March. Now it's June and we still can't go
ahead. We're talking about a EUR 5000-10000 project. How on Earth do
you intend to manage large grants with that kind of attitude towards
project realization?

I won't even get into some of the other project ideas that are out
there, promises that have been made, and so on. Suffice it to say that
we are nowhere near fulfilling our potential, and that doesn't bode
well for future personal appeals that make the same empty comments
about Africa. These will get stale _very_ quickly if we don't
demonstrate success. Sure, professionals are important in getting our
act together. I consider myself a professional in what I do, which is
to solve complex problems. And I want to network all of those who are
professionals in something, regardless of whether we will actually end
up paying them.

You say that people do not get involved enough. Well, when the
committees were first proposed, I immediately wrote a long analysis of
some concerns regarding their setup and future:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-January/005828.html

Response: zero. Not from the Board, not from the community. If you do
not engage the community in even very basic and simple dialogue like
this, and only actually start talking when - as now - a lot of people
start complaining, then something is fundamentally wrong about the way
we communicate.

Here's an idea: Why not ask the community to draft up resolutions on
Meta? And why not start with the one about keeping the committees as
open as possible?

Another question: How much does Tim Shell actually participate in any
Board-level decision making, meetings, resolutions, open and private
discussions? If this is not about your control, why is he still on the
Board?

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Timwi

body:
Tels wrote:
> Moin,
>
>>You're supposed to write:
>>
>>{| class="specific-purpose"
>>
>>and define the look of the table in the CSS.
>
> Normal users can't edit the CSS.

Users can't edit [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]], but that doesn't mean all
the CSS has to go there. You could use templates (or at least one
template) to include user-editable CSS from elsewhere.

> If we followed your logic then
> 	{{red|txt=Red text}}
> should be written as:
> 	red text

No, that is a strawman. I am neither arguing against wiki-syntax nor
against templates.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
This case is under arbitration.  Please put evidence on the evidence
page of the arbitration case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Evidence

Some arbitrators may not read this mailing list.

(Yes, I'm being a good clerk today)


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform

body:
On 6/5/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 6/4/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'd say the consensus was that Jimbo Is Always Right :-)
> >>
> >> Guy (JzG)
> >
> > Umm his plan to apoint arbcom directly?
>
> What plan was that?

This one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006&diff=prev&oldid=26040916

Incerdentaly the next lot of arbcom elections are being dissucussed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Elections/December_2006

If you want to radicaly change the process again could you comment now
becuase sorting out things in the minutes leading up to midnight is
kinda not fun.

--
geni


body:
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> That obviously isn't even remotely true.  Look at the latest RfC:
> people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to
> remove useless and intrusive formatting.  I'd say "fuck process" here
> because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the
> simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless
> crap.

It is not an effective method of doing so. People have thosands of
signatureas and anoying them makes it less liekly they are going to
simplify their signitures in future.

In terms of effective methods I prefer the software side solution of
switching off the ability to modify sigs.

Other than that asking people to modify thier sigs on their talk pages
is more effective in the long term.

--
geni


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Troy Hunter <troyhunter0 at lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_committee_conduct
>
>
> With regard to this resolution in particular, which tried to guarantee
> a minimal level of openness in the committees:
> - Why was it rejected -- what were the arguments against it? Who voted
> against it?
> - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?
>
> Erik

Tim and Michael against. Angela and I for. Jimbo abstained.

A little bit of explanation may help understand.

Cycle of life of a resolution.

When a resolution is started, it is in the "draft stage". All members
may comment it on the talk page and modifications are made accordingly
to the comments. Very few resolutions failed overall, because we usually
modify resolutions until we know most of us will be happy with. A couple
of time though, we did not give enough time to the draft stage. This is
typically the case of this specific resolution.

After a while, the resolution is put in the "motion to vote" stage. Two
board members must approve the motion.

Once two members have approved the "motion to vote" stage, the
resolution goes to the vote stage.

During the vote stage, the resolution must not be modified (at least,
this was how things worked first. Now, we accept minor modifications).
We should all vote, but if three board members approve (majority), the
resolution is passed.

--------

The resolution committee conduct was proposed by Angela. If I remember
well, we both motionned it to vote very quickly (the same day). Too
quickly... This was a mistake.
Michael then opposed it and explained why on the talk page. Seeing there
was disagreement, Jimbo abstained. Tim later opposed as well and gave
his arguments.

The arguments given by Tim and Michael and which support their
opposition make sense.

The resolution was

The Foundation grants authority to committees to fulfil certain tasks.
In return, the Board asks that the committees report back on their
activities, and have open and transparent processes wherever possible.
It is hereby resolved that:
	1 	Every committee shall submit a report to the Board monthly.
	2 	Committee members conduct their activities publicly wherever
possible, using internal means of communication only when
confidentiality is required.
	3 	Committee membership shall be an open and transparent process, with
all committee members being informed of changes to membership, and
outsiders understanding how they may join the committee.

The arguments raised were

* It is always possibly to conduct activities publicly. Committees
should conduct themselves in the best interest of the Foundation,
whatever that may be.
* When is confidentiality required (as opposed to desireable)?
* Point three doesn't specify who will inform committee members; it is
in the passive voice, and if taken literaly it says committee members
violate the resolution by not being informed, which doesn't make a lot
of sense.
* this resolution seems to aim towards greater openness and
transparency, which are desirable things, but like all desireable things
there are costs and trade-offs involved. The resoultion does not seem
informed of this problem of trade-offs. It says "using internal means of
communication only when confidentiality is required" but without specify
things like what are the criteria for determining if confidentiality is
required, or, who makes this determination.
* This resolution seems like an attempt to use broad, general rules to
address a specific problem. Maybe its a good idea in this case but if we
get in the habit of addressing procedural problems with Board
resolutions, the result will likely be heavy-handed management by the
Board, which I don't think would be desirable - for one thing it would
not be very efficient.

I think all those arguments make sense. This resolution is too fluffy to
be a good resolution. Point 1 is a very good point. Point 2 raises the
issue of confidentiality (who defines what is confidential. what happens
when there is a breach of confidentiality ?) Point 3 can not be a
"rule", but only a guideline.

-------

 > - Is any similar resolution planned for the future?

None is in the drafting stage.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a
> > problem
> > > for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
> > that
> > > justification, of late.
> >
> > That obviously isn't even remotely true.  Look at the latest RfC:
> > people who object to *refactoring a talk page* because the aim is to
> > remove useless and intrusive formatting.  I'd say "fuck process" here
> > because, really, process is simply being used as an obstacle to the
> > simple act of improving the editing environment by removing useless
> > crap.
>
>
>
> It is never good to piss people off.
>
> That you feel that you have to do so is a stunning indictment of your
> current attitude problem.
>
>

I don't have an attitude problem.  I don't have to piss people off.
However it seems to me that some people are queuing up to be pissed
off over trivia.  There is no substance to the complaint.

And that is quite a different situation.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Erik Zachte wrote:
> Responding a.o. to Jimmy's
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-June/007389.html
>
> Jimmy, I know you value the community with whole your heart. But I cannot
> follow in your analysis of how things are going: you say the community is
> more and more in control, after all board members and other staff are part
> of the community, so essentially the community is 100% in control. But my
> concern centers around:
>
> * Increasingly decison are taken by the board without too much prior
> discussion in the open, at least on places where I would expect it, like on
> this mailing list. I just question this when major foundation issues are
> concerned. I'm not talking daily affairs, that is what we have
> representatives for, but large decisions that define how Wikimedia is
> organised and how it interacts with the rest of the world. From the initial
> bylaws, to their most recent pending incarnation, from the jurisdiction of
> the board, to the mission of the committees and their leading figures, to
> the appointment and tasks of a non-CEO.

> Jimmy: "And, it should be strongly pointed out: the committee system is a
> *community* system, driven by volunteers, staffed by volunteers (#), and the
> committees and the chapters make up the heart and soul of Wikimedia."
>
> (#) I might add 'and created and/or sanctioned by the board'. The board
> reigns supremely. This does not make the board evil in any way, or its
> members less respectable, it does not discredit the committees or their
> members, far from it, all names of committee members that I recognize are of
> highly valued community members  (I'm not even against any of the committees
> or their missions, heck I'm going to apply for a committee on invitation and
> of course undergo normal co-optation procedure) it is simply a control
> monopoly that I would like to see amended, to strenghten Wikimedia as an
> organisation.

I hope you are thinking of applying to the special projects...

> I'm not sure I would favour to vote on everything, elections can be
> manipulated. Perhaps the tried system of discussing major choices until a
> consensus is reached would still work, this list is not flooded by hundreds
> of trolls, there is still a limited community interested in these issues.
> Also on major issues I'd rather sacrifice speed than quality of decision
> making, again on major issues only, and of course judicial emergencies taken
> aside. Even better I welcomed your idea for a wikicouncil, but as policy
> maker not as advisor, thus approaching the ideal of a Trias Politica, but
> noone seems to warm to that idea.
>
> * Several board members recently stated their weariness about discussing
> things with the larger community (for quotes eee
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-May/007321.html ),
> although I have to say Anthere still does speak up a lot on this list, so
> maybe I make too much out of her remarks. Everyone is entitled to an
> occasional slip of the tongue.

I think you misinterpretated what I said. It is not a slip of the tongue
but rather a misinterpretation. I try to look back at the past 2 years
and in all honesty, I feel I discuss with the community just as before.
Maybe not the same people, maybe not on the same topics, maybe not on
the same channels of communication, but I discuss just the same.

For example, 2 years ago, I posted pretty frequently on wikitech. And
often did not get feedback. Now, I usually directy contact developers on
irc (it is definitly more efficient). 2 years ago, I often participated
to the english mailing lists, but I have given up because that list
traffic is horrible and trolls a bit too present.

My weariness has several origins. But it is not at all from discussing
with regulars. Quite the opposite.

I'll give you one example of a situation which got me really tired. In
january, Mav set up a line on the english wikipedia, to call for
donations (the line's still there). A small group of editors started
removing that line. Mav put it back. It was removed. I put it back...
and finally got involved in an edit war over putting or removing the
link to the donation page. To the point that after three reverts, I was
told I would get blocked for a breach of three-revert rule...

Meanwhile, a discussion was ongoing on the talk page, with several
arguments being given for removing the donation link. One of the most
powerful arguments being "we do not need money".

Welllll. When it is 3 am, when one has spend already several hours in
the day dealing with Foundation issues and has the budget in mind... and
get threatened to be banned from the project for trying to keep a
donation link up... there is a sort of... weariness... badly... creeping.

Note that after yet another stupid argument with the editor who
threatened to have me blocked, I now refuse to talk to him anymore.
I am happy to discuss with nearly any editor on the projects, but there
is a limit to bullshit :-)

> * Board expansion is not an issue you say, it just will happen. But there
> has been talk, albeit not by you, of appointing board members instead of
> holding an election. If that would ever happen, how could anyone not see
> that the board would be heading towards splendid isolation?
>
> * The idea that a contractor, possibly an outsider (?), is charged with
> paving the way for a true CEO, is yet another example of top down
> management. Why should an appointed individual, let alone a possible
> outsider, lead this debate, or manage it in any way? Incidentally, I would
> be less concerned if the final CEO would only supervise administrative
> tasks, like paying the bills and refreshing domain subscriptions, but then I
> find the term CEO odd, I call that an office manager.
>
> All of this gives me the feeling the board knows best what is good for the
> community, and is more and more leaning towards [p|m]aternalism, to put it
> mildly, more than it used to in its first year of existence. The number of
> people involved in the decision making structure is growing, with all those
> committees and chapters, yet the central role of the board and its do's and
> don'ts is what really matters.

You may be correct.
This said, during the first two years of the project, it was more
paternalistic that it is now.

Thanks

Ant

> All in all I see the dicussion we now have on this mailing list as a very
> good thing. The debate is somewhat heated at times, with an occasional
> sneering remark, but I'd rather see this debate go on for a while with all
> distraction and confusion that it brings, if it strenghtens fundaments of
> Wikimedia as an organisation.
>
> Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: bado frederic

subject: [Wikitech-l] bonjour et je suis entierement content

body:
je vous remercie pour la confiance et toutes les honneurs me revienne surtout je voudrais tous recevoir en fran?ais
 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicit?s
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail


from_name: Tels

body:
Moin,

On Monday 05 June 2006 01:28, Timwi wrote:
> Tels wrote:
> > Moin,
> >
> >>You're supposed to write:
> >>
> >>{| class="specific-purpose"
> >>
> >>and define the look of the table in the CSS.
> >
> > Normal users can't edit the CSS.
>
> Users can't edit [[MediaWiki:Monobook.css]], but that doesn't mean all
> the CSS has to go there. You could use templates (or at least one
> template) to include user-editable CSS from elsewhere.

Except that you can't insert CSS into a template unless the style tag gets
explicitely enabled. (and last I checked thats f.i. not possible on meta)

In any event, whats the difference between using:

	class="foo"

and a template to set foo, and using a template directly anyway?

I think we agree here, we just don't know it yet :)

> > If we followed your logic then
> > 	{{red|txt=Red text}}
> > should be written as:
> > 	red text
>
> No, that is a strawman. I am neither arguing against wiki-syntax nor
> against templates.

Then please don't inject arguments that aren't n the current discussion
without adding OT :)

I was arguing for templates and for wiki-syntax. CSS doesn't have anything
to do with it if I understood you correctly above :)

Best wishes,

Tels

--
 Signed on Mon Jun  5 01:38:13 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be ready within 10
 years." Alex Lewyt, of the Lewyt Corporation, a vacuum maker, predicted
 in The New York Times on June 10, 1955 -- A warning to all technophiles

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060605/afb6c21d/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree completely.  But when we post everything we can publicly, have
>>>>open meetings, have community committees, and then people don't read it,
>>>>well, I don't agree that this is "being cut off".
>>>>
>>>
>>>A list of resolutions which have passed, in most cases without vote
>>>counts or any other information, with pending resolutions not even put
>>>into the view for months, is not "everything you can publicly".
>>>
>>>In fact, I asked your CFO over a year ago for a copy of the latest
>>>990, which is by law publically available and the IRS recommends for
>>>it to be posted on the foundation's website.  I have received nothing
>>>other than the very first 990-EZ which has finally arrived on the
>>>Guidestar website.  You haven't posted everything you can publicly.
>>>Not even close.
>>
>>Not the CFO fault :-)
>>
>
> I know.  The CFO told me he didn't even have the document yet, even
> though it had already been filed.  Looking up the dates, the fiscal
> year ended June 30, 2004, the 990-EZ was originally due on November
> 15, 2004, assuming two extensions were granted it was then due by May
> 15, 2005, it's dated April 1, 2005 (ha), it was stamped as received by
> the IRS on June 28, 2005, the CFO still didn't have a copy of it on
> August 6, 2005,

Which may outline the need of a CEO...

and on June 6, 2006 the document still isn't posted
> anywhere on the foundation website (though it is now available through
> Guidestar).

Yes. I will ask Michael.

>>Our fiscal year run from june to june. The Foundation was created in
>>2003, but I am not sure the 990 2003 would make much sense to you. I
>>never saw it myself, though I was told my name appeared on it.
>
>
> Your name and what seems to be your address.

I moved :-)

> On or about January 6, 2006 I found a copy on the Guidestar website.
> I uploaded it to Wikimedia commons, and Delphine M?nard deleted it.

Copyrighted ?

> There was talk at that point about blacking out the officer addresses
> "and SSNs" (which I put in quotes because the document on Guidestar
> doesn't have any SSNs in it; it contains the EIN of the organization
> which is public knowledge and can be found on Florida's corporate
> information site) and uploading it to the foundation site.  This was
> supposedly taken to the internal mailing list.

I have no memory of that discussion... which does not prove it did not
take place...
Dunno what are SSN's and EIN...

>>The 990 of 2004 was only recently sent. It actually contains some errors
>>which should be fixed soon. Since it is a public document, I suppose we
>>can put it on Foundation website once fixed? Or add a link if it is
>>available somewhere on the web ? Will check that.
>>As for the 990 2005, it is too early for it to exist.
>>
>>Ant
>>
>
> I certainly would like a copy, and I'd rather not wait for Guidestar
> to get around to scanning it in first.  Additionally, if the
> organization is at all interested in transparency posting a copy of
> the latest 990s on the foundation website would be the appropriate
> response.
>
> Anthony

When corrected, yes.

I asked to see the document after correction myself.

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
After much pondering I decided not to press my point any further for now.
All I had to say about trust versus control has been said. Some parts of the
argument were supported by other contributors or even acknowledged by
members of the board, other parts did not quite come across. We will have to
see how things develop.

I want to state more firmly what I already hinted to in my previous post:
that I mistook Antheres words and was plainly wrong about their meaning.
Anthere, your conduct was proof enough, but thanks for your explanation.

Just one more thing: I would like to emphasize that for me Wikimedia is not
only about our goals but also very much about how we reach them. The way in
which we collaborate is what makes us special. The spirit of openess,
freedom of speech, equality and tolerance, which transcends national,
cultural, religious and political boundaries and which already made us move
mountains, is our message to the world. Discussing the implications of
organisational choices seems to me therefore highly relevant and legitimate.
After some doubt in the middle of the argument I now realize again that we
all agree on that part. Thank you for that.

Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
 userbox

body:
George Herbert wrote:
>
> My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem
> for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
> that
> justification, of late.  Playing well with others is more important now.
>
Except that some people appear to see "playing with others" as their main
purpose in life: they regard Wikipedia as their playground before it is a
serious encyclopedia, or indeed an encyclopedia of any stripe.

THAT is the problem, and since this kind of person loves to hide behind
smothering and complicated process, "fuck process" is sometimes the only way
to deal with them expeditiously.

When you have a maroon who wants to argue over whether their Miranda Warning
is printed in an appropriate font, simply slinging them in the river is
frankly less time-consuming and in the long run better for the project. If,
when they haul themselves out dripping wet, they wish to continue the
argument, slinging them back in until they get the message is the only
kindness that should be extended to them. Some of them should be attached to
heavy weights[1] to increase the periods between re-emergence.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
[1] Y'all are aware that I'm being metaphorical here, right? Because I'd
hate for someone to take this as some sort of "personal attack" or "hate
talk" or threat...because you know that somebody will try to...
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cancelation-of-the-deletion-review-of-the-satanism-userbox-t1712895.html#a4711706
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
>> Oh, please.  This stretches credulity.  Surely you've noticed the pattern
>> by
>> now.
> Absolutely not.  I discern no predictable pattern to which things will
> piss people off.
>
Well, for some people, it's "anything done by Tony Sidaway or his little
CABAL pals" regardless of the actual effect on the project.

Given that they object to you removing things which seem to have no
beneficial effect on the project, one is led to question why those things
are so important to them and why your removal thereof is so annoying to
them.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cancelation-of-the-deletion-review-of-the-satanism-userbox-t1712895.html#a4711779
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:45:14 -0700, you wrote:
> >It is never good to piss people off.
>
> I disagree absolutely.  It is very often good to piss them off, when
> the alternative is letting them deface the project.  This list is full
> of people who are pissed off because they have been prevented from
> degrading the encyclopaedia.
>

Reducto ad absurdum.  Pissing off an obvious vandal (or subtle one) is par
for the course.  I don't care about their feelings.

I do care about normal positive editors who happen to run afoul of Tony's
latest crusade du jour.  One of the reasons to follow process is that people
tend to go along with a consensus decision even if they personally disagree,
but will often react strongly negatively to an arbitrary ruling by someone
percieved to be a tin-pot dictator.

In this specific case, the only things which I have seen generally
negatively reported about the collective small crowd highly offended by
Tony's refactoring signatures is that they're newer contributors.  Not
vandals and not as a rule problem users.

Tony stepping on vandals a lot doesn't mean that everyone he steps on is a
vandal.  If you start seeing everyone you piss off as the same, you've lost.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
On 6/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:12:18 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a problem
> >for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
> that
> >justification, of late.  Playing well with others is more important now.
>
> Up to a point, I'd say.  As far as I can tell Tony's beef with
> "process wonks" is that the slavish following of rules has come to
> replace building a great encyclopaedia as the primary goal.  He has no
> patience with people who look first at the rules and only second at
> whether a given thing is good for the encyclopaedia or not.  The
> decision hierarchy at present for many people seems to be community,
> guideline, policy, encyclopaedia - it should be the other way round.

Ok.  So apply your preferred order to the signatures refactoring.

Encyclopedia: not affected.  People's signatures are talk space / user space
/ admin space functions.
Policy: weak policy on signature contents.  Some that Tony zapped exceeded
policy recommendations; some were within.
Guideline: which one do you want to apply?   Assume good faith?  Be bold?
The vaguer parts of the signature Policy?
Community: Community subset gets upset.  Community subset RfC's him.

If this had been some sort of issue with users dropping crap in mainspace
articles, we wouldn't be here.  We're here because it was not an issue
affecting the Encyclopedia aspect of Wikipedia, where Tony exceeded the
written Policy,  With fuzzy Guideline applicability, and upset the
Community.

Even if Community is your last priority, it has to be some priority.  The
signatures issue largely doesn't apply to the other levels.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:

> George Herbert wrote:
> > My objection in short: "Fuck process" is, here and now, more of a
> problem
> > for Wikipedia than any of the individual wrongs Tony has righted using
> > that
> > justification, of late.  Playing well with others is more important now.
> >
> Except that some people appear to see "playing with others" as their main
> purpose in life: they regard Wikipedia as their playground before it is a
> serious encyclopedia, or indeed an encyclopedia of any stripe.
>
> THAT is the problem, and since this kind of person loves to hide behind
> smothering and complicated process, "fuck process" is sometimes the only
> way
> to deal with them expeditiously.
>
> When you have a maroon who wants to argue over whether their Miranda
> Warning
> is printed in an appropriate font, simply slinging them in the river is
> frankly less time-consuming and in the long run better for the project.
> If,
> when they haul themselves out dripping wet, they wish to continue the
> argument, slinging them back in until they get the message is the only
> kindness that should be extended to them. Some of them should be attached
> to
> heavy weights[1] to increase the periods between re-emergence.
>
> HTH HAND
>

Applying vandal-control measures and attitudes to editors who have some
minor irritant in their actions in non-article space seems like an
antisocial tack fo the project to take.

The people Tony went signature-hacking on weren't vandals.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
>
> On 6/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>> "Point of view" is not an adjective.
> How do you explain the term "POV fork"?
>
Same as "colour separation".

Separation by colour...fork by POV.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cancelation-of-the-deletion-review-of-the-satanism-userbox-t1712895.html#a4712020
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


body:
On 6/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
> >> Oh, please.  This stretches credulity.  Surely you've noticed the
> pattern
> >> by
> >> now.
> > Absolutely not.  I discern no predictable pattern to which things will
> > piss people off.
>
> Well, for some people, it's "anything done by Tony Sidaway or his little
> CABAL pals" regardless of the actual effect on the project.
>
> Given that they object to you removing things which seem to have no
> beneficial effect on the project, one is led to question why those things
> are so important to them and why your removal thereof is so annoying to
> them.
>

I would like to note again for the record that neither the userboxes
template cleanups (done in a nondiscriminatory manner) nor getting people to
minimize signatures are concepts or projects I object to.

The simple summary I came up with a few minutes ago thinking about this
weekend is that IMHO Tony is guilty of habitual excessive use of force.  We
don't want police to pepper spray and handcuff kids who jaywalk in traffic,
though they may legitimately need to give the kids a warning or ticket.

--
-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's not trivia to them, Tony.

That is the problem in a nutshell.  Their signatures on a discussion
page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and
ease of editing on the  discussion page.  Their lack of perspective is
thus a problem for Wikipedia.


body:
Jimbo:
> It would be nice to track that number over time... are we becoming
"younger" as a community, "older" as a community?
> Staying about the same?  Are old-timers sticking around longer than they
used to, or jumping ship faster?
> There are also a whole set of related questions.

You know I was just thinking to do something similar for mailling lists. Are
people active on a certain list for a long time etc.

I will put the above questions on my wikistats todo list.
First need to focus on unicode update for EasyTimeline which has been in the
queue for way too long.

Erik Zachte


body:
On 6/5/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >
> > That is the problem in a nutshell.  Their signatures on a discussion
> > page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and
> > ease of editing on the  discussion page.  Their lack of perspective is
> > thus a problem for Wikipedia.
> Certainly.  But you pissing them off *does not solve the problem.*
> That is the problem with your approach, in a nutshell.  As you said,
> the lack of readability of the discussion page is not the problem -
> certain editors "lack of perspective" is the problem.  You pissing off
> those editors is not going to change their "lack of perspective".
>

Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
However  refactoring does solve a real problem.  Of course they'll be
pissed off; if they didn't think that their signatures were more
important than the discussion, they wouldn't have unnecessarily
cluttered the discussion page.  While it doesn't solve their problem,
it does solve *wikipedia's* problem.   Wikipedians should take
reasonable steps to avoid treading on toes, but should not go out of
their way to bow to unreasonable demands.


body:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That is the problem in a nutshell.  Their signatures on a discussion
> > page are more important than the aims of improving the readability and
> > ease of editing on the  discussion page.  Their lack of perspective is
> > thus a problem for Wikipedia.
> >
>
> Your solution is to simply piss them off, which eventually gets you RfC'ed
> and/or drives them away.

Well no, my solution is to perform reasonable edits on the discussion
page that improve the signal-to-noise ratio.  If this pisses people
off, then I think you've acknowledged, the problem is a lack of
perspective.


body:
On 6/5/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.
>
>
> Oh, please.  This stretches credulity.  Surely you've noticed the pattern by
> now.

Absolutely not.  I discern no predictable pattern to which things will
piss people off.


body:
On 6/5/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well obviously I don't know I'm going to piss someone off until I do.

So you admit you don't really understand wikipedians?

> However  refactoring does solve a real problem.

With the shear number of sigs out there no it does not.

> Of course they'll be
> pissed off; if they didn't think that their signatures were more
> important than the discussion, they wouldn't have unnecessarily
> cluttered the discussion page.

More they don't think they are a problem. If you show that you respect
them enough to talk to them about changeing thier sigs they are less
likely to be anoyed.

> While it doesn't solve their problem,
> it does solve *wikipedia's* problem.   Wikipedians should take
> reasonable steps to avoid treading on toes, but should not go out of
> their way to bow to unreasonable demands.

Asking that you respect people enough to talk to them first is not a
completely unreasonable demand.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] jobs

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>Kelly Martin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 6/1/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is something hugely upsetting in the comments I read in this
>>>>thread. It is seeing people complain things are not publicly
>>>>discussed... but who do not even comments when the issues are raised
>>>>publicly. It is seeing people complain things are not done... but they
>>>>do not do things themselves. It is seeing people complain we do not
>>>>welcome their help... but they say no when we ask them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, my perspective on the above comments:
>>>
>>>I complain about the Foundation to many people.  I don't do anything
>>>about it because the structure of the Foundation is such that I am
>>>disenfranchised from actually having any influence other than through
>>>backchannel politicking.  The bylaws of the Foundation concentrate all
>>>power in the Board, and further structured so that a majority of Board
>>>members are not responsible to anyone but themselves.  This structure
>>>makes the Board inherently resistant to change.  I am not sanguine
>>>that the Board will ever even recognize all of the problems that exist
>>>right now, let alone come up with a useful solution.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>it is the second time I see you using that expression. What does that
>>mean "I am not sanguine" ? except for not being an orange which is
>>probably true ?
>>
>
> "Sanguine" in English as in French draws its origins from the French
> "sang".  It can be applied to many things with a characteristic blood
> red colouring including varieties of oranges and pears, and hematite
> drawing crayons.  When applied to persons the subject gets interesting.
> While it is clearly related to people who are red in the face, or often
> in relation to large people who have many broken small blood vessels in
> their cheeks.  English and French physiognomists interpreted the
> associated temperaments quite differently.  For the English it
> represents cheerful optimism, and a hopeful and even na?ve belief that
> everything will be all right.  For the French a sanguine person was seen
> as someone with a quick temper (un col?reux), unless you were from  that
> other school of thought that saw them as possessing a calm practical
> sense of things.

That clarifies !!!
As for me, it means something with a quick temper. So, I could really
not make sense of Karynn use.
Thanks Ec (it really helps to be between two languages :-))

>>>So, yes, you may be asking for help, but frankly I find it hard to
>>>figure out what help you need or who to talk to about it -- and
>>>besides, your volunteer coordinators should be working to match
>>>volunteers with tasks that need doing, instead of making volunteers
>>>hunt around to find something to do that fits their talents.  But then
>>>again, that's yet another one of the myriad defects of the WMF: the
>>>Foundation appears to have no clue how to manage volunteers, either.
>>>(Does WMF even have a volunteer coordinator?)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Interesting question.
>>Is the job of a board member
>>1) define the strategy of the Foundation in the long run
>>2) manage everyday operations of the organisation
>>3) focus on human management of volunteers ?
>>
>>According to books, it is 1. According to reality, it is 2. According to
>>wishes, is it 3 ?
>>
>
> I would rephrase that slightly to refer to the job of the Board as a
> whole rather than individual members.  The first is clearly the most
> important job of the Board.  It should set broad guidelines for the
> second, without getting involved in micro-management.  If you trust
> someone enough to put him in a position you need to trust him enough to
> let him get on with the job.  The human management of volunteers is a
> very special skill which could be handled at the highest level by the
> right board member, but not necessarily.
>
>
>>Let me see... I need
>>
>>1)
>>
>>...
>>
>>11)
>>
>
> The length of your list alone says a lot  about the needs that have
> developed.  We may very well have volunteers who _can_ do these jobs,
> but how much can you fairly expect of them?
>
> Ec

I am a volunteer who _can_ do the job of a board member, but how much
can you fairly expect of me ?

Ant

PS : I will hire a nanny ;-)


subject: [Foundation-l] jobs


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Michael Snow wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>Dunno what are SSN's and EIN...
>
>
> SSN = Social Security Number
> Used as an identifying number for US citizens (and legal residents) in a
> lot of settings, especially financial. Knowledge of someone's number has
> great potential to allow identity theft, so should not be published
> under any circumstances.
> EIN = Employer Identification Number
> Assigned mostly to corporations for tax purposes. Not used for as many
> other things as an SSN, so there's a lot less potential for misuse. One
> use of interest to us is that if a company has a charitable giving
> program in which employees can have an amount withheld from their
> paychecks to the charity of their choice, the company would need the
> charity's EIN. I'm not aware of any serious problem for a nonprofit
> publishing this number (the American Red Cross publishes theirs on their
> website). In fact, I've suggested putting ours out there in order to
> make it easier for companies to add us to gift-matching programs, but
> I'm not aware that this has been done yet.
>
> --Michael Snow

Okay.
Yes, we received such propositions from employees (donations to a
charity from their paychecks). afaik, that number is not published. That
might be a choice.
An alternative is that such programs must be made available by the
employer himself, who can contact us beforehand (through OTRS...) and
make the number available for the employees.

Michael ? opinion ?

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Resid Gulerdem

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

body:
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:07:18 -0500
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >    The admins are only part of the community now
and
> > will stay like that in the future, as far as I can
> > see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> > believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> > see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list
> > recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> > developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> > points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> > admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> > is feasible?
>
>I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment.  Can
>you send it to me?

The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of
the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
further explanations about them.

Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
relatively new user who lived through some hard times
because of some structural problems. I would like to
see the success of this project like many others,
liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would
like to suggest some small changes for a better
environment at which Wikiediting has some written
ethical statements and standards and user rights and
admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will
be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
same time in the future while it is growing.

(The sections below are my earlier messages to some
people during the discussion on this list. I combined
the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if
anyone else missed them too.)

------------
[[WP:OURS]]
------------

[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.

[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]

1. '''Ethics and Standards'''

'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])

[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]

[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]

[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]

2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''

Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is resolved.

[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc., for example. When the disputes arise,
the users may ask the opinion of the related study
groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute
and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a
final decision though, as usual. Many
violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be
diminished that way which may result in a more
friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel
obligated to force the rules consciously.]

3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''

Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.

[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamic measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]

4. '''Limited block policy'''

A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.

Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.

[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]

[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace
to the project.]

-------------------------
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
-------------------------

{{Proposed|[[WP:ETH]]}}
{{Policy in a nutshell|Be wise and
responsible...}}
{{Policylist}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps kwrite.png|80px|left]]

'''Wikiethics''' (Wikipedia editorial standards and
ethics) include the principles of [[ethical]]
standards related to editing articles on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the
existence of ethical standards that reflects the
common heritage of human [[literacy]] in both the
editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself.
This document aims to outline their parameters and
scope. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently,
their place in the whole picture and their relation to
the Wiki ethics and standards are the main issues to
be addressed.

== Editorial Guidelines ==

It is helpful to have a productive editorial
discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes
arise. The following sections provide important
guidelines for editing an article.

=== Article-based classifications ===

Owing to the diversity of backgrounds that the editors
come from, the interpretation of terms like
'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', 'minority',
'acceptability' etc. should always be decided on an
article by article basis, and by following
[[WP:CON|consensus]] based on the judgement of the
contributing editors in that particular article.
Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible
to agree on the definitions of these particular terms
based on cultures, religions, life styles, etc. As a
quantitative measure to 'majority', 'supermajority'
and 'consensus', by [[Wiktionary:majority|majority]]
more than 50% of the contributing editors is meant, by
supermajority more than 75%, and the term
[[Wiktionary:consensus|consensus]] refer to 'no
significant disapproval'.

=== Collective consciousness ===

Collective consciousness can be explained as [[common
sense]] and a common understanding between the
contributing editors. This does not strictly exclude
ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With
Wikipedia policies in mind, consensus among the
contributing editors should determine what is
'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular
discussion.

=== The culture of compromise ===

[[Empathy]] and [[sincerity]] towards '[[the other]]'
during the discussion of articles by editors or third
parties is a powerful tool for [[compromise]].

=== Conflict resolution ===

It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by
taking all possible options available into the
consideration.

=== Images ===

If a picture is causing concerns in an article,
choosing visual or verbal descriptions based on the
judgment of the contributing editors might be helpful.
Changing the image with a more encyclopedic one,
lowering the picture in the article, providing a link
instead, or posting a warning template are other
options can be considered.

=== Polls ===

A [['straw poll']] on a particular argument or on part
of an article can be started at any time to see where
the community stands on that particular issue. It is
reasonable to think that an [['approval poll']],
however, needs to be started upon the completion of
the proposals based on a consensus.

=== Discussion pages ===

Editors are encouraged to seek whatever process is
most likely to result in consensus and build a better
encyclopedia using the existing guidelines. For
efficiency of the discussions on an article one
''might'' chose to copy the part from the article onto
the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he
thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her
suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get
more input from the other editors and consequently may
lead to a better article.

=== Anonymity ===

The editor's [[anonymity]] does not exempt them from a
responsibility to their personal ethics.

==Editorial standards==

High editorial standards would add to the reputation
of Wikipedia. Wikipedia recognizes the standards which
are shaped for centuries and currently practised in
the mainstream media, for example,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Harm_limitation_principle
Harm limitation principle], and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decency_and_acceptability
Taste, decency and acceptability] listed in
[[Journalism ethics and standards]].
[[Ethic_of_reciprocity|Golden Rule]] ("not to inflict
harm") can be taken to be another example. Some of the
important editorial standards in Wikipedia are
discussed below.

=== Objectivity ===

A Wiki article should reflect judgment based on
observable phenomena, physical reality, and should be
uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Absence of [[bias]] and lack of emotional involvement
are necessary. Separation between news, opinions, and
advertisements is also equally important. Competing
points of view need to be balanced and fairly
characterized in the articles.

=== Privacy ===

As Wikipedia becomes more popular and readership
increases, the potential impact of published material,
whether positive or negative, also magnifies.
Therefore, [[journalism ethics and standards]] become
relevant and editors are encouraged to consider when
editing wikipedia. Editors should also consider
notable individuals' rights to [[privacy]] and strive
to [[Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation
principle|limit unnecessary harm or discomfort]] to
them. These factors should be balanced against the
[[public interest]] in reporting information about
them. This might occasionally lead to an [[ethical
dilemma]], and requires greater effort on the part of
editors to discuss and deliberate when making
editorial decisions.

=== Responsibility ===

When making editorial decisions, each editor should
make some personal consideration of sensitivity
towards private individuals, children and juveniles,
victims of crime, and people who are currently
suffering grief and tragedy.

=== Public accountability ===

Wikipedia has an obligation towards it's readers. It
is not in Wikipedia editors' interest to act
irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is
contrary to public interest and in a fashion that
violates the trust of our donors and the public.
Upholding the public's trust is easier than re-gaining
it.

=== Censorship ===

[[Censorship]] in any form is not acceptable. 'No
censorship' means information/descriptions/expressions
should be included into or excluded from an article
for editorial reasons or ethical concerns only based
on the editorial consensus. Based on their judgment
concerning verifiability of information, information
content, and encyclopedic nature of the article,
Wikipedia editors can include or exclude some
information, expressions, and visual or verbal
descriptions into or from an article. A description
can be considered inappropriate for one article but it
might be appropriate for another. The article-based
classification gives that flexibility in
decision-making to the editors.

=== Offense ===

It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or
people who are using Wiki as a source of information.
It is generally possible to find a different version
of the same description which might be found less
offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing
the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can
help in that direction. Keeping the informative
materials stated objectively in the article is
necessary as a means to this end. No offense policy
restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values
or people, [[culture]]s, [[life style]]s, etc. It is
always good to be considerate regarding the concerns
raised by 'minorities' of particular discussions or
articles.

=== Pornography ===

[[Pornography]] can be described as visual or verbal
descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause
sexual excitement and should generally be avoided in
Wiki articles. The decision of what is appropriate and
what is pornographic is discussed on an article by
article basis to form a consensus.

=== Violence ===

Editors should be sensitive in portraying
[[violence]], that is aggression or rough unwarranted
force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on
another being, in Wikipedia articles. They should also
be sensitive about the rights of victims who are
subject to violence and also the possibility, if any,
that these portrayals may incite someone to harm
others.

=== Racism ===

[[Racism]] can be defined as the notion that people of
one race or creed are superior to another. In
Wikipedia articles, expressions that unnecessarily
portray prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of
people of a certain race or creed are to be avoided.
The expressions that intended to be divisive over
nationality, race, colour or creed and also that
glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial hatred,
strife, and violence cannot be considered as
encyclopedic.

=== Propaganda ===

Wiki articles must not be written from the perspective
of supporting any political, social, or religious
movements. Editors should be careful about the
information uploaded by an organization or a
government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is
also advisable to be more conscious regarding
deceptive or distorted information that is
systematically spread.

=== Bias ===

Editors should be careful in regard to reflecting
their religious or spiritual beliefs as well as
ideology into the composition of the articles. It is
advised that the possibility of causing animosity
between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies
should be carefully examined and avoided.

=== Sexism ===

[[Sexism]] can be defined as discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards someone based on their gender
identification. Expressions that unnecessarily promote
sexism in articles are not encyclopedic.

=== Language ===

Language used is often as important as the context.
[[Slang]] words, [[rudeness]], [[sarcasm]] are not
useful in articles and should be avoided.

== Policies relevant to ethics on Wikipedia ==

=== Policies ===

# [[Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions]]: Wikipedia
strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia.
Decisions which are made about articles or policies
should not be regarded as binding. That does not mean
you should ignore a consensual decision; it means that
everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later
date.
# [[Wikipedia:Civility]]: Being rude, insensitive or
petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working
well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and
be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.
Mediation is available if needed.
# [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]: The license Wikipedia uses
grants free access to our content in the same sense as
open source software is licensed freely.
# [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]: Do not stop other editors
from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking
good-faith edits to different articles, repeated
personal attacks or posting personal information.
# [[WP:IUP]]: Be very careful when uploading
copyrighted images, fully describe the images' sources
and copyright details on their description pages, and
try to make images as useful and reusable as possible.
# [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: It is Wikipedia policy to
delete libelous revisions from the page history. If
you believe you have been defamed, please contact the
help desk.
# [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: All Wikipedia
articles must be written from a neutral point of
view, representing views fairly and without bias.
This includes reader-facing templates, categories and
portals.
# [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: Articles may not
contain any unpublished theories, data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis
or synthesis of published data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas.
# [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]: There is no
excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do
not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and
maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
# [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is first and foremost an
online [[encyclopedia]], and ''as a means to that
end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community|an online
community]]. Please avoid the temptation to use
Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as
something it is not.
# [[WP:OFFICE]]: The Wikimedia Foundation receives an
increasingly large number of phone calls and emails
from people who are upset about various uploads on the
site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often
they are not. However, in most cases, even with the
invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which
can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to
soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the
long run.
# [[WP:OWN]]: You agreed to allow others to modify
your work here. So let them.
# [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]: Do not
[[Wikipedia:Revert|revert]] any single page ''in whole
or in part'' more than three times in 24 hours. (Or
else an Administrator may [[Wikipedia:Blocking
policy|suspend your account]].)
# [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]: Vandalism is any addition,
deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate
attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
Vandalism is determined by the judgment of the
Wikipedia administrators.
# [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: Information on
Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
theories, and arguments may only be included in
articles if they have already been published by
[[WP:RS|reliable and reputable sources]]. Articles
should [[WP:CITE|cite these sources]] whenever
possible. Any un-sourced material may be challenged
and removed.

=== Guidelines ===

# [[Wikipedia:Accountability]]: As an informal
guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should
log in before making drastic changes to existing
articles.
# [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]: To assume good
faith is a fundamental principle on any Wiki project,
including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it
follows that we assume that most people who work on
the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
# [[WP:ATK]]: A Wikipedia article written for the sole
purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
# [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]: Wikipedia works by building
consensus. This is done through polite discussion and
negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
regarding proper application of policies and
guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and
the Request for comment process are designed to assist
consensus-building when normal talk page communication
fails.
# [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]: [[Wikipedia]] must strive
for a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] in general and in regards
to [[criticism]] of article's topics.
# [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]: Divisiveness on
Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community
is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and
reason for existing because Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia and dividing Wikipedia contributors up
into seperated camps hinders rather than helps the
process of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]]: Wikipedia is a
communal effort. To make it work, contributors must
think from a community perspective as well as a
personal one.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't_panic]]: It's easy to get caught
up in an emotionally fired up argument over something
that is so important that it must be fixed
immediately. Moral outrage over an issue is a common
source of panic. Before removing the offending text,
perform a sanity check to see if any actual policies
are being violated.
# [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]: Wikipedia's contributors
come from many different countries and cultures. We
have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds,
sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect
is the key to collaborating effectively in building an
encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: Neutral Point Of View.
An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that
has been written without showing a stand on the issue
at hand. This is especially important for the
encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in
which very often there is an abundance of differing
views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral
representation, the differing points of view are
presented as such, not as facts.
# [[WP:POINT]]: State your point on Wikipedia. Do not
attempt to make an example out of anyone/anything to
prove the point.
# [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: Words and images that would
be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by
typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only
if their omission would cause the article to be less
informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally
suitable alternatives are available. Including
information about offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is
not.
# [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]: If you can provide
useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but
bear in mind that edits for which no reliable
references are provided may be deleted by any editor.
# [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]: Sign
all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help
others understand the conversation.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: When writing on
a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of
communication are counterproductive, while others help
make progress smoother. This guideline is designed to
help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.
# [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]: Vanity information
is considered to be any information that was placed in
any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent
conflict of interest, meaning any material that
presents the appearance of being intended to in any
way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or
one of the close family members or associates of the
author.

== See also ==

# [[Journalism ethics and standards]]

---------------------
Further Explanations
---------------------

Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
good suggestions in it I believe:

1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about
the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
versions of the same problem?

2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from
my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.

3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not
devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not
propose radical changes but maybe a different look and
acceptable variations of the current
infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of
Wikigod(des)s.

4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
admins.

5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than
irritate them.

6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from
possible problems before they arise (by constructing
study groups, etc., for example).

7. Both community and encyclopedia are crucial
components for Wikipedia. The problems are caused by
the fact that '''the bridges between these two
components are not efficient'''. [[WP:OURS]] is a
simple but sincere attempt to strengthen, enhance and
improve the efficiency of these bridges. I hope it
gets enough attention.

Regarding Wikiethics:

Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user,
who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I
then started another poll right after that to ask the
community if an approval poll is needed at that stage.
I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that
the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the
poll I started to ask what people think about the
timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=next&oldid=44384387
or its place suddenly became a problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44819924&oldid=44818149
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45015662&oldid=45014949
Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote
on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is
not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid
by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check
the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are
saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I
started,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_poll_at_this_stage_Poll_31_April_2006
simply because it was not available to them. So the
numbers reported on the talk page does not reflect the
case as is.

Best,

Resid

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:55:42 +0200
>
> >> Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >>> After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
> >>> admin-user relations - below) the link to the
> >>> updated version of another proposal
> >>> [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> >>> under my old user page is deleted for ''the good
of
> >>> Wikipedia''.
>  >
>  > Raphael wrote:
> >> Fortunately I've made a backup of your last
version
> >> here [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]]
> >> though I am not sure whether some administrator
will
> >> censor this too.
> >>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >
> >    Dear Raphael,
> >    That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for
it.
>
>Dear Resid,
>
>unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version
>of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion
review,
>but it seems like some admins are already at a point,
>where they completely disregard any policy and act as
>one thinks best.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics
>
>I truely appreciate your efforts to try to find a
>reasonable solution to the problem. But I doubt,
>that those in power, who would have to allow such
>a proposal to be discussed and passed, are already
>too detached from the consequences of their
>"might makes right" mentality to even realize the
>problem, and will use all possible means to make
>it fail.
>
>Beside those addressed in [[WP:OURS]] I see multiple
>problems:
>
>RfCs seem to be some kind of sympathy contests,
>where admins get the possibility to defend each
other.
>It seems to be an important place for admins to
improve
>their social standing. Allegations are not taken
seriously,
>instead the accused party can simply claim to follow
>policies "in spirit" and accuse the nominating editor
of
>Wikilaywering.
>
>The way Wikipedia implements voting generally
>increases peer pressure. Even though it would
>include some technical work, Wikipedia desperately
>needs _anonymous_ voting. Editors with weak
personalities
>tend to use the possibility of a vote to express
>their support to a "higher ranking" individual.
>
>There is no separation of powers: Admins are judges
>and hangmen in one person and have plenty of
possibilities
>to cover up their action behind weakly worded
policies.
>
>Generally speaking - we must not forget, that
Wikipedia
>is a social community, where all (good and bad)
associated
>mechanisms play along.
>
>best regards
>--
>Raphael

   Hi Raphael,
   Nice try, thanks a ton. What they are doing does
not surprise me anymore. Do not bother yourself with
their poor behaviour either. If you are right, you are
strong! People who do wrong deliberately cannot find a
standpoint in their spirit and their soul always
suffer, feel week and are in fear.
   Best,
   Resid

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

body:
>> Resid Gulerdem wrote:
>>> After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
>>> admin-user relations - below) the link to the
>>> updated version of another proposal
>>> [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
>>> under my old user page is deleted for ''the good of
>>> Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones who
>>> would like to see that proposal with the correct link.
>>> Earlier version can be found at
>>> [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as
>>> 'rejected' but the truth is, I could never find an
>>> opportunity to
>>> put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the
>>> updated version below this message for the sake of
>>> completeness and for your convenience.
 >
 > Raphael wrote:
>> Fortunately I've made a backup of your last version
>> here [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]]
>> though I am not sure whether some administrator will
>> censor this too.
>>
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
>
>    Dear Raphael,
>    That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for it.
> It will be a humble contribution of mine to the Wiki
> community if it has a chance to be discussed fairly in
> the future.
<snip/>
>    I would appreciate if you could let me know what
> you think about the proposals [[WP:OURS]] (and
> [[WP:Wikiethics]] about which you made some
> suggestions before) if possible. Realizing that there
> is a problem and identifying it is one thing, trying
> to find a reasonable solution to the problem is
> another thing. I think only talking about the problem
> does not lead the project to a better place and will
> not do any good other than increase frustration.
>    Best,
>    Resid
>

Dear Resid,

unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version
of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion review,
but it seems like some admins are already at a point,
where they completely disregard any policy and act as
one thinks best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics

I truely appreciate your efforts to try to find a
reasonable solution to the problem. But I doubt,
that those in power, who would have to allow such
a proposal to be discussed and passed, are already
too detached from the consequences of their
"might makes right" mentality to even realize the
problem, and will use all possible means to make
it fail.

Beside those addressed in [[WP:OURS]] I see multiple
problems:

RfCs seem to be some kind of sympathy contests,
where admins get the possibility to defend each other.
It seems to be an important place for admins to improve
their social standing. Allegations are not taken seriously,
instead the accused party can simply claim to follow
policies "in spirit" and accuse the nominating editor of
Wikilaywering.

The way Wikipedia implements voting generally
increases peer pressure. Even though it would
include some technical work, Wikipedia desperately
needs _anonymous_ voting. Editors with weak personalities
tend to use the possibility of a vote to express
their support to a "higher ranking" individual.

There is no separation of powers: Admins are judges
and hangmen in one person and have plenty of possibilities
to cover up their action behind weakly worded policies.

Generally speaking - we must not forget, that Wikipedia
is a social community, where all (good and bad) associated
mechanisms play along.

best regards
--
Raphael