from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot

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

Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Brett Gustafson
>>Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2005 11:23
>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot
>>
>>...But I recently heard of these people
>>that were talking about wikipedia that they were all
>>programming a hack for it. So after a little while I found it
>>was a spider to hunt down all the pages links and change them
>>to shocks site links or something along those lines.
>
>
> There's something about this message that doesn't quite ring true to me (and
> no, it's not the Nigerian spelling), but in case it's genuine, it doesn't
> seem to be much of a threat - anything like this is going to be noticed very
> quickly, the IP address swiftly blocked, and the pages repaired.
>
> In case it is somehow programmed to be resistant to our normal defence
> measures, then maybe we could have a white-hat robot searching for the links
> inserted by the black-hat and reverting them.
>

If they were thinking of using an open proxy, one diligent user went and
blocked about a hundred of them the other day, completely flooded the
recent changes channel...

There have been similar incidences of "ZOMOGG let's run a bot to do
something stupid" before (eg. the junk username bot) - we stopped that
with a range block (I think it was most of AOL) and tagged all the
relevant usernames.

I also remember a threat of "mass disruption" that was communicated
about in code (I think it was some sort of substitution cipher), but the
planned attack never came.

Oh, and helpdesk-l, #wikipedia and info-en (used to) get plenty of
"There is a serious security problem with your site! Anyone can change
it!" posts, and we've survived /that/ problem for the last four years ;)

Bottom line to anyone who warns of an "iminent attack": We find your
ideas intriguing/interesting and wish to subscribe to your
newsletter/journal.

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

iQEVAwUBQ2oXDrMAAH8MeUlWAQhCUQgAqym6b27ekfQzbBRZfdL0XT/RCPu49DCa
4OeP/Pjn1dqDqMVBfm5wcq741lHsE7EzAsQ2tplj7HaTSRKzhABzemyxf4Yab+w/
NNxLRj0TuneVEioBflWCepyuClacMd4XoRzVB2yIdqxlHu4n+rGSCtPHQ+2I8NaR
H4gEzLpBmrIgj8cBUNkfBJAqGQA1SWidkuerYTyeOc8Eu10sKduL3XpXYFE7dWl7
wdeop29EJ+9oWRt1qPpRRBt0FZkfIR+tLNsgqgBxT3MB+1fxTElBVYsJRkjPxKds
bryJh76cI5l3xVezXF/vRsgtSSKcgLQfa0wkEv3SncBWiRSculWEVw==
=HOIh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't call them "anon"

body:
WTF?

Hardly.  *chuckling at the hyperbole*

Puh-LEEZE.  Let's not get carried away.

Anonymous is anonymous.  It means what it says.

"Nigger" is a whole nutha futha.

deeceevoice

What is a "nutha futha"? I happen to know you can speak rather well,
based on your article edits, why do you insist on communicating like a
vaudeville charicature? Is it some sort of breaching experiment?

Jack (Sam Spade)


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy and editing
	anonymously notice.

body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

>> To make it even less scary, how about:
>>
>> :Unless you are [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]] your edit will be signed
>> with your [[IP address]] when you click 'Save'. See our
>> [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].
>>
>> Having an edit be signed with your IP number is IMO less threatening
>> than saying we'll show your IP number publically, more of a way of
>> granting attribution for the contributor's fine work than a warning that
>> "we're watching you!". This version does unfortunately omit the point
>> that Wikipedia records the IP address of logged-in users too, but it's
>> not like we can compress every detail of the privacy policy down into
>> just two lines and it should be pretty obvious to anyone who's thinking
>> about this sort of thing so hopefully not a major omission.
>
>
> The thing is, this is factually incorrect. Your IP address *will* be
> recorded and associated with your edits if you are signed in, and this
> omits the fact that if you are not logged in, it will be associated with
> your edits publically. This is the key point of adding this message - to
> warn people that their IP address will be made public if they edit
> without being logged in. Omit this, and you may as well not have the
> warning.

I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. My proposed wording says
"Unless you are [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]] your edit will be signed
with your [[IP address]] when you click 'Save'," which explicitly says
your IP address _will_ be made public (signatures are public by nature)
- it's the whole point of the thing. It doesn't say one way or another
whether your IP address will be recorded if you're logged in, so that's
not factually incorrect either. I addressed that in my comment.


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy and
	editing anonymously notice.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't call them "anon"

body:
I have no idea what the hell you 2 are talking about, please try to be
more considerate of your audience.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 11/4/05, Koltwills at aol.com <Koltwills at aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:57:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> alphasigmax at gmail.com writes:
>
> He's  your sockpuppet (or the other way around), of course! Arguing with
> yourself  is a great way to prove that you're two different  people!
>
>
> I certainly hope that's not addressed to me.
>
> What an insult! :p
>
> deeceevoice
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Habj

subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking

body:
We have had the similar kind of discussion at svwiki, where an obviously not
rightous (obvious to most of us, at least) block was applied and re-applied
three times by one particular admin, and lifted three times by three
different admins. Some peoples main concern, and these were people I highly
respect, was that the "taboo" of lifting blocks applied by other admins
would now be gone. While I saw that as something healthy, others did not and
pointed out how good some trolls are at manipulating the community making
others believe they have been wronged - removing of this "taboo" would make
troll control more difficult. While I can understand that standpoint, I
don't believe this can be a healthy position in the long run.

/Habj

On 11/3/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >The problem seems to lie in smaller, more authoritarian communities.
> >
> >Any Wiki could turn into a dictatorship with the policy we currently
> >have in place. The bureaucrats get to make all of the decisions. Of
> >course, they can be voted out, but I don't think it's likely that
> >people would attempt to organise a vote against someone who has
> >probably already scared them away.
> >
> The important thing is to find some sort of balance. A bureaucrat does
> need the freedom to make decisions and act, often unilaterally, on
> them. He needs to pay attention to his community and use that to guide
> his actions. There will nevertheless be times when he will act in a way
> contrary to the community's wishes. That is not inherently wrong, but
> the bureaucrat proceeds at his own peril. If he overuses that power he
> will face repeated complaints, and in extreme situations a putsch.
> Occassional complaints go with the territory. To a certain extent I
> think that communities appreciate a bureaucrat who can be fair in his
> decisiveness, and who can take some conflicted issues in a particular
> direction just to be done with it.
>
> >Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
> >
> Sometimes, but that is the wrong reason for a second bureaucrat. We
> don't want the situation of a project with two bureaucrats that are
> constantly in opposition to each other. As long as a bureaucrat's
> duties are very light the only reason for a second bureaucrat is to have
> someone available during extended absences.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Webcomics/Deletion again

body:
On 11/3/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> The biggest flaw in the existing process is perhaps the tone of finality
> that accompanies these deletions.  It is understandable that when you
> sweep the dirt ou the door you want it to stay out.  On the other hand,
> stories abound of old comic books or baseball cards that were thrown out
> in one of mom's clean ups but which were retrospectively determined to
> have great value.  I think that we can still have any article that goes
> through AfD could easily be undeleted, but I suspect that 95% of these
> will in fact stay deleted without any fuss at all.
>
> Ec

Recreate an article in about a years time and make a a decent article
and people are unlikely to care.

--
geni


subject:
[WikiEN-l] RFA idiocy (was Slipping quality as Wikipedia
	getsbigger (formerly Can you trust Wikipedia?))

body:
On 11/3/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Good admins are needed.  Despite the 'hustings' atmosphere that prevails
> when elections happen.
>
> Charles

But what is a good admin?  As an admin you are going to have people
hate you. You are going to have situations where you are under
pressure. If you can't handle that perhaps you are better off
specaliseing in adding content.

--
geni


from_name: JAY JG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] RFA idiocy (was Slipping quality as
	Wikipediagetsbigger (formerly

body:
>From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
>
>But what is a good admin?  As an admin you are going to have people
>hate you.

I must be a *great* admin, then. ;-)

Jay.


body:
On 11/4/05, Michelle <jareth at crimsonblade.net> wrote:
> Of course you are, but does that mean intentionally putting oneself in
> the line of fire?  I think that the amount of work I do cleaning
> backlogs could also be helpful in the admin realm; its not about getting
> a rollback button -- I can do that anyways.  I'm concerned though,
> should I go for adminship, the nit-picking (as I see it) that currently
> goes on would do a lot to sour me against the entire project; it can
> really take the wind out of your sails.

Welcome to the word of adminship. Lets look at the backlogs you could
work on as an admin:

AFD; enough said
IFD; less hecktic but since image deletions are not really revesible
if you make a mistake you are in real trouble
WP:CP Someone claiming to be the orginial author or to have permision
comes and has a go at you
Sorting out the copyright issues on images; See this mailing list a
few days back
 Requested moves; Aparenty that consensus to move was't that solid after all.

> I work in a similar environment -- we don't have a manager, team members
> nominate themselves for tasks.  If we had the same level of bickering
> going on we'd never get a thing done and we'd create a lot of mistrust.
> Its not quite the same in a large environment like Wikipedia, but its
> counterproductive none the less.  There's a knack and a bit of tact
> necessary to deliver good constructive criticism and those skills are
> currently lacking as a whole in the RFA process.
>
> --Jareth

If you want to deal with people showing tact I sugest an ocupation
that will make you more popular. PR man for the RIAA for example. Yes
I tend to feel that the current RFA process has started setting
standards way too high but at the same time there has to be a point
where people are honest about how they feel. We can't talk in codes
all the time.

--
geni


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts

references:
<1130865815.9004.22.camel@zhora.1481ruerachel.net>
	<dk910l$6um$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1130985715.11729.66.camel@zhora.1481ruerachel.net>
	<dkeafq$mi9$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 11/4/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

> It would certainly be an invasion of privacy to send text from the
> edit box to the server before the user clicks "save", unless they are warned
> in advance.

If that's true, users might need to be warned about previewing
timelines and equations, which are saved even when the page is not.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d2153e614be88c9ddb74c92670f68003.png

Angela


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
On 11/4/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is at the heart of the matter, and why the
> majority voted to punt it back: Under no circumstances
> would a post-RFAR RFA possibly be considered to be a
> "normal one." Ask yourself, Benjamin: how is the
> community to make heads or tails of an RFA as a remedy
> for a case which the Arbcom itself could only find
> generic 'findings of fact'?

I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear at the RFC but no matter.

You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after pulling a 3RR block
I placed on them, In neither case has arbcom had the guts to make a
straight descission.

--
geni


from_name: Koltwills at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't call them "anon"

body:
In a message dated 11/4/2005 4:06:29 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alphasigmax at gmail.com writes:

I  further prove my point that you two are sockpuppets by the fact  that
NEITHER of you are able to quote correctly. The fact that I am able  to
do so suggests a split personality emerging; so here we have one  person
split into two personalities, one of which is pretending to be  two
people, the other is noting how similar the other two are (and  somehow
managing to write coherently).

Now stop listening to me and  get back to pretending to not be not
someone else's sockpuppet who isn't a  sockpuppet just because they act
in exactly the same way which conclusively  proves that they are indeed a
sockpuppet.

I rest my lack of a  case.

My God.

U need a life!  And, very possibly, your meds adjusted.

deeceevoice


body:
> If you want to deal with people showing tact I sugest an ocupation
> that will make you more popular. PR man for the RIAA for example. Yes
> I tend to feel that the current RFA process has started setting
> standards way too high but at the same time there has to be a point
> where people are honest about how they feel. We can't talk in codes
> all the time.
>
>
> --
> geni

I want to read and write an encyclopedia in a professional atmosphere.
The procedure for selecting representitives of the project should not
allow children and their antics to become the basis of its decisions.
Open votes are unproductive in this case.

Jack (Sam Spade)


list: foundation-l

from_name: James R. Johnson

body:
This is somewhat related, but could there be a function on the wikipedia or
on meta to apply to a wiki, a bot to perform a certain function?  Much like
the US Cities bot, or interwiki bots now running?  This would allow certain
users, perhaps admins, to automatically perform certain functions, such as
generate a large number of similar articles (US city stubs, for example),
given an input file uploaded by a user.

Though, I think this is what a bot already does, and I just don't know how
to start one.

James

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthere
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:44 AM
To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] stewards and bot flagging

Please see
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2005-October/032025.html

Why could not bureaucrat set bot flags on their
projects.
They know the rules better than any steward. Would not
that make sense ?

Anthere

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] stewards and bot flagging


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
Regardless of some uncertainty among us regarding the specifics we
made a finding of fact that you had abused your position as an
administrator. While the incident was relatively minor your
subsequent activities show you continue to maintain that you believe
you did little wrong and that nothing ought to be done. It is not at
all hard to decide on a remedy under these circumstances. No amount
of wikilawyering, however sophisticated, is going to work.

Fred

On Nov 3, 2005, at 8:12 PM, steve v wrote:

> * Jayjg: "I think the wording needs to be modified to
> something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a
> dispute etc...."
> * James: "I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use
> of the rollback button must always be used only for
> reverting pure vandalism..."
> * Fred: "I don't think this is about using rollback
> for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a
> 3RR block then editing a protected page...."
>
> The rub, for those who missed it: There should be some
> agreement on what the actual offense is before
> deciding on a penalty.


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking - bureaucrats?

body:
2005/11/4, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>:
> O common Andre .......... I do not know what it is about as I am happily
> obliviant of what is happening on nl.wiki ..... (I finally am swamped in
> work again, I was waiting for that since the Tsunami hit Thailand last
> year and am working away my debts. So I haven't done anything on wiki
> for weeks now) ..... bit we do need you. And I am sure you will be
> missed even though people disagree with you sometimes. People
> disagreeing with you do not make you need to stand down as an admin.
> Disagreement is healthy from time to time.

Well, the point I was bringing forward in this question was one of
them - one of the other admins was vehemently opposed to unblocking
someone that another admin had blocked. Another point of discussion
was the long time blocking of vandals, where I was of the opinion that
one should only block long time if there is repeated vandalism by
apparently the same person, whereas others were of the opinion that
one can also block long time if there is repeated vandalism by
possibly different people from the same IP address.

Considering that,
* I seem to be in the minority position at least at the second point
* I misbehaved in the discussion
* The person opposing me had already been moved to de-admin because of
the discussion
* There were remarks in the discussion that implied that admins still
are considered something 'special' by some admins
* This was giving me a lot of wikistress at a time I could least use
it (I just started a job),

I decided to de-admin myself.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
Your contention was considered by the arbitration committee and
rejected; both offenders were blocked, if by different people. You
are in the same position as someone who is caught  and disciplined
then claims, "No fair, so and so was doing it too and was not
punished as quickly as I was." You are an administrator and expected
to more or less follow Wikipedia policies and if you can't or won't
ought to gracefully accept the consequences.

Geni is to be commended, not "suffer a penalty"!

Fred

On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:14 AM, steve v wrote:

> --- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear
>> at the RFC but no matter.
>>
>> You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after
>> pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither
>>
> case > has arbcom had the guts to make a straight
> descission.
>
> Wait a minute. Everybody agrees that the ruling lacked
> decisiveness, but to say the Arbcom lacks "the guts"
> is over the line and nothing short of a personal
> attack.
>
> And since were on the subject, though youre a relative
> newbie, theres no excuse for you to have failed to
> apply 3RR properly, meaning you should have blocked
> CJK too.
>
> What penalty should you suffer for making an improper
> block in the first place? I would prefer to just let
> that go, but my time in the stocks and your own
> "lacking" (of accountability), has soured my
> impression of you.
>
> Stevertigo
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.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
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
I guess dispute resolution has to specifically address the issue of
using unsourced material, rather than being phrased in terms of a
content (or editing) dispute. If you make another request, please
specifically cite edits he is making which are inadequately sourced;
show that he is unresponsive to arguments that the material is
unsourced and continues to insert unsourced material. If that is the
case.

Fred

On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:18 AM, steve v wrote:

> Dammit Fred, I did do just that.
>
> Cant find it on either the rejected or closed cases
> though. Have to dig up a diff:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=26673664&oldid=26673642
>
> [Sigh]
> Stevertigo, Esq.
>
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Bring an arbitration BEFORE you start the edit
>> warring.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, steve v wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign
>>>
>> nation"
>>
>>> (see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which
>>> revolves around this notion.
>>>
>>> While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government
>>>
>> and
>>
>>> all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big
>>>
>> caustic
>>
>>> problem for those of us who hold a more principled
>>> view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi
>>> acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets
>>>
>> his
>>
>>> POV work its way into the article in various ways.
>>>
>> (I
>>
>>> can talk about them if you like). In short,
>>>
>> stating
>>
>>> that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV,
>>>
>> though
>>
>>> Reddi claims otherwise.
>>>
>>> The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because
>>> "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the
>>> tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue
>>>
>> until
>>
>>> I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his
>>> edits, and start unblocking myself.
>>>
>>> What to do?
>>> SV
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
>>>
>> one click.
>>
>>> http://farechase.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
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
All good things must come to an end.

Fred

On Nov 4, 2005, at 12:41 AM, steve v wrote:

> To resurrect a case requires dabbling in the sinister
> arts -- not often associated with justice or fairness.
> I would argue that 're-deciding' a case cannot be
> fairly done without actually 're-hearing' the case.
>
> Understandably, the Arbcom would prefer to make things
> easy on themselves (theyve been through a lot after
> all), but --just to cheer things up --I contend that a
> re-deciding an old case without re-hearing it is
> improper -- putting aside the /double-jeopardy/
> hung-jury/ mistrial/ precedents involved.
>
> -Stevertigo
> "If it doesn't fit, you must aquit."


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wiktionary-l] change of templates

body:
Sorry, I did not answer up to now to this thread.

Being the Italian wiktionary one that adopts these templates the change
form -adj- to -adjc- makes sense, but only if really all wiktionaries
that use the same system do this. This also involves that we need to
inform our editors (at least the regular ones) and then have a look at
all others, since not everybody reads the messages in the bar or wherever.

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts

body:
On Friday 04 November 2005 01:37, Tim Starling wrote:
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > I guess there's not an easy way to find out how many people are bailing
> > out of edits that they really want to make... except maybe to ask them.
> > Perhaps a pop-up poll for folks who navigate away from an edit page in
> > some way besides saving? Kind of intrusive but it might have interesting
> > results.
>
> You could tell the difference between red link clicks and edit tab clicks
> by checking the referrer, or by adding an extra parameter to the URL.

Even simpler solution: if the article existed when the URL was accessed it is
certainly an edit, otherwise it's not (might have been attempt of creation of
a new article, but we can't know that anyway).


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
On 11/4/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear
> > at the RFC but no matter.
> >
> > You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after
> > pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither
> case > has arbcom had the guts to make a straight
> descission.
>
> Wait a minute. Everybody agrees that the ruling lacked
> decisiveness, but to say the Arbcom lacks "the guts"
> is over the line and nothing short of a personal
> attack.

Maybe. But in both cases they had a descission to make. In both they fudged it.

> And since were on the subject, though youre a relative
> newbie, theres no excuse for you to have failed to
> apply 3RR properly, meaning you should have blocked
> CJK too.
>

No one reported him. Time is a finite resource. Cheacking for a 3RR
violation takes time. Now I can be contacted by email. You could have
used this to report CJK. You did not. Many other admins can be
contacted by email. As far as I know you did not. You were unlbocking
your self. You could have used the time to report CJK. You did not (in
fact no report against CJK was ever filed
[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive39#3RR]]).

> What penalty should you suffer for making an improper
> block in the first place? I would prefer to just let
> that go, but my time in the stocks and your own
> "lacking" (of accountability), has soured my
> impression of you.
>
> Stevertigo
>

I'm accountable just as you are. In the overwelming majority of cases
only one side has broken the 3RR. Thus it isn't worth cheacking stuff
unless it is brought to your attention (it can easly take 15 mins to
do a complete check). For pretty clear reasons most people do make
sure to report stuff. Especially if they themselves have already been
reported.

--
geni


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
> Sent: Friday, 4 November 2005 05:19
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges
>
> Even if it were not automatic, it would be worth absolutely
> zilch by itself.
>
> Accreditation is by definition a somewhat exclusive and
> elitist activity. It is not compatible with the ideals that
> "anyone can be a reporter" or "anyone can be an editor." If
> "anyone can be accredited"
> then such accreditation becomes as meaningful as a mail-order PhD.

WikiNews has a policy
(http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Accreditation_policy) which seems to
work. Not everyone is a Wikipedia (or WikiNews) editor and not every editor
gets accreditation - just those who get a consensus on application.

The big benefit would be closer photographer access to events and
photo-opportunities, resulting in photographs which aren't subject to the
usual restrictions if we source them elsewhere.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking - bureaucrats?

body:
>Recently (yesterday in fact) I put down my adminship again, but this
>time I also destroyed my bureaucratship.
>
>
O common Andre .......... I do not know what it is about as I am happily
obliviant of what is happening on nl.wiki ..... (I finally am swamped in
work again, I was waiting for that since the Tsunami hit Thailand last
year and am working away my debts. So I haven't done anything on wiki
for weeks now) ..... bit we do need you. And I am sure you will be
missed even though people disagree with you sometimes. People
disagreeing with you do not make you need to stand down as an admin.
Disagreement is healthy from time to time.

Waerth/Walter


from_name: Stefan Sittler

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Requests for rollback privilege;
	someone has put their name forwards

body:
On 11/3/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is just to let people know that Aranda56 has submitted their name
> to be granted the rollback privilege on the requests for rollback
> privileges[1] page (currently a proposed policy).
>
> What would happen in the event that the nomination is successful? There
> is also the possibility that the nomination will be unsuccessful, for
> three reasons:
>
>   - People do not believe putting people through a proposed policy is a
> good idea;
>
>   - That they think the candidate is unsuitable for rollback;
>
>   - They do not believe the proposed policy is a good idea and they are
> proxy voting on the issue of Aranda56's candidacy as a way to show their
> opposition to the policy.
>
> In the third case, I believe it would be best to leave the proposed
> policy page open in case community consensus later forms to make this
> proposed policy into practice. However, the first and second
> possibilities leave us with a quandry as it would be difficult to know
> whether people believe the policy should be in place or not.
>
> What do people suggest in the way of resolving the potential scenarios
> from this?
How about deprecating nominations for things that are "proposed" until
they have some kind of consensus? Especially things like this, where
the code itself is currently under development?

I mean, I don't see how this nomination is going to lead to anything
but bad feelings. It should be made very clear that this is voting for
illusory powers- almost a popularity contest!

-stefan
(user:Kiaparowits)

>
> Chris
>
>         1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFR#Aranda56
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Puddl Duk

body:
> But what is a good admin?  As an admin you are going to have people
> hate you. You are going to have situations where you are under
> pressure. If you can't handle that perhaps you are better off
> specaliseing in adding content.
>
> --
> geni
>

There is no simple formula for what makes a good admin. Rather, it
takes all types. Most are just long time trustworthy editors with a
huge cumulative radar net. Others like to spend hours every day
cleaning up AFD, IFD and copyvios. Some admins are good at
interaction, or creating policy, and others might enjoy blocking
vandals. And so on...


from_name: Alphax

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

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

Ben E. wrote:
> I'm not sure if it could be termed a "sucessful RfA". The vote tally
> was *17/29/7/49,
> *which corresponds to (Support/Oppose/Neutral/Remit to ArbCom). The "remit"
> votes were explicitly marked as no vote, but an encouragement to ArbCom to
> retake the case. Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes. 17/46
> = 36.96%, which doesn't show a consensus for adminship in my or in any
> bureaucrat's book, I suppose.
>

Then again, 29/46 = 63.04% which isn't consensus to de-admin either...

If you count all 102 votes:

 - If remit is counted as support, 64.7% support
 - If remit is counted as oppose, 76.5% oppose
 - If remit is counted as neutral, 54.9% neutral

 - If neutral is counted as remit, 54.9% remit
 - If support is counted as remit, 64.7% remit
 - If oppose is counted as remit, 76.5% remit

Bottom line: no consensus.

Of course, you can argue about this as much as you want, but that's what
the numbers say. In this case, I think 100-odd votes is enough to be
able to say "this is a representative sample".

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

iQEVAwUBQ2qW0rMAAH8MeUlWAQjjtQf/YGgYm4AJyN99E8W59LjSYhGqE2w7X0D/
KUTTwf9u0jGlwv/XRiDOf+pW15va2HSPhCsiLaGNIpreEED5+X1TBOIquVLytnj9
FU0HtHKiAHTtQu4quFb8L48KuGw99HXvH7dAbfi/yxXfTPYoaGyC+EOUZA+lkUDv
4oxFI74DFhJvskMn1gzyPl8q424ZeZN9CAVZPKEyohBDOl6S0GtSDI9TIkKR+wC3
ZzF5xKnh+dxbR9347oBZhwHrlwe2CCUfyJ95vcJ9CJ6Ozhf7GI6cnTUnoBvZ1tyu
9ZOaz3MHvqhzTWaJB+VEvGDqkHmPZgkp/7ezk8Nw8+GGVbeRKT8IOw==
=w/oD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jim Breen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] change of templates

body:
[Muke Tever (Re: [Wiktionary-l] change of templates) writes:]
>> Jim Breen <Jim.Breen at infotech.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Exactly why should templates, codes, etc. be chosen to avoid
>> > overlapping with ISO 639 codes?
>>
>> Many of the Wiktionaries that are not en.wiktionary.org use ISO 639 codes to
>> name the templates that call language names and categories.

I made the mistake of overlooking this referred to template names; not
to field values.

Would it not be possible to qualify a template name by its usage, e.g.
"pos_adj" or "lang_adj"?

Jim

--
Jim Breen                                http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,               Tel: +61 3 9905 9554
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia                  Fax: +61 3 9905 5146
(Monash Provider No. 00008C)                ???????@??????


subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot

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

Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>>I recently recieved this message from a user:
>>"I'm a regular wikipedia user although i don't have an
>>account here. I think this site is great and it really helps
>>me with my college work. But I recently heard of these people
>>that were talking about wikipedia that they were all
>>programming a hack for it. So after a little while I found it
>>was a spider to hunt down all the pages links and change them
>>to shocks site links or something along those lines. I didn't
>>know who to tell so I just thought I'd tell an administrator
>>as they might know who to tell or what to do. Just giving an
>>advanced warning so you might be able to do something to
>>protect this wonderful resourse. Apparently they permenantly
>>change their ip address using some thing (a bit beyond me).
>>Something like that. I just didn't know what to do. I hope I
>>didn't embaress myself here. Thanks for your time."
>>
>>Brett
>
>
> I'd like to suggest a standard where admins can block any account on
> "suspicion of being a bot". This would be an assumption of guilt pending
> proof of innocence, so let's talk about it.
>

We already have it.

> Ordinarily, we assume good faith. But if, AFTER making that initial
> assumption (and leaving the door open for anyone - human or bot) to come
> in and edit - if we become suspicious, we ought to be able to "stop them
> for questioning".
>
> Here's how it might work.
> 1. Admin gets suspicious of a pattern of edits.
> 2. (optional step, try to engage user in any number of ways, e.g.,
> article talk pages, edit summaries in reverts, etc.)
> 3. Block account
> 4. At this point, user / bot can only post to their / its user talk
> page.
> 5. Post a message on the user talk page which (in your opinion) only a
> human being could respond to.
> 6. If they refuse / fail to answer, the presumption stands.
>

IIRC [[Wikipedia:Bots]] states that admins are already allowed to block
unauthorised bots, including edits which appear to be done with a bot
(time between edits is a key factor) and usernames which include the
word "bot".

> Drawbacks:
> A. User might be shy about interacting. For example, just wants to
> correct spelling - but not talk to other Wikipedians. Maybe they're
> embarassed that their English isn't perfect, or they have Asperger's or
> are autistic.

I had this happen to me on the Italian wikipedia once when I was using a
Firefox extension that let me use an external editor. Turns out it was
mangling UTF8; I was doing regex image replacement to get rid of
redundant images from Commons and was blocked on the assumption that I
was a bot. I changed IPs and tried again.

> B. Evil admin might abuse this policy (gaming the system) to challenge
> someone that they KNOW is a legitimate user.
>

Evil admins can never win. There are too many good admins, and there is
always email/IRC/talk pages.

> Advantages:
> C. Shoot first, ask questions later - saves time in an emergency

You should visit #wikipedia-en-vandalism some time.

> D. No real harm done to legitimate user: they say the bold "You have
> messages" notice and can click on the link; and simply say, "Jeez,
> relax, I'm not a bot."
>

Yep, common occurance. If the owner of the bot is an admin, they merely
unblock it. In cases where the username is "$(username)'s bot" they
usually leave a note on the talk page to the effect of "is this your
bot? Remember what happened with..."

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

iQEVAwUBQ2qZwrMAAH8MeUlWAQhyTQf9FL9MlmNwb314SM8/qp3Zno30OcxAO1fn
8e3DOihcJjoK7FTH6/00u8QAnBuNiFbEfcOgUi+dggow7OWw3sR8Hxxwsxqdj8Bv
1OUWS76QKFN6YAzq8xE2WDoV7rL3Niiy6enF4xFqFzPjow5bvKUkTEYnO9xg/0OO
KyEgTOPAg2iVgomoq01zgTP2VAVmdIaqAWkgsHJ0rnBg/pWqrgdv44utOw+i81V1
FSYh8ycauEG1E2sVe5K0yMbnHNx4Qs8hqEE10IJ+ijQ2+6fv7rPc5f1RYePigpHx
AScS991dja6eWiCjPH5VrplndmgTqx7uQ3RC+9K52cMLxJGlBu3ZEA==
=bmin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [Wikipedia-l] fyi: Wikipedia as only as good as its links

body:
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 23:03, Walter van Kalken wrote:
> It doesn't link enough??? IMHO opinion it links much to MUCH. Some
> artcles of maybe 1 A4 length contain over a 100 external links in the
> english wikipedia. Which is something I call madness. I certainly would
> not want to encourage people to go linking even more. On some subjects
> we have more links than the DMOZ project. And we are not google or DMOZ
> are we?

Hi Walter, in no way am I advocating something like a directory or going
overboard lists of lists. My concern is wholly encyclopedic. If we're going
to be concerned with questions of authority or trustworthiness, we then
have to ask ourselves where does the authority for any claim in a Wikipedia
article arise from? Expert reputation is not something we share with other
knowledge production disciplines. And, possibly, in our favor we have
thousands of eyeballs and fingers that those other disciplines do not have.
Most of the debate in a larger media about the Wikipedia seem to be about
these two issues. However, the one thing we do have in common with
traditional disciplines is citation/linking.

Now, I have scholarly pretensions ;) and I'm very concerned with Wikipedia's
history, so my experiences are likely to be different than yours. But in
considering the Wikipedia timeline, I find the following undated (within a
year) and unsourced entries:

[[ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia
* formation of w:NPOV consensus
* Naming Conventions begins to normalize page names
* "basic topic pages" spring up
* Killing of subpages begins
* Standard presentations for chemical elements & biological species
* Manual of Style: efforts to standardize presentation across wikipedia
]]

For some of these, I don't know what they mean. For some, I can take a guess
but I haven't found a source yet. And for others, such as manual of style,
I think I know what they mean but can find a source that places the date
nearly a year earlier. So, I am simply reiterating the following:
[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiability
Fact checking is time consuming. It is unreasonable to expect other editors
to dig for sources to check your work, particularly when the initial
content is questionable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who
has made the edit.
]]


body:
On Thursday 03 November 2005 02:03, Alphax wrote:
> As a sidenote to this, someone (NullC? Eloquence?) is planning to run a
> bot to poll archive.org for all the external links on en: and subsuently
> replace all external links with links to the archive.org copies...

Yes, that strikes me as a bad idea too. Particularly, having done this for a
number of broken links myself, the Way back machine has a number of dated
copies of any given URL over periods of years. Linking to a copy of a a
domain name squatter's advertisements after the original site went belly up
doesn't sound useful. However, doing this automatically, or at least
flagging such links, foreign links that return a 404 or domain squatters
might be worthwhile.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Try out the rating scheme

body:
> >Jimbo's plan calls for everyone being able to rate, including
> >not-logged-in users. This will be for test purposes only;
> the ratings
> >from the test phase will be deleted again, once the
> statistics people
> >got their hands on it and can hopefully tell us how to fine-tune the
> >rating process.
> >
> >The "performance hog myth" dates back to the very first
> version. I have
> >worked on the problematic parts and IMHO they should be
> good. I can't
> >be certain without real testing, though. However, I doubt it will
> >degrade performance in the initial phase; if there's a
> problem, it will
> >most likely show once there are at least a few hundred thousand
> >ratings. There will be many write/delete queries on the table, which
> >might lead to table locks; this might be countered with low priority
> >queries, though.
> >
> >Magnus

If testing this new feature does NOT cause the servers to slow down
immediately, then there is no reason not to try it out. Someone had
claimed an immediate TRIPLING of access time, but Magnus says "I doubt
it will degrade performance in the initial phase", and I believe him.

Magnus is one of the three people whom we all trust the most at
Wikipedia. If he says there's no risk in a live test of a new feature,
then I say there's no risk.

Tim Starling, do you agree?

Ed Poor
Former Developer


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> Regardless of some uncertainty among us regarding
> the specifics we made a finding of fact that you had
> abused your position as an administrator.

I see. So now I'm Richard Nixon. "Abused your
position" isnt a finding of fact - its an opinion,
which should be based on facts. If you dont bother to
hold specific and nuanced judgement of fact, or come
to agreement on those facts, how does the Arbcom come
to an agreement based on only a superficial (and
unexplained) set of "findings"?

> While the incident was relatively minor your
> subsequent activities show you continue to maintain
> that you believe  you did little wrong and that
> nothing ought to be done.

No. I agree that I violated 3RR, and that my
self-unblocking (which one?) was among the many
'violations of community trust' made by various
parties related to the incident (including, ironically
enough, the Arbcom). I even agree that my '10 minute'
block on Ta bu (to make a point about his reflexive
re-blocking of me) was gratuitous. Put the events of
one hour in a thimble and it admittedly looks a bit
sour. Throw those violations in with my three years of
contributions, and the water barely turns a little
grey. Throw my violations in with the whole slew of
comedic errors made by various other parties, and my
water tastes a little hard, but is quite fit to drink.
In that context, there is a non-absolutist remedy
which is fair and proper.

- SV
(contd...)

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> It is not at all hard to decide on a remedy under
> these circumstances. No amount of wikilawyering,
> however sophisticated, is going to work.

Theres no "wikilawyering" here -- this is called
discussion -- though I admittedly could have just shut
up and not responded to Ben's questions, which seemed
sincere. "Sophisticated?" Please.

Ive only commented here and about because I had lost
some trust (in violation AGF perhaps) in the Arbcom's
ability to 1) investigate 2) respond 3) deliberate 4)
decide. The RFA would seem to agree with this, but at
the same time that issue also opened wide any internal
Arbcom problems to the public -- it's hit on the vital
point that the Arbcom needs to be more responsive in
its process, and that the community (LION) has the
defacto authority to correct it. Even if Arbcom
responses reveal some inappropriate bitterness, its
least something that I (overwhelmed defendant) and the
community can respond to.

> Your contention was considered by the arbitration
> committee and rejected; both offenders were blocked,
> if by different people.

> You are in the same position as someone who is
caught
> and disciplined then claims, "No fair, so and so was
> doing it too and was not punished as quickly as I >
was."

You miss the point entirely. The whole point of 3RR,
and the only reason why I ever went out of my way to
defend the idea (when it had little support on
quickpoll) was that it could work (in the context of
the time) if it was applied equitably. Otherwise, (now
with 600 admins running loose) how can there be any
reasonable assurance that, in the context of an edit
dispute, blocks would not be used by POV admins for
POV reasons. I cant claim that the enforcers in this
case were POV, but even they state that the
enforcement was improper according to the process.
Your characterization of "not punished as quickly" is
again besides the point, if enforcers can enforce
policy any way they want including in a manner not
described in the policy. Thats vigilanteeism, and
though established people like to have their loopholes
(WP:IAR - what a farce), you seem to be supporting a
violation of WP:CIVIL in responding to a violation of
3RR and Blocking. Which rule/policy/guideline
supercedes? As a lawyer, you yourself know these
things are best sorted out --does the Arbcom not have
a role in striking down bad policy/clauses/ as well as
'bad people?'

-SV

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
> Geni is to be commended, not "suffer a penalty"!

Well, Geni seems like he's just a kid and I didnt mean
to pick on him. I would prefer to have just let the
issue go, but hes basically claiming that:

  'I dont need to give due attention or make
  intelligent discernments when I take upon myself
  enforcer duties -- I just need to robotically
  respond to requests on WP:AN/I and hope that people
  are equal in tattling on each other.'

Like you said 'the violations were minor' -- is this
all because I argued with an improper block, one which
Geni himself said was done improperly, and done under
"time constraints", and limited only to "reported
violations" (which was never in any 3RR draft that Ive
read/edited):

    I stand by my initial block under the 3RR. Yes I
    should have blocked the other party but it wasn't
    reported and due to time restriants I only cheak
    reported violations. I was contacterble by email
    for as long as the block lasted. Geni 10:08, 14
    August 2005 (UTC)

> You are an administrator and expected to more or
less > follow Wikipedia policies and if you can't or
won't
> ought to gracefully accept the consequences.

Well, sure -- the case system is, just like Geni's
inerpretation of the blocking system, means singling
people out. And even though there were other policy
violations, those can be overlooked because my lack of
"gracefulness" tips the scales in your view. I'll go
run and consult the Virgin. (Why not just add sarcasm
to the charges?)

> All good things must come to an end.

Yes, this open discussion about a matter to be decided
in private has gone on long enough. As with past
matters, I can only hope that my making a fool of
myself thusly has some broad and postive, though
perhaps embarrasing, effects.

Respectfully,
SV

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


from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>> Magnus Manske wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neil Harris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am I being naive here, or would a super-dumb implementation with a
>>>>> single table with the columns shown below be enough to work in the
>>>>> short term?
>>>>>
>>>>> Page_ID
>>>>> Revision_ID
>>>>> User_ID
>>>>> Rating_ID
>>>>> Rating value
>>>>> Timestamp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is what I did; no timestamp, but a varchar for comments.
>>>> Topics to
>>>> rate and their range (e.g, 1-5) are encoded here as well for user #0.
>>>> That's about as dumb as it gets ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> I still prefer a 0-10 range of ratings.  I think a decimal
>>> normalization would be easier to work with in any subsequent
>>> analysis of results.
>>
>>
>> One can set the range for each topic individually.
>>
>> BTW, with values 0-10, you'd have eleven values...
>
>
> Yes.  That's a problem??

Not at all. I was just wondering, eleven values vs. "decimal
normalization" (which seems to be based on ten). But, what do I know
about statistics?

Anyway, the range will not be determined by the software. Bureaucrats
can set a range of their choice when they create a topic.

Magnus


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking - bureaucrats?

body:
2005/11/3, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net>:

> In theory that might be true that bureaucrats don't have to be admins
> but in practice I have never heard of one that wasn't already an admin.

On Wikipedia, the reward for a job well done is another three jobs.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't call them "anon"

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

Jack Lynch wrote:
> WTF?
>
> Hardly.  *chuckling at the hyperbole*
>
> Puh-LEEZE.  Let's not get carried away.
>
> Anonymous is anonymous.  It means what it says.
>
> "Nigger" is a whole nutha futha.
>
> deeceevoice
>
> What is a "nutha futha"? I happen to know you can speak rather well,
> based on your article edits, why do you insist on communicating like a
> vaudeville charicature? Is it some sort of breaching experiment?
>

1. You didn't quote that correctly
2. You replied to the wrong email

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

iQEVAwUBQ2qiprMAAH8MeUlWAQiMRAgAjB7G++6o8ZbzKrT/tonAdnI7zB8or9L8
bGnbQkecqs5hFCWEngkipMDL40jyzHeFkUb5cp77SZLSop3DpmmvZzUxBFYmjEs0
YhzIZEL3VaVUbbAdOVbtpDS270QO3ro1ceV5yIdZWrLf537SiiUoEAe9d9kFOml4
/wSNN2BjdS4cQRq8jWRn+Z3LNdsgqkZW7yD+8sQN/xtF2U9WIWruJFEoo5JXImV/
8HLdDfDPrLMn0Eftc7LGJlTK8KKRSDDaznC4GsHdWm3ymck5whoLtC8YBLPqzFlp
2jG+FMLHjQfuYmWUUcLxSaTMVxffUGJFKhZyW1pncL0u8fiC7pHdXA==
=wBiY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't call them "anon"

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

Koltwills at aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:30:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jack.i.lynch at gmail.com writes:
>
> What is  a "nutha futha"? I happen to know you can speak rather well,
> based on your  article edits, why do you insist on communicating like a
> vaudeville  charicature? Is it some sort of breaching  experiment?
>
>
>
> Vaudeville?
>
> Why do you insist on being such an idiot?
>

He's your sockpuppet (or the other way around), of course! Arguing with
yourself is a great way to prove that you're two different people!

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

iQEVAwUBQ2qi8LMAAH8MeUlWAQhozwf/bEp/S6lc6QQnQG/JnlJmNTMp8V8hIfMV
6QuD/snKchhcTBOE4j04dQp8yGF5FuYGkUbH33NyI7QDsWLyAqEy+iKmivby0Vja
3lps+3X4AT2X7Y+ZzSSVI6ALXoa06oRg4lTUHXRM3p8EyI0XPfavqI1JjHtZzwAL
/0/gM5g61M2Rakeh+F6uj4KrzhE6UgGQuKj+YX/f4JQkRVff28/hOPLiC3VIBeKI
U7atFmzPUFTCWkJ8EIwEshFRj/kbwq19/70KDwBQqNFtbUy2Pr0kvj0su8mePHp1
8xgsw5kXlt3d9fO8qCDQmXOUdg+z9x9BOIfdVrBDJ6GZxkNfCqM6EA==
=ap2L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges

body:
--- Nathan Reed <nathanreed at gmail.com> wrote:
> We've had this discussion quite a bit on Wikinews --
> accreditation
> does you little good unless a press pass is also
> issued by whatever
> event/organization/governmental agency you wish to
> cover. Some have
> discussed a meta press corps -- would the bar be
> higher there than on
> Wikinews? Our concept of an accredited wikinewsie is
> still citizen
> journalist. This is a radical concept, of course,
> and I'm not sure the
> world is ready to deal with it.
> -N.

A news organization, by definition, is an organized
newsgathering entity with some degree of
accountability. Press passes offer people some degree
of authority and access, and likewise suggest that
individuals have demonstrated professional
credentials.

Just throwing this out there: I dont see how any
anti-credentialist organization can be in the business
of giving out credentials.

SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

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

steve v wrote:
> Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation"
> (see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which
> revolves around this notion.
>
> While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and
> all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic
> problem for those of us who hold a more principled
> view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi
> acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his
> POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I
> can talk about them if you like). In short, stating
> that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though
> Reddi claims otherwise.
>
> The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because
> "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the
> tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until
> I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his
> edits, and start unblocking myself.
>
> What to do?
>

Change "Iraq is a sovereign nation[1]" (where [1] is a US Govt. source)
to "The US Govt. describes Iraq as a sovereign nation[1]" ? Isn't that
NPOV and a /better/ use of WP:CITE?

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

iQEVAwUBQ2qt8rMAAH8MeUlWAQjo5wf/Vko2iJTqmgZDutjcB1lSsvculakAyF/m
8VE2DgR9lgSLU63AqzRwGqZSyMftdzddMyW0Fxkj27ese9dlaJtc0NVM95kvrjqX
jqdMGCsjph65fAXjSMX/BpJddmrsV9Hzp+lUs9OKHDQ3Fvs/YH+upUqmUYcgGcoB
bnbZ9FRXbwsQxCJo25I3Nf+XQ+py8vakIFbJJ9/4+rEhMgFqA5nFvA/O0uZqCkzP
TtYpzv8yAEfOm8SU7fwYSGdzNBz54DNh/xYJUKdzaWRY+AOdCkUyXZ0P5MBLqVm4
FxOValj7ZyQP6py7zrnfYIF9yd3LC1L6sRW7+1TIzW6DSjKZgAax2Q==
=D4G+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Try out the rating scheme

body:
--- geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> If people are really worried we could:
>
> 1.)Try this on one of the smaller languaes
>
> 2.)try it around 3am on a monday
>
> 3.)I can't be the only one involved in a non
> wikimedia project. Give
> it to one of them to test.

Theres no issue of trust in the developers, but
prudence is always prudent : I agree with Geni (in
this case): simple.wikipedia.org would be a good place
to do it, as would drive a little added interest in
simple. (I dont know if thats a good idea or not).

SV

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Don't call them "anon"

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

Jack Lynch wrote:
> I have no idea what the hell you 2 are talking about, please try to be
> more considerate of your audience.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 11/4/05, Koltwills at aol.com <Koltwills at aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:57:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>>alphasigmax at gmail.com writes:
>>
>>He's  your sockpuppet (or the other way around), of course! Arguing with
>>yourself  is a great way to prove that you're two different  people!
>>
>>
>>I certainly hope that's not addressed to me.
>>
>>What an insult! :p
>>
>>deeceevoice
>

See, I have proved it! :)

(Of course, I could always be a *third* sockpuppet of these two... ;) )

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

iQEVAwUBQ2qv97MAAH8MeUlWAQgv7gf+NNLTBdifQYmirG9uxBEPFGOcvoR2LzIj
WsP7Zy+hXdXTMBkp9/lQFhXmlQ3ST8VaQ8V4/cOIhFx+TS0cHJ1dXDfl4jU8y3ue
488a/3ywnk7tJjtzT+fPZRUm1Q+Ee0b1+wqbmvW60JaLjFin8uy/EIw3UIvzYTxZ
v5+zMNQvlgv44o7p3IvqC+lqfcu5d0n2fIod78u0ZFzIMdtpCVmGxzMJKPPC2Jn8
ZPPpYgKTZXpWu1+q6NByUXRyjwgfz8qu87hMveJSpxewy2j67LC0qX7J4+tuUL+C
9H1Wp0Md3/fg9A9cIKLR2ctKRij42RXPUtm2kR3bDHheflzJRStgDQ==
=wnov
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I guess there's not an easy way to find out how many people are bailing
> out of edits that they really want to make... except maybe to ask them.
> Perhaps a pop-up poll for folks who navigate away from an edit page in
> some way besides saving? Kind of intrusive but it might have interesting
> results.

You could tell the difference between red link clicks and edit tab clicks by
checking the referrer, or by adding an extra parameter to the URL. Detecting
when the user starts typing with javascript could be another measure,
although some might consider that sort of thing to be an invasion of
privacy. It would certainly be an invasion of privacy to send text from the
edit box to the server before the user clicks "save", unless they are warned
in advance.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Nathan Reed

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges

body:
On 11/4/05, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/05, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > WikiNews has a policy
> > (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Accreditation_policy) which seems to
> > work. Not everyone is a Wikipedia (or WikiNews) editor and not every editor
> > gets accreditation - just those who get a consensus on application.
> >
> > The big benefit would be closer photographer access to events and
> > photo-opportunities, resulting in photographs which aren't subject to the
> > usual restrictions if we source them elsewhere.
>
> As I understand it, one only gets closer access if the accreditation
> is recognized by the event coordinator -- my point is that I doubt
> they would be. "Have been an unproblematic member of a website for a
> few weeks" is a pretty low bar to set for who counts as a journalist;
> I don't think most places are going to buy that. If we set the bar
> high enough for them to recognize it, it would kill the point of
> Wikinews. Ergo, the problem -- if we accredit in the spirit of
> Wikinews, then it would have no worth in the eyes of the outside
> world; if we accredit in the spirit of the outside world, then it is
> incompatible with the point of Wikinews.
>
> Of course, if they *do* recognize such passes, then the argument is
> proven wrong. But I'd be surprised if they were worth much. But I'll
> qualify that by also noting that times are changing a bit -- bloggers
> are issued press passes, I hear -- and so I could be wrong, if not
> now, then in the future.
>
> FF
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

We've had this discussion quite a bit on Wikinews -- accreditation
does you little good unless a press pass is also issued by whatever
event/organization/governmental agency you wish to cover. Some have
discussed a meta press corps -- would the bar be higher there than on
Wikinews? Our concept of an accredited wikinewsie is still citizen
journalist. This is a radical concept, of course, and I'm not sure the
world is ready to deal with it.
-N.


from_name: Robert Jones

subject: [Wikitech-l] Whatlinkshere

body:
Hi

I am using Mediawiki 1.5.1, and I Imported my entire collection of pages in
XML. Now, Special:Whatlinkshere does not show any pages on many of those
which I've tested. Is this a bug? Can the whatlinkshere database be flushed
somehow?

Many thanks.


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia & Original Research

body:
On 11/3/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> But his solution to remove those photos was to ban all images created
> by individuals. Had I been less passionate at the time I wrote, I would
> have said his proposal would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Well, I think the "to make a point" was the part which would not ban
*all* images, though the question of which images are "making a point"
and which aren't is fairly unsolveable, in my opinion (any picture can
be read as "making a point" -- some points are obvious, some are
subtle; some are marked, some are unmarked). Which is just one of the
reasons the proposal is not sound (it is also unnecessary, which is a
separate point).

FF


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy and editing anonymously notice.

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't understand your objection. My proposed wording says
> "Unless you are [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]] your edit will be signed
> with your [[IP address]] when you click 'Save'," which explicitly says
> your IP address _will_ be made public (signatures are public by nature)
> - it's the whole point of the thing. It doesn't say one way or another
> whether your IP address will be recorded if you're logged in, so that's
> not factually incorrect either. I addressed that in my comment.

It doesn't explicitly say it, it implicitly says it - if you take
"signed" to mean publically. I have never been aware of a signature to
be public.

Your proposed wording also implies that your IP address will not be
"signed" with your edits if you are logged in, which might be true
according to your definition of a signature, but your phrasing is
ambiguous and confusing.

Chris


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy policy and editing
	anonymously notice.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges

body:
On 11/3/05, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> WikiNews has a policy
> (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Accreditation_policy) which seems to
> work. Not everyone is a Wikipedia (or WikiNews) editor and not every editor
> gets accreditation - just those who get a consensus on application.
>
> The big benefit would be closer photographer access to events and
> photo-opportunities, resulting in photographs which aren't subject to the
> usual restrictions if we source them elsewhere.

As I understand it, one only gets closer access if the accreditation
is recognized by the event coordinator -- my point is that I doubt
they would be. "Have been an unproblematic member of a website for a
few weeks" is a pretty low bar to set for who counts as a journalist;
I don't think most places are going to buy that. If we set the bar
high enough for them to recognize it, it would kill the point of
Wikinews. Ergo, the problem -- if we accredit in the spirit of
Wikinews, then it would have no worth in the eyes of the outside
world; if we accredit in the spirit of the outside world, then it is
incompatible with the point of Wikinews.

Of course, if they *do* recognize such passes, then the argument is
proven wrong. But I'd be surprised if they were worth much. But I'll
qualify that by also noting that times are changing a bit -- bloggers
are issued press passes, I hear -- and so I could be wrong, if not
now, then in the future.

FF


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
It's more that we search for a way to practically implement policy as
it is applied to specific situation. If we were into striking down
bad policy we would be onto Requests for Administratorship and
Requests for Deletion, both broken.

Fred

On Nov 4, 2005, at 11:07 AM, steve v wrote:

> --does the Arbcom not have
> a role in striking down bad policy/clauses/ as well as
> 'bad people?


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject:
[WikiEN-l] RFA idiocy (was Slipping quality as
	Wikipediagetsbigger (formerly Can you trust Wikipedia?))

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of geni
> Sent: Friday, 4 November 2005 12:57
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] RFA idiocy (was Slipping quality as
> Wikipediagetsbigger (formerly Can you trust Wikipedia?))
>
> On 11/3/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Good admins are needed.  Despite the 'hustings' atmosphere that
> > prevails when elections happen.
> >
> > Charles
>
> But what is a good admin?  As an admin you are going to have
> people hate you. You are going to have situations where you
> are under pressure. If you can't handle that perhaps you are
> better off specaliseing in adding content.

A good admin is one who cleans up, enforces policy, and is fair and neutral
in disputes. An excellent admin is one who can transcend policy to solve
problems with his or her own individual genius. A bad admin is one who
transcends policy with his or her own individual genius.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Methods of protection of minor Wikipedias

body:
Hi all,

As most people who are veterans of this list will know very well by
now, I am strongly against the "locking" of inactive Wikipedias.

However, due to a recent increase in vandalism on inactive Wikipedias,
I have decided to suggest a few more minor technical sanctions:

1) Not allowing people to add links to external URLs to pages without
first logging in. If they tried to, it would be removed when they
clicked "submit", and they would get a warning message.
2) Not allowing people to add #REDIRECT ... to pages without first
logging in. If they tried to, they'd get a "preview" window and a
warning message.
3) Not allowing people to replace, say, 30kb of text with two words,
without first logging in. If they tried to, they'd get a warning
message and woudln't be able to submit it.
4) Not allowing ANYBODY to have one or more external URLs as the sole
contents of a page, except perhaps stewards or admins
5) Not allowing anybody to add words like "motherf*cker", "c*nt",
"as*hole", "sh*t", that-medicine-that-starts-with-v,
that-medicine-that-starts-with-c (including replacing the "a" with an
@ sign), "pha ... ceu ... cals", or strings such as "is gay", "is so
gay", etc. While allowing such things may be needed on larger
Wikipedias, on _inactive_ Wikipedias it would prevent probably 50% of
vandalism.

Of course, these sanctions would only be applied to inactive
Wikipedias, which are a definite list.

People like myself, Chamdarae, and others, notice when inactive
Wikipedias become active, and we would be able to ask once every month
or two for the newly active WPs to be removed from that list.

Please note that this would NOT have any effect on ACTIVE Wikipedias,
including ones as small as Yiddish or Udmurt, or as large as English
and German, or anywhere in between. (thus, any WP with perhaps at
least 2-3 edits a week, over 500 articles, would not have such
things).

I am curious to see the reactions of others on this.

It solves many of the problems caused by inactive WPs:

1) Vandalism, spamming.
2) The first proposed solution to problem #1 is to lock all inactive
Wikis against edits. This would prohibit any development unless
somebody requested them to be opened, which most people would be too
unknowledgable or shy to do.
3) The second proposed solution to problem #1 is to _monitor_ inactive
Wikis. This solution is currently implemented, but some of the basic
vandalisms and spammings would be so easily preventable by such a
technical solution, and would save loads of work for myself,
Chamdarae, Angela, Wouter, Mxn, and whoever else checks inactive
Wikipedias.

Thoughts?

--
"Take away their language and you are taking away their souls." -- Stalin


subject: [Wikitech-l] Parameters in RSS feeds

body:
Hi all,

Is there a way to add paramaters to the _URL_ of an RSS feed for
recent changes pages to exclude certain types of edits, such as
additions to logs (creation of user acc'ts, or hiding minor edits, for
example)?

I'd greatly appreciate this.

Mark
--
If you would like a gmail invite, please send me an e-mail.
Si ud. quiere que le env?e una invitaci?n para ingresar gmail, env?eme
un mensaje.
Si vous voulez que je vous envoie une invitation ? joindre gmail,
envoyez-moi s.v.p un message.
Se vce. gostaria que lhe envie um convite para juntar gmail, favor de
envie-me uma mensagem.
Se vuleti chi vi manu 'n invitu a uniri gmail, mandatimi n messaggiu.


from_name: Neil Harris

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets bigger	(formerlyCan
	you trust Wikipedia?)

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

>Neil Harris wrote:
>
>
>
>>Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users
>>with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy
>>hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
>>
>>Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the
>>effect on load really is?
>>
>>
>
>Jimbo's plan calls for everyone being able to rate, including
>not-logged-in users. This will be for test purposes only; the ratings
>from the test phase will be deleted again, once the statistics people
>got their hands on it and can hopefully tell us how to fine-tune the
>rating process.
>
>The "performance hog myth" dates back to the very first version. I have
>worked on the problematic parts and IMHO they should be good. I can't be
>certain without real testing, though. However, I doubt it will degrade
>performance in the initial phase; if there's a problem, it will most
>likely show once there are at least a few hundred thousand ratings.
>There will be many write/delete queries on the table, which might lead
>to table locks; this might be countered with low priority queries, though.
>
>Magnus
>
>
>
For vote acquisition, the entries might as well be split across multiple
tables to spread the locking load, if locking is a real problem, and the
votes then merged in (daily?) batch operations. There's no real need for
the system to give real-time results.

-- Neil


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads)

references:
<fbad4e140511030255x15b396edwd9992ed594dd05b9@mail.gmail.com>
	<9f02ca4c0511031523x1ba42fcev@mail.gmail.com>
	<dkgaoj$jvt$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
On 11/4/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Rowan Collins wrote:
> >
> > I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
> > - and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
> > Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too
> > late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL
> > for the autoincrement field to autoincrement. [...etc.etc.etc.]
>
> All throughout this you're assuming that the diff link, or indeed
> anything that isn't the comment proper, would have to be part of the
> comment text. I understand this assumption may seem self-evident because
> this is the way signatures are done on Talk pages now, but from a
> development point of view, it's a dangerous assumption to make because
> it will clearly lead to an extremely bad implementation.

I don't agree. We're talking about a new feature which would be useful
for a number of things and is somewhat orthogonal to the threads
discussion here. However, it would also be useful for threads so long
as people make a difflink containing signature a part of their
comment. I don't think that it's an unreasonable request... What it
might get us to is a 90% solution which reduces the cost of change
detection, ... which mostly kills the arguments about comment
alteration without really changing what we are doing.


from_name: shenanigans

subject: [Wikitech-l] [OTAnn] Groups:New Developments at Roomity

body:
I was interested in getting feedback from current communities of Roomity.com and let you know the recent improvements we are working on for better interface.

Roomity.com v 1.5 is a web 2.01/RiA poster child community webapp. This new version adds broadcast video, social networking such as favorite authors and html editor.

Its likely already you have groups and content you are already using but aggregated and safer, including technology, Java, etc., but it only works on broadband.

S.

*This is not spam! I work for Roomity and are trying to find better ways to enhance our members' experience.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband interface (RIA) + mail box saftey = Wikimedia_Developers_List.roomity.com
*Your* clubs, no sign up to read, ad supported; try broadband internet. ~~1131143205496~~
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


from_name: Gerrit Holl

body:
Alphax wrote:
>
> As a sidenote to this, someone (NullC? Eloquence?) is planning to run a
> bot to poll archive.org for all the external links on en: and subsuently
> replace all external links with links to the archive.org copies...

Those are not permanent, I have seen them dissappear.

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-11-04 14:29:56    6.9 degrees Celsius ( 44.5F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Has this been added to the November press coverage yet?

body:
    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051102&mode=classic

- d.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Has this been added to the November press coverage
	yet?


body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Magnus Manske [mailto:magnus.manske at web.de] Sent: Wednesday,
>>> November 02, 2005 3:56 AM
>>> To: English Wikipedia
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets bigger
>>> (formerlyCan you trust Wikipedia?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, as the author of said feature, I've been asking for a long
>>> time what's the holdup. I'm fairly certain it is, at the very least,
>>> ready for the planned test phase. I keep asking people what should
>>> be fixed, but so far (that is, in the last few month) noone could
>>> tell me the reason it remains turned off.
>>>
>>> If parts of it are broken or not up to MediaWiki standard or
>>> Evil(tm) in some other important way, please, PLEASE tell me so I
>>> can fix it.
>>>
>>> Should I backport it from CVS HEAD to some other branch? Which one?
>>> Anything!
>>>
>>> So far, I've been mostly ignored.
>>>
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>
>>
>> Please put this feature into effect immediately! If we don't like it, we
>> can always turn it off afterwards. But we will NEVER know if thousands
>> of Wikipedians will like it if we wait for an overwhelming clamor on
>> this mailing list.
>>
>> Ed Poor
>>
>>
>>
>
> I really think that ratings are vital, in order to deal with improving
> and maintaining Wikipedia's quality as its size and audience scales.
> If the ratings code is a performance, hog, at least trying it
> experimentally will find out how bad the problem is, and perhaps
> illuminate how it could be fixed to make it better. I can think of
> lots of potential strategies for doing this, but it would be nice to
> see the problem in reality, rather than in theory, before trying to
> fix it.
>
> Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users
> with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy
> hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
>
> Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the
> effect on load really is?
>
> -- Neil
>
>
Just to clarify this: I'm not proposing to permanently restrict rating
to admins or any other subgroup -- any user, logged in or not, should
eventually be able to rate articles, just as they can edit them.

The idea of restrictions is to solely prevent initial testing from
killing the system, after which the range of allowed users can be
progressively increased, eventually to include all users as soon as
system resources or code optimization permit.

The sooner the system is tested, the sooner it can be in shape for full
production use.

-- Neil


from_name: Any File

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts

body:
On 11/4/05, wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org
<wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wikitech-l mailing list submissions to
>         wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         wikitech-l-request at wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         wikitech-l-owner at wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikitech-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again (Ray Saintonge)
>    2. still active: www.tocatch.info (?? ???)
>    3. Re: rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads) (Rowan Collins)
>    4. Re: rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads) (Rowan Collins)
>    5. Re: Edit bailouts (Tim Starling)
>    6. Re: Fwd:Shock site bot (Brian)
>    7. Re: Re: LiquidThreads (David Reynolds)
>    8. Re: still active: www.tocatch.info (Brion Vibber)
>    9. Re: Re: Edit bailouts (Angela)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:05:15 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Ratings again
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <436A6D7B.4010609 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> >Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Magnus Manske wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I still prefer a 0-10 range of ratings.  I think a decimal
> >>>normalization would be easier to work with in any subsequent analysis
> >>>of results.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>One can set the range for each topic individually.
> >>
> >>
> >Mmm. See discussion at [[m:En validation topics]] and its archive -
> >too many choices of rating is probably a bad thing, because it's hard
> >to agree what a given value means. The test plan so far includes
> >probably far more variables than we'd want in any case ...
> >
> >
> The only variable is the individual subjective valuation of the
> article.  The number of points in the range are not different variables,
> but different values for the same variable.  To a large extent the size
> of the range is arbitrary because one range can be changed to another by
> a simple multiplication with a constant.  What's the difference between
> a value of 3 on a 1-5 scale and a value of 5 on a 0-10 range?
>
> Since the value which an individual gives to an article is essentially
> subjective there is no reliable way to define the ratings that can be
> given.  Statistical results tend to be self-normalizing.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:08:45 +0900 (JST)
> From: ?? ???    <wikiwatcher at yahoo.co.jp>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] still active: www.tocatch.info
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20051103070845.15521.qmail at web3108.mail.bbt.yahoo.co.jp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp
>
> Hello again,
>
> I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info" is still
> active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a live
> mirror (proxy).
>
> Please, if this is the wrong place to report this, where
> can I report it?
>
> On Sunday 30 October 2005 17:00, ?? ??? wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > a www.tocatch.info appears to be mirroring various
> > Wikipedias live, examples:
> >
> > http://www.tocatch.info/en/Special:Recentchanges.htm
> > (ENGLISH)
> > http://www.tocatch.info/ja/Special:Recentchanges.htm
> > (JAPANESE)
> >
> > Thankyou
>
> TANAKA
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail - supported by 10million people
> http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/10m/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:23:13 +0000
> From: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads)
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <9f02ca4c0511031523x1ba42fcev at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> te:On 03/11/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mindspillage wrote:
> > >On 11/2/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Might I suggest an additional feature for mediawiki? How about
> > >> [{here}] which becomes a difflink to the edit where that tag was
> > >> inserted? People could add that to their signatures and thus every
> > >> post of their would be equipped to a handy difflink to an original
> > >> version.
> >
> > >I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link ,
> > >actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't
> > >add more to the standard sig.
> >
> > Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is
> > going to be while it's saving?)
>
> I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
> - and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
> Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too
> late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL
> for the autoincrement field to autoincrement.
>
> But having spent ages looking at that, I remember that we have
> functions for doing diffs based on "next revision after this". So,
> it's not pretty, but presumably a pre save transform (e.g. a
> signature) could embed a link to a diff between the revision *before*
> itself and "whatever revision comes next"  - which in all but the
> oddest cases will be the revision you're in the middle of saving...
> So, sort of like "/index.php?oldid=$lastrevision&direction=next" where
> $lastrevision is the latest revision actually *saved* of that page.
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 23:36:42 +0000
> From: Rowan Collins <rowan.collins at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] rcid in default sig? (was LiquidThreads)
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <9f02ca4c0511031536h3601a1e5x at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 03/11/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/3/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in
> > > the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with
> > > all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in
> > > them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared
> > > after every comment.
>
> Hm, I admit I hadn't thought of that...
>
> > I agree that difflinks are long an ugly. Perhaps it's come time for a
> > special difflink syntax which is nice and compact?
>
> Well, they could be made pretty compact just using templates (or, more
> sanely, a built-in "variable"). It seems you need the article name
> when using relative diffs (see my previous message), so a template
> "nextdiff" of the form:
>
> [{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|diff=next|oldid={{{1}}}}} {{{2}}}]
>
> (first parameter is the pre-change revision, the second the text to
> display as the link) could appear in the wikisource as:
>
> {{nextdiff|21221469|Diff}}
>
> Make this an inbuilt variable for portability and performance, and
> combine it with the idea someone mentionned of linking the date in the
> signature (or part of it?) and it ought not to be too intrusive, I
> think.
>
> --
> Rowan Collins BSc
> [IMSoP]
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:37:20 +1100
> From: Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts
> To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <dkeafq$mi9$1 at sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > I guess there's not an easy way to find out how many people are bailing
> > out of edits that they really want to make... except maybe to ask them.
> > Perhaps a pop-up poll for folks who navigate away from an edit page in
> > some way besides saving? Kind of intrusive but it might have interesting
> > results.
>
> You could tell the difference between red link clicks and edit tab clicks by
> checking the referrer, or by adding an extra parameter to the URL. Detecting
> when the user starts typing with javascript could be another measure,
> although some might consider that sort of thing to be an invasion of
> privacy. It would certainly be an invasion of privacy to send text from the
> edit box to the server before the user clicks "save", unless they are warned
> in advance.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:18:33 -0500
> From: Brian <brian0918 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd:Shock site bot
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Cc: brett.gustafson at gmail.com, Wikitech-L <wikitech-l at wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <43699DA9.1040205 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I do know of one anon that has refused to start an account and has
> contributed extensively to evolution/species-related articles. He has
> turned his user page into a detailed watchlist (linked below; each of
> those dots is a watched page). He also appears to grasp policy and
> guidelines more than most Wikipedians. Check out an old copyedit of
> his:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913&diff=10227257&oldid=10225881
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:68.81.231.127
>
> Several people have pleaded on his talk page for him to start an account.
>
>
> SJ wrote:
>
> >Forwarded from Wikien-l.
> >
> >I wonder if it would be useful to have an index of external URLs that
> >supports throttling of the # of times per day a given base URL can be
> >added to WP sites...
> >
> >SJ
> >
> >
> >PS - this is my favorite part --  "I'm a regular wikipedia user
> >although i don't have an account here"  I wonder how many people
> >consider themselves 'regular uers' -- and how many of those actually
> >read user and policy pages...
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >From: Brett Gustafson <brett.gustafson at gmail.com>
> >Date: Nov 2, 2005 7:22 PM
> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot
> >To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> >
> >
> >I recently recieved this message from a user:
> >"I'm a regular wikipedia user although i don't have an account here. I think
> >this site is great and it really helps me with my college work. But I
> >recently heard of these people that were talking about wikipedia that they
> >were all programming a hack for it. So after a little while I found it was a
> >spider to hunt down all the pages links and change them to shocks site links
> >or something along those lines. I didn't know who to tell so I just thought
> >I'd tell an administrator as they might know who to tell or what to do. Just
> >giving an advanced warning so you might be able to do something to protect
> >this wonderful resourse. Apparently they permenantly change their ip address
> >using some thing (a bit beyond me). Something like that. I just didn't know
> >what to do. I hope I didn't embaress myself here. Thanks for your time."
> >
> >Brett
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >--
> >++SJ
> >_______________________________________________
> >Wikitech-l mailing list
> >Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:21:06 -0600
> From: David Reynolds <naeblis at kc.rr.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: LiquidThreads
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <436AA972.6080100 at kc.rr.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Ivan Krstic wrote:
> > Timwi wrote:
> >
> >>Secondarily I want to be able to fix spellings, in the faint hope that
> >>it will help some people learn better spelling. Again, the only people
> >>who would object to this would be people who can't spell and are
> >>therefore unsuitable for writing an encyclopedia anyway.
> >
> >
> > Totally broken reasoning.
> >
> >
> >>I've heard many reasons for maliciously changing an article. Yet
> >>articles on Wikipedia tend to get better. Interesting, innit?
> >
> >
> > That's an irrelevant non-answer to Ryan's question.
> >
> >
> >>No, the purpose of this was to test your reaction. You fell right for it
> >>exactly the way I expected: you picked up only on the emotional side of
> >>the paragraph (taking it as an insult)
> >
> >
> > Do you understand how conceited this makes you sound?
> >
> >
> >>And this highlights what I mean: you (and many other people) only object
> >>to being able to edit comments because it somehow "feels" wrong. You
> >>can't really say why it *is* wrong.
> >
> >
> > You need to relax, and start spending less time writing
> > borderline-offensive e-mail to people who are trying to reason
> > constructively, and more time thinking about what they're saying. I can
> > tell you exactly why it *is* wrong: comments are not Wikipedia articles,
> > even if you seem to be constantly confounding the two.
> >
> > A Wikipedia article isn't signed by a single person's name. It doesn't
> > represent the views of an individual, but tries to become an objective
> > reflection of its topic. As Brion puts it, a wiki is a place where you
> > let wackos edit your site, and with luck, the good wackos outnumber the
> > bad. The iterative editing process is a good way to ensure eventual NPOV
> > conformance.
> >
> > Comments are absolutely different. They are written and signed by a
> > single person, represent only that person's views, have no requirement
> > of adherence to a NPOV, and that means that essentially none of the
> > reasons that Wikipedia articles are editable by everyone apply to them.
> > If allowing comment cross-editing was in any way beneficial, the popular
> > web-based discussion forums with tens of millions of posts would have,
> > without a doubt, adopted such a model quite a while ago. There's a
> > reason they haven't done it.
> >
> > I am not interested in continuing this discussion further, so please
> > refrain from writing a snide reply that questions my intelligence so as
> > to "test my reaction".
> >
>
> Agreed. This discussion has degenerated, on Timwi's side at least, to ad
> hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Why do you persist in saying
> that opinions on talk pages have the same ownership/POV claims as
> articles in mainspace?
>
> David, new but dismayed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:09:32 -0800
> From: Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] still active: www.tocatch.info
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <436AB4CC.1020004 at pobox.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
>
> ?? ??? wrote:
> > Hello again,
> >
> > I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info" is still
> > active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a live
> > mirror (proxy).
>
> Killed it.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 253 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051103/bd559816/signature-0001.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 02:50:34 +0100
> From: Angela <beesley at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Edit bailouts
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <8b722b800511031750p764fa226r2c289b6dc352edc7 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 11/4/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > It would certainly be an invasion of privacy to send text from the
> > edit box to the server before the user clicks "save", unless they are warned
> > in advance.
>
> If that's true, users might need to be warned about previewing
> timelines and equations, which are saved even when the page is not.
>
I belive that everithig edited is send when the Preview button is pressed.
A user who press the preview button, do it at his/her will. He can
reasonable understand that data are sent. (well actually maybe
somebody can not undestand that).

If I undestand correctly what are you saing is that a minor sign of
what enetered in the text box and previewed remains on server even
ifthe change are descarded and the page not saved.

Nevertless there is not a direct way to say tis image (as far as I
know) nor to link them to the editors.

In my humble opinion if someone agree to send all the data (and is
aware of this), he/she  also agree to  send the math code.  In any
case this image are not pubblicy displayed (as it is the text of a
preview page).

If a log of the server with all the post form parameter were taken
much more information would be avaible that that.

In my opinion it is not a great problem, as regarded of privacy
concerns. This can be however be bigger problem if someone (an user of
the system) develop a system to misuse of this information. For
instance two people could use this system to create an image that
another user can check for existence and rad it and use this system as
a sort of crypto comunication. Hovewer this seem not a serious point
untill everybody is free to write anything pubblically.

How long such image survive on server?

AnyFile


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[WikiEN-l] RFA idiocy (was Slipping quality as Wikipedia gets
	bigger (formerly Can you trust Wikipedia?))

body:
On 11/4/05, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/05, Wikiacc <wikiacc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/2/05, Michelle <jareth at crimsonblade.net> wrote:
> > > I was seriously considering becoming an admin, but after a quick view of
> > > RFA, I decided it wasn't worth that.
> > >
> > >  - Jareth
> >
> > Some recent RFAs went quite smoothly (for example mine).
>
> I was quite surprised how smoothly mine went...

Mine went far better than I ever expected.

Kelly


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
I've removed the spammer from the list and blocked the address from
resubscribing.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051104/6929243d/attachment.pgp>


from_name: 田中 万太郎

subject: [Wikitech-l] still active: www.tocatch.info

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> ?????????
> ?? ??? wrote:
> > Hello again,
> >
> > I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info"
> is still
> > active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a
> live
> > mirror (proxy).
>
> Killed it.

Thankyou!

TANAKA

--------------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail - supported by 10million people
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/10m/