from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Broke a server

body:
In the process of applying an update to the 'page' table schema to prepare for
improvements to the language variant code (from SerbianVariants branch), I
somehow managed to horribly wedge ariel, the database master for en.wikipedia.org.

en.wikipedia.org was in and out of read-only mode for a couple hours while first
I, then Domas, looked it over.

In the end, Domas switched masters for en.wikipedia.org over to db3. Ariel's
been a bit flaky, and this gives us a chance to retire or re-stripe it.

So far things look ok on db3; Domas can provide more details on the horror I'm sure.

I've backed the code out of trunk for now; most but not all of our databases
have had the extra field added, which should be harmless to stay until we get
the rest fixed.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Wikitech-l] Squid cache purging problem

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> There seems to be something awry with the UDP multicast system we use for
> purging updated pages from the squid caches. This can cause pages and images
> which to not update properly for non-logged-in visitors.
>
> Hopefully we can get this sorted out this evening; it's probably related to
> recent rearrangements of our network infrastructure in Florida.

Mark fixed this a few hours ago.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: foundation-l

from_name: Christoph Seydl

subject: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?

body:
Well, I found some statements in the English Wikipedia-version, but no
undoubted source above it. The English-speaking Wikipedia is normatively
on the same hierarchical level as the German-speaking version.

Where is the universal principle of verifiability codified and defined?

Christopher


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
It is very very important that everyone vote.

I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
Mindspillage.

Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.

Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.  Give her some
votes.

There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
unable to work well with the community.

Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
and care about as human beings.

I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
community, speak openly of who you trust and why.

--Jimbo


list: wikien-l

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Board Elections


from_name: Jean-Denis Vauguet

subject: [Foundation-l] [Spcommittee-l] Multimedia: planning a meeting

body:
Michael Dale wrote:
> hey guys sorry I missed the meeting on Saturday...here is an update from
> (...)
> as I will not be available for the next few weekends.

Very intersting report and insights, Michael. I hope it will spur video
use among local projects as soon as it's released and enabled! Thank you :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060916/9ecbf89b/attachment.pgp


body:
Michael Dale wrote:
> hey guys sorry I missed the meeting on Saturday...here is an update from
> (...)
> as I will not be available for the next few weekends.

Very intersting report and insights, Michael. I hope it will spur video
use among local projects as soon as it's released and enabled! Thank you :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060916/9ecbf89b/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Michael Dale wrote:
> hey guys sorry I missed the meeting on Saturday...here is an update from
> (...)
> as I will not be available for the next few weekends.

Very intersting report and insights, Michael. I hope it will spur video
use among local projects as soon as it's released and enabled! Thank you :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060916/9ecbf89b/attachment.pgp>


body:
Michael Dale wrote:
> hey guys sorry I missed the meeting on Saturday...here is an update from
> (...)
> as I will not be available for the next few weekends.

Very intersting report and insights, Michael. I hope it will spur video
use among local projects as soon as it's released and enabled! Thank you :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060916/9ecbf89b/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Create new article - module ?

body:
On 15/09/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> I've for a long time considered the need to create a link as a feature.
> It prevents having orphan articles.

I would agree with that on Wikipedia in article space. It may have
administrative uses - e.g. Articles For Deletion on en: creates the
discussion pages (one per nominated article) using a button, and the
resulting pages are transcluded into a page of the day's nominations.
And of course it's appropriate on Wikinews.

- d.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:
> Hmmm ... well up to now I did not say who I really strongly support to
> anyone, because I thought it would mean to influence people - in
> particular those who do not really know well the candidates.
>
> If you say that it is not a problem to do so, well then .... I believe
> anyone of us can do that if he/she wishes so.
>
> Uhmmm .....
>
> Asking everyone to vote is ok, but preferring some and telling this
> publicly? I am not so sure about this.

I think it is important because some candidates who are known to good
people, and very trustworthy and loving and kind, are not known
internationally as well as they could be.  If we do not communicate to
the broader community, we will end up with a candidate who is not really
supported by the broad and very active community.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l]  Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being
> little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for
> Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia.
> You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly
> introducing either.

Yes!  Well, I hope that others can do a better job than I can. :)

> Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
> democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions.

Not at all.  I meant that some of the candidates are entirely
unacceptable _from the point of view of the active Wikimedia community_.

> When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the
> WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid
> that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia
> person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their
> statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT
> about Wikipedia.

No, I did not mean to imply that.  She is very very famous in the
English Wikipedia, but she is much more than that.  I do not think it
should count against her that she is an English Wikipedian. :)

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Board Elections


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Board
	Elections


subject: [Foundation-l] Clickable images: proposal

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
 > There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images
> could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy
> I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which,
> called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the
> description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A
> page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be
> inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.

That's exactly what I intended to propose before reading the last email
of this thread-your's ;)

A *real* meta page could be useful IMO. The user/reader would find many
useful information there:
- a notice about GFDL (text) and "how to re-use our content" (maybe with
the famous list of ten first editors required by the GFDL, automated?)
- thumbnails of all images/videos/audios of the article, with licence
logos (for it's handy once you're used to see them) and links toward
info pages
- the page could be used to itemize meta informations currently nested
on the article text form, such as interwikis and so on (a good thing
would be to allow editors to write such meta tag while editing the
article text, but MediaWiki would move them from this article-text db
record to the article-meta record. And maybe add an option in
Preferences, like "show me the meta form while editing"...)
- ideas?

What do you think?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060916/a6afc1b2/attachment.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
 > There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images
> could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy
> I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which,
> called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the
> description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A
> page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be
> inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.

That's exactly what I intended to propose before reading the last email
of this thread-your's ;)

A *real* meta page could be useful IMO. The user/reader would find many
useful information there:
- a notice about GFDL (text) and "how to re-use our content" (maybe with
the famous list of ten first editors required by the GFDL, automated?)
- thumbnails of all images/videos/audios of the article, with licence
logos (for it's handy once you're used to see them) and links toward
info pages
- the page could be used to itemize meta informations currently nested
on the article text form, such as interwikis and so on (a good thing
would be to allow editors to write such meta tag while editing the
article text, but MediaWiki would move them from this article-text db
record to the article-meta record. And maybe add an option in
Preferences, like "show me the meta form while editing"...)
- ideas?

What do you think?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20060916/a6afc1b2/attachment-0001.pgp


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
 > There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images
> could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy
> I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which,
> called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the
> description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A
> page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be
> inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.

That's exactly what I intended to propose before reading the last email
of this thread-your's ;)

A *real* meta page could be useful IMO. The user/reader would find many
useful information there:
- a notice about GFDL (text) and "how to re-use our content" (maybe with
the famous list of ten first editors required by the GFDL, automated?)
- thumbnails of all images/videos/audios of the article, with licence
logos (for it's handy once you're used to see them) and links toward
info pages
- the page could be used to itemize meta informations currently nested
on the article text form, such as interwikis and so on (a good thing
would be to allow editors to write such meta tag while editing the
article text, but MediaWiki would move them from this article-text db
record to the article-meta record. And maybe add an option in
Preferences, like "show me the meta form while editing"...)
- ideas?

What do you think?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060916/a6afc1b2/attachment.pgp>


body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
 > There's been a lot of discussion already about how navigational images
> could be implemented while preserving image credit. The best strategy
> I've seen would be to have an extension, Special:Mediacredits, which,
> called with a page title as a parameter, would transclude all the
> description pages of the images and other media used on that page. A
> page-dependent link to the Special:Imagecredits page would then be
> inserted into the sidebar and/or page footer.

That's exactly what I intended to propose before reading the last email
of this thread-your's ;)

A *real* meta page could be useful IMO. The user/reader would find many
useful information there:
- a notice about GFDL (text) and "how to re-use our content" (maybe with
the famous list of ten first editors required by the GFDL, automated?)
- thumbnails of all images/videos/audios of the article, with licence
logos (for it's handy once you're used to see them) and links toward
info pages
- the page could be used to itemize meta informations currently nested
on the article text form, such as interwikis and so on (a good thing
would be to allow editors to write such meta tag while editing the
article text, but MediaWiki would move them from this article-text db
record to the article-meta record. And maybe add an option in
Preferences, like "show me the meta form while editing"...)
- ideas?

What do you think?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/attachments/20060916/a6afc1b2/attachment-0001.pgp>


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
>I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
>Mindspillage.
>
>Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
>community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
>Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
>Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.  Give her some
>votes.
>
>There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
>entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
>unable to work well with the community.
>
>Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
>and care about as human beings.
>
>I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
>community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
>--Jimbo
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

I trust, admire, and respect Kat Walsh. She takes the time to go on
trips with Brad to close opportunities and she is level headed. Had I
been allowed to vote, it would have been for her as my first choice
(which I have stated before). She has a strong personality and radiates
a sense of balance, strength without pushiness, and forcefulness with
ease at getting to the bottom of complex issues. I have been immensely
impressed with her.

Jeffrey V. Merkey


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] I've Kicked the Process Habit

body:
On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[Wikipedia:Policy trifecta]] makes it sound so easy...
>
> So I figured why not try it? After all, I've been here for two and a
> half years. I've got a pretty good idea of what we're doing here. Why
> not just stop worrying about what all the policy pages say today, and
> about what the process to list something on AfD is?
>
> So I'm not anymore. I understand [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:DICK]], and I
> especially understand [[WP:IAR]]. I understand what an encyclopedia
> is. I understand how to do good research. (I'm a professional
> academic - I teach people how to do good research. I know this stuff.)
>
> So as of today, I'm just going to go ahead and edit. Lord knows the
> rules are making me nervous and depressed. So I'll follow all the
> stuff I can remember, and not try too hard to learn the other stuff.
> If I can't remember how to list something for AfD today, I'll just
> use PROD. If I can't get it deleted via PROD, I just won't delete it.
> Someone who remembers how to use AfD can do it. If I can't remember
> how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two
> warnings early, and call it a day. If I can't remember the status of
> blogs and personal websites as they apply to a specific topic, well,
> I'm a professional researcher. I teach people how to research. I'll
> trust my judgment.
>
> Note that this means that if you cite a policy page to me and expect
> me to carefully divine the meaning of section 14, paragraph 3, clause
> 2 of it, odds are I'll just say "Yeah, but what's ''wrong'' with what
> I'm doing?" "It violates policy" isn't enough. If it's against
> policy, it must be bad for some reason, so just explain to me what it
> does that's bad.
>
> Otherwise... well, you might drive me off the page, but you sure
> ain't gonna convince me.
>
> In the meantime, I'll be keeping [[User:Phil Sandifer/Process blog]]
> updated with anything I run into that's just impossible to handle
> without checking lots of policy pages. I'm doing this not so much
> because I'm trying to find the essential policies as because I'm
> trying to find the broken ones. I figure anything so complex an admin
> who's been editing for two and a half years can't do it is
> fundamentally broken.
>
> Not that I'll be the one to fix it. I've got an encyclopedia to write.
>
> -Phil

Then I must request that you resign your adminship.

--
geni


subject:
[Foundation-l] Wolf Mountain Group CEO Appointed/Wikimedia
	Foundation Issues

body:
Ahead of the formal press release on US1, I wanted to maket the
Foundation and Community aware of the following.

Dr. Dusty Delso has been appointed as the CEO of the Wolf Mountain Group
and the Wikimedia Foundation point of
contact for all business and funding issues.

Dr. Delso has left his position as the head of the Cherokee Nation
Culture and Education programs and accepted his new role
effective October 2, 2006.  He remains the Dean of our School of
Information Technology and our University and higher education
programs and remains heavily engaged in Cherokee Nation and Federal
Programs for our people.   I will still update the Machine Translation meta
project but have turned over all WMG and Wikipedia project issues to him
and Bryan Sparks, both of whom are now managing Wolf Mountain
Group.  I remain however, the largest shareholder and chairman (though I
will be busy with another company which was just acquired
and I will be focued on this about 80% of the time from now on).

I doubt Dr. Delso will dialouge on this list much or become involved
heavily in community issues since he will be focused almost exclusively
on Federally funded programs for our Native American Languages programs
with the Federal Government involving Wikipedia and the
Native Tribal Leaders and Linguists.   I will be available for any
projects involving machine translation for any languages and hadling all
technical matters with the WikiTrans program.    The Foundation may
contact him directly if they wish to engage in discussions and joint
opportunities.

Our projects involving Wikipedia content are moving to the next phase
with the Federal Government and deployment to the various tribes
in North America.

Love you all,

Jeff


body:
On 16/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> > So I figured why not try it? After all, I've been here for two and a
> > half years. I've got a pretty good idea of what we're doing here. Why
> > not just stop worrying about what all the policy pages say today, and
> > about what the process to list something on AfD is?

> Then I must request that you resign your adminship.

Request away!

("If your only argument is 'it's out of process', you haven't got an argument.")

- d.


body:
On 16/09/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:

> PS. Also remember to cite stuff, that policy isn't one you can just skip

The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on
the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the
numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia)
aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted
enough to tag policy.

You don't memorise every stub tag, do you? Neither do I. Those who
can't live with inconsistency can fix the inconsistencies afterwards.

You know, I still can't find where it tells me how to close an AFD the
way AFD likes them closed. The guide for admins doesn't tell me
either. I looked pretty closely too.

- d.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
James Hare wrote:
> "I do not think it should count against her that she is an English
> Wikipedian."
>
> It could, if it turns out she is oblivious to issues in totally different
> projects, such as the contentless Akan Wikipedia that doesn't even have an
> admin to clean up the project. (I am not saying she isn't, I don't know if
> she is or not.) We shouldn't even be considering what projects people are a
> part of -- it's all about the Wikimedia.

Agreed, and precisely my point. Well said. :)

--Jimbo


body:
On 15/09/06, Christoph Seydl <Christoph.Seydl at students.jku.at> wrote:

> Where is the universal principle of verifiability codified and defined?

It *should* be on Meta at [[m:Foundation issues]]. I'm not clear on
why it isn't.

I suggest to you that if you try doing it otherwise on German
Wikipedia, you will likely soon be informed of the error of your ways.

- d.


body:
On 16/09/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> No reason why anyone with half a brain needs to look at the exact
> parameters of what is and isn't a personal attack.

IIRC (I haven't looked lately) the article is a list of weaselings
people have attempted to use claiming their attacks weren't attacks.
If someone has decided "let's refactor this to conclusively solve the
philosophical problem of how much of one person's upset is another's
wrongdoing," they may have missed the point.

- d.


body:
On 16/09/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 8:41 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

> > Aslong as you don't go willy-nilly and do crazy stuff (there is a
> > reason we let an anon make a few mistakes before we zap him), this is
> > fine. Infact, it is how many (most?) of us use wikipedia.

> I'd guess all of us - policy is long past the point where anyone can
> actually remember all of it.

Look at the end of my talk page. I just had someone demand to know why
I'd dared violate the manual of style with a page move. They bothered
looking up the precise reference, but they hadn't bothered looking at
the move log (which contained the reason) or the resulting
disambiguation page (which contained a use of the term of much greater
current interest). I, frankly, boggled.

- d.


body:
On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Request denied. HTH. HAND.

You wish to drag this out? I suppose it is traditional.

Ok then.

So I'm not anymore. I understand [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:DICK]],

Those are not as a general rule safe judgements to make about oneself.

>and I especially understand [[WP:IAR]].

I doubt that. The existence of your email suggests that you don't.

>If I can't remember
>how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two
>warnings early, and call it a day.

This violates AGF thus WP:DICK.

As an admin you are not empowered to do this. Those who enjoy state
analogies would use the comparison you have the role of the police
rather than the executive.

Those who prefer analogies from the world of comic books would argue
that you're Judge Dread rather than Rorschach. You do not have the
power to decide to make a practice of not warning vandals.

>If it's against
>policy, it must be bad for some reason, so just explain to me what it
>does that's bad.

You wish to waste other people's time?

>I figure anything so complex an admin
>who's been editing for two and a half years can't do it is
>fundamentally broken.

You realise you've just claimed that our copyright policy is
fundamentally broken? We've got enough problems with people ignoring
it or trying to get around it we don't need any more.

--
geni


body:
On 16/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> >If it's against
> >policy, it must be bad for some reason, so just explain to me what it
> >does that's bad.

> You wish to waste other people's time?

If your only argument is "it's against process", you have no argument.

> >I figure anything so complex an admin
> >who's been editing for two and a half years can't do it is
> >fundamentally broken.

> You realise you've just claimed that our copyright policy is
> fundamentally broken? We've got enough problems with people ignoring
> it or trying to get around it we don't need any more.

Assume good faith. He's helping Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

- d.


body:
On 9/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/09/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PS. Also remember to cite stuff, that policy isn't one you can just skip
>
>
> The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on
> the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the
> numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia)
> aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted
> enough to tag policy.
>

You know the foundation has a lot of explaining to do if that really
is the case.

> You don't memorise every stub tag, do you? Neither do I. Those who
> can't live with inconsistency can fix the inconsistencies afterwards.

Aparently we are meant to be more focusing on expanding existing
articles so this should be an issue.

> You know, I still can't find where it tells me how to close an AFD the
> way AFD likes them closed. The guide for admins doesn't tell me
> either. I looked pretty closely too.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page

It's linked to from WP:AFD. Yeah I know it's a pain but it was
designed to a large degree for the convience of the user rather than
of the closer.

--
geni


body:
On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:09 PM, geni wrote:
>
> >
> >> If I can't remember
> >> how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two
> >> warnings early, and call it a day.
> >
> > This violates AGF thus WP:DICK.
> >
> > As an admin you are not empowered to do this. Those who enjoy state
> > analogies would use the comparison you have the role of the police
> > rather than the executive.
> >
> > Those who prefer analogies from the world of comic books would argue
> > that you're Judge Dread rather than Rorschach. You do not have the
> > power to decide to make a practice of not warning vandals.
> >
>
> Unless I happened to guess wrong and two warnings is now the
> convention, I didn't say I was swearing off vandal warning. I said
> I'm not going to worry about going up from {{test}} to {{test500}} or
> whatever insane number has been cooked up - I'll warn once or twice,
> zap, and call it a day.
>

Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3
and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I
understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to
a degree that people were objecting to.

In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no warning.

> If it's not obvious why it's bad, I don't really see it as a waste of
> time.

I don't see it as my job to continually educate people as to why
certain things are bad (we will ignore the issue that I tend to end up
doing this anyway)

> Is our copyright policy that bad? We should probably fix it up then.

Really? Were you planning to run as a successful third party or go
straight to armed revolution? In any case it won't help there are
another 200 odd legal systems out there to worry about.

--
geni


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

body:
Aslong as you don't go willy-nilly and do crazy stuff (there is a
reason we let an anon make a few mistakes before we zap him), this is
fine. Infact, it is how many (most?) of us use wikipedia.

Good luck! I look forward to your report on how it goes.

--Oskar

PS. Also remember to cite stuff, that policy isn't one you can just skip

On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[Wikipedia:Policy trifecta]] makes it sound so easy...
>
> So I figured why not try it? After all, I've been here for two and a
> half years. I've got a pretty good idea of what we're doing here. Why
> not just stop worrying about what all the policy pages say today, and
> about what the process to list something on AfD is?
>
> So I'm not anymore. I understand [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:DICK]], and I
> especially understand [[WP:IAR]]. I understand what an encyclopedia
> is. I understand how to do good research. (I'm a professional
> academic - I teach people how to do good research. I know this stuff.)
>
> So as of today, I'm just going to go ahead and edit. Lord knows the
> rules are making me nervous and depressed. So I'll follow all the
> stuff I can remember, and not try too hard to learn the other stuff.
> If I can't remember how to list something for AfD today, I'll just
> use PROD. If I can't get it deleted via PROD, I just won't delete it.
> Someone who remembers how to use AfD can do it. If I can't remember
> how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two
> warnings early, and call it a day. If I can't remember the status of
> blogs and personal websites as they apply to a specific topic, well,
> I'm a professional researcher. I teach people how to research. I'll
> trust my judgment.
>
> Note that this means that if you cite a policy page to me and expect
> me to carefully divine the meaning of section 14, paragraph 3, clause
> 2 of it, odds are I'll just say "Yeah, but what's ''wrong'' with what
> I'm doing?" "It violates policy" isn't enough. If it's against
> policy, it must be bad for some reason, so just explain to me what it
> does that's bad.
>
> Otherwise... well, you might drive me off the page, but you sure
> ain't gonna convince me.
>
> In the meantime, I'll be keeping [[User:Phil Sandifer/Process blog]]
> updated with anything I run into that's just impossible to handle
> without checking lots of policy pages. I'm doing this not so much
> because I'm trying to find the essential policies as because I'm
> trying to find the broken ones. I figure anything so complex an admin
> who's been editing for two and a half years can't do it is
> fundamentally broken.
>
> Not that I'll be the one to fix it. I've got an encyclopedia to write.
>
> -Phil
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, the big thing there was that he suggested he'd provide some
> deleted article text that contained personal information to a bunch
> of banned trolls, without adequately researching the situation first.
>
> Ironic that you're now commenting on it without adequately
> researching it...
>

Could be somewhat tricky as formal reasons were never given and the
deleted revisions were killed by oversite.

--
geni


from_name: James Hare

body:
"I do not think it should count against her that she is an English
Wikipedian."

It could, if it turns out she is oblivious to issues in totally different
projects, such as the contentless Akan Wikipedia that doesn't even have an
admin to clean up the project. (I am not saying she isn't, I don't know if
she is or not.) We shouldn't even be considering what projects people are a
part of -- it's all about the Wikimedia.

On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being
> > little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for
> > Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia.
> > You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly
> > introducing either.
>
> Yes!  Well, I hope that others can do a better job than I can. :)
>
> > Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
> > democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions.
>
> Not at all.  I meant that some of the candidates are entirely
> unacceptable _from the point of view of the active Wikimedia community_.
>
> > When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,
> > it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the
> > WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid
> > that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia
> > person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their
> > statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT
> > about Wikipedia.
>
> No, I did not mean to imply that.  She is very very famous in the
> English Wikipedia, but she is much more than that.  I do not think it
> should count against her that she is an English Wikipedian. :)
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Example of a user who should have been banned a long
	time ago

body:
On 9/15/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>   Aksaha,
>
> > > OrphanBot's top-50 list.  The "tagbot.log" warnings are about new
> > > uploads; the "orphanbot.log" warnings are about existing uploads.
>
> Quoting Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com>:
> > Thats certainly a very useful list. Should we get a sysop to run
> > through them?
>
>   I note that there are sysops on that list of worst image offenders, so being a
> sysop is probably not a good way to judge who should take action on the issue.
>
>                    Jkelly

As long as we don't pick a sysop on the list, I think we'll be find.
I've found that most of you sysop-people are very reasonable and
moderate, and also don't go around violating copyright. I'm sure we
could dig someone up.

Hell, much of this isn't sysop work, much of it is simply going around
and warning users and helping them with adding templates. Then if they
need to be smacked, you could call in one of the big guns, and let
them handle the actual deleting/blocking. Hell, I could do that....

--Oskar


body:
Look, lets not judge him on his intentions. It's just silly. If he
does make a mistake, take him to task on it, but you cannot know
whether this will turn out good or bad before he's actually done it.

Most of his suggestions are very reasonable, and it's not like he's
saying "I'm going to delete every article ever written about X,
because they're stupid!". His stated intentions is to follow the
policy as closely as he can, just to avoid all of the bureocracy
surrounding it. If he goes crazy, we have ways of dealing with that.
Then you can bring up all this stuff. For now, lets not judge people
*before they've actually done something wrong*, ok?

--Oskar

On 9/16/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:09 PM, geni wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> If I can't remember
> > >> how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two
> > >> warnings early, and call it a day.
> > >
> > > This violates AGF thus WP:DICK.
> > >
> > > As an admin you are not empowered to do this. Those who enjoy state
> > > analogies would use the comparison you have the role of the police
> > > rather than the executive.
> > >
> > > Those who prefer analogies from the world of comic books would argue
> > > that you're Judge Dread rather than Rorschach. You do not have the
> > > power to decide to make a practice of not warning vandals.
> > >
> >
> > Unless I happened to guess wrong and two warnings is now the
> > convention, I didn't say I was swearing off vandal warning. I said
> > I'm not going to worry about going up from {{test}} to {{test500}} or
> > whatever insane number has been cooked up - I'll warn once or twice,
> > zap, and call it a day.
> >
>
> Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3
> and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I
> understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to
> a degree that people were objecting to.
>
> In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no warning.
>
> > If it's not obvious why it's bad, I don't really see it as a waste of
> > time.
>
> I don't see it as my job to continually educate people as to why
> certain things are bad (we will ignore the issue that I tend to end up
> doing this anyway)
>
>
> > Is our copyright policy that bad? We should probably fix it up then.
>
> Really? Were you planning to run as a successful third party or go
> straight to armed revolution? In any case it won't help there are
> another 200 odd legal systems out there to worry about.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ironic that you're now commenting on it without adequately
> researching it...

Do we have some policy on that? :)


body:
On 9/16/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that's about the way I remembered it.  My point was that he
> said "I'm thinking of doing <horrible thing>", or "I'm going to
> do <horrible thing>", and instead of saying "No, you shouldn't do
> that" or "No, you shouldn't do that, or else we'll de-admin you",
> we just cut to the chase and de-adminned him.  (As I understood it.
> No, I didn't research it thoroughly, because I don't have time
> for that, just as you don't have time for bureaucracy! :-) )

Let's keep the discussion on-topic, that incident has been discussed
at length elsewhere. If you wish to discuss it, create a new thread or
go to a more appropriate place, please.

--Oskar


from_name: Stephen Streater

body:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 01:32, Phil Sandifer wrote:

> [[Wikipedia:Policy trifecta]] makes it sound so easy...
>
> So I figured why not try it?

> Not that I'll be the one to fix it. I've got an encyclopedia to write.

Great!

The rules are much too long. Most of the encyclopaedia
is written without detailed knowledge of the rules, which
are only needed when a dispute arises.

I'd like to see all the rules on a single page, with the extra
rule that people should listen to each other and work
together to resolve disagreements.

I'll also add that I've got into trouble for following the Trifecta
because it does not encapsulate this:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/
Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws#ARTICLE_II:_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 08:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.

Well, I'll start off then.

One of the candidates I support is Kim Bruning.
He has been willing to honestly engage in a detailed
discussion about "free" on Wikipedia and look into my
suggestions on improving the encyclopaedia with an
open mind. (Some discussions, for example, on your
talk page.)

One of the candidates I do not support is Kelly Martin.
My first experiences of her was her call for my banning
on my RfA based on incorrect premise, followed by
failure to amend this call when given proof of her
misunderstanding. It must be said that my recent
experiences have been more positive though.


from_name: Amgine

subject: [Foundation-l] Setting a record straight

body:
In this political season for Wikimedia some very odd conversations
are taking place in back channels. One of these threads has come back
to me from a couple of different directions. I intensely dislike
whisper campaigns <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_campaign>, so
I'd like to set the record straight in public once again.

I stopped my volunteering on the en.wp project in fall 2004 due to a
strong disagreement with an ArbCom decision. It was not in any way
related to Mr Danny Wool, about whom I was only peripherally aware at
the time. I work with Mr Wool on a daily basis, and we get along
extremely well professionally.

If you have any other information you'd like to have verified, Mr
M?ller, you can reach me at this e-mail address, by phone (+1
778.386.1059), or I am often available on IRC. But please verify
things before sharing them; I don't have time for politics.

Amgine

-------------- next part --------------


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
Hmmm ... well up to now I did not say who I really strongly support to
anyone, because I thought it would mean to influence people - in
particular those who do not really know well the candidates.

If you say that it is not a problem to do so, well then .... I believe
anyone of us can do that if he/she wishes so.

Uhmmm .....

Asking everyone to vote is ok, but preferring some and telling this
publicly? I am not so sure about this.

Will see what to write during the day and publish it.

Sorry.

Best, Sabine

Jimmy Wales schrieb:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.
>
> Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
> Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.  Give her some
> votes.
>
> There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> unable to work well with the community.
>
> Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> and care about as human beings.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
> --Jimbo
>

Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.
>
> Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
> Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.  Give her some
> votes.
>
> There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> unable to work well with the community.
>
> Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> and care about as human beings.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
> --Jimbo
Hoi,
Where you assume that Oscar needs introduction because of him being
little known in the English Wikipedia, the same is true for
Mindspillage. She is not well known outside of the English Wikipedia.
You did both Oscar and Mindspillage a disservice by not properly
introducing either.

Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions. It is said
that an electorate gets the representation that it deserves. It is for
the people that are elected and who are not elected to work together.
When this is entirely unacceptable, the notion of people being elected
and being able and allowed to make a difference in that role will not be
fulfilled. It will be a mockery of democracy.

When a person is to be chosen for the board of the Wikimedia Foundation,
it has been said that it is extremely important that the notion of the
WMF being about the English Wikipedia is a false notion. I am afraid
that you damaged Mindspillage by portraying her as an English Wikipedia
person. I think all candidates that focus on Wikipedia in their
statements disqualify themselves as the Wikimedia Foundation is NOT
about Wikipedia.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Board Elections


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] sep11.wikipedia.org locked

body:
--- Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Due to longstanding concerns about lack of activity and abuse by spammers and
> vandals, I've switched sep11.wikipedia.org to read-only so it can no longer be
> edited.

I thought that was already done months ago.... There may or may not be material there that is
salvageable for the more inclusive proposed Wikipeople project.

-- mav

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
Since you can tick as many as you like, I ticked 'yes' on any that I
knew to be reasonably clueful, and not just on en: Wikipedia.

You can go back and vote again if you change your mind before deadline.

- d.


from_name: Fl Celloguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
For those who are unaware, the Wikipedia Signpost ([[WP:SIGN]]) interviewed all of the candidates a few weeks ago, and all of the 17 candidates (with the exception of Linuxbeak) replied. The interviews were published on August 28 and can be found in the Signpost's archives. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-08-28/Board_candidates) Each candidate was asked a series of questions pertaining to their candidacy and views, and also given a chance to mention anything else that they wished to.I highly and strongly encourage all voters to read through this page prior to voting, or if you've voted already, to review each candidate's replies to those questions.(And I do apologize for the shameless self-promotion... ;-) )FlcelloguyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with gadgets on Windows Live Spaces
http://discoverspaces.live.com?source=hmtag1&loc=us


from_name: Ligulem

body:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
> (I'm a professional academic)

Care to let us know what your field of academic expertise exactly is?

--Ligulem


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
On Sep 16, 2006, at 8:37 AM, geni wrote:

>
> Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is
> just process?

No. Do you want to tell me that everybody who uploads images needs to
become copyright experts? Because I'm figuring we can get by pretty
OK on people who are making a good faith effort to follow fair use.
Which is, shockingly, not that hard a concept.

>
> So you shouldn't be worried about pissing large numbers of people off?
> You know working with the community and all that?
>

Geni, it's clear that everybody in this conversation is not worried
about pissing large numbers of people off, you least of all.

> Cool so what happened to consensus?
>

Nothing happens to consensus. Something may happen to mob rule, but
that's different.

>>     * Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be gradual. An
>> editor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed
>> influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make
>> sure the documentation stays up to date.

> It tends to.
>

No, it really doesn't. It tends to become a tangle of limit cases and
exceptions for pathological cases. The only thing that makes the
documentation stay vaguely accurate is the willingness of people to
follow it without thinking.
>

> It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors
> actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An
> editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being
> reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most
> people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps
> trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even
> harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community.
> The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the
> community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed
> like a good idea at the time.

Which isn't what I said I was going to do. IAR is not "cut the
newbies some slack when they don't know the rules." That's BITE. IAR
is "Look, try to understand the basic premises, then go ahead and act
in a manner consistent with them, and odds are it'll work out fine."
I'm counting on that actually being true. That's not "whatever seemed
like a good idea at the time." That's "whatever seemed to an admin of
two years like the thing most consistent with his ever-growing
knowledge of how Wikipedia works."

I'd say it's a subtle difference, but honestly, it's not.

-Phil


body:
On 16/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on
> > the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the
> > numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia)
> > aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted
> > enough to tag policy.

> You know the foundation has a lot of explaining to do if that really
> is the case.

See, this is why you have trouble with people listening to you: you
answer things with a one-liner that doesn't actually address the
point.

Here's one to run past you:

When encountering an editor who seems to be displaying a flagrant
disregard for process, check the process isn't flawed.

    * Rewrite the process description to show how it follows as
directly as possible from core policies. Even if it isn't made
official, this helps you explain it to others better. This is one of
the best ways to resolve disputes over the value of a process.
    * Reexamine the process. Does it follow obviously from the core
policies? Do people keep complaining that it's hard to understand or
that it excludes outsiders? Do regulars express distrust of
non-regulars, or dislike the idea of any random person interfering?
    * Failing to follow or rejecting process is not, of itself, a
wrong act. The encyclopedia itself is more important than any process
designed to protect it; both intent and results should be measured
against the core content policies (NPOV, V and NOR) and core community
policies (AGF and NPA).
     ** If your only argument is "it's out of process" or "it violates
policy" (other than a core policy), you don't have an argument.
    * Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be gradual. An
editor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed
influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make
sure the documentation stays up to date.
    * Of course, the editor may well be a troll or a dick. But don't
make that your first assumption.

Now, a question for you:

Q. The above looks good to geni.

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:

- d.


body:
On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:32 PM, geni wrote:
>
> Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3
> and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I
> understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to
> a degree that people were objecting to.
>
> In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no
> warning.

You do realize that the number two was picked arbitrarily, right? And
that the meaning of it was "I will block after what seems like a fair
number of warnings," not "I intend to reduce the number of warnings
required by exactly two," right? That I honestly have no idea how
many warnings are standard, what the available warning templates are,
whether we're using {{subst}} these days, or how many fewer (or more)
warnings I'm likely to give than the norm?

I mean, you're reading my declaration like it were a policy page or
something.

-Phil


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

body:
On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> It is very very important that everyone vote.

Totally.

> I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> Mindspillage.

So do I. I will add that no-one, but no-one should feel that they
shouldn't vote for Mindspillage because she is US-based. They should
vote for the best candidates from which-ever country. My personal
biggest regret is that an excellent candidate from the US, Daniel
Meyer was not elected in the first ever foundation elections. No-one
knows if that was because Daniel comes from the United States, but if
it was, please, please, let us not make the same mistake this time
around. Vote for the wisest people you know, regardless of gender or
nationality, or sexual orientation, or whatever consideration other
than character. Remember that the board can, should it feel that there
is a relevant imbalance in the board in any respect, in its wisdom
balance *itself* by _appointing_ new members, and *do* trust that if
you vote wise members to the board, they will be able to assess the
need to balance itself by whom they appoint into their own number.

> Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.

While I don't know Oscar from extended personal interaction,
everything I hear and have observed bears this out.

> Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.  Give her some
> votes.
>
> There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> unable to work well with the community.
>
> Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> and care about as human beings.
>
> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>
> --Jimbo

This is directly to you, Jimbo. I say what you have done above, is
very courageous. Exposing yourself to criticism for trying to
influence the vote. And let me be clear, every word in the previous
two sentences should be construed at face value, no sarcasm, no irony,
just what the words themselves denote.

Let me take the opportunity here to openly and concretely address the
question of how the new elected board should approach the question of
appointing a replacement for Tim Shell when his resignation is due. My
personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
life members of the board . Daniel Meyer and Angela Beesley. Their
conduct has clearly demonstrated that they have at every turn put the
good of the foundation above their own. The fact that Angela Beesley
resigned the board when she saw it having developed in an unhealthy
way, demonstrates clearly that she is just the kind of person who
*can* be trusted to guard the overall and longtime disposition of the
board. Besides his awesome number of edits, Daniel Meyer stayed the
course as Chief Financial Officer, despite the fact that his job was
made challenging by problems of timely action by the board.

Angela and Daniel are both members from the community, and of the
community, and if we *do*, as I think we should do, elect permanent
members to the board, to ensure long-term stability, there are no two
people better to accomplish this. I repeat, no two people from the
community that I know could do better in this respect. I still
maintain, that if people from *outside* the community be appointed to
the board, by the board, they should serve a limited term just as the
elected community representatives do.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.


from_name: valdelli at bluemail.ch

body:
Wikipedia establish that if a group of persons has an opinion and
another has got its own opinion, Wikipedia should take care of both
(with different importance following the diffusione of the opinion).

Not all could be verified, but all could have a reason, if this
reason has got some references it's a good point.

In any case the original points of view are not accepted.

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Data: 16.09.06 0.11
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Minimum standards for verifiability

Christoph Seydl wrote:
>
> * Are there any rules (minimum requirements) how verifiability
should be
> designed in different Wikipedias?
> * Must there be a source for every included material (e.g. a
basket is a
> cylindric vessel)?
> * Is it enough that only disputed material must be sourced?
> * May a poll abolish the requirement of verifiability?

When a point of view is "verified" by sources, it does not mean
that the
point of view is correct. There are sources that say that the
holocaust
is a lie. If this is true because of there being sources that say
that
this is true, then there is a problem with the sources. When you
then
say that a court of law proved that something is not true, than it
is a
known fact that the world is flat.

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] Minimum standards for verifiability


body:
On 9/16/06, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
 >> the time. I work with Mr Wool on a daily basis, and we get along
 >> extremely well professionally.

 > To those wondering what this about-
 >
 > A couple of days ago I had a phone conversation with Danny Wool, in
 > which he pointed out that he's been working very well with Wayne (the
 > context is not important).

I must confess to an extreme level of curiosity; what, pray tell, was
the context that you would be talking with Danny about our work
relationship? After all, the board does not directly oversee Danny,
and I'm merely a volunteer. So I would love to know the context of
this conversation?

Amgine

?


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimania 2007 - Bidding cities shortlist

body:
I am very sorry, it seems this email never made it to the lists
yesterday. Gmail or mailman ate all my emails sent to lists yesterday.

I *did* send it yesterday.

Delphine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com>
Date: Sep 15, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Wikimania 2007 - Bidding cities shortlist
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>,
wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Translators
<translators-l at wikimedia.org>

Dear Wikimedians,

first an foremost, the jury would like to thank all the people who
have worked on putting together those bids. We all know it is a hard
task and that it takes both time and ressources that volunteers
already give for Wikimedia altogether.

We have chosen 4 cities for the shortlist:

Alexandria, London, Taipei, Torino

The bids of Orlando, Hong-Kong and Istanbul were unfortunately not
precise enough in what opportunities there are especially for
conference venues. Singapore's bid almost made it to the shortlist but
the lack of opportunities for common accommodation made it fall
through.

The jury will be asking questions on the talk pages of the chosen
bids, please do make sure that you answer them. And do not hesitate to
ask us questions too.

We also encourage the cities that have not made it to the shortlist,
and even those who have, to start thinking about opportunities for the
coming years and especially 2008. We expect to be chosing the city for
2008 within a couple of months, so for those who are already at it,
work your contacts and opportunities, for those who have not started
thinking, it's time to come up with fresh ideas!

Again, thanks to all of you who have worked hard on these bids, and as
we say in French, "que le meilleur gagne ! " (May the best win!).

We will have a public meeting with the bidding teams, the jury and and
whoever wants to join on IRC in the #wikimania channel on freenode on
Saturday 23rd September at 15.00 UTC.

Stay tuned for more and happy further bidding!

Cheers,

Delphine

PS. Merci to the translators in advance for forwarding this to the
appropriate lists.
--
~notafish

--
~notafish


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Fwd: Wikimania 2007 - Bidding cities shortlist


from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
Hoi,
I doubt that you have asked Angela or Daniel Meyer if they want to be a
"life board member" of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think floating such an
idea is irresponsible. Given that Angela decided that she no longer wants to
be a board member should be respected. By pressing her to accept such a role
it can also be considered a vote of no confidence on the people who are
still on the board.

Given that you are a candidate for exactly the position that Angela vacated,
I think you have shot yourself in the foot. You are aware are you not that
there will be this thing in Europe where the WMF considers how to look at
it's future? I think that would be a much better platform to discuss issues
like how to replace Tim. At this moment it is exclusively for Jimmy to
replace him if he so chooses to do this.

Given that there is to be this thing in Europe, you will be part of it when
you are chosen to be there. The worst thing that can happen is if there is
going to be a bout of infighting now that there is this opportunity to
create some clarity and focus about the organisation and how it functions.

Clarity is needed because of the secrecy and the lack of responsiveness
needs to be replaced with a reasoned and reasonable openness combined with
at least the minimal courtesy of an acknowledgment of receipt when it has
been asked for. Focus is needed, because there are many opportunities for
us. These opportunities will nor remain there indefinitely and we have a bad
record on this. No is often a great answer, yes is often a great answer no
answer is an open invitation to more confusion and more cross purpose
activity. Focus is needed because there is a tendency to be overwhelmed by
all the things that could be done. It is much better to be clear what the
WMF is capable of and leave the rest to other associated organgisations.
Focus is needed because it allows us to finish things so that we can move to
new stuff. Clarity and focus will bring us less work because many of the
issues we deal with are there because we have not positioned the WMF well
and we have not made it clear what people are free to do within the WMF
framework.

Thanks,
    GerardM

On 9/16/06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/16/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > It is very very important that everyone vote.
>
> Totally.
>
>
> > I personally strongly strongly support the candidacies of Oscar and
> > Mindspillage.
>
> So do I. I will add that no-one, but no-one should feel that they
> shouldn't vote for Mindspillage because she is US-based. They should
> vote for the best candidates from which-ever country. My personal
> biggest regret is that an excellent candidate from the US, Daniel
> Meyer was not elected in the first ever foundation elections. No-one
> knows if that was because Daniel comes from the United States, but if
> it was, please, please, let us not make the same mistake this time
> around. Vote for the wisest people you know, regardless of gender or
> nationality, or sexual orientation, or whatever consideration other
> than character. Remember that the board can, should it feel that there
> is a relevant imbalance in the board in any respect, in its wisdom
> balance *itself* by _appointing_ new members, and *do* trust that if
> you vote wise members to the board, they will be able to assess the
> need to balance itself by whom they appoint into their own number.
>
> > Oscar is an amazing Dutch Wikipedian with strong support from that
> > community but who does not have broad exposure in the English
> > Wikipedia... I hope we can change that by introducing him to people.
>
> While I don't know Oscar from extended personal interaction,
> everything I hear and have observed bears this out.
>
> > Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.  Give her some
> > votes.
> >
> > There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> > entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> > unable to work well with the community.
> >
> > Please, everyone, vote... and vote for people who you can know and trust
> > and care about as human beings.
> >
> > I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
> > community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
> This is directly to you, Jimbo. I say what you have done above, is
> very courageous. Exposing yourself to criticism for trying to
> influence the vote. And let me be clear, every word in the previous
> two sentences should be construed at face value, no sarcasm, no irony,
> just what the words themselves denote.
>
> Let me take the opportunity here to openly and concretely address the
> question of how the new elected board should approach the question of
> appointing a replacement for Tim Shell when his resignation is due. My
> personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board . Daniel Meyer and Angela Beesley. Their
> conduct has clearly demonstrated that they have at every turn put the
> good of the foundation above their own. The fact that Angela Beesley
> resigned the board when she saw it having developed in an unhealthy
> way, demonstrates clearly that she is just the kind of person who
> *can* be trusted to guard the overall and longtime disposition of the
> board. Besides his awesome number of edits, Daniel Meyer stayed the
> course as Chief Financial Officer, despite the fact that his job was
> made challenging by problems of timely action by the board.
>
> Angela and Daniel are both members from the community, and of the
> community, and if we *do*, as I think we should do, elect permanent
> members to the board, to ensure long-term stability, there are no two
> people better to accomplish this. I repeat, no two people from the
> community that I know could do better in this respect. I still
> maintain, that if people from *outside* the community be appointed to
> the board, by the board, they should serve a limited term just as the
> elected community representatives do.
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro
>
> Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
> September 2006 elections.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
 > Taking this off-list..

No, seriously, I would love to know the answer to this. Why were you
calling Danny about our professional relationship?

Amgine

?


body:
On 9/16/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> > There are other candidates, some good, but at least some of them are
> > entirely unacceptable because they have proven themselves repeatedly
> > unable to work well with the community.
> >
>
> Where you state that some are "entirely unacceptable", you forget that
> democracy is about the electorate choosing it's champions. It is said
> that an electorate gets the representation that it deserves. It is for
> the people that are elected and who are not elected to work together.
> When this is entirely unacceptable, the notion of people being elected
> and being able and allowed to make a difference in that role will not be
> fulfilled. It will be a mockery of democracy.
>

When you say that "It is for the people that are elected and who are
not elected to work together.", it perfectly underlines the point
Jimbo is making above. Some people *can* work together, others cannot;
and the electorate would *indeed* be wise, as Jimbo suggests above, if
they *do* elect people who *can* work together nicely with other
people. It is true that the voters have sovereign right to how they
choose to use their votes, but if they are *wise* they will vote in a
way that will ensure that their choises *do* lead to what both you and
Jimbo feel the representatives *must* do, to repeat again, to work
together with others. It is not irrelevant to evaluate how different
candidates would be able to do this, it is essential.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.


from_name: ROSC Director

subject: [Foundation-l] Wiki Spam

body:
All Wiki Members,

  Please share your thoughts on Wiki Spam, Wiki Spamers, and just Spam. The Resources of Sheboygan Club is working on a plan to stop Spam on our forums, guestbooks, and forms.

  Please share your thoughts on this issue as this will help the Resources of sheboygan Club and some ideas will be pasted on.

  Please send feedback or thoughts to ROSCDirector at gmail.com

  Yours Truly,
      The Resources of Sheboygan Club
       Club Director & Founder

---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wiki Spam


from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] new window for external links

body:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 04:07:11PM +0200, HeinzJ wrote:
> What has to be done to have external links opened in a new window?

This can actually be done with user/administrator javascript.

There is -- floating around, and I don't have a good cite -- some
javascript that hangs off the onChange of a checkbox on your page
(usually labelled with a "multiple pages" icon) which walks the DOM
looking for A HREF links and rewriting their TARGET; it's a very clever
approach, and one I recommend over merely *forcing* the issue, as I'm
one of the people whom it pisses off (see an earlier thread in our
archives for all the arguments).

If you do this, you probably want to default it to off, for all those
same reasons.

If you meant, instead, "how do I make certain, specific, external links
open in a new window" then I think the answer is "you can't do that
from wikitext."

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 11:18, Angela wrote:

> My view on who should be elected is already public, but for those who
> don't read meta, I believe Erik is the only candidate capable of
> having any positive influence within the current Board. Later, when
> that Board is expanded and the continuous internal conflicts are
> resolved, I would agree that Mindspillage and Oscar may be good
> candidates in future. I would also trust Steve Dunlop and Juan David
> Ruiz in the role, but right now - Erik is what the Board and
> Foundation needs.
>
> It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
> vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006
>
> I strongly support this platform and as I said at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Endorse_2006 I believe
> Erik is the best candidate to represent the community in the
> development of the Wikimedia Foundation over the coming year. Erik has
> shown a continued commitment, not only to Wikipedia but to the
> Wikimedia Foundation as a whole. Erik's commitment to the sort of
> openness that will ensure the community will have an influence in
> ensuring the Foundation meets its goals makes me happy to endorse him
> as the person to replace me on the Board.

That's lucky - I had already voted for him :-)


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject:
[Foundation-l] [Fwd: [Wmfcc-l] Citizendium, a new venture,
 will "fork" off from online encyclopedia Wikipedia]

body:
Sanger will fail for all the same reasons Wikipedia has hit a wall of
late on growth of articles. Wikipedia has reached critical mass
of information and it's "good enough" in most peoples minds. Beyond
translation activities and divergence into Wikiversity type of programs,
and incremental updates of content, it will hover around 1.4 million
articles until it gets another massive infusion of content from some
other source. There's also the glaring fact the 2% of the community
create 98% of the content on average (based on Slashdot study published
last month). And these 2% usually become inactive after they drop
content into the project. I see a lot of activitiy in recent edits, but
growth has been stagnant for several months and quality has been
improving dramatically.

Without a new information source or innovative technology play, Sanger
will fail.

Jeff

>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: 	[Wmfcc-l] Citizendium, a new venture, will "fork" off from
>online encyclopedia Wikipedia
>Date: 	Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:14:39 +0200
>From: 	Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: 	Communications Committee <wmfcc-l at mail.wikimedia.org>
>To: 	Communications Committee <wmfcc-l at mail.wikimedia.org>
>
>
>
>WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY
>
>September 18, 2006 Monday
>
>INTERNATIONAL
>
>SECTION: INTERNATIONAL
>
>LENGTH: 187 words
>
>Citizendium, a new venture, will "fork" off from online encyclopedia
>Wikipedia, said Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia's founders. Sanger,
>dir.-collaborative projects for the Digital University Foundation,
>spoke last week at the Wizard of OS (Open Source) Conference in
>Berlin. Wikipedia is committed to anonymity; Citizendium will stress
>personal responsibility for content, pushing for higher quality, he
>said, noting that Wikipedia's anonymity draws troublemakers. On
>Citizendium, content will be reviewed by editors who, while
>self-selecting, will have to substantiate their expertise. If
>Wikipedia had been admitting its problems, Sanger said, "I would have
>been much less motivated to go on with Citizendium." Martin Haase, a
>Wikipedia board member in Germany, said Wikipedia is working on
>quality. Soon, the encyclopedia will have its own means of validation
>and some editorial control, he said. Citizendium and Wikipedia can
>coexist, Sanger said. His role in Wikipedia was called into question
>years ago by fellow Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, spurring Sanger to
>quit his position as "chief organizer" of Wikipedia. -- ME
>
>LOAD-DATE: September 15, 2006
>
>LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
>
>PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newsletter
>
>
>Copyright 2006 Warren Publishing, Inc.
>All Rights Reserved
>_______________________________________________
>Wmfcc-l mailing list
>Wmfcc-l at mail.wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


from_name: Mark Clements

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote in
message news:450BA573.2000104 at wikia.com...
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
> > Hmmm ... well up to now I did not say who I really strongly support to
> > anyone, because I thought it would mean to influence people - in
> > particular those who do not really know well the candidates.
> >
> > If you say that it is not a problem to do so, well then .... I believe
> > anyone of us can do that if he/she wishes so.
> >
> > Uhmmm .....
> >
> > Asking everyone to vote is ok, but preferring some and telling this
> > publicly? I am not so sure about this.
>
> I think it is important because some candidates who are known to good
> people, and very trustworthy and loving and kind, are not known
> internationally as well as they could be.  If we do not communicate to
> the broader community, we will end up with a candidate who is not really
> supported by the broad and very active community.
>
> --Jimbo

So - is this god-king Jimbo telling us who to vote for... ;-)

- Mark Clements (HappyDog)


body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:

>On 9/16/06, Florence Devouard <anthere at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>>WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY
>>
>>
>
>Hi Anthere.
>
>What you did was violating the copyright in most of the states (anyone
>shouting "fair use! fair use!" here?). Foundation-l gets archived
>publicly, as far as I know. You are responsible for this incident and
>I would like you to
>
>1. remove this message from the archive before the owner of the
>copyright DMCAs you, me and the Foundation.
>2. try not to repeat this.
>
>As a board member, respecting copyright of third parties should not be
>an optional skill :)
>
>Thanks,
>Mathias
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Looks like it was an email distributed article. If so, fair usewould
apply to discussions of it here, unless we were using it "for profit".
Removing it from the archive is prudent since this would be posting it
on a website. The email discussion is probably ok.

:-)

Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 12:32, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:

> On 9/16/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Sep 2006, at 08:01, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> I invite an open discussion here of the candidates.  This is your
>>> community, speak openly of who you trust and why.
>>
>> Well, I'll start off then.
>>
>> One of the candidates I support is Kim Bruning.
>> He has been willing to honestly engage in a detailed
>> discussion about "free" on Wikipedia and look into my
>> suggestions on improving the encyclopaedia with an
>> open mind. (Some discussions, for example, on your
>> talk page.)
>>
>
> I very much endorse this view. Kim Bruning has ever been thoughtful. I
> have never seen or heard him step wrong in any substantial matter.

WP:BITE is pretty important, as it helps shape the
attitude of every new member. So you are on my yes list.

Another No from me is Linuxbeak - I don't know him except
to know he holds lots of senior posts, but he hasn't replied
to this query from August:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%
3ALinuxbeak&diff=422106&oldid=421209
which is not what I look for in someone who is planning to represent me.


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Will there be some debate orginized between some candidates on irc?
Would someone want to orginize that? (if it has not happened yet)

Lodewijk

2006/9/16, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:
> On 9/16/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > I doubt that you have asked Angela or Daniel Meyer if they want to be a
> > "life board member" of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think floating such an
> > idea is irresponsible. Given that Angela decided that she no longer wants to
> > be a board member should be respected. By pressing her to accept such a role
> > it can also be considered a vote of no confidence on the people who are
> > still on the board.
>
> No, I have not asked either Daniel or Angela. I indeed hope this comes
> as a complete surprise to them :-)
>
> What I think would be irresponsible was if we candidates were to
> remain totally silent about our _thinking_ of what real names should
> be considered for future consideration of the composition of the
> board, and we were to only discuss the matter _after_ the election in
> the retreat, away from the prying eyes of the community.
>
> > Given that you are a candidate for exactly the position that Angela vacated,
> > I think you have shot yourself in the foot.
>
> I hope it is the left foot.
>
> > You are aware are you not that
> > there will be this thing in Europe where the WMF considers how to look at
> > it's future? I think that would be a much better platform to discuss issues
> > like how to replace Tim.
>
> I most profoundly disagree. It would be irresponsible to ask the
> voters to buy a pig in a poke. It is vital that they know our (the
> candidates) real thoughts on this matter. The retreat will be the
> place where the *differences* of our opinions will be discussed, but
> *my* opinion I will, in the interests of transparency, and an informed
> electorate, definitely state.
>
> > At this moment it is exclusively for Jimmy to
> > replace him if he so chooses to do this.
>
> He will not be replaced at this moment.
>
> > Given that there is to be this thing in Europe, you will be part of it when
> > you are chosen to be there. The worst thing that can happen is if there is
> > going to be a bout of infighting now that there is this opportunity to
> > create some clarity and focus about the organisation and how it functions.
>
> Infighting should indeed be avoided.
>
>
> --
> --
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro
>
> Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
> September 2006 elections.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Comments on main pages

body:
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 07:33:18PM +0200, Platonides wrote:
> > Does anyone know of any extenstion that does this or have any idea how
> > easy it would be to write one?
>
> You can add to each page where you want it:
>
> ----
> [{{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} Edit comments]
> [{{fullurl:{{TALKPAGENAME}}|action=edit|section=new}} New comment]
>
>
> {{ {{TALKPAGENAME}} }}

Now *that's* elegant.

Could it be added to the skin?  Is there any part of the skin that's
parsed for wikitext?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

	"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
	  they stop having sex with you."  -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_


from_name: geni

body:
On 9/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/09/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The core policies (NPOV, NOR and V on the content side; AGF and NPA on
> > > the community side, and I'd add BITE to the community list since the
> > > numbers seem to say newbies write most of the actual encyclopedia)
> > > aren't negotiable. Everything else is process, even if it's accepted
> > > enough to tag policy.
>
> > You know the foundation has a lot of explaining to do if that really
> > is the case.
>
>
> See, this is why you have trouble with people listening to you: you
> answer things with a one-liner that doesn't actually address the
> point.
>

Do you want to tell the foundation that WP:OFFICE and copyright is just process?

> Here's one to run past you:
>
> When encountering an editor who seems to be displaying a flagrant
> disregard for process, check the process isn't flawed.
>
>     * Rewrite the process description to show how it follows as
> directly as possible from core policies. Even if it isn't made
> official, this helps you explain it to others better. This is one of
> the best ways to resolve disputes over the value of a process.

None of our copyright policies come from those core policies.

>     * Reexamine the process. Does it follow obviously from the core
> policies? Do people keep complaining that it's hard to understand or
> that it excludes outsiders? Do regulars express distrust of
> non-regulars, or dislike the idea of any random person interfering?

How were you suggesting I rewrite IAR to deal with this problem?

>     * Failing to follow or rejecting process is not, of itself, a
> wrong act. The encyclopedia itself is more important than any process
> designed to protect it; both intent and results should be measured
> against the core content policies (NPOV, V and NOR) and core community
> policies (AGF and NPA).

So you shouldn't be worried about pissing large numbers of people off?
You know working with the community and all that?

>      ** If your only argument is "it's out of process" or "it violates
> policy" (other than a core policy), you don't have an argument.

Cool so what happened to consensus?

>     * Changes in process may be sudden, or they may be gradual. An
> editor who consistently disregards a particular process may indeed
> influence others to do the same ... and that process is changed. Make
> sure the documentation stays up to date.

It tends to.

>     * Of course, the editor may well be a troll or a dick. But don't
> make that your first assumption.
>

I try to avoid making assumptions.

> Now, a question for you:
>
> Q. The above looks good to geni.
>
> [ ] Yes
> [ ] No
> [ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:

It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors
actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An
editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being
reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most
people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps
trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even
harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community.
The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the
community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed
like a good idea at the time.

IAR is ok for content but admin actions apply to people rather than content.
--
geni


from_name: Stephen Streater

body:
On 16 Sep 2006, at 13:37, geni wrote:

> On 9/16/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Now, a question for you:
>>
>> Q. The above looks good to geni.
>>
>> [ ] Yes
>> [ ] No
>> [ ] Much longer and detailed answer, which geni will give below:
>
> It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors
> actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An
> editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being
> reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most
> people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps
> trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even
> harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community.
> The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the
> community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed
> like a good idea at the time.
>
> IAR is ok for content but admin actions apply to people rather than
> content.

Yes - this is a good point about IAR.

Rules protect people from the abuse of power. I'm not so worried
about protecting content, as it can always be restored.

Once a person has gone, that's it.


body:
On 9/16/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I doubt that you have asked Angela or Daniel Meyer if they want to be a
> "life board member" of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think floating such an
> idea is irresponsible. Given that Angela decided that she no longer wants to
> be a board member should be respected. By pressing her to accept such a role
> it can also be considered a vote of no confidence on the people who are
> still on the board.

No, I have not asked either Daniel or Angela. I indeed hope this comes
as a complete surprise to them :-)

What I think would be irresponsible was if we candidates were to
remain totally silent about our _thinking_ of what real names should
be considered for future consideration of the composition of the
board, and we were to only discuss the matter _after_ the election in
the retreat, away from the prying eyes of the community.

> Given that you are a candidate for exactly the position that Angela vacated,
> I think you have shot yourself in the foot.

I hope it is the left foot.

> You are aware are you not that
> there will be this thing in Europe where the WMF considers how to look at
> it's future? I think that would be a much better platform to discuss issues
> like how to replace Tim.

I most profoundly disagree. It would be irresponsible to ask the
voters to buy a pig in a poke. It is vital that they know our (the
candidates) real thoughts on this matter. The retreat will be the
place where the *differences* of our opinions will be discussed, but
*my* opinion I will, in the interests of transparency, and an informed
electorate, definitely state.

> At this moment it is exclusively for Jimmy to
> replace him if he so chooses to do this.

He will not be replaced at this moment.

> Given that there is to be this thing in Europe, you will be part of it when
> you are chosen to be there. The worst thing that can happen is if there is
> going to be a bout of infighting now that there is this opportunity to
> create some clarity and focus about the organisation and how it functions.

Infighting should indeed be avoided.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon Avaro

Candidate for Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in the
September 2006 elections.


body:
On 9/16/06, Akash Mehta <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
> [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Image Upload Education]] anyone? (or does that
> break naming conventions?)
>

Everything you need to know is at [[Special:Upload]]

--
geni


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikimedia Board Elections

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote

> Mindspillage is Mindspillage.  We all know and love her.

Is anyone making a book on this? I have assumed all along that Eloquence (Erik) was favourite, Mindspillage (Kat) was second favourite, and about 8-1 bar these two. Of course if I thought that was all there was to it, I wouldn't be standing.

I don't suppose Jimbo wants campaigning here on wiki-en. Worth pointing out something about the issue that has been raised of effectiveness. It's a committee (pas comme tous les autres, but a committee); and committees do a lot to level the playing field, between age and guile, and youth-beauty-and-enthusiasm.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
On 9/16/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see all the rules on a single page, with the extra
> rule that people should listen to each other and work
> together to resolve disagreements.

See [[Wikipedia:List of policies]]

--
geni


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 9/16/06, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's very long, but well worth reading if you're serious about your
> vote: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eloquence/Platform_2006

Personally, I found Erik's verbosity to be inconsiderate and something
of strike against him in this election.

I think my reasoning was best explained by Erik on Wikien-l a few months back:

On 06/27/2006, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>There are good votes and there are bad votes. A good vote is one where voters
>are presented with a concise summary of the different arguments that have come
>up in a discussion that preceded the vote, where the _options_ in the
vote have been
>developed through consensus, and where there is a strong culture that pressures
>voters to read and understand all arguments before voting. A bad vote
is one that is
>done ad hoc, out of process, with poor methodology and no clear prerequisites.

Erik may have some views on the value of voting which are perhaps
unusual in our community, but here he has stated something that we all
agree with: A vote where the voters do not understand their choices is
not a good vote.

Between Erik's lengthy platform, his candidate statement, and other
directly linked campaign materials there was a grand total of almost
20,000 words.

I think that it is safe to say all our candidates have a lot to say
about the election.. but  if all 17 of our candidates used as many
words as Erik there would be a grand total of around 330,000 words to
read.

Could anyone expect any of the voters to spend *14 hours* of
continuous reading on the election?

So we are left with a situation where one candidate more than all the
others has not followed the request to be concise, where that
candidate takes much ground by making all the "Well DUH" statements
which sound good but don't actually differentiate the candidates, and
where our readers and translators will get tired of reading long
before they have given a fair treatment to all the candidates.

As it stands it took me an unreasonable amount of effort to read what
has been written and, perhaps more importantly, even with all those
words I found it hard to determine the meaningful differences between
the candidates by contrasting their statements.

I, like Jimbo, have had the opportunity to work directly with many of
the candidates... so I too have strong views on the several I would
support, and the ones I would not support. Without this experience my
ballot would probably be nothing more than a lottery ticket.

I think that the Election has so far been a bad vote.

I believe that, in part, this is due to the community failing to
engage in discussion as advocated by Jimbo, and the rest of it is that
some candidates have managed to aggressively promote themselves to the
exclusion of an equitable and fair election.

I don't think the bad behavior on the part of the candidates is
limited to Erik, although I do believe his excessive verbosity in the
material directly linked from his candidate statement epitomizes the
worst of it.


body:
On 9/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I am on the
> record as stating that the majority of any future expanded Board
> should be elected by the community (possibly through a membership
> model, but not necessarily so).
[snip]

Although I have been generally opposed to stacking our board with
insiders simply because we have so much to learn from outside views, I
wonder what you would think of taking the top N approved people from
the current election for the board?

Perhaps it's a bit late at this juncture, but it is true that
multi-winner elections are relieved of some of the (mathematically
necessary) unfairness of single winner elections.

[snip]
> In the future, perhaps each candidate statement should
> have a "slot" for endorsements. That way, Board members and others
> could easily make their opinions known.
[snip]

Whoa there!
Endorsements are not discussion!

Although endorsements are tolerable, they are not the stuff that good
votes are made of... The important point in Jimbo's post was to
discuss!

Our election should *not* be a popularity contest.


from_name: Alison Wheeler

body:
I welcome the recent discussions about candidates; it is an issue with our
project-based online structure that in many ways we can only know the
briefest of information about a candidate and, more especially, about how
others see them. I welcome that we have a range of candidates to select
from but, like others, recognise also that some have a 'more effective'
background that they can bring to bear on the Foundation's activities than
others, and some appear to not have as great  'inter-personal'
relationship building skills and others, but I wish them all well.

On Sat, September 16, 2006 09:02, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> My personal strong feeling is that instead of choosing one appointed
> member, the board should appoint two, and appoint them as *permanent*,
> life members of the board .

May I say, completely independent of this election and the composition of
the current board, that I would consider the retention of *any* person as
a "permanent" member of the Board of any business or foundation as a very
dangerous situation. People change and people not previously considered
may appear who have more appropriate skills, knowledge and connections,
more importantly the *needs* of the Foundation will, as with any
organisation that seeks to grow improve and thrive in the long term needs
to have the regular ability to bring in new talent and 'retire' those who
have served its former needs well but now need to move on so that the
organisation improves.

Just as Wikipedia has moved us all on from the 'dead-tree encyclopedia'
age, I don't think we'd want to find ourselves stuck with a Board of 80
year olds later in this century!

Alison Wheeler