subject: [WikiEN-l] Attacking Jews

body:
Robert mentioned:
> fabricating Jewish beliefs, and then
> attacking Jews for these non-existent beliefs

Well, that kind of stuff certainly has no place in an encyclopedia
article. It's easy to win an argument by putting words in your
opponent's mouth.

But "standing up" to another Wikipedian might not be as useful as
REFRAMING their arguments as POV. Just locate the source of the
"offending" statement and mention in the article that White Supremacists
or Neo-Nazis or Holocaust Deniers believe (this or that). Why kick up
such a fuss?

Sorry I didn't plow through the "full text", but that will take more
time than I have. Sometimes snipping away is the best strategy, like
doctors debriding dead flesh from a wound.

Sincerely,

Ed Poor


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Louis Kyu Won Ryu"

body:
Which Martin do you mean? Surely not user:MyRedDice?

Would you like me to e-mail him a request to avoid contacting you for a
few days?

Ed Poor


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Memcached merge

body:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 13:59, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Okay, the current stable version is now installed, but the limited
> memcached support is disabled until I get some things recompiled. (PHP
> on pliny needs sockets support, etc.)

I've recompiled PHP on pliny to add socket and gzip support. The
preliminary memcached bits are running and haven't exploded yet. That's
good news!

No sense in expanding it to work on articles until some other things are
done; I'll have to recompile the kernel with a backport of /dev/epoll
support patched in to get best performance for memcached.

** I may reboot the machines tonight with a new kernel if I get one
compiled nicely. **  I'll try to aim for the trough period, before the
Europeans are awake and when some of the more sensible Americans have
gone to bed.

The page caches on pliny are presently being compressed, chugga chugga
chugga. Compressed data means less disk I/O and more data fitting in
cache, which is good.

I'll also try to merge in JeLuF's tweaks to the linking code.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to
> examine whether RK
> should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK
> started vandalizing
> several user and talk pages because he felt *his*
> talk page was being
> vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on
> it. I have
> temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through
> his lengthy diatribes
> which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest
> turning this temporary
> ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or
> so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

That's good, but I strongly believe that this ban
should be temporary. Eventually, RK not want to act
like this. Even Lir was unbanned eventually, and RK
was, for the most part, a good user.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Brian Corr

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5 (Robert's message)

body:
Am I in some sort of parallel universe?

I just sent out the entire article that (I believe) Robert referred to
where HE snipped out sentences and phrases out of context.

Also, RK posted this to the Talk page a few minutes ago:
"Didn't anyone notice the red flag terms? Only Christian Identity adherents
and members of he Ku Klux Klan use the term "racialist? In any case,
Stevertigo is slandering the entire Jewish community; Jews are '''not'''
slandering Chrisitans as "racists", let alone as "racialists". He is
fabricating positions, and then attacking Jews for these positions which
only exist in his mind. That is called Jew-baiting, and it is anti-Semitic
by definition. [[User:RK|RK]] 20:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)"

Yet, according to the page history
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Christian-Jewish_reconciliation&action=history>,
RK ADDED THE TEXT WITH THAT WORD IN HIMSELF -- where the word "racialist"
is used {10:38, 1 Oct 2003 . . RK (Discussion of racist rant against
Jews.)} whilst describing what he claims Stevertigo has said. I don't know
where RK gets this from, but now it just looks to me like RK is flat-out
lying and attempting to "plant evidence" -- as silly as that seems when
anyone can go back and look at the history. Can't someone do something
about this escalating conflict!

At 09:47 PM 10/1/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:17:37 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
>
>I am appalled that people are refusing to read the full
>text of Stevertigo's comments, and are snipping tiny pieces
>of them to prove their points. (i.e. that he is somehow not
>anti-Jewish.)


body:
Brian,

Sometimes the best way to deal with a conflict is to show some
appreciation for each party.

By the way, I like what you said about a "parallel universe". I often
feel that way when confronted by someone else's version of "reality".
Why, there are even economists who believe that increasing the capital
gains tax rate will make poor people richer! ;-)

Ed Poor


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] This is how it will work.

body:
Enough.  Robert, I've put you in my filter so I don't have to read any more of your  rants.

RickK

Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I see how you are all behaving.

Now Martin and Angela are cooperating in vandalizing my
home page, despite my repeated pleas to stop harassing me.
And no one on the Wiki-En list seems to have a problem with
their harassment and vandalism.

So this is how it is going to work: If Wikipedia policy
allows them to vandalize my home page, then it should also
allow me to do the same to theirs.

If it is wrong for me to do this to them, then it is also
wrong for them to do the same to me.

It is your choice what kind of community we have. Martin
and Angela, despite my repeated desperate pleas, have made
it clear what kind of behaviour they find acceptable to do
unto others. And many of you have made it clear that you
don't have a problem with this.

Personally, I find your choices incomprehensible. I think
this way leads to insanity, and the destruction of any
semblance of Wiki-community.

The only choice is to follow my original proposal: When
someone begs and pleads for a person to stop shoving
harassment onto their home page, then that person should
stop doing so. Your way - i.e. allowing this behaviour -
is simply insane.

But it is up to you. All I know is that I refuse to follow
the current Wikipedia policy, which is to forbid me alone
from changing other people's home pages, but allowing
others to harass me.

Robert (RK)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031001/96eb0dd5/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] This is how it will work.

body:
Enough.  Robert, I've put you in my filter so I don't have to read any more of your  rants.

RickK

Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, I see how you are all behaving.

Now Martin and Angela are cooperating in vandalizing my
home page, despite my repeated pleas to stop harassing me.
And no one on the Wiki-En list seems to have a problem with
their harassment and vandalism.

So this is how it is going to work: If Wikipedia policy
allows them to vandalize my home page, then it should also
allow me to do the same to theirs.

If it is wrong for me to do this to them, then it is also
wrong for them to do the same to me.

It is your choice what kind of community we have. Martin
and Angela, despite my repeated desperate pleas, have made
it clear what kind of behaviour they find acceptable to do
unto others. And many of you have made it clear that you
don't have a problem with this.

Personally, I find your choices incomprehensible. I think
this way leads to insanity, and the destruction of any
semblance of Wiki-community.

The only choice is to follow my original proposal: When
someone begs and pleads for a person to stop shoving
harassment onto their home page, then that person should
stop doing so. Your way - i.e. allowing this behaviour -
is simply insane.

But it is up to you. All I know is that I refuse to follow
the current Wikipedia policy, which is to forbid me alone
from changing other people's home pages, but allowing
others to harass me.

Robert (RK)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031001/96eb0dd5/attachment-0001.htm


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

body:
Sigh. Sometimes, it really seems like there's nowhere one can go to avoid
the pro-Jewish vs. anti-Jewish insanity... (You'll note I don't say
anti-Semitic. There's a simple reason for this: Arabs are Semites too, as
well as many others.)
Stevertigo has a clear and strong anti-Israel bias... so RickK sees pretty
much everything SV does as anti-Semitism, despite the difference between
these things.
Also, see [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Unencyclopedic]] - RK somehow
reads a big personal attack, including "I'm an idiot and deserved to be
pilloried, impaled, and set out on an ant hill." into my irritation at use
of the word unencyclopedic and listing for deletion of pages that don't need
it... there's a large difference between criticism of one's actions and
attacks upon one's right to exist.

Everyone needs to calm the hell down, really.

And suggesting Steve be blocked from editing Jew-related articles? While it
emotionally appeals at first, it's a terrible precedent. What's next,
preventing Hindus from editing Buddhism topics? Republicans from editing
articles on Democrats? Liberals from editing the Ayn Rand article? It's the
antithesis of neutrality.

-- Jake


from_name: Robert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Goodbye, from the Jew you banned.

body:
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own home page, and then BANNED
me when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] WHO IS ANTI-SEMITIC?

body:
I can't discuss this on Wikipedia. I didn't want Martin and
Angela to keep harassing me...and they refused to stop
doing so. Yet when I did to them what they did to me, I was
banned, and they were allowed to do whatever they wanted.

That' fair...if you are mentally unbalanced.  Or if you
just hate Jews.

WHO IS ANTI-SEMITIC?
>From the Encyclopedia Judaica.

Few in post-war America have ventured anti-Semitic remarks
in public. Generalizations, however, can be made on the
basis of certain factors: educational level, income, age,
race, religion, place of birth, and geographical location.
Those holding anti-Semitic beliefs tend to hold other
prejudiced, intolerant, or undemocratic views in general.
They are most widespread among the uneducated and poorer
members of American society.

Education is a key variable. The least educated score
highest in anti-Semitic attitudes, except for blacks.
Decline in negative images of Jews, as well as in general
intolerance, can be correlated in the last two decades with
the higher level of education of the community. More
knowledge of minorities, possession of cognitive skills to
think rationally, and understanding of the virtues of
tolerance and civil rights have meant less negative images
of Jews. Anti-Semitism is highest in the working class and
lowest among professionals and the middle class.

Anti-Semitism is higher among Protestants than among
Catholics. About 80% of Southern Baptists and 70% of
Missouri Synod Lutherans agree that Jews remain unforgiven
for the death of Christ. Religion has been a powerful
reinforcement of anti-Semitic views; 45% of all American
anti-Semites get their anti-Semitic ideas from religious
indoctrination or from some religious influence. The number
of prejudiced among fundamentalists is some 7% greater than
among non-fundamentalists.

Older people tend to be more anti-Semitic than younger
individuals. This might be explained by lower educational
level, by the fact that anti-Semitism was more prevalent
when the older people were themselves young, and by the
possibility that the aging process might have led to
greater feelings of insecurity and intolerance.

Foreign-born Americans in general, partly because they tend
to be older and less well educated than the average, hold
stronger anti-Semitic views than the native born. Rural
residents, especially in the South and Midwest, tend to be
more anti-Semitic than urban residents. There appears to be
little difference in beliefs between the sexes.

The greater degree of anti-Semitism among blacks than among
the white population is disenchanting for those with
memories of Jewish sympathy for the plight of blacks, and
of actions, even at cost of life, to remedy that plight.
Jews have always been more concerned about the state of
blacks than have members of other religions, and given
disproportionate support and financial aid to civil rights
organizations.

Black prejudice, often inherited from the Christian
fundamentalism imbibed in youth, essentially stemmed from
disparaging economic stereotypes of Jews as money-grubbers,
callous storekeepers and landlords, uncaring employers of
black domestics, and as individuals who would use their
economic power to degrade blacks.

Moderate black leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.,
praised "the contribution that Jewish people have made
toward the Negro's struggle for freedom." They acknowledged
the Jewish help and alliance in black organizations and in
the campaigns in the South with their freedom riders and
voter registration teams.
However, from the 1960s on, the alliance had become
strained. The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
(SNCC), formed in 1960 with Jewish help, within a decade,
under the leadership of Stokely Carmichael, began attacking
"the Rothschilds" as well as "Zionist Jewish terrorists."

Malcolm X denounced Jews as part of the white exploitative
majority and wrote, "I don't care what a Jew is
professionally, doctor, merchant, housewife, student or
whatever?first, he or she thinks Jew," and talked of "Jews
who sapped the very lifeblood of blacks."

The extremist Black Panthers, the Black Muslims, believing
in a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, and some black
intellectuals were vocal in anti-Jewish sentiment.
All recent polls and surveys, as well as other empirical
evidence, show that black anti-Semitism is considerably
higher than that of whites at every educational level.
Two-fifths of blacks, compared with one out of five whites,
can be characterized as having high or moderate
anti-Semitic beliefs.

Looking at the surveys of black anti-Semitism, five
features seem significant. The first is that it has
increased relative to that of whites. Secondly, black
anti-Semitism is higher in the urban North than in the more
rural South. Thirdly, it is manifested more on economic
than on other issues. Those blacks who had economic
dealings with or who perceived economic mistreatment by
Jews record a higher level of anti-Semitism than those who
do not. Blacks remain more opposed than do whites to
political anti-Semitism and to social discrimination, but
negative beliefs on some noneconomic matters, especially on
Israel, have also increased. Fourthly, blacks who have
personal contact with Jews, mostly in a subordinate role,
are likely to be more anti-Semitic than those who do not,
the reverse of the relationship between adult whites and
Jews.

Most significant, it is younger blacks and the better
educated who exhibit the strongest negative attitudes. This
may be the consequence of the competition with or envy of
Jews by aspiring black professionals. The anti-Semitic
level of elite black leaders is about double that of blacks
as a whole. Assertions of black consciousness and power
from the 1960s, greater racial pride and solidarity, meant
rejection of white, primarily Jewish, control of black
organizations. For many black leaders, the politics of
integration changed to the politics of confrontation.

That confrontation has taken the form of disputes over
political goals and the exercise of power. But also the
dismissal in 1979 of Andrew Young as American ambassador to
the United Nations for meeting with a PLO official, the
abusiveness of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's
remarks about Judaism as a "gutter religion" and his
declared admiration for Hitler, the references to New York
City as "Hymietown" by presidential candidate Jesse Jackson
in 1984, the injection of Black-Jewish animosity into the
1988 Democratic party primary in New York, have all
inflamed passions on both sides. Blacks hold about 10% less
favorable attitudes to Israel than do whites. Jews and
blacks have strongly differed on questions of open
enrollment in New York City colleges and, above all, on the
issues of quotas for employment. Yet, the old black-Jewish
liberal coalition, with its mutual support for electoral
office and for policies favoring integrated schools, civil
rights, and vitality of urban areas on the one hand, and
issues significant to Jews, especially the security of
Israel on the other, has not broken down.

Besides a few radical left groups, most contemporary
vitriolic anti-Semitism stems from a wide diversity of
extremist right-wing hate groups, small in size,
essentially anti-democratic and estranged from political
and social reality, Identity Church groups and neo-Nazi
organizations, living with the memories of Adolf Hitler,
and limited to between 400 and 450 members, and the
various, small Ku Klux Klan bodies. Some of these groups
have engaged not only in hate rhetoric against minorities
and racist ideology, but also in crimes, from synagogue
bombings to armed robbery and murder, and fanciful
conspiracies to overthrow the U.S. government.

These groups, whose members are often disaffected and
frustrated, share overlapping beliefs: hostility to
government which is seen as illegitimate; enmity toward
Jews and non-whites; attacks on Jewish interests supposedly
controlling government, finance, and the media; and
purported Christian concepts by which white Protestants are
seen as the "chosen people."
The better known of the hate groups are the Aryan Nations,
the Christian Defense League, the Posse Commitatus, the
Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, and the
Christian-Patriots Defense League.

Probably the most aggressive of the non-religious hate
groups are the "skinheads," gangs of shaven-headed youths
who glorify violence, and have been responsible for an
increasing number of assaults as well as anti-Semitic
bigotry.

The Liberty Lobby, the most active and the best financed
anti-Semitic organization in the country, describes itself
as "a pressure group for patriotism," and maintains close
connections with a number of members of Congress. Its
weekly newspaper, The Spotlight, started in 1975 and now,
with a circulation of about a quarter of a million, is the
most widely read right-wing extremist paper in the country.
Among its favorite targets are Zionism, and people defined
euphemistically as "dual loyalists" or "international
bankers."

The Institute for Historical Review was created in 1979.
Its chief concern has been to deny or minimize the reality
of the Holocaust and explore Jewish "atrocity propaganda"
through a number of books and materials with anti-Semitic
themes and by annual conventions.

Extreme groups in the U.S. have remained small and outside
the political mainstream. In recent years their membership
appears to have declined even further. American politics
embodies and public opinion coheres around a consensus of
political moderation in which anti-Semitic beliefs are not
respectable.

The country, with certain qualifications, exhibits a lower
level of overt prejudice and bigotry than ever before in
racial and religious matters. Jews as a group are no longer
blamed, except by a zany fringe element, for the nation's
problems or condemned for not being truly American. Indeed,
in the working of the American political system today, Jews
both as political activists and participants, and as
elected and appointed officials have played a prominent
role.

Yet, the portrait of anti-Semitism is a composite of
conflicting traits. If most churches no longer insist on
Jewish responsibility for the Crucifixion, those of an
orthodox or particularist persuasion are inclined to do so.
An appreciable minority, between one-fifth and one-quarter,
still believe Jews have too much power. Some remain
obsessed by Jewish domination of the media and banking.

Two other major problems remain. Black anti-Semitism,
stemming from religious teachings and economic stereotypes,
exacerbated by the politics of confrontation and, to a
lesser degree, a rise in adherence to Islam, is a troubling
issue. The issue of Israel, support for its policies, aid
for its security, and Jewish relations with the state has
not yet led to an increase in anti-Semitism. But about a
quarter of non-Jews are highly unfavorable to Israel, and
young people are more likely to be so than are older
people.

Appropriate anxiety should be shown for the rhetoric and
the potential for violence of those extreme groups which
have anti-Semitism high on their agenda, though their
membership is small and declining. But that anxiety should
not be excessive. Even admitting a significant minority of
the population can be regarded as having anti-Semitic
attitudes, Jews have not been made scapegoats for economic
or social problems. What is finally important is that the
existing anti-Semitic beliefs have not led to an organized
movement with any serious support for violence against
Jews. [M.Curt.]

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK
> should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started vandalizing
> several user and talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being
> vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
> temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through his lengthy diatribes
> which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this temporary
> ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

I support this; he went a bit insane there.

-- Jake


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo results as tallied pairwise (Condorcet)

body:
Ray-
> IOW, the complicated restrictions made no difference to the final
> result. :-)

Maybe so -- I was no big fan of the idea to crack down on cheating, but
Mav and others threatened to refuse to accept the vote if anti-cheating
measures were not implemented. Consider, however, that the next time we do
something like this, the large majority of users will already have their
Meta accounts set up.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: viajero at lim.nl

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo should not be allowed to write about Jews

body:
Oh, stop your whining. There are no Daddy figures around here to stop
Stvertigo from editing articles on Jews, nor to stop you from editing
articles on Palestinians, something I would dearly like to see. Are you
some kind of authority freak?

On 10/01/03  at 09:36 AM, Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> said:

> Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash
> that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David
> Irving]].

To what are you referring? According to

   http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history

Stevertigo hasn't edited that article since February 17.


from_name: sannse

subject: [Wikitech-l] No numbers for single letter headings

body:
Nanobug wrote (in part):

> A minor point is if we did it this way, which format would we use? e.g.
>
> A | B | C ...  or  A - B - C ...  or  A, B, C ...
> 1990s | 1980s | 1970s ...  or  1990s - 1980s - 1970s ...  or  1990s,
1980s, 1970s ...
>
> Which is the most common or looks the best? And is this a good idea in the
first place (i.e. not try to totally automate it)?

1959 | 1960 | 1961 ...  is the format used in the Grammy articles for the
"other years" list.  I think this looks good and is very clear to read - I
think the same would work for any horizontal TOC

sannse


from_name: viajero at quilombo.nl

body:
On 10/01/03  at 09:36 AM, Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> said:

> Stevertigo's latest efforts have been to whitewash
> that much maligned beacon of academic integrity, [[David
> Irving]].

To what are you referring? According to

   http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Irving&action=history

Stevertigo hasn't edited that article since February 17.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> Can I rename the page ?
>
> Aoineko

Moving it is fine by me.

-- Jake


from_name: Jimmy O'Regan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Christian-Jewish reconciliation.

body:
Robert wrote:

>This new user appears to be a so-called "Traditional
>Catholic", who holds violently anrgy beliefs towards
>Catholics and Jews.
>
>
You mean this:
Some argue that the desire of some Jews to see the [[Second Vatican
Council]] as a wonderfully revolutionary Council that "ended
anti-semitism" is due to destruction of the Catholic Church that
followed that Council and which appealed to the [[anti-Christianism]] of
some practitioners of Judaism.

I don't see the problem with that to be honest, the view is attributed,
though it is ambiguously worded around "is due to destruction". Maybe a
change to this part to ensure that it is clear that this is the view of
the "some" mentioned at the start of the sentence; and not either a
Jewish view or an opinion posing as fact?


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
Robert wrote:
>Never in my life I have ever seen such a community
>of violent Jew haters.

Dude! You have any idea how paranoid that sounds? Just because people disagree
with you and you happen to be a Jew doesn't mean that that are anti-Semites!

Oh, and anybody who disagrees with me is a homophobic bastard! ;-)

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK
>should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started vandalizing
>several user and talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being
>vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
>temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through his lengthy diatribes
>which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this temporary
>ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or so.
>
I disagree with both a temporary and a permanent ban.

The vandalizing user talk pages and so on I'll agree is over the line,
but I disagree that it warrants a temporary ban.  Simply revert the
changes, like we do with everyone else.  We've had plenty of other users
who've vandalized pages, including EntmootsOfTrolls and BuddhaInside,
among others, who were not summarily banned through the extraordinary
use of developer powers.  I don't see why RK should be treated differently.

As for a permanent ban, while RK has been somewhat obnoxious in his
complaining about anti-Semitism, several other people (notably SV) have
been equally obnoxious in their complaining from the other side (e.g. of
the "pro-Israel" bias of adding Israeli census data).  RK has also added
quite a bit of useful content to Wikipedia, much of it entirely
unrelated to Judaism, Israel, or related issues.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] This is how it will work.

body:
Robert wrote:

>Now Martin and Angela are cooperating in vandalizing my
>home page, despite my repeated pleas to stop harassing me.
>And no one on the Wiki-En list seems to have a problem with
>their harassment and vandalism.
>
>
This has probably been explained before, but I think you're overreacting
to something that's not really an issue here.  As far as I can tell they
didn't edit your user page at all, only your *talk* page.  The talk page
is a message-board of sorts, in which people can ask you questions or
make comments directed at you, and you'll notice them through the "you
have new messages" notification.  It's not in any way your personal
page, just a place for people to leave you messages.  So adding a
message there is fully in keeping with its indended use, not "vandalism."

I think most of us here are fairly reasonable people, so if there were
actually vandalism directed at you, even those who generally disagreed
with you would agree it was unwarranted and do something about it (so
there's no need to take retributive steps instead).  I don't think
that's the case here though.

-Mark


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo ratification and variants

body:
The new logo has been ratified by all Wikipedias. I have asked
Paullusmagnus (the designer) to make the final modifications he deems
necessary in accordance with the requests of various people who have made
comments and will then replace the logos on the servers. I have asked him
to create three different additional variants of the subtitle "Wikipedia",
namely French, Latin and Esperanto. (I personally think it's very bad that
the name is different in these languages. Many people have expressed a
strong desire to keep the differences, though.) Further language variants
may be designed as needed.

In the past weeks, substantially different implementations and variations
of the same logo concept have been created. Please take a look at them at

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants

I believe Nohat's variants are especially noteworthy. However, these are
not the logos people have voted for and it is doubtful that consensus can
be reached to use one of them instead of the current one. I will be happy
to be proven wrong here and encourage informal opinion polls in the next
weeks to figure out how people feel about these logos.

Failing consensus, given the current voter fatigue, I suggest revisiting
the issue one or two months from now. This gives us enough time to work on
new and exciting variants, and at that point, we may decide to hold
another vote on whether we want to replace the current concept
implementation or keep it. I hereby resign my role as contest coordinator,
as the original contest is finished, but will provide assistance if
necessary for any new vote.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Gutza

body:
Robert, will you *please* stop sending these e-mails? This is spam. I
doubt anyone can find any more new information in these e-mails of yours
than can be found in Viagra spam mail, you have the same problems over
and over, you're being harrassed for being a Jew, everybody's
anti-Semite, yadda-yadda-yadda. I read the "bizarre rant on oil"
Stevertigo posted, courtesy of Gareth BTW -- you didn't bother to quote
it, you just started complaining about it.

Can you actually prove these horrendous anti-Semitic statements made by
Stevertigo as to justify this interminable e-mail of yours? Please
either post some quotations here, or just stop it! Also, not posting any
of the wrong-doings of Stevertigo on this list along with your
accusations insults our intelligence -- it looks like we're too idiots
to appreciate the hatred in his postings, and you're the only one who
can really understand what he's really saying, so you have to somehow
interpret it for us. Try us once, give us the juice, let's see what this
evil, evil man wrote, let's all be the judges of his horrid attitude and
stone him to death in the name of what is good, right and decent! But
let's see some data first, ok?

Gutza

Robert wrote:
 > Much ado about nada, IMHO.


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
> Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
>
> >Hello all,
> >Some idea of WikiSyntax :
> >
> > <<foo>> (foo)
> > <<foo<< (
foo
)
> >
> >
> > >>foo>> (
foo
)
> >
> My first thought is "YUCK! presentational!"
> could be useful for images, but I think we might be using table markup
> for those. Not sure.
>
>
>
> > ^^foo^^ (foo)
> > __foo__ (foo)
> >
> >
> already been suggested, but I'm not sure what was decided

Do someone know where this discussion was taking place ?
I didn't found a [[WikiSyntax]] page on the meta, perhaps it's a good idea
to create (if it don't already exist somewhere).

Aoineko


from_name: cprompt

subject: [WikiEN-l] a marketing company (re c mahan)

body:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 01:20, Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Although I could not prevent you, I would find it personally abhorrent
> if you people wasted money hiring some marketing company to "give the
> wiki a facelift". If you got money to blow, go feed children in third
> world countries. I think the wiki is pretty enough as it is.
Not to mention that a project such as this attracts many talented
people, many who are willing to offer their talents to the site. It
seems silly to me that you'd pay different people with the same talents
(but no experience with the site) to decide on what looks best, when the
entire community is willing to do it for us. No one was hired to write
php_wiki, and Alex756 has offered pro bono legal advice to the site.
Let's keep the site community run, and use any money we have on
necessities.

> As for a mascot, I think we should pick one of those tripped out
> deep-sea fish cuz, like them, we are bringing light to dark places.

Any specific fish? A photo, maybe?


body:
You can definitely add that to the page, we're people, not computers,
it's obvious that'd be a good faith edit. My 2c, of course, but I highly
doubt anyone would mind.

Gutza

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is
>the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
>
>I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various
>edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant
>NPOV-deficient to me.
>
>Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix
>the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current
>impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
>
>By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of
>[[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the
>neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself,
>because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit
>it".
>
>Ed Poor
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons]

subject: [WikiEN-l] unban RK

body:
Now that RK knows he can be banned, and will hopefully not continue in his previous course of action. I beg the court show him mercy and allow him the chance to atone himself. He has been punished enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031001/b4d307fd/attachment.htm


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Slow

body:
Anthere wrote:

> Does anyone has an idea why most wikipedias seem
> to have doubled the number of visits and requests
> in september compared to august (well, at least, I
checked the 4 bigger ones)

The more modest rise in figures in August is still also impressive,
given the fact that many habitual visitors were on holiday.

Someone suggested here or on wikipedia-l, that Google recently gave
Wikipedia an extra bonus.

Erik Zachte


from_name: Luc Van Oostenryck

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l Slow: Google dance?

body:
Anthere wrote:

>
> Does anyone has an idea why most wikipedias seem to
> have  doubled the number of visits and requests in
> september compared to august (well, at least, I
> checked the 4 bigger ones)

Google dance?


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] Profiling

body:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 07:13:49PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Anybody wanna look into optimizing OutputPage::replaceInternalLinks()?
> It's a known troublemaker; it's got a bit loop that could probably be
> much much more efficiently done.
>
> Rendering pages with lots and lots of links gets *really* slow.
>

Let's look at the loop:

                foreach ( $a as $line ) {
                        wfProfileIn( "$fname-loop" );
                        if ( preg_match( $e1, $line, $m ) ) { # page with alternate text

                                $text = $m[2];
                                $trail = $m[3];

                        } else if ( preg_match( $e2, $line, $m ) ) { # page with normal text

                                $text = "";
                                $trail = $m[2];
                        }

Exchange the two 'if'-clauses . "Page with normal text" is more
frequent than "page with alternate text".

Some lines later:

                        if ( preg_match( "/^((?:i|x|[a-z]{2,3})(?:-[a-z0-9]+)?|[A-Za-z\\x80-\\xff]+)
:(.*)\$/", $link,  $m ) ) {

A very complex regex to check for a colon and split the link if it does
contain a colon. (Well, that's what I think it does, at least).
Since this is case is seldom, too, it might be better to test
for a colon first using strpos and do the split only if necessary.
See http://jeluf.mine.nu/jf/y.php for a performance comparison.

Some lines later, inside some seldomly used branches in the
namespace-links-block:

                                        $s .= $sk->makeImageLink( $name,
                                          wfImageUrl( $name ), $text );
                                        $s .= $trail;

Replace by a single
                                        $s .= $sk->makeImageLink( $name,
                                          wfImageUrl( $name ), $text ) . $trail;

See http://jeluf.mine.nu/jf/x.php for a performance comparison.

In Skin::makeLink, the namespace is computed again. This was already done in
Outputpage::replaceInternalLinks, could we pass this information as a parameter
instead of computing it again (sorry, no code, would have to set up an entire
wikipedia to test it).

This are some changes in the 10%-range, nothing realy fundamental. For more
changes, architecture would have to be changed to do more caching or preprocessing
while saving articles.

Regards,

	JeLuF


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK
should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started vandalizing
several user and talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being
vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through his lengthy diatribes
which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this temporary
ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or so.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Booksources

body:
On Monday 29 September 2003 09:10, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 23:50, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > I wanted to add search of National library of Serbia
> > (http://www.nbs.bg.ac.yu) to Special:Booksources, but it needs unique ID
> > for every search. I could make a PHP script that would go around this,
> > would it be included in Wikipedia?
>
> As long as this is fairly clean and doesn't violate the terms of use of
> that site, why not?

Here it is. I wouldn't know is it clean, it works, perhaps its only flaw is that it is neccesary to wait for loading of images, and someone impatient might cancel it during that. I haven't found any terms of use on the site.

Usage: Cobiss.php?isbn=1234

Is it OK?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031002/f21458fc/attachment.html>


from_name: martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Louis Kyu Won Ryu"

body:
Robert wrote:

> Can someone get "Louis Kyu Won Ryu" to stop vandalizing my
> home page?

For the record, it's Robert's TALK page.

> He probably is Martin, but I will pretend otherwise. for the moment

For the record, I'm not Louis. A developer could probably prove this beyond
reasonable doubt. Further, I do not know who Louis might be, or if sie is anyone I
know. Like Mr. Kaiser, I can speculate. Unlike Mr. Kaiser, I will do so privately.

> Martin has assumed other false identities in the past.

For the record, I have only one account on Wikipedia, and that is
[[user:MyRedDice]], where I give my full legal name, my work address, a non-
disposable email address, and a self-photo. I have never had any other Wikipedia
accounts.

On the other hand, I've previously engaged on a forum which strongly encouraged
the adoption and theft of multiple ever-changing identities. Perhaps this is what RK
is referring to?
http://www.algonet.se/~kajn/

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK

body:
I'd just like to point out to everyone that not everyone on the list
(including Jimbo) can spend hours a day, every day, spread out throughout
the day, watching the email list. Therefore, demanding that something be
done /immediately/ when some heinous action is "proved" is ludicrous. Some
people can't find the time to read messages even once a day, so when people
don't jump into a conversation immediately, perhaps some grand conspiracy
isn't the reason... maybe it's just because we have dinner plans and needed
to pick up the dry-cleaning first.

Even worse, accusing the entire Wikipedia community of  /anything/ is
patently absurd.... as a matter of fact, it's something that bigots usually
do... making broad generalizations about entire groups of people. Interesting.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stevertigo and RK - a misunderstanding

body:
At great personal effort, I have determined that the root cause of RK's recent post to
this mailing list regarding Stevertigo is a simple misunderstanding on the part of RK.

RK misattributed two paragraphs of text, claiming on the talk page that they were
added by Stevertigo. In fact they were added by an anonymous IP who has
subsequently created a new account "La Minturnesa".

The edit in question is this one:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Christian-
Jewish_reconciliation&diff=1509331&oldid=1509289
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Christian-
Jewish_reconciliation&diff=1509331&oldid=1509289

Details of edit: "04:34, 1 Oct 2003 . . 205.188.208.42"

I'm sure Stevertigo will join me in forgiving RK for this understandable lapse in
concentration, and I look forward to Stevertigo receiving a similar apology to the one
that RK so graciously gave to Jtdirl upon making a similar error.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


from_name: Matthew Brown

body:
Robert: you are behaving like you WANT to alienate everyone against you then
rant that there's a grand conspiracy.  That's the act of a paranoid, not a
rational human being.  Is that really what you want to be?

It was not "PROVEN" that Stevertigo was a 'Nazi' - and there was no
'harassment' of you whatsoever.  Merely disagreement, which is NOT the same
thing.

The truly sad thing is that any truth in the complaints you lodge is
completely overwhelmed by the exaggeration, the falsehood and the frankly
paranoid reading of everyone's motives, so that it's totally lost.  And yes,
they are utterly paranoid readings.  For example, when Martin tried to
gently nudge the Catholic disagreeing with you, 'La Minturnesa' in the
direction of other, less controversial Catholicism articles -- you leapt to
interpreting that as supporting anti-Semitism, rather than what it OBVIOUSLY
was -- an attempt to defuse the situation and let everyone go off and
contribute to Wikipedia.

That you cannot understand the difference between your user page and your
talk page, nor the difference between adding a comment to your talk page and
blanking user pages to replace them with "I vandalise Jew's home pages." ...
*shakes head*

-Morven


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Larousse troubles

body:
In my quest to squeeze more performance out of the machines as they are
until the hardware upgrades arrive, I tried to upgrade the kernel on
larousse, to 2.4.22 plus a patch for /dev/epoll support, which is highly
recommended for memcached.

I ran a 'make oldconfig' on the config file for the stock kernel and
didn't change any settings. I tried compiling the same kernel version
and config on my Linux box at home (Red Hat 8.0, not quite the same as
Red Hat 9.0 but close) and it boots here just great.

But, alas, larousse didn't come back up. I woke poor Jason up to reboot
it so it should have fallen back to the previous kernel, but it again
never came up, at least not to the network.

Obviously I'm a bit annoyed with myself, but I did take what precautions
I could, and well, desperate times... :(

I don't know if the boot manager is fouled up, or just the kernel, or if
something related the library troubles we had last month reared up again
so it's not getting past init. Hopefully we'll get it sorted out fairly
soon, but in the meantime larousse is offline.

Pliny has taken over its address and is serving www.wikipedia.org for
now. (So, don't be alarmed if you try to login to larousse and get "HOST
IDENFITICATION HAS CHANGED! IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE IS DOING
SOMETHING NASTY!" from ssh. Just log in to pliny direct.)

I hate computers! grrr

Good news is, no more www vs en2 functionality troubles! ;)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 5

body:
Robert (RK) wrote:

> This harassment is totally out of control. Martin
> (MyRedDice) is till [sic] vandalizing my talk page.

I see you've finally worked out the difference between a user page and a talk
page. Congratulations!

In the second lesson, we'll be covering the difference between "vandalism" and
"conversation". Remember: just because they've both got more than two
syllables, doesn't mean they're the same thing!

In other news, I vote "out of control" to be the new mailing list cliche! In former
days we were all alternately "shocked" and "appalled", but the march of progress
is ever onwards!

-MyRedDice


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 3, Issue 3

body:
Robert wrote:

>Did you even read the letter I sent here? Did you even read
>the edits of the articles mentioned?
>
>
Yes -- and no. Yes, read the letter, no, did not read the edits. If you
want to make a point, make it here, quote the source, prove it properly.
I know you're going to call me anti-Semitic for this, but your very own
tiring and pointless battle with the windmills is making people resent
the very idea of having any kind of discussion about Semitism or
anti-Semitism on this list. I mean, you're a Jew, and by obsessively
fighting the so often imagined anti-Semitism on Wikipedia you're
undermining your own credibility. I know, this sounds far-fetched, but
what you're doing is basically crying wolf, and we all know what that
leads to. That's the reason why I say stop blaming the Germans and the
rest of the world for a second, and maybe the rest of the world will be
more willing to listen to what you've really got to say, when you really
need to say it.

Just to clarify where I'm standing, I'm not anti-Semitic, I fully
acknowledge the Holocaust and I understand that all of the humanity must
stay vigilent in order to prevent any such atrocities -- against Jews or
any other human group -- from ever happening again. Just don't ask
everybody to support you, Robert, when you're overreacting. And now you
are. And you have been several times before. And by repeatedly
undermining your credibility with these hostile attitudes towards
everybody, you are inviting people to post offensive material in order
to annoy *YOU*. And they succed: you get over-annoyed. And you undermine
your credibility even further. So you invite even more people...

Which gives me the idea of a conspiracy theory very similar to your
typical ones: are you by any chance a neo-nazi posing as a Jew who's
deliberately using this very subtle tactic to undermine the credibility
of Jews and minimalize the importance of anti-Semitism by over-enforcing
it and getting everybody pissed off? Wouldn't it be even more
appropriate to ban *you* altogether from Wikipedia and this mailing list
based on my reasoning? Ooooh, you're boiling now -- and I didn't send a
three-page e-mail accusing you of something, I just asked a couple of
questions. See how that feels?

Gutza


from_name: Kurt Jansson

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> In the past weeks, substantially different implementations and variations
> of the same logo concept have been created. Please take a look at them at
>
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants
>
> I believe Nohat's variants are especially noteworthy.

Wow! I would have given the PM original a negative number if this was
possible, but I really like some of the variants on that page.
Especially the b/w ones, but anything is better than the pastel colours
from the main page.

Thanks Erik for organizing.

Kurt


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l logo (Erik)

body:
Anthere wrote:

>I hereby resign my role as contest coordinator, as the
>original contest is finished, but will provide
>assistance if necessary for any new vote.
>
>Regards,
>
>Erik
>
>Since I criticize a couple of time, I wanted to say
>thanks for the great job nevertheless.
>
>

Although I never criticized the way the voting was organized, I also had
my share of clashes with Erik, and I know he felt like I did criticize
his effort. So I'll full-heartedly subscribe to thanking you Erik, and
reiterating I never doubted your good faith and success in keeping
everything going smoothly during a rather controversial and busy voting
session. Congratulations for a job well done!

Gutza


subject: [Wikitech-l] Profiling

body:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 14:59, Jens Frank wrote:
> Exchange the two 'if'-clauses . "Page with normal text" is more
> frequent than "page with alternate text".

Better yet, let the regexp do the compare/jump. I've merged them to one;
if there's no | it should be about as fast, and it only has to compile
one regexp and zip through the title portion once.

>                         if ( preg_match( "/^((?:i|x|[a-z]{2,3})(?:-[a-z0-9]+)?|[A-Za-z\\x80-\\xff]+)
> :(.*)\$/", $link,  $m ) ) {
>
> A very complex regex to check for a colon and split the link if it does
> contain a colon. (Well, that's what I think it does, at least).
> Since this is case is seldom, too, it might be better to test
> for a colon first using strpos and do the split only if necessary.
> See http://jeluf.mine.nu/jf/y.php for a performance comparison.

Wise. I've added this.

> Some lines later, inside some seldomly used branches in the
> namespace-links-block:

Being seldom, I haven't touched these yet.

> In Skin::makeLink, the namespace is computed again. This was already done in
> Outputpage::replaceInternalLinks, could we pass this information as a parameter
> instead of computing it again (sorry, no code, would have to set up an entire
> wikipedia to test it).

Much of the loop duplicates Title::secureAndSplit. It may make sense to
rewrite the whole loop around these existing functions... or else
duplicate the functionality but not the function call!

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: temp banning

body:
The vandalizing user talk pages and so on I'll agree
is over the line,  but I disagree that it warrants a
temporary ban.  Simply revert the  changes, like we do
with everyone else.  We've had plenty of other  users
who've vandalized pages, including EntmootsOfTrolls
and BuddhaInside,  among others, who were not
summarily banned through the extraordinary use of
developer powers.  I don't see why RK should be
treated  differently.

As for a permanent ban, while RK has been somewhat
obnoxious in his  complaining about anti-Semitism,
several other people (notably SV) have  been equally
obnoxious in their complaining from the other side
(e.g.  of  the "pro-Israel" bias of adding Israeli
census data).  RK has also  added quite a bit of
useful content to Wikipedia, much of it entirely
unrelated to Judaism, Israel, or related issues.

-Mark

---------

Contributors on Wikip?dia must be very diverse indeed,
but not only are they valuable when they add useful
content to the encyclopedia, but also when the
cooperate with others ("collaboratively developed" is
the term used).
We just all of us have different appreciations of what
is useful, and what is cooperation. People are not
banned because they are not useful, or because they do
not work with others, they are rejected because they
offer counter productive content, and/or they hurt the
community process. Or at least, are seen as such.

Any banning is a combination of "hurt the encyclopedia
in terms of content", "hurt the group process" and/or
"hurt encyclopedists themselves". We should not
compare one banned person with another banned person.
They are all unique. Just as we should not compare one
who is banned with another who is not, just on *one*
of the arguments used for banning people.

RK is bringing useful content to the encyclopedia, I
don't think anyone would deny this, but some also
think he is preventing useful content to be added to
the articles. RK is not hurting very much the
community spirit (though it might soon happen if we
disagree over how to handle the matter), but to some
people opinion, he has been trying (and very likely,
sometimes succeeded) to hurt some people to a degree
that some don't think acceptable.

The vandalizing user page is just a final straw, which
is very useful indeed, as it is a point on which there
might be a *rule*, or a more or less said agreement,
user page are personal (I do not agree with that
statement btw, imho, user pages are not our pages,
they are pages about us). The agreement says blanking
another user page is bad, putting bad words on them is
worse. At the opposite, there are no rules over using
offending terminology, calling people vandals or nazi.
Because, the offense is just personal perception.

But, thinking that people support a temporary ban just
*because* of these blanking would be a great
misappreciation of the situation.

I sure hope that the temporary banning will not be
considered just over this blanking argument, and as
such very likely lifted. Because that would show a
huge misconsideration for many wikipedians. That would
be just stating officially word abuse (word abuse as
*no one* in real life would *ever* tolerate to be
submitted to) is just okay, as long as the offender
offers good contributions. Comparison with other users
and other conflicts seeds would be just evading the
issue.

Till now, basically, there has been no gradation in
punishment. It is either, "you are good, you can
edit", or "you are bad, go away". Just an occasional
little tap on the hand for those getting out of the
way.

I think we should try to use in-between reactions.
Temporary banning is mostly a way to say to someone
"we would like you to stay with us, but you really
have to work on your behavior". It is a time-break, to
allow thoughts.

Not a time-break to receive further insults and appeal
to force intended to soften people who fear him never
coming again.

A temporary banning is also a nice compromise between
those who do not accept that situation any more, and
those who think it is acceptable. And imho, temporary
banning is an option that any sysop could "initiate",
that is just to us, all together, to discuss what
temporary means, and how we could use that time-out.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Break

body:
A temporary banning is also a nice compromise between
those who do not accept that situation any more, and
those who think it is acceptable. And imho, temporary
banning is an option that any sysop could "initiate",
that is just to us, all together, to discuss what
temporary means, and how we could use that time-out.

Oh, and I mean by that...not that any sysop can just
wander around and ban the user he has problem with.
I mean that when there is a wide concern over a user
repeated wrong behavior, and that the user just loose
his "temper", then, just as we practice "protecting a
page", we can practice "protecting other editors". A
page protection does not last forever. Once the ones
disagreeing on the talk page find an agreement, the
page is unprotected.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Till Westermayer

body:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .

Hi Andre,

thanks for your work! And as the winner seems to be the same, maybe it's
okay to accept the result ;-)

Regards, Till
 __ .
 / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
  . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
  . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
  . . . . .


from_name: Abe Sokolov

subject: [WikiEN-l] DON'T BAN RK  hes indispensable

body:
I am going to make strong pleas against any moves to ban RK or marginalize him. While I?m not arguing that we tolerate his bad behavior in the short-run, it is crucial that we tolerate having to deal with, and act against, his bad behavior instance by instance in the long-run. To sum up my argument, RK?s bad behavior is an indispensable asset for Wikipedia.

Yes, his tendency to overreact, aggressiveness, and lack of ability to channel disputes into a more substantive debate, rather than an all-out personal conflict, is confounding his difficulties with other users, underlying this conflict is the nature of the articles on which he has been working. On Wikipedia his fields of interest (Israel, Judaism, and anti-Semitism) inherently attract a polarized core of contributors, which pits committed supporters of Israel against pro-Palestinian advocates.

Of course, certain practices and behavior are better at channeling them toward cooperation. Although I did say that his personality is at the heart of this whole attempt to ban you, the dynamics of his edit wars mean that he has to act as he does! While other topics polarize as well, the ideology of the extremists on both sides, along with their ingrained prejudices against each other, discourages them from yielding any concessions to each other. Moreover, it encourages both sides to seek to prevail at all cost, and escalate the conflict into a zero-sum game. Since both sides are too fearful of the aims of the other, RK is always forced not to retreat and make concessions to the other side (that might be his personality, but the often raving lunacy of his crudades is means of putting checks and balances on his opponents in the long-run).

Although he can be paranoid irrational at times, and he?s raving and not strategizing, his aggressiveness is well-suited in that it might be the only pattern of behavior that will work for him. Moreover, since he is almost always outnumbered in any dispute, he naturally has to lodge just as many salvoes, and make just as much noise, as many users put together.

The fair-minded users who favor his banning ignore one the only fact that matters: the end result of most of his edit wars has been neutrality. There's a lot of noise, but everything's fine afterwards. Wikipedia needs his forceful dedication to his side of the issues.

RK and RK alone provides a counterweight to large number of contributors, and determines whether or not his side is equally powerful (despite being under-represented in terms of the number of contributors) in each edit war.  Right now, we have a ?balance of power? on the Israeli-Palestinian articles that yields stalemate in edit-war after edit-war. Thus, Wikipedia gets the quality of writing, accuracy, balance, and neutrality needed for to emerge as a viable sourcebook.

Thus, even if he did do something that warrants a banning, Wikipedia needs to accept his actions at all cost in order to maintain balance on the articles on the Israeli-Palestinian articles.

His absence would mean that conflict would ease considerably over the Israeli-Palestinian issue, thus meaning that they written at a far faster rate by the remaining users. But that would be the result of a terrible development.

This would be at the cost of allowing his antagonists to achieve an all-out victory, and be able to exercise such a degree of control over the articles that there would only be a fa?ade of neutrality. While I did not reach this conclusion when I was subjected to my first RK experience (disagreeing with him isn?t pleasant), I now realize that his absence would be a crushing blow to Wikipedia, an unprecedented experiment whose success is not a foregone conclusion.

The dynamics of the disputes on Wikipedia that arise over the Israeli-Palestinian issue mean that neutrality is only going to be attained when both sides are finished terrorizing and brutalizing each other, after a zero-sum battle has ended in a stalemate. If RK weren?t here, that would mean that the other side would consistently win.
RK?s role as the lose cannon on the Israel-related articles - always suspicious, prickly, and aggressive ? bolsters the influence of his side of the issues. You cannot deny that RK has steered dozens of articles toward an orientation further from that of his antagonists. He often starts off adding grotesquely POV content, but that?s toned down after a fierce battle with his ever-observant opponents. Although his opponents are more subtle in slanting articles, there are more of them, and other users usually have no sympathy for RK. Whereas RK can inject hysterical propaganda in a few articles, many other users can inject subtle biases in many articles. However, fear of RK?s tyranny is a check on them; and when RK mobilizes his energies into a hysterical fit, balance results from the ensuing struggle.

In short, if Wikipedia is to present both sides, it?s contingent on letting RK be RK. He generates chaos and a lot of ill-will. He?s often obnoxious (but he can magnanimously admit that he was wrong ? I believe that he took my advice to stop calling a very well-respected user an anti-Semite). He even alienates his own supporters, and often attacks potential allies with great bitterness. But due to the nature of users who are attracted to the Israeli/Palestinian article, the only way to get balance is stalemate after stalemate after stalemated zero-sum conflict between equally powerful and committed groups of antagonists. Among the non-academic partisans who take the time to write about this dispute, the fanatical camps on both sides make it impossible for the two sides to put aside their differences and agree on what a neutral article is. It?s too idealistic to expect them to have the dexterity to cooperate and quit wasting time by sniping at each other. RK?s intransigence, and often
 flat out bizarre behavior, but it?s an indispensable part of a confluence of opposing forces required for Israeli-Palestinian neutrality.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031002/1e5cb716/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] DON'T BAN RK  he's indispensable

body:
I accidentally pressed enter and sent the last message before I could add the contraction in "he's." Embarassing. Moreover, I've noticed that my messages often spill over the margins when I add something to the mailing list. I would appreciate it if someone would copy and paste the contents of what I wrote in a new, readable message within the margins.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031002/e37c93fe/attachment.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Can anyone fix the formatting of my message about RK? I
	can't.

body:
My long explanation for the indepensibility of RK spilled over the margins. I cannot seem to fix this problem, so I'd really appreciate it if someone would copy and paste the contents of what I wrote in a new, readable message within the margins. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to do this.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031002/1f3ef984/attachment.htm


from_name: Richard Grevers

body:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 09:19:27 -0400, Richards,Michael
<Michael.Richards at gartner.com> gave utterance to the following:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 9:05 PM, Richard Grevers said:
>
>> I think that what would be good here would be a flag on the TOC code,
>> which if set in the page would instead generate a horizontal linkbar of
>> the type  A | B | C | D... which is commonly used in such circumstances.
>
> I have manually updated dozens of lists to remove the vertical
> alphabetical toc and replace it with a horizontal one. But there are
> hundreds of lists. A more automated way is a good idea. However many
> pages have the first heading that is more than one character, e.g. "0-9"
> and so this could not be done completely automatically. Some also have a
> "See also" at the end. (The same thing applies to years and decades,
> e.g. "List of years in art")
>
> Maybe we could use something similar to __NOTOC__, such as __HOTOC__ for
> horizontal toc?
>
> A minor point is if we did it this way, which format would we use? e.g.
>
> A | B | C ...  or  A - B - C ...  or  A, B, C ...
> 1990s | 1980s | 1970s ...  or  1990s - 1980s - 1970s ...  or  1990s,
> 1980s, 1970s ...
>
> Which is the most common or looks the best? And is this a good idea in
> the first place (i.e. not try to totally automate it)?
>
The Pipe characher not only looks the best IMO, but most screen readers
recognise it as a punctuation symbol and put a pause between words.
Incidentally, that's another very good reason for putting a . after the
number in a vertical TOC. We should ensure that there is a . at the end of
each line in a vertical TOC too.
(Mental note - must browse Wikipedia in a speech browser someday soon and
look for accessibility issues).
--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] DON'T BAN RK – hes indispensable

body:
Abe Sokolov wrote:

>I am going to make strong pleas against any moves to ban RK or marginalize him. While I?m not arguing that we tolerate his bad behavior in the short-run, it is crucial that we tolerate having to deal with, and act against, his bad behavior instance by instance in the long-run. To sum up my argument, RK?s bad behavior is an indispensable asset for Wikipedia.
>
We shouldn't be tolerating bad behavior at all. If we make the excuse
that we
have to tolerate it for the sake of content, that's just going to encourage
more bad behavior. There are people who have some detailed knowledge of the
Israeli Palestinian conflict, a generally neutral point of view, and a
commitment to scholarly investigation,  myself for instance, but I've
generally avoided those articles because Wikipedia is not paying me enough
to put up with constant abuse and name-calling by RK.  How many other
neutrals are not contributing because RK and others have turned that whole
area of Wikipedia into a miniaturized version of real life?

Stan


subject: [Wikitech-l] Profiling

body:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 04:16, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 October 2003 04:13, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Anybody wanna look into optimizing OutputPage::replaceInternalLinks()?
> > It's a known troublemaker; it's got a bit loop that could probably be
> > much much more efficiently done.
>
> Why would not pages be rendered when saved and stored on disk as HTML, as
> they are typically saved once and viewed many times? As I understood, disk
> space is not a problem, but processor time is.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_cache

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
At 10:15 AM 10/2/03 +0200, Erik wrote:
>Delirium-
> > The vandalizing user talk pages and so on I'll agree is over the line,
> > but I disagree that it warrants a temporary ban.  Simply revert the
> > changes, like we do with everyone else.  We've had plenty of other users
> > who've vandalized pages, including EntmootsOfTrolls and BuddhaInside,
>
>BuddhaInside was instantly banned after vandalism. EntmootsOfTrolls is
>banned now because of threats, I'm not aware of any vandalism by him but I
>can assure you that I or someone else would have banned him had that
>happened to a significant extent.
>
> > among others, who were not summarily banned through the extraordinary
> > use of developer powers.
>
>No use of developer powers was involved. All sysops can ban signed in
>users.

That power is supposed to be used only to enforce an already-existing
ban: it was created to deal with Michael's endless aliases and can
reasonably be used in any similar situation. It doesn't mean that any
sysop--of whom, as you note, there are many--can exclude someone
from Wikipedia. That way lies instability at best.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Delirium-
> The vandalizing user talk pages and so on I'll agree is over the line,
> but I disagree that it warrants a temporary ban.  Simply revert the
> changes, like we do with everyone else.  We've had plenty of other users
> who've vandalized pages, including EntmootsOfTrolls and BuddhaInside,

BuddhaInside was instantly banned after vandalism. EntmootsOfTrolls is
banned now because of threats, I'm not aware of any vandalism by him but I
can assure you that I or someone else would have banned him had that
happened to a significant extent.

> among others, who were not summarily banned through the extraordinary
> use of developer powers.

No use of developer powers was involved. All sysops can ban signed in
users.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Chloe

subject: [WikiEN-l] Goodbye, from the Jew you banned. (Robert)

body:
>
> Goodbye.
>
> Robert RK

Could you stamp about and slam the door a little more loudly on your way
out? A few of my neighbours didn't quite hear you.

Graham (Quercus robur)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/2003


from_name: Graham Burnett


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:

>  maybe it's just because we have dinner plans and needed to pick up
> the dry-cleaning first.

Do you really find those things more important? :-)

> Even worse, accusing the entire Wikipedia community of  /anything/ is
> patently absurd.... as a matter of fact, it's something that bigots
> usually do... making broad generalizations about entire groups of
> people. Interesting.

I've never been a big fan of banning, and I make no exception with
regard to RK.

Nevertheless, I do believe that he was doing his own cause a disservice.
 In my mind things had reached a point where a claim of anti-semitism
from him was being judged more on the fact that he was the one making
the claim, and not on any anti-semitism in the object of his criticism.
 Had similar claims come from others among our known Jewish members, we
all would have taken the claims more seriously.

Ec


from_name: Sheldon Rampton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Speaking of POV -- MR Sheldon Rampton?

body:
Steve Vertigum wrote:

>Ive looked at some of the material on Disinfopedia,
>and think most of it too valuable to leave to it
>alone.  I would encourage at some point an integration
>of those date to Wikipedia-- as much of it is
>encyclopedic.
>
>The only failing of Disinfo that I can see so far
>(besides the fact that "Disinfo" doesnt bring up DisP
>on a Google search) is its disconnection from
>Wikipedia, and the division of energy that it
>represents.

Sorry for not answering this sooner. I'm rather busy these days, so I
haven't been reading all my email. I'm not opposed in principle to
merging the Disinfopedia into Wikipedia, but I'd like to see what
other Wikipedians think of the idea.

>Not to mention NPOV -- that the occasional crass
>comment actually hurts the legitimacy of the DisP as a
>source.

Point taken. The Disinfopedia is still very young, and hasn't yet
achieved the maturity of the Wikipedia.

>Respectforking yours,

Har har. Technically, though, I don't think the Disinfopedia is a fork.
--
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
--------------------------------


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>Vicki-
>
>>That power is supposed to be used only to enforce an already-existing
>>ban: it was created to deal with Michael's endless aliases and can
>>reasonably be used in any similar situation. It doesn't mean that any
>>sysop--of whom, as you note, there are many--can exclude someone
>>from Wikipedia. That way lies instability at best.
>>
>It was always allowed for developers to ban signed in users in cases of
>obvious vandalism. Now that sysops have the same ability, I see no reason
>why it should remain limited to people such as myself.
>
I agree with Vicki on this.  Anything more than a short term "emergency"
ban needs to be a community decision.  In the case of enforcing an
already-existing ban that community decision has already been made.
 Vicki's stability concerns are very real.  RK has been a sysop.  It is
certainly conceivable that he would apply the same interpersonal skills
to that role as he has to his discussions of anti-semitism.

Ec


body:
On 01 Oct 2003 22:54:00 +0200, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> gave
utterance to the following:

> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_logo_variants
>
> I believe Nohat's variants are especially noteworthy. However, these are
> not the logos people have voted for and it is doubtful that consensus can
> be reached to use one of them instead of the current one. I will be happy
> to be proven wrong here and encourage informal opinion polls in the next
> weeks to figure out how people feel about these logos.
>
I think that combining Nohat's first variant with one glyph per piece and
Stevertigo's yellow-oriented colour scheme would actually look quite
acceptable (negative imagery of the jigsaw concept notwithstanding)
I'd love to see the home page in that more professional lookign colour
scheme, and not so much like a baby nursery.
--
Richard Grevers
Between two evils always pick the one you haven't tried


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK ban deemed unwise

body:
Erik,

While technically correct, I think your ban was unwise.

RK did indeed blank some personal pages, the C-J talk page, and wrongly
accused Martin of using an alias.

However, I don't think he should be singled out for punishment -
especially with so little discussion beforehand.

My impression is that several users ganged up on RK and goaded him into
a "bannable offense".

I feel bad, because I think that I sparked this bonfire by protecting
the C-J talk page. Now, that same fire has been used to burn RK alive.

I would like to:
*un-ban RK
*request that everyone avoid posting on [[talk:RK]]

Ed Poor


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] WikiSyntax

body:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Jake Nelson wrote:
> >
> > >On meta: [[Wikitax]] and [[Simple ideology of Wikitax]].
> > >
> > A fundraising proposal!?
> >
> > Ec
> >
> That was my first reaction on seeing the titles... I think people's
> obsession with rendering everything WP-related as Wiki<relevant word
missing
> its first syllable> should be kept in check on this one. Especially given
> that it's utterly unintuitive- someone searching for WikiSyntax (as
started
> this thread) would have no reason to think of looking in 'Wikitax'...
>
> -- Jake

Can I rename the page ?

Aoineko


subject: [WikiEN-l] When has RK been a sysop ?

body:
I agree with Vicki on this.  Anything more than a
short term "emergency"  ban needs to be a community
decision.  In the case of enforcing an
already-existing ban that community decision has
already been made.
Vicki's stability concerns are very real.  RK has been
a sysop.  It is certainly conceivable that he would
apply the same interpersonal skills to that role as he
has to his discussions of anti-semitism.

Ec

-------

When has RK been a sysop ?

anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK unbanned : a community decision

body:
Axel said
>I don't think we should invent new bannable offenses,
we >should not invent those bannable offenses *after*
the >offenses have occurred, and  we should not
initiate >punishment *before* the acts have occurred.

>I have ended the temporary ban on RK.

------

That is what I would call a community decision indeed.
I suppose the opinion of all those insulted is totally
irrelevant in this decision.

Anthere

-----

Ed Poor said

>In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence),
>Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
>Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...

>Our next question is:

>* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban?
Or,
>* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?

>Ed Poor

I would have thought I had said something above, by
maybe I have just been dreaming what I wrote. Probably
so.

Anyway, Ed, you question is irrelevant. Axel has
decided the banning was bad and that is all about it.

Well; that won't do it.

-------

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own home page, and then
BANNED
me when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----
Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

-----

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was
PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began
harassing
me and vandalizing my home page.  You lied about him
and
his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV
wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own hom page, and then
BANNED me
when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who
privately write me that they all agree with me, but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now
on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it
allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence), Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
>Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...
>
>Our next question is:
>
>* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban? Or,
>* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?
>
I support 24 hours as the appropriate banning period.  This is an
otherwise productive Wikipedian who has out-of-control moments.

The disrespectful "Nazipedia" comments should likely be acknowledged as
having come in the midst of a rage.

In cases like this we need some kind of a "mentor" system.  In this case
the mentor could be a person whom RK personally trusts, and to whom he
would pay attention.  When he shows signs of going out of control, that
person could say "STOP" or some other agreed secrt word, and get the
appropriate reaction.

Ec


list: textbook-l

from_name: Karl Wick

subject: [Textbook-l] turning an image into a usable hyperlink in wikibooks

body:
On my organic chemistry textbook I would like to have the
feature of having a little icon up in the corner of the
editable part of the page that takes the reader back to the
table of contents page. Is this possible to code ? How ?
Right now if you click on an image it takes you a page
about that image. How can I change this destination page to
be the contents page for my book ?

Thanks.
Karl

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Gareth Owen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Goodbye, from the Jew you banned.

body:
Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> writes:

> Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

Come back Special Relativity kooks, all is forgiven...
--
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
 are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12 Jan 2001)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stan's response is not realistic - RK is a necessary evil

body:
Stan wrote in response to letter arguing that RK is a necessary evil:

"There are people who have some detailed knowledge of the

Israeli Palestinian conflict, a generally neutral point of view, and a

commitment to scholarly investigation,  myself for instance, but I've

generally avoided those articles because Wikipedia is not paying me enough

to put up with constant abuse and name-calling by RK."

Although I agree in principle with Stan, who points out that RK's just a petty

partisan, who ought to quit haunting the Israeli-Palestinian articles in

favor of users with real expertise and a grasp of NPOV, there's no

chance in hell of this far-fetched fantasy working out. Passions run so

high on both sides in real life that it's inevitable that a new User:RK or

User:Palestine liberator could discover Wikipedia any day, launch an

ideological campaign under the guise of NPOV, and in turn attract a new

set of rival partisans. We'd certainly like to see better, but there's no

way Wikipedia, and all the freedom it affords, can act against users

determined to use Wikipedia as a battlefield to play out their frustrations.

Moreover, RK's not the only partisan. Banning RK would just throw

off the balance existing right now between the partisans. Why don't

we just accept the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian articles are the

most conflict-prone of all on Wiki, given the real-world political realities?

Rather than getting rid of this necessary evil, let's continue to referee

the RK-types? All his disputes end with NPOV by stalemate - and

that's what Wiki needs above all else. It doesn't matter how you get

there.

In addition, his response noted that not banning RK would generate

more bad behavior. However, reread my arguments. I argued that

there's a peculiar long-run benefit derived from his bad behavior.
He's a  necessary evil, when neutralized by his enemies.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031002/8bf1c4b0/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abe's thesis

body:
Stan Shebs wrote:

> Abe Sokolov wrote:
>
>> I am going to make strong pleas against any moves to ban RK or
>> marginalize him. While Im not arguing that we tolerate his bad
>> behavior in the short-run, it is crucial that we tolerate having to
>> deal with, and act against, his bad behavior instance by instance in
>> the long-run. To sum up my argument, RKs bad behavior is an
>> indispensable asset for Wikipedia.
>>
> We shouldn't be tolerating bad behavior at all. If we make the excuse
> that we
> have to tolerate it for the sake of content, that's just going to
> encourage
> more bad behavior. There are people who have some detailed knowledge
> of the
> Israeli Palestinian conflict, a generally neutral point of view, and a
> commitment to scholarly investigation,  myself for instance, but I've
> generally avoided those articles because Wikipedia is not paying me
> enough
> to put up with constant abuse and name-calling by RK.  How many other
> neutrals are not contributing because RK and others have turned that
> whole
> area of Wikipedia into a miniaturized version of real life?

I read Abe's analysis, and I respectfully disagree with it.  If I
understand correctly, his thesis is that if RK is allowed to take
outrageous positions on Israel/Palestine issues that will be more
effective in presenting that view than a large number of moderates.  I
see that as an endorsation of bully tactics and intimidation.

Nobody likes to be the one to confront an apparent lunatic, or the heavy
hulk that's beating his diminutive wife in public.  That's a dangerous
thing to do   But failing to confront these people does not make the
world better or safer.  If people who would otherwise bring sane and
rational opinions to a discussion keep quiet simply to avoid the wrath
of an extremist the project has thus been diminished.

Ec


from_name: Gutza

body:
Goodbye, to the troll who has been temp-banned.

Gutza


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor temp-banned

body:
I found my ability to edit Wikipedia pages blocked a few
minutes ago. Apparently Eloquence thought I was RK.

> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by
> Eloquence. The reason given is this:
> Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "RK".
> Reason "Repeated vandalism. Calm down, drink some tea,
> learn the difference between user and talk pages."

I un-banned myself; no harm done.

Ed Poor


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Server upgrade status needed in order to distribute
	press release

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> When are the servers going to be upgraded?

There was an unconscionable delay from a supplier in shipping the
CPUs.  However, I got notice just now that these have been shipped,
either last night or this morning.  I asked for an upgrade to
overnight shipping, but I don't think they did that, despite my
frustration.

Therefore, I think the last parts will arrive either Friday, Saturday,
or Monday.  I'll have Jason drive down to San Diego Monday or Tuesday
(after we've confirmed that the parts are in, of course) and that'll
be the big day of upgrades.

As a part of the press release strategy, I want to emphasis our
capital campaign to buy a big database server for the backend.  It is
my considered belief that Wikipedia can handle as much as 10x the
current traffic when we use our two upgraded servers solely as
webservers, with a big and fast db server as backend.

--Jimbo