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

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

> geni wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Your ratio of controversial articles seems about right.  The problem is
>>> in the tenacity with which controversial deletions are protected.  No
>>> damage would be done by allowing the controversial ones more time, or
>>> allowing them to be easily undeleted for further discussion for as long
>>> as it takes.
>>
>> Prolonginf conflict is not a good idea.
>
> It would depend on the circumstances of the conflict, wouldn't it? In
> cases where there's genuine debate going on, it doesn't make sense to
> arbitrarily cut it off at some deadline rather than letting it
> continue until a clear decision is reached. If it stalemates then
> perhaps a deadline can come into play but it shouldn't be required as
> a universal solution.
>
> "Conflict" is not inherently bad, it's part of how disagreements can
> be resolved.

Conflict becomes bad when the conflict itself becomes more important
than the subject of the conflict.  Some domestic arguments manage to
carry on even after the spouses have forgotten what the argument was about.

Ec


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: check user policy/Tor

body:
On 11/2/05, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > Personally I just started using Tor. So CheckUser doesn't affect me any
> >more. As an added bonus I don't have to worry about Google tracking me
> >either. Fortunately, most Tor exit nodes aren't currently blocked,
> though.
> >If this changes, this workaround might go away. Hopefully the other
> policy,
> >to allow (at least some) logged in users to edit through blocked proxies,
> >will pass by then.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Having just spent a couple of evenings dealing with a Tor-using vandal,
> I would personally immediately suspect any account using Tor of
> sock-puppetry simply due to guilt by association. Secrecy and anonymity
> are laudable, but since their primary visible use is to engage in
> unethical and/or illegal behavior vis-a-vis Wikimedia projects they are
> immediately deserving of suspicion.
>
For the same reason Wiki projects do not allow "public" accounts, there
> is no reason to use anonymizing techniques when editing. You may
> instantly and anonymously receive an account. Your IP will not be
> examined except in unusual circumstances, and then will be handled under
> a stringent privacy policy which protects your information even in the
> case of wrong doing. For these reasons, I would personally be in favour
> of blocking access, or at least editing, to all anonymizing services.
>
> Amgine

 You're confusing IP addresses and anonymity. When I edit, I use my real
name. I'm not anonymous in any way. I primarily use tor to hide my IP
address, not my identity.
 I don't care that you say that my IP won't be examined except in unusual
circumstances. The simple fact that this is recorded in the first place is
enough, and the lack of protections to make sure that it *cannot* be
examined except in unusal circumstances combined with the fact that I am not
even notified when this information is examined are enough to put it over
the top.
 Wiki projects do not need to know my IP address, and I'm not going to
provide it. If you don't want my edits under those conditions, it's your
loss.


list: wikimedia-l


body:
On 11/2/05, SJ <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To be mergist about these ideas... one could offer users both options.
> 1) edit under a privacy policy which disallows anonymity, or
> 2) edit anonymously, first passing through a sandbox stage to
> demonstrate that you are not a bot and are acting in good faith.
>
> + SJ +

I think you're missing the main reason I use Tor. In fact, for the most part
it has nothing to do with editing. I want to be anonymous when I *read*
Wikipedia. I also don't want my IP address tied to my identity, but that's
probably unavoidable.
 To constantly log in and out and switch proxies all the time would be too
much work. Also, I've noticed that MediaWiki doesn't clear all the cookies
when you log out anyway.
 I'd suggest a much different approach:
 1) The ability to send login information only when editing, and not when
merely reading. This could be easily accomplished by simply allowing
Wikipedia to be read through a different domain name, where the cookies
wouldn't be sent.
 and
 2) The ability for at least some subset of logged in users to edit logged
in through any IP address. Possibly some other means could be used to ensure
that these users are not gaming the system. For instance, I'd be willing to
donate $5 to the organization to create such an account.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Foundation-l] wikinews feature

body:
Ole Andersen wrote:

>On 01/11/05, Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Ilya Haykinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>3) The license for the data was questioned
>>>
>>>
>>Isn't data ineligible for copyright?
>>
>>Gerrit.
>>
>>
>Collections and compilations are copyrightable, IIRC.
>
Yes, but it's tricky.  That depends also on the originality or
obviousness of the compilation.  There is only one way to have a
complete collection, and there is essentially only one way to have an
alphabetical order.

Ec


list: wikien-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

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

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

>
> Perhaps the rating code could be turned on only for admins, or users
> with usernames beginning with 'E' to 'J', or only during non-busy
> hours... or automatically turned off if load rises over a pre-set limit?
>
> Or perhaps just turned on for a few hours one weekend, to see what the
> effect on load really is?

Jimbo's plan calls for everyone being able to rate, including
not-logged-in users. This will be for test purposes only; the ratings
from the test phase will be deleted again, once the statistics people
got their hands on it and can hopefully tell us how to fine-tune the
rating process.

The "performance hog myth" dates back to the very first version. I have
worked on the problematic parts and IMHO they should be good. I can't be
certain without real testing, though. However, I doubt it will degrade
performance in the initial phase; if there's a problem, it will most
likely show once there are at least a few hundred thousand ratings.
There will be many write/delete queries on the table, which might lead
to table locks; this might be countered with low priority queries, though.

Magnus


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: 2 unrelated questions

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Alphax wrote:
>
>> Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> Why would we start a Tetum Wiktionary first? Wiktionaries generally
>>> don't hold new contributors as well.
>>
>> To provide some examples of the language.
>
> You can do that on any Wiktionary. I think active projects such as the
> English Wiktionary would be quite grateful for such contributions.

If you are only going to include a few example words that's probably the
best way to proceed.  A Tetum Wiktionary would be directed to a public
that already speaks the language.

> That said, I probably shouldn't be talking because I've always thought
> splitting Wiktionary into several-language projects was the dumbest
> thing Wikimedia ever did.

Without going into detail, I think we'll continue to differ on that
point. :-)

Ec


body:
>
>  1) The ability to send login information only when editing, and not when
> merely reading. This could be easily accomplished by simply allowing
> Wikipedia to be read through a different domain name, where the cookies
> wouldn't be sent.
>
 On second thought, the domain name trick probably wouldn't work. So instead
maybe the ability to enter one's username and password directly on the edit
page. This wouldn't log you in, it'd just associate that edit with your
username.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia + culture differences on different
	wikis

body:
Ting Chen wrote:

>>I observed that the debates in many wikis are quite similar. You'll find
>>the repeating deletionist/inclusionist debate in en, de, fr... as well
>>as you find - justified and unjustified - complaints about censorship
>>and abuse of admin powers. The complaint from this spanish user was
>>posted on de as well, someone gave a summary in german which made
>>everyone instantly loose interest - just because all this sounded so
>>familiar to the standard complaint of our trouble makers (all the key
>>words included).
>>
>>
>I can confirm that this is the same in the chinese Wikipedia. Actually we
>have just had a very intensive debate about how to handle substubs and if
>anime figures could have their own article. We have also had debates about
>how to handle articles which is marked as fast deletable, and the criterians
>of fast deletable articles, and natually complaints about this or that
>decision of this or that sysop.
>
The world is evolving as it should. :-)

Each community will need to go through this, perhaps repeatedly.  What
happens on the other wikis can provide instructive shortcuts, but should
not bind anybody.  Unless you go through it you will not have learned
anything.  An ultimate convergence is an article of faith.

Ec


from_name: Justin Cormack

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

body:
On 3 Nov 2005, at 02:49, Alphax wrote:
>
> Just wait until we get IPV6 usernames...

These are at least less likely to be reused by multiple people as there
is no nat.

[[User:2001:1b40:3::1]]


list: wikitech-l

from_name: David Gerard

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

body:
Mindspillage wrote:
>On 11/2/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Might I suggest an additional feature for mediawiki? How about
>> [{here}] which becomes a difflink to the edit where that tag was
>> inserted? People could add that to their signatures and thus every
>> post of their would be equipped to a handy difflink to an original
>> version.

>I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link ,
>actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't
>add more to the standard sig.

Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is
going to be while it's saving?)

- d.


from_name: Evan Martin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Indexing Wikisource

body:
On 11/1/05, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:
> Since then I have monitored how fast Google has been to index
> these titles.  More than half of the German pages were indexed
> within a few weeks, which is in line with my experience of how
> fast Google can be.  But to my surprise, only very few of the
> English pages have yet been indexed.
[lots snipped]

Thanks for the detailed mail.
I just wanted to let you know that the right people have been
notified, and they're looking into it.


from_name: charles matthews

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

body:
> I was seriously considering becoming an admin, but after a quick view of
> RFA, I decided it wasn't worth that.
>
> - Jareth

Good admins are needed.  Despite the 'hustings' atmosphere that prevails
when elections happen.

Charles


from_name: Walter van Kalken

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

body:
>The consequent of this for Wikipedia culture is that it doesn't link enough.
>
>
It doesn't link enough??? IMHO opinion it links much to MUCH. Some
artcles of maybe 1 A4 length contain over a 100 external links in the
english wikipedia. Which is something I call madness. I certainly would
not want to encourage people to go linking even more. On some subjects
we have more links than the DMOZ project. And we are not google or DMOZ
are we?

Waerth/Walter

>Perhaps my experienc
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>The problem seems to lie in smaller, more authoritarian communities.
>
>Any Wiki could turn into a dictatorship with the policy we currently
>have in place. The bureaucrats get to make all of the decisions. Of
>course, they can be voted out, but I don't think it's likely that
>people would attempt to organise a vote against someone who has
>probably already scared them away.
>
The important thing is to find some sort of balance.  A bureaucrat does
need the freedom to make decisions and act, often unilaterally, on
them.  He needs to pay attention to his community and use that to guide
his actions.  There will nevertheless be times when he will act in a way
contrary to the community's wishes.  That is not inherently wrong, but
the bureaucrat proceeds at his own peril.  If he overuses that power he
will face repeated complaints, and in extreme situations a putsch.
Occassional complaints go with the territory.  To a certain extent I
think that communities appreciate a bureaucrat who can be fair in his
decisiveness, and who can take some conflicted issues in a particular
direction just to be done with it.

>Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.
>
Sometimes, but that is the wrong reason for a second bureaucrat.  We
don't want the situation of a project with two bureaucrats that are
constantly in opposition to each other.  As long as a bureaucrat's
duties are very light the only reason for a second bureaucrat is to have
someone available during extended absences.

Ec


from_name: Uwe Brauer

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Probl with no UTF-8 in ee-helper (was: prbls with
	external editor)

references:
<877jbu2avo.fsf@mat.ucm.es> <dk83h4$4hr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dk85j5$c6m$1@sea.gmane.org> <200511011826.56652@bloodgate.com>
	<dk8gep$ic3$1@sea.gmane.org> <874q6vgutc.fsf_-_@mat.ucm.es>
	<4368EA71.2030803@gmx.de>

body:
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Moeller
>>>>> <erik_moeller at gmx.de> writes:

   Erik> This happens if you use an editor which is not capable of
   Erik> editing UTF-8.  You can set

   Erik> 	Transcode UTF-8=true

I have that line, however when I "download" article that is, use the
external editor _before_ I edit anything I note that for example the
German quotation marks like ,,this" are displayed as ?this?, so it
seem *my editor* is not the culprit but ee-helper.

Am I correct, or what is my mistake?

Uwe


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

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:

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

Yes.  That's a problem??

Probabilities are based on a continuum between 0.0 and 1.0, but I think
we want to limit people to strictly integral input with an apparent
middle value of 5.  The net averaged results will be probabilities times
ten.

I think there are algorithms that can be applied to simple votes that
will give us a single results.  (Since I'm not a developper/programmer,
I try to avoid being a thorn in the side of that lot through persistent
POV pushing. :-) ).  The net rating of an article can be a simple
weighted average of individuals' ratings over some number of edits.  A
completely unrated article would have a rating of 0.0 over 0 edits.

The weighting of the average would depend on the age of the edit.
Ratings since the last edit would receive full weight, those before the
last edit would have a 0.9 weight, those before the second last edit
would have a 0.8 weight, and so on.  The net rating would be
recalculated whenever an edit is made or a new rating added.  Safeguards
can be added to ensure that only a user's most recent rating is considered.

Ec


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Magnus Manske wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I still prefer a 0-10 range of ratings.  I think a decimal
>>>normalization would be easier to work with in any subsequent analysis
>>>of results.
>>>
>>>
>>One can set the range for each topic individually.
>>
>>
>Mmm. See discussion at [[m:En validation topics]] and its archive -
>too many choices of rating is probably a bad thing, because it's hard
>to agree what a given value means. The test plan so far includes
>probably far more variables than we'd want in any case ...
>
>
The only variable is the individual subjective valuation of the
article.  The number of points in the range are not different variables,
but different values for the same variable.  To a large extent the size
of the range is arbitrary because one range can be changed to another by
a simple multiplication with a constant.  What's the difference between
a value of 3 on a 1-5 scale and a value of 5 on a 0-10 range?

Since the value which an individual gives to an article is essentially
subjective there is no reliable way to define the ratings that can be
given.  Statistical results tend to be self-normalizing.

Ec


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking - bureaucrats?

body:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:31:08 -0700
Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a
> rift. Some admins wanted to unblock one guy, but the bureaucrat didn't
> like him.
>
> Thus it seems to me that every Wiki should have two or more bureaucrats.

Pardon me but what are the rights of a bureaucrat that would scare off admins,
or would do anything to those who oppose the bureaucrat's opinion?

As far as I know a b. can give sysop rights. This should be based on community
will (preferably a vote). But apart from that I don't see any b. right to be
a possible harm or oppression...

So why bureaucrats? I thought they are not even admins... (no admin rights)

grin


from_name: geni

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

body:
On 11/2/05, Michelle <jareth at crimsonblade.net> wrote:
> I was seriously considering becoming an admin, but after a quick view of
> RFA, I decided it wasn't worth that.
>
>  - Jareth

Good descision. Incerdentaly if you want a rollback button without the
hassel this may interest you:

http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia/godmode-light.js

--
geni


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Brett Gustafson
> Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2005 11:23
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot
>
> ...But I recently heard of these people
> that were talking about wikipedia that they were all
> programming a hack for it. So after a little while I found it
> was a spider to hunt down all the pages links and change them
> to shocks site links or something along those lines.

There's something about this message that doesn't quite ring true to me (and
no, it's not the Nigerian spelling), but in case it's genuine, it doesn't
seem to be much of a threat - anything like this is going to be noticed very
quickly, the IP address swiftly blocked, and the pages repaired.

In case it is somehow programmed to be resistant to our normal defence
measures, then maybe we could have a white-hat robot searching for the links
inserted by the black-hat and reverting them.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia & Original Research

body:
Well, the thing is that your photos weren't "intended to make a
specific point". If you took pictures of a piece of trash in Crater
Lake, and posted it on the article page with a caption along the lines
of "In recent years, Crater Lake has become full of trash", that would
be an illustration of what he was talking about.

In the end, though, I don't see any necessary reaction to this except
our normal enforcement of NPOV and maybe a little good judgment. It
doesn't take an art historian to know that images can be inherently
manipulative.

FF

On 11/2/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
>
> > I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point,
> > should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been
> > previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
> > Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos,
> > freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial
> > news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser
> > extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity
> > out there to stage photos, for example:
> >
> The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it
> causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any*
> problems.
>
> Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume
> that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that
> she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile,
> or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV
> that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not
> been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
>
> And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a
> well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex
> indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the
> image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the
> real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it
> will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b)
> considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
>
> I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different
> photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent
> was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be
> of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to
> share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a
> log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow
> instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a
> windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing
> the art.
>
> Geoff
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Press badges

body:
Even if it were not automatic, it would be worth absolutely zilch by itself.

Accreditation is by definition a somewhat exclusive and elitist
activity. It is not compatible with the ideals that "anyone can be a
reporter" or "anyone can be an editor." If "anyone can be accredited"
then such accreditation becomes as meaningful as a mail-order PhD.

FF

On 11/1/05, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Timwi
>
> > I still maintain that press-badge-generating bureaucracy will
> > be easier to penetrate with Wikinews as an excews - er,
> > excuse :-) - than Wikipedia.
>
> You are correct, but who will issue the Wikicredentials to show p-b-g
> bureaucrats? If it is automatic ("This is to introduce HindBrain, a
> certified Wikireporter since [[2 November]] [[2005]]") then anyone with
> access to the web can get credentialled and hang out in the press pavillion
> noshing on the caviar that is customarily served to reptiles of the press.
> It will turn into a rort.
>
> Peter (Skyring)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Alphax

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

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

Poor, Edmund W wrote:
<snip>
> 2. Because Steve is right about the term 'anon'. Actually more than 95%
> of our contributors are anonymous. Choosing a recognizable pseudonym
> does not remove the mantle of anonymity; it just substitutes another.
>
<snip>

I try to avoid the term "anon" when talking about IP address editors,
but I still think the term is valid in some sense.

A registered editor has said to all who ask, "Hello, for the purposes of
editing on Wikipedia my name is $(nick)".

The "problem" with IP editors is akin to knowing people by the barcode
or dewey number of the last book they checked out from the local library.

While it might be possible to say "edits A, B and C were done by this
IP, and they all look roughly the same, so we can assume that they were
all done by the same person", there is also the possibility that they
were done by completely different people. Conversely, two IPs might have
been used by the same person, or they might have been used by different
people. It's very difficult to tell who is doing what.

You can draw all the conclusions you want about an IP by doing WHOIS
lookups and the like; you might find that it's a dynamic, static or
shared IP, but it actually tells you very little about who is using it.

Going back to the book example: Two people borrow the same book, so they
both get the same IP. You can't tell them apart. One person borrows two
books. You don't know they're the same person. One person only borrows
one book a year. They look like a static IP. A dozen people are in a
speed reading club. They look like AOL users.

The greatest problem with IP editors is ease of recognition. Because we
think in words, not numbers, it's very easy to recognise and tell apart
names; it's not so easy to recognise and tell apart numbers, especially
[[dotted quad]]s.

Just wait until we get IPV6 usernames...

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

iQEVAwUBQ2l61rMAAH8MeUlWAQiZ+AgAmsBo1D2l7kwyNaWpWD2NEjOQV8dRjlRe
643hA+KmtHx3WjLpOq/II/DTEi/gZnEky1BjU9Rjamxxz+5D+evpdm/cpNFYgu9Q
5qdX+/FRBqTn8cSL8VXGblKM6VdxORPKS8dGAWZlVuAh7IovQWS48l07v0HWzpUf
YhiXy9VkUNghTyy+Rlv9wb4EKJvKAxXVHtTyBvGjBrsI7cMprhpRsjJuKyW6PGhR
gcAL/IGkdOXgmZXfsScTuJ/4rR56GPPbzsxX/De5dgtI2xIXmiDYHRA8JcFi1/V9
1cwyF9groR5L2UTgFIHOuXmWlPXHOp26+os9MZMueFFW3sATc2musQ==
=uFeq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: shizhao

subject: [Wikitech-l] Template:Itn on zh.wp can't protected

body:
Template:Itn on zh.wp, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Itn

it already protected, but anonymous user however can edit. other protected
pages without this problem.

Otherwise, Blocked anonymous user however can edit Template:Itn.

[[zh:user:shizhao]]


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia & Original Research

body:
"rex" <rex at x234.com> wrote in message
news:000601c5dde3$439af2b0$6401a8c0 at DAN...
> I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point,
> should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously
> published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.

Doesn't this kind of blow a huge great big hole in the "don't use
copyrighted stuff, make your own and release it under GFDL" scheme?
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

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

body:
> To make it even less scary, how about:
>
> :Unless you are [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]] your edit will be signed
> with your [[IP address]] when you click 'Save'. See our
> [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy|privacy policy]].
>
> Having an edit be signed with your IP number is IMO less threatening
> than saying we'll show your IP number publically, more of a way of
> granting attribution for the contributor's fine work than a warning that
> "we're watching you!". This version does unfortunately omit the point
> that Wikipedia records the IP address of logged-in users too, but it's
> not like we can compress every detail of the privacy policy down into
> just two lines and it should be pretty obvious to anyone who's thinking
> about this sort of thing so hopefully not a major omission.

The thing is, this is factually incorrect. Your IP address *will* be
recorded and associated with your edits if you are signed in, and this
omits the fact that if you are not logged in, it will be associated with
your edits publically. This is the key point of adding this message - to
warn people that their IP address will be made public if they edit
without being logged in. Omit this, and you may as well not have the
warning.

Chris


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


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


from_name: Bass, Joshua L

body:
It is possible:

http://www.gtr-tech.com/gtrwiki/Main_Page

http://www.350z-tech.com/ztrwiki/Main_Page

Just point them to the same database, but you will have to have the
correct url in your LocalSettings.php for each site.

As far as different navigation links, that could be done manually in the
skin.

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Ky
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:06 AM
To: wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] One wiki, multiple websites

Hello,

I want to setup up a number of websites which share a single
wiki underneath.  The only difference between the websites
will be:

* The URI used to access the website
* The main page
* The navigation links

Is it possible, and how much work is involved in configuring
such a wiki.

Thanks

-John

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
Ben wrote:
> Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes.
[ie. out of 102 listed responses]

Suffice it to say I think your interpretation of 'what
counts and what doesn't' is rather... um...
interesting, considering that youre talking about
basically throwing out the majority of the total
votes.

User:Stevertigo|SV

--- "Ben E." <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if it could be termed a "sucessful
> RfA". The vote tally
> was *17/29/7/49,
> *which corresponds to (Support/Oppose/Neutral/Remit
> to ArbCom). The "remit"
> votes were explicitly marked as no vote, but an
> encouragement to ArbCom to
> retake the case. Therefore, there were a total of 46
> countable votes. 17/46
> = 36.96%, which doesn't show a consensus for
> adminship in my or in any
> bureaucrat's book, I suppose.
>
> -[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
>
> On 11/2/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > --- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> wrote:
> > > I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. Because Steve was recently taken down a peg
> (he
> > > lost his sysop
> > > rights) but he STILL is contributing to the
> > > encyclopedia and trying to
> > > find ways to improve the community.
> >
> > I have not "lost [my] sysop rights." Anthere
> > (properly) acted to remove my sysop rights on a
> > request (a premature and perhaps partisan one)
> after
> > the "vote was closed." I had my "RFA" reopened
> because
> > I thought it should benefit from my input. Hence
> > Anthere's decision to desysop was neutral, and the
> > decision to not immediately resysop was nominal
> one,
> > and one that I did not object to while the RFA
> > continued.
> >
> > The RFA failed to find consensus to desysop, and
> more
> > correctly it rejected the Arbcom's use of the RFA
> (and
> > its 70% threshold) to render a decision which it
> > (admittedly) could not come to --"deadlocked"
> case,
> > etc. Though I could have waited, I have asked
> Anthere
> > to restore my sysop status per the "unsuccessful
> > de-RFA aka my "successful RFA", aka the "remand
> > decision."
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > SV
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Bratsche-It means "viola!"
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: LiquidThreads

body:
On 11/3/05, Tels <nospam-abuse at bloodgate.com> wrote:
> If this (misrepresenting what I wrote) happens only once to *my* comments,
> it is a significant problem for me. Up to the point where I would stop
> posting comments *at all* and whine until the website makes sure that my rants
> are not edited and still show my signature.
> There is a reason I digitally sign all emails :-)

The version in history is always authoritative. This is just like on a
mailing lists where there is a risk of people changing your words, but
the version in prior posts/archives are authoritative...  Tell people
to read the authoritative version and yell at the people who edit the
front version..

That said, you could digitally sign your wikitext posts, just please
wrap the sigs in html comments. :)


from_name: 田中 万太郎

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

body:
Hello again,

I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info" is still
active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a live
mirror (proxy).

Please, if this is the wrong place to report this, where
can I report it?

On Sunday 30 October 2005 17:00, ?? ??? wrote:
> Hello
>
> a www.tocatch.info appears to be mirroring various
> Wikipedias live, examples:
>
> http://www.tocatch.info/en/Special:Recentchanges.htm
> (ENGLISH)
> http://www.tocatch.info/ja/Special:Recentchanges.htm
> (JAPANESE)
>
> Thankyou

TANAKA

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


from_name: Ben E.

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

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

-[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]

On 11/2/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > I sympathize with this POV for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. Because Steve was recently taken down a peg (he
> > lost his sysop
> > rights) but he STILL is contributing to the
> > encyclopedia and trying to
> > find ways to improve the community.
>
> I have not "lost [my] sysop rights." Anthere
> (properly) acted to remove my sysop rights on a
> request (a premature and perhaps partisan one) after
> the "vote was closed." I had my "RFA" reopened because
> I thought it should benefit from my input. Hence
> Anthere's decision to desysop was neutral, and the
> decision to not immediately resysop was nominal one,
> and one that I did not object to while the RFA
> continued.
>
> The RFA failed to find consensus to desysop, and more
> correctly it rejected the Arbcom's use of the RFA (and
> its 70% threshold) to render a decision which it
> (admittedly) could not come to --"deadlocked" case,
> etc. Though I could have waited, I have asked Anthere
> to restore my sysop status per the "unsuccessful
> de-RFA aka my "successful RFA", aka the "remand
> decision."
>
> Sincerely,
> SV
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Bratsche-It means "viola!"


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Stevertigo's RFA or whatever trigram

body:
Anthere wrote:

> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFA/SV, I have restored
> Stevertigo sysop status.
>
> ...
>
>
> Ant
>
>
>
> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Dear fellow wikipedians,
>>
>> Yesterday, stewards received a request to unsysop
>> Stevertigo, after a failed reconfirmation of
>> sysophood, following an arbcom decision.
>>
>> Jtkiefer also asked me privately by irc to carry on
>> the request.
>>
>> I consequently unsyoped Stevertigo.
>>
>> Today, Steve post on my talk page, this comment :
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Request_for_permissions
>>
>> As a reminder, stewards are not here to judge, but to
>> carry on the decision of the community. I have no idea
>> why Steve was brought in front of the arbcom (well,
>> right, it is a 3RR issue, but I do not know the
>> details, and I do not want to get in this).
>>
>> Now, I think in this case, the "judges" are
>> * the arbcom
>> * the voting community
>>
>> And the steward is just to carry on the decision the
>> "judges" made.
>>
>> If there is something unclear in the final decision,
>> it should not be my job to go reading all the
>> discussions around this case, so as to figure out
>> myself the "correct" conclusion. I think Stevertigo is
>> a honest editor, and he would not try to cheat on the
>> decision, so if he feels the outcome has not been
>> fair/clear, it is probable that there is a little
>> something unclear somewhere.
>>
>> So, what I would like you to do, is to clarify the
>> current situation, so that the correct decision, to
>> desysop or not to desysop, is taken.
>>
>> I give it 48 hours without doing anything, and if
>> there is no clarification by then, I will revert to
>> the previous stable situation (ie, Steve sysop) till
>> an agreement is reached between yourselves.
>>
>> Ant
>
Not that I'm arguing with this or anything and I think that this is
probably is fine  (at least until arbcom makes a decision) I figured
that was going to stay desysopped until either RFA and then I guess now
arbcom decided in favor of him.  I also don't see the justification of
as per WP:RFA/SV since the vast consensus of all who didn't vote to put
back to arbcom were to keep him desysopped.

-Jtkiefer


subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking - bureaucrats?

body:
Peter Gervai wrote:

>
>Pardon me but what are the rights of a bureaucrat that would scare off admins,
>or would do anything to those who oppose the bureaucrat's opinion?
>
>As far as I know a b. can give sysop rights. This should be based on community
>will (preferably a vote). But apart from that I don't see any b. right to be
>a possible harm or oppression...
>
>So why bureaucrats? I thought they are not even admins... (no admin rights)
>
>grin
>
>
In theory that might be true that bureaucrats don't have to be admins
but in practice I have never heard of one that wasn't already an admin.

-Jtkiefer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation"
(see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which
revolves around this notion.

While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and
all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic
problem for those of us who hold a more principled
view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi
acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his
POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I
can talk about them if you like). In short, stating
that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though
Reddi claims otherwise.

The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because
"Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the
tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until
I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his
edits, and start unblocking myself.

What to do?
SV

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


from_name: Martin Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA is embarrassing

body:
I was going to post this on the RFA talk page, but quite frankly I don't
even want to go near it;

I am astonished at how bad this rfa process has become, it seems to be
constant arguing and point scoring contests. The present example being
Silsor's non-RFA, why can't people just let common sense guide them, and
then in the event this fails or they disagree just step back and bite their
tongue? We actually seem to have a mini revert war between admins (how
ironic) at the moment regarding the non-RFA! (removed or replaced 7 times).

Then of course there is the reasoning for opposing candidates, ecitcountitis
is bad, but we seem to be on the recovery from this ailment. Now some think
that below good use of edit summaries is actually reason to *oppose*! my
god! I thought it was "no big deal". Then there are the recent cases (that I
couldnt be bothered to follow properly) where people were left very
distressed after their ordeal (and I think "ordeal" is the correct term for
the rfa now). There is more but I can't be bothered to read long rants so
don't expect you to either.

regards

Martin (Bluemoose)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: check user policy/Tor

body:
On 11/3/05, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/05, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net <http://saewyc.net>
> <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:
>
> >> For these reasons, I would personally be in favour of blocking
> >> access, or at least editing, to all anonymizing services.
> >
> > I would say that more important than trying to identify each user's
> > IP and disallowing anonymity -- which strikes me as the wrong way
> > to go -- would be asking users (presumed anonymous) to verify their
> > goodwill and interest in the projects by working in a sandboxed
> > area, or submitting time-delayed changes, until they had
> > demonstrated a reasonable threshhold of good faith; at which point
> > they could vandalize and be quickly blocked, having spent much more
> > time getting to that point than the vandal-fighters did blocking
> > them.
> >
> > Anonymity serves useful purposes; we should try to preserve those
> > while promoting the productive development of the projects.
> >
> > To be mergist about these ideas... one could offer users both
> > options. 1) edit under a privacy policy which disallows anonymity,
> > or 2) edit anonymously, first passing through a sandbox stage to
> > demonstrate that you are not a bot and are acting in good faith.
> >
> > + SJ +
>
> The amount of intervention required to do as you suggest - check all time
> delayed entries for vandalism, create a system to over come edit conflicts
> which develop during the time delay (more "magic solutions"), create and
> implement a policy covering "reasonable threshold of good faith",
> managing anon user privileges who meet that threshold - would cost more
> than the current vandal fighting does. The point is to reduce the existing
> cost significantly.

 I agree with this completely. It's just as easy to revert an edit as it is
to approve one, so I don't see any sense in delaying entries. Yes, it means
the version of the page presented to the public won't be as likely to be
vandalized, but I think the difficulty in programming such a fork would
outweigh the benefits. Some sort of "reviewed version" of the entire
encyclopedia would be nice, but if you figure out how to do that might as
well review *all* edits, not just ones coming through anonymizing proxies.
 That said, there is nearly complete agreement that there should be a
certain class of user/IP address combinations that should be able to edit
even when the IP address is blocked. I think something like an anonymizing
proxy would be a perfect type of IP block for that situation. It makes no
sense for longstanding users (even admins!) to be blocked from editing
simply because they're accessing the system through a proxy.

The proposed model allows for anonymity except when an IP is investigated
> for wrong doing, and would probably reduce time cost to sites by
> preventing anonymized IPs from editing maliciously. By implementing a
> system which requires monitoring, decision-making, and user privilege
> management you would create an onerous time task for smaller projects and
> likely create opportunities for conflict which are unnecessary.
>
> Amgine
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
?? ??? wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I just wanted to say the site "www.tocatch.info" is still
> active and is STEALING the Wikipedia content as a live
> mirror (proxy).

Killed it.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20051103/bd559816/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
--- Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Change "Iraq is a sovereign nation[1]" (where [1] is
> a US Govt. source)
> to "The US Govt. describes Iraq as a sovereign
> nation[1]" ? Isn't that
> NPOV and a /better/ use of WP:CITE?

Well sure, but its just not appropriate to make that
claim in any way other than in an attributed cite.
Thats my point. The problem arises in using the term
"sovereign" in the general overview without such
qualification, deferring perhaps to latter
qualification, etc.

I should say that the article in dispute is [[
Iraq_War ]], and the reason I mentioned "suzerainty"
is because that term seems to be more appropriate to
the situation. Someone was kind enough to explain the
ABC's of this to Reddi on the talk, though he didnt
respond:

"The Iraqi government has no place in the chain of
command for the troops in their soil. If coalition
troops were the guests of sovereign Iraq, the Iraqi
government could request that they abide by any
particular rules or laws else revoke the invitation to
the troops. What we've seen and heard so far all
indicates that this is not the case in Iraq, that
coalition troops are above Iraqi law. And if that's
the case, Iraq is not sovereign." - User:Bugg42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War#Meaning_of_sovereignty.2C_revisited

Pretty clear IMHO, and Ive said so before. I hope
Reddi responds to this, though I will agree that
Reddi's edits have been a bit improved.

Sincerely doing my best to make the internet not suck,
Stevertigo

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


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

SJ wrote:
> On 11/2/05, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Rui: "Oh no. Not just anyone can get a barnstar. The community must vote on it!"
>>
>>:)
>>
>>http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?BarnStar
>
>
> Mmm, barnstar subterfuge.
>
> As for cultural differences across wikis, it would be fun to have a
> wiki-community survey, and ask certain questions of each wiki.  "How
> do you say inclusionist/deletionist[/mergist?] on this wiki?  What are
> typical 'keywords' that identify troublemakers?"   Also to pick
> certain useful comparative statistics -- creation/deletion/undeletion
> ratios; anon/other editing ratios; vandalism frequency; admin
> activity; density of internal, external, and interwiki links; types of
> NPOV/disputed tags, and proportion of articles using them; frequency
> of page protection; &c.
>

Hey look everybody! I can say "d, nn." in seven different languages! :)

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

iQEVAwUBQ2m1WrMAAH8MeUlWAQg+BQgAgbRlGg5ZMAe2tpcmCpdsTHJlpYFK4DzS
2V/a0ZYd2iFUx7ggYS2vjNflnOiihOszYLTQ7TmXi79sSBkW0IhXdaViIyal/8v8
SIRSgOFI1DV228wm0Oi38hJRo+zjGnttMnAH1g/I95A1LOkvRMBwfIMLPJCuRJRN
TsgvGjA+saDDjnBEjbV1Li0XdJyTZktxLU9Kcv8o+LPCTVmJsQYLBKC48n1xc3UF
SrljLHclRV2XnlWKmNpQyGHMDcKgkiqESDSuGZb9oShLxDU8kA8IMdqYPLWJRiiw
vPkbGMQngaH0emH8HxuZUOv3o7Kko4diWphhU7sTC2u1eq6CtDXO1A==
=7mNz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

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

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

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

iQEVAwUBQ2m2W7MAAH8MeUlWAQiiZQf+LgvG7tyBIvI8DjX1cwSyCo66NOqhqbqX
hvdSkug9uCPn8w8EhZPze96efLu0LBnOLzK7Q6pWzpbYFBTFYqwDVeK/pN6/jYTU
Rt83sZN7AzZqyS/w0+6VHt/995tDprm6+RDDBDwbTLO1lzkV8Ptmuv9/QpW2rn+B
TwKNOSNxkh11IgLpMjD34/iXh/6I+/BEF563a8mTmV/whl5QVly3dTgxDoOFgKA2
QQwN6BKN7iHHiufDRXYE+l63zTjx7ue5QXgm6OVmdfIcrsM2tE+5T/kdgNMll0ya
kJ+USj4l784r69jtprsmI/9bDsiFLdoaghvTGJJ5jmpwv4BtlQ/1xA==
=+uNr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Geoff Burling wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, rex wrote:
>
>
>>I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point,
>>should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been
>>previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
>>Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos,
>>freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial
>>news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser
>>extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity
>>out there to stage photos, for example:
>>
>
> The more I ponder your proposal, the more I am convinced that it
> causes more problems than it solves -- assuming that it solves *any*
> problems.
>
> Pick the most partisan editor on Wikipedia that you know, & assume
> that she/he uploads a badly-needed image under the GFDL license that
> she/he has created: for example, a photo of a rare animal, automobile,
> or celebrity. Should we be so concerned with the possibility of POV
> that we would speedily delete any of these because they have not
> been "previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party"?
>

To do so is censorship, as is removing references just because the
source is "direputable". All we need to is give an NPOV description of
the source and let the reader decide for themselves.

> And assume that a partisan image is uploaded to Wikipedia -- say of a
> well-known politician seated between two prostitutes of the wrong sex
> indulging in illegal drugs. It will quickly be determined whether the
> image is (a) a hoax; (b) a fiction of topical notability; or (c) the
> real deal. And once the image falls into one of those categories, it
> will be appropriately handled: either respectively (a) deleted; (b)
> considered whether Fair Use covers it; or (c) kept as relevant.
>

I remember a piece in the Signpost a few months back about how an
article was written as part of a widespread hoax, duly deleted, and then
recreated as an article about the hoax itself. Someone then tried to get
the article on the author of the hoax deleted...

> I say this because a month ago I uploaded to Commons about 20 different
> photos I took while visiting Crater Lake National Park. My only intent
> was to share information under the terms of the GFDL: one can be
> of any political persuation, hold any POV, & I still am willing to
> share these images with that person. If by looking at a picture of a
> log that has been floating in Crater Lake for over 100 years somehow
> instantly converts you to my political POV, I'll take that as a
> windfall -- but that was entirely irrelevant to my intent of contributing
> the art.
>

Intent be damned. If it's under a free license and is illustrative we
should use it. On Commons we don't even need a use for it, so long as
it's under a free license.

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

iQEVAwUBQ2m5y7MAAH8MeUlWAQin9wf/U+wJGOIEMp8HaSkrTx0nfceHjTLYqLR5
YrJT6xgcX/HuGw5q9Jrx00f6aMlAiu4QBMoNXREpibD04hLkAVISW+8k1id1Xa/H
8tmbJZum5LuNZdCtRTaMZjYe4hUBkbWLclSKYffnMNm8jbUFfd6689Lj9GQzx/50
7rXF0iGLlkMDOw+6v4fKHqAUljfQ0vw47A956cLXWouuNIn3sItyQv8gk+5vrcXF
fYsU4v6zF/jbJVD7UZYKvz7/izFBFdq8ylxrE+3v4bahltyW0b684WgIWwQ/y1Pz
MT1/No2r82NCvZvrdqheE6+XMD4ZZAtPRrEspTYyWiC6dMTBtad4qQ==
=HDv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> That's all well and good, but I don't think we, as
> Wikipedians, are here
> to decide whether Iraq is "sovereign" or not.

I largely agree, but in the context of certain
disagreements, a overall decision needs to be made
which influences succeeding decisions regarding
specifics. Just pointing to WP:CITE winds up being
non-definitive (a copout) in the case of 800 pound
gorrillas (the US government) , because theres a
tendency to give such gorrillas a wide path.

As for 'its not our place,' I can point to specific
cases where the only solution was to virtually invent
a new term. For example, I came up with the term
"Iraq_disarmament_crisis" to resolve a long running
naming dispute, though I dont think anyone uses that
term at all, and the term is effectively a neologism.
So in the context of finding a resolution to a
dispute, the creative solution can not only solve the
problem, but can stand the test of time --2.5 years
now.

That article can probably now be renamed to
[[Pre-Iraq_War_fraud]] though.

SV

> We should report what
> prominent sources say on the matter.  The U.S.
> government apparently
> thinks Iraq is sovereign, so that view should be
> attributed to them.  Do
> major sources (other than Wikipedians on
> Talk:Iraq_War) argue that Iraq
> is a suzerainty?  If so, they should be attributed
> as saying so.  What
> does the U.N. have to say about it?  The Arab
> League?  etc.  Those are
> the sorts of things I want to know when I read
> Wikipedia, not a novel,
> independent analysis.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


body:
On 11/3/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link ,
> > >actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't
> > >add more to the standard sig.
> > Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is
> > going to be while it's saving?)
>
> It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in
> the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with
> all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in
> them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared
> after every comment.

Thats a technical detail that we shouldn't let block achieving a
desired outcome.
I agree that difflinks are long an ugly. Perhaps it's come time for a
special difflink syntax which is nice and compact?


from_name: David Reynolds

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: LiquidThreads

body:
Ivan Krstic wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
>
>>Secondarily I want to be able to fix spellings, in the faint hope that
>>it will help some people learn better spelling. Again, the only people
>>who would object to this would be people who can't spell and are
>>therefore unsuitable for writing an encyclopedia anyway.
>
>
> Totally broken reasoning.
>
>
>>I've heard many reasons for maliciously changing an article. Yet
>>articles on Wikipedia tend to get better. Interesting, innit?
>
>
> That's an irrelevant non-answer to Ryan's question.
>
>
>>No, the purpose of this was to test your reaction. You fell right for it
>>exactly the way I expected: you picked up only on the emotional side of
>>the paragraph (taking it as an insult)
>
>
> Do you understand how conceited this makes you sound?
>
>
>>And this highlights what I mean: you (and many other people) only object
>>to being able to edit comments because it somehow "feels" wrong. You
>>can't really say why it *is* wrong.
>
>
> You need to relax, and start spending less time writing
> borderline-offensive e-mail to people who are trying to reason
> constructively, and more time thinking about what they're saying. I can
> tell you exactly why it *is* wrong: comments are not Wikipedia articles,
> even if you seem to be constantly confounding the two.
>
> A Wikipedia article isn't signed by a single person's name. It doesn't
> represent the views of an individual, but tries to become an objective
> reflection of its topic. As Brion puts it, a wiki is a place where you
> let wackos edit your site, and with luck, the good wackos outnumber the
> bad. The iterative editing process is a good way to ensure eventual NPOV
> conformance.
>
> Comments are absolutely different. They are written and signed by a
> single person, represent only that person's views, have no requirement
> of adherence to a NPOV, and that means that essentially none of the
> reasons that Wikipedia articles are editable by everyone apply to them.
> If allowing comment cross-editing was in any way beneficial, the popular
> web-based discussion forums with tens of millions of posts would have,
> without a doubt, adopted such a model quite a while ago. There's a
> reason they haven't done it.
>
> I am not interested in continuing this discussion further, so please
> refrain from writing a snide reply that questions my intelligence so as
> to "test my reaction".
>

Agreed. This discussion has degenerated, on Timwi's side at least, to ad
hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Why do you persist in saying
that opinions on talk pages have the same ownership/POV claims as
articles in mainspace?

David, new but dismayed


from_name: Koltwills at aol.com

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

body:
In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:30:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jack.i.lynch at gmail.com writes:

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

Vaudeville?

Why do you insist on being such an idiot?

K


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: LiquidThreads

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Wednesday 02 November 2005 20:46, Timwi wrote:
> > The losses are major: The community could prevent speech that they
> > deem offensive, which is an violation of free speech in general,
> > (especially since people often consider differing viewpoints
> > "offensive" and would edit them out) and people would not have their
> > comments represented as written, which makes the discussion difficult
> > to follow at best and pointless at worst.
>
> Jan-Paul K?ster already pointed out to you that you have not shown that
> this would actually happen enough to be a significant problem.

If this (misrepresenting what I wrote) happens only once to *my* comments,
it is a significant problem for me. Up to the point where I would stop
posting comments *at all* until the website makes sure that my comments
are not edited and still show my signature.

There is a reason I digitally sign all emails :-)

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Thu Nov  3 18:37:25 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "I intend to live forever, or die trying." -- Groucho Marx

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ2pMkXcLPEOTuEwVAQFV+Qf+PeDBYZf14zuZFU5VEcHZ2Djfwnw2PZEi
0F7B+cCfqne4QOSniftuvwlhyHKeNkDxFDiKJj0MgtKs7mDt2WpVSfDFpAKvuZYB
/BulKpsBDd3KdhIwKRLessamwxRH0YjMTexEcaigXRoyuCdFlmUVytD3hDLoSblz
dH+5vYwMSeE52q+HbbYAlsCBHVyX+bgurovxDiP+x3DRQbIiNtq09UhwSLwJLj6l
mANlm50apBt2bPXca5cQJwnx34hE6SyxqdE/7YEypcNRf+s16HVefYzFgePWJEor
vx/AwQRisC8OCSPNpq2eeKYLpXH+8HqRW2QX7SLtLeJyMdG6SHBb/g==
=aiKJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: LiquidThreads

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Wednesday 02 November 2005 22:54, Timwi wrote:
> > Shouldn't it be the decision of the users, or community leaders,
> > whether they would want comments edited or not?
>
> Yes. And at least some of those users are reading this mailing list :)

But I still get the idea that we will not even have the option to lock
comments because some don't want this at all. :-(

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Thu Nov  3 18:40:02 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Eat, eat, eat, eat the delicious sandwich!" -- Elan the Bard (Order of
 the Stick)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ2pMrHcLPEOTuEwVAQEBbAf9Gd6k7hyJyc/B9oshT1PfCU3FljilU0c8
JQqny93CQUaryaOAtocTEevvzE2RTLNGNuLOoMoLkUYbNDj+vmbyXV3OWOmhAk7W
x6GDKGSGvfQF7wTaqRSgCFsHu/3y3oovE8XRu1TrPWoNY7H1NQjUre7tCgL206i2
fW91li/BOB4A0BCh2TuGtuAXaE+vIuxNNj3hHkHs9FSniqlFAvgEuvya9MrXi+SP
wkAvZDPlHXu9SztDYvmwJDbddrJJs86pNqtWIUZFIzr1ZM5GIqDEyM0sw4jmt1Fp
7vm4PXTHr5uEkj+cmBvrE/5YPs1J5Wj1A76wxTdrJDeqIFr6GePvCw==
=WO4/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

body:
In a message dated 11/3/2005 6:57:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alphasigmax at gmail.com writes:

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

I certainly hope that's not addressed to me.

What an insult! :p

deeceevoice


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA is embarrassing

body:
On 11/3/05, Martin Richards <Martin at velocitymanager.com> wrote:
> I was going to post this on the RFA talk page, but quite frankly I don't
> even want to go near it;
>
> I am astonished at how bad this rfa process has become, it seems to be
> constant arguing and point scoring contests. The present example being
> Silsor's non-RFA, why can't people just let common sense guide them, and
> then in the event this fails or they disagree just step back and bite their
> tongue? We actually seem to have a mini revert war between admins (how
> ironic) at the moment regarding the non-RFA! (removed or replaced 7 times).
>
> Then of course there is the reasoning for opposing candidates, ecitcountitis
> is bad, but we seem to be on the recovery from this ailment. Now some think
> that below good use of edit summaries is actually reason to *oppose*! my
> god! I thought it was "no big deal". Then there are the recent cases (that I
> couldnt be bothered to follow properly) where people were left very
> distressed after their ordeal (and I think "ordeal" is the correct term for
> the rfa now). There is more but I can't be bothered to read long rants so
> don't expect you to either.

As far as edit summaries go, they're often the only indicator of how
thorough and considerate of others a user is.  Many users are still on
dialup.  Many users have watchlists with hundreds or even thousands of
entries.  Edit summaries are a basic courtesy.

I will freely state that if I see an admin candidate who can't be
bothered to use an edit summary most of the time, I will oppose them,
and explain why, so that when they're nominated again a month later, I
can support them.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
--- "Ben E." <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bureaucrats don't count the neutral votes as actual
> "votes."
> Also, your RfA was to be treated as a normal one.

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

James F., who supported the RFA idea, argued against
Theresa's desysop vote, saying "but we massively
prejudice a community vote by suspending his
priviledges."  This is highly interesting (not
sarcastic) because any simplistically rendered
"findings of fact" likewise "massively prejudice a
community vote." While veteran member Theresa and I
quibbled about the "morality" of unblocking oneself
(she was reasonably responsive to comments though),
she nevertheless stood firm for a decisive decision.
Gotta give the lady credit.

> ...based on the quote from
> [[User:Raul654]] (an arbitrator) on the bottom of
> the page in the "Comments"
> section found in centered italics:
...
> Under those qualifications, your RfA was closed
> early by Theresa knott as
> failed, and the case was sent back to the
> Arbitration Committee.

Wait a minute. It wasnt an 'RFA to sysop,' because I
already was one. It was an RFA to 'desysop,' which, if
you only count oppose/non-oppose votes (29 out of
102), was indeed rather successful, IIDSSM.

Respectfully, what youre really complaing about is not
the outcome, but the indecision inherent to that kind
of remedy --"mob justice" FLOABT. All of this
confusion is the direct result of Arbcom's unique
remedy, which is the direct result of an inability to
even define the nature of the case: There was (and
probably still is) disagreement within the Arbcom
about not just the remedy, but the nature of the
offense:
* Jayjg: "I think the wording needs to be modified to
something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a
dispute etc...."
* James: "I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use
of the rollback button must always be used only for
reverting pure vandalism..."
* Fred: "I don't think this is about using rollback
for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a
3RR block then editing a protected page...."

The rub, for those who missed it: There should be some
agreement on what the actual offense is before
deciding on a penalty. The errors made in my case
would get the whole thing thrown out in a normal
judicial process, where theres a more keen
understanding of how misjudgements can do more harm
than the original offense.

But with that said, I do feel for the Arbcom and their
"thankless job." Fred was correct when he said that
the Arbcom needs Defenders to assist defendants in
making their cases, and Prosecutors to make a case
thats coherent enough to begin with, with a targeted
remedy. Life isnt black and white, people.

SV
The weakest link is a pillar of strength.

__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
Bring an arbitration BEFORE you start the edit warring.

Fred

On Nov 3, 2005, at 5:28 PM, steve v wrote:

> Reddi has the notion that Iraq is a "sovereign nation"
> (see "suzerainty" ) and writes in a manner which
> revolves around this notion.
>
> While WP:CITE is nice and all, the US government and
> all the bullshit that comes out of it is a big caustic
> problem for those of us who hold a more principled
> view of WP:CITE. In short, I need to see Reddi
> acknowledge is not sufficiently objective and lets his
> POV work its way into the article in various ways. (I
> can talk about them if you like). In short, stating
> that Iraq is sovereign is a violation of NPOV, though
> Reddi claims otherwise.
>
> The weak-by-design Medcom wont intervene because
> "Reddi hasn't accepted Mediation," and the
> tough-by-design Arbcom doesnt think its an issue until
> I start arguing on the talk page, mass revert his
> edits, and start unblocking myself.
>
> What to do?
> SV
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Geoff Burling

body:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Fastfission wrote:

> Well, the thing is that your photos weren't "intended to make a
> specific point". If you took pictures of a piece of trash in Crater
> Lake, and posted it on the article page with a caption along the lines
> of "In recent years, Crater Lake has become full of trash", that would
> be an illustration of what he was talking about.

But his solution to remove those photos was to ban all images created
by individuals. Had I been less passionate at the time I wrote, I would
have said his proposal would throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> In the end, though, I don't see any necessary reaction to this except
> our normal enforcement of NPOV and maybe a little good judgment. It
> doesn't take an art historian to know that images can be inherently
> manipulative.
>
Agreed.

Geoff


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

body:
In a message dated 11/3/2005 7:45:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jack.i.lynch at gmail.com writes:

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

Jack (Sam Spade)

You liken my language to that of a "vaudeville charicature" [sic], and
you've got the nerve to counsel ME to "be more considerate"?

Ha!  Go to hell.

U b trippin'.

deeceevoice


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

body:
In a message dated 11/3/2005 7:51:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
alphasigmax at gmail.com writes:

See, I  have proved it! :)

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

Silly drivel.

Instigator! :p

deeceevoice


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
On 11/3/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ben wrote:
> > Therefore, there were a total of 46 countable votes.
> [ie. out of 102 listed responses]
>
> Suffice it to say I think your interpretation of 'what
> counts and what doesn't' is rather... um...
> interesting, considering that youre talking about
> basically throwing out the majority of the total
> votes.
>
> User:Stevertigo|SV

Bureaucrats don't count the neutral votes as actual "votes" (i.e. adding to
the percentage), see [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive
26#Ending times]]. The section that contained the "remit to Arbcom" clearly
said in bold letters "No vote - remit to Arbcom". Many of those who listed
their name their, including myself, made that more clear by putting '''No
Vote''' ~~~~. That is how I got the "countable" votes, for the sake of a
better word.

Also, your RfA was to be treated as a normal one, based on the quote from
[[User:Raul654]] (an arbitrator) on the bottom of the page in the "Comments"
section found in centered italics:

> His RFA it to be treated like any other - less than 70% and he loses his
> sysophood, between 70 and 80% is the bureacrat's call, and greater than 80%
> is approval. ?Raul654 01:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
>
>  Under those qualifications, your RfA was closed early by Theresa knott as
failed, and the case was sent back to the Arbitration Committee.

--[[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]

--
Bratsche-It means "viola!"


from_name: Amgine

body:
On 11/2/05, Amgine <amgine at saewyc.net
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l>> wrote:

>> For these reasons, I would personally be in favour of blocking
>> access, or at least editing, to all anonymizing services.
>
> I would say that more important than trying to identify each user's
> IP and disallowing anonymity -- which strikes me as the wrong way
> to go -- would be asking users (presumed anonymous) to verify their
> goodwill and interest in the projects by working in a sandboxed
> area, or submitting time-delayed changes, until they had
> demonstrated a reasonable threshhold of good faith; at which point
> they could vandalize and be quickly blocked, having spent much more
> time getting to that point than the vandal-fighters did blocking
> them.
>
> Anonymity serves useful purposes; we should try to preserve those
> while promoting the productive development of the projects.
>
> To be mergist about these ideas... one could offer users both
> options. 1) edit under a privacy policy which disallows anonymity,
> or 2) edit anonymously, first passing through a sandbox stage to
> demonstrate that you are not a bot and are acting in good faith.
>
> + SJ +

The amount of intervention required to do as you suggest - check all time
delayed entries for vandalism, create a system to over come edit conflicts
which develop during the time delay (more "magic solutions"), create and
implement a policy covering "reasonable threshold of good faith",
managing anon user privileges who meet that threshold - would cost more
than the current vandal fighting does. The point is to reduce the existing
cost significantly.

The proposed model allows for anonymity except when an IP is investigated
for wrong doing, and would probably reduce time cost to sites by
preventing anonymized IPs from editing maliciously. By implementing a
system which requires monitoring, decision-making, and user privilege
management you would create an onerous time task for smaller projects and
likely create opportunities for conflict which are unnecessary.

Amgine


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Shock site bot

body:
On 11/3/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> I also remember a threat of "mass disruption" that was communicated
> about in code (I think it was some sort of substitution cipher), but the
> planned attack never came.
>
The threats were in plane. The nonsence text may or may not have been
something in code

--
geni


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
steve v wrote:

>Well sure, but its just not appropriate to make that
>claim in any way other than in an attributed cite.
>Thats my point. The problem arises in using the term
>"sovereign" in the general overview without such
>qualification, deferring perhaps to latter
>qualification, etc.
>
>I should say that the article in dispute is [[
>Iraq_War ]], and the reason I mentioned "suzerainty"
>is because that term seems to be more appropriate to
>the situation. Someone was kind enough to explain the
>ABC's of this to Reddi on the talk, though he didnt
>respond:
>
>"The Iraqi government has no place in the chain of
>command for the troops in their soil. If coalition
>troops were the guests of sovereign Iraq, the Iraqi
>government could request that they abide by any
>particular rules or laws else revoke the invitation to
>the troops. What we've seen and heard so far all
>indicates that this is not the case in Iraq, that
>coalition troops are above Iraqi law. And if that's
>the case, Iraq is not sovereign." - User:Bugg42
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_War#Meaning_of_sovereignty.2C_revisited
>
>Pretty clear IMHO, and Ive said so before. I hope
>Reddi responds to this, though I will agree that
>Reddi's edits have been a bit improved.
>
>
That's all well and good, but I don't think we, as Wikipedians, are here
to decide whether Iraq is "sovereign" or not.  We should report what
prominent sources say on the matter.  The U.S. government apparently
thinks Iraq is sovereign, so that view should be attributed to them.  Do
major sources (other than Wikipedians on Talk:Iraq_War) argue that Iraq
is a suzerainty?  If so, they should be attributed as saying so.  What
does the U.N. have to say about it?  The Arab League?  etc.  Those are
the sorts of things I want to know when I read Wikipedia, not a novel,
independent analysis.

-Mark


from_name: Michelle

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

body:
>
><snip>As an admin you are going to have people
>hate you. You are going to have situations where you are under
>pressure. <snip>
>--
>geni
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
Of course you are, but does that mean intentionally putting oneself in
the line of fire?  I think that the amount of work I do cleaning
backlogs could also be helpful in the admin realm; its not about getting
a rollback button -- I can do that anyways.  I'm concerned though,
should I go for adminship, the nit-picking (as I see it) that currently
goes on would do a lot to sour me against the entire project; it can
really take the wind out of your sails.

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

--Jareth


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
Ah, I do believe I see your point. I believe encephelon said it best on your
RfA: The remedy did not follow from the findings of fact (Admins are held to
higher standings, your actions, etc) and the principles (admins can be
de-sysopped if they abuse their position) didn't give an appropriate remedy.
I agree as well to your point how the community should not and cannot be
expected to make their own findings of fact and remedy in the RfA.

What we had was a transfer of the duties of ArbCom to the community,
seemingly against their own principles and ours at
[[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which shows that adminship can only be removed
by Jimbo Himself or by that very ArbCom.

However, I still disagree with your idea that the RfA was one to de-sysop;
rather, it was more of a confirmation. But that's just quibbling over terms
;). Hopefully, the committee can expand and define the case to completely
reflect it and the community's wishes.

Regards,
[[:en:User:Bratsche|ben]]

On 11/3/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- "Ben E." <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bureaucrats don't count the neutral votes as actual
> > "votes."
> > Also, your RfA was to be treated as a normal one.
>
> This is at the heart of the matter, and why the
> majority voted to punt it back: Under no circumstances
> would a post-RFAR RFA possibly be considered to be a
> "normal one." Ask yourself, Benjamin: how is the
> community to make heads or tails of an RFA as a remedy
> for a case which the Arbcom itself could only find
> generic 'findings of fact'?
>
> James F., who supported the RFA idea, argued against
> Theresa's desysop vote, saying "but we massively
> prejudice a community vote by suspending his
> priviledges." This is highly interesting (not
> sarcastic) because any simplistically rendered
> "findings of fact" likewise "massively prejudice a
> community vote." While veteran member Theresa and I
> quibbled about the "morality" of unblocking oneself
> (she was reasonably responsive to comments though),
> she nevertheless stood firm for a decisive decision.
> Gotta give the lady credit.
>
> > ...based on the quote from
> > [[User:Raul654]] (an arbitrator) on the bottom of
> > the page in the "Comments"
> > section found in centered italics:
> ...
> > Under those qualifications, your RfA was closed
> > early by Theresa knott as
> > failed, and the case was sent back to the
> > Arbitration Committee.
>
> Wait a minute. It wasnt an 'RFA to sysop,' because I
> already was one. It was an RFA to 'desysop,' which, if
> you only count oppose/non-oppose votes (29 out of
> 102), was indeed rather successful, IIDSSM.
>
> Respectfully, what youre really complaing about is not
> the outcome, but the indecision inherent to that kind
> of remedy --"mob justice" FLOABT. All of this
> confusion is the direct result of Arbcom's unique
> remedy, which is the direct result of an inability to
> even define the nature of the case: There was (and
> probably still is) disagreement within the Arbcom
> about not just the remedy, but the nature of the
> offense:
> * Jayjg: "I think the wording needs to be modified to
> something like "gain undue advantage with respect to a
> dispute etc...."
> * James: "I absolutely, vehemently disagree. The use
> of the rollback button must always be used only for
> reverting pure vandalism..."
> * Fred: "I don't think this is about using rollback
> for a revert. It is about unblocking yourself after a
> 3RR block then editing a protected page...."
>
> The rub, for those who missed it: There should be some
> agreement on what the actual offense is before
> deciding on a penalty. The errors made in my case
> would get the whole thing thrown out in a normal
> judicial process, where theres a more keen
> understanding of how misjudgements can do more harm
> than the original offense.
>
> But with that said, I do feel for the Arbcom and their
> "thankless job." Fred was correct when he said that
> the Arbcom needs Defenders to assist defendants in
> making their cases, and Prosecutors to make a case
> thats coherent enough to begin with, with a targeted
> remedy. Life isnt black and white, people.
>
> SV
> The weakest link is a pillar of strength.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Bratsche-It means "viola!"


from_name: Angela

body:
On 11/3/05, shizhao <shizhao at gmail.com> wrote:
> Template:Itn on zh.wp, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Itn
>
> it already protected, but anonymous user however can edit. other protected
> pages without this problem.

Perhaps it was previously only protected against page moves. It
doesn't seem to be editable now. The log
<http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/protect> will only show
protections - it doesn't state whether the protection was against
editing or against moving.

Angela.


from_name: Violet/Riga

subject: [WikiEN-l] Internal article rating

body:
Please spend a moment to look over the proposal for an internal article
rating system. I must stress that this would be an informal thing, more akin
to a friendly competition than anything else.
 I think it could serve an excellent purpose of highlighting good articles
and thanking those involved in its creation, mixing in a little peer review
as well.
 ~~~~ Violet/Riga


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Internal article rating

body:
I really ought to have pointed out that it's at [[Wikipedia:Article
rating]]. Gah!

On 11/3/05, Violet/Riga <violetriga at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Please spend a moment to look over the proposal for an internal article
> rating system. I must stress that this would be an informal thing, more akin
> to a friendly competition than anything else.
>  I think it could serve an excellent purpose of highlighting good articles
> and thanking those involved in its creation, mixing in a little peer review
> as well.
>  ~~~~ Violet/Riga
>


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA is embarrassing

body:
Martin Richards wrote:
> I was going to post this on the RFA talk page, but quite frankly I don't
> even want to go near it;

Insightful comments, but why did you reply to the "shock site bot" thread?

Chris


from_name: Ben E.

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

body:
On 11/3/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:

> I want to read and write an encyclopedia in a professional atmosphere.
> The procedure for selecting representitives of the project should not
> allow children and their antics to become the basis of its decisions.
> Open votes are unproductive in this case.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
>
Opposed to closed votes? Or another process? I think that RfA has kept a
pretty high standard for admins, and this standard keeps us from having
admin power wars. You don't see a clamor for multiple de-sysoppings, do you?
I take that as a sign that RfA works. Also, if a child is able to show the
community sufficient maturity and worth, why shouldn't s/he be an admin, or
participate in the choosing process?

-- [[:en:User:Bratsche|Ben]]
--
Bratsche-It means "viola!"


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

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

> I think the somunity made it's feelings pretty clear
> at the RFC but no matter.
>
> You are the second admin to end up on arbcom after
> pulling a 3RR block I placed on them, In neither
case > has arbcom had the guts to make a straight
descission.

Wait a minute. Everybody agrees that the ruling lacked
decisiveness, but to say the Arbcom lacks "the guts"
is over the line and nothing short of a personal
attack.

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

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

Stevertigo

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reddi and me

body:
Dammit Fred, I did do just that.

Cant find it on either the rejected or closed cases
though. Have to dig up a diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=26673664&oldid=26673642

[Sigh]
Stevertigo, Esq.

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

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

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


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikipedia-l] unblocking - bureaucrats?

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

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

I have been in that position for a while, having as a steward
de-admined myself on nl: after some fight or another (how many fights
have I been in on this project? too many to count..), but not taking
away my bureaucratship. I have not used it in the meantime, though,
and could have used my stewardship instead if I had wanted to anyway.
Recently (yesterday in fact) I put down my adminship again, but this
time I also destroyed my bureaucratship.

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


from_name: Rowan Collins

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

body:
te:On 03/11/05, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mindspillage wrote:
> >On 11/2/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Might I suggest an additional feature for mediawiki? How about
> >> [{here}] which becomes a difflink to the edit where that tag was
> >> inserted? People could add that to their signatures and thus every
> >> post of their would be equipped to a handy difflink to an original
> >> version.
>
> >I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link ,
> >actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't
> >add more to the standard sig.
>
> Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is
> going to be while it's saving?)

I'd been pondering this myself recently, but it looks like it doesn't
- and probably can't - know its ID soon enough. Not only does the
Revision object not get an ID until the insert function (obviously too
late for text manipulation) but it has to actually be saved in MySQL
for the autoincrement field to autoincrement.

But having spent ages looking at that, I remember that we have
functions for doing diffs based on "next revision after this". So,
it's not pretty, but presumably a pre save transform (e.g. a
signature) could embed a link to a diff between the revision *before*
itself and "whatever revision comes next"  - which in all but the
oddest cases will be the revision you're in the middle of saving...
So, sort of like "/index.php?oldid=$lastrevision&direction=next" where
$lastrevision is the latest revision actually *saved* of that page.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
On 11/3/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bottom line: no consensus.

I thought the whole idea of the ArbCom decision was to see if there
still *was* consensus.  If there is no consensus, by normal RfA rules,
the user is not an admin.  Why should this be different?

Sam


body:
On 03/11/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/3/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in
> > the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with
> > all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in
> > them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared
> > after every comment.

Hm, I admit I hadn't thought of that...

> I agree that difflinks are long an ugly. Perhaps it's come time for a
> special difflink syntax which is nice and compact?

Well, they could be made pretty compact just using templates (or, more
sanely, a built-in "variable"). It seems you need the article name
when using relative diffs (see my previous message), so a template
"nextdiff" of the form:

[{{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}|diff=next|oldid={{{1}}}}} {{{2}}}]

(first parameter is the pre-change revision, the second the text to
display as the link) could appear in the wikisource as:

{{nextdiff|21221469|Diff}}

Make this an inbuilt variable for portability and performance, and
combine it with the idea someone mentionned of linking the date in the
signature (or part of it?) and it ought not to be too intrusive, I
think.

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


body:
> >I wouldn't mind seeing the timestamp on signatures be a diff link ,
> >actually: makes it easy to see what was originally posted and doesn't
> >add more to the standard sig.
>
>
> Thoroughly excellent idea! (Does an edit know what its revision ID is
> going to be while it's saving?)

It only sounds a good idea if these links are not going to show up in
the edit text or in diffs. Signatures are getting bad enough now with
all the <font>s and <big style="flashing nonsense"> </html> junk in
them. I wouldn't want to read an edit page where full URLs appeared
after every comment.

Angela.


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wiktionary-l] change of templates

body:
Jim Breen wrote:
> [Muke Tever (Re: [Wiktionary-l] change of templates) writes:]
>
>>> Jim Breen <Jim.Breen at infotech.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly why should templates, codes, etc. be chosen to avoid
>>>> overlapping with ISO 639 codes?
>>>>
>>> Many of the Wiktionaries that are not en.wiktionary.org use ISO 639 codes to
>>> name the templates that call language names and categories.
>>>
>
> I made the mistake of overlooking this referred to template names; not
> to field values.
>
> Would it not be possible to qualify a template name by its usage, e.g.
> "pos_adj" or "lang_adj"?
>
> Jim
Hoi,
That could be done but it is not consistent with the way this template
was used until now. The proposed change is remedial in nature.
Thanks,
GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] status correction

body:
--- "Ben E." <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> What we had was a transfer of the duties of ArbCom
> to the community,
> seemingly against their own principles and ours at
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which shows that
> adminship can only be removed
> by Jimbo Himself or by that very ArbCom.

> Hopefully, the committee can expand and define
> the case to completely reflect it and the
community's > wishes.

To resurrect a case requires dabbling in the sinister
arts -- not often associated with justice or fairness.
I would argue that 're-deciding' a case cannot be
fairly done without actually 're-hearing' the case.

Understandably, the Arbcom would prefer to make things
easy on themselves (theyve been through a lot after
all), but --just to cheer things up --I contend that a
re-deciding an old case without re-hearing it is
improper -- putting aside the /double-jeopardy/
hung-jury/ mistrial/ precedents involved.

-Stevertigo
"If it doesn't fit, you must aquit."

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


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

body:
Hi all,

This is just to let people know that Aranda56 has submitted their name
to be granted the rollback privilege on the requests for rollback
privileges[1] page (currently a proposed policy).

What would happen in the event that the nomination is successful? There
is also the possibility that the nomination will be unsuccessful, for
three reasons:

  - People do not believe putting people through a proposed policy is a
good idea;

  - That they think the candidate is unsuitable for rollback;

  - They do not believe the proposed policy is a good idea and they are
proxy voting on the issue of Aranda56's candidacy as a way to show their
opposition to the policy.

In the third case, I believe it would be best to leave the proposed
policy page open in case community consensus later forms to make this
proposed policy into practice. However, the first and second
possibilities leave us with a quandry as it would be difficult to know
whether people believe the policy should be in place or not.

What do people suggest in the way of resolving the potential scenarios
from this?

Chris

	1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFR#Aranda56