subject: [WikiEN-l] I was blocked for an unexisting policy

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob

> When a user wastes the time and interferes with the
> productivity of other users with his or her nonsense, that
> can outweigh their positive contributions and their absence
> from the project may turn out to be a net gain.  Think about
> that before you poke the bear with a stick again.

Logically, this cuts both ways.

But of course we know that Wikimanagers are exempt from nonsense and wasting
the time of other managers....

Pete, prodding


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with crap deletion nominations

body:
On 1/22/06 11:18 AM, "Snowspinner" <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> Which would probably be an excellent indicator of success.

*'''Support''' - David has all the qualities necessary to lead an effective
dictatorship. ~~~~

On a more serious note, this proposal sounds like it's at least worth a
shot, and this ardent deletionist thinks that David would be fair, effective
and iron-fisted when necessary.

-FCYTravis


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

body:
On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as
> > 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public
> > domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
>
> If I remember correctly, another category is US government works.  The
> US government has before asserted that just because US law requires
> works of the US government be freely available within the US does not
> mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere.  They have
> certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such
> data.
>
> -Matt

Umm...  I'm fairly certain that that's incorrect.  Do you have a
citation for any of that?  I seem to recall the exact opposite, though
I can't find a citation myself.

The only thing I could see possible is that the United States sued the
non-US corporation in some non-US court.  Even so, I'd be somewhat
shocked, and I'd love to see some documentation that that's occurred.

Anthony


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] 3RR, a proposed update

body:
Guettarda wrote:
>>If a user is under blocked under 3RR, allow a button to appear under the
>>  users page that directs the user to the policy. The button questions
>>the user to agree to stay in accordance with policy and not edit the
>>specific page for 24 hours. If the user agrees and presses the button,
>>the block is undone. This allows the user to continue to edit other
>>pages. If the user presses the button and resumes to edit the specific
>>page, the block is reinstated for a duration longer than 24 hours.
>
>
>
> Most admins will not block unless the person has been warned of the 3rr.  I
> have often seen people continue to revert after being warned.  Allowing
> someone in that situation to simply press a button and go on makes the prior
> warning toothless - they have just been given that opportunity and have
> chosen to disregard it.
>
> On the other hand, many admins who block are willing to unblock if the
> person who was blocked emails them, apologises, and promises to stay away
> from the article.  With 600+ admins, it's actually TOO easy to shop around
> for someone to unblock you.
>

The number is closer to 800.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060122/dacab6f5/attachment.pgp


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Grandfathering: an initiative to deprecate the spread
	of userboxes that are divisive

body:
On 1/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Historically, most of this stuff has gone on [[meta:]] for the very good
> reason that Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopedia, and the crazier aspects
> of user categorisation have gone over there. Perhaps we should encourage
> this approach above all others; you can do whatever the hell you want,
> /so long as it's on meta/.

My first thought was "what a sensible idea", and I was about to
suggest that I export the userboxes to meta--there are around 4500 of
them and throttled to a rate of 2 per minute to avoid overload the job
should only take about 24 hours.

But I suspect that it's already too late for that.


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Insitutionalised cliques are a pain to get rid of when they become a problem.

Uninstitutionalized cliques are even harder to get rid of.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
> > of confidence.
>
> Then they stay at foundation level.

There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them.
They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't
get done.

Apparently, we need some level between "admin" and "steward"/"board
member", since our admins are little more than a ragtag bunch of
rabble anyway.

Kelly


body:
On 1/22/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 1/22/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/21/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > > That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as
> > > 'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public
> > > domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
> >
> > If I remember correctly, another category is US government works.  The
> > US government has before asserted that just because US law requires
> > works of the US government be freely available within the US does not
> > mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere.  They have
> > certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such
> > data.
> >
> > -Matt
>
> Umm...  I'm fairly certain that that's incorrect.  Do you have a
> citation for any of that?  I seem to recall the exact opposite, though
> I can't find a citation myself.
>

It seems that I'm wrong.  "The prohibition on copyright protection for
United States Government works is not intended to have any effect on
protection of these works abroad. Works of the governments of most
other countries are copyrighted. There are no valid policy reasons for
denying such protection to United States Government works in foreign
countries, or for precluding the Government from making licenses for
the use of its works abroad."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000105----000-notes.html

Also see http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/2002arq/Manz.pdf, the section
entitled "Copyright Protection Abroad For Government Works".

Under Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. vs. Corel Corp. the lawsuits
probably couldn't be initiated in a US court, though.

Anthony


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 21 Jan 2006, at 23:21, Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>>> This is a photo of an Icelandic sculpture. Under Icelandic laws the
>>> copyright of the person who made the sculpture is important for
>>> how the
>>> photo can be used. This image is definitely not free in Iceland.
>>> Is it
>>> free in the US? Can anyone help me find out?
>>
>> Created 1919-22 so probably.
>
> Okay. How about this photo of a sculpture created 1926-1927?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GriefEJ.jpg
>
> I would really like to know.

US law doesnt recognise copyright of sculptures in photos - only
2D art, as there is creativity in making the picture of the sculpture.
You couldnt make a 3D computer model though I guess.

It leads to the odd position where 20th century sculptors have better
image covergae than painters.

Justinc


body:
On 22 Jan 2006, at 03:11, geni wrote:

> On 1/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So request to become an admin there.
>>
>
> It's been a while but last I heard my wikipedia adminship alone would
> not get me through the adminship process there.
>>

So request to become an admin there.

You are being very negative.

Its already the case that there are tens of thousands of images
on en that are from commons, so get over it - if there are
vandalism problems they still need fixing. In fact apart from
one isolated case a long time ago before the commons protection
request procedures were put in place I dont know of any incidents.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fair use images on user pages and enforcement

body:
On 1/21/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> On 21 Jan 2006, at 20:49, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Justin Cormack wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 21 Jan 2006, at 19:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >>
> >>> I haven't seen any of those pictures, but I prseume that they
> >>> were  pictures taken by individuals who had the perfect right to
> >>> license  their pictures as they see fit.  In case you don't know
> >>> it the  Louvre is more than 70 years old.  Quit inventing
> >>> ridiculous laws.
> >>
> >> The Pyramid at the Louvre is less than 70 years old and thats a
> >> problem in french law.
> >
> > OK, I can see where that would apply to the pyramid, but it should
> > not apply to general photos of the Louvre itself.
>
> I think other photos should be fine, I think it was only the ones
> with the Pyramid that had a
> problem.
>
> Mind you there seem to be plenty of pictures of the pyramid on
> commons too.
>
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paris.louvre.pyramid.250pix.jpg

Is this the pyramid you're talking about?

If so, it seems to be on Fr: as well, and has been since 22 november 2003.

> The also had a problem with the lighting on the Eiffel Tower.
>
> Maybe they have just decided not to link from fr, not sure.
>
> Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> You appear to have serious issue with our admins. For the most part
> they are good people doing thier best (ok for the most part they are
> inactive but that is a seperate issue).

Well, for the most part, yes.  But there are enough that are a
problem, and enough more after that that are just clueless (in some
cases, terminally so) that I refuse to generically trust all admins.

Kelly


body:
Carbonite wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I welcome Jimbo's forthright statement that "political or, more
>>broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project", and his
>>thoughtful and considerate request that editors contemplate helping to
>>reduce the userbox culture by "simply removing your
>>political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same.
>>This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the
>>userbox wars."
>>
>>I know this is going to meet resistance, so I'm trying to think of a
>>way in which those who think that expressing their opinions on their
>>userpages helps wikipedia and have so far chosen to do so using
>>userboxes, can be asked to do so in a way that doesn't contribute to
>>the very divisive culture that has ground up specifically around
>>userboxes.
>>
>>I've come up with a suggestion as follows:
>>
>>1. that if he disagrees with Jimbo's request, the user should instead
>>consider using the subst command to place the content of the template
>>directly into  his userpage. This would reduce the "viral"
>>transmission of userboxes somewhat and, for the user, it would have
>>the benefit of divorcing the fate of parts of his userpage from the
>>fate of individual userboxes--whether editing or deletion.
>>
>>2. that having done this, he should take the opportunity to edit the
>>text so that it more precisely expresses his individual views.  In my
>>opinion this would be more in keeping with the *good* effects of
>>userboxes in enabling self-expression, while being more in keeping
>>with the principle that Wikipedia is a wiki in which we edit content,
>>and not a cookie-cutter website in which we reduce our complex beliefs
>>as individuals into regimented blocs that serve no purpose but to
>>emphasize the cultural divisions.
>>
>>I think of this as "grandfathering".  Ultimately we should be able to
>>foster a benign culture of fearless expression of our editorial
>>biases, without enabling the  subversion of our relatively fragile
>>neutrality principle by alliances between single-issue
>>campaigners--however justifiable they may feel this subversion to be.
>
>
> I think that one of the reason more users aren't using subst is
> because they don't know the option exists. During one of today's
> discussions, one of the strongest and most vocal supporters of
> userboxes asked me to fill him in on the "secret" of subst. He had
> been complaining about the userboxes on his user page being changed
> without his consent, but seemed to be unaware of what subst even was.
> Ideally, I'd like to see all POV userboxes exist only as code that was
> pasted onto a user's page. If this isn't feasible, then strongly
> encouraging the use of subst might be the next best option.
>

You should direct them to [[Help:Template]].

> On a related matter, can anyone come up with even one good reason why
> user categories should be part of POV userboxes? In fact, can anyone
> come up with a reason why we have POV user categories at all?
>

Historically, most of this stuff has gone on [[meta:]] for the very good
reason that Wikipedia is an NPOV encyclopedia, and the crazier aspects
of user categorisation have gone over there. Perhaps we should encourage
this approach above all others; you can do whatever the hell you want,
/so long as it's on meta/.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060122/4ffc0dfb/attachment.pgp


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>Puddl Duk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would support this idea as long as the mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>archives were public.
>>
>>What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
>>
>>
>Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to stoke
>outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard reporting of
>Parliament. There are strict limits on who is eligible to speak, but none
>whatsoever on who may listen to them, or read the published record.
>
That kind of availability is key to transparency and accountability.
Nevertheless, I am confident that the reasewrship level would be just as
stunningly high as it is for Hansard (or the Congressional Record in the
US).

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Pointless deletions, bogus guidelines

body:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.

Somewhat...

"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document
except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt
to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and
will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance. "

So anyone using your GFDLed work under another license would
apparetnly automatically have her rights under the GFDL terminated.
At least, if that clause is upheld.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> Yes! What I think we need is better communication between the foundation
> level people and the hard-working editors on the ground. Brief
> announcements on this mailing list in the form of "Problem X is really
> getting serious, let's solve it with solution Y" are not enough. We need
> some mechanism down on the wiki itself for the foundation level people to
> get important information across to everyone interested.

Obviously what is really required is an embassy between wikien and the
Foundation.

Kelly


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 1/21/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>True; but still we have the two pages. I only said that people should
>>not justify their actions with a reference to a guideline page that
>>doesn't even mention the thing they've been doing, especially since
>>there's another page that does. Or we should just merge the two (yes, I
>>know that won't happen).
>>
>
>
> Historically both pages express the same sentiment.  In recent months
> it has become popular to cite or attack IAR, but really it can all be
> boiled down to "it's a wiki".
>

"Nobody taught me how to do this stuff. Figure it out yourself. You
won't break anything... probably."

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060122/66b30599/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Another AfD example -- a serious proposal to fix it

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>
>>geni (geniice at gmail.com) [060121 07:05]:
>>
>>
>>>Ok now it we've got it reframed so it is not such an obvious attempt
>>>to push inclusionism
>>>
>>>
>>Presumably this is an example of your grasp of good faith.
>>
>>
>If the user is an inclusionist it is hardly imposible that they may
>propose policies that support their position. The original proposal
>did fairly clearly favor the inclusionist position. It is hardly
>ilogical to conclude that the intial proposal was in part meant to
>forward the inclusionist position. The regular anti deletionist
>sentiments expressed on this list renforces this conclusion.
>
That kind of us-versus-them attitude is bound to make achieving a
solution more difficult.  Those who really want to find solutions are
careful to avoid using the words "inclusionist" or "deletionist".
Characterizations that put participants in one camp or the other are
just not helpful.

Ec


body:
geni wrote:
> On 1/21/06, grm_wnr <grmwnr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>That's why I suggest moving all free-license pictures over to Commons as
>>soon as possible. Filtering out non-local images is even easier, and
>>everything on Common is free, at least in theory (people mistag images
>>all the time, but there's nothing we can do about that except delete
>>them when we find them). I would even go as far as to use different
>>syntaxes for Commons and local images to make parsing local ones out
>>extremely trivial. Oh, and I'd also like a simpler way to transwiki free
>>images to Commons...
>>
>>grm_wnr
>
>
> Moveing stuff over to commons weakens our defences against vandalism.
>

So request to become an admin there.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060122/e11af7ee/attachment.pgp


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom which
>claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all comment from
>outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been causing
>real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
>outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively driving
>away outside experts, etc.
>
You make it sound as if you are describing what happens when ignorance
discovers organization.  ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Puddl Duk <puddlduk at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.

What would be the point, then?

Kelly


body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Haukur
>>?orgeirsson
>
>
>
>>Sensible, but the portion of our images which are really free
>>to use anywhere in the world forever may be smaller than you
>>think. Even images created by Wikipedians and released "into
>>the public domain" might be problematic in some jurisdictions
>>if the image creator changes her mind about the licence. The
>>whole concept of permanently licencing away your rights to an
>>image is badly supported in laws around the world. Sometimes
>>there are stipulations that any licencing of your rights to
>>another party can only last for X years.
>
>
> So how do people sell books in such countries, given that the text,
> illustrations, design, font and so on must all revert to the creator within
> X years?
>

Presumably the creator never licensed the material to anyone else
without entering a proper, monies-exchanged-type contract.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060122/2b0e912b/attachment.pgp


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 22/01/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

> 1. A chance to get to know one another.
> 2. A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what is
> happening in the "big picture."
> 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other problems.
> 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
>
> If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because of
> the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.

You might be better served having two or three meetings, say eight
hours apart on a Sunday - it's an interesting idea, but a lot of
people.

(We'll have eight hundred admins within a week!)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Александр Сигачёв

subject: [Wikitech-l] Try #2: Idea for learning spam filter

body:
> The idea is that the normal behaviour for a wiki is that it is very unlikely
> for an url to be referenced in an edit more than X times in 24 hours (I'll
> postulate twice, just for fun), but it is very common behaviour for a
> spammer.

Image edit war about link. Or text of article was deleted by vandal,
and someone want to revert change, but in text were links.

--
Alexander Sigachov


from_name: Puddl Duk

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
> Puddl Duk wrote:
> > I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
>
> What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
>
> Chris
>
lower noise ratio, presumably


body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 1/21/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
>
>
>>That wouldn't be a bad thing. But remember that it's not as simple as
>>'free' and 'non-free'. We have *a lot* of images which are in the public
>>domain in the United States but not elsewhere.
>>
>>
>If I remember correctly, another category is US government works.  The
>US government has before asserted that just because US law requires
>works of the US government be freely available within the US does not
>mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere.  They have
>certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such
>data.
>
Specific examples would be helpful here. Also, laying charges and being
successful in those charges are two different things.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/06, Puddl Duk <puddlduk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.
>
> What would be the point, then?
>
> Kelly

Lower noise, focus on admin topics.

You mentioned earlier "Insitutionalised cliques are a pain to get rid
of when they become a problem." Public scrutiny fights these clique
problems, secrecy exacerbates them.


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching

body:
As cited, using Wikipedia as a forum for unsourced criticism of Prof. Harvey
Klehr occurs here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&diff=35566271&oldid=35564984
"It is about the legacy of the Cold War, anticommunist Witch Hunts,
Red-baiting, and McCarthyism. Haynes and Klehr and Romerstein are part of a
project to make it appear that violations of civil liberties during the Cold
War and McCarthyism were justified"

Here the "project" becomes the "Venona Posse project"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=next&oldid=34975393

Here he refers to Prof. Klehr's work as "outrageous McCarthyite POV
Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&diff=34527735&oldid=34519165

"berlet posse" bring up 673 Google results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=berlet+posse&btnG=Google+Search
*All* linked to "right-wing extremist groups."  See for example SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet
"Berlet specializes in tracking and analyzing right-wing movements. He has
written about the John Birch Society, armed militias, Ku Klux Klan, Posse
Comitatus, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, racist skinheads, and the
Lyndon LaRouche fascist cult."

These smears fail Wikipedia *policy (policy, *i.e., a rule)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility#Examples
and are defamatory.  Nonetheless, ArbCom remonstrances failed consideration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Uncivil_comments_by_Cberlet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Discourtesy_and_personal_attacks_by_Cberlet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_to_avoid_personal_attacks

The record is clear, and issues have not changed. It should be noted, I have
chosen to work within the project regarding the host of criticisms directed
at Wikipedia's credibility, and not taken my case outside Wikipedia, despite
a genuine interest in what has been termed the "cultic" nature of concerted
efforts to censor and silence people of good will inside Wikipedia

Nobs01


subject: Fwd: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com>
Date: Jan 22, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>

As cited, using Wikipedia as a forum for unsourced criticism of Prof. Harvey
Klehr occurs here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&diff=35566271&oldid=35564984

"It is about the legacy of the Cold War, anticommunist Witch Hunts,
Red-baiting, and McCarthyism. Haynes and Klehr and Romerstein are part of a
project to make it appear that violations of civil liberties during the Cold
War and McCarthyism were justified"

Here the "project" becomes the "Venona Posse project"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&diff=next&oldid=34975393

Here he refers to Prof. Klehr's work as "outrageous McCarthyite POV
Red-baiting defamatory Blacklist
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&diff=34527735&oldid=34519165

"berlet posse" bring up 673 Google results
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=berlet+posse&btnG=Google+Search
*All* linked to "right-wing extremist groups."  See for example SourceWatch
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet
"Berlet specializes in tracking and analyzing right-wing movements. He has
written about the John Birch Society, armed militias, Ku Klux Klan, Posse
Comitatus, Aryan Nations, Christian Identity, racist skinheads, and the
Lyndon LaRouche fascist cult."

These smears fail Wikipedia *policy (policy, *i.e., a rule)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility#Examples
and are defamatory.  Nonetheless, ArbCom remonstrances failed consideration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Uncivil_comments_by_Cberlet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Discourtesy_and_personal_attacks_by_Cberlet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision#Cberlet_cautioned_to_avoid_personal_attacks

The record is clear, and issues have not changed. It should be noted, I have
chosen to work within the project regarding the host of criticisms directed
at Wikipedia's credibility, and not taken my case outside Wikipedia, despite
a genuine interest in what has been termed the "cultic" nature of concerted
efforts to censor and silence people of good will inside Wikipedia

Nobs01


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the conduct
> of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect policy,
> may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an example
> implementation that governs public and private assembly.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan

The Brown Act is a government sunshine act and only applies to the
meetings of governmental organizations (and more specifically, those
of agencies of the California government).  To suggest that such laws
apply to a meeting of volunteers working on behalf of a private
nonprofit entity borders on trolling.

Kelly


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
We have a number of folks posting on wikien-l that are not only not
administrators but quite tiresome. An admin-l list offers more
opportunity of a genuine dialogue.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

>> There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
>> of confidence.  Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad
>> of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we
>> have a great many untrustworthy admins.
>>
>
> Trustworthy or not there are hundreds of active admins. Anything
> discussed
> in an Internet forum with hundreds of people is very close to being
> public
> information.
>
> Most of the regulars on wikien-l are old hands anyhow. I'm not sure if
> you'd get a substantially different forum by creating an admin-only
> list.
>
> In any case it would mean a substantial change in what it means to
> be an
> administrator. This should be well advertised and discussed before it
> happens.
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
>
> This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
>
> You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
>
> That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
>
> People, get real.
>
> Danny

Well, to be fair, Fred didn't present this idea as a form to cover
sensitive legal information and troll and vandal fighting techniques.

Its pretty mean to call people unprofessional, irresponsible and
un-real for their reponse to a proposal that you've since reshaped.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
That's easy, we could have a conversation without a lot of play by
play interference but there would still be an opportunity on the part
of the community to view it.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> Puddl Duk wrote:
>
>> I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives
>> were public.
>>
>
> What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Jenkinson
> chris at starglade.org
>
> "Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
>  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
The blocking administrator for good cause.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 11:26 AM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Some AFD regulars seem to view AFD/DRV as an independent fiefdom
>> which
>> claims dominion over all Wikipedia content, but resists all
>> comment from
>> outside (e.g. wikien-l) as interference. *Unfortunately*, it's been
>> causing
>> real problems for the Foundation of late. Unbelievable rudeness about
>> outsiders, stupendously crap nominations to make a point, actively
>> driving
>> away outside experts, etc.
>>
>> Here is a suggestion: good faith is not enough when the good-faith
>> actions
>> are stupidly destructive. Incivility on *FD = 24 hour ban from all
>> *FD
>> pages and deletion of comment. Sufficiently crap nomination = 1
>> month ban
>> from all *FD pages.
>>
>> Ideas?
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>
>
> Nothing wrong with the idea perse, but who decides what is crap?
>
> Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Admin meeting

body:
A gathering of Wikipedia administrators would not be a local
governing body operating under the law of California or any other US
state.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Jonathan wrote:

> Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the
> conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to
> effect policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in
> U.S, is an example implementation that governs public and private
> assembly.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan
>
> daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>> The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons
>> why I  think that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for
>> people to get to know  one another a little better and see who the
>> active admins are. At the same time, I also think it is important
>> that the admins be made  aware of some things on a Foundation
>> level. What should they be looking out for?  How can they resolve
>> problems effectively? What are the exact policities and  when
>> (gasp) should these policies be overlooked in the larger interest
>> of the  project? The meeting would take place on IRC as Cimon
>> suggested. I think Fred's  ideas are excellent, and we can
>> certainly consider implementing an admin only  IRC channel and
>> mailing list. These are things that can be brought up at the
>> meeting. I realize that the meeting will be clumsy at first
>> because of all the  people involved. I would like, however, to
>> suggest that we try it and see  how many people actually show up.
>> We can, of course, have additional meetings as  necessary, and may
>> realize that one meeting is impractical. As a full-time
>> Wikipedian, I will make a point of being at any meeting suggested.
>> Suggested time, anyone? Danny
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>


from_name: John Lee

subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use images
	(was	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>We ought to be starting to deprecate fair use images ''in any
>>context''.
>>
>>
>
>Hmm anyone who wants to help can start by telling me which Beatle is
>which in this photo:
>
>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles.jpg
>
>--
>geni
>
>
Left to right: John, Paul, George, Ringo. I think the ugly horizontal
line in the middle of the picture diminishes its usefulness, though.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


subject: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching

body:
[WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching - Stephan Schwartz

Reverting the Stephan Schwartz bio page only took care of half the problem.
Foundational material was laid here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=prev&oldid=14076836
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=next&oldid=21574296
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=29495553&oldid=29495096

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neofascism_and_religion&diff=29595005&oldid=29495553

Finally Stephan Schwartz name was added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism_and_religion#The_.22Islamofascism.22_label
possibly by another [[Political Research Associates]] sockpuppet.

Now, as per Wikipedia, Schwartz uses "bigoted rhetoric",  is a proponent of
"hate speech", and lacking in "scholarly review."

On 1/18/06, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
>
> Wow!
>
> Almost surreal.
>
> For the record, my POV is that this anaysis by the banned Nobs01 is biased
> and not accurate.
>
> My willingness to go through mediation again (after months of mediation
> and arbitration with Nobs01)  is hardly a sign of bad faith.
>
> :-)
>
> -Cberlet
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org on behalf of Rob Smith
> Sent: Wed 1/18/2006 4:09 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] A Wikipedia lynching
>
>
>
> A editor recently accused others and their source, Prof. Harvey Klehr, of
> being part of a lynching.
>
>
>
> <<SNIP>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use images (was
	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
On 1/22/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Left to right: John, Paul, George, Ringo. I think the ugly horizontal
> line in the middle of the picture diminishes its usefulness, though.

I'm not going to use that part of the image. I'm going to try and cut
it up for headshots
--
geni


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
How many you can get together depends on the date and the time. Time zones
can be a royal pain in the...

Mgm

On 1/22/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 22/01/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. A chance to get to know one another.
> > 2. A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what
> is
> > happening in the "big picture."
> > 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other
> problems.
> > 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
> >
> > If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because
> of
> > the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
>
> You might be better served having two or three meetings, say eight
> hours apart on a Sunday - it's an interesting idea, but a lot of
> people.
>
> (We'll have eight hundred admins within a week!)
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Michael Keppler

body:
????????? ??????? schrieb:
> Image edit war about link. Or text of article was deleted by vandal,
> and someone want to revert change, but in text were links.

To avoid that you could store the pairs of (article, embedded url) from
changed articles with URLs, not only the plain URLs.
With the list of URLs you can then avoid the mass spamming of a single
URL into thousands of articles (as described before), but with the list
of pairs from changed articles with their URLs you can then override
this decision and allow adding/deleting an URL from an article, where
that same URL has been added/deleted/edited in the same article during
the last 24 hours (or whatever time span is used for the black list
algorithm).

Ciao, Michael.


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>GFDL is a non-exclusive licence.
>>
>>
>Somewhat...
>
>"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document
>except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt
>to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and
>will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
>parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
>License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
>parties remain in full compliance. "
>
>So anyone using your GFDLed work under another license would
>apparetnly automatically have her rights under the GFDL terminated.
>At least, if that clause is upheld.
>
I don't think that it applies in the case at hand.  We were talking
about Tony's user page.  Assuming that what's on there was written
solely by him, he still has the right as the original grantor of the
licence to also grant rights to others that are different from the ones
expressed in the GFDL.  Nobody else has the right to do that with Tony's
text.

Ec


from_name: Snowspinner

body:
How about David, an ardent deletionist, who is due for his more jobs
after a year of excellent service to the arbcom?

In fact, why don't we give David a title akin to Raul's on featured
articles? Deletion Director. And give him broad authority to look
into deletion cases and force sane results. However much one agrees
with his claims about how systemically broken *FD is, I don't think
anyone has seriously argued against his extreme sanity when it comes
to, well, everything.

-Phil

On Jan 22, 2006, at 2:00 PM, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> I'd rather have Kappa, a deletionist and a mergist decide.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 1/22/06, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing wrong with the idea perse, but who decides what is crap?
>>
>> Tony, of course. Get with the program ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Haukur
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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


body:
geni wrote:

>On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Unless you were writing hastily without thinking, what you appear to be
>>saying here is that you regard yourself as a problem.
>>
>>- d.
>>
>>
>There are 1000s of editors on wikipedia. The odds of me liking and
>getting on with all of them are pretty much zero. However process (and
>a reasonably common goal) means that I don't have to like someone to
>work with them. Once we move outside process personal opinion about a
>person matters a lot. Do you trust the person? Do you really honestly
>deep down belive they are acting in good faith?
>
Speaking as someone who most of the time disagrees with geni, it's also
important to express agreement when it does happen as with the above
statement.

Similarly the fact that I more often agree with David does not prevent
me from getting into a polarized debate with him on an other issue.

Ec


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Puddl Duk wrote:

> > > How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
> > >
> > > Fred
> >
> > No we should try and keep things as open as posible.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.

Two good reasons such a mailling list should be kept private:

1. Admin A posts to the list "User X is being disruptive. What do I do?"
2. ADmin B posts to the list "I need a sanity check. User Y has done
this, & I plan on acting thusly. Comments please."

Reasons:

* No one wants to admit in public that they're clueless.
* People are more likely to admit that they'rewrong in private.
* Sometimes a person just needs a vote of confidence to handle a
troublemaker.

I don't see any of this happening if such a list were archived in public.

As for the worry that an admin list might be abused to form a cabal to
gain control of Wikipedia for its own nefarous ends -- I dunno what those
would be, maybe enforce a political litmus test on articles or replace
all uses of BC/AD with CE/BCE -- this could be accomplished right now
with an offline, private mailing list.

And if this hasn't been attempted yet, then I'm wrong in thinking that
there are some people out there smarter than me.

Geoff


body:
On Jan 22, 2006, at 2:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:

> I'm sure everyone would hate my opinions equally.

Which would probably be an excellent indicator of success.

The suggestion is not insincere - if deletion is going to be brought
back under the control of the guiding principles under which the site
is run, there is going to have to be some oversight. You suffer from
A) Having raised most of the issues we are trying to correct, B)
Intense sanity, and C) Being strikingly moderate on the deletionism/
inclusionism scale. it seems to me exactly what the page needs.

It may not be what your job or wife need, but you should have thought
of that before you demonstrated sanity.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>The fact that there are so many admins is one of teh key reasons why I  think
>that such a meeting is so important. It is vital for people to get to know
>one another a little better and see who the active admins are.
>
Perhaps you should be encouraging more people to show up at Wikimania. O:-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.
>>
>>
>There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
>of confidence.  Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad
>of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we
>have a great many untrustworthy admins.
>
>
>>Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an
>>admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and
>>createing cliques.
>>
>>
>Wikipedia is overrun with cliques.  It would be a good thing, in my
>opinion, if some of the more powerful ones were formalized; maybe then
>something good would come out of them.
>
If there were to be an admin-only mailing list, I wonder how many people
would be left for this one. :-)

Ec


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

body:
> If I remember correctly, another category is US government works.  The
> US government has before asserted that just because US law requires
> works of the US government be freely available within the US does not
> mean, in their view, that the works are PD elsewhere.  They have
> certainly, as I recall, charged non-US corporations for using such
> data.

Exactly, that was one of the cases I was thinking about. A large
proportion of Wikipedia's free images fall under this case. It could be an
even bigger problem than different fair use laws for someone publishing
Wikipedia content outside the United States.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: John Walling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Spam Filter Project Announcement

body:
 Spam Filter Project <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_Filter>

*Purpose*
 Address deficiences in existing SpamBlacklist
extension<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SpamBlacklist_extension>and
$wgSpamRegex filter.

*Scope*
 Add new extension to enhance spam filtering with multiple regex patterns
and with maximum control at the local wiki.

*Benefits*
 Empower small wikis. Leverage the spam patrol resources of large wikis.
Unbalance spammers by presenting them with multiple anti-spam strategies
instead of just one central strategy.

*Current status*
 Proposal phase - reviewing requirements and seeking developers.
= John Walling


body:
> Are you absolutely sure that it is PD in the US?  Only if you can be
> sure that it was first published/copyright registered in the US.  If
> it was created or first published elsewhere, then the pre-1923 rule
> does not apply, thanks to international convention.
>
> Certainly the image description page does not answer this question,
> but it mentions a book  first published in London, which would count
> against this theory if that was the first publication of this image.

*sigh* I honestly thought I was getting the hang of this image licencing
business but there's always more to it... Thanks for the pointer, I'll try
to find out.

Regards,
Haukur


body:
On Jan 22, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

> An interesting idea but the research needed to study every single AfD
> case, read the discussion and make an informed decision to keep or
> delete
> is far far beyond what a single person can accomplish. We need lots of
> experienced people doing that job. Which is exactly the system we
> currently have.

Well, yeah. That would be stupid. Just like having Raul single-
handedly decide the articles he wanted to be featured would be dumb.

Empowering David to look at a discussion and say "What the hell are
you smoking," then to make a sane decision, on the other hand, does
make sense. Particularly when you figure he would mostly not look
into uncontroversial things in the first place.

-Phil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
Jonathan wrote:

> Please be advised that some areas have laws of assembly and the
> conduct of such assembly. The assembly of admins, to vote or to effect
> policy, may fall into such jurisdiction. The Brown Act, in U.S, is an
> example implementation that governs public and private assembly.

I guess I was mistaken to believe that in the U.S. the right to
peacefully assemble was governed by the first amendment. ;-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
--- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> If ever admitted to any mailing list for
> administrators only I will
> publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.
> I will not
> tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.

Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
list contents, too. Don't they have their own mailing
list and IRC channel? The point of having an
admins-only list, as I see it, is to have a place for
discussion that's not interrupted by "omg I was
blocked out of policy!" Besides, if the archives are
posted publicly (which has been discussed on this
thread already, if I'm not mistaken), there's really
not any less transparency.

-Hermione1980

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
Rob Smith wrote:

>Confidential information at the Foundation level doesn't have to be
>disclosed; it can be imagined.
>
Presumably that includes imagining that we are being run by a cabal!

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> How about an admin only IRC channel and mailing list?
>
> Fred

No we should try and keep things as open as posible.

--
geni


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I want to toss the idea around of having an online meeting of all admins
> on
> the English wikipedia. The reasons are simple:
>
> 1. A chance to get to know one another.
> 2. A chance to share some insights from the Foundation office as to what
> is
> happening in the "big picture."
> 3. A chance to exchange ideas on dealing with vandalism and other
> problems.
> 4. A chance to discuss some existing policies.
>
> If there is enough interest, I will set a time for this meeting. Because
> of
> the nature of the discussions, it will be limited access.
>
> Danny
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I presume by online you mean Internet Relay Chat?

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, AKA. Cimon avaro


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Specific examples would be helpful here. Also, laying charges and being
> successful in those charges are two different things.

See Anthony's post above.

I meant 'charged' as in the monetary sense, not the legal proceedings
sense.  However, fact is that the US government considers non-US use
of its works to be covered by copyright, which makes a large chunk of
our free-licensed images not actually free outside the US at all.

This applies whether or not the US government intends to enforce this
or is able to.

-Matt


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brian

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikinews: IOTM Jan 2006 - Danny O'Brien of the
	Electronic Frontier Foundation

body:
I think a good idea for easily getting good questions (since the current
questions are pretty generic), as well as increasing the positive
interest in Wikinews (since people like the EFF) is to make a post on
Slashdot in the style of "ask your questions on Slashdot, and a
selection of the highest moderated quesitons will be picked to
specifically ask Danny O'Brien". Then you can pick out some good
questions, ask him, and make another Slashdot post once the entire
interview has been written up.

I'm going to try to get a story on Slashdot. I would suggest that
someone protect
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month/January_2006_EFF
(although I won't link to it). As for the IRC interview, I hope it is
being set up so that the interviewee can be separated from the rest of
the people. He should probably be in his own channel, which has
restricted access.

brian0918

Amgine wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Wikinews will be hosting a second Interview of the Month
> (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month),
> 2000 UTC on 23 January 2006, Danny O'Brien
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_O%27Brien) of the Electronic
> Frontier Foundation
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) will be
> interviewed live in IRC (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikinews), and you are
> invited to attend and be a part of the action.
>
> Danny O'Brien is the "Coordinator of Activism" at the EFF, which he
> came to from a technology journalism career. He helped found the Open
> Rights Group, amongst other digital and online rights activisms.
>
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a U.S. ngo, with staff  also in
> Canada and the United Kingdom, focused on free speech rights in a
> digital world. Focused on defending those rights as they are related
> to technology, and educating the press, public, and policymakers about
> the issues, EFF has taken a number of actions which put the spotlight
> on the project recently: Sony BMG's CD protection issue, cracking the
> US government's programme to have laser printers put tracking
> information on every document they print, and publishing the Legal
> Guide for Bloggers. They're also in the advocacy and lobby industry,
> and are closely watching Broadcast Flag legislation in the US capitol
> which is scheduled for debate on 24 January.
>
> The Wikinews Interview of the Month is a program to give citizen
> journalists the opportunity to be involved in interviews with news
> makers. Research and questions are developed by everyone who wishes to
> take part both before the interview (for this interview, you can get
> involved at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month/January_2006_EFF)
> and during the interview. As the interview progresses, questions may
> be passed to the moderators who will try to squeeze in as many
> questions as possible.
>
> Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is produced in
> 19 languages.
>
> Amgine
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Meta templates and Qif on :en

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>On 1/22/06, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>There's nothing that can be done with these advanced templates that
>>>can't be done just as easily and with a significantly lower entry
>>>level for editing with single-level, uncomplicated templates.
>>>
>>>Which, in answer to your question, is how templates were meant to be
>>>played with.
>>>
>>>
>>Totally wrong. BTW, the duty of prove is on your side. Ah, yes and
>>if you fail you remove the template, I see.
>>
>>
>Do you see me edit-warring over meta-templates?  No, because I know
>it's pointless.  Nevertheless, I have been trying to create
>semantically cleaner alternatives.  I think you have missed the fact
>that these templates weren't created until well after the template
>syntax (I believe they originated on en in April of last year).  If
>the template syntax was intended to be used in this way, we would have
>seen it before now.
>
Part of the motivation for templates was the completely awkward approach
in HTML toward making data tables.  I very much support the notion that
the burden of proving necessity should remain with the person promoting
the use of a particular template.

>>Another silly one is "templates should be used sparingly". We have
>>a concept that should not be used. Why? Not because of the concept,
>>because some people make unproven claims about the implementation.
>>
>>Shure. Remove every template. They are not needed to create the wiki
>>pages. We can also write html directly.
>>
>>
>There must be some logical fallacy where you hyperbolise your
>opponent's arguments in order to make him seem foolish.
>
I agree nobody, not even me, is arguing for banning the use of *all*
templates.

>>BTW I use my own html compiler for that task (for my non wiki pages).
>>I'm shure you would do that by hand. Because your code is not meant to
>>change, right?
>>
>>
>I do, actually, because I think it's quite important that people can
>understand my code.  Including myself.
>
Most of us don't understand the underlying templates.  Used improperly
they can obscure the verification of content.  Templates should make the
use of the Wiki easier to the general audience.  Too often they are only
there to illustrate the coder's skill at using complicated techniques
for saving a few bytes of keyboarding.  To be useful a template must be
memorable.  If I have to engage in extensive reaearch to figure out the
correct specialized template I'm better off using plain text even when
it means typing out one whole word more.


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

> US law doesnt recognise copyright of sculptures in photos - only
> 2D art, as there is creativity in making the picture of the sculpture.

Wrong. The creativity involved in making a derivative work does not
exempt it from the copyright in the original work. Sculptures are
absolutely just as capable of having copyright as any other work of art.

There is a federal district court case holding that under particular
circumstances, a sculpture's copyright was dedicated to the public
domain under a theory of general publication. But otherwise, a
photograph of a sculpture is subject to the copyright of the sculpture.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
--- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/22/06, Hermione1980
> <slytherinchaser49 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > If ever admitted to any mailing list for
> > > administrators only I will
> > > publish all contents on my public blog.  Be
> warned.
> > > I will not
> > > tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
> >
> > Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
> > list contents, too.
>
> No.  some arbcom discussions need to be private.

And no admin discussions need to be private? I think I
see what you're getting at, but I don't think you're
going about it the right way. I also don't have any
better suggestions, so ignore me, whatever. :-)

-Hermione1980

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


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
Back onto moderation you go. I don't tolerate incivility on this
mailing list (much).

~Mark Ryan
WikiEN-l mailing list administrator

On 22/01/06, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA <wizzard_bane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are pissed because of the user-box conflict and
> the amount of criticism you've received and now you're
> taking out your anger on me. I should feel lucky for
> not being banned just like you should feel lucky for
> me not being banned, because my loss, would be equally
> your loss, just like any other contributor's loss
> would also be our loss. So I'm guessing I shouldn't
> add your photo to my userpage, either, or else...
>
>
>
>
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:
> > > Actually, I did try to explain, but the admin told
> > me
> > > not to be cute. I said that I liked the photo and
> > that
> > > it fitted in my page. The light-yellow colours
> > gave me
> > > peace of mind.
> >
> > Count yourself lucky that you haven't been
> > permanently banned already by
> > me personally.  Behave yourself going forward, or I
> > will.
> >
> > This excuse isn't even _cute_.  It's an insult to
> > our intelligence.
> >
> > --Jimbo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
Confidential information at the Foundation level doesn't have to be
disclosed; it can be imagined.

nobs

On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
> of confidence.  Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad
> of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we
> have a great many untrustworthy admins.
>
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

>Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.
>
>This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.
>
>You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.
>
>That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.
>
I thought most of us were amateurs.  Maybe there should be two such
mailing lists: a private one for the professionals, and an public one
for the amateurs. :-)

Ec


from_name: Travis Mason-Bushman

body:
Wow. Just wow. Really shows the scope and scale of what we're dealing with,
and just how little anyone has scratched the surface of what's on Wikipedia.

-FCYTravis


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
Hermione1980 wrote:

>--- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If ever admitted to any mailing list for
>>administrators only I will
>>publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.
>>I will not
>>tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
>list contents, too. Don't they have their own mailing
>list and IRC channel? The point of having an
>admins-only list, as I see it, is to have a place for
>discussion that's not interrupted by "omg I was
>blocked out of policy!" Besides, if the archives are
>posted publicly (which has been discussed on this
>thread already, if I'm not mistaken), there's really
>not any less transparency.
>
The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis.
They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of
individual Wikipedians.  It would not surprise me to hear that in those
heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to
whether their own statements are defamatory.

This list does in fact get frequent complaints from someone who was
blocked, but most of those threads don't last long.  When an eMail from
a person that I don't know begins with "I was blocked ..." I have no
problem finding the delete key on my keyboard.

Ec


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
Under no circumstances should the admin list have public archives. Period.

This list woudl be intended for the confidential flow of information, including, possibly, legal information, as well as strategies for dealing more effectively with trolls and vandals.

You do not go tell trolls and vandals how you plan on dealing with them, so they can figure out ways around it. You do not share strategies with rivals. You do not publicize weak points, so that people can take advantage of them.

That is not only unprofessional. It is also irresponsible.

People, get real.

Danny


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] In defence of properly-used fair use
	images	(was	Image:Wp ayb.gif)

body:
John Lee wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We ought to be starting to deprecate fair use images ''in any
>>> context''.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm anyone who wants to help can start by telling me which Beatle is
>> which in this photo:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beatles.jpg
>>
>>
> Left to right: John, Paul, George, Ringo. I think the ugly horizontal
> line in the middle of the picture diminishes its usefulness, though.
>

Not to mention where there was a bit of paper stuck on before the photo
was scanned...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060122/663ef2e6/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>What Danny needs is a list for matters of similar or greater consequence,
>e.g. discussions of legal consequence and so forth. You may have noticed
>how every time Jimbo coughs it's misquoted in newspapers around the world.
>Perhaps a list with all 800 admins isn't that list, but that's the sort of
>list he's talking about.
>
Some things do need to be kept confidential, but an organization needs
well-defined rules for when things must be kept in-camera.  Trying to
apply that to a list of 800 would be ludicrous.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
Redvers @ the Wikipedia wrote:

>Five years ago, dmoz had the headlines for being a
>wonder of the internet. Now Wikipedia has them. Do we
>really need to follow their path so completely that we
>must repeat their mistakes?
>
>We are a '''wiki''' after all. If people have an issue
>with the 20% downside that the 80% upside allows,
>there are other places to go. But they don't tend to
>remain dynamic for long.
>
>
That's an important lesson with broad application well beyond
Wikipedia.  Integrating the newcomers into the existing hierarchy is a
problem for most organizations.  Fresh ideas are often defeated by the
shallow argument that we've always done it that way.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
I'm not actually sure about that, however because it is confidential,
it contains some confidential material. Material not necessarily
related to arbitration decisions. Jimbo uses it to chat about issues
for example.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 4:13 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:

> On 1/22/06, Hermione1980 <slytherinchaser49 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> --- Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If ever admitted to any mailing list for
>>> administrators only I will
>>> publish all contents on my public blog.  Be warned.
>>> I will not
>>> tolerate cliques within Wikipedia.
>>>
>>
>> Best get cracking on how to get the ArbCom mailing
>> list contents, too.
>>
>
> No.  some arbcom discussions need to be private.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Admin list--privacy

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis.
>>They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of
>>individual Wikipedians.  It would not surprise me to hear that in those
>>heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to
>>whether their own statements are defamatory.
>>
>>
>As someone who occasionally sorts through the Foundation's email, a
>lot of that deals with the private issues of individuals (Wikipedians
>or otherwise).
>
>I suspect the real solution to this is for there to be two lists, one
>for debating policy (noisy, public) and one for dealing with real
>problems (private).  Danny can use the second list to feed action
>items from the Foundation to responsible administrators to deal with
>them in a responsible and discreet manner.
>
It looks like he got off on the wrong foot on this.  Discretion is not
been a prominent criterion for elevation to admin status.  A person in
Danny's position needs to be able to evaluate the capacity of an
individual (who may or may not be an admin) to be discrete.  He also
needs to be able to decide who is best capable of handling a specific
question.

Ec


body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Specific examples would be helpful here. Also, laying charges and being
>>successful in those charges are two different things.
>>
>>
>I meant 'charged' as in the monetary sense, not the legal proceedings
>sense.  However, fact is that the US government considers non-US use
>of its works to be covered by copyright, which makes a large chunk of
>our free-licensed images not actually free outside the US at all.
>
>This applies whether or not the US government intends to enforce this
>or is able to.
>
If the US government itself tried to enforce its copyrights in foreign
courts for things that are freely available domestically I can imagine
how this would play in the foreign press.  :-)

Ec


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> At the same time, I also think it is important that the admins be made  aware
> of some things on a Foundation level. What should they be looking out for?
> How can they resolve problems effectively? What are the exact policities and
> when (gasp) should these policies be overlooked in the larger interest of the
> project?
>

No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.

> The meeting would take place on IRC as Cimon suggested. I think Fred's  ideas
> are excellent, and we can certainly consider implementing an admin only  IRC
> channel and mailing list. These are things that can be brought up at the
> meeting.
>

Well since I can't get on IRC let me just say that the idea of an
admin only mailing list has serious problems in terms of openess and
createing cliques.

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Michael Laudahn

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] This is a 'first-timer' - should I have
	missunderstood somehting then please have mercy for me

body:
Hi out there

I hope someone can hear me? Alright, let's give it a try.

My name is the one shown in the address. You can learn a little more about
me and my a slightly less than ordinary life at

http://worldimprover.net/EN/en8.html (short text, translated by a native
speaker), if you like.

After having read the text, you will have learned that I am a german
national. As such, and with my polyglot and international background, I am
very concerned about the situation in Germany, i e the situation of
'democracy' and the 'constitutional state'. For those interested, there is a
page dealing with that issue on my website:

http://worldimprover.net/EN/en4.html .

For those who prefer to skip it, let me put it short: There is ample
evidence that the two exist on paper only. Reality is totally different.
Proof? Just enter 'rechtsmissbrauch' (= abuse of law) into a search engine
and be bewildered by the huge number of responses. I was naive enough
earlier in my life to believe in this lie, and consequently my life has
been - maybe not destroyed, but totally changed from what I had expected it
to be. I have therefore decided to dedicate the rest of my life to fight
'german conditions'. And I'm getting better, it seems: There is lots of
irrefutable evidence for that I've been in the secret services' focus for
years.

Okay, now what has this got to do with Wikipedia. I found that comtempo
persons and organisations have discovered that Wikipedia is a fabulous
free-of-charge PR medium. I e, as long as the text there fits their needs.
And german Wikipedia entries (= those behind them) seem to have developped a
system that makes sure that just this happens. Let me give you two examples:

There is the self-proclaimed human-rights movement Humanistische Union,

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistische_Union .

I myself have made the experience that they - i e their number two manager
(a lawyer) - are not interested in human-rights cases, if german nationals
and ditto state agencies are involved. It appears that human rights are
there for foreign asylum seekers only. I've added a page to my website,

http://worldimprover.net/DE/de4_2.html ,

where the correspondence in my case with that HU personality is published.

A similar case is MP Hans-Christian Stroebele, cf

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Str%C3%B6bele .

His scam is to always 'play folksy', see the photo of Stroebele on his
'famous bike' on that same page. I presented him my case as well, and the
only reaction was that he rid me off, shyster-style. Also this
correspondence can be found on my website, at

http://worldimprover.net/DE/de4_3.html .

My detailed statistics show me that these pages are amongst the
best-visited of my website, and continue to be. People appear to be
interested in the truth about such people, not their pre-fabricated myths.

So my next thought was: If their Wikipedia entries are super-naturally good,
then some counter-balance couldn't hurt, to put things back in the right
scale. So I added a link to my pages 4.2 and 4.3, down on their Wikipedia
pages, under their link collections. They didn't manage to survive there
very long. Especially in the case of Stroebele, there seems to be an eager
monitor present who makes sure nothing negative gets known about his master.
When making further inquiries, I found that both this censor and his mentor
are in the same political party, the 'Greens'. The only difference is that
Stroebele is nearing the end of his career, for age reasons, while his
protege is a student, in his early twenties - some sponsoring of an elder
politician won't hurt, if you're eager to climb the political ladder, I
imagine?

By the way, I have found in the meantime that my thought - of adding a
counter-balance link - probably isn't so exotic: Just go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald  ,

and you will see that they have added a chapter 'criticisms of XY's work'.
I'd say, this is the same concept - isn't it?

Now, in case your next thought is to advise me to go through the national
mediation procedure established by Wikipedia, then my answer is: I've tried
that, and the outcome was almost predictable. Although I was dealing with
several people, they all said almost exactly the same - just as if they
previously had agreed upon this method. And I'm almost sure they have, for
this is the way the german society (mal-) functions. When someone has
reached a post, he allies with the others that have got one, and then they
start to make their private 'regulars table policies' (translation of german
term 'stammtischpolitik' - alluding at the habit of 'making politics' when
sitting together in the guesthouse drinking beer) at the expense of the
rest. This is probably the principal reason why Germany is more and more
becoming a corrupt banana republic - and a highly technicized one, thus an
Orwell-type nightmare for every critical mind.

Now what can we do in this situation? I have heard 'foreigners' say that the
majority of germans aren't quite grown-up. And I think I would agree with
them. If we now assume that we are dealing with this kind of people also in
the german Wikipedia section, wouldn't the only cure be a kind of
'occupational force' that revises their structures, schools them in how to
do their work properly and then monitors their day-to-day activies for a
while? Also, it might suggest itself to establish a complaint line, in case
these people later - when on their own again - suffer from a relapse into
old acting patterns. After all, even if you manage to change them, the
society remains as such. And that will continue to have its repercussions.

I think this should have given you the picture. If you think I ought to add
or clarify anything, please let me know. Otherwise, I'm really curious to
see what comes out of this.

Regards

Michael

Mehr info? Siehe
http://worldimprover.net/ und http://es-reicht.org/

*********************************************************************
Michael Laudahn
Postfach 6829
CH-8050 Z?rich    (nur sporadische zustellung - nicht f?r
kurztermin-sachen!)

tel:             nicht ?ffentlich
fax:            +41 (0)44 274 2845
epost:         ml at worldimprover.net

*********************************************************************


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Dumps in progress

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
>> There's still some improvements to be made, but I've gone ahead and started a
>> dump run. If it explodes partway through, oh wells. :)
>
> I've aborted the dumps for the moment; there's something wrong with the text
> prefetch system that's supposed to avoid unnecessary (and slow!) load on the
> database servers during the dumps, and I'm having trouble debugging it at 4am.

The prefetching was actually working fine; the unexpected slowness was due to
failing to load the ICU library plugin for UTF-8 validation on the XML output.
(The PHP-based code I wrote for this is relatively slow on non-Latin text, and
the dumps are a worst-case scenario for that due to the amount of material
processed.)

Dumps are now continuing in Florida (up to bgwiktionary!) and will restart soon
in Korea.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060122/0eed32c1/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Rob

body:
Oh, this is a really bad idea. We don't need set up a special AfD Czar to
smite people. Anyone who is "disruptive" on AfD can be dealt with using the
methods we use to deal with people anywhere else on Wikipedia.


from_name: Thomas R. Koll

body:
Hi,

I've spent half an hour reading your website and such and honestly
I think that you are some kind of paranoid.

You are having a dispute with Roggen and Str?bele (who are both
free in their decisions wether to take a mandate or not) which
is of course interesting for you but which is not relevant enough
for Wikipedia. We are not planning to deliver material and
informations for a 300-pages diploma work on those two men but
we are writing a encylopedia of general interest which means
that we need to "ignore" informations that aren't interesting
anymore in twenty or fifty years.

ciao, tom

PS: Es gibt keine deutsche Wikipedia, nur eine deutschsprachige.

--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
http://verlag.tomk32.de/c/wrdigest


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > No all users should be able to find that out not just admins.
>
> There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
> of confidence.

Then they stay at foundation level.

>
> Wikipedia is overrun with cliques.  It would be a good thing, in my
> opinion, if some of the more powerful ones were formalized; maybe then
> something good would come out of them.
>
> Kelly

Insitutionalised cliques are a pain to get rid of when they become a problem.

--
geni


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
> There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
> of confidence.  Although, frankly, I think "all admins" is too broad
> of a level to release most of those items because, quite frankly, we
> have a great many untrustworthy admins.

Trustworthy or not there are hundreds of active admins. Anything discussed
in an Internet forum with hundreds of people is very close to being public
information.

Most of the regulars on wikien-l are old hands anyhow. I'm not sure if
you'd get a substantially different forum by creating an admin-only list.

In any case it would mean a substantial change in what it means to be an
administrator. This should be well advertised and discussed before it
happens.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jeremy Tobacman

subject: [Foundation-l] Figures, and what made the fundraiser take off?

body:
To see in more detail how the recent fund drive went, I started looking at
the raw data and put some figures together here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tobacman/Stats/Fundraising
.  Comparing this most recent fundraiser to the two earlier fundraisers in
2005, it seems very clear that *something* happened to make the week
following 12/28/2005 a very good one for the Foundation.  More specifically,
previous fundraisers had tended to fizzle, and this one seemed to be taking
a similar path until its New Year's fireworks.

   How can we figure out what made this fundraiser take off?

Maybe additional data, tests, or experiments could help in future planning--
It would be great if we could have the techniques in place for such
remarkable success from the very beginning of the next fundraiser.

Jeremy


body:
Thomas Koll's reply: probably a sample of german totalitarian fuzzy logic

He contends to have read half an hour in my website and now diagnoses me as
having 'paranoia' - whatever that may be.

'Logic': This procedure has got nothing to do with it. He is arguing around
my arguments. My arguments were, in a nutshell: Both the individuals named
(cf my original message) boast as human-rights specialists. Practise has
shown that they seem very choosy whom to attribute these rights, when they
have been violated. Human rights are, however,  indivisible by nature. In
other words, they are probably high-ranking conmen, and the public has a
right to know about that. A link to a critical website would accomplish the
balance that now is lost, due to their partisan self-depiction.

Calling people 'psychiatric' names is the first step towards treating them
like that - think of the defunct Soviet Union, and remember who was right
and who was wrong. Remember also that our politicians then would protest
regularly against this kind of human-rights abuses. Today, acting like
former soviet apparatchiks has become our own politicians' daily fare.

I would prefer the anglo-saxon community dealing with this issue. I have
tried the german conflict-solving layer already and know that there is
nothing to be expected.

Over.


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Inclusionist" and "Deletionist" labels

body:
> That kind of us-versus-them attitude is bound to make achieving a
> solution more difficult.  Those who really want to find solutions are
> careful to avoid using the words "inclusionist" or "deletionist".
> Characterizations that put participants in one camp or the other are
> just not helpful.

I haven't been following this... but _if_ the people being so
characterized have by any chance chosen to list _themselves_ in either

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians/Members

or

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Deletionist_Wikipedians

then they must take responsibility for their self-chosen labels.

I will do no more than suggest mildly that it would improve Meta if
these articles... and all the other similar ones... were deleted.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
On 1/22/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There are Foundation-level issues that need to be kept to some degree
> > > of confidence.
> >
> > Then they stay at foundation level.
>
> There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them.
> They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't
> get done.
>

That may not be the case anymore:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolutions

> Apparently, we need some level between "admin" and "steward"/"board
> member", since our admins are little more than a ragtag bunch of
> rabble anyway.
>
> Kelly

You appear to have serious issue with our admins. For the most part
they are good people doing thier best (ok for the most part they are
inactive but that is a seperate issue).

--
geni


from_name: Peta Holmes

subject: [WikiEN-l] Untagged image help

body:
On English Wikipedia there is a list of untagged  images, it started at 38 000+, about 6000 of these have been tagged in  5 weeks; see [[Wikipedia:Untagged images]]. From the several hundred I  have tagged, 2/10 can be speedied as orphaned fair use images; 7/10  have no source and/or no license information and most likely would only  be able to be used as fair use; ~1/10 is a logo, album cover or a gfdl  image without a template. Tagging these images is a big drain on  contributors time, especially if they aren't admins.

  Technically all these images identified as untagged are speediable if  they are tagged as no license or no source, so on behalf of the  untagged images project I am looking for someone who could write a bot  to tag these all these images and notify the up loader.

  There needs to be a better mechanism to deal with the lack of copyright  information provided for images, and  the incorrect copyright  information that is being added to images as a result of the license  drop down box. Is it possible for all images uploaded to Wikipedia to  be tagged as no licence by defalut, forcing the uploader to provide  copyright information after the image is uploaded?

  --Peta

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos
 Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Dealing with crap deletion nominations

body:
Only if we expand the speedy deletion criteria accordingly.  We really don't
want to deal with a three month backlog of garage bands and ads for Bob's
Muffler Shop.

On 1/22/06, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> My proposed idea remains: shut down AFD/DRV for a month. Make it three
> months.
>


from_name: John D. Mann

subject:
[Wikitech-l] no Thumb-Nails shown (wican: addressed to
	exclusivesender for this address)

body:
On 2006.01.22 12:20, Martin Baumann - mailsgetlost at web.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I posted the same question already in the Mediawiki-Mailing group. But it

> seems that
> So here is my problem:
>
> I want to show thumbnails of my images. What I do:
> * first upload an image
> * to show the thumbnail enter [[Image:myPic.jpg|thumb|alternative text]]
> Thats all, isn't it?
> But no thumbnail is shown, only a frame an 'alternative text' and the
> enlarge link!
> No picture at all!
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

I had a similar problem due to Apache's httpd.conf file having an alias for
the /images/ folder.  Removing or renaming the alias in the httpd.conf fixes
that issue if that is the case for you.

John


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admin meeting

body:
> There aren't enough people at "foundation level" to deal with them.
> They *have* to push them out to the people on the ground or they won't
> get done.

Yes! What I think we need is better communication between the foundation
level people and the hard-working editors on the ground. Brief
announcements on this mailing list in the form of "Problem X is really
getting serious, let's solve it with solution Y" are not enough. We need
some mechanism down on the wiki itself for the foundation level people to
get important information across to everyone interested.

If you find that you roll out solution Y and it gets pounded with deletion
votes within minutes then you're doing something wrong. You have to really
make the case to people why problem X is serious and how solution Y will
help. Or maybe you just describe the problem clearly and let the people on
the ground figure out if solution Y, Z or W is the best one.

When good people have good information available they will act sensibly.
Wikipedians are good people. Give us as good information as you can.

Regards,
Haukur


body:
Am 22.01.2006 um 17:59 schrieb Michael Laudahn:

> Thomas Koll's reply: probably a sample of german totalitarian fuzzy
> logic

obviously you didn't read my biography...

> He contends to have read half an hour in my website and now
> diagnoses me as
> having 'paranoia' - whatever that may be.

I don't diagnose, I'm a informatics student not a psychologist.
Btw, not only totalitarism and ignorance for social matters in
the own country is a German habit but also Querulantentum ;-)

> 'Logic': This procedure has got nothing to do with it. He is
> arguing around
> my arguments. My arguments were, in a nutshell: Both the
> individuals named
> (cf my original message) boast as human-rights specialists.
> Practise has shown that they seem very choosy whom to attribute
> these rights, when they have been violated. Human rights are,
> however,  indivisible by nature. In other words, they are probably
> high-ranking conmen, and the public has a right to know about that.

As Str?bele already wrote, you don't deliver enough details, just
complaining about
helicopters and Zoll-boats is really not enough for deciding wether
or not to
take a lawsuit.

> A link to a critical website would accomplish the balance that now
> is lost, due to their partisan self-depiction.
>
> Calling people 'psychiatric' names is the first step towards
> treating them
> like that - think of the defunct Soviet Union, and remember who was
> right
> and who was wrong.

communism is a good thing, sadly in theory only.

> I would prefer the anglo-saxon community dealing with this issue. I
> have tried the german conflict-solving layer already and know that
> there is nothing to be expected.

at least dropping a note on wikide-l would be nice because I
doubt that the anglo-saxon here have enough knowledge of
German language to understand all you website.

ciao, tom

--
http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32
http://verlag.tomk32.de/c/wrdigest


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin meeting

body:
Puddl Duk wrote:
> I would support this idea as long as the mailing list archives were public.

What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
There is no such list. We are discussing creating one.

Fred

On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Jay Converse wrote:

> I don't know if this will help the discussion at all, but unless
> I'm missing
> something, the admin list isn't even listed with all the other
> mailinglists.  Can the public archives really be a big deal if you
> can't
> just accidentally stumble upon them?


from_name: Martin Baumann

subject: [Wikitech-l] no Thumb-Nails shown

body:
Hi,

I posted the same question already in the Mediawiki-Mailing group. But
it seems that
nobody has an idea.
So here is my problem:

I want to show thumbnails of my images. What I do:
* first upload an image
* to show the thumbnail enter [[Image:myPic.jpg|thumb|alternative text]]
Thats all, isn't it?
But no thumbnail is shown, only a frame an 'alternative text' and the
enlarge link!
No picture at all!

I thought that it could be a configuration problem.
In LocalSettings.php I have the following block:

 ## To enable image uploads, make sure the 'images' directory
 ## is writable, then uncomment this:
 $wgEnableUploads = true;
 $wgUseImageResize = true;
 $wgUseImageMagick = true;
 $wgImageMagickConvertCommand = "/usr/segment/bin/convert";

When I enter '/usr/segment/bin/convert' on the webserver I get the
following:

 bash-3.1$ /usr/segment/bin/convert
 Version: ImageMagick 6.1.8 01/18/05 Q16 http://www.imagemagick.org
 Copyright: Copyright (C) 1999-2005 ImageMagick Studio LLC
 ...

This seems to me to be correct. So I guess it is no configuration problem.

Any idea?
Can this be a PHP safe mode problem? Because I had some problems
activating image uploads.
I must run MediaWiki as cgi module. But I get no safe mode restriction
error or something like this.
Also the subdirectories in 'images' are existing and 777.

Thanks, MB


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin list--privacy

body:
On 1/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> The privacy of arbcom deliberation has a completely different basis.
> They are not about establishing policy, but about the private issues of
> individual Wikipedians.  It would not surprise me to hear that in those
> heated circumstances the participants do not pay much attention to
> whether their own statements are defamatory.

As someone who occasionally sorts through the Foundation's email, a
lot of that deals with the private issues of individuals (Wikipedians
or otherwise).

I suspect the real solution to this is for there to be two lists, one
for debating policy (noisy, public) and one for dealing with real
problems (private).  Danny can use the second list to feed action
items from the Foundation to responsible administrators to deal with
them in a responsible and discreet manner.

Kelly


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

body:
On 1/21/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Moveing stuff over to commons weakens our defences against vandalism.

Not if uploading over images is disabled, as I believe it is on en:.

--
Sam


from_name: SP

body:
Thank you for the information Jeremy. I was curious about  how this
drive compared with previous.
Sydney

Jeremy Tobacman wrote:

>To see in more detail how the recent fund drive went, I started looking at
>the raw data and put some figures together here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tobacman/Stats/Fundraising
>.  Comparing this most recent fundraiser to the two earlier fundraisers in
>2005, it seems very clear that *something* happened to make the week
>following 12/28/2005 a very good one for the Foundation.  More specifically,
>previous fundraisers had tended to fizzle, and this one seemed to be taking
>a similar path until its New Year's fireworks.
>
>   How can we figure out what made this fundraiser take off?
>
>Maybe additional data, tests, or experiments could help in future planning--
>It would be great if we could have the techniques in place for such
>remarkable success from the very beginning of the next fundraiser.
>
>Jeremy
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>

--
Sydney Poore

Go Bengals!