from_name: Ceyda Lacin

body:
I will try to explain as briefly as possible:

Please check the following links to see the case clearly:
* [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
* [[Fethullah Gulen]]
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem]

Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid
background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I
have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he
has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue
but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few
books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to
the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried
to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles.

Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on
Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We
quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and
[[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity
towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without
much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or
cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him,
together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified
indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user
does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions
took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems
to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again
indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no
doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in
Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem]).
He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because
Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under
some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried
really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can
ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem]).
That is the main picture in my mind.

Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him
to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a
check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate
his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what
they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is
strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact
not a violation except under some certain situations which are not
applicable to our case.

What are these guys doing on that Gulen article:

[[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem#Response]).
A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier
accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has
been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also
asking about any possible relation between these two users but it
was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and
quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that
and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my
critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]).
Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about
who is doing what on that article.

[[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits
([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962])
over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on
the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is
irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant
contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active
in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never provided a
reason
to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable. I should
also add that
[[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the article
from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of the main article.
I hope this gives some insight
about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The links are
provided at
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem#Response]
you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the
quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from a block
that is applied to two others in the same conflict
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not
be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I
have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing
Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at
the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems
with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it
from his talk page.

Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the
middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we
know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check
user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and
the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations,
there is no a single serious statements made among those
accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok)
and Dr. Gulerdem
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem#Response).

Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also
change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and
want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate
accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter.

Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a
just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I
doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem.

Ceyda Lacin

>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600
>From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar IP's
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>Message-ID: <BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77 at ctelco.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia.
>Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the
>very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three
>accounts will not wash.
>
>Fred
>
>On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>
> >
> >    No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not
> > looking at the
> > case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page are not
> > legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am
> > expecting a
> > sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later.
> >    Thank you.
> >    Ceyda.
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600
> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> > Message-ID: <1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA at ctelco.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >
> > There is more to it than that.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I wonder how you can say, they are the same user,
> >> when all you can check is that they are using the
> >> same IP-address.
> >>
> >> best regards
> >> --
> >> Raphael
> >>
> >> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked this. I
> >>> doublechecked.
> >>>
> >>> Fred
> >>>
> >>> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>    Hi,
> >>>>    I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username
> >>>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
> >>>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my
> >>>> friend know
> >>>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project.
> >>>> Unfortunately
> >>>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face to an
> >>>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my
> >>>> partner
> >>>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not
> >>>> true. I tried
> >>>> to explain it on the check user page:
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> >>>> Rgulerdem.
> >>>>    I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all
> >>>> living at the
> >>>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's randomly. I
> >>>> understand that check user made his decision based on that.
> >>>>    I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I
> >>>> can. I
> >>>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are
> >>>> not the
> >>>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
> >>>>    Thank you in advance.
> >>>>    Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
> >>>>
> >>>> _________________________________________________________________
> >>>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> >>>> it's FREE!
> >>>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> > it's FREE!
> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> It's more the opposite: I consider in-person meetings of such low value
> that they are not worth going out of my way to attend or send someone to
> attend.  This is not 1930; internet projects for decades now have been
> coordinated solely by means of the internet.

In person meetings may be of low value to you, but I've found them to be extremely productive
compared to email/IRC or even phone. For example, we accomplished more in a single weekend during
the January face-to-face meeting of all the board members and most of the officers than we did in
the six months prior to that.

Having most of our paid staff in close proximity to like-minded organizations and representatives
of all the nations of the world will likely have similar efficiencies since meetings could be made
much more easily and frequently.

-- mav

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


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


list: wikien-l

from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
Indeed. They only slag those they consider to be abusive admins, and they
both agree that katefan0 wasn't an abusive admin.

On 5/26/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> They actually do manage a somewhat one-sided discussion. Everyking
> and Skyring are not mean-spirited.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 26, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Death Phoenix wrote:
>
> > I managed to read all of it. It was most enlightening. I got to
> > understand
> > WR a little more.
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and consensus

body:
On 5/27/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> That doesn't seem like a fair policy; you seem to believe that it's a
> good idea to ban somebody from using the name they wish, even if it's
> their actual given name, just because somebody else finds it
> offensive for some (culturally-specific) reason.

Yes, I do. I'm sorry for Dick Head and Johnny Bigbollocks, and especially
Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat and even Colin Powell. That nice girl
Lynndie Enland especially. But sometimes you have to put the group interest
ahead of your own.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection

body:
On 5/27/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> When X is a person, anything known to be published by X is a
> verifiable source about X. (This is more of a heuristic than a law,
> as there are no doubt counterexamples.)

Verifiable source that X stated Y, you mean. We can't trust them to be
telling the truth, as was pointed out.

There still seems to be no consensus on whether Wikipedia requires
verifiable information, verifiable sources, or both.

Steve


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Further explanations of the case

body:
On May 27, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> Rgulerdems main accusation has been to create sock-puppets
> to give the wrong impression, that his position is the
> position of the majority, respectively to circumvent the 3RR.
>
> Now, if Rgulerdem did not create sock-puppets, but instead
> invited other editors, who happen to share his position,
> the accusations are null and void.

No.  It's not.  The question, when deciding on *Wikipedia policy* is
the position of the majority *of established Wikipedians* - Not the
position of the majority of anyone, previously involved with Wikipedia
or not.  Bringing in friends who have no previous association with
Wikipedia to attempt to sway the outcome of a dispute is frowned upon,
and a just reason for being escorted out the door.

While encouraging your friends to join Wikipedia is fine, and even
encouraged, have the courtesy and sense to ask such friends to
*contribute to Wikipedia* for a while *before* getting into policy (or
for that matter, content) disputes that the person who told them about
Wikipedia was already involved in.  This is not too hard, this is not
unfair.  This is simple courtesy and respect for the community.

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] Usernames (was: Re: welch and consensus)

body:
My doubts were unfounded. On this basis, a username block for
Saladin1970 seems to be justifiable. But since he is new to the
project, I would suggest allowing him to change his username.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

body:
Yesterday, I forwarded several emails. To two different lists. And none
of the mails got through. I have to go dig up in the OTRS system to
forward them again. I am pissed off. We are using a totally unreliable
system and there is no way to know when a email was transmitted and when
it was not.

Ant

Steve Bennett wrote:
> Well that came through, try a nastier attachment like an exe or a zip.
>
> Steve
>
> On 5/24/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>Yesterday, I tried to forward three times a mail with attachment from
>>>the partnership queue on OTRS. Nothing happened (no mail was received).
>>>
>>>Do you guys observe the same issue (no forward when done with
>>>attachment) ?
>>
>>No one answered this, so I'll reply with an empirical test.
>>I'm replying twice, once with and once without an attachment.
>>This reply has an attachment.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Wikitech-l mailing list
>>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>>
>>
>>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Yesterday, I forwarded several emails. To two different lists. And none
> of the mails got through. I have to go dig up in the OTRS system to
> forward them again. I am pissed off. We are using a totally unreliable
> system and there is no way to know when a email was transmitted and when
> it was not.

1) When did you send it?
2) Where did you send it?
3) What is the subject of the mail?
4) What is the link to the message in OTRS?
5) Did you try it once only or more than once?
6) Does it always fail or only sometimes fail?
7) Have you tried other messages?
8) Do other messages work or fail?
9) Does forwarding messages to addresses other than the list work?
10) Does forwarding messages to other lists work?

-- 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/20060527/7e858567/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org don't work

body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:
> [[category:Comune d<nowiki>''</nowiki>a Campania]]

Get rid of the <nowiki>.

> The only thing that works is take out the '' + the nowiki tag - so we
> get a category, but the resulting spelling is then plain wrong. It
> worked well up to the last version of the Mediawiki software ... so
> something must have been changed there.

Yes, the bug was fixed that allowed <nowiki> in there.

-- 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/20060527/bc7684b0/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] nofollow in user: space

body:
Earlier this week, Brion wrote:
> This is now active.

Also at [[Wikipedia_talk:Spam]] you wrote:

| It is however my intention to enable nofollow everywhere in the
| long run...

Would you like some more community support before you do that
and, if so, in what form?

(Ilmari, how contentious is the question for the main namespace?
What are the objections?)


subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

references:
<e4hmg9$94c$1@sea.gmane.org>	<2006May19.1736.scs.005@angostura.scs.ndip.eskimo.net>	<f1c3529e0605232347i41a58441k1f9abd988f259c05@mail.gmail.com>	<e5914p$gkr$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<44788DDF.605@pobox.com>

body:
Ok, forwarding from OTRS to mailing lists should now work correctly.

The problem was that when OTRS (along with secure.wikimedia.org) was moved from
our main mail server to a second box, the mail configuration on that second box
wasn't quite right.

It thought that it controlled mail for the entire wikimedia domain, which it
doesn't. As a result, mails forwarded to the lists got handled on the wrong
server, where they fell into a deep black hole never to be seen again.

I've tweaked the config so it knows it handles only OTRS, and other mails are
forwarded properly through the main mail server.

-- 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/20060527/6a02733e/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Tim Doyle

subject: [Wikitech-l] TaxAlmanac Discussion Forum

body:
I stumbled across the recent discussion on this list regarding the
TaxAlmanac Discussion Forum and thought I'd join in and participate in the
discussion. My name is Tim Doyle, and I am the moderator for the TaxAlmanac
wiki (http://www.taxalmanac.org), and also responsible for driving the
effort to launch our discussion forums. Our forum was launched mid-November
last year and has been a great success for us. Our customers have found it
much easier to use than the standard talk pages. Contributions to the site
increased dramatically shortly after we launched these forums. Let me take a
stab at answering some of the comments from the earlier discussion thread:

Erik Moeller wrote:

> I just saw that Tax Almanac, a MediaWiki customized by Intuit
> software, has a very interesting integrated discussion system:
>
> http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion_Forum_Index
>
> It uses normal wiki pages in the "Discussion:" namespace to store the
> threads, and stores the comments themselves as parametrized templates
> within these pages. But the user interface looks like any ordinary
> bulletin board.
>
> I don't see any links to source code and don't expect that it is
> available. Has someone talked to them about whether they'd be willing
> to open source it already?
>

We wanted our discussion forum to be built into / based on standard
MediaWiki pages, which allows for links to other articles, enables searches,
and also encourages users to become familiar with the wiki in general. We
created a namespace specifically for these discussions, and added categories
to the topic pages so that they could be segmented into different discussion
categories. This approach allows us to easily move a discussion from one
category to another, or to add it to multiple categories.

We used a set of templates on the site to define what is added to new topics
or when other users reply. These refer to other templates which then work
with a modified monobook.css to define how the pages actually look.

phil.boswell at gmail wrote:

> They seem to be using an extension to provide the "most recent
discussions"
> view, sourced from a particular namespace JOINed with a given category.

That is correct. We wrote another extension which returns a current list of
articles within a specified namespace, and optionally filtered on a given
category. We can also pass in the number of items to return, the name of a
template to apply to the results to customize the look of the results, etc.

ecable at avxw wrote:

> I contacted the person who developed that system, may be able to get
> the source code and start working on it; perhaps I can even get him
> involved in this list! (-;

You succeeded. Regarding the source code, it is not currently available, but
we are currently reviewing if we should do this. I will keep you informed.
We've been approached by Jimmy on this issue, so you can be assured that we
are taking the requests seriously.

timwi at gmx wrote:

> That is indeed interesting; however from a software engineering point of
> view it is extremely hacky and probably hard to maintain. I strongly
> recommend against using this in official MediaWiki.

I'm not sure why you consider our approach a 'hack' or hard to maintain.
Could you explain?

Platonides at gmail wrote:

> They use special extensions Special:Newthread (not listed at specialpages)

> and probably the edit form is tweaked too.
>
> They format it through several templates:
>
> {{ForumThreadHeading|title|title}}
> {{ForumNewPost|UserID=Foo|Date=29 February 2006|Text= .......}}
> {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Joe|Date=30 February 2006|Text=....}}
>
> <recentpages>
> namespace=Discussion
> |category=User_Introductions
> |limit=50
> |template=DiscussionsOnIndex
> |top=sticky
> </recentpages>
>
> I guess they do it with the templates. Don't know wat would happen if we
> started writeng there invalid wiki syntax and closing the template mark.
;)

Platonides got it basically correct. As far as how we protect against
incorrect syntax, any characters, such as "}" or "|" which might adversely
affect the discussion posts are converted to HTML entities before they are
written to the page. Of course users could edit the page using the standard
wiki editing mechanism, but we have not found this to be a problem. On the
few occasions where someone has made a mistake here, they typically fix it
very quickly. Yes, it is possible for someone to vandalize the discussions
in this way, but we would deal with that as we would with any other type of
vandalism.

I'd be very interested to hear more from the community, and I look forward
to participating in the discussions!

Thank you,

Tim Doyle


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Hi, we have a strange behaviour on the nap wikipedia. Strange enough the
categories don't work well - the first one works - the others not ... hmmm

http://nap.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acerno

The categories are inserted like this:

[[category:giugrafia]]
[[category:Comune d<nowiki>''</nowiki>a Campania]]
[[category:Comune d<nowiki>''</nowiki>a pruvincia 'e Salierno]]

now we tried the following:

changed the category to Categoria, Category, categoria
took out the nowiki-tag

The only thing that works is take out the '' + the nowiki tag - so we
get a category, but the resulting spelling is then plain wrong. It
worked well up to the last version of the Mediawiki software ... so
something must have been changed there.

One thing I just tried out: also wiki-links do not work anymore - this
means we cannot create correct pages anymore since <nowiki> does not
seem to be allowed within a wiki link. This means problems with
nap.wikipedia, but not only: also wiktionary will have (maybe already
has) problems with this (we have approx. 3000 Neapolitan words (if I am
right) in the Italian wiktionary - some of these probably use the '')

Could someone please look into this?

Thank you!

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


from_name: Selina .

subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and consensus

body:
On 27/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/27/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> >
> > That doesn't seem like a fair policy; you seem to believe that it's a
> > good idea to ban somebody from using the name they wish, even if it's
> > their actual given name, just because somebody else finds it
> > offensive for some (culturally-specific) reason.
>
>
>
> Yes, I do. I'm sorry for Dick Head and Johnny Bigbollocks, and especially
> Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat and even Colin Powell. That nice girl
> Lynndie Enland especially. But sometimes you have to put the group
> interest
> ahead of your own.
>
> Steve

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SuperButchBitch ? Read this
article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_and_femme - it was pretty clearly meant
in that context, so banning her for being gay was pretty out of it

see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive24#Block_of_User:SuperButchBitch_-_.22inappropriate_username.22

-Selina


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are
right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks
don't agree.

Fred

On May 27, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

> Hello,
>
> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
> removed an insult on their religious belief.
>
> I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
> I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
> I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
> blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
> some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
>
> One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted
> that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard
> and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that
> article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on
> WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to
> file a Deletion review
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecu
> tion_of_Muslims
>
> which itself got removed after administrators commented
> "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing
> this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it.
> It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of
> administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree
> with.
>
> [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]]
> Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
>
> [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]]
> block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs
> where I allegedly personally attacked him.
>
> Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor
> of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider
> the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
>
> best regards
> --
> Raphael
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Unblock request - We are not a group acting like one
	person

body:
On May 27, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>  Please note that my contributions to the Gulen article is no more
> than my contributions to other articles.
According to the contributions of Light&Truth
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Light%26Truth ):
The account made 11 edits to Fethullah G?len (or the talk page).  7
more edits to user_talk and Wikipedia pages related to the controversy
on the Fethullah G?len page and/or the account's relationship to
Rgulerdem. A few edits to the user page; and a total of 8 edits to any
other page.  Of those 8 edits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Speech_act&diff=prev&oldid=47905348 was changing quote marks;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Amoeba&diff=prev&oldid=47906593 was a good, useful addition
(which I appreciate),
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:
Myosin&diff=prev&oldid=47908396 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:
Integrin&diff=prev&oldid=47908564 were apparently useful suggestions;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Ezra_Crack&diff=prev&oldid=54071880 was changing quote marks;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Papiamento&diff=prev&oldid=54072104 was apparently changing a
space, or at least, nothing shows up on the diff;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=History&diff=prev&oldid=54073468 was an apparently useful
clarification of the def;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Cuiheng&diff=prev&oldid=54075558 was a small, but useful
rephrasing.

Looking this over, it seems clear that the account was started on
Wikipedia to participate in the Fethullah G?len controversy (as over
50% of the edits are on that subject), but that the account holder is
apparently honestly willing and interested in contributing to Wikipedia
in other areas.  Bringing new users to Wikipedia in order to sway the
outcome of a controversy is justly frowned upon, however, on this
evidence alone, I would recommend an unblock if, and only if, the
account holder agrees to avoid the Fethullah G?len controversy for a
period of time (at least a few months, and maybe a year).

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and consensus

body:
On May 27, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:

>> Because clearly he would never say that if he had some sort of biased
>> agenda.
>
> Assume good faith?

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact. If someone clearly
demonstrates that he has a biased agenda, we have no reason to assume
he doesn't in contradiction to all the evidence.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
   Did you mean Users Azate and Netscott should be blocked because they are
acting like a single person? Maybe sysop Cyde too? Please note that my
contributions to the Gulen article is no more than my contributions to other
articles. To interpret us like 'a group acing together' will mislead you in
your decision. We both know some abuout the issue and wanted to contribute
to the article. You will see that it is not a blind support to Mr. Gulerdem
if you check the talk page. All actions and edits are within the limits of
Wikipedia rules. Please check Gulen talk page.
   Thank you,
   Ceyda Lacin

>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 07:49:11 -0600
>From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Further explanations of the
>	case
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
>Message-ID: <00A1A72E-6418-49B0-A620-888CCCF01D7A at ctelco.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
>	format=flowed
>
>A small group of people who act like one person may be treated as one
>person.
>
>Fred
>
>On May 27, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>
> > I will try to explain as briefly as possible:
> >
> > Please check the following links to see the case clearly:
> > * [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> > * [[Fethullah Gulen]]
> > * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem]
> >
> > Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid
> > background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I
> > have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he
> > has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue
> > but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few
> > books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to
> > the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried
> > to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles.
> >
> > Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on
> > Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We
> > quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and
> > [[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity
> > towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without
> > much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or
> > cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him,
> > together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified
> > indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user
> > does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions
> > took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems
> > to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again
> > indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no
> > doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in
> > Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem]).
> > He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because
> > Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under
> > some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried
> > really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can
> > ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block
> > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem]).
> > That is the main picture in my mind.
> >
> > Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him
> > to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a
> > check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate
> > his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what
> > they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is
> > strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact
> > not a violation except under some certain situations which are not
> > applicable to our case.
> >
> > What are these guys doing on that Gulen article:
> >
> > [[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at
> > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem#Response]).
> > A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier
> > accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has
> > been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also
> > asking about any possible relation between these two users but it
> > was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and
> > quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that
> > and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening.
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my
> > critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at
> > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/
> > Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]).
> > Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about
> > who is doing what on that article.
> >
> > [[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits
> > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%
> > BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962])
> > over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on
> > the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is
> > irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant
> > contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active
> > in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never
> > provided a reason
> > to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable.
> > I should also add that
> > [[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the
> > article from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of
> > the main article. I hope this gives some insight
> > about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The
> > links are provided at
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem#Response]
> > you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the
> > quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from
> > a block
> > that is applied to two others in the same conflict
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not
> > be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I
> > have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing
> > Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at
> > the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems
> > with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it
> > from his talk page.
> >
> > Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the
> > middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we
> > know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check
> > user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and
> > the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations,
> > there is no a single serious statements made among those
> > accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok)
> > and Dr. Gulerdem
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> > Rgulerdem#Response).
> >
> > Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also
> > change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and
> > want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate
> > accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter.
> >
> > Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a
> > just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I
> > doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem.
> >
> > Ceyda Lacin
> >
> >
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 6
> >> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600
> >> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar
> >> IP's
> >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >> Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >> Message-ID: <BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77 at ctelco.net>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> >>
> >> Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia.
> >> Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the
> >> very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three
> >> accounts will not wash.
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >> On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >    No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not
> >> > looking at the
> >> > case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page
> >> are not
> >> > legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am
> >> > expecting a
> >> > sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later.
> >> >    Thank you.
> >> >    Ceyda.
> >> >
> >> > Message: 9
> >> > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600
> >> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
> >> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >> > Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> >> > Message-ID: <1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA at ctelco.net>
> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >> >
> >> > There is more to it than that.
> >> >
> >> > Fred
> >> >
> >> > On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I wonder how you can say, they are the same user,
> >> >> when all you can check is that they are using the
> >> >> same IP-address.
> >> >>
> >> >> best regards
> >> >> --
> >> >> Raphael
> >> >>
> >> >> Fred Bauder wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked
> >> this. I
> >> >>> doublechecked.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Fred
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>    Hi,
> >> >>>>    I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username
> >> >>>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr.
> >> >>>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my
> >> >>>> friend know
> >> >>>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project.
> >> >>>> Unfortunately
> >> >>>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face
> >> to an
> >> >>>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my
> >> >>>> partner
> >> >>>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not
> >> >>>> true. I tried
> >> >>>> to explain it on the check user page:
> >> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> >> >>>> Rgulerdem.
> >> >>>>    I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all
> >> >>>> living at the
> >> >>>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's
> >> randomly. I
> >> >>>> understand that check user made his decision based on that.
> >> >>>>    I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as
> >> much as I
> >> >>>> can. I
> >> >>>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are
> >> >>>> not the
> >> >>>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal.
> >> >>>>    Thank you in advance.
> >> >>>>    Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> >>>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> >> >>>> it's FREE!
> >> >>>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>> 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
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > _________________________________________________________________
> >> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> >> > it's FREE!
> >> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://
> > search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


body:
On May 27, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

> Hello,
>
> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
> removed an insult on their religious belief.
>
> I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
> I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
> I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
> blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
> some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]

Wikipedia is not a place to post lengthy tracts denouncing Wikipedia
and its administrators. Wikipedia is a project to build an
encyclopedia. I'm sorry this didn't seem obvious to you when you
started, but it's not exactly prudent to go around attacking the
people you're supposed to work with.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

subject: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)

body:
It's the first rule of Wikipedia Review: Every admin is abusive. Heck, I'm
abusive because I closed the LUEshi AfD last week.

I have to admit, that is disgusting. Especially sgrayban, who I can't
believe thinks destroying someones career is ethical.

It's official. Wikipedia Review is the cancer of the Internet
--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

body:
Please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Challenge_to_User:Rgulerdem.27s_indefinite_block_for_.22Exhausted_community_patience.22

Rgulerdems main accusation has been to create sock-puppets
to give the wrong impression, that his position is the
position of the majority, respectively to circumvent the 3RR.

Now, if Rgulerdem did not create sock-puppets, but instead
invited other editors, who happen to share his position,
the accusations are null and void.

best regards
--
Raphael

Fred Bauder wrote:
> A small group of people who act like one person may be treated as one
> person.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 27, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
>
>> I will try to explain as briefly as possible:
>>
>> Please check the following links to see the case clearly:
>> * [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
>> * [[Fethullah Gulen]]
>> * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem]
>>
>> Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid
>> background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I
>> have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he
>> has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue
>> but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few
>> books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to
>> the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried
>> to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles.
>>
>> Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on
>> Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We
>> quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and
>> [[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity
>> towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without
>> much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or
>> cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him,
>> together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified
>> indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user
>> does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions
>> took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems
>> to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again
>> indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no
>> doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in
>> Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on
>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem]).
>> He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because
>> Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under
>> some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried
>> really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can
>> ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block
>> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem]).
>> That is the main picture in my mind.
>>
>> Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him
>> to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a
>> check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate
>> his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what
>> they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is
>> strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact
>> not a violation except under some certain situations which are not
>> applicable to our case.
>>
>> What are these guys doing on that Gulen article:
>>
>> [[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at
>> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem#Response]).
>> A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier
>> accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has
>> been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also
>> asking about any possible relation between these two users but it
>> was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and
>> quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that
>> and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening.
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my
>> critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at
>> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/
>> Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]).
>> Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about
>> who is doing what on that article.
>>
>> [[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits
>> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%
>> BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962])
>> over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on
>> the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is
>> irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant
>> contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active
>> in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never
>> provided a reason
>> to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable.
>> I should also add that
>> [[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the
>> article from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of
>> the main article. I hope this gives some insight
>> about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The
>> links are provided at
>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem#Response]
>> you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the
>> quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from
>> a block
>> that is applied to two others in the same conflict
>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not
>> be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I
>> have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing
>> Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at
>> the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems
>> with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it
>> from his talk page.
>>
>> Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the
>> middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we
>> know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check
>> user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and
>> the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations,
>> there is no a single serious statements made among those
>> accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok)
>> and Dr. Gulerdem
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
>> Rgulerdem#Response).
>>
>> Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also
>> change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and
>> want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate
>> accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter.
>>
>> Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a
>> just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I
>> doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem.
>>
>> Ceyda Lacin
>>


body:
Sabine Cretella wrote:
> We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
> italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
> and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
> for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?

Since '' can't be round-tripped reliably in wikitext, it's most likely that
we'll have to make '' explicitly forbidden in wiki page titles in the course of
fixing parser bugs.

I strongly recommend you find another way of representing page titles that
doesn't require the use of markup.

-- 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/20060527/f86b0226/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] welch and consensus

body:
On 5/25/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> Because clearly he would never say that if he had some sort of biased
> agenda.

Assume good faith?

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Editing a featured article

body:
--- Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, this is the general view. In particular, don't add unsourced statements
> to a fully sourced article, don't add spelling mistakes to a proofread
> article etc. I would like us to formalise this.

That really should not be the case for older FAs. I rewrote two of them because I feared they were
prime delisting candidates. Oh, and those articles didn't degrade since listing; FA standards
simply got a lot more rigorous since they were listed.

-- mav

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


from_name: Fl Celloguy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quasi-protection policy proposal

body:
Hello, all: I've written up [[Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy]] [1], a
proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper
accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that
I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting.
However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and
implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts. Thanks!

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quasi-protection_policy

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] ( First post ) RE: "In which Snowspinner pwns WR."

body:
G'day Selina,

>> Funny that fiction about stalking someone raises alarm bells on WR,
>> given that they welcome amorrow and similar editors. I suspect
>> Snowspinner could collect a lot of valuable advice on what it's
>> like to be a creepy psychopath from some of WR's more respected
>> contributors.
>
> Tolerate =\= respected. ;)

Does "tolerate" mean "egg them on"?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1422&st=66

As long as some posters on Wikipedia Review are eager to read amorrow's
cowardly attacks and threats, and stand and agree (even applaud) as he
puts up yet another stalk page on his website, your reputation will be
deservedly in the mud.

You *want* to be a place where people treated unfairly by Wikipedia can
go and bitch.  But what you *are* is a place where people we have gotten
rid of for being too tiresome, insane or even dangerous can go and link
up and talk about how one day they'll get revenge for imagined slights.
  You're pathetic, and you'll continue to *be* pathetic until you
finally get around to cleaning up your act.  You think Wikipedia has
problems?  Mate, we're a picture of health by comparison to some of our
critics.  Grow up and pull your collective heads in.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse


body:
Hello,

even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
removed an insult on their religious belief.

I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]

One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted
that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard
and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that
article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on
WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to
file a Deletion review

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims

which itself got removed after administrators commented
"Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing
this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it.
It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of
administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree
with.

[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]]
Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May

[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]]
block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs
where I allegedly personally attacked him.

Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor
of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider
the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.

best regards
--
Raphael


body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
>> [[category:Comune d<nowiki>''</nowiki>a Campania]]
>>
>
> Get rid of the <nowiki>.
>
>
>> The only thing that works is take out the '' + the nowiki tag - so we
>> get a category, but the resulting spelling is then plain wrong. It
>> worked well up to the last version of the Mediawiki software ... so
>> something must have been changed there.
>>
>
> Yes, the bug was fixed that allowed <nowiki> in there.
>
hmmm ... so that was a bug we needed on nap.wikipedia (it was not a bug
for us, but a feature we need) ... if I take it out the apostrophs don't
show up anymore - the category/wiki link is shown half in italics and it
is no category/wiki link anymore - if I take out the apostrophs the text
is plain wrong ...

We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?

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


body:
Should just plain ban, he's trying to start up "Wikipedians for Decency" all
over again

-Selina

On 27/05/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are
> right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks
> don't agree.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 27, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
> > my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
> > for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
> > blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
> > images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
> > removed an insult on their religious belief.
> >
> > I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
> > I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
> > I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
> > blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
> > some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
> >
> > One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted
> > that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard
> > and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that
> > article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on
> > WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to
> > file a Deletion review
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecu
> > tion_of_Muslims
> >
> > which itself got removed after administrators commented
> > "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing
> > this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it.
> > It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of
> > administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree
> > with.
> >
> > [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]]
> > Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
> >
> > [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]]
> > block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs
> > where I allegedly personally attacked him.
> >
> > Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor
> > of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider
> > the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
> >
> > best regards
> > --
> > Raphael


from_name: Klaas

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

>If someone were to propose such discussions happen
>on a mailinglist
>with a limit of ~100 words per person/day, then I'd
find >that
>agreeable. If you can't make your point in a small
space >you either
>haven't thought about it enough or it's just not a
good >idea. Brevity
>also helps non-native English speakers understand.

Gregory makes it indeed confusing for people having
another mother tongue than English (I am one of them):
by using too many words.

What I understand is (can native speakers tell me if
I'm right or wrong?):

Limit of 100 words would be better. I doubt it. If you
are allowed to attach a picture (far more than 100
words)  you could be able to show what you mean
even to people who can read nor write.

These were indeed less than 100 words (excluding the
quote :)).

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


body:
Rotem Liss schrieb:
> You can use '&39; instead of ''.
>
> Rotem Liss
>
>
Thank you Rotem Liss, this should solve our problem - at least I hope so.

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


from_name: Rotem Liss

body:
You can use '&39; instead of ''.

Rotem Liss

Rotem Liss
mail at rotemliss.com
http://www.rotemliss.com

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an
                          unladen european swallow

----- Original message -----
From: "Sabine Cretella" <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 20:37:48 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org don't work

Brion Vibber schrieb:
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
>> [[category:Comune d<nowiki>''</nowiki>a Campania]]
>>
>
> Get rid of the <nowiki>.
>
>
>> The only thing that works is take out the '' + the nowiki tag - so we
>> get a category, but the resulting spelling is then plain wrong. It
>> worked well up to the last version of the Mediawiki software ... so
>> something must have been changed there.
>>
>
> Yes, the bug was fixed that allowed <nowiki> in there.
>
hmmm ... so that was a bug we needed on nap.wikipedia (it was not a bug
for us, but a feature we need) ... if I take it out the apostrophs don't
show up anymore - the category/wiki link is shown half in italics and it
is no category/wiki link anymore - if I take out the apostrophs the text
is plain wrong ...

We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?

Best, Sabine
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/27/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like it, but there's a big logistical burden lying in wait for us.
> (On the other hand, it would mean that an admin virtually has to
> eyeball each new user and leave them a friendly comment, which is a
> good thing)
>

I don't see how the time saved not having to block a small number of
vandals can possibly outweigh the time spent validating a large number
of good users.

> On the talk page, Jtdirl has quite a good idea - modify
> semi-protection to be "accounts where first edit was more than four
> days ago" rather than "accounts where creation was more than four days
> ago". Less logistics, but certainly a benefit to the sleeper problem.
>
You could always combine the two.  Auto-validate X days after Y edits
(say 2 and 10), or manually validate by an admin at any time.

Of course, there are relatively easy ways to get around this.  To stop
a well-written bot you have to block the IP address(es), not the
usernames.  But then you've gotta worry about collateral damage,
because IP blocks affect *everyone* who uses that IP (even admins, see
[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]).

And that's really the fear.  Not the vandalism itself as it will
almost always get reverted.  Not even the waste of time, of admins and
regular reverting users, although that's up there.  But the real fear
is that the vandals are going to create a situation where good editors
can't edit, or have to cross very high hurdles to do so.  The fear is
the realization of what Nicholas Carr called "the death of Wikipedia"
(he was premature, but it's only a few well executed vandal attacks
away).

Anthony


from_name: Ceyda Lacin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Deal!

body:
   I would agree on that. It is OK with me to wait a few more months while
editing on other articles and gain more experience. Please note that, none
of my edits were out of acceptable limits. I took all my edits serious on
Gulen talk page too, as you can easily see from quality of my edits. I
believe this Wikipedia project can be improved further and I am ready and
willing to offer my help.
   On the other hand, I canot accept your statements which imply that I am
editing barely to support someone else. With my whole respect, that is not a
kind and good statement. I am not a blind follower of someone and Dr.
Gulerdem who is an adorable person, a gentleman with an unbelievably good
mind did not asked me to back up him on that dispute. It is not something he
can do, and it is not something I could agree on. He mainly introduced the
project to me, in particular pointed out the Gulen article. I thought I can
do something about it myself. I do not know why those people feel animosity
towards Dr. Gulerdem (other than some ideological or religious hatred) but I
think one should consider it as a chance for Wikipedia, if he still wants to
continue on editing.
   Thank you for your recommendation and understanding.
   Ceyda Lacin

>
>Looking this over, it seems clear that the account was started on
>Wikipedia to participate in the Fethullah G?len controversy (as over
>50% of the edits are on that subject), but that the account holder is
>apparently honestly willing and interested in contributing to Wikipedia
>in other areas.  Bringing new users to Wikipedia in order to sway the
>outcome of a controversy is justly frowned upon, however, on this
>evidence alone, I would recommend an unblock if, and only if, the
>account holder agrees to avoid the Fethullah G?len controversy for a
>period of time (at least a few months, and maybe a year).
>
>Jesse Weinstein
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 27 May 2006 at 19:42, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
> removed an insult on their religious belief.

Vandalism isn't any less vandalism because it is motivated by
religion.

--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/


from_name: Delirium

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
 personal attack

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
> On 27 May 2006 at 19:42, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>
>> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
>> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
>> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
>> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
>> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
>> removed an insult on their religious belief.
>>
>
> Vandalism isn't any less vandalism because it is motivated by
> religion.
>
I think calling it "vandalism" is a bit of question-begging.  There's a
legitimate argument over what precisely Wikipedia should display.  In
most cases, we display things regardless of whether they offend people,
although in some cases we don't out of respect for good taste (for
example, the photograph of human feces on [[human feces]] was removed by
consensus).

Now if it's a minority opinion and the person keeps insisting on it then
they can be banned for some other reason, but I don't think it's literal
"vandalism".

-Mark


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 27/05/06, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, all: I've written up [[Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy]] [1], a
> proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper
> accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page. I know that
> I've written a lot, and at first glance, the proposal may seem daunting.
> However, I truly believe that this would immensely improve Wikipedia and
> implore you to read it through and offer your thoughts. Thanks!

I like it, but there's a big logistical burden lying in wait for us.
(On the other hand, it would mean that an admin virtually has to
eyeball each new user and leave them a friendly comment, which is a
good thing)

On the talk page, Jtdirl has quite a good idea - modify
semi-protection to be "accounts where first edit was more than four
days ago" rather than "accounts where creation was more than four days
ago". Less logistics, but certainly a benefit to the sleeper problem.

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


from_name: Nick Boalch

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
[...]
>> Hello, all: I've written up [[Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy]] [1], a
>> proposal similar to semi-protection that would effectively limit sleeper
>> accounts used to vandalize articles linked from the Main Page.
[...]
> I like it, but there's a big logistical burden lying in wait for us.

Do we have any statistics on how many new accounts are created each day?

That would help to determine if the burden of manually checking every
new user would be unsustainable -- it would be unacceptable for
potentially constructive users to be held back from contributing because
of an 'account validation backlog'.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-28

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 322 of 332 tests (96.99%) FAILED!


from_name: John Lyden

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 288

body:
> To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to
> change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is
> "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV"
> (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).

Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself,
Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New
York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least
Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.

It's all a conspiracy perpetrated by THE CABAL. Fnord.

--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp at gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
On 5/27/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> So what would you do if the English language had this requirement?

If English had had this requirement, I don't think Ward would have
chosen '' and ''' for his markup a decade ago. ;)

Seriously though, while we might be able to accommodate this it's
going to be tricky to do it right. Expect frequent breakage.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
On 5/27/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not understand the need for markup in titles. I certainly believe
> that when markup prevents correct orthography in titles in any
> language, it means that markup cannot be handled in titles and
> consequently the markup in titles should not be allowed.

Understand that here you are advocating the requirement that '' and
''' be forbidden from titles (since they are markup). That's the easy
answer, and I would certainly agree with that under ideal
circumstances.

I don't expect you guys will let me do that, though.

> As MediaWiki is about supporting all languages, markup in titles is
> clearly at best a nice to have and certainly not a must have.
> Representing orthographies is indeed a MUST have feature.

Here I'm guessing you mean that we should have a workaround, where ''
and ''' can be used in titles, but (hopefully, maybe) they will be
(somehow?) prevented from being interpreted as markup in things that
are titles (consistently, we hope).

That's tricky to do right, as it involves some combination of guessing
what people intended (very unreliable and inconsistent, probably) or
forcing people to follow obscure escaping conventions (very unreliable
to get people to follow them, especially newbies).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Help: Chinese Wikipedia error on Variant zh-cn,
 zh-tw, zh-hk, zh-sg

body:
mingli yuan wrote:
> Hi, buddies. We need your help on Chinese Wikipedia.
>
> This morning all pages are shown with errors: internal links are missing,
> pictures can not be shown, tables are upset. But if you change the language
> variant from zh-cn, zh-tw, zh-hk, zh-sg to zh, all things return to normal.

This is (hopefully) fixed now.

I'm not sure how or why, but this was triggered as a side effect of the message
transformation changes I introduced earlier today. It doesn't seem to have
affected anywhere but Chinese Wikipedia, and I have had great difficulty trying
to reproduce the problem locally.

For the moment I've reverted the changes, so constructs like {{urlencode:$1}}
and {{fullurl:$1}} are broken again.

-- 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/20060528/3b01e1eb/attachment.pgp>


body:
What do you mean by "even when you are right"?
Aren't you interested to find out, whether I am right?

If I am right, letting those admins go on blocking editors
would be very bad for Wikipedia as it would shift the bias
even more. To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to
change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is
"purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV"
(which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).

--
Raphael

Fred Bauder wrote:
> If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are
> right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks
> don't agree.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 27, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
>> my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
>> for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
>> blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
>> images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
>> removed an insult on their religious belief.
>>
>> I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
>> I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
>> I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
>> blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
>> some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
>>
>> One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted
>> that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard
>> and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that
>> article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on
>> WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to
>> file a Deletion review
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
>> title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=55213632#User:Raphael1.2FPersecu
>> tion_of_Muslims
>>
>> which itself got removed after administrators commented
>> "Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing
>> this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it.
>> It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of
>> administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree
>> with.
>>
>> [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]]
>> Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
>>
>> [[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]]
>> block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs
>> where I allegedly personally attacked him.
>>
>> Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor
>> of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider
>> the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
>>
>> best regards
>> --
>> Raphael
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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:
On 5/27/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> So what would you do if the English language had this requirement?

If English had had this requirement, I don't think Ward would have
chosen '' and ''' for his markup a decade ago. ;)

Seriously though, while we might be able to accommodate this it's
going to be tricky to do it right. Expect frequent breakage.

-- 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/20060528/038e2ace/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 5/27/06, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not understand the need for markup in titles. I certainly believe
> that when markup prevents correct orthography in titles in any
> language, it means that markup cannot be handled in titles and
> consequently the markup in titles should not be allowed.

Understand that here you are advocating the requirement that '' and
''' be forbidden from titles (since they are markup). That's the easy
answer, and I would certainly agree with that under ideal
circumstances.

I don't expect you guys will let me do that, though.

> As MediaWiki is about supporting all languages, markup in titles is
> clearly at best a nice to have and certainly not a must have.
> Representing orthographies is indeed a MUST have feature.

Here I'm guessing you mean that we should have a workaround, where ''
and ''' can be used in titles, but (hopefully, maybe) they will be
(somehow?) prevented from being interpreted as markup in things that
are titles (consistently, we hope).

That's tricky to do right, as it involves some combination of guessing
what people intended (very unreliable and inconsistent, probably) or
forcing people to follow obscure escaping conventions (very unreliable
to get people to follow them, especially newbies).

-- 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/20060528/50125fc9/attachment.pgp>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Kyle Moore

subject: [Wikipedia-l] User Apcbg using Wikimedia space to violate copyrights

body:
Attention:

The User Apcbg is using Wikimedia's space to violate copyrights and for his
own personal essays on several WIkimedias. He has so far focused on the
Hispanic wikis like es:, gl:, ca:, eu:, pt:, and lad:

This message is to alert the Wikipedian community and to request that they
keep an eye out for this behavior. When seen, the user should be warned and
the undesirable content should be deleted.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the talk page, Jtdirl has quite a good idea - modify
> semi-protection to be "accounts where first edit was more than four
> days ago" rather than "accounts where creation was more than four days
> ago". Less logistics, but certainly a benefit to the sleeper problem.

Unfortunately, that will only lead to bots adding spurious interwiki
links, null edits, switching commas, and so on. The vandals we're
talking about are highly determined, so they're probably not going to
be deterred by algorithmic measures alone.

Having a layer between semi-protection and full protection is likely
to lead to a lot of added complexity and does have the "jump through
hurdles" problem Anthony described. The "positive" way to implement
such systems is through clearly indicated "levels" which users can
advance in. Everything2 does that, as do most RPGs.

I don't think we want to go that way. If we create a trust-based
model, then I think it should replace the current semi-protection
model, rather than being layered above it. The question is, how to
best implement it?

I think it could be combined with the culture of welcoming users. A
"welcome" tab on the talk page might lead to a new screen, which
offers two options:

    [x] Trust this user to edit semi-protected pages
    [x] Send welcome message

    Hello, Foo, and welcome to Wikipedia!_________
    ___________________________________________
    ___________________________________________

This wouldn't be too hard to implement. I'm not sure a model where
only admins can set the "trust this user" flag would scale, though.

Erik


list: wiktionary-l

from_name: Muke Tever

subject:
[Wiktionary-l] [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org
	don't work

body:
GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>> Brion Vibber schrieb:
>> > Sabine Cretella wrote:
>> >
>> >> We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
>> >> italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
>> >> and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
>> >> for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?

Doesn't the regular, non-typewriter apostrophe <?> work, thus <??>?

	*Muke!
--
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] sanger on 'open meritocracies'

body:
I thought some people might be interested that Larry Sanger's written an
article clarifying what he has in mind for a collaborative model that
improves on what he sees as Wikipedia's shortcomings:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/5/26/162017/011

(I don't agree with most of the article, but not all his suggestions are
completely wrong, either.)

-Mark


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
On 5/26/06, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > False. The poster abuhamza used the screen name Saladin1970. I don't
> > understand how is email address is in any way relevant. Most people
> > here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and
> > most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone
> > had accused him for it.
>
> He used the screen name Abu Hamza here on the list.  He used the
> Wikipedia username of User:Saladin1970.  Instead of assuming I don't
> have "my facts straight", you might have considered that I was using
> different terminology than that which you might choose to employ.  His

Yes. But please use the more exact term "email address," for his email
address. Screen name is a very ambiguous term in this context.

> choice of screen name/email name/whatever is entirely relevant, as it
> appears to indicate he is a racial POV warrior, just as someone who
> might choose the email name of David Duke would be a racial POV
> warrior.  Just because some people might not know who David Duke is
> doesn't make any difference.

Since you know that his Wikipedia user name was Saladin1970, and you
probably also know that he didn't begin posting on this mailing list
before he was indefinitely banned, then you should be able to conclude
that his email address had nothing, whatsoever, to do with his
indefinite ban.

Also, you are comparing David Duke, which I assume is a well known
racist in the US, to a Muslim clerk, who, in an international context,
is definitely not well known. Saying that "some people might not know
who Abu Hamza is," is an understatement. You can also take a look at
the article about [[Abu Hamza]], and maybe you will understand why I
find it hard that anyone would want to impersonate or idolize that
guy. There are many way "cooler" al-Qaeida supporters out there.

Apply Occam's Razor, is it more believable that Saladin1970's real
name is Abu Hamza, or is it more believable that he choose the address
abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com to show his support for the real Abu Hamza?
First, recall that "abu" is Arabic and means father of, so every
father who has a child named Hamza would be an "Abu Hamza." Second,
recall that the guy himself has explained that and has claimed that
Abu Hamza is his real name. Third:

Quote Dan Rosenthal:
"n my time spent in the middle east, I've met a large number of men with the
nickname Abu Hamza. I'm no Arabic naming expert, but from what I understand,
Abu _________ is a common nickname scheme over there. I wouldn't be
surprised to find multiple Abu Hamzas in the arabic wikipedia community.
Coincidence in name is just that: coincidence, AFAICT"

And last, even *if* the guy choose the email address
abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com because he likes Abu Hamza, that is no reason
for indefinitely banning him - we allow people who like al-Qaeida to
contribute.

> > Calling editors Zionists is no good. Btw, I believe the extract from
> > "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" was only inserted in one article,
> > [[Alan Hart]].
>
> Well that makes it okay, then.

Yeah, I assume so. Alan Hart is the author of Zionism The Real Enemy
of Jews. The quote was 4-5 paragraphs which is to much for Wikipedia
articles. One or two paragraphs would have been appropriate. It is a
common mistake many new to Wikipedia do.

> > The user is indefinitely banned, there is no way for him to improve
> > his behaviour anyway.
> Yes, but he could easily be unbanned, and is posting on the list
> campaigning for someone to do so.  Hence this discussion.

So before you try to stick up for the guy by helping him improve his
behaviour, you have to get him unbanned. Don't you agree? Or are you
saying that his behaviour on this mailing list is particularly bad?

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
You are right that putting insulting pictures on Wikipedia was a bad
idea. Why so many of our users have a blind spot regarding this issue
I don't know, but there is a consensus that the pictures ought to be
shown. When a consensus develops, it is best to simply register your
dissent and move on. You do not need to ever agree, but you are not
entitled to keep agitating over the issue.

The need to block a whole bunch of outraged users who would try to
remove the cartoons is one of the consequences of what I think was a
bad decision, but once made, the decision is going to be enforced.
Those who are enforcing the decision are just enforcing a community
decision.

There is a point of view issue, but it is not so much American as one
of free expression, really a part of the zeitgeist, of which
Wikipedia is an expression. While I may not wish to publish the
cartoons because I can anticipate the pain of those who may be hurt
by it, the authority of Islam to forbid expression is generally
rejected.

Fred

On May 27, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

> What do you mean by "even when you are right"?
> Aren't you interested to find out, whether I am right?
>
> If I am right, letting those admins go on blocking editors
> would be very bad for Wikipedia as it would shift the bias
> even more. To be honest the english Wikipedia would have to
> change it's NPOV policy and explicitly state, that it is
> "purely and simply, generally sympathetic to an American POV"
> (which seems to be very anti-Muslim nowadays).
>
> --
> Raphael
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> If you raise enough hell you can get in a mess even when you are
>> right. Next time just express your opinion and let it go if folks
>> don't agree.
>>
>> Fred


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Klaas wrote:

>--- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>If someone were to propose such discussions happen
>>on a mailinglist
>>with a limit of ~100 words per person/day, then I'd
>>
>>
>find >that
>
>
>>agreeable. If you can't make your point in a small
>>
>>
>space >you either
>
>
>>haven't thought about it enough or it's just not a
>>
>>
>good >idea. Brevity
>
>
>>also helps non-native English speakers understand.
>>
>>
>
>Gregory makes it indeed confusing for people having
>another mother tongue than English (I am one of them):
>by using too many words.
>
>What I understand is (can native speakers tell me if
>I'm right or wrong?):
>
>Limit of 100 words would be better. I doubt it. If you
>are allowed to attach a picture (far more than 100
>words)  you could be able to show what you mean
>even to people who can read nor write.
>
>These were indeed less than 100 words (excluding the
>quote :)).
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
What, short on disk space? I have missed most of the thread. Can someone
explain why 100 words should be a limit?

Jeff


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> Sabine Cretella wrote:
>
>> We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in
>> italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way
>> and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag
>> for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever?
>>
>
> Since '' can't be round-tripped reliably in wikitext, it's most likely that
> we'll have to make '' explicitly forbidden in wiki page titles in the course of
> fixing parser bugs.
>
> I strongly recommend you find another way of representing page titles that
> doesn't require the use of markup.
>
You mean a language should change its ortography to comply with
Mediawiki software? That sounds really strange ... and if instead of
Neapolitan we talked about English, German or any other of the "big"
languages? Must these then also comply to the software or do we then
have the momentum when a way is being searched to have these languages
write their titles correctly? Hmmm ...

So what would you do if the English language had this requirement? Would
you also say the whole world then must misspell because the software
does not support it?

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