subject:
subject-area advisory panels for the ArbCom (was Re: [WikiEN-l]
	Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment)

body:
Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [050621 02:50]:

> If we (the ArbCom) ding the good editor for violating a behavioral policy and
> leave the bad editor alone just because we either did not understand the
> content policy violation or because we are gun-shy from enforcing those
> policies except in the most blatant of cases, then we have failed in our
> primary goal; to provide an environment where good editors can create the best
> encyclopedia possible.
> That's why I want the ArbCom to have the ability to consult subject-area
> advisory panels when needed.

We can do that already. However, I foresee only disasters with content
arbitration, and it not decreasing POV pushing at all - but giving POV
pushers more system to game. I point to the present case as an example.

- d.


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikitorials shutdown

body:
I'm not sure your analysis is that spot on. Mostly we are just
looking at culture shock and impatience. I'm pretty sure those
hundreds of people who did contribute could, after they learn the
software, revert the dirty pictures and move on in about the same way
we do. They were depending on a newspaper employee to monitor the
editorial not on the contributors. But he went to bed.

Fred

On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:21 PM, Stirling Newberry wrote:

> http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003730.html#3730
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikien-l

from_name: Kelly Martin

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than
	"no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
On 6/21/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Besides, admins make up 1%
> of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to
> involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in
> such discussion. -Mgm

Non-admins who get involved in policy discussions -- especially those
relating to administrators -- have a tendency to become
administrators.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

body:
No I don't have it in for you. When I looked at the case I had no
opinion, had not even thought about common era notation or about you.
I don't remember anything about you from CheeseDreams. Having spent a
day going over your edits and those of the others involved and
reviewing Wikipedia policies and locating a bunch of pages and votes
on the topic I made some PROPOSED decisions. Not a final decision,
just proposed decisions, which were never adopted, and it looks like
won't be.

Based on the proposed decisions you decided to throw in the towel.

As to the underlying controversy, Wikipedia opinion is divided,
apparently about equally. It is up to the community at large to
determine how to resolve the matter. I have one suggestion, however:
Having a definite decision is sometimes better than having the right
decision. That said, deciding what notation to use for eras is a
community decision.

My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era
notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.

May I suggest you drop all this crap and go back to editing. I am
bruised too but intend to consider the next case on the docket and do
the best that I can.

Fred

On Jun 21, 2005, at 3:15 AM, Jon wrote:

> It seems Fred has it in for me - whether this is because he shares
> the views of the BCE/CE lobby and so is unable to step back and be
> neutral or because he still has it in for me over the CheeseDreams
> incident, I don't know. But it's getting out of hand.
>
> Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that
> (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]])
> that turned me off WP and made it no longer fun. That's why jguk
> isn't there editing anymore - because it's no longer fun, not
> because I am trying to use my editing absence as part of any
> greater ploy.
>
> The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view
> are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view -
> though they have even more forcefully than me tried to impose their
> views over a much longer period than me. But, hey - that's
> political correctness for you - the PC lobby are not noted for
> their tolerance and understanding of others' views. It's coming to
> something when edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Msha%27sha%27iya&diff=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/
> index.php?title=1879_in_archaeology&diff=prev&oldid=15475197 are
> held against someone! I struggle to find how anyone finds those
> edits unreasonable - indeed, they very much do put usual formation
> of dates into the article! However, Fred and Jayjg think these
> edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible! Surely this whole
> ArbCom thing has already gone beyond reason!
>
> There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom
> has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to
> implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?
>
> Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as
> unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both
> hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).
>
> Jguk
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps
> for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed policy:Troublemakers not welcome here

body:
> --- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots
> who just
> > camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with
> authority.
> > I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main
> > namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that
> admins should
> > be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting
> really sick
> > of this.
>
> Then somebody will need to bring some cases against them to
> the ArbCom. If some users are causing trouble and
> contributing very little to the main namespace, then we
> should get rid of them. We need to ask this question of them:
> Does having them around help us toward our primary goal of
> creating the best encyclopedia possible? If not, then they
> are parasites/trolls that should be shown the door.
>
> -- mav

I agree, and I think this should be made policy. I came to Wikipedia for
one reason, and one reason only. To help make a great encyclopedia which
is free for all.

In fact, I'm so good at it that I've been *hired* by another
encyclopedia project - which is using mailman for its mailing list and
MediaWiki for its articles. Sorry, it's not open to the public yet, but
Jimbo and Angela know about it.

Anyway, our little community (in the other project) places priority on
the success of the project and thus we all get along very well.
Troublemakers are not welcome there.

Managing volunteers is a bit harder, I'll grant you, but the same
standard should apply. If you're more trouble than you're worth, here's
the door. You want another chance, fine. Come back next tomorrow (or
next week) and we'll see.

Let's make this an official policy. I'd be more than happy to have this
standard applied to me. Have I been pulling my weight the last few
weeks? No? Then boot me the hell out.

Am I rubbing people the wrong way, making snide remarks, moving and
refactoring text too boldly? Fine. Tell me to stop. User:Ta Bu Shi Da Yu
did just that, I haven't touched the gitmo book abuse page since last
week. (In fact, it's partly because of Tabu's leadership that I
supported him for admin; it's nearly unanimous, by the way.)

But if we had a more orderly crew, then no one would WANT to take
matters in their own hands like I did recently: I thought I saw NPOV
violations, and I sprang into action like a blizzard (or maybe a
hailstorm - sorry if I bruised anybody's head). RickK thought he saw a
violation -- what was it, copyright material by coolcat? -- and jumped
into high gear.

It takes WEEKS to get the arbcom to act. Did you ever try filling out
the required paperwork? It's easier to get a driver's license.

We need something else. I know we can find it. We just have to want it
enough.

Uncle Ed


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wiktionary-l] Article on LISA

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>A stupid question, probably, but...
>
>Am I right that UW is to supplement rather than replace existing Wiktionary?
>
>
>
>
Hoi,
There are no stupid questions. The UW is not to supplement but to
replace existing the Wiktionaries. The Wiktionaries will be either
disbanded by the community or they will be left by its users who will
migrate to the Ultimate Wiktionary. What is the point of keeping a
Wiktionary when its content is more effectively used in the UW ??

Thanks,
    GerardM

>Mark
>
>On 20/06/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>
>>>Hmmm... :) as a sidenote: wik2dict can now create Debian packages. It
>>>would be cool if someone could offer server space and bandwidth to put
>>>these up.
>>>
>>ow much do you need? I have my own server and up to now I do not use
>>bandwidth and space completely - so it depends on how much it is.
>>
>>It could be easily integrated in the translator's portal for download
>>(www.wesolveitnet.com) - there's already a download part or we cold use
>>a subdomain.
>>
>>
>>>>Another step is then the data exchangeability with CAT-Tools like
>>>>OmegaT, but that's a story of its own ... if we start to talk about this
>>>>here now ... I am just imagining what would happen ;-)
>>>>
>>> had never heard of CAT (Computer Aided Translation) or OmegaT (GPL'd
>>>Java software). But I do now. :) Well, just inform the folks from
>>>OmegaT. I guess they should be interested in getting this done.
>>>
>>Oh yes, they should be interested - I am in there as well (even if for
>>localisation issues)
>>;-)
>>
>>One step after the other :-)
>>
>>Ciao, Sabine
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject:
[WikiEN-l] RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than
	"no	big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
michaelturley at myway.com:

> Part of the more general problem I see here that causes this
 > is that granting administratorship at Wikipedia is meant to be
 > "no big deal", yet anything that even hints at removing such,
 > even for an hour or two, is the seen as end of the world as we
 > know it.

If adminship is meant to be no big deal, there are a number of things
that should be changed, I think.

* Rename adminship to "trusted users" and greatly relax the criteria for
becoming a TU (certainly in terms of minimum number of edits, which is
getting excessive)
* Make all TU actions reversible, and possibly require quorums for some
* Make privileges individually revokable (banning, deleting, protecting
etc.) in case of policy violations
* Decrease technical dependency on admins for tasks like deletion and
protection - see http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DevolvePower
* Have fast procedures in place for revocation of privileges, but only
in cases of proven repeated and persistent violations of policy.

Getting adminship is like an initiation rite, and that makes it special
to anyone who goes through it. Some even go through it repeatedly. It's
a judgment call on the contributor's "worth" as much as on whether they
are trusted. "Not enough edits!" "Writes insufficient summaries!"
"Doesn't use preview enough!" It's also a big deal because
"administrator of Wikipedia" is a nice title. I think the name
"bureaucrats" is very clever in comparison.

Someone who goes through the RFA process is often likely to feel that
they *deserve* to be treated specially. They are now part of the core
group, after all. If you slap them repeatedly, that's not going to make
things better -- it will only generate friction between the slapper and
the slappee. :-)

Let's not limit ourselves to thinking with a fixed set of parameters,
especially those related to punishment. Hurting some people in order to
help others may sometimes be necessary, but if you feel the need to do
this frequently, step back and analyze the system itself. I believe that
the way to make adminship "not a big deal" is to flatten the power
structure of Wikipedia tecnically and socially and to atomize privileges.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Per-article blocking (was: RickK leaving)

body:
Sorry to keep changing subject headings, but there thread are tough to
follow.

Professer Lih wrote:

> I would like to see article protection as a preferred first
> step before blocking someone over 3RR. The 3RR would be
> better if it required this. And as much as people say, "It's
> just a 24 hour ban, get over it," most would consider it a
> stain on their reputation within the community if they were
> blocked. As we can see from the RfA votes, these things do
> get dredged up.

What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a
particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo
articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel
the need for a dramatic exit.

As a matter of fact, I'm blocked right now - but only by virtue of
voluntarily following the advice of Ta Bu Shi. (Technically, I'm not
blocked, but I'm avoiding the page as he suggested.)

This would be great for newbies, especially the "unsigned-in" at
libraries and school. It's a big shock to be blocked from all edits. You
can't even say "sorry" on a talk page! But being blocked from editing
Elvis Presley for one hour - while you can TALK ABOUT YOUR EDITS on the
talk page - would be great.

I bet our team of programmers have already written the code for this
feature. How about it, Tim Starling? Can you and Magnus and Brion
provide something like this?

Uncle Ed


body:
Andrew Venier wrote:

> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> A stupid question, probably, but...
>>
>> Am I right that UW is to supplement rather than replace existing
>> Wiktionary?
>>
>>
> That's not clear to me, at least.  I think the whole discussion got
> off on the wrong foot because of the strident tone in the article.  e.g.:
>
>   "The current Wiktionaries will be converted to the Ultimate
> Wiktionary."
>
> This can easily be understood to mean "Ultimate Wiktionary will
> replace the current Wiktionaries."
>
> I didn't know in any detail of UW plans before reading this article.
> The way many such declarations were made, the message I got from the
> article (and some of the follow-up discussion) was: "The relevant
> decisions have already been made by those who matter.  This is a _fait
> accompli_.  Now if everyone else would kindly step out of the way and
> comply with what we have decided."

Hoi,
The conversion has nothing to do with replacing but with the necessary
steps needed to prepare the data to fit the mold of the UW. The end of
the Wiktionaries will come either as a personal choise or as a group
choise. It is not up to me to end a Wiktionary out of its misery; it is
up to its community.

The discussion about UW has been developping for something like a year
now. As a result there has been a lot of discussions and there have been
things that are decided. This is inevetable when you drop into something
that is already quite old. The "those who matter" are those who were
there and who were thinking about this and were positive about the idea;
we defined what it should have, asked for a proposal, found the funding
and we did ask the WMF board for the green light to have this show on
the road.

It is therefore normal that some issues have been decided in one way or
other. However there are plenty of issues that need discussion. There is
plenty of ideas written up on Meta. If you are willing to work with us
in stead of only be "sceptical" you can influence what the Ultimate
Wiktionary will be like.

Thanks,
    GerardM


list: foundation-l

from_name: Aphaia

subject:
[Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Research Team logo [was: Getting
	started]

body:
Hallo,

On 6/21/05, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> You think *that's* problematic, I get confused just trying to think in
> French...  I can only imagine what it's like being a tasty bunch of
> flowers in a French field.  <champ champ>

Beauchamp?

Anyway, it is temporal, ephemeral, not perpetual so seems to me
harmful (quamquam nunc confesso maximus BJADONos ames ... eh, you've
known already?), but Research t^Hnetwork logo seems a bit different.
Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal
team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself.
Well, it would help to promote integrity among the member of network,
but in my personal opinion not much to promote the entire project (I
mean to Wikimedia projects), it would make each team island, not a
part of continent in the worse case, and I convince no one doens't
long for such end.

Gruss,

--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Fastfission

body:
But that's again because being an administrator is supposed to be "no
big deal" or whatever Jimbo said about it. It generally just means
"this person has been around for awhile and does not have some sort of
pathological editing problem that makes large amounts of people hate
them." It is not a title that is supposed to relate to any particular
POV except "Wikipedia is a good thing" which even then you can find
some variety in. And I think people who don't share that POV probably
shouldn't be taken too seriously in discussions about its policies or
future -- its the axiom from which good editing and good
decision-making derives.

FF

On 6/21/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Besides, admins make up 1%
> > of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to
> > involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in
> > such discussion. -Mgm
>
> Non-admins who get involved in policy discussions -- especially those
> relating to administrators -- have a tendency to become
> administrators.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Aphaia wrote:

>Hallo,
>
>On 6/21/05, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>You think *that's* problematic, I get confused just trying to think in
>>French...  I can only imagine what it's like being a tasty bunch of
>>flowers in a French field.  <champ champ>
>>
>>
>
>
>Beauchamp?
>
>Anyway, it is temporal, ephemeral, not perpetual so seems to me
>harmful (quamquam nunc confesso maximus BJADONos ames ... eh, you've
>known already?), but Research t^Hnetwork logo seems a bit different.
>Honestly I can't figure an organisation which department or internal
>team has their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself.
>Well, it would help to promote integrity among the member of network,
>but in my personal opinion not much to promote the entire project (I
>mean to Wikimedia projects), it would make each team island, not a
>part of continent in the worse case, and I convince no one doens't
>long for such end.
>
>Gruss,
>
Hoi,
This is such a summery topic this is.. Really.. As to logos, arms are
logos in a way, A country has its arms, its provinces have its arms, its
cities have its arms. There is no confusion and there has been none for
centuries.

I really enjoy the occasional change on the French wikipedia, it is fun.
I think it is good that projects have their own logo. Why begrudge the
research effort a logo it is as relevant as the project itself and it is
only an interesting subject when you consider the weather (hot in Europe)..

Nah, it is not really worth the electrons that push this message or it
is because of its amusement value. By the way I do think the research
effort will bear us fruit and therefore is relevant and important.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Stirling Newberry

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikitorials shutdown

body:
On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> Andrew Lih (andrew.lih at gmail.com) [050621 17:00]:
>
>> On 6/21/05, Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003730.html#3730
>
>
> How annoying. I thought it was a marvellous experiment, and was
> surprised how non-crap the results were. (e.g. beter than Indymedia,
> though
> that's not hard).
>
>

It's a first pass. The reality of the internet is that there is
soemthing of value - namely access to channel and link equity, which
isn't valued in terms of money, but which is scarce. The problem is how
to negotiate boht the width and the access to the channe; without the
most usual way of managing scarcity - id est an abstract exchange
market. The LA Times failed to do this, and got the expected results.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more
	than "no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
Michael Snow:
> Isn't reversibility already built into all admin privileges? (Image
> deletion being an exception for technical reasons.)

Image deletion is quite serious. History merging isn't reversible either
at the present.

> Quorums are problematic because they require time to form, and part of
> the reason we grant privileges is to help processes go more quickly.

Yes. It all depends on the implementation. For example, automatic
notifications can be used to quickly get users who are online involved.
The process where I would most like to have additional safeguards is
blocking. It might be preferable to have a temporary "review phase"
where editing privileges are suspended, but the block is not yet
finalized. The finalization could require a quorum, no objections from
other sysops, or a similar process.

The reason is simple. A user who feels they are unfairly blocked once
may never come back. Angela says that this, too, can be an example of an
"irreversible" action. That is quite a drastic possible outcome, and we
should strive to reduce that possibility while not giving one inch to
spammers and vandals.

> It might be a very good idea, however, if some quorum was required to
> repeat any admin action that got reversed. I don't know if it would be
> possible to implement this by technical means, but I'd settle for it as
> a social expectation.

Interesting idea. I see you have the right mind for working on solutions
to these kinds of questions. Please join the
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network
and help us to find and specify ways to improve the existing methods.

> Breaking up the various admin privileges into their component "atoms"
> will not necessarily flatten the power structure. It can just as easily
> encourage people to collect as many of the "atoms" as possible,

Generally people should get the whole package. Atomic operations,
especially when granting privileges, should be the exception. But they
should be possible.

I strongly agree with your "unintended consequences" bit. Evaluation,
testing, discussion, trial are essential for changes like this.

Erik


from_name: Bryan Derksen

body:
Jon wrote:

>Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]])
>
Thought I should just pop in here and point out that there's been no
attempt to delete [[2005 English circket season]] that I'm aware of. A
few have questioned whether Wikipedia should be going into the level of
detail that the pages on individual cricket matches go into, but I
haven't seen anything suggesting a large enough consensus for them to be
successfully VfDed. The main issue with that group of pages is just
their _format_, specifically the large-scale use of transclusion to put
copies of articles into multiple other articles and the use of subpages.
Changing those formatting issues wouldn't involve deleting anything.


subject: [WikiEN-l] I will be leaving the project

body:
On 6/20/05, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I hope Silsor intends to spend a LOT more time than he has browsing
> recent changes and dealing with the abject stupidity that Rick was
> our first line of defense against. Because otherwise, that block just
> hurt the project a lot.

Now hold on -- this is NOT Silsor's fault that RickK is leaving. The
only person behind RickK's actions is RickK. He was not forced out. He
was not persecuted. If he believed the 3RR was applied incorrectly,
there are reasonable channels through which that communication could
go through. If he had written to the list, "Silsor has blocked me, but
I was reverting copyrighted info, can someone please unblock me?" he'd
probably have been unblocked within the hour.

I don't know why RickK wants to leave. But that's his choice. If he
wants to give some silly reason -- a single other admin *maybe* made a
bad call -- that's his choice as well. But that doesn't mean it's a
legitimate reason, and it doesn't mean that we should heap trouble
onto the person who allegedly made the bad call.

Worst consequence of a 3RR violation? Blocked for a day. Get some
sunshine. Stretch your bones. Call your parents. Cool off.

RickK was a good editor. His tireless work in keeping out nonsense
will be missed. It's too bad he decided that something this petty was
the last straw. But you know what? I bet if this hadn't happen,
there'd have been another last straw. People don't throw a fit and
leave over some little thing when they're content as a whole. I have a
feeling he was on the way out one way or another anyway -- this is
just a convenient excuse.

And in that case, I wish him luck on whatever else he chooses to spend
his time on. Fortunately this is a collective project. RickK did a lot
of good work, but so do a lot of other people.

Let's not get confused over who made this choice, though. RickK's
choice was his own. He had plenty of other options that he knew about
-- at best he was the victim of a bad call, at worst he violated a
simple and well-known rule. He chose to leave -- an extreme choice,
but that's his choice to make. He's welcome to come back if he changes
his mind.

FF


from_name: michaelturley at myway.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
>I swear, this whole discussion is making me want to follow you out of Wikipedia.
>
>I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots who just
>camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with authority.
>I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main
>namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that admins should
>be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting really sick
>of this.
>
>-- ambi

Well, I don't "camp out on wikien-l and VFD", and I have made very many edits to the main namespace in the last fortnight, and I don't have "some sort of problem with authority".  But I still get the feeling that I'm being grouped into a "growing group of idiots" by an admin and arbitrator because I '''sincerely''' think an admin should face a temporary penalty for as little as a snide remark.  Receive, perhaps not; face, absolutely.

In ambi's reply, I see defense at all costs, including the cost of an offensive comment.  This is not "wikilove", as far as I know it.  This clearly is much more than "no big deal" to ambi, but I don't resent that.  I do hope that administrators can remove their ego from the equation and see the image that this sort of comment projects, if it isn't actively refuted by other admins.

The very fact that my opinion is characterized as a "problem with authority" says that ambi thinks of her adminship as "authority".  Is that the original intent?  (From [[Wikipedia:Administrators]] "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority".)

If the above were my post, I hope that my response would be to come back an hour later and say "Hey, I was out of line calling people who disagree with me a 'growing group of idiots'.  Someone please apply a temporary ban on my account and notify the offended parties."  Then I hope I would accept the ban, then get back to work.

If being asked to be civil in public in all cases is not possible, then we have to ask that admins carry less of their ego around.  If they cannot, and that means an occasional hour or two, or six or twenty four off, then so be it.

I'm not calling for admin lynchings, and I will support no such ideas.  But what I am asking for is for admins to hold ''themselves'' to a higher standard '''voluntarily'''.  I think such real, observable gestures of sincere apology are the essence of "wikilove", but I don't know for sure because I only been around about 8 months total (including time as an anon).

Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>What's the alternative -- start banning people indiscriminantly who
>act anti-social? I can tell you, if you think people are hostile
>now...
>
>
If they're being banned for a reason (acting anti-social), then they
aren't being banned indiscriminately.

Anyway, I suspect that the current "problems" aren't really particularly
worse than they used to be back in the "golden age". I've been here
almost since the beginning and there have always been these sorts of
acrimonious arguments about who's being mean to whom. Personally, I
suspect there have been worse periods in Wikipedia's past; I don't have
any statistics or anything but just anecdotally I don't think I'm seeing
as much bad behavior lately as I can recall in some previous episodes. I
credit the ArbCom's actions for much of that, again just based on
personal opinion.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Automatically checking for copyright
	violations

body:
>Seriously though, I have seen a case where a Wikipedian slapped a
>copyvio tag on something because it shared some phrases with a webpage.
>The author complained that he had spent hours reading multiple sources,
>and rewriting the information therein in his own words. That is
>unequivocally acceptable under copyright law, and the tag was soon
>removed.

I find it hard to believe that one could have accurately found the original
source of the text without the copy being copyright infringement, especially
if the author had actually used "his own words".  Of course, the specific
details are important, but to say that it is "unequivocally acceptable" is
grossly inaccurate.

I've also seen situations where an author has claimed to have spend hours
reading multiple sources and rewriting the information using his own words,
but then after looking at the page history it becomes obvious that he just
copied the words and then changed some of them.

>There's no need to be paranoid. We should be careful not to
>accuse people of plagiarism who are merely paraphrasing or rewriting.

Paraphrasing someone without attribution *is* plagiarism.  It isn't
copyright infringement, if you've done it properly, but it's still
plagiarism.  Even if you are only paraphrasing someone, you're supposed to
cite your source.

I'm not sure if it's feasible to identify the original source of a work by
checking phrases in an automated manner, but if we do in fact find the
original source of a work, and that source isn't already identified, we
absolutely need to do something.  Whether that means identify the source or
simply delete as a copyright infringement depends on both the similarity of
the two works and the license status of the original.

Anthony

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


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
Haven't people made attempts at formulating a policy for de-sysopping
before now, and been shot down in flames?

This is a bit like the content-committee discussion - I'm not sure how
much of a problem there really is. When have we ever truly needed to
desysop someone? Can anyone point to an example?

Admins, by and large, behave perfectly well. I would hope that the
community is selecting those who are trustworthy to be admins, and
that peer-pressure from the responsible majority will keep the odd
rouge in line.

Dan


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On 6/21/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed is spot on, and couldn't be more right about such whinging. Admins
> shouldn't be above the law, and precious few of us are here to
> experience an online soap opera of hysterical emotionalism. Its just
> an encyclopedia, get over it already...

Referring to the 3RR blocking as "law" or "near automatic" is flawed,
which is why the treatment of RickK is a disappointment, and the
potential loss of a very valuable individual. If you read the text of
the WP:3RR page, it would not qualify as anything like "law" as we
understand it:

"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24
hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."

Emphasis on the "may" part.

For a good system of law you need pre-knowledge of the rules, fair
application and an independent judiciary. The arbitration committee
approaches these ideals, but enforcement of 3RR? Nowhere close, and
it's causing lots of problems.

-User:Fuzheado

>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 6/20/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ed, that is the most pathetic and selfish thing I have ever read a
> > Wikipedian write. I thought better of you.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On 6/20/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been
> > > worth.
> > >
> > > Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> > > soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
> > >
> > > But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing",
> > > etc. for the lost sheep.
> > >
> > > Ed Poor
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
What's the alternative -- start banning people indiscriminantly who
act anti-social? I can tell you, if you think people are hostile
now...

If you're getting sick of it, take a break for a week. Stop reading
the mailing list. Keep out of VFD. Etc. Because in a collective
project of this sort -- one which doesn't have the "entrance fee" that
a collective programming project does -- you're going to get nutzos
out the wazoo. There's no other way around it. Better be ready for it.
Better find ways to cope.

Either that, or leave in a huff. Whatever gets you through the day. I
don't think any of us are being paid for this -- we're here by choice.
So exercise it if you must. You'd be missed for a week or two and then
you'd be like all of the other Missing Wikipedians. This is not a
project about individual people or personalities, it is about
collective effort. We all do our part, and we're all replaceable. Even
Jimbo. That's why it is such an interesting and provocative idea. I
tell academics about this project -- academia being pretty much an
antithesis in many ways -- and they say (actual quote here), "That
sounds insane." They're right. That's why it's a good idea.

But be realistic about it. The more popular Wikipedia becomes, the
more newspaper and magazines it is covered in, the more it becomes a
big lightbulb in the forest drawing all sorts of bugs to it. Some of
them are good contributors. Some of them are not. There's no quick and
fair way to distinguish between the two, and dispensing admin justice
left and right is just going to end up with MORE people camping around
trying to disrupt things, not less.

There's a "Chinese proverb" I read somewhere which goes: "All people
are brothers. So expect trouble."

FF

On 6/21/05, Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I swear, this whole discussion is making me want to follow you out of Wikipedia.
>
> I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots who just
> camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with authority.
> I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main
> namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that admins should
> be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting really sick
> of this.
>
> -- ambi
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more
	than	"no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
Dan Grey wrote:

>Haven't people made attempts at formulating a policy for de-sysopping
>before now, and been shot down in flames?
>
Particularly by those who see such a response as an act of
self-preservation.

>Admins, by and large, behave perfectly well. I would hope that the
>community is selecting those who are trustworthy to be admins, and
>that peer-pressure from the responsible majority will keep the odd
>rouge in line.
>
>
I presume you mean "rogue". :-)

I agree that most do behave perfectly well, and the same can be said
about most contributors.

Choosing trustworthy admins is just a pseudo-democratic crap-shoot.
Most of us don't participate in the voting; we have more useful things
to do. The only functioning standard is the ability to get votes in an
"election" that is only attended by people interested in elections, and
thus reflecting the POVs of that group.  The person who quietly and
without controversy continues to work and build in his own special area
is probably not represented.  I would like to see more objective
criteria for candidacy as sysops.  These could cover time spent, number
of edits, number of original contributions, social skills, etc.  Unless
a person meets these criteria, he would not be eligible to receive votes.

Peer pressure will work well in most cases, but there will still be
problem sysops.  Notably these are individuals who do a tremendous
amount of good work, but whose good works are often offset by an
inability to muster the social skills such as patience needed to deal
with others holding a different opinion.

Ec


body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>And you are anticipating that the masses will flock to you, to
>experience the glory of your oh-so-marvelous uw?
>
>That seems a little over-optimistic.
>
>I also worry that, at least in one way or another, UW will turn out to
>be not quite as great as you had anticipated, and the currently
>existing community structure will be in a shambles.
>
Thank you!  This has been one of my key objections all along.  It's been
like selling shares in a South Sea Bubble.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
Skyring wrote:

>On 6/21/05, blankfaze <blankfaze at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I hear you, ambi. Seems like each day this place and the people here make me
>>want to be here less and less. So much hostility, incompetence, malice...
>>It's not like it used to be, that's for sure.
>>
>>
>Sounds like a management problem to me. What's changed between "the
>good old days" and now?
>
Lack of management maybe?

Ec


body:
On 6/21/05, Ilya Haykinson <haykinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/20/05, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Honestly I can't figure an organisation which [sic] department or internal
> > team has [sic]  their own logos and don't use the organisation logo itself.
> > ...
>
> I absolutely love the logo. It gives the people who discuss research
> topics or some sense of community, while keeping it very closely bound
> to Wikimedia.

I don't say the people belong to the network feel it wrong. Or I dare
say, the problem would arise, when the are too much fond of it, their
"own" logo rather than the logo project entirely.

> Indeed, if you read Peopleware by Tom DeMarco (a seminal
> book on people and team management), he describes an incredibly
> successful team at a major company (IBM?) that formed its own identity
> -- dressed alike, had a jargon, etc -- and was tolerated because they
> did awesome stuff.

You missed the point I'm afraid. I know some argument culture develops
within a company and how it helps to build their integrity, but it is
not the department logo (it could be a brand logo, but we don't sell a
mainframe to anyone), but the company logo. For now, applying to our
case, the logo we share is Wikimedia logo, not logos of each team. And
the worse, the current logo has visible no sign of relevance to
Wikimedia logo.

> With thousands of wikimedians, having a subset of them create a sense
> of group (or purpose) identity is well worth the trouble.

You mightn't think so. The team integrity is over the integrity of
project entirely? Even in case it promotes factionalism and gives a
sort of cabalistic accent to the team?

Sorry, perhaps you feel I am characterizing too much, but please
consider, if I recall correctly, research network goes to the outer
world, say, academics and so on, not only a bunch of young
computer-freaks. Shortly sober people. And in my foresight when they
give a look to a member of network, and find a "network" logo, they
won't be able to stop emerging a smile as lovely and temperate as
summer's day,  if I am not wrong, in this point having a logo is not
so a splendid idea.

> Additionally, any designer will tell you that a consistent graphical
> language is important in building and maintaining a brand.

Hiya, now you are thinking "Research Network" as a brand, not the
Wikimedia or each project. But what kind of relevance is between  "a
logo for internal user" and "brand"? Brand is mainly an identity for
external if I recall correctly.  And on my part it is hard to think
your wording a good sign. It seems beyond a sort of noticeboard or
subproject for my accadic view

Greeting from "Babylon", translators' noticeboard
--
Aphaea@*.wikipedia.org
email: Aphaia @ gmail (dot) com


from_name: Jon

body:
It seems Fred has it in for me - whether this is because he shares the views of the BCE/CE lobby and so is unable to step back and be neutral or because he still has it in for me over the CheeseDreams incident, I don't know. But it's getting out of hand.

Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]]) that turned me off WP and made it no longer fun. That's why jguk isn't there editing anymore - because it's no longer fun, not because I am trying to use my editing absence as part of any greater ploy.

The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view - though they have even more forcefully than me tried to impose their views over a much longer period than me. But, hey - that's political correctness for you - the PC lobby are not noted for their tolerance and understanding of others' views. It's coming to something when edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Msha%27sha%27iya&diff=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1879_in_archaeology&diff=prev&oldid=15475197 are held against someone! I struggle to find how anyone finds those edits unreasonable - indeed, they very much do put usual formation of dates into the article! However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible! Surely this whole ArbCom thing has already gone beyond reason!

There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?

Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).

Jguk

---------------------------------
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikitorials shutdown

body:
On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> I'm not sure your analysis is that spot on. Mostly we are just looking
> at culture shock and impatience. I'm pretty sure those hundreds of
> people who did contribute could, after they learn the software, revert
> the dirty pictures and move on in about the same way we do. They were
> depending on a newspaper employee to monitor the editorial not on the
> contributors. But he went to bed.
>

"They were depending". Exactly - the channel equity belonged to someone
else, and therefore it was not that urgent for them to defend it.


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: LISA article and Wiktionary misunderstandings

body:
Muke Tever wrote:

> Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>          [Interlingua]: ministro;  [Japanese]: ?? (????, daijin);
>
>
> Will users of non-Roman scripts be able to see transliterations in
> their own scripts, or will they have to be stuck with Roman?

When you look at the current practice in the nl:wiktionary, you will
find that the different scripts are supported. This will also be the
case for Ultimate Wiktionary. More interesting is how a right to left
implementation will look like, like Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew ..

>
>> == [Dutch] ==
>> minister ([n.]) 1. [A person commissioned by the government for
>> public service.]
>>          "Zware voet jaagt minister Anciaux uit de bocht."
>
>
> Hopefully there's space for a translation of this example
> in the user's language.

There will be room for idiom, this line is problematic in that the
meaning of "zware voet" is not clear in its own right without context.
So as idiom it is not really great.

>
>>  b) content between || double bars || is stored in the database, so
>> that the two lists of translations for "minister (English, n., 2)"
>> "minister (Dutch, n., 1)" are actually referencing the same list of
>> database translations  [marked above by a double asterisk **]
>
This practice will not be in the UW. Every meaning gets its own list of
translations. The practices leads to many examples in the English
wiktionary where the translation is absolutely wrong. This is
particularly true when later meanings are added.

> What exactly is the translation table attaching to?  The definition
> number? The auto-translating definition? or the individual language's
> translation of the definition? If the English definition is improved
> by someone, made more specific (and hopefully it would be) nothing
> stops a Dutch editor from adding translations (in several languages
> even) that relate only to the older definition that was faithfully
> done into his language.  Also, the English editor mightn't even think
> to check an added translation--does he know that the Dutch editor isn't
> translating from the same definition?

Meaning exist on a global level. When a meaning is added, it will be
universally seen to be there. Meanings are linked to a word.
Translations will be linked to meanings.

>
>> * All synonymous definitions would share a single list of
>> translations, so that this list need not be pasted 100 times (and
>> updated 100 times for each update).
>
>
> Though all non-synonymous translations may have to be cut-and-pasted
> as many times as necessary for whatever near-matches apply.  E.g.
> Span. "tu"
> has to be given as the translation for the definition "second person
> pronoun"
> (Eng "you"), for the definition "second person singular pronoun" (Lat.
> "tu"),
> for the definition "second person singular familiar pronoun" (OldEng
> "??"),
> for the definition "second person singular masculine pronoun" (Heb.
> attah),
> for the definition "second person singular feminine pronoun" (Arab.
> anti),
> for the definition "second person familiar masculine pronoun" etc...
> Meanwhile "attah" can't go under the table for "second person singular
> feminine pronoun", and so forth.
>
> And that's just a word with concrete semantics.  When it comes to
> something a little more fluid, like "street", say, it might be more
> difficult.
>
>> [1] There is a difficult question, which we are ignoring for now :
>> just how precisely do all the translations of "minster (English, n.,
>> 2)" have synonymous definitions?  When are two different words ever
>> truly synonymous?  But that is a discussion for another month.
>
Even when words are not "truly" synonymous for some, they may be "truly"
synonymous for others. Some words have only a distinct meaning in
certain subcultures. This can be adressed by giving a word multiple
meanings. The truly synonymous meaning and the slightly differing meaning.

>
> A minister is a special case. Nouns that refer to specific referents
> are likely to have synonymous definitions, but they're relatively
> rare; most words won't have ready one-word translations so easily. Try:
> walk, run, saunter, dash, sashay, hurry, skip, mosey, gallop (varying
> degrees of the same kind of action); die, expire, pass away, kick the
> bucket, buy the farm (varying degrees of the formality of an action);...
> sludge, slush, slime, mush, slurry... (various specific referents in the
> same close semantic field) -- different languages will handle them all
> differently (though possibly the common European languages will share
> more gracefully than others).
>
When it comes to explain what words like walk, run, saunter, dash,
sashay, hurry, skip, mosey, gallop mean, it helps when you use
methodology used in thesauri: some terms are included in others some may
be specific to certain animals. This is something we hope to achieve
with Ultimate Wiktionary. The GEMET thesaurus uses a basic set of
relations. These will be hopefully a start for what will be an
interesting experiment.

>     *Muke!

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
> --- Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have no idea why we tolerate this growing group of idiots
> who just
> > camp out on wikien-l and VFD with some sort of problem with
> authority.
> > I just saw one of them (who has barely made any edits to the main
> > namespace in the last fortnight) seriously suggest that
> admins should
> > be desysopped for as little as a snide remark. I'm getting
> really sick
> > of this.
>
> Then somebody will need to bring some cases against them to
> the ArbCom. If some users are causing trouble and
> contributing very little to the main namespace, then we
> should get rid of them. We need to ask this question of them:
> Does having them around help us toward our primary goal of
> creating the best encyclopedia possible? If not, then they
> are parasites/trolls that should be shown the door.
>
> -- mav

And also Michael Turley (user:Unfocused) wrote
> I '''sincerely''' think an admin should face a temporary penalty
> for as little as a snide remark.  Receive, perhaps not; face,
> absolutely.

I agree with all three of you, and (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln in
another context), I am "willing to have the experiment tried on me".

>From now on, I shall endeavor to make no more snide remarks. I might be
silly. I may say something sarcastic - but not aimed at any person or
group. (Like the first sentence of this paragraph could sound silly or
sarcastic.)

I've been sloppy. I've been careless. I have *NOT* considered the
feelings of others ANYWHERE nearly well enough. I'm taking Rebecca and
Daniel's word's to heart. In my terms, I see them as a call to
repentance.

If others join me, and it starts a trend, all the better. Maybe it will
even become policy. Who knows?

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
Hi Ed.

I noticed your email address listed as WikiEN-l admin is no longer
functioning. Would you like me to change it to reflect your new email
address, or just remove it? I understand you don't entirely want to be
list admin any more (or you didn't 12 months ago) so I'll leave it to
you to decide what to do.

~Mark Ryan

On 6/21/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been
> worth.
>
> Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
>
> But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing",
> etc. for the lost sheep.
>
> Ed Poor
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Errr just ignore that people. Completely off-topic and meant to be
private. But so appalling uncontroversial that it puts this list to
shame. Why couldn't I accidentally post something amazing like
confessions of Wikipedians' sex secrets? At least it would liven up
the usual bland "I'm quitting / I'm being stalked! / I will sue
Wikipedia" messages.

;-)

~Mark

On 6/21/05, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ed.
>
> I noticed your email address listed as WikiEN-l admin is no longer
> functioning. Would you like me to change it to reflect your new email
> address, or just remove it? I understand you don't entirely want to be
> list admin any more (or you didn't 12 months ago) so I'll leave it to
> you to decide what to do.
>
> ~Mark Ryan
>
>
> On 6/21/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> > Really? Good riddance. You've caused far more trouble than you've been
> > worth.
> >
> > Even the way you're leaving is an example. You could have appealed to
> > soft-hearted old Uncle Ed. But, no, you've got to run off in a snit.
> >
> > But if you change your mind, let me know. "For there is more rejoicing",
> > etc. for the lost sheep.
> >
> > Ed Poor
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] unwanted e-mails.

body:
I checked yesterday, and that email address is not subscribed to the list. :-/

So either another list admin has done it already, or it's not that. Or
it's another email address entirely.

~Mark Ryan

On 6/21/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> he wants to be removed from the list, I think ;') ~~~~
>
> On 6/20/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would help if you told us what you are talking about.
> > -Mgm
> >
> > On 6/20/05, walt compton <waltercompton at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > I keep getting unwanted e-mails from people I don't know and I don't know  they are talking about. Could I PLEASE
> > >  be removed from their e-mail mailing
> > >  list. Thank you.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Theresa Knott wrote:

>>As has been pointed out on the relevant talk page, having written
>>something (if we choose to believe an unidentified pseudonymous user) is
>>not necessarily sufficient to establish ownership.  CoolCat claimed that
>>text was prepared for a large offline (i.e. print) distribution.  We
>>have no way of knowing if that was work-for-hire, for example.
>>
>>
>True. We have no way of knowing that anything that anyone writes for
>wikipedia really belongs to them. All we can do is assume that they
>are telling the truth when they claim it's thier own work.
>
If I were minded to submit copyvio material, I would not cut and paste
from another website.  I could use OCR then cut and paste from that.  Or
I could do my own translation of a copyright protected work.  What
online searches will reveal will only be a small part of copyvios.

>>When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously
>>claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier
>>elsewhere?  That can't be right.
>>
>>
>This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact
>the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to
>be on Wikipedia?"
>
That's assuming that the publisher owns the copyright.  If it's from an
unsigned article that's probably so as a work-for-hire.  A signed
article is a different matter.  We should presume that that author has
the right to use what he wrote in any manner that he sees fit. If he has
some restrictive licensing arrangement with the publisher he may be in
breech of contract, but we are in no position to make that judgement.

Ec


body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> As to our community structure, it will evolve. Ultimate Wiktionary is
> part of that evolution. You can not seriously expect that in a project
> that doubles in size every four to six months our community will not
> be affected. UW will not be as I expect, I see opportunities  and I
> try to realise them. Many of the expectations are dependant on what
> the UW community will be. It will not be like the Wikipedia
> communities, it will not be like the Wiktionary communities, it will
> be distinctly different but it will be Open and Free.

In one of your other posts you stated that some decisions about your UW
had already been taken. If a UW community is to "evolve" that will begin
when the software is usable by all who might be a part of that
community.  At that time _all_ of your pre-release decisions will be
open to discussion and evolution.  Anything else would be a work of
[[intelligent design]].

Ec


from_name: Sean Barrett

in_reply_to:
<42B8532A.1030509@venier.net> (message from Andrew Venier on Tue,
	21 Jun 2005 12:49:30 -0500)

body:
> Theresa Knott wrote:
>
> >This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact
> >the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to
> >be on Wikipedia?"
> >
> >
> This is precisely the problem.  CoolCat will not identify himself or the
> publisher, so we have no way to establish that we have a reasonable
> belief that we have permission.

I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any
credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the
material, we must presume the opposite.  If CoolCat disagrees with
that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.

--
 Sean Barrett     | Evil is dangerous in proportion to its
 sean at epoptic.com | virtues, not its vices. --S.M. Stirling


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
I agree, a not on his user page to show he's left is okay, but you
can't delete your talk page just as you can't delete your edits.

-Mgm

On 6/21/05, Rhobite <rhobite at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was just a suggestion, there is no need for you to act like a
> child. I think blanking one's talk page is fine but deleting a record
> of over 11,000 edits is not OK. RickK has been involved in Wikipedia
> for years - his deletion destroys a good amount of notes, chat,
> evidence, and information. If a normal user left, would we let them
> speedy delete their own talk page? Not without discussion, at least.
>
> Rhobite
>
> On 6/21/05, blankfaze <blankfaze at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rho, that is the dumbest thing I've heard in this whole silly mess
> >
> > --
> > ! blankfaze
> > *the good times
> > are killing me*
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Fastfission wrote:

>But that's again because being an administrator is supposed to be "no
>big deal" or whatever Jimbo said about it. It generally just means
>"this person has been around for awhile and does not have some sort of
>pathological editing problem that makes large amounts of people hate
>them." It is not a title that is supposed to relate to any particular
>POV except "Wikipedia is a good thing" which even then you can find
>some variety in.
>
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
should be no big deal as well.  Perhaps being desysopped should be
automatic for everybody afte maybe a year.  There could then be a three
month waiting period before being readmitted.  Three months of enforced
humility might be good for some people.  Since this would apply to ALL
admins there could be no claim of descrimination.

Ec


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
It seems to have been adopted as part of the curriculum in the UK.

Fred

On Jun 21, 2005, at 10:12 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [050621 23:45]:
>
>
>> My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era
>> notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.
>>
>
>
> That's a bit US POV-centric. It's certainly not true outside the US.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
> Yes. It all depends on the implementation. For example, automatic
> notifications can be used to quickly get users who are online involved.
> The process where I would most like to have additional safeguards is
> blocking. It might be preferable to have a temporary "review phase"
> where editing privileges are suspended, but the block is not yet
> finalized. The finalization could require a quorum, no objections from
> other sysops, or a similar process.
>
> The reason is simple. A user who feels they are unfairly blocked once
> may never come back. Angela says that this, too, can be an example of an
> "irreversible" action. That is quite a drastic possible outcome, and we
> should strive to reduce that possibility while not giving one inch to
> spammers and vandals.
Temporary blocks are already 24 hours. How are you going to build a
review phase in that? The sheer option of being considered for a block
is enough to send a lot of people over the edge.

> Generally people should get the whole package. Atomic operations,
> especially when granting privileges, should be the exception. But they
> should be possible.
>
Yes, it only makes finding an admin to help you with certain actions
harder for newbies.

Also, someone said something about the cabal choosing the cabal when
it comes to RFA. Personally, I find this ridiculous. The only reason
admins are voting, is because they are already trusted and have the
experience to see who makes a good admin. Besides, admins make up 1%
of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to
involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in
such discussion. -Mgm


body:
Rebecca wrote:

>On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
>>should be no big deal as well.  Perhaps being desysopped should be
>>automatic for everybody afte maybe a year.  There could then be a three
>>month waiting period before being readmitted.  Three months of enforced
>>humility might be good for some people.  Since this would apply to ALL
>>admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
>>
>>
>Oh, come off it, Ec. You treat sysop status like it's being elected
>President of the United States. It is a mop and a broom that
>occasionally proves to be somewhat useful. It isn't a source of power
>or any such thing. It is just that taking that mop and broom away
>without a damn good reason - in effect, punishing people, is not
>helpful, as in a volunteer project, punishing people without good
>reason will make them leave. Or alternatively, having privileges that
>in many cases are never used controversially taken away for three
>months for no apparent reason ("enforced humility" counts as no
>apparent reason in my book) would likely have the same effect.
>Seriously, guys. Why not stop trying to fight the power, and go write
>an encyclopedia?
>
I'm glad to hear you prove my point.  US presidency? Don't you think
that the world would be well served by having GWB take three months off?
:-)

If being a sysop is not a source of power they won't miss it, and they
won't be missed since at any given time there will always be enough left
to wield the mop and broom.  How is it that being required to take a
vacation is "punishing"?

You say that it isn't a source of power, but then ask people to "stop
trying to fight the power."  Isn't that just a little inconsistent?

Ec


from_name: Chip Berlet

subject: [WikiEN-l] Really need mediator

body:
Hi,

I really need a mediator to deal with the editing disagreements between me and Sam Spade. I requested mediation some time ago.

Here is Sam Spade's latest:

"First your spurious accusation of plagiarism, and now you accuse me of vandalism. This, combined with dozens of other ugly statements on your part seem to be leading up to a rather damining arbcom case. I suggest you chill the fuck out. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 15:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

After I pointed out an obvious case of plagiarism by him on the [[Political Correctness]] page he seemed to start following me around Wiki provoking confrontations.  His most recent effort was pasting a entire old contested section back into the [[Fascism]] article--complete with duplicate sentences and much duplicated material.  When this was pointed out, he suggested it was the job of the other editors to find the duplicate material and delete it. This is vandalism.

Please help.  I know some people value Sam Spade as an editor, but my experience is that when he does not get his way, he becomes a bully, promoting a very POV right-wing bias.  I am on the political left, but do try to edit here on Wiki in an NPOV way.  A centrist mediator would be best to divide out what is political disagreement and what is personal antagonism.

So I am resorting to this list in an effort to find an unbiased mediator.

[[User:Cberlet|Chip Berlet]]


body:
James D. Forrester wrote:

>On Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:10 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
>>should be no big deal as well.
>>
>>
>Fatal exception: Parse error.
>
>Getting to be a sysop is "no big deal" because it just means that you've
>gained our trust, and almost everyone in the world could probably do that,
>if they wished to do so. Thus, by removing sysop status means telling the
>target that they have failed to live up to this oh-so-easy thing. It is, in
>fact, an absolutely massive thing to do.
>
>I can't see how this isn't absolutely obvious to everyone, really - perhaps
>they live in non-Euclidian spaces? :-)
>
And I was under the impression that the Wiki had done the same thing to
encyclopedias that Lobachevsky had done to Euclidean space. :-)

Ec


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: automatic annual revocation of admin

body:
>Three months of enforced
>humility might be good for some people.

I'll never forget the time one of my Moonie friends said something like
this. I said, "If I humiliate you, will that make you humble? What if I
start treating you like a slave and say things like, 'Fetch me a cold
drink, you worthless piece of scum!'?"

He was black and I was white. I nearly got the ass-whupping of my life
before he could see that I was just making a point. Ah, those carefree
college days.

Now, can we puh-LEASE get back to working on articles?

Ed Poor


from_name: Andrew Venier

body:
Theresa Knott wrote:

>This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact
>the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to
>be on Wikipedia?"
>
>
This is precisely the problem.  CoolCat will not identify himself or the
publisher, so we have no way to establish that we have a reasonable
belief that we have permission.


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
 >
> As has been pointed out on the relevant talk page, having written
> something (if we choose to believe an unidentified pseudonymous user) is
> not necessarily sufficient to establish ownership.  CoolCat claimed that
> text was prepared for a large offline (i.e. print) distribution.  We
> have no way of knowing if that was work-for-hire, for example.

True. We have no way of knowing that anything that anyone writes for
wikipedia really belongs to them. All we can do is assume that they
are telling the truth when they claim it's thier own work.

> When it comes to copyright problems, all one has to do is anonymously
> claim "I wrote it" when it is found to have been published earier
> elsewhere?  That can't be right.

This sort of thing could easily be sorted out though. We could contact
the publishers directly "Do you give permission for this material to
be on Wikipedia?"

Theresa


from_name: Anthere

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than
 "no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
Alphax a ?crit:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

>>If we truly want to live up to the perception and ideal that
>>adminship is "no big deal", it should be a matter of routine to
>>revoke admin priviledges for a few hours for something as little as a
>>single foul mouthed comment, even if provoked and egged on by peers.
>>If this is done, perhaps we will see less admins defending their
>>actions at any cost, and more "shrugging it off" and proceeding with
>>business.
>>
>
>
> Indeed; at present, it takes the intervention of a steward (which I've
> always thought of as being comparable to a Herculean effort) for someone
> to have admin priveleges removed; even so, it must be at the request of
> said admin, or the result of an RfAr, or something equally vile. For
> example, there are several Wikipedians on en who are listed as
> "missing", and yet still have their mystical powers. Who knows what
> would happen if they ever returned. I agree that admins should be
> elected, and elected by the community; but reading the votes at RfA
> gives me the feeling that members of the Cabal are elected by the Cabal,
> for the Cabal, and Cabal memebership is some kind of certificate you
> hang on your wall, much like a diploma. Yes, you can lose it, but it
> requires breaking, entering, pillaging, and arson.

Asking a steward to remove sysop status is not an Herculean effort at
all. We are numerous enough so that you can find one within an hour at
most. So, if you want hurry action, I think it is fine.

The Herculean effort comes from the fact you may not remove a sysop
status without a full set a actions, so complicated, bureaucratic and
generally upsetting... that you just do not do it :-)

I would recommand some rules I proposed more than a year ago on meta. I
believe a few projects follow them as well.  There are two ideas

* an editor is gone, does not edit any more  ---> he will be removed
sysop status. If he needs them back, he can ask and sysop position is
granted back pretty easily. But we do not pretend we have 600 sysops
while only 100 are active.

* an editor must be lightly confirmed once a year. Without making a big
mess of it. If several people question the status, it will just be removed.

No fuss. Only one person complained in 1 year, not because he was
desysoped, but because we did not tell him he was desysoped... but
actually, I just did not think of telling him at all... as I think any
one asking to be an admin on a project... should know the rules of
adminship on this project. On meta, you can give up, ask again, get
temporary status, lose or regain sysop power very quickly and
painlessly. We just avoid making a big fuss of it.

So, I do not think stewards is the problem. Only habits are. Maybe you
need to change these habits.

ant


from_name: Muke Tever

body:
Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Muke Tever wrote:
>> Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>          [Interlingua]: ministro;  [Japanese]: ?? (????, daijin);
>>
>> Will users of non-Roman scripts be able to see transliterations in
>> their own scripts, or will they have to be stuck with Roman?
>
> When you look at the current practice in the nl:wiktionary, you will
> find that the different scripts are supported. This will also be the
> case for Ultimate Wiktionary. More interesting is how a right to left
> implementation will look like, like Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew ..

No, I know the scripts are supported. I meant, in the translation list,
if the transliteration such as "daijin" would be transliterated (or
transliteratable) into the user's script as well.  I know that nl:wikt
doesn't give a Hebrew transliteration of "??" anywhere, and that en:wikt
has actually been deleting Cyrillic transliterations of Chinese (though
those were added as entries, not translations).

>>> == [Dutch] ==
>>> minister ([n.]) 1. [A person commissioned by the government for
>>> public service.]
>>>          "Zware voet jaagt minister Anciaux uit de bocht."
>>
>> Hopefully there's space for a translation of this example
>> in the user's language.
>
> There will be room for idiom, this line is problematic in that the
> meaning of "zware voet" is not clear in its own right without context.
> So as idiom it is not really great.

I think that's meant to be a sample sentence using the word, not
necessarily an idiom.  But it should bear a translation into the
user's language as well.

>> b) content between || double bars || is stored in the database, so
>> that the two lists of translations for "minister (English, n., 2)"
>> "minister (Dutch, n., 1)" are actually referencing the same list of
>> database translations  [marked above by a double asterisk **]
>
> This practice will not be in the UW. Every meaning gets its own listof translations. The practices leads to many examples in the Englishwiktionary where the translation is absolutely wrong. This isparticularly true when later meanings are added.

So translation tables will not be shared across words then?  That is
good to hear.

>> What exactly is the translation table attaching to?  The definition
>> number? The auto-translating definition? or the individual language's
>> translation of the definition? If the English definition is improved
>> by someone, made more specific (and hopefully it would be) nothing
>> stops a Dutch editor from adding translations (in several languages
>> even) that relate only to the older definition that was faithfully
>> done into his language.  Also, the English editor mightn't even think
>> to check an added translation--does he know that the Dutch editor isn't
>> translating from the same definition?
>
> Meaning exist on a global level. When a meaning is added, it will be
> universally seen to be there. Meanings are linked to a word.
> Translations will be linked to meanings.

So the problem of translations given to a language's out-of-date version
of a meaning will still exist?

>>> [1] There is a difficult question, which we are ignoring for now :
>>> just how precisely do all the translations of "minster (English, n.,
>>> 2)" have synonymous definitions?  When are two different words ever
>>> truly synonymous?  But that is a discussion for another month.
>>
> Even when words are not "truly" synonymous for some, they may be "truly"
> synonymous for others. Some words have only a distinct meaning in
> certain subcultures. This can be adressed by giving a word multiple
> meanings. The truly synonymous meaning and the slightly differing meaning.

If a word really has different meanings, that's not a problem, and should
be being done anyway.

But this doesn't work if the word doesn't actually *have* multiple meanings
to native speakers.  English "you" isn't divided into formal and familiar,
or masculine and feminine, as it is in some languages. I hope this isn't
what you're talking about.

>> A minister is a special case. Nouns that refer to specific referents
>> are likely to have synonymous definitions, but they're relatively
>> rare; most words won't have ready one-word translations so easily. Try:
>> walk, run, saunter, dash, sashay, hurry, skip, mosey, gallop (varying
>> degrees of the same kind of action); die, expire, pass away, kick the
>> bucket, buy the farm (varying degrees of the formality of an action);...
>> sludge, slush, slime, mush, slurry... (various specific referents in the
>> same close semantic field) -- different languages will handle them all
>> differently (though possibly the common European languages will share
>> more gracefully than others).
>>
> When it comes to explain what words like walk, run, saunter, dash,
> sashay, hurry, skip, mosey, gallop mean, it helps when you use
> methodology used in thesauri: some terms are included in others some may
> be specific to certain animals.

Yes, they all have different meanings.  They have different pragmatics
too. For example it may be that the usual translation in one language
actually has a different literal meaning, and that the exact translation
is a kind of technical term nobody would use, or may not exist at all.
(A well-documented example is that of color terms.)  But if, as I
understand from what you say above, translation tables are not being
shared across words with "synonymous" definitions, then my previous
comment on this point doesn't apply.

	*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/


from_name: geni

body:
> Also, someone said something about the cabal choosing the cabal when
> it comes to RFA. Personally, I find this ridiculous. The only reason
> admins are voting, is because they are already trusted and have the
> experience to see who makes a good admin. Besides, admins make up 1%
> of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to
> involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in
> such discussion. -Mgm

Admins may make up 1% of the comunity but they are by far the most
active part. Fortunety getting admin consensus on anything is near
imposible.
--
geni


body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>>Three months of enforced
>>humility might be good for some people.
>>
>>
>I'll never forget the time one of my Moonie friends said something like
>this. I said, "If I humiliate you, will that make you humble? What if I
>start treating you like a slave and say things like, 'Fetch me a cold
>drink, you worthless piece of scum!'?"
>
>He was black and I was white. I nearly got the ass-whupping of my life
>before he could see that I was just making a point. Ah, those carefree
>college days.
>
In an equal humiliation plan no one needs to stand below anyone else. :-)

Ec


body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 6/21/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
>>should be no big deal as well.  Perhaps being desysopped should be
>>automatic for everybody afte maybe a year.  There could then be a three
>>month waiting period before being readmitted.  Three months of enforced
>>humility might be good for some people.  Since this would apply to ALL
>>admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
>>
>>
>Yes, people who are doing their job well deserve to lose it.
>
>
For them consider it a vacation with full salary.

Ec


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Licenses

body:
Hoi,

I may get us the cooperation with the NTG the Dutch TeX usergroup. They
have a resource of 222.872 correctly spelled Dutch words. This data is
nominally licensed under the LGPL, just to ensure that it stays Free.
They are not particular about the license; anyone is free to use it. We
can host these words in the Ultimate Wiktionary. This means however that
the information has to stay FREE as in everyone is to be able to use the
data. It would serve us well in many ways; it would be not only an
important addition to the UW it would also enlarge the UW community in
an important way.

Currently their data is used by the Open Office organisation among many.
many others. The hosting of this type of content is one important way of
making the UW relevant. It is completely in line with the objectives of
the Wikimedia Foundation.

I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow
all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free
organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without
restrictions ?

Thanks,
   GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] Licenses


subject: [Wiktionary-l] Licenses


body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any
>>credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the
>>material, we must presume the opposite.  If CoolCat disagrees with
>>that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.
>>
>>
>Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?
>
>
No need to stop doing that.  Verifiability also applies.  In most
situations the contributor's copyright will go unchallenged; that's a
presumption of good faith.  Anyone can raise a reasonable doubt (as
opposed to a random challenge); that's when the contributor's burden of
response kicks in. If he says that his work is completely original that
shifts the burden, because he cannot be asked to show something that
does not exist.  If the similarity of his contributions to something
else goes beyond coincidence, then he has a need to clarify the situation.

Ec


body:
Mark,
It will not be "my" Ultimate Wiktionary, at best it is an idea that I do
actively represent and promote. You are representing yourself and you do
it adequately. You do not provide arguments to your POV and as such it
is unremarkable.

As to our community structure, it will evolve. Ultimate Wiktionary is
part of that evolution. You can not seriously expect that in a project
that doubles in size every four to six months our community will not be
affected. UW will not be as I expect, I see opportunities  and I try to
realise them. Many of the expectations are dependant on what the UW
community will be. It will not be like the Wikipedia communities, it
will not be like the Wiktionary communities, it will be distinctly
different but it will be Open and Free.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Mark Williamson wrote:

>And you are anticipating that the masses will flock to you, to
>experience the glory of your oh-so-marvelous uw?
>
>That seems a little over-optimistic.
>
>I also worry that, at least in one way or another, UW will turn out to
>be not quite as great as you had anticipated, and the currently
>existing community structure will be in a shambles.
>
>Mark
>
>On 20/06/05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>A stupid question, probably, but...
>>>
>>>Am I right that UW is to supplement rather than replace existing Wiktionary?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hoi,
>>There are no stupid questions. The UW is not to supplement but to
>>replace existing the Wiktionaries. The Wiktionaries will be either
>>disbanded by the community or they will be left by its users who will
>>migrate to the Ultimate Wiktionary. What is the point of keeping a
>>Wiktionary when its content is more effectively used in the UW ??
>>
>>Thanks,
>>    GerardM
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>On 20/06/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Hmmm... :) as a sidenote: wik2dict can now create Debian packages. It
>>>>>would be cool if someone could offer server space and bandwidth to put
>>>>>these up.
>>>>>
>>>>w much do you need? I have my own server and up to now I do not use
>>>>bandwidth and space completely - so it depends on how much it is.
>>>>
>>>>It could be easily integrated in the translator's portal for download
>>>>(www.wesolveitnet.com) - there's already a download part or we cold use
>>>>a subdomain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Another step is then the data exchangeability with CAT-Tools like
>>>>>>OmegaT, but that's a story of its own ... if we start to talk about this
>>>>>>here now ... I am just imagining what would happen ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>ad never heard of CAT (Computer Aided Translation) or OmegaT (GPL'd
>>>>>Java software). But I do now. :) Well, just inform the folks from
>>>>>OmegaT. I guess they should be interested in getting this done.
>>>>>
>>>>Oh yes, they should be interested - I am in there as well (even if for
>>>>localisation issues)
>>>>;-)
>>>>
>>>>One step after the other :-)
>>>>
>>>>Ciao, Sabine
>>>>


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] RickK deleted his talk page

body:
>From: Rhobite <rhobite at gmail.com>
>
>RickK has deleted his own talk page. I think it should be undeleted,
>and RickK should be de-sysop'ed.

Other admins have deleted their own Talk: and User: pages upon leaving
without sanction or even comment.  Other editors have had their Talk: and
User: pages deleted for them upon leaving, and have subsequently returned
without having them restored.

Jay.


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] jguk case: amended FoF brought

body:
On 6/21/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> My sense is that Wikipedia is fairly evenly divided over this matter.
> The ArbCom has shown a commendable amount of restraint so far with its
> powers, which have only helped to make its authority that much more
> powerful. I feel that if the ArbCom gets involved in this matter, it can
> only result with one side -- or both -- losing respect for the ArbCom.
>
> And I haven't spoken up more about this issue because I find it hard to
> stately unemotionally -- & succinctly -- my opinions about this matter.

You're not the only one concerned. This decision is a fiasco, and is
why it's in the process of being almost entirely overturned. I
apologise for my part in it going this far.

-- ambi


subject: [WikiEN-l] I am very concerned by the arbcomm decision againstjguk

body:
On 6/21/05, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Or maybe we are just prepared to listen when the community says we are
> making a mistake.
>
> --sannse

Hear hear.

-- ambi


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] alpha2 bug

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> While doing some minor updates to the validation feature, I noticed that
> in a freshly checked-out MediaWiki alpha2, I can not save any edits as a
> logged-in user, I always get the preview instead.

Can you confirm that PHP sessions are set up and working correctly?

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050621/92a82bee/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 6/21/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
> should be no big deal as well.  Perhaps being desysopped should be
> automatic for everybody afte maybe a year.  There could then be a three
> month waiting period before being readmitted.  Three months of enforced
> humility might be good for some people.  Since this would apply to ALL
> admins there could be no claim of descrimination.

Yes, people who are doing their job well deserve to lose it.

Kelly


body:
On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> I am very much copyright-unparanoid, but in the absence of any
> credible indication that the entity calling itself CoolCat wrote the
> material, we must presume the opposite.  If CoolCat disagrees with
> that presumption, the burden of proof is on she/he/it.

Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?

Kelly


from_name: Andrew Lih

body:
On 6/21/05, michaelturley at myway.com <michaelturley at myway.com> wrote:
>
> >"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24
> >hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
>
> Come on, now.  "May" indicates that the administrator had the option to block RickK for up to 24 hours.  An administrator used that option to do so.  (The very same who had in November 2004 awarded RickK the "Order of Canada" for "past work in defending our integrity".)

But that's my whole point - folks are saying, "Well that's the law,
and no one is above the law." It's not consistent application of a
"law" by any stretch. As an admin, I've seen plenty of 3RR violations,
but I try to protect the page rather than imposing an abrupt user
block.

I would like to see article protection as a preferred first step
before blocking someone over 3RR. The 3RR would be better if it
required this.
And as much as people say, "It's just a 24 hour ban, get over it,"
most would consider it a stain on their reputation within the
community if they were blocked. As we can see from the RfA votes,
these things do get dredged up.

> Certainly you cannot be upset that an administrator used his own independent judgement and chose to use the authority granted to him by the community at large in a way prescribed by formal policy?

In terms of "authority," if you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators
page, this is what it says: "Administrators are not imbued with any
special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of
editorial responsibility." Either this page or the 3RR page should be
changed to be consistent.

-User:Fuzheado


body:
>From: Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument?
>

I don't see this as a content argument, but rather an issue of someone
attempting to impose a POV on hundreds of Wikipedia articles over a period
of many months, even though he knows his POV is supported neither by policy
nor consensus, and has been opposed by any number of Wikipedia editors.

>The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view are trying
>to get ArbCom
>to decide I am wrong to espouse my view

See above.

>However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be
>reprehensible!

How deceptive.  Two edits aren't the issue.  Over 1,000 edits on over 700
articles are.

>There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom has not
>even addressed - what
>should happen when some users try to implement a failed proposal and are
>reverted by other
>users?

You must be referring to yourself here, as you tried to change the Manual of
Style to promote your view that only BC/AD should be used, and were reverted
by other users on that and on your subsequent attempts to change articles to
follow your position.

>Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as unfair to
>admonish SouthernComfort as
>it is me - we were both hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein
>as it is).

It all boils down to Slrubenstein does it?  You've been deleting BCE/CE from
Wikipedia for months before Slrubenstein made his proposal.

Jay.


from_name: michaelturley at myway.com

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

>Fastfission wrote:
>
>>But that's again because being an administrator is supposed to be "no
>>big deal" or whatever Jimbo said about it. It generally just means
>>"this person has been around for awhile and does not have some sort of
>>pathological editing problem that makes large amounts of people hate
>>them." It is not a title that is supposed to relate to any particular
>>POV except "Wikipedia is a good thing" which even then you can find
>>some variety in.
>>
>If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
>should be no big deal as well.  Perhaps being desysopped should be
>automatic for everybody afte maybe a year.  There could then be a three
>month waiting period before being readmitted.  Three months of enforced
>humility might be good for some people.  Since this would apply to ALL
>admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
>
>Ec

This an interesting idea, at least to me.

The primary problem I see is that three months without admin tools after one year with is a total of 15 months in an admin cycle. 3 months out of 15 is 20%. That's far too much to lose, if the goal is just to ensure a few people don't develop a calcified bad attitude.

It certainly would encourage administrators to be especially civil, if they knew they had to renew their appointments periodically. But the cost is probably too high.

Ultimately, I think the solution is going to be more coaxing and encouragement (and reward) of the behavior we want most, and discouragement of that which we don't. And yes, that does include reprimands and punishments, starting with as minor as we can conceive of, and going upward as far as we need to.

But my original point was that it should be no big deal when there are very minor punishments applied. The ideal goal is that good administrators will recognize and acknowledge their own occasional outbursts as inappropriate, and ''request'' these minor punishments, in large part to show good faith and a level playing field to those who aren't administrators, as well as to set an example.

Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more
	than"no big dea

body:
>From: Rebecca <misfitgirl at gmail.com>
>
>I'm getting really damned sick of all this admin-bashing on wikien-l.
>We seem to be getting a small clique of very loud users who seem to
>contribute remarkably little to the project apart from persecuting
>users who actually *do* (and loudly defending those that don't).

A small clique of very loud users who keep whining that someone else is the
clique.  Quite often they are failed candidates for various positions
additional power on Wikipedia themselves.

>Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. If you start punishing good
>users without a very good reason, they will leave. This is a volunteer
>project - we rely on the people who are prepared to put in hours and
>hours of work. The people that are prepared to do this (without
>causing scores of controversy), become admins. We've seen enough good
>users leave because of people - and you know who are - who seem to get
>some bizarre kick out of chasing good users away from the project.

Yep.

Jay.


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
On 6/21/05, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Fastfission wrote:
>
> >What's the alternative -- start banning people indiscriminantly who
> >act anti-social? I can tell you, if you think people are hostile
> >now...
> >
> >
> If they're being banned for a reason (acting anti-social), then they
> aren't being banned indiscriminately.

Hmm, I meant it more in a sense of "quickly and without due process"
-- I apologize for my poor choice of diction (much less my spelling --
that word in particular for some reason never comes out correctly).

FF


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikitorials shutdown

body:
On 6/21/05, Stirling Newberry <stirling.newberry at xigenics.net> wrote:
> http://www.bopnews.com/archives/003730.html#3730

LA Times' Wikitorials will perhaps go down in history as the [[Disco
Demolition Night]] of the Internet.

-User:Fuzheado

PS: That would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_Demolition_Night
for the bracket challenged :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: problem with power structure?  "Not I", said the fly.

body:
Tim Starling wrote:

>This is of course the exact opposite to the position of Michael Turley
>and Erik, who believe that the problem is in the existence of a power
>structure, rather than the solution. Some Wikipedians believe that all
>our problems can be traced to a deviation from anarchy, and that the
>solution lies in denigrating would-be leaders by calling them "janitors"
>or "bureaucrats". I respectfully disagree with this philosophy, I put my
>hope in enlightened democratic leadership rather than the mob.
>
>Some people complain that those in power are a cabal, rather than an
>accountable and democratic body. I'd prefer it if they'd use a more
>accurate word (despots?), but besides that, it will remain a perfectly
>valid criticism for as long as there is no easy way for the community to
>remove them from power.
>
>-- Tim Starling

I believe you've mischaracterized me.  I do not believe that there is a problem in the existence of a power structure.  There needs to be a clearly defined power structure.

But I do believe that there is a lack of real accountability to the very highest standards and ideals that this project claims to be founded on.

When RfCs are dismissed on the premise of 'this contributor just gives too much effort to Wikipedia to reprimand', and when an arbitrator calls someone a jerk without a unanimous grumble of disapproval as the '''first''' reaction, just to post two examples, we're not living up to the welcoming concepts that so attracted me here in the first place.

I can live with it, but I'd rather look for ways to change it.  If people call me a troll, or a member of a pack of idiots, for wanting to see people nudged toward the implementation of the ideals, then I can live with that, too.

Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way  your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] unwanted e-mails.

body:
On 6/21/05, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I checked yesterday, and that email address is not subscribed to the list. :-/
>
> So either another list admin has done it already, or it's not that. Or
> it's another email address entirely.

He needs one of these: http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/06/20

--
Pete, who wants one too


subject: [WikiEN-l] Howto write better WikiEN-l messages :)

body:
On 6/21/05, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ever notice how many folks use [[Wikipedia]] wiki conventions such as
> > [[double brackets]], ~~~~ for names, etc, in their e-mail messages to this
> > board? :)
>
> Aye! Let me also quip in to say that that is an *extremly* irritating
> convention to use in e-mail. Most mail-readers do not support the
> English Wikipedia and therefore to check out the page that the person
> is referring to in the [[double brackets]], you have to paste the
> thing in the English Wikipedia's search box click search and goto the
> page.
>
> So if you are referring to a Wikipedia page, and want lazy people like
> me to look at it, then please use an URL instead of stupid double
> brackets.

Hmmm. Has the [[WikiMail]] project reached beta yet?

--
Peter in Canberra