from_name: Flame Viper

subject: [WikiEN-l] There's a name for an all-out wheel war

body:
It would be a terrible idea to give *every editor* admin powers. If you don't believe me, let me give an outline of what would happen:

1. Main page is deleted/restored/deleted/unprotected/protected/etc
2. Main page is replaced with tubgirl/goatse/meatspin
3: MediaWiki namespace is trashed/vandalised/deleted
4: Random editors are blocked for no reason
5: Random pages are deleted/protected for no reason

And the terrible thing about this is that nobody could stop it. Normally, when an edit war breaks out, a sysop is able to descend from the clouds and settle things. When there is an abusive editor, a sysop can rain holy thunder upon him.

If every editor can block, unblock, and generally destroy everything, who's next? Will the bureaucrats have to step in and lay down a Supreme Block? And then what if Bureaucrat is made a default right? And up until Steward? Will Jimbo have to step into the fray and lay his divine vengeance?

Now the continuation of expanding user rights is just hypothetical, but it gives you an idea.

---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Short-lived retreat

body:
> I don't think that "this user doesn't need the tools" is ever a valid
> reason to deny adminship. Trust is a valid criteria. Need is not.

It's the risk/reward thing again. Giving someone the admin bit is
taking a risk, for that risk to be worth it we need to have a
reasonable expectation that they'll do something useful with it.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kris Straub PWNZed Wikipedia

body:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:37:49 -0500, Jeff Raymond
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>Sure, but he also proved something - he knows that Wikipedia believes -
>falsely - that webcomics aren't "notable," and that he can say anything
>about any webcomic and likely get it deleted.

No, he knows that lack of notability is grounds for deletion, and that
some people on AfD will !vote delete without checking.  That applies
to anything, not just webcruft.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] Your comments on wikien-l regarding adminship

body:
> Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where
> you got this from.

Your proposal to make almost everyone admins is effectively a proposal
to remove admins.

> OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be
> undone. There is no such thing as permanent damage.

You can't revert bad press, or hurting someone's feelings, or someone
leaving Wikipedia because of stress, etc. There is definitely such a
thing as permanent damage.


from_name: Samuel L Bronkowitz

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by
	JPGordon

body:
One final update: Yamla, who I note has a long history of rubber-stamping
abusive blocks, has done so on my request for unblock.

I must consider this systematic abuse by administrators at this point.

I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove to
me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely lost
the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going in
and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right to
them any more.

"Thank you" for nothing but abuse. It has really shown me what Wikipedia is
about and how worthless it is.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

The bad "discussion closed" code has now been placed around the new
discussion: one ReyBrujo "restored" the template to the wrong discussion
thread due to the hyperactive bot which removed still-ongoing threads from
the page.

This is a big problem, people trying to close off discussions relevant to
Wikipedia and to the actions of Wikipedian editors and administrators
without answering the concerns being addressed.

I have no idea whether my questions are actually reaching the list, either.
This is most disconcerting.

I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen how
Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this sort
go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia. I
will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that the
thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite extensively, it
would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I go
somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing so,
since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
false accusations are being denied me.

Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
it in this missive any more.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

This has also had the unintended effect of SERIOUSLY messing up the page, as
it appears every thread below it is "archived" due to the bad coding left
behind on the out-of-process closed discussion from earlier as well.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

Additional issue:

It appears someone's bot is doing damage, removing threads that are not
remotely irrelevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108652761&oldid=108652596

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

I am filing one more update. I do not know if any of these will get through,
but I am trying my best.

I have filed a request for Unblock as noted in the blocking notes page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108652004&oldid=108617558

I also must note that, now that I am blocked, there is constant posting of
libelous statements about me to the earlier discussions. It seems that now
that JKelly has abusively blocked me, a large number of people wish to
ingratiate themselves somehow by piling on.

It saddens me that this is the atmosphere of wikipedia. I may very well
simply leave, for this is showing me a bad side I had not seen before, and
Wikipedia is fast becoming something I do not wish to be a part of if this
is the true feeling and mentality of the editors here.

In sincerity,
Thank you for your time.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

I wish to update my earlier message; the two users who filed this CheckUser
request are now spending quite a bit of time making false charges at me at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_RunedChozo_was_and_should_be_handled,
and a third has jumped in who is just making accusations over and
over.

I find this highly unfair, as I have no relation to any of this or the pages
in question beyond my stated opinion that administrator and editor
misbehavior has occurred and that the case's resolution was not conducted in
proper respect for policy and civility.

User JKelly has now acted on these false accusations and banned me from
editing, as well as defacing my user page with a Scarlet Letter harassment
token.

You can see my edit history for yourself. I have not done anything bad to
warrant this kind of abuse, yet I have received it from multiple users and
at least one trigger-happy administrator now, as well as one administrator
willing to completely misrepresent CheckUser results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountPointercount

This comment was left, but I'm now unable to respond in my own defense
thanks to the abuse by JKelly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108647990&oldid=108647687

This is blatantly unfair practice. Since JKelly and other abusive
administrators and editors are more than willing to behave in this manner, I
have no choice but to come here for redress.

Thank you for your time.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

Hello,

I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, but decided to make an
account recently and signed up. I continued my normal editing (mostly typo
and fixes on random articles, which seems to be a way to find a lot of your
mistakes) but noticed a problem on the Administrators' Noticeboard and left
my opinion there.

A user included me in a CheckUser for speaking up on the issue. They accused
the user PSPMario, who seems to have edited only on the Playstation 3 and
Playstation Portable articles, of being a sockpuppet of someone after he
reported two users he suspected of being a sockpuppet.

I find it a very bad precedent to immediately accuse someone of being a
sockpuppet, for trying to report a potential problem themselves. I find this
equally problematic to say that "identical additions of info" happen when we
give users the tools in difference comparison to easily copy content from an
earlier edit to a later edit. PSPMario says he was replacing something he
saw that was missing when he returned to the page, and I believe him,
because there is no reason for me not to believe him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_think_I_see_a_sockpuppet

The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo

I am not sure what this means. I know I am no sockpuppet, and given the
writing style of PSPMario, I am reasonably certain he is not a sockpuppet
either.

I do not know when we started using weasel words for CheckUser, which ought
to be a yes or no answer, but this sets a very bad precedent for abuse of
the CheckUser system. Additionally, we have users trying to get everyone
they can blocked, no matter what their edits or edit history, based on the
results of weasel-worded RFCU postings.

This situation is a detriment to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time.


subject: [WikiEN-l] An idea for deletions

body:
> No, but if you're saying the proposal is bad because people suck, then
> AGF does come into it.

Not people in general, just some people. AGF only applies when there
is significant doubt. There is no real doubt that a "nominate this
article for deletion" button would be abused. How much it would be
abused and how easy that abuse would be to deal with is a little
harder to determine, so it might be worth giving it a go to find out
(this is a case where experimentation won't do any great harm).


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
> There is no such consensus.  The RfA system works for you because you
> use it, as do all the others who participate.  There are far more people
> who just wash their hands of it., and just limit their activities to
> some narrow topic.

On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that
decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy
decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins
has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep
things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal
might gain approval, but none have so far.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jon Harald Søby

subject: [Foundation-l] The Chinese New Year Wikipedia Logo

body:
IMO, this logo looks great. It is considerably better than the one
used last year (which was, no offense, quite horrible). Just one
question: You say that the character ? is exchanged with ?, which
means pig. What does ? mean?

On 2/16/07, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese Wikipedian
> has made the Chinese New Year celebration Wikipedia logo. During the Chinese
> New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese Wikipedians are proposing a
> celebration of new year on Chinese Wikipedia. You can take a look of this
> logo, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png
>
> There are 2 changes:
> 1. The logo is using red color which means happiness and celebration in
> Chinese community.
> 2. The logo is changing the original Chinese character ? to ??the later one
> ? means pig. This year is the year of pig.
>
> Please comment.
>
> THD
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

--
Best regards,
Jon Harald S?by

Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
Skype - jon.harald.soby


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Kris Straub PWNZed Wikipedia

body:
It proves nothing about deletionism and it doesn't mean reliable sources
suck either.
It means the reason for a nomination actually has to be checked before an
article is deleted.
If the nominator says the site has no Alexa ranking you check the site to
see if it actually is about the article's subject, and you check if a
relevant site indeed has no Alexa ranking.

He tricked the real people in this debate because they were simply sloppy in
handling it.

The rules are fine as they are as long as the deleting admin actually
applies them.

Mgm

On 2/16/07, Bogdan Giusca <liste at dapyx.com> wrote:
>
> Friday, February 16, 2007, 3:48:59 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
> >> I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too
> >> deletionist.
>
> > The sooner we start making RS subject-specific the better.  This
> > nonsense has got to stop.
>
> Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less
> strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as
> sources!
>
> PS: I can't wait for the policy to change, in order to start writing
> a few articles about me and my blog, referencing them from the blogs
> of my friends and family.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
One of the abusive editors who was involved in the false accusations has now
decided he has the right to remove unblock requests from my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108663911&oldid=108662520

This is beyond abusive by him, but as I am seeing from the treatment I am
receiving, too typical of how wikipedians behave.

"Thanks" for nothing but the abuse you have now heaped upon me.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 1:08 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

One final update: Yamla, who I note has a long history of rubber-stamping
abusive blocks, has done so on my request for unblock.

I must consider this systematic abuse by administrators at this point.

I will consider my options carefully, but you have done nothing to prove to
me that Wikipedia is worth any contribution any more. You have likely lost
the contribution of a 3+ year veteran, and I will probably start going in
and removing articles I have previously contributed. You have no right to
them any more.

"Thank you" for nothing but abuse. It has really shown me what Wikipedia is
about and how worthless it is.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

The bad "discussion closed" code has now been placed around the new
discussion: one ReyBrujo "restored" the template to the wrong discussion
thread due to the hyperactive bot which removed still-ongoing threads from
the page.

This is a big problem, people trying to close off discussions relevant to
Wikipedia and to the actions of Wikipedian editors and administrators
without answering the concerns being addressed.

I have no idea whether my questions are actually reaching the list, either.
This is most disconcerting.

I am requesting an answer, but having received none, and having now seen how
Wikipedia's administrators are more than content to let abuse of this sort
go on with no answer, I am 90% certain that I will be leaving Wikipedia. I
will not make things worse or vandalize articles, but I cannot say that the
thought of doing so did not cross my mind. As I travel quite extensively, it
would be very easy for me to acquire a new IP address every time that I go
somewhere and damage Wikipedia a little bit just for the fun of doing so,
since constructive editing and the right to defend myself against basely
false accusations are being denied me.

Since I have apparently not had any of your time, I shall not thank you for
it in this missive any more.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

This has also had the unintended effect of SERIOUSLY messing up the page, as
it appears every thread below it is "archived" due to the bad coding left
behind on the out-of-process closed discussion from earlier as well.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

Additional issue:

It appears someone's bot is doing damage, removing threads that are not
remotely irrelevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108652761&oldid=108652596

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz <countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

I am filing one more update. I do not know if any of these will get through,
but I am trying my best.

I have filed a request for Unblock as noted in the blocking notes page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACountPointercount&diff=108652004&oldid=108617558

I also must note that, now that I am blocked, there is constant posting of
libelous statements about me to the earlier discussions. It seems that now
that JKelly has abusively blocked me, a large number of people wish to
ingratiate themselves somehow by piling on.

It saddens me that this is the atmosphere of wikipedia. I may very well
simply leave, for this is showing me a bad side I had not seen before, and
Wikipedia is fast becoming something I do not wish to be a part of if this
is the true feeling and mentality of the editors here.

In sincerity,
Thank you for your time.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

I wish to update my earlier message; the two users who filed this CheckUser
request are now spending quite a bit of time making false charges at me at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_RunedChozo_was_and_should_be_handled,
and a third has jumped in who is just making accusations over and
over.

I find this highly unfair, as I have no relation to any of this or the pages
in question beyond my stated opinion that administrator and editor
misbehavior has occurred and that the case's resolution was not conducted in
proper respect for policy and civility.

User JKelly has now acted on these false accusations and banned me from
editing, as well as defacing my user page with a Scarlet Letter harassment
token.

You can see my edit history for yourself. I have not done anything bad to
warrant this kind of abuse, yet I have received it from multiple users and
at least one trigger-happy administrator now, as well as one administrator
willing to completely misrepresent CheckUser results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CountPointercount

This comment was left, but I'm now unable to respond in my own defense
thanks to the abuse by JKelly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=108647990&oldid=108647687

This is blatantly unfair practice. Since JKelly and other abusive
administrators and editors are more than willing to behave in this manner, I
have no choice but to come here for redress.

Thank you for your time.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel L Bronkowitz < countpointercount at gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: I have a problem with CheckUser as administered by JPGordon
To: wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org

Hello,

I've been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, but decided to make an
account recently and signed up. I continued my normal editing (mostly typo
and fixes on random articles, which seems to be a way to find a lot of your
mistakes) but noticed a problem on the Administrators' Noticeboard and left
my opinion there.

A user included me in a CheckUser for speaking up on the issue. They accused
the user PSPMario, who seems to have edited only on the Playstation 3 and
Playstation Portable articles, of being a sockpuppet of someone after he
reported two users he suspected of being a sockpuppet.

I find it a very bad precedent to immediately accuse someone of being a
sockpuppet, for trying to report a potential problem themselves. I find this
equally problematic to say that "identical additions of info" happen when we
give users the tools in difference comparison to easily copy content from an
earlier edit to a later edit. PSPMario says he was replacing something he
saw that was missing when he returned to the page, and I believe him,
because there is no reason for me not to believe him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_think_I_see_a_sockpuppet

The result of the Checkuser came back as "likely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo

I am not sure what this means. I know I am no sockpuppet, and given the
writing style of PSPMario, I am reasonably certain he is not a sockpuppet
either.

I do not know when we started using weasel words for CheckUser, which ought
to be a yes or no answer, but this sets a very bad precedent for abuse of
the CheckUser system. Additionally, we have users trying to get everyone
they can blocked, no matter what their edits or edit history, based on the
results of weasel-worded RFCU postings.

This situation is a detriment to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time.


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] An idea for deletions

body:
On 2/16/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> AGF has nothing to do with it. AGF means giving people the benefit of
> the doubt, not giving proposals the benefit of the doubt - a proposal
> doesn't have faith, good or bad.

No, but if you're saying the proposal is bad because people suck, then
AGF does come into it.

> I never said we shouldn't give it a chance, I just expressed my
> concerns - there is no harm in being aware of what could go wrong
> before you try something.

Ok, cool.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
We can't lower the bar.
Admins need to be neutral, have a good grasp of policy and be
non-destructive.
We can't grant someone admin powers without knowing if they fulfill those
criteria.

Mgm


from_name: John Vandenberg

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Deletions - do we cut a bit of slack for the Third
	World

body:
On 2/16/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/15/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> > Common sense would counsel cutting some slack. We do for [[Citizendium]] (And >[[Wikinfo]].
> >
>
> Given the various hoaxes we've relating to that area of the world
> basic credibility requires otherwise.

This is all the more reason why Wikipedia should hold onto the
snippets of data that can be roughly verified.  Providing articles for
the limited infrastructure in third world countries promotes a clearer
picture of the country so that tourists and/or investors can better
judge what is realistic, as opposed to having to rely on opinions that
may be commercially tainted.  Careful monitoring can ensure that
outrageous claims are not made on the article so that it gravitates
towards a well sourced article over time.

--
John


list: textbook-l

from_name: Andrew Whitworth

body:
It's more then just our legal risk in keeping those images and text. Under
US copyright law, we should be legally allowed to use some copyrighted
material under fair use guidelines without causing any problems. There are
several problems with fair use:
1) Fair Use only applies in the US and a small handful of other countries.
In countries where fair use is not legal, all instances of it are considered
copyright infringement. In these countries, it is not legal to print or
distribute wikibooks containing fair use media.
2) Fair use, or other limited licensing (such as "the author allows this
image to be used on wikibooks only") reduces our ability to print,
distribute, and modify our texts. Derivative works, a cornerstone of the
GFDL are not compatable with fair use, and using two incompatable licenses
on a single aggregate project (such as a wikibook) is simply not possible.
3) Many people assume that text or an image can be released under fair use
when it can't be. Images that are uploaded under "fair use" are usually (as
you pointed out) not properly tagged or referenced. These instances of
misuse do constitute copyright infringement, and that could bring lawsuits.
We allowed fair use for a pretty long time on our project, but it isn't the
kind of fight that we should be pursuing any longer. There are too many
problems with it. -

--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)

>From: "Matthew Benedict" <mattb112885 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Textbook-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 8
>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:07:29 -0500
>
>Now that I have thought some more about it, I do feel that the use of
>fair use images should be limited, but the problem is where do we draw
>the line? We'd have to ask ourselves if the value of using the images
>in the book outweighs the legal risk of listing it under fair use,
>especially if the books will eventually be published in some manner,
>as I presume is one eventual goal for any book on the project. I think
>that only in extreme cases (such as maybe those european history
>images) should fair use be presumed, and these cases should be clearly
>defined, perhaps on a case-by-case or strict categorical basis.
>
>As for textual quotations, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
>presumption of fair use for these (provided they are properly cited of
>course) is more common than the presumption of fair use for images. If
>we're going to do that we'll need some kind of standard method to
>describe the rationale for the fair use argument, like wikipedia has
>for images (i.e. this is a screenshot used only for illustration, this
>is a low-res company logo used to show what it looks like, etc).
>
>Speaking of citation, one problem with current fair use images is that
>a lot of them don't really cite the source properly; i.e. who created
>it? From what source was it derived? This information should be in the
>image page, but often they just have descriptions of what the image
>is, not where it came from or who the current copyright holder is,
>which can cause problems of its own.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mattb112885
>
>
>On 2/16/07, textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
><textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Send Textbook-l mailing list submissions to
> >         textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >         http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >         textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >         textbook-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Textbook-l digest..."
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Regarding fair use (Iamunknown)
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com>
> > To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:52:49 -0700
> > Subject: [Textbook-l] Regarding fair use
> > I really don't want fair use to go totally away, but I agree that it
>should
> > be significantly limited. The clause, "Because of our commitment to free
> > content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably
> > possible to replace with free media that would serve the same
>educational
> > purpose," in Kat Walsh's statement comes to mind. While I have expreseed
> > concern on-wiki and on-mailing list before about unlicensed images, many
> > which, if licensed properly, would remained unlicensed and used under
>fair
> > use, I think that we should not outright ban unlicensed content used
>under
> > fair use. In particular, we should allow very very limited use of
>non-free
> > media when it would be practically impossible to use free media -- the
>media
> > used in the European History wikibook comes to mind -- and for small
>textual
> > quotations. What are everyone else's feelings?
> >
> > -Iamunknown
> >
> >
> > --===============8126416904983688626==--
> > _______________________________________________
> > Textbook-l mailing list
> > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best route!
http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> We can't lower the bar.
> Admins need to be neutral, have a good grasp of policy and be
> non-destructive.
> We can't grant someone admin powers without knowing if they fulfill those
> criteria.

I've already mentioned this elsewhere in this thread, but I'll say this
again here in response to you:

Admins need to be neutral on the whole, but individual admins need not -
just like individual editors need not have good intentions (i.e. we can
handle vandals). Simply de-admin those that aren't.

We *CAN* grant admin powers without knowing if they fulfill any criteria
at all - knowing full well that we can remove those admin powers again
as soon as they fail the criteria.

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I would de-sysop people who have disappeared completely for an
> extended period of time, but these could have the privilege restored on
> request.

Why this unnecessary extra hassle?

Timwi


subject: [Textbook-l] Regarding fair use

body:
>From: Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com>
>In particular, we should allow very very limited use of non-free
>media when it would be practically impossible to use free media -- the
>media
>used in the European History wikibook comes to mind -- and for small
>textual
>quotations. What are everyone else's feelings?

it would have to be very very limited, and in that case it would likely be a
few exceptions to the rule as opposed to a rule in and of itself. And
regardless of what we choose to do with fair use media, if the WMF mandates
a position one way or the other, we have to go with that. I doubt highly
that the WMF is going to say "all fair use images must be deleted now", it
is more likely that they will be phased out over a period of time.

Even the fact that fair use images might be hard to replicate doesn't change
the fact that the use of these images is still illegal in most countries.
Books like the European history book are illegal to print and distribute in
much of europe, for instance. I can think of maybe a dozen instances where
fair use images might be indispensible, and in those cases we would have to
create workarounds so the books could be printed without them anyway.

I think the best course of action for us is to disallow new fair use images
from being uploaded, and evaluate the old fair use images, on a case-by-case
basis. Most can likely be deleted (as mistagged and a copyright violation)
many more will likely be duplicatable, and the remainder we can deal with
later.

--Andrew Whitworth

_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few
simple tips.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tag extension whitespace parsing

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Moin,

On Friday 16 February 2007 13:38:47 Jim Wilson wrote:
> There's been some recent discussion in the mediawiki IRC channel about
> the Parser's handling of whitespace in tag extension output.
> Specifically, if the output of a tag contains leading whitespace or
> consecutive newlines, they are replaced with <pre> blocks and </p><p>
> combos respectively.
>
> I'm planning to fix this, and I was curious which version(s) would
> receive the fix when finished.  Does this qualify as something which
> would be backported, or only in the latest release?  Thanks in advance.

If you fix this, I owe you a beer.

Tels

- --
 Signed on Fri Feb 16 13:58:18 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "People who are rather more than six feet tall and nearly as broad
 across the shoulders often have uneventful journeys. People jump out at
 them from behind rocks then say things like, 'Oh. Sorry. I thought you
 were someone else.'" -- Terry Pratchett

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBRdWqd3cLPEOTuEwVAQJr5Qf+LA+h9zEw0Wy/owWyQkE5i3CayYIfaAQn
AKIwt3ezxCrQI6ADqYURcgRILKn8WVtlOeSbAcX8hPyI0ua7WshiEOli03bMYyTi
iNBRNXGkFnYgwEsb3l1QoitfUDEsXrq9K0vGxgB67xPG80U1nU3RQrjg7Ug/VbVq
T28bJgZxKCF4fJkccIiFItTy8OnLJlWAk2OE78NFknHOBYew3KMnlK308czsCZcB
v1KpIdJfrPH44RyACpWmJn88t8hHbBD8WyIWsHlMw2ZAS3GPwRIyhV8oK+zMY7et
DCwKt2EXHew9R8K69u2kLRq2tEmmfUl8euczQNSoGB/snuOfmHjgZQ==
=2GmR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Short-lived retreat

body:
> Then why do we allow people to edit articles at all. Under strict
> risk/reward analysis, that was the wrong thing to do. Yet by doing the
> "wrong thing" we have created something quite significant. In my
> opinion, your assessment of risk/reward is more appropriate to a
> well-established institution than to a cutting-edge web project.

In what way was it the wrong thing to do? The gain from allowing
everyone to edit is enormous. The risk is significant, but manageable.

All decisions should be made by comparing the risk and the reward. The
difference between a well-established institution and a cutting-edge
web project is simply one of degree - we are willing to take more risk
to get the same gain, but no unlimited risk. We still have to balance
it.


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where
>>you got this from.
>
> Your proposal to make almost everyone admins is effectively a proposal
> to remove admins.

So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?

>>OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be
>>undone. There is no such thing as permanent damage.
>
> You can't revert bad press, or hurting someone's feelings, or someone
> leaving Wikipedia because of stress, etc. There is definitely such a
> thing as permanent damage.

Your creativity is taking wings! No-one so far has talked about bad
press or hurt feelings. In particular, no-one so far has suggested that
my proposal would increase the incidence of such. Much less has anyone
provided any *actual evidence* that it would -- it might just as well
reduce it (and I have already provided arguments why it might). But your
innovative invention of specious arguments is truly remarkable, I must say!

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
> I realize I am straying from the main subject of this thread, but I wanted
> to ask a question based on what was said above. When a new proposal (in
> whatever area) is presented, how and where is the final decision made as to
> whether that proposal becomes policy or not; and who ultimately makes it?

If consensus is reached, it's up to pretty much anyone to carry it
out. If it turns out there wasn't consensus then we'll find out when
someone reverts the changes.

Policy is determined in pretty much the same way as content in
articles. It keeps getting changed until everyone is happy with (or at
least willing to accept) what we've got. The principle of "Be Bold"
isn't applied so much to policy - it's usual to discuss changes before
you make them, rather than making them and seeing if any reverts and
only discussing it if they do, but the basic process is the same.


references:
<bd4c411e0702090937y3482dadcm2a9d0f99b70eefd3@mail.gmail.com>
	<eqvlcg$ak7$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<1adf38660702141203o113c6db8yaba7d7e5b340e8f1@mail.gmail.com>
	<er1j5e$huh$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430702150527n5c4e704cu3059aee90eb667dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<er1rar$f6t$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f80608430702150646u1ebe755q67c0b1d13264b7f4@mail.gmail.com>
	<er47vr$sk6$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<a4359dff0702160508h2ee66806w55ff7df725e5ea6c@mail.gmail.com>
	<er4f92$o2m$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
> So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?

Yes. Wikis make no distinction between editors and readers. Just as
your proposal would make no distinction between editors/readers and
admins.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] In hospital

body:
Mark Ryan wrote:

>On 16/02/07, Sean Black <smblac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If it's too much to work to moderate a mailing list, maybe you shouldn't be
>>doing that. I'm not going to say that all the moderators are just lazy and
>>not really doing their jobs, because that's terribly unfair, and I'm sure
>>there's a lot of work to be done. But instead of giving a reasonable
>>explanation and saying that we're just supposed to accept completely idiotic
>>junk posted to this list isn't fair. Moderators are supposed to, you know,
>>*moderate*.
>>
>>
>The message in question was let through by one of the list admins by
>mistake. It looked relatively alright, but turned out to be off-topic.
>Human error. We'd already established this in private, and I figured
>it would be best to just let the thread die through lack of responses,
>but people jumping up and down and complaining about the terrible
>moderation job we are doing have made that impossible.
>
>And what's with the ridiculous assertions that we're not moderating?
>Do you have access to the moderation queue or something? This user has
>had 10 emails approved and 9 rejected.
>
I don't think that moderation is about perfectly excising every last
letter that shouldn't get throught.  Some will, and that's life.  I
prefer that the moderators give the benefit of the doubt to letting
things through.  If that means that something gets through that I don't
like, I have a delete key. There's nothing to complain about.

Ec


from_name: Brian Salter-Duke

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Deletions - do we cut a bit of slack for the
	Third	World

body:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 12:25:42AM +0000, geni wrote:
> On 2/15/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> >Common sense would counsel cutting some slack. We do for [[Citizendium]]
> >(And >[[Wikinfo]].
> >
>
> Given the various hoaxes we've relating to that area of the world
> basic credibility requires otherwise.

If there were no sources, I would agree with you, but in the case I
asked about, it seems highly unlikely that the School's own web site is
a hoax. It would be a very elaborate one if it was, and to what point.
The slack was for third party sources. One problem is that the web site
for [[Kathmandu University]] is not responding at the moment. It probably
talks about the university owning the school, which would be another
source.

Brian.

> --
> geni
>
>
>
> ------------------------------

--
          Brian Salter-Duke            b_duke at bigpond.net.au
               [[User:Bduke]]  mainly on en:Wikipedia.
           Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity


from_name: Keitei

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On Feb 16, 2007, at 7:48, Timwi wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses
> first, but here's mine... :-)
>
> Keitei wrote:
>> Admins must:
>> 	be neutral, above all else.
>
> This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking,
> protecting
> or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be
> neutral (in
> what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You
> would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not
> cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big
> deal"
> again that we are trying hard not to make it.
>
>> Therefore, admin candidates must:
>> 	demonstrate they can [...]
>
> This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot
> demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an
> admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
>
> You are also reiterating this false belief that someone who does
> not fit
> your criteria must not ever be admin even for a minute, i.e. you are
> acting as if adminship could never be removed again.
>
> So, my corrected version of your assessment would look something
> like this:
>
> - Admins must, *on the whole*,
> 	be neutral (in deleting, protecting, blocking)
>
> - Therefore, an admin who deletes, protects or blocks something/
> someone
>    unfairly, must be de-adminned. Everyone else can, by definition, be
>    admin without causing harm.

I stated that incorrectly then. I meant that admins when acting as
admins must be neutral in their approach to admin actions. One can
demonstrate this by being neutral when approaching conflicts with
others, but other than that, I have no idea how they could
demonstrate it. And yes, the best way to know whether someone will be
a good admin is to just let them try.

My criteria, as you put it, were just meant as what I think admin
candidates ought to show (just, "I can be neutral when asked to be",
no shrubberies or herrings), but there are many different ways of
determining whether someone will do or be something. I'm asking if
maybe our current criteria, varied and sundry though they are, are
determining whether they will be good admins, or if they are just
arbitrary bars. Could we lower the bar and still allow in good admins
while keeping out the bad?

And then the backlogs are better, people leave less, etc etc. Hopefull.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 43, Issue 25

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
>
> Timwi wrote:
>
>>Brion Vibber wrote:
>>
>>>[blah blah blah]
>>>Everybody, please don't bother discussing alternative bold and italic
>>>markup. That's not on the table right now.
>>
>>thanks for this message. However, please may I cheekishly take the
>>liberty to point out that it could have been worded less
>>authoritatively?
>
> I was under the impression that Brion is *paid* to give authoritative
> answers.

Authoritative over the MediaWiki codebase, yes, and I fully respect that
authority. But I don't think he should have authority over the set of
permissible discussions on the mailing list.

Timwi


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?
>
> Yes. Wikis make no distinction between editors and readers. Just as
> your proposal would make no distinction between editors/readers and
> admins.

That is correct. That is very different, however, from saying "There are
[effectively] no admins". That would be like saying "On a wiki, there
are [effectively] no editors". That's just absurd.

Timwi


body:
> That is correct. That is very different, however, from saying "There are
> [effectively] no admins". That would be like saying "On a wiki, there
> are [effectively] no editors". That's just absurd.

It's just a difference in the definition of admin. Is an admin a
person with access to what we call "admin tools", or is it a person
with access to tools not available to everyone else? When we say we
need admins to deal with major vandalism, we are using the 2nd
definition. You are using the first.


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/16/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where
> you got this from.
>

It's the closest analogue of an admin vs admin conflict available that
you could really understand.

> OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be
> undone.

There are attacks that would take a lot more effort to undo than to do.

>There is no such thing as permanent damage.

I could put the goatse on every page tubgirl on every watch list and
lemon part on the main page. Throw in some stuff from the pain series
on the block page as a little surprise for whoever tried to stop me.

> The irony lies in the fact that your ironically-meant statement is
> actually true. (Well, almost. Of course there are negligible numbers of
> people who are truly persistent. But on the whole, very close to 100% of
> all vandals give up.)
>

WOW? Communism Vandal? Mr treason? General Tojo? Squidwad? how many of
these would you be happy to have their hands on admin powers?

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Conspicuous only in its absence (was Moldavian)

body:
Berto 'd Sera wrote:
>> Wikimedia already has a longstanding preference not to split Wikipedias
>> into separate ones for each dialect, as much as possible.
>>
> As you say. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. That is, we will try our best to have a
> self translating system, if that is not possible because of local political
> extremism we will be left with two chances:
> 1) impose our will over ro.wiki with pure strength
> 2) have 2 separate wikies
>

I think the case of "local political extremism" is actually the most
clear-cut case in which we *must not* have two separate Wikipedias.
That is a recipe for a non-neutral encyclopedia, akin to having an
encyclopedia for a particular political party, which is contrary to our
basic goals.

-Mark


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
On 2/16/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> And the terrible thing about this is that nobody could stop it. Normally,
> when an edit war breaks out, a sysop is able to descend from the clouds and
> settle things. When there is an abusive editor, a sysop can rain holy
> thunder upon him.
>

They do that whenever they can come up with the slightest excuse, let alone
for "abusive editors."

One must consider that part of the problem of our crop of current abusive
administrators may be due to burnout and overstress, and your suggestions to
expand the admin pool have merit, but the fact remains that many of the
administrator tools are way too easy to abuse, and get abused on a regular
basis.

Adminship is a big deal, these days. Else so many of them wouldn't be so
dead-set on never having any review of their own actions.

Parker


body:
Anthere wrote:

>I know that some people are not favorable to festive logo.
>I personally love festive logos and if the Chinese community is happy
>with it, it is great.
>
>Happy New Year !
>
>Anthere
>
>PS: we know that this will be the new year because our supermarkets are
>putting asian food everywhere to celebrate it. That's a good marketing
>opportunity.
>
We look forward to the richness that the pig will bring into the new
year. We have a very big immigrant population from China in the
Vancouver area, so we hear a lot about the Chinese New Year, and how the
pig is viewed very favorably in Chinese culture. It is too bad that
China is restricting the use of advertising that uses pigs in order to
satisfy certain minorities.

I agree that special logos can bring a smile to the user. I've noticed
over the years that Google sometimes uses festive logos for a day or
two. Has anyone considered a similar programme.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kris Straub PWNZed Wikipedia

body:
Bogdan Giusca wrote:

>Friday, February 16, 2007, 3:48:59 AM, Jeff wrote:
>
>
>>>I think it proves that certain factions or editors are becoming too
>>>deletionist.
>>>
>>>
>>The sooner we start making RS subject-specific the better.  This
>>nonsense has got to stop.
>>
>>
>Exactly. Reliable sources suck! For web content, we should have less
>strict standards and allow regular blogs and forum/usenet posts as
>sources!
>
>PS: I can't wait for the policy to change, in order to start writing
>a few articles about me and my blog, referencing them from the blogs
>of my friends and family.
>
I wasn't sure whether you intended to put a smiley on that last part.  :-\

I very much agree with subject-specific reviews, but would proceed with
extreme caution when it comes to accepting blogs as reference.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Kris Straub PWNZed Wikipedia

body:
Jeff Raymond wrote:

>MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>
>>He tricked the real people in this debate because they were simply sloppy in
>>handling it.
>>
>>
>Sure, but he also proved something - he knows that Wikipedia believes -
>falsely - that webcomics aren't "notable," and that he can say anything
>about any webcomic and likely get it deleted.
>
>
>>The rules are fine as they are as long as the deleting admin actually
>>applies them.
>>
>>
>Yeah, but that can't be trusted anymore, either.  Look at how the DRV is
>going for it.  Look at how the DRV is going for Gregory Kohs.  It
>doesn't matter if the rules are applied properly, it simply matters as
>to whether the rules are applied in a way that fits Wikipedia's biases
>in some subject areas.
>
I would be inclined to distinguish between Wikipedia's biases and the
biases of some Wikipedians.

Ec


from_name: Liviu Andronic

body:
Hello

I won't read the second part of your email since it's conditional and your
> first condition is not acceptable. Also, FMI, is your position in anyway an
> official position from Ro.wiki?

You might have.. The two are more or less complementary.

Also, FMI, is your position in anyway an official position from Ro.wiki?

In no way. I am speaking on behalf of the Moldovan Community on Wikimedia
(sort of: I've never been delegated or anything). The same community that
twice voted for the deletion of the Moldovan Wikipedia.

Right the opposite. ANY encyclopedic content in an ISO recognized entity
> (thus including the Moldovan Linguistic Entity) is desirable.

I don't know what were ISOs criteria to decide on this (and I don't have
time to write complaints to them). But the content present on
mo.wikipedia.org is *not* a separate linguistic entity. It is a
transliteration of Romanian, standard Romanian, exactly as present on
ro.wikipedia.org.

Before answering this, I hope that the Language Committee agrees on the
> following two points.
>
> First of all, the WMF does *not* want to have any content in the Moldovan
> dialect (Romanian as *spoken* in the historic region of Moldavia, which
> would currently comprise Eastern part of Romania and Moldova with
> Transnistria included). This would be completely stupid and trolls would be
> the only serious contributors.
>
> Secondly, the "Moldovan language" in its standard form is standard
> Romanian. You might look here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language#Controversy>,
> here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_reliable_sources_say_about_Moldovan_Language>and
> here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_decision_makers_need_to_know>for more information. "Even the loudest defender of the Moldovan language
> concept, Vasile Stati, has agreed<http://www.vremea.net/news/2005-01-13/18:45:35.html>that Moldovan and Romanian are identical in their literary forms".
>
Now, I'll try to reformulate this. And in doing this, I am obliged to stick
to my old-fashioned terminology; otherwise, this is a dead-end (I still
trimed this message off of this terminology). And please read to the end:
I'll try to elaborate as clear as possible my ideas.

I still hope that he language committee agrees that Wikipedia deals
with standard
forms of linguistic entities. Not spoken varieties of standard forms. In my
previous email, the idea was as follows: there is a Romanian linguistic
entity, spoken in at least 6 different
ways<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_dialects>(the Moldovan way
included). I sincerely doubt that the WMF intends to
support 6 different Wikipedias next to the Romanian one. This would be more
than similar to the situation of the English linguistic entity used all
around the world. It is spoken in at least 14 different countries, with
differences far greater than those of Romanian and its spoken varieties (not
to consider grammar and so on differences in written forms). My opinion is
that there is no way that the Board will start opening different Wikipedia
sections for all these varieties (consider the post of Delirium <
delirium at hackish.org>). And as said previously, if the WMF opens another
section of Wikipedia dealing with this spoken variety of Romanian, not only
would it be absurd, this would be not serious. On a side note: current
content on mo.wikipedia.org is not spoken Romanian in the historic region of
Moldavia.

So, we get to my second idea : the Moldovan linguistic entity in its
standard form is standard Romanian. More information is available
here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language#Controversy>,
here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_reliable_sources_say_about_Moldovan_Language>and
here<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#What_decision_makers_need_to_know>
.

Now, still hoping that the Language Committee agrees that it is standard
form that Wikipedia deals with, we have the following situation: the
Romanian linguistic entity, spoken in six different varieties and -
historically - written with three different scripts.

I really don't know how does ISO decide that Moldovan is a distinct
linguistic entity. This is a Soviet time POV. And I stress again the
following: the content present on mo.wikipedia.org is a mere transliteration
of standard Romanian. And I don't know how are you going to get content in this
linguistic entity, as deemed by ISO, when even a native doesn't understand
what exactly is ISO talking about.

So, WHERE are you warranties about democracy and NPOV if and when
> Moldavian/Transdnistrian content comes in?

Berto, I'd also want a serious answer. How can I possibly offer ANY
*warranties* on this? I do not have any administrative power inside the
Wikimedia structure. All that I'm offering you is arguments. That are
reasonable enough - IMO, of course - and that I am doing my best to keep in
line with objectiveness. More, I'm doing my best in keeping them free of
politics.

> Wikimedia already has a longstanding preference not to split Wikipedias
> > into separate ones for each dialect, as much as possible.
> As you say. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. That is, we will try our best to have a
> self translating system, if that is not possible because of local
> political
> extremism we will be left with two chances:
> 1) impose our will over ro.wiki with pure strength
>
2) have 2 separate wikies
>
1. Brute force is not necessary. Arguments can replace it.
2. In this situation it is *possible* to have one single wiki with both
writing systems. There should simply be a "political" will from the WMF
and/or Language Committee to solve the situation

As much as it starts to bore me too, this is not why I will probably not
answer the rest of the emails (present and future, if they come in). I am
out for a weak so I cannot keep up with this discussion.

Regards,
Liviu


subject: [WikiEN-l] Limited Sysop

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 2/16/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I do not consider familiarity with a lot of rules for dealing with
>>problem people to be essential to an admins job.
>>
>>
>Not sure I comepletely understand this sentence. Admins clearly need to be
>familiar with rules, but that doesn't mean they have to do all the possible
>admin tasks. If someone wants to stick with one task, I'm happy to allow
>them to do that as long as they know the rules for that specific field.
>
Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I agree with what you say.  Unfortunately the
focus these days is on disciplinary rules, and conflicted situations.
This doesn't help those who just want to quietly build a better
encyclopedia.

>I like the idea of splitting all the powers and grant specific powers
>depending on what the admin in question wants to do. I do wonder what to do
>about newbies who are told to contact an administrator about an issue. How
>are they supposed to know if a certain admin can help them?
>
I prefer to keep an open mind on splitting powers.  I'm inclined not to
like it but could concede that view in order to arrive at a more
congenial approach to adminship.  My reservation is consistent with
yours.  Maybe we need a system of mentorship.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
Timwi wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>I would de-sysop people who have disappeared completely for an
>>extended period of time, but these could have the privilege restored on
>>request.
>>
>>
>Why this unnecessary extra hassle?
>
I don't view it as a hassle.  It would just be a simple matter of asking
a bureaucrat, and having him switch it back on.

Ec


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Short-lived retreat

body:
> I believe his point is that until Wikipedia proved it could work,
> allowing everybody to edit was seen as impossible, as way too risky to
> work.
>
> I know you don't like to hear it, but to me, as somebody who started
> pushing wikis before Wikipedia existed, your arguments against the
> possibility of broadening adminship sound regrettably like the arguments
> I used to get (and, amazingly, still get) about how open-to-anybody
> editing is impossible.

I understand what you're saying, but I think I've found the flaw in
your argument. You are saying that Wikipedia has proven all the people
that said a wiki could never work wrong - I'm not sure that's the
case.

Wikipedia has shown that a pure wiki doesn't work (beyond a certain
size). We've had to introduce blocks and protection, both of which go
against the idea of a wiki. We've compromised, and as such have
managed to make a viable website.

Wikipedia is not a pure wiki, it's the closest we've managed to stay
to a wiki without causing problems that are beyond our ability to
manage. We've managed to stay very close, but we have had to step away
in order to solve a few problems. Adminship is the main way we've done
that.

The proposal for opening up adminship is basically a proposal to move
back to a pure wiki. Wikipedia started off as a pure wiki, and it
worked ok at first, but as it grew it get unmanageable and required
the creation of admins.

There have been multiple requests for evidence that opening up
adminship won't work - pre-admin Wikipedia is that evidence. It didn't
work, and that's why admins were created in the first place.


from_name: Rob Church

body:
On 16/02/07, Jim Wilson <wilson.jim.r at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm planning to fix this, and I was curious which version(s) would receive
> the fix when finished.  Does this qualify as something which would be
> backported, or only in the latest release?  Thanks in advance.

If I were release manager, I wouldn't backport it, but that's just me
- it changes the Parser behaviour and could introduce unforeseen
problems, so I wouldn't incorporate it into a stable branch.

Rob Church


body:
Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?
>>
>>
>Yes. Wikis make no distinction between editors and readers. Just as
>your proposal would make no distinction between editors/readers and
>admins.
>
If you're so hostile to wikis why do you waste your time with them?

Ec


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Deletions - do we cut a bit of slack for the Third
 World

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:05:44 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee
> <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
>
>> This is a special case of a fundamental problem with Wikipedia: the demand
>> for sources and notability produces a heavy bias towards things which are on
>> the Internet and can be easily found.
>>
>
> It's called FUTON bias and it doesn't only affect Wikipedia.
>

In some corners of academia, particularly computer science, this is
sometimes seen as a positive phenomenon.  Papers freely available on the
internet are cited more frequently (controlling for other factors) than
papers that are only available in print or from pay archives [1].  This
provides a nice bit of pressure for authors to put their papers on their
homepages, and for journals to make their archives publicly accessible.
That pressure has been successful in a number of cases (e.g. the
editorial board of the journal _Machine Learning_ resigning en masse to
support an open-access alternative [2], which pressured _Machine
Learning_ itself into making many of its own archives freely available
online).  The result is more information available to everyone, not only
the wealthy or those who have affiliations with wealthy first-world
universities---a goal that seems rather in keeping with Wikipedia's spirit.

-Mark

[1] S. Lawrence. Online or invisible? _Nature_ 411, 2001. Online
version: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/online-nature01/

[2] Editorial Board of the Kluwer Journal, Machine Learning: Resignation
Letter. _SIGIR Forum_ 35(2), 2001. Online version:
http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigir/forum/F2001/sigirFall01Letters.html


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
> Wikimedia already has a longstanding preference not to split Wikipedias
> into separate ones for each dialect, as much as possible.  Therefore
> nobody would support splitting the English Wikipedia into
> American-English and British-English and Australian-English Wikipedias,
> and similarly a *lot* of effort was put into keeping the Chinese
> Wikipedia from splitting into Simplified and Traditional Chinese
> Wikipedias, and efforts to split off a Cantonese Wikipedia have also
> been consistently opposed.

American, British, and Australian English can hardly be termed
dialects. They're better termed as standard varieties of the same
language, because each of them has several "acceptable" accents, and
the differences are almost entirely limited to terminological
differences. (for example, is someone "in hospital" or "in THE
hospital"? are they "in the OR" or "in theatre"? did they get food
poisoning from "rotten eggplant" or "dessicated aubergine"?

Also, perhaps you've been hiding in a cave for the past year -- the
Cantonese Wikipedia's been around for a while now, and the vote on
whether or not it should exist showed a clear and strong majority of
supporters, while the opposers were a vocal few (read: Andrew Lih).

http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/

Also, you might check the two other Sinitic "dialect" wikis created since then:

http://wuu.wikipedia.org/
http://cdo.wikipedia.org/

and of course, http://zh-classical.wikipedia.org/

Mark

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


from_name: Berto 'd Sera

body:
Hi!

> In no way. I am speaking on behalf of the Moldovan Community on Wikimedia
I stop reading exactly here. What DOES exist is:
- WMF
- RO.wiki
- MO.wiki

As you perfectly understand, even supposing that we will ever reach the
point in which you and I will say "Ok, deal", there will be NO WARRANTY
whatsoever that ro.wiki will accept what you and I propose. Because what we
are talking about is a radical change in the existence of Ro.wiki, in the
first place.

If and when ro.wiki will want to host cyrillic on their pages they will
issue an official claim for it. In the meantime... I will NOT continue on
this subject, since it's leading absolutely nowhere.

Berto 'd Sera
Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html


from_name: Ligulem

subject: [Wikitech-l] Massive Hook Proposal

body:
On 14.02.2007 14:32, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Dear Wiki Devs,
>
> I have a proposal for adding new hooks into the MW codebase, and I'm looking
> for feedback (positive and negative).  The goal of the proposed changes is
> to give Extension Devs the ability to cleanly hijack just about any class in
> the system.  Here are the details:
>

The standard pattern for ultimate class "hijacking" is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_factory_pattern

(I admit I have no idea if this would be applicable to MW :-)


from_name: Earle Martin

subject: [WikiEN-l] We're famous!

body:
On 16/02/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> > Is there any page in the Wikipedia: namespace where we links to
> > webcomics featuring WP are collected? If so, shall we start one?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_webcomics

Thanks!

--
Earle Martin
            http://downlode.org/
http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/


from_name: gjzilla at gmail.com

body:
No one's talking about giving everyone admin powers. Just those that have
done more good than what they could theoretically do if they went wild.

On 2/16/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It would be a terrible idea to give *every editor* admin powers. If you
> don't believe me, let me give an outline of what would happen:
>
> 1. Main page is deleted/restored/deleted/unprotected/protected/etc
> 2. Main page is replaced with tubgirl/goatse/meatspin
> 3: MediaWiki namespace is trashed/vandalised/deleted
> 4: Random editors are blocked for no reason
> 5: Random pages are deleted/protected for no reason
>
> And the terrible thing about this is that nobody could stop it. Normally,
> when an edit war breaks out, a sysop is able to descend from the clouds and
> settle things. When there is an abusive editor, a sysop can rain holy
> thunder upon him.
>
> If every editor can block, unblock, and generally destroy everything,
> who's next? Will the bureaucrats have to step in and lay down a Supreme
> Block? And then what if Bureaucrat is made a default right? And up until
> Steward? Will Jimbo have to step into the fray and lay his divine vengeance?
>
> Now the continuation of expanding user rights is just hypothetical, but it
> gives you an idea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss an email again!
> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Iamunknown

subject: [Textbook-l] Regarding fair use

body:
I totally agree that if the WMF board decides to outright ban fair use
then we have no choice but to comply. I, on a certain level, hope that
they do not. I think what we should focus more on, however, is asking
permission from copyright holders to use their copyrighted media.

For example, Webaware recently created {{Microsoft screenshot}} out of
his recent research into Microsoft policy. Microsoft screenshots are
still essentially fair use: for our purposes as an educational
website, we can technically use them for free, but because our goal is
also to allow for downstream use in any context, it is definitely
-not- free. What I wonder is if anyone has tried to contact Microsoft
asking for permission to include low-resolution screenshots of their
copyright software and interface in Wikibooks or in Wikimedia
Foundatio projects? How would we even find that out? In particular,
could we (or someone else on our behalf) access the OTRS archives?

-Iamunknown

On 2/16/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com>
> >In particular, we should allow very very limited use of non-free
> >media when it would be practically impossible to use free media -- the
> >media
> >used in the European History wikibook comes to mind -- and for small
> >textual
> >quotations. What are everyone else's feelings?
>
> it would have to be very very limited, and in that case it would likely be a
> few exceptions to the rule as opposed to a rule in and of itself. And
> regardless of what we choose to do with fair use media, if the WMF mandates
> a position one way or the other, we have to go with that. I doubt highly
> that the WMF is going to say "all fair use images must be deleted now", it
> is more likely that they will be phased out over a period of time.
>
> Even the fact that fair use images might be hard to replicate doesn't change
> the fact that the use of these images is still illegal in most countries.
> Books like the European history book are illegal to print and distribute in
> much of europe, for instance. I can think of maybe a dozen instances where
> fair use images might be indispensible, and in those cases we would have to
> create workarounds so the books could be printed without them anyway.
>
> I think the best course of action for us is to disallow new fair use images
> from being uploaded, and evaluate the old fair use images, on a case-by-case
> basis. Most can likely be deleted (as mistagged and a copyright violation)
> many more will likely be duplicatable, and the remainder we can deal with
> later.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>


body:
What I consider terrifying is the fact that the statute of limitations
for copyright infringement in the United States is very ambiguous:
technically, it is only three years, but there are numerous
contradictory cases.

Consider this example. I publish a book in August 2005. Another person
copies an entire chapter in December 2005 without permission and for
profit, directly infringing upon my exclusive right to the material,
including it in their book. Their book is published September 2006. A
second edition is published September 2007. It is still on the market
for several years to come. Courts might consider the December 2005
copy the original date of infringement, others might consider the
September 2006, the 2007, or even the later dates when the book is
still being published. Furthermore, there is ambiguity as to whether
one can sue for damages only based on the past three years, or on the
entire time the infringement (in this case) was in print.

I know that it is pure speculation and copyright paranoia, but it is
frightening. Also, I want to say that even if we decide what we would
like to limit (or outright ban) regarding fair use, we should: (1)
wait for the official statement from the board and (2) get help from
foundation-l or more qualified legal personnel. But I would certainly
support discussion about what we would like to allow or disallow.
Also, I think we should seriously consider cleaning out our fair use
archives...I can testify from roving through the subcategories of
[[:Category:Wikibooks images]] that we have a lot of things that
should never be considered fair use.

-Iamunknown

On 2/16/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's more then just our legal risk in keeping those images and text. Under
> US copyright law, we should be legally allowed to use some copyrighted
> material under fair use guidelines without causing any problems. There are
> several problems with fair use:
> 1) Fair Use only applies in the US and a small handful of other countries.
> In countries where fair use is not legal, all instances of it are considered
> copyright infringement. In these countries, it is not legal to print or
> distribute wikibooks containing fair use media.
> 2) Fair use, or other limited licensing (such as "the author allows this
> image to be used on wikibooks only") reduces our ability to print,
> distribute, and modify our texts. Derivative works, a cornerstone of the
> GFDL are not compatable with fair use, and using two incompatable licenses
> on a single aggregate project (such as a wikibook) is simply not possible.
> 3) Many people assume that text or an image can be released under fair use
> when it can't be. Images that are uploaded under "fair use" are usually (as
> you pointed out) not properly tagged or referenced. These instances of
> misuse do constitute copyright infringement, and that could bring lawsuits.
> We allowed fair use for a pretty long time on our project, but it isn't the
> kind of fight that we should be pursuing any longer. There are too many
> problems with it. -
>
> --Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
>
>
> >From: "Matthew Benedict" <mattb112885 at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> >To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Textbook-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 8
> >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:07:29 -0500
> >
> >Now that I have thought some more about it, I do feel that the use of
> >fair use images should be limited, but the problem is where do we draw
> >the line? We'd have to ask ourselves if the value of using the images
> >in the book outweighs the legal risk of listing it under fair use,
> >especially if the books will eventually be published in some manner,
> >as I presume is one eventual goal for any book on the project. I think
> >that only in extreme cases (such as maybe those european history
> >images) should fair use be presumed, and these cases should be clearly
> >defined, perhaps on a case-by-case or strict categorical basis.
> >
> >As for textual quotations, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> >presumption of fair use for these (provided they are properly cited of
> >course) is more common than the presumption of fair use for images. If
> >we're going to do that we'll need some kind of standard method to
> >describe the rationale for the fair use argument, like wikipedia has
> >for images (i.e. this is a screenshot used only for illustration, this
> >is a low-res company logo used to show what it looks like, etc).
> >
> >Speaking of citation, one problem with current fair use images is that
> >a lot of them don't really cite the source properly; i.e. who created
> >it? From what source was it derived? This information should be in the
> >image page, but often they just have descriptions of what the image
> >is, not where it came from or who the current copyright holder is,
> >which can cause problems of its own.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Mattb112885
> >
> >
> >On 2/16/07, textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> ><textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > Send Textbook-l mailing list submissions to
> > >         textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > >         http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > >         textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >         textbook-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of Textbook-l digest..."
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >    1. Regarding fair use (Iamunknown)
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com>
> > > To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:52:49 -0700
> > > Subject: [Textbook-l] Regarding fair use
> > > I really don't want fair use to go totally away, but I agree that it
> >should
> > > be significantly limited. The clause, "Because of our commitment to free
> > > content, this non-free media should not be used when it is reasonably
> > > possible to replace with free media that would serve the same
> >educational
> > > purpose," in Kat Walsh's statement comes to mind. While I have expreseed
> > > concern on-wiki and on-mailing list before about unlicensed images, many
> > > which, if licensed properly, would remained unlicensed and used under
> >fair
> > > use, I think that we should not outright ban unlicensed content used
> >under
> > > fair use. In particular, we should allow very very limited use of
> >non-free
> > > media when it would be practically impossible to use free media -- the
> >media
> > > used in the European History wikibook comes to mind -- and for small
> >textual
> > > quotations. What are everyone else's feelings?
> > >
> > > -Iamunknown
> > >
> > >
> > > --===============8126416904983688626==--
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Textbook-l mailing list
> > > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > >
> > >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Textbook-l mailing list
> >Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best route!
> http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>
>


from_name: Anthere

body:
I know that some people are not favorable to festive logo.
I personally love festive logos and if the Chinese community is happy
with it, it is great.

Happy New Year !

Anthere

PS: we know that this will be the new year because our supermarkets are
putting asian food everywhere to celebrate it. That's a good marketing
opportunity.

THD wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese Wikipedian
> has made the Chinese New Year celebration Wikipedia logo. During the Chinese
> New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese Wikipedians are proposing a
> celebration of new year on Chinese Wikipedia. You can take a look of this
> logo, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png
>
> There are 2 changes:
> 1. The logo is using red color which means happiness and celebration in
> Chinese community.
> 2. The logo is changing the original Chinese character ? to ??the later one
> ? means pig. This year is the year of pig.
>
> Please comment.
>
> THD
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


from_name: THD

body:
Hi,

2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese Wikipedian
has made the Chinese New Year celebration Wikipedia logo. During the Chinese
New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese Wikipedians are proposing a
celebration of new year on Chinese Wikipedia. You can take a look of this
logo, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png

There are 2 changes:
1. The logo is using red color which means happiness and celebration in
Chinese community.
2. The logo is changing the original Chinese character ? to ??the later one
? means pig. This year is the year of pig.

Please comment.

THD


list: commons-l

from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l] Making a home wiki field in user login

body:
"bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:54 AM

> That's what I meant. You have the field, and it automatically (through
> js magic?) puts a template on your userspace which the image warning
> bots recognize.

What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Notify_me ?

Best regards,

Flo


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject:
[Foundation-l] corporate "problems with articles" seems to be
	working a bit

body:
On 15/02/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> The "problem with your article?" page for en:wp is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_%28from_enterprise%29
>
> It directs people to either the Help Desk or to OTRS. The Help Desk
> appears to be getting a few reasonable queries from organisations,
> which are being dealt with properly.
>
> No flood of crap yet, which is good :-)
>
> OTRS volunteers - how's it looking from your side?

The "quality" queue - issues needing Looked At - has been kind of
stable for the past few days - there's still a massive backlog, but
there's only a small number younger than four days or so. I think this
may indicate a lot of material has been diverted...

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


from_name: Flame Viper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedian Rhapsody

body:
The story of Flameviper, told through song...

Is this the real life, is this just a wiki
Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality
Open your Firefox, look up at the blocks and see
I'm just a vandal, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go, little high, little low
Anyway the block blows, doesn't really matter to me
...to me

ArbCom, just made attacks, put my fingers to the keys
Typed a message, now it's free
ArbCom, WikiLife had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away
ArbCom, oooh... Didn't mean to make you fry
If I'm not logged on this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters

Too late, my block has come, sends shivers down my spine
Laptop's aching all the time
Goodbye everybody, I've got to go
Leave this all behind and face the Net
ArbCom, oooh (anyway the block blows)
I don't want to be banned, I sometimes wish I'd never edited at all

I see a little silhouetto of a ban
Yank-a-sox, Yank-a-sox, will you do the vendetta
Blocked at speed of lightning, very very frightening me
All the sysops (all the sysops)
All the sysops (all the sysops)
All the sysops, Jimbo Wales (Magnifico)
But I'm just a vandal and nobody loves me
He's just a vandal with a trolling history
Spare him his computer from this monstrosity
Easy come easy go, will you let me go
Flameviper! No, we will not let you go, let him go
Flameviper! We will not let you go, let him go
Flameviper! We will not let you go, let me go
Will not let you go, let me go
Will not let you go, let me go
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
On IRC, on IRC, on IRC let me go
Jimbo Wales has an unblock put aside for me, for me, for me

So you think you can troll me and spit at my reply
So you think you can block me and leave me to die
Oh Wiki, can't do this to me wiki
Just gotta get out, just gotta get right out of here

Nothing really matters, anyone can see
Nothing really matters, nothing really matters to me
Any way the block blows....

---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Limited Sysop

body:
On 2/16/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> I do not consider familiarity with a lot of rules for dealing with
> problem people to be essential to an admins job.

Not sure I comepletely understand this sentence. Admins clearly need to be
familiar with rules, but that doesn't mean they have to do all the possible
admin tasks. If someone wants to stick with one task, I'm happy to allow
them to do that as long as they know the rules for that specific field.

I like the idea of splitting all the powers and grant specific powers
depending on what the admin in question wants to do. I do wonder what to do
about newbies who are told to contact an administrator about an issue. How
are they supposed to know if a certain admin can help them?

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/16/07, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses
> first, but here's mine... :-)
>
> Keitei wrote:
> > Admins must:
> >       be neutral, above all else.
>
> This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting
> or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in
> what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You
> would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not
> cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal"
> again that we are trying hard not to make it.

No one can be entirely neutral, but admins should act neutral and either
enact the beliefs of the community at large (or policy in case the community
ignores policy without a good reason). Acting neutral doesn't mean an admin
can't have a POV.

> Therefore, admin candidates must:
> >       demonstrate they can [...]
>
> This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot
> demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an
> admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!

You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well
as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is
reliable.


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:05:44 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

>This is a special case of a fundamental problem with Wikipedia: the demand
>for sources and notability produces a heavy bias towards things which are on
>the Internet and can be easily found.

It's called FUTON bias and it doesn't only affect Wikipedia.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: bawolff

body:
Thats exactly what I meant. The only problem is no one knows it exists.

-bawolff

On 2/16/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
> "bawolff" <bawolff+wn at gmail.com> wrote on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:54 AM
>
> > That's what I meant. You have the field, and it automatically (through
> > js magic?) puts a template on your userspace which the image warning
> > bots recognize.
>
> What about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Notify_me ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Flo
>


from_name: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
Seeing the wide variety of welcome templates used and some recent
interactions with new IP editors have me thinking about this as an option.

The basics:

1. Would post a welcome message the first time an IP address or registered
account is used to edit.
2. Would explain key policies.
3. Would encourage the IP editors to register a username.
4. Would indicate a place where any questions could be directed.

This automated message would have a few benefits:

1. It would reach people immediately after they make their first edit.
2. It might help some editors avoid common issues with first edits: original
research, copyright issues, POV, verifiability.
3. It might cut down on some of the other misunderstandings novice editors
have.

Interested editors could sign on when they are available to take questions
from novices, or the new editors could be sent to a page where they could
ask any questions and get a fairly quick response.

If it seems it might be more personal, maybe the bot could randomly assign
an experienced editor to each welcome message, someone signed up on the
welcoming committee.

It seems that this might cut down on much of the back and forth experienced
editors have with new editors, and it might encourage more people to
register. Sometimes editors get welcomed immediately, and other times it
takes months.

Thoughts?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Analysis: Google traffic to Wikipedia up 166% year

body:
I can understand Google Images (after all, we do need our pr0n). But Myspace? That... that simply degrades my faith in humanity from +10 to -25.

---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.


from_name: Ron Ritzman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

body:
On 2/15/07, Keitei <nihthraefn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Admins must:
>         be neutral, above all else.
>                 when they block
>                 when they protect
>                 when they delete
>         recuse when they are unable to be neutral
>         have the understanding of policy to know when it is objectively okay
> to block/protect/delete
>         be able to judge consensus
>         not be a timebomb

I took a quick look in RFA and noticed that most consideration seems
to on number of mainspace edits. One candidate was opposed because
most of his edits were policy/AFD discussions and such. Excuse me but
isn't that what admins are for, "policy and such"?

I'm almost tempted to look for an IP address with thousands of edits
and nominate it for admin. It would probably get the nod.


from_name: Hsiang-Tai Chien

body:
Hi,

According to this page (in Chinese):

http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/search.php?q=%D7%C3

??? has two literal meanings. One is "hobby", the other is "beauty of the white color" (hope I
translate it correctly).

Sometimes the character will be confused with ??? because they look very similar. ??? means
"ancestor".

I heart the character ??? is been randomly chosen to be used on the Wikipedia logo. If this is
correct then I would be a little surprised because the meaning "beauty of the white color" is very
suitable for current Wikipedia logo.

H.T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf
> Of Jon Harald Soby
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:23 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] The Chinese New Year Wikipedia Logo
>
> IMO, this logo looks great. It is considerably better than
> the one used last year (which was, no offense, quite
> horrible). Just one
> question: You say that the character ??? is exchanged with ???,
> which means pig. What does ??? mean?
>
> On 2/16/07, THD <theodoranian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese
> > Wikipedian has made the Chinese New Year celebration
> Wikipedia logo.
> > During the Chinese New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese
> > Wikipedians are proposing a celebration of new year on Chinese
> > Wikipedia. You can take a look of this logo,
> > http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png
> >
> > There are 2 changes:
> > 1. The logo is using red color which means happiness and
> celebration
> > in Chinese community.
> > 2. The logo is changing the original Chinese character ??? to ??????the
> > later one
> > ??? means pig. This year is the year of pig.
> >
> > Please comment.
> >
> > THD
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Jon Harald S??by
>
> Website - http://www.alqualonde.com/
> Wikipedia - http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruker:Jhs
> MSN messenger - jhsoby at gmail.com
> Skype - jon.harald.soby
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

___________________________________________________
 ?z???????Y???q ?? ???q?B?T???B?????B?u?@?@???d?w?I
 http://messenger.yahoo.com.tw/


from_name: Bryan Tong Minh

subject: [Commons-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006

body:
The results of the first round of the Commons:Picture of the Year 2006
are known: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006/results.
The election of the final starts tomorrow and will last the rest of
February. Each Wikimedian has one vote for the picture of the year.

So vote now, for the best picture of 2006!

Bryan


subject: [Foundation-l] Commons Picture of the Year 2006


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-02-17

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r19975).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Foundation-l] Announcement: Chief Research Coordinator

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>This is an official WMF announcement.
>
>The Board of Trustees accepts the resignation of James D. Forrester in
>the volunteer role as Chief Research Officer. James has the gratitude
>of the Board for volunteering his time and ideas to the projects in
>the friendly, creative, skilled and professional manner that we have
>come to know and appreciate him for.
>
>The Board of Trustees has decided to rename the role to "Chief
>Research Coordinator," and to appoint Gregory Maxwell to the volunteer
>position. Gregory has long time experience working with and analyzing
>Wikimedia data and interacting with others who do the same, is
>familiar with both the internals of the projects and the workings of
>the community, and is deeply committed to our values and principles.
>
>A description of the role can be found at:
>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Chief_Research_Coordinator
>
>If you find out of date pages that need to be updated, please be bold and do so.
>
>Erik M?ller
>Executive Secretary, Wikimedia Foundation
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Excellent choice.

Jeff


from_name: Gwern Branwen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedian Rhapsody

body:
"NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> writes:

> Can we PLEASE put him on mod now?

Oh, come on. That was actually pretty funny. If only all our trolls and
vandals could be as witty!

--
Gwern
Inquiring minds want to know.