from_name: Parker Peters

body:
Charles,

I'll do it myself. Seems only fair.

-----------

If that is your only response, you aren't interested in discussing this in a
civilized fashion?

I'm asking you privately. I mean not to be rude, but I am genuinely
concerned and do not want to bother with flamewars or anything else. - Hide
quoted text -

On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> "Parker Peters" wrote
>
> > Every policy we
> > have on the matter is designed to make it impossible for an aggrieved
> user
> > to make any protest against abuse.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Charles

---------------

I was emailing you privately, to make sure that I was understood and to try
not to cause a flamewar. As you had obviously misunderstood me, and I can
see how I could have been misunderstood, and I could see how others could
have misunderstood me too, I took the time to clarify my position. My own
poor choice of words might have been to blame for this, but it would have
been very poor form of me to leave it unclarified.

I am not trying to flame, or be rude, or anything else. I will tell you that
I find your combative attitude rude, which is why I asked for your calm and
suggested a breather might be in order.

I am a big fan of civility. If I have broken that, and you obviously did
take offense at my forwarding my clarification to the whole list, I
apologize. I apologized for sending it out to the whole list, publicly: I do
so again. I made a mistake and am sorry. I apologize for any other poor
choices of words I may have made as well.

I will tell you also that I had a private email from Jimbo, and had emailed
him requesting his permission to send my reply to this list, and am still
not doing so because I have no response from him yet, and will not do so
until such time as he sends me an affirmative, or not at all if he sends me
a negative.

Can we please discuss the topic at hand now, without any more rudeness?

Parker

On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> "Parker Peters" wrote
>
> > Charles, I apologize for sending it directly to the list, but you
> obviously
> > had misread my words and I was worried that others might have as well.
>
> Come, sir. Do I have your permission to let the list have the wording of
> your mail to me, including the request for a _private_ discussion.
>
> A phrase by phrase analysis is not misreading, it is close reading.
>
> >I am
> > not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time
> that
> > you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
>
> You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
>
> Can we throw this guy off the list now?
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: GerardM

subject: [Foundation-l] UMP Convention

body:
Hoi,
Making Commons searchable is becoming doable with the WiktionaryZ/Wikidata
technology. How it can be done has been described in an article on Meta(1}.
It does require substantial further development. We have asked one of our
partners if they are interested in funding this. The key thing would be to
make Commons searchable for people with a diverse language background.
Development could start in December.
Thanks,
    GerardM

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

On 10/6/06, Valentina Faussone <valentina_faussone at yahoo.it> wrote:
>
> > We've leveled off in terms of growth (it's still
> > there but not at the
> > rate it used to be). Unless we come up with
> > something new (a way to
> > make commons effectively searchable might be one) we
> > may have pretty
> > much reached our natural level of webpresence.
> >
> > If that is the case it may be time to look to other
> > areas. Mobile
> > phones. Book form. Provideing stock photos and
> > information for non
> > profits (and to a degree profits).
>
> Nice ideas. May I point out that the quality level of
> wikipedia articles is far more effective than the
> quality of many pictures we upload on commons?
> That is to say, the guys on commons are running a very
> important project and they challenge a great effort,
> but maybe we should all focus on providing better
> quality photos, and not just *more* photos. Many of
> them are dark, dull and with ugly subjects: that is a
> great minus for some subjects (like food) than for
> others.
> Plus I totally and entusiastically agree on making
> commons searchable like any other image bank.
> It's pointless having a treasure if you don't know how
> to find it out.
>
> Tinette
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto
> spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
> http://mail.yahoo.it
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] UMP Convention


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>There are two entirely separate issues here.  Imagine that a grant is
>secured to hire people as "evangelizers" and initial admins in, say,
>African languages.  Great.  Or, imagine that a health education
>organization decides that the best way to educate the public on health
>issues is to have staff contribute their work to Wikipedia.  Great.
>
>Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
>paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
>that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.
>That's a very serious problem, especially in an era when we are seeing
>increasing attention paid to "how to manipulate wikipedia for the good
>of your client" by the lower dregs of the PR industry.
>
>
Those are some pretty extreme oppositions, though.  What if a company
decides that the best way to educate the public on what their company
does is to have their staff contribute a neutral article on the history
of the company to Wikipedia?  Your first email seemed to suggest that
this is always wrong.  It's true that a company paying someone to edit
an article about themselves is at great danger of producing a
non-neutral article, but I'd argue many NGOs and non-profits present
similar risks, since many have specific political aims they wish to
promote as part of their mission.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


list: wikien-l

from_name: Jake Waskett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Porchesia

body:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:44 +0100, geni wrote:
> On 10/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > {{not verified}} if it's under a few days old, {{unreferenced}} if it's over.
>
> Problem is that people would rather ah read about dancing pigs. Well
> that an the issue that the various cleanup lists are insanely
> backloged.
>

I think we need to remember that these notices actually serve two
functions:

1. They act as a reminder, via cleanup lists etc., to improve the
quality of the article.

2. They act as a service to the reader, in effect acting as a
disclaimer. In a sense, this actually helps our credibility, because
letting readers know what *isn't* trustworthy helps them to identify
what *is*.

Jake


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Commons delinker for all wikis

body:
There's been for several weeks a request to run CommonsDelinker on all
wikies,  exempted from local bot policies.
As a second step after the CommonsTicker, it would go through the wikis to
remove the redlinks produced by deleted images which are not properly
removed. The object is avoiding commons admins to do the cleaning on the
+700 wikis.

Communities may give it or not the bot flag, as they want to have it shown
or not. They can also reject it, but then it's up to them doing the
delinking.
Until now it has got strong support. If it isn't known in your wiki, you
should probably inform them. No explicit notify will give them
CommonsDelinker by default.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/CommonsDelinker


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd:  RFA has gone weird

body:
Fred's mail server and Wikimedia's mail server aren't talking.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>

David, please forward this to wikien-l at Wikipedia.org

Fred

On Oct 6, 2006, at 4:00 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", as pretty much all admin
> actions are reversible; the idea is that if you're not going to go
> batshit with the tools, there's no reason for you not to have them.
> (I've actually lowered my personal bar for adminship after a couple of
> cases where people I had severe qualms about got their admin bit and
> proceeded to do okay with a bit of peer pressure the collegial advice
> of others.) The social and technical skills required are about those
> of a message board moderator, and whereas there are adults you'd never
> want to have that job, the skills are easily acquired by e.g. a
> sensible teenager.
>
> And particularly this year, the ArbCom has had no compunction in
> removing the admin bit from those who need it removed. Removal is a
> big deal, but the AC is there for the social decisions that are big
> deals.
>
> So the ever-expanding lists of requirements don't make sense. The
> lists above appear to be marks of the ideal admin, who is a bit like
> the ideal editor with added technical powers (and similarly doesn't
> exist). And this stuff really doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether
> they are likely to go batshit with the admin tools. They make
> adminship into a much bigger deal than it should be.
>
> I personally think most people need three months' experience to get a
> feel for the place. But beyond that, in an ideal world every Wikipedia
> editor who's been around enough to get a feel for the place would have
> admin powers.
>
> Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a
> big-deal artificially scarce commodity.

The practice the Arbitration Committee has adopted of using
"administrators" as administrators of mechanisms such as probation is
probably part of the problem. Considerable maturity and discretion is
required. These mechanism were adopted to give us some alternative to
banning, but have the effect of transferring day to day
responsibility to administrators. With more power comes the concern
that those who exercise it are responsible.

Fred


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
Based on some recent RFAr cases involving admins and that post about whoever
leaving as a result of admin action, I think we should have some safeguard
in place. If multiple admins go crazy with their tools people who need to
take action won't be able to keep up. Arbitration cases usually take too
long to conclude. We should have some well established central de-adminship
procedure that is transparent to allow every sensible editor to contribute
and not just make it an admin only event. That should take some heat off
arbcom in the most stringent cases.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
Added note: Adminship shouldn't be too big a deal, but we need to be
absolutely sure the people getting it know what they're doing. There's still
people blocking when they're in a dispute using revertion to gain in edit
wars  and what-not.

Mgm

On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Based on some recent RFAr cases involving admins and that post about
> whoever leaving as a result of admin action, I think we should have some
> safeguard in place. If multiple admins go crazy with their tools people who
> need to take action won't be able to keep up. Arbitration cases usually take
> too long to conclude. We should have some well established central
> de-adminship procedure that is transparent to allow every sensible editor to
> contribute and not just make it an admin only event. That should take some
> heat off arbcom in the most stringent cases.
>
> Mgm
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.

body:
Well, I did state that at some point, I might want to come back! If so, my
"leaving" turns into a wikibreak.

We'll see how things go.

On 10/6/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 15:56, Parker Peters wrote:
>
> > Yes, it does bother me that I did this, and yes, this is partially
> > why I'm
> > leaving, or at least taking a decently long wikibreak.
>
> "I'm leaving" is now turning into "taking a wikibreak".
> Here's the truth: There's no escape from Wikipedia!
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar in a
specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give people
the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed. Perhaps
it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.

Mgm

On 10/6/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Originally, I planned to answer Parker Peters's email. I wanted to say
> something, at least, but I didn't want it to be trite. I didn't want to
> defend
> some admin actions while agreeing with him about others. There will be
> (have
> been?) plenty of people to do that. In the end, all of that is irrelevant,
> because it is his perception of the problem that really matters, not
> whether the
> problem is truly relevant in particular instance X or Z. It is a
> macro-issue,
> and it deserves macro-answers, or alternately, macro-changing in
> our  thinking.
>
> I think the real issue can be boiled down to a single statement:
> "Wikipedia
> is big ... really, really big." As of yesterday, Alexa ranks us the number
> 12
> website in the world, and we are still climbing. In English alone, we have
> close  to 1.5 million articles and 6 million total pages. We have over 2.4
> million users and close to 600 thousand images. I don't know how  many
> edits we
> are getting per day, per hour, per second, but I can  only assume that it
> is a
> very substantial number.
>
> No single person, or even small group of people, can tend to something
> this
> big, or even familiarize themselves with all its nooks and crannies. Yet
> we
> have  to. That is the challenge.
>
> There are 1,015 people with admin powers, and for various reasons it is
> assumed that the burden of responsibility lies with them (it really
> doesn't,
> since it should rest on the entire community, but that is a different
> story). Of
> these thousand or so people, some are more active than others. Some can be
> found  patrolling the projects every hour of every day, while others pop
> in for a
> few  minutes every few months, and still others are gone for good.
>
> As such, the burden is overwhelming. There is so much to do, so much that
> needs tending, but we've grown faster than our admnistrative structure,
> and the
> fissures are beginning to show. By piling on the load, it is only natural
> that  admins (and here I mean people who perform admin tasks, whether they
> are
> admins  or not) begin to feel frustrated and burn out. It is especially
> onerous
> when  every action is going to be viewed by people who will challenge
> it--and
> the  admin--any way they can. Do you risk making all the rapid decisions
> that
> need to  be made, one after the other, even if it means that some bad
> decisions will  inevitably be made? Do you risk maintaining old
> procedures, which once
> worked  quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or do you
> experiment  with something new and untested? If there is to be change,
> what are
> the  priorities? If there is to be discussion about change, at what point
> do we
> end  the talking and decide to act?
>
> These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising. Note that
> they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no right
> answer,  except perhaps from the safety of hindsight. And yet, decisions
> have to be
> made.
>
> Danny
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Porchesia

body:
On 06/10/06, Jake Waskett <jake at waskett.org> wrote:

> I think we need to remember that these notices actually serve two
> functions:
> 1. They act as a reminder, via cleanup lists etc., to improve the
> quality of the article.

And as a gentle nudge to the article creator.

> 2. They act as a service to the reader, in effect acting as a
> disclaimer. In a sense, this actually helps our credibility, because
> letting readers know what *isn't* trustworthy helps them to identify
> what *is*.

Yep! We're a top 20 site; being honest about our deficiencies is a
service to our readers. Besides, they might be inspired by that "Edit
this page" link.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Really? I don't see how it's prone to confusing rules. They simply won't see
the option - or they'll get an error - if they try to do something they
don't have the power to do.

Part of the problem I think with admins who get on power trips is that one
day, they went from being an un-powerful little normal editor, to the next
day being able to do all these amazing things. Imagine if you one day woke
up with x-ray vision: your first thought would probably be to use it on your
hot next-door neighbor, wouldn't it?

I'd consider my proposal sort of a "training wheels" time for new admins, so
they can work with the tools and get used to it without being able to cause
too much havoc. It wouldn't stop those who deliberately gamed the system to
get admin power, if they are determined, but it might stop some of those who
are simply in over their heads or prone to having 'bad days'.

And it might help people lower their expectations, and get more candidates,
if they weren't pushing them instantly to so heavy of a position.

Parker

On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The example you listed is particularly prone to confusing rules and stuff.
> It's best to determine whether to give someone a specific power without
> any
> artificial restrictions. That way the editor can apply for some powers and
> explain why they need them and show their expertise in that particular
> field.
>
> Does anyone know why the proposal failed? I seem to remember it did.
> If nominations are drying up, the current system isn't scaling and if WP
> is
> growing we need more admins to do housekeeping.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 10/6/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mgm,
> >
> > I could agree with that. I think that maybe there ought to be multiple
> > grades of admin, who have specific abilities. Part of the problem right
> > now
> > is that so many admins wield what might as well be "absolute power" when
> > compared to a normal user.
> >
> > For instance, why not have a "first grade" admin who have the power only
> > to
> > semiprotect articles (to protect from systemic anon-ip/newuser
> vandalism),
> > not to lock talk pages at all (including user talk pages) and to impose
> > blocks up to 48 hours but no longer? Make them ask for help if they see
> > anything that needs anything longer or appears to be a problem?
> >
> > You could have a lot more of those less-powerful admins handling many of
> > the
> > issues without worry about whether they went nuts, because even if they
> > went
> > nuts, there's be a lot less permanent damage they could do.
> >
> > Parker
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar
> in
> > a
> > > specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give
> > people
> > > the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed.
> > > Perhaps
> > > it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.
> > >
> > > Mgm
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/6/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Originally, I planned to answer Parker Peters's email. I wanted to
> say
> > > > something, at least, but I didn't want it to be trite. I didn't want
> > to
> > > > defend
> > > > some admin actions while agreeing with him about others. There will
> be
> > > > (have
> > > > been?) plenty of people to do that. In the end, all of that is
> > > irrelevant,
> > > > because it is his perception of the problem that really matters, not
> > > > whether the
> > > > problem is truly relevant in particular instance X or Z. It is a
> > > > macro-issue,
> > > > and it deserves macro-answers, or alternately, macro-changing in
> > > > our  thinking.
> > > >
> > > > I think the real issue can be boiled down to a single statement:
> > > > "Wikipedia
> > > > is big ... really, really big." As of yesterday, Alexa ranks us the
> > > number
> > > > 12
> > > > website in the world, and we are still climbing. In English alone,
> we
> > > have
> > > > close  to 1.5 million articles and 6 million total pages. We have
> over
> > > 2.4
> > > > million users and close to 600 thousand images. I don't know
> how  many
> > > > edits we
> > > > are getting per day, per hour, per second, but I can  only assume
> that
> > > it
> > > > is a
> > > > very substantial number.
> > > >
> > > > No single person, or even small group of people, can tend to
> something
> > > > this
> > > > big, or even familiarize themselves with all its nooks and crannies.
> > Yet
> > > > we
> > > > have  to. That is the challenge.
> > > >
> > > > There are 1,015 people with admin powers, and for various reasons it
> > is
> > > > assumed that the burden of responsibility lies with them (it really
> > > > doesn't,
> > > > since it should rest on the entire community, but that is a
> different
> > > > story). Of
> > > > these thousand or so people, some are more active than others. Some
> > can
> > > be
> > > > found  patrolling the projects every hour of every day, while others
> > pop
> > > > in for a
> > > > few  minutes every few months, and still others are gone for good.
> > > >
> > > > As such, the burden is overwhelming. There is so much to do, so much
> > > that
> > > > needs tending, but we've grown faster than our admnistrative
> > structure,
> > > > and the
> > > > fissures are beginning to show. By piling on the load, it is only
> > > natural
> > > > that  admins (and here I mean people who perform admin tasks,
> whether
> > > they
> > > > are
> > > > admins  or not) begin to feel frustrated and burn out. It is
> > especially
> > > > onerous
> > > > when  every action is going to be viewed by people who will
> challenge
> > > > it--and
> > > > the  admin--any way they can. Do you risk making all the rapid
> > decisions
> > > > that
> > > > need to  be made, one after the other, even if it means that some
> bad
> > > > decisions will  inevitably be made? Do you risk maintaining old
> > > > procedures, which once
> > > > worked  quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or
> do
> > > you
> > > > experiment  with something new and untested? If there is to be
> change,
> > > > what are
> > > > the  priorities? If there is to be discussion about change, at what
> > > point
> > > > do we
> > > > end  the talking and decide to act?
> > > >
> > > > These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising.
> Note
> > > that
> > > > they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no
> > right
> > > > answer,  except perhaps from the safety of hindsight. And yet,
> > decisions
> > > > have to be
> > > > made.
> > > >
> > > > Danny
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Asher Heimermann

subject: [Foundation-l] Age?

body:
Hi,

  I was asked today if there was an age limit on the wikimedia.org website.

  Like, how old do you have to be in order to edit and make articles.

  Even, I did not know...

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.


subject: [Foundation-l] Age?


subject: [Foundation-l] Age?

body:
Hi,

  I was asked today if there was an age limit on the wikimedia.org website.

  Like, how old do you have to be in order to edit and make articles.

  Even, I did not know...

---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1?/min.


subject: [Foundation-l] Age?


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] UMP Convention

body:
2006/10/6, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com>:

> Yes, but there's no requirement for anyone to go as far as the US and
> release *everything* regardless. It wouldn't be impossible to come up
> with some kind of a system where copyright was disclaimed on routine
> work and most publications, with the government retains the right to
> assert copyright at its discretion where it felt it would be
> beneficial to do so.

Actually, Dutch law already has such a provision: Dutch government
materials are copyrighted only when copyright is explicitly claimed.

>From the English translation of Dutch copyright law
(http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html):

The further communication to the public or reproduction of a literary,
scientific or artistic work communicated to the public by or on behalf
of the public authorities shall not be deemed an infringement of the
copyright in such a work, unless the copyright has been explicitly
reserved, either in a general manner by law, decree or ordinance, or
in a specific case by a notice on the work itself or at the
communication to the public. Even if no such reservation has been
made, the author shall retain the exclusive right to have appear in
the form of a collection his works which have been communicated to the
public by or on behalf of the public authorities.

Problem now is how to get those materials...

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


subject: [Foundation-l] UMP Convention


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
I didn't suggest making it harder to become an admin.

I suggested making it easier for more people to have "some" power, without
lowering the bar for people to attain the "absolute" power an adminship now
entails.

I'm also suggesting that without the burden of such powers, perhaps some of
the more incivil admins might be able to take a load off, relax, and leave
the really heavy stuff to those who could handle it better and without being
incivil.

Parker

On 10/6/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Part of the problem I think with admins who get on power trips is that
> one
> > day, they went from being an un-powerful little normal editor, to the
> next
> > day being able to do all these amazing things. Imagine if you one day
> woke
> > up with x-ray vision: your first thought would probably be to use it on
> > your
> > hot next-door neighbor, wouldn't it?
> >
>
> It been traditional for Wikipedia to have as many admins as possible
> without
> laxing our barriers to adminship too much. I think this is from the open
> source "many eyes catch all the bugs" school of thinking. The reason we
> are
> able to do this is because, as someone has already mentioned, all admin
> actions are recorded and reversible.
>
> I also do not think that making it harder to become an admin would make
> some
> admins more civil. Many of the most curt admins (perhaps read "uncivil")
> have been with us for a long time. Clearly, their curtness has nothing to
> do
> with your X-ray effect and is more related to a jaded outlook.
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"Tony Jacobs" wrote

> Nonetheless, I hope arbitrators will take
> seriously the idea that the way our admins treat users is a very important
> part of Wikipedia's public face, and that administrative arrogance is a
> liability to the project.

That we do know. The Arbs are not a police force (perish the thought) and deal with what is in front of them.

We are _not_ going to make moves that discourage admins from getting involved in tough situations, where they are going to be provoked and harassed by both sides of an acrimonious dispute. We are not going to take it out on admins who lose their temper in extremis. We will sanction those who scoff at the incivility policy.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote

>Arbitration cases usually take too
> long to conclude.

We can fast-track at need. The ArbCom is short-handed and the preparation of cases is arduous.

>We should have some well established central de-adminship
> procedure that is transparent to allow every sensible editor to contribute
> and not just make it an admin only event. That should take some heat off
> arbcom in the most stringent cases.

Actually that is not the obvious way to go.

It is more sensible, IMO, to contemplate dividing the cases into less and more serious, with fewer votes needed on the less serious. Or some other 'small claims' system. The ArbCom is elected precisely to take the heat in the heaviest cases. Those are where it actually needs its mandate, not dealing with obvious trolling where the whole business is effectly not contentious.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Parker Peters wrote:

> I suggested making it easier for more people to have "some" power, without
> lowering the bar for people to attain the "absolute" power an adminship
> now
> entails.
>
> I'm also suggesting that without the burden of such powers, perhaps some
> of
> the more incivil admins might be able to take a load off, relax, and leave
> the really heavy stuff to those who could handle it better and without
> being
> incivil.

The answer is simple.  Since RfAr is considered a major roadblock to
removing adminship, make it easier to do.  Then, people who you may have
trust issues with can be more easily promoted, because they can easily be
removed.  I'm much more likely to vote support on a candidate with a long
history, but some questions about, if I know that if they abuse the tools
or continually do the wrong thing, I can work to get them removed.  That's
not the case currently.

-Jeff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Danny,

since you took the time to think about this, I've done the same before
replying. Responses are inline, I hope this doesn't get too long.

On 10/6/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Originally, I planned to answer Parker Peters's email. I wanted to say
> something, at least, but I didn't want it to be trite. I didn't want to
> defend
> some admin actions while agreeing with him about others. There will be
> (have
> been?) plenty of people to do that. In the end, all of that is irrelevant,
> because it is his perception of the problem that really matters, not
> whether the
> problem is truly relevant in particular instance X or Z. It is a
> macro-issue,
> and it deserves macro-answers, or alternately, macro-changing in
> our  thinking.

Yes, it is a macro-issue, but it comes from many, many single instances I've
seen while being an editor and later an admin.

I think the real issue can be boiled down to a single statement: "Wikipedia
> is big ... really, really big." As of yesterday, Alexa ranks us the number
> 12
> website in the world, and we are still climbing. In English alone, we have
> close  to 1.5 million articles and 6 million total pages. We have over 2.4
> million users and close to 600 thousand images. I don't know how  many
> edits we
> are getting per day, per hour, per second, but I can  only assume that it
> is a
> very substantial number.

That might be part of it, but even when Wikipedia was smaller, the seeds of
the problem I'm seeing were there.

No single person, or even small group of people, can tend to something this
> big, or even familiarize themselves with all its nooks and crannies. Yet
> we
> have  to. That is the challenge.
>
There are 1,015 people with admin powers, and for various reasons it is
> assumed that the burden of responsibility lies with them (it really
> doesn't,
> since it should rest on the entire community, but that is a different
> story).

I'd beg to differ in one respect: I think admins are responsible for their
own actions. And I think, since admins are the only ones who can safely
combat or fix the problems caused by other admins, we're in trouble.

Of
> these thousand or so people, some are more active than others. Some can be
> found  patrolling the projects every hour of every day, while others pop
> in for a
> few  minutes every few months, and still others are gone for good.

For now, consider me in the latter category.

As such, the burden is overwhelming.

I don't think it needs to be, nor should the size of the burden be an excuse
for abuses or incivil behavior.

There is so much to do, so much that
> needs tending, but we've grown faster than our admnistrative structure,
> and the
> fissures are beginning to show. By piling on the load, it is only natural
> that  admins (and here I mean people who perform admin tasks, whether they
> are
> admins  or not) begin to feel frustrated and burn out.

Agreed. But again, too often this "burn-out" has been used as an excuse to
justify poor admin behavior rather than a notice to censure admins and get
them to back off, take a breather, and come back fresh. I don't really care
what the genesis of poor behavior is, if the result is that new editors are
driven away from the project or incivility is tolerated, then it is a
problem that can't be excused and needs to be fixed.

It is especially onerous
> when  every action is going to be viewed by people who will challenge
> it--and
> the  admin--any way they can. Do you risk making all the rapid decisions
> that
> need to  be made, one after the other, even if it means that some bad
> decisions will  inevitably be made?

If you're willing to learn from your bad decisions and apologize if you are
at fault, I don't think so. What I have a problem with is people who are
unwilling to admit they made a mistake, unwilling to admit when they are at
fault, and quite willing to attack anyone who differs with them.

Do you risk maintaining old procedures, which once
> worked  quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or do you
> experiment  with something new and untested?

I would hope we risk the new and untested procedures, but I've rarely seen a
new policy or procedure pass unless it actually increases admin power while
decreasing admin responsibility. My problem I mentioned with the unblocking
procedures is a case in point; we've set up so many roadblocks after someone
got their panties in a wad seeing another admin unblock someone they hated,
that now it's impossible to unblock an illegitimately blocked user in an
expeditious fashion without the risk of being accused of incivility or wheel
war incitement.

If there is to be change, what are
> the  priorities?

I would hope that the priority is to make a better encyclopedia and a more
civil community, and maybe to tear down some bureaucratic roadblocks so that
things can move more smoothly. I feel we have too many bumps in our
collective road.

If there is to be discussion about change, at what point do we
> end  the talking and decide to act?

I don't know.

These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising. Note that
> they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no right
> answer,  except perhaps from the safety of hindsight. And yet, decisions
> have to be
> made.

Yes, decisions have to be made. I've made a few suggestions today that I
hope will be taken seriously:

#1 - the creation of a "mini-admin" or "first grade" admin position, as a
"training wheels" step for new admins, so that they have some power but not
the total power an admin today has, to minimize the damage they can do while
allowing them to learn the role of an admin.

#2 - Altering the account creation procedure so that all new registered
editors immediately get the welcome notice, as well as a link to the dispute
resolution page, so that they immediately have those items on hand and have
some help readily available if Being Bold gets them into conflict with
someone.

I'd also suggest that we take quite seriously warning template abuse: good
faith edits should not receive "vandalism" warnings and so forth, and too
many pov warriors still feel like they can call any edit they disagree with
"vandalism" and get away with it.

These are my suggestions, trying to be helpful. You seem reasonable and I
hope they are taken seriously.

Parker


body:
On 06/10/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is
> needed are specific examples and cases.

And the fact that examples are usually lacking when this sort of
complaint is made - and all too often turn out to be an admin being
far too patient with someone not warranting it and eventually blowing
their top - means such complaints are generally taken no notice of.

> There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this
> thread is valid.  As the community has grown, it has become harder to
> maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and
> the hostility you find in most of the Internet.

Hmm.

- d.


from_name: Draicone

body:
To be honest, I fully agree with you. There are too many editors, not
just sysops, who feel they are better than the rest. There are too
many sysops, then, taking the wrong decisions and not worrying about
it. And there are too many people following along, taking their word
for it and assuming nothing has gone wrong.

Wikipedia is, as you say, broken.

However, I too am leaving as of today, for a different reason. Process
is broken. Notably, AfD, RfA and DRV. These were excellent procedures,
but after some close analysis on IRC with fellow editors, I can
conclude that they have degraded over time. The importance of AfD and
RfA is such that we cannot afford to allow them to degrade, yet we
have.

For example, in the current RfA of Rory096, we have a clear case of
where the process has fallen apart. I have no doubt that the closing
bureaucrat could easily justify granting Rory096 sysop. In fact, I
think he should. But with the way RfA is going, it is no longer the
'discuss and reach consensus' system that it was intended to be. It is
a raw vote that can lose all meaning. We have editors visiting once a
week and voting on every RfA. But what if the situation changes? What
if an interesting diff warranting their attention is brought to light?

In this case, their vote would remain the same, as they would not
revisit the RfA till it was over. Which presents an interesting point
of view. The one week length of an RfA should be a time for an editor
to come under the scrutiny of the community, giving fellow editors a
chance to determine the worth of the candidate as a sysop. But no, RfA
is a straw poll. Based on pure numbers. Numbers which could, in the
case of certain RfAs (not unlike Rory's for instance), mean nothing.

My point is not to discount the votes of certain users, rather to
point out the worth of a vote from a user who has analysed a users
contributions, checked their edits in certain namespaces, concluded
their familiarity with policy; as opposed to a user who has spent a
matter of seconds reviewing their edit count and the length of their
time on enwp and then voting accordingly.

The problem we have is that while there can be no difference in the
worth of these votes, it is obvious that one should place more
weighting on the one from the user who has taken the time to think
before they vote. Naturally, this is impossible for the closing
bureaucrat. Therefore, the only options are to either a) keep the
current broken system of straw polls, or b) fix it and move to a
system that aims for community based consensus to be achieved.
(Alternatively, adopt karynn's proposal at
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-english.html
- however, I don't fully agree with this and it seems a little too
radical for enwp)

As you can imagine, I would err towards option (b). Some fellow
editors have attempted to keep me from leaving, but unless anyone has
a convincing argument as to why I should remain, or something is done
about these policies, I cannot give myself enough justification to
stay. Goodbye, Phaedriel, Buickid, AmiDaniel.

--Draicone


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

body:
On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote
>
> >Arbitration cases usually take too
> > long to conclude.
>
> We can fast-track at need. The ArbCom is short-handed and the preparation of cases is arduous.
>

More arbcom members in future can be arranged.

--
geni


body:
On 10/6/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> I expected this sort of response from David Gerard. It saddens me to see it,
> but I knew it would come.
>
> This sort of attitude and obsessiveness is precisely why I am leaving.
>
> David, I saw an email sent to this list on the admin who was removing the
> unblock request from the page of a user he himself had blocked. YOU declared
> it a nonissue. I'm sure that the affected user, who by our arbcom rules is
> the "only" one allowed to make such an arbcom case,

I've seen arbcom cases started by those not directly involved.

>
> This is a larger problem I have with our policies, though. Every policy we
> have on the matter is designed to make it impossible for an aggrieved user
> to make any protest against abuse.

My experence suggests otherwise. In fact at the moment most of our
policy appears to be focused on when stuff can be deleted.

--
geni


body:
On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

> I expected this sort of response from David Gerard. It saddens me to see it,
> but I knew it would come.
> This sort of attitude and obsessiveness is precisely why I am leaving.

In your first email you stated you were an admin. Could you please
tell of conflicts you dealt with? Leave names out if you like.

(By the way, it's pretty much inconceivable I or anyone is going to
somehow permanently ban an admin for speaking out on wikien-l; you
should correct that one next time around. But let's play along for
now.)

- d.


body:
On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

> Because, by design of the system, no arbcom case can ever be brought, and
> even if it were, arbcom is FIRMLY on the side of the admin every time. Think
> about it. In order to bring a case to arbcom, you have to (A) be the
> aggrieved party, (B) have someone else sign on to the case at least twice
> (you have to RFC beforehand or arbcom will just dismiss it), and (C) be a
> "user in good standing."

Admins are never taken to arbcom? Admins are never deadminned? Welcome
to 2006 where this is not the case.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd:  RFA has gone weird

body:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>

Please forward to wikien-l at Wikipedia.org

Fred

On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Steve Summit wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>> As I said, it'd be nice if most editors could get it without
>> ever-increasing requirements on RFA...
>> (Now, that's an interesting question: how voting pages of this
>> sort get ever-increasing requirements, and what to do about it.
>> FAC is another.)
>
> It's an interesting aspect of human nature.  Those requirements
> *always* tend to creep.  When you have people whose job it is to
> set and enforce policy, and once they've set and enforced a given
> level of policy, they *have* to raise the bar or invent new
> policies, to give themselves something to do.  It's what they do.
>
> If everything's humming along smoothly with the bar at a given
> level, and everyone is so used to it that there's hardly any
> enforcement to do, it's remarkably difficult to sit back and say,
> "Wow, everything's working so well, I guess we can go home early."
> It's hard to let a system just "sit there and work".  There's an
> overwhelming urge to say, "Okay, what more can we do?"
>

The Arbitration Committee did not delegate responsibilities to the
administrators because the system was "sitting there working". What
was happening is that we had no remedies other than outright banning.
It was not working well to ban people from the site who were only
disrupting one article. Creation of partial remedies tailored to
particular situations like probation gave alternatives, but also gave
power and responsibility to administrators. As we rely on
administrators more it is reasonable to be more careful. However the
criteria being used in RfA often don't seem real rational.

Fred

> Somehow, these proclivities are no less present when the
> regulators and monitors are volunteers whose available time
> for the task is limited and precious.  And if anything, it's
> the self-appointed regulators and monitors who have the greatest
> tendency to get overly passionate about the job and go overboard
> with the requirements.
>
> As I believe H.G. Wells once wrote, "The lawgiver, of all beings,
> most owes the law allegiance.  He of all men should behave as
> though the law compelled him.  But it is the universal weakness
> of mankind that what we are given to administer we presently
> imagine we own."


body:
"Parker Peters" wrote

> Every policy we
> have on the matter is designed to make it impossible for an aggrieved user
> to make any protest against abuse.

Nonsense.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: David Boothroyd

body:
Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> writes:
>charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:
>  >> Why doesn't ArbCom come down on admins who fail to respect
>>>  contributors?  Why isn't that a high priority?
>>
>>  Why don't we get the cases brought that mean we could do that? We
>>  have a clear policy on civility. Some people do reckon that long
>>  service gives them some rights in how they talk to others. They are
>>  certainly wrong about that, and should note well that ArbCom doesn't
>>  have binding precedents, and may well up the tariff of punishment for
>>  shooting off your mouth. As far as I can see, this causes a large
>>  outcry when it is proposed, but it may well happen.
>
>I back Charles 100% on this.
>
>I am on the ArbCom mailing list, and take an active part in it.  I can
>assure everyone that the ArbCom takes a very dim view of admins behaving
>badly.  The thing is, unless cases are brought, then the ArbCom doesn't
>see it.

The problem is that leads to fairly arbitrary decisions, of which I
was a victim in the summer. In February, blocked wrongly for a
non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken
an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was
punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that
was closed.

Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was
tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being
dragged up again. Now probably it would not have led to my desysopping
had I not regarded the article ban as unacceptable (and successfully
campaigned against it but that's another story), but it does raise
two issues:

1) If admin status is no big deal, is removing it no big deal either?
Arbcom is becoming more willing to remove admin status, of which I
generally approve (despite possibly being a victim of it).

2) If ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status, excluding
self-administered recalls, then how does it cope with low-level but
persistent admin misbehaviour? ArbCom is much better at dealing with
egregious single incidents.

--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


body:
David Boothroyd wrote

> In February, blocked wrongly for a
> non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken
> an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was
> punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that
> was closed.
>
> Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was
> tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being
> dragged up again.

Yes, you can have forgiving, and you can have transparent, but you may not be able to have both at once.

<snip>

> 2) If ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status, excluding
> self-administered recalls, then how does it cope with low-level but
> persistent admin misbehaviour? ArbCom is much better at dealing with
> egregious single incidents.

But that comment is in tension with the previous point.

If there is persistent incivility by someone, and there is a case brought, then everything from the year dot can in principle be brought up. Everyone should bear in mind that the site has an elephant's memory.

I think the Arbs don't like such cases, where some snarkishness from early 2005 can get tagged onto recent misbehaviour. Makes some of us feel uncomfortable, if it can't be more clear cut than that. For myself, I'm all for dealing with the persistent problem users, but a smoking gun is very, very useful if you want to throw the book at people. It makes the defence that things change and people learn from mistakes irrelevant. We do want people to change behaviour, so 'give a dog a bad name' has to be borne in mind, just as much as the leopard and spots.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Hmm.

#1 - they are apparently a registered company, with a business address and
everything.
#2 - they are selling a product (several really) to the public
#3 - they apparently do a significant amount of advertising.

One would think this makes them notable. I don't know that we have any
precedent for removing an entire company's page just because they asked for
"sole discretion over content"???

I would think it would be better perhaps to put a page up and sprotect it,
perhaps? Protect it from drive-by vandalism while leaving a verifiable
encyclopedic article?

I mean, come on. We have an article for [[Lesbian Bukkake]], I would think
the Fleshlight products/company are at least as notable as that.

Parker

On 10/6/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 19:47, SPUI wrote:
>
> > Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
> > have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
> > could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
> > page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone.
> > Danny
> > 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
> >
> > http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google
> > +Search&sa=N&tab=wn
> > seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
> > office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they
> > are "non-notable", and get salted.
>
> That's quite a jump in the logic there, isn't it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
I seem to remember proposals for limited-term adminship on here at some
point, but it was a while back and got shouted down pretty quick...

>
> I mean, there's more than one way to do it. On Meta, adminship is for
> a year at a time, for example. On sr:, admins aren't just janitors but
> have editorial decision powers. Etc.
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007

body:
On 06/10/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > HT> Yes, I will provide a rough member list now:
> > Project manager: Theodoranian (wp:zh:User:Theodoranian)
> > PR and Sponsorship: KJ (wp:zh:User:KaurJmeb) and Francis Huang (member from
> > Sinica Taiwan)
> > Contact people: Hsiang-Tai (wp:en:User:Htchien) and ROC (wp:zh:User:Roc)
> > Website: Alex S. H. (wp:zh:User:Alexsh), Little BTC (wp:zh:User:Littlebtc)
> > and GLWu
> > China affairs: Mingwangx (wp:zh:User:Mingwangx) and Chiao-Ching (member from
> > the sponsor)
> > Agenda: Theodoranian, Tsu-Chiang Liou (member from Sinica Taiwan) and KJ

> I would like to suggest that at least one of you be added in the
> communication committee, as this might reveal very helpful.

Definitely!

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Ligulem

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special page for querying protected pages

body:
Could we have a special page that lists all protected pages?

With possibility for narrowing queries by namespace or page title. Maybe
with optional "protected by" filter. And filter by protection level
(semi-/full protected).

It should report protected pages with the effective protection state
(last protection event -- protecting sysop, protection level, date/time,
protection summary).

Currently there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/protect and
a bot on en.wikipedia.org compiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PP
from that (doing a lot of edits to that page).

As a minor side note it might be worth considering to limit access to
listings of semi-protected templates to sysops (as that could serve as a
recipe for autoconfirmed accounts to vandalize pages via semi-protected
templates).

--Ligulem


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

body:
Ligulem wrote:
> Could we have a special page that lists all protected pages?
>
> With possibility for narrowing queries by namespace or page title. Maybe
> with optional "protected by" filter. And filter by protection level
> (semi-/full protected).
>
> It should report protected pages with the effective protection state
> (last protection event -- protecting sysop, protection level, date/time,
> protection summary).
>
> Currently there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/protect and
> a bot on en.wikipedia.org compiles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PP
> from that (doing a lot of edits to that page).
>
> As a minor side note it might be worth considering to limit access to
> listings of semi-protected templates to sysops (as that could serve as a
> recipe for autoconfirmed accounts to vandalize pages via semi-protected
> templates).
>
There's a bug request open for that:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2171

Filip


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>
>>Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
>>paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
>>that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.
>>That's a very serious problem, especially in an era when we are seeing
>>increasing attention paid to "how to manipulate wikipedia for the good
>>of your client" by the lower dregs of the PR industry.
>>
>>
>Exactly. Allowing this sort of thing leads to phone calls to Danny along
>the lines of "I paid X thousand dollars for an entry in Wikipedia, why
>has it been changed/deleted?"
>
You can't stop the phone calls or do anything about them.  The payment
for writing an article is a contract between the complainant and the
article writer.  If the writer promised something that was beyond his
control he misrepresented (perhaps fraudulently) the situation to the
payor.  Any legal claim is between them; it's not our fight.

It might be useful to have a disclaimer somewhere that states that any
such arrangements are strictly between those parties.

If we want to pay to encourage articles in an underrepresented language
that could be mentioned in the relevant project.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] FUCK OFF!

in_reply_to:
<6faf39c90610020639i1d843744md3bc407e43d8416c@mail.gmail.com>;
	from andreengels@gmail.com on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:39:22PM
	+0200

body:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:39:22PM +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
> Well, I don't know which Wikipedia you are on... Sure, discussion is a
> strongpoint, but mostly they just function by giving the side who
> happens to be in favor of the status quo a reason to revert everything
> the other side does for not following due process and flaming over
> such actions.

Well, come on over to the english wikipedia, where we work by consensus
and where we have a rule called "ignore all rules". Of course, some
people are working hard to undermine that and take control of the wiki,
so ... well there you go. Maybe you can help me at least save
en.wikipedia? :-)

>
> The current issue is that apparently on the Dutch Wikipedia proposing
> that some page should be deleted is enough to be flamed at.

Oh, that's useful information. Which page is causing the trouble?

read you soon,
	Kim.
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


subject: [Foundation-l] FUCK OFF!


body:
On 10/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Clearly, there is no intention to make it difficult for anyone to start
> an arbcom case.
>
> --Jimbo

That isn't quite the case. Generaly we try to make sure that arbcom is
the last step rather than the first.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] A little problem

body:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 03:21:48PM +0200, Anthere wrote:
> Fyi
>
> Whilst I was away, my computer chose to again get sick. Apparently, fix
> up in july did not fix the right thing...
>
Joy. That Should Not Happen.

Basically we should deploy (another) machine at your location and
place it under remote developer control (assuming you have dsl). That
way we can ensure proper backups etc.

read you soon,
	Kim
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72


subject: [Foundation-l] A little problem


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
We were shown one the other day.

You dismissed the person who brought it up, and that killed the discussion.
That didn't sit well with me at all. Killing the messenger is never
acceptable.

I passed another to Jimbo directly and as far as I know he's looking at it
or at least agrees the circumstances are troubling.

Now, never have I said that "admins are an evil abusive cabal." There are
plenty who think they are doing the right thing. There are plenty that just
have a Bad Day now and then. I'm sure there are plenty I've not noticed who
probably don't disobey the rules.

However, those who have a Bad Day need to be censured for it if they don't
apologize promptly. We need to correct the bad behavior, not justify it with
excuses. We need to stop letting the problem ones, even if they are only a
problem for a day before relatively regaining their senses, get away with
it.

Parker

On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/10/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Proposal: Arbcom states it is willing to desysop people on petition. X
> > many admins, in a set time frame, are willing to sign their names to
> > "This guy keeps doing X and Y and bringing the project into disrepute
> > by so doing"? He's gone, and he can RFA if he wants the bit back.
> > (Arbcom would have the power to say "go away" to frivolous complaints,
> > of course)
> > This proposal is based on the key, and possibly fallacious, assumption
> > that 90% of admins are sane sensible quiet people who know Acting Like
> > A Tosser when it's pointed out to them. (Restricting it to admins
> > isn't meant to be some kind of elegant blackball system for overriding
> > RFA, just to get some guaranteed sanity involved...)
>
>
> Given recent conflicts on the wiki, particularly the surprisingly
> nasty one on RFAr right now, I doubt it would *guarantee* sanity. It
> might be something.
>
> But ... I'm still waiting for anything resembling verifiable evidence
> that there are clear targets for such a process. That is to say:
> evidence diffs of problematic behaviour, not just ranting on the
> mailing list that admins are an evil abusive cabal.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny
01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn
seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they
are "non-notable", and get salted.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] [Announcement] Wikimedia promotion committee

body:
A little bump to mention how much this committee important is and to
invite people to join it.

I suggest that three focus are in particular important, and the three
requires very different people help.

The first is improvement of the material we can provide when we visit
potential partners. There is already a good work on this, and the
Foundation needs to provide further input and data to make it.
Suggestions from people in business in particular is welcome.

The second focus is about translation. The leaflets are already
translated in several languages, but probably not enough. They need more
translation AND MOSTLY, communities in various languages need to know
these documents exist.

Last is projects. We have a lot of documentation on Wikipedia. Very
little on Commons, Wikisource etc... We need MORE.

Incidently, the french language community has an urgent need for
Wikisource and Wikicommons projects to receive a lot of light from
french press.... within 2 weeks (yeah, short). We must be noticeable as
a french virtual library urgently :-)

Can it be a special urgent focus ?

ant

Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> I'd like to announce here the creation of the Wikimedia promotion
> committee. It is a new subcommittee of the Communications committee
> which deals with the production of promotion material for Wikimedia and
> its projects and establishing guidelines to ensure that promotion
> material follows some quality standards.
>
> == Membership ==
>
> The subcom is currently composed of Arne Klempert and me. Some
> background: Arne has worked as media designer for some years and he has
> created much of the printed material for Wikimedia Deutschland. I'm a
> typesetter's daughter, interested and educated in typography since
> childhood and worked as a journalist for some years where I also got
> some insights into professional layout.
>
> The procedure for becoming a member of the committee is simple: submit
> good work ;-) If you have a skilled hand for design and like creating
> needed promotion stuff, we're happy to welcome you as new member.
>
> Of course you don't have to be a member to create promotion stuff - if
> you do on a regular basis, we're very happy to hear from you, review
> work together and help.
>
> == Visual identity guidelines ==
>
> The committee works on developing visual identity guidelines for the
> projects. In the absence of project specific guidelines, the guidelines
> for the Wikimedia logo are valid:
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_visual_identity_guidelines
>
> If you design promotion stuff for your project, please follow them as
> closely as possible (or we'll come and hunt you at night ;-)
>
> == Production of promotion material ==
>
> It's obvious that two people can't do all the necessary design work for
> all the projects in the different languages. Currently, we focus on
> creating a basic set of necessary things:
> * Brochure (threefold, DIN A4), see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leaflet
> * Cheatsheet (DIN A long), see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cheatsheet
> * Information kit for journalists, sponsors and business contacts (DIN A4)
>
> The first steps towards an achieved corporate identity are currently
> done on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Leaflet/cover (title page of
> brochures for wikimedia and all projects), please voice your opinion on
> the talk page about the drafts and/or submit own proposals.
>
> == Logos ==
>
> The promotion subcom will act as intermediate institution between
> community and board in the process of choosing new project logos. It
> will check if community chosen project logos fullfill the necessary
> requirements (format specification, copyright situation etc., see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Logos) to become official project logos
> and submit them with a recommendation to the board for approval.
>
> == Contact ==
>
> You can contact as on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Promotion, on
> IRC in #wikimedia-cc (akl and elian) or by email to elian at djini.de and
> arne.klempert at wikimedia.de
>
> If you are interested in the activities of the promcom, please get in
> touch with us.
>
> greetings,
> elian


body:
On 06/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> enwiki has over 1000 administrators now - 1015 at present, although how
> many are "active" is another matter - who knows how many of these are
> sockpuppets of people who have been banned for stalking, death threats,
> POV pushing, and other lunacy.

Presumably none who've continued with such behaviour since.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Stephen Streater wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 19:47, SPUI wrote:
>
>
>>Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
>>have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
>>could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
>>page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone.
>>Danny
>>01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
>>
>>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn
>>seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
>>office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they
>>are "non-notable", and get salted.
>
>
> That's quite a jump in the logic there, isn't it?

No.


body:
On 06/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:

> > Presumably none who've continued with such behaviour since.

> There's still the very slight matter of why Oversight was invented...

Well, yes. There's probably one or two who've gone more than a little weird.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
Stephen Streater wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2006, at 20:03, SPUI wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Streater wrote:
>>
>>>On 6 Oct 2006, at 19:47, SPUI wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that
>>>>they
>>>>have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
>>>>could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
>>>>page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone.
>>>>Danny
>>>>01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
>>>>
>>>>http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google
>>>>+Search&sa=N&tab=wn
>>>>seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
>>>>office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that
>>>>they
>>>>are "non-notable", and get salted.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's quite a jump in the logic there, isn't it?
>>
>>No.
>
> Danny, for example, may not be convinced by any company.

Yeah, it's called exaggeration. But, given that Fleshlight is a
"notable" product, he's too easy to convince.


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007

body:
Hi Hsiang-Tai

Hsiang-Tai Chien wrote:
> Hi Anthere, sorry for the late reply since I have some daily job need to be
> done. Please see my reply as HT> below.

I am also quite late. Apologies

> -----Original eMessage-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthere
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 8:03 AM
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007
>
> ----------
>
> I'd like to say thank you to Hsiang-Tai Chien for his civility and that I
> hope we'll do a fabulous Wikimania 2007 in Taipei.
> One of the specific request I will have (which is basically the same that
> the one of the past two years) is that we try to find funds to help
> wikipedians to come from all over the world. We need to start looking for
> such funds as soon as possible. And make this event a bridge between
> continents.
>
> HT> Thanks, and personally I will join the discussion and the organization
> for Wikimania 2007 in the mail lists and also in the Taipei team more
> actively. For the fund issue we are discussing with the sponsors now. And we
> will need to co-work with the Foundation on this issue.

We received ROC email and I'll answer it as well.
I answer here since the previous mail was on Foundation, but add in copy
wikimania-l.
I suggest further discussions be held on wikimania-l

> ----------
>
> I'd like to ask HT if all the chinese wikimania core team could join the
> wikimania mailing list, even though it may be that some of you discuss
> issues in chinese only. It is important (imho) that at least some non
> chinese be involved in the organisation, as it will greatly enrich the
> process.
>
> HT> Some of members in the Taipei team already joined the Wikimania-l and
> Wikimedia-l mailing lists. For example, you can see Theodoranian (as THD),
> ROC and myself in this mailing list, and we also joined Wikimania-l since
> the bidding result is out. And we will ask more members to join the
> Wikimania-l for discussion. We welcome any non Chinese people to join us and
> we would be very open for opinions and ideas because Wikimania 2007 is not
> just a event for Taipei, it's a event for all Wikipedians over the world. We
> understand that the bidding result might let some people down but we still
> welcome them to provide ideas to us for this event sincerely.
>
> HT> Also we are now trying to create a wiki server in Taipei so people from
> other regions can know the status for the organization process immediately.
> The domain address for the server is now been registered and the server
> should be online soon. Once it's online I will send the notice to
> Wikimania-l.
>
> Also, I would like that all core organisers provide a little bit more
> information about them, and that the role of each be defined as much as
> possible. This will help identify areas where help is missing. And this
> will help us identify who the Foundation should be in touch with for
> various issues (for example, the Foundation (Michael) MUST be in contact
> with the budget person).
>
> Ant
>
> HT> Yes, I will provide a rough member list now:
>
> Project manager: Theodoranian (wp:zh:User:Theodoranian)
> PR and Sponsorship: KJ (wp:zh:User:KaurJmeb) and Francis Huang (member from
> Sinica Taiwan)
> Contact people: Hsiang-Tai (wp:en:User:Htchien) and ROC (wp:zh:User:Roc)
> Website: Alex S. H. (wp:zh:User:Alexsh), Little BTC (wp:zh:User:Littlebtc)
> and GLWu
> China affairs: Mingwangx (wp:zh:User:Mingwangx) and Chiao-Ching (member from
> the sponsor)
> Agenda: Theodoranian, Tsu-Chiang Liou (member from Sinica Taiwan) and KJ

I would like to suggest that at least one of you be added in the
communication committee, as this might reveal very helpful.

Also, I suggest you get Aphaia and the transcom involved for all
translations issues.

I presume help on the programm is a subject which should be raised on
wikimania-l
On the board, you are likely to receive help from Erik, since he was
involved in the past in Wikimania programs.
As a serious hand, I also recommand Phoebe if she is interested ;-)

Please coordinate sponsorship consideration with Danny Wool. We need to
find early in time sponsors to ensure help for many editors to go
participate even if they live far away.

You may wish to consider well ahead of time considerations of
registration (you need a registration manager)

Also not listed above is technical manager, for audio, video,
translations if needed etc...

And logistic...

I'll add (out of experience of this year) that you need a manager for
the hacking days. And I'll suggest that this one either is one of
developers, or someone in direct contact with them, so as to create the
hacking days they need and want. This is very important.

> For financial and administrative person, we are still looking for some ideal
> people.

It may be best that this person is under contract for responsability
considerations.

> And we need the contact people in the Foundation so we can discuss and
> co-work with WMF. Please advise whom we can contact with.

I asked the board this question over a week ago. As of today, I am still
waiting for an answer from them...

> Thanks and best regards,
> H.T.
>
>
thanks HT

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2007


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
> Defining X would be tricky, but no doubt we could think of something.
> Equal to half the support votes on their RFA, in a few days?

Unexpected consequence: more RFA advertising even with a landslide.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar in a
> specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give people
> the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed. Perhaps
> it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.

Even as screwed up as things are today with respect to RFA the fact
remains that adminship is more about trust than about knowledge. If we
can't *trust you* to refrain from breaking the site too badly than you
should have exactly zero admin features.

That adminship is mostly is sometimes being obscured the fact that
there is no clear way to measure trust... but breaking up adminship
into little boxes will not solve that.

It is a shame because the tools of adminship are really tools which
every experienced user acting in good faith should have.  ... that was
always the intent, .. Remember? "No big deal".   But life has turned
out so much more complex.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
On 10/6/06, Stephen Streater <sbstreater at mac.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > It is a shame because the tools of adminship are really tools which
> > every experienced user acting in good faith should have.  ... that was
> > always the intent, .. Remember? "No big deal".   But life has turned
> > out so much more complex.
>
> That's because people don't trust strangers,
> and most people on RfA are strangers.
>
> Basically, paranoia is safer.

Yes. This is a factor.  I can think of .. um, one? Wikipedian I've met
in person whom I wouldn't want to support for adminship, ... comfort
is still very much a meat based thing for most people.

But it goes beyond the simple familiarity issue that you pointed out:
As an RFA participant we're asked to state our trust about how the
person for an indefinite time into the future when challenged with a
potentially infinite spectrum of tasks under an infinite number of
conditions. People change, our needs change... and as a result our
process makes it unrealistically difficult to feel comfortable with an
approval.


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

references:
<4526A4BA.20608@gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140610061448l7e740222pa5a3668c5f0a25ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<galdi2hr2806rjutuon7k4acdqs85mfkbu@4ax.com>

body:
Danny, can you provide us more details on this action?  Fleshlight is
too notorious to not be notable, and the description of this incident
so far seems confusing.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
Testing to see if this gets through... and I do not appreciate your
continued rudeness.

Parker

On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We were shown one the other day.
>
>
> And you can be sure it was looked at, and if nothing happened then nobody
> cared.
>
>
> > You dismissed the person who brought it up, and that killed the
> discussion.
> > That didn't sit well with me at all. Killing the messenger is never
> > acceptable.
>
>
> Because I have l33t powers, which is why you are no longer posting.
>


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

body:
On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> People still complain that it's impossible to get rid of a bad admin
> when that's manifestly false. The ArbCom is *not* happy with cases of
> clear abuse of admin powers and does act when such are brought to its
> attention.

The ArbCom also seems to take a fairly narrow view of what constitutes
"abuse", in the sense that disruptive behavior -- even *massively*
disruptive behavior -- is ignored if it (a) seems to sort of work out
in the end, (b) can be claimed as being "for the good of Wikipedia",
or (c) both.

> I think it's far better and simpler to make it relatively easy to
> become an admin, then remove the bad ones as and when they show it,
> than to require a process with ever-escalating requirements for
> adminship most of which have nothing to do with the powers in question
> in the hope that this will stop the problem before it occurs.

Actually, the current RFA is fairly successful in one respect: it's a
decent filter against people who are likely to react explosively to
pressure, which is actually pretty helpful.  Having admins that lose
their composure easily is not really the best idea, for obvious
reasons.

--
Kirill Lokshin


body:
Ok, here's a basic question. One we should all be able to agree on.

Should a "suspected sockpuppet" (new username) of a username block be
blocked for being a sockpuppet?

It's a simple enough question. Yes or no?

On 10/6/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 07:31:37 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is a larger problem I have with our policies, though. Every policy
> we
> >have on the matter is designed to make it impossible for an aggrieved
> user
> >to make any protest against abuse.
>
> No, none of the *policies* we have prevent this, I think.  It is very
> hard to be truly objective when reviewing unblock requests, though,
> and we definitely need more people like JoshuaZ and Phaedirel who are
> able to see the good in everybody.
>
> But let's be honest, the SPUIs of this world are tolerated despite the
> disruption they cause.  Sock-farming POV pushers should be shown the
> door speedily and in no uncertain terms.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Aphaia

subject: [Foundation-l] Club Membership

body:
On 10/4/06, SJ Klein <meta.sj at gmail.com> wrote:
> To the list: learning to write in an NPOV fashion is hard.
> Finding the line between announcing something you are proud of
> and self-promotion can be tricky.  Please assume good faith and
> be of good cheer, especially with list newbies.

Sorry, Samuel, here I have a different opinion.
During the Election, I heard from several jawiki editors like the
below: I am subscribing foundation-l still now though, I read it today
seldom. Too high traffic, a bunch of slangs. Too hard to follow
topics. It is very discouragous when I found some mail is totally
off-topic after I spent some minutes with my dictionary". And I would
like to add some of them are better translators than me. They just
aren't familiar to garbage collecting type readings.

I don't oppose generally "assume good faith" axiom. But here you
English native speakers are better to be aware such postings
discourage the legitimate part of Wikimedia project who have been
working also on a good faith to be involved foundation activity
dimension.

Or it is a privilage for native English speaker and ESL speakers?

--
Kizu Naoko
  Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
  * vox populi, vox dei *


subject: [Foundation-l] Club Membership


body:
Note: this was an offlist mail to me, which has been sent back to the whole list. Black mark for etiquette on that.

I advise everyone against answering private mails from this poster.

Well, and what you say is absolutely not what you wrote to the list, then. You will gain no respect at all from exaggerating and then shifting position when challenged.

Charles

>
> From: "Parker Peters" <onmywayoutster at gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/10/06 Fri PM 04:59:18 BST
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Quitting Wikipedia and wanted you to know why.
>
> No.
>
> I am asserting that polices, while they may have been well intentioned, have
> the net effect of being a bureaucratic nightmare that makes it a virtual
> impossibility that any course of action against an admin by a non-admin will
> succeed.
>
> That policies which were designed to safeguard admins from deliberate
> harassment have become twisted into opposition of any investigation of admin
> conduct whatsoever.
>
> I'm forwarding this to en-l because I want these words to be clear to
> everyone.
>
> Cheers,
> Parker.
>
> On 10/6/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > You are asserting that
> >
> > Every policy
> >
> > (not some but all)
> >
> > is designed
> >
> > (i.e. deliberately set up)
> >
> >
> > to make it impossible
> >
> > (not inconvenient, time consuming, legalistic)
> >
> > for an aggrieved user to make any protest against abuse.
> >
> > (you say _any protest_, not just an effective protest leading to action).
> >
> > Well, that's hooey. Anyone can start an RfC. Show me an admin who sits on
> > an RfC and I'll take action on that myself.
> >
> > Charles
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> > Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


body:
This is my final reply to you, David. I've no need for your continued
attempts to provoke me.

But since you asked, and since I started this question, I'll provide some
links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:NoLongerScieno
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:ScienoSitter
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienoSitter&action=history

In this instance, I think the offending admin should receive a censure and a
warning regarding his actions, from arbcom. Only the only person who has
standing to bring such a case is blocked indefinitely.

Why?
#1 - The admin in question, Naconkantari, was the one who instituted a block
on NoLongerScieno with a reason of "user.."
#2 - The admin in question, Naconkantari, then blocked ScienoSitter for
being a "vandalism-only account" and "suspected sockpuppet of
NoLongerScieno."

Whether ScienoSitter's edits are vandalism? I don't necessarily think so,
and I think this is failure to AGF on the part of the admin.
Whether NoLongerScieno is a valid username block? If "Scieno" is a
derogatory term for Scientologists, perhaps. It'd take more research before
I could declare myself certain. I'm also not sure what ScienoSitter means,
but it contains the same term and could have been validly blocked as another
username violation without the need to falsely accuse a user of vandalism.

However, Naconkantari also committed the following offenses that warrant
definite censure and show an extreme lack of judgement:
#1 - He failed to leave even a message - much less the proper tags - on
NoLongerScieno's page to let them know the proper course of action in the
case of a username block.
#2 - He, himself, the blocking admin, at least twice removed the user's
unblock request from the page. This is a clear violation: every user should
have the right to an impartial review of their block.
#3 - He, himself, took action and reverted each of these users. While not an
offense in itself, claiming a content dispute to be "vandalism" is troubling
behavior for any admin, as it shows they do not understand policy.

Under our policies, I also tried to contact Naconkantari privately in IRC.
He refused to discuss it and promised to put any unblocks or unprotection of
the page back into effect. Not wanting to wheel war, I left it alone.

I would also think, in this instance, that Mr. Lefty and OmicronPersei8 are
out of line and deserve some similar official censure. Again, the only
person with standing to do so is blocked indefinitely.

OmicronPersei8 repeatedly removed the unblock request from the page, even
though he is not even an admin. I would term this vandalism for interference
with official templates.

Mr. Lefty locked the talk page of ScienoSitter for, of all things,
"{{unblock}} abuse." Since there was only one unblock request present at any
time, and it was being tag-team removed by the blocking admin and a user who
ScienoSitter had been in content dispute with, this is an amazingly
problematic behavior to deny a user their proper independent review. As I
understand it, unless we've expanded the definition of "unblock template
abuse" so far that it includes the mere posting of the template, that lock
reason is completely bogus.

But that's my view of the situation as I came across it, based on reading
the pages involved and the contribution histories of Naconkantari,
ScienoSitter, NoLongerScieno, and OmicronPersei8.

Parker

On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, here's a basic question. One we should all be able to agree on.
> > Should a "suspected sockpuppet" (new username) of a username block be
> > blocked for being a sockpuppet?
> > It's a simple enough question. Yes or no?
>
>
> Generally not, I'd say. Speaking as the admin you say you are, what
> would you say should be done concerning such?
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


references:
<46d9b7490610051931r12a9dcc7u898adbb45fbcf5e6@mail.gmail.com>
	<fbad4e140610060010r372cc1f2pa3e2602f5bf96834@mail.gmail.com>
	<46d9b7490610060531g2371021q8d9d37ed4805b9ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061501q3e961858tb31c5415d5e735bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>

body:
On 10/6/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 23:17:54 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG
> <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >>Ok, here's a basic question. One we should all be able to agree on.
> >>Should a "suspected sockpuppet" (new username) of a username block be
> >>blocked for being a sockpuppet?
> >>It's a simple enough question. Yes or no?
>
> >And in trying to render it as an unambiguous yes/no answer you have
> >the nub of the problem: it depends entirely on who the puppeteer is,
> >the quality of the evidence, the edits which were made under the
> >suspected sock account.
>
> Oh, plus, blocking is preventative.  Is there  a potential problem to
> be averted?  Will blocking and then discussing on the user talk page
> be a better result for the project than letting them edit?

In the case I quoted, there was no "blocking and then discussing on the user
talk page", there was instead "blocking and chain reverting the unblock
template and then getting someone to block them for supposed template
abuse."

Parker


body:
"Parker Peters" wrote

> Charles, I apologize for sending it directly to the list, but you obviously
> had misread my words and I was worried that others might have as well.

Come, sir. Do I have your permission to let the list have the wording of your mail to me, including the request for a _private_ discussion.

A phrase by phrase analysis is not misreading, it is close reading.

>I am
> not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that
> you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.

You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.

Can we throw this guy off the list now?

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information


from_name: Nacon Kantari

body:
Well, I've been watching this for a while, so I guess it's time for my side
of the story.

(apologies as this was copied from a chat transcript)
He was originally blocked as an IP editor for making personal attacks in
edit summaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_organization&diff=prev&oldid=76401860
Then created an account to bypass 3RR
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_organization&diff=77587861&oldid=77587483
was blocked and came on IRC contesting the block
said that he didn't know who the IP editor was
I did a /whois and it was the same IP as the IP editing the article
[15:53] * Joins: NoLongerScieno (n=Mike at cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com)
<IP removed by me for email, actual available>
next weekend, he tried the same thing
as [[User:XVidMan]]
[19:47] * Parts: XVidman (n=Xvid at cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com) <IP
removed by me for email, actual available (both are same)>
[18:16] * Joins: ScienoSitter (n=James at cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com)
<IP removed by me for email, actual available (different)>

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enviroknot, this
indef-blocked editor edits through houston roadrunner IP addresses.  This is
what led me to block all of the accounts as obvious sockpuppets of
[[User:Enviroknot]].  Granted, I may have been in error with the block
messages, but I fully stand by the blocks.

Also, Parker Peters, if you are IRC user pakaran, we did have a discussion
about this.  If not, my apologies.

naconkantari

On 10/6/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is my final reply to you, David. I've no need for your continued
> attempts to provoke me.
>
> But since you asked, and since I started this question, I'll provide some
> links:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:NoLongerScieno
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:ScienoSitter
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienoSitter&action=history
>
> In this instance, I think the offending admin should receive a censure and
> a
> warning regarding his actions, from arbcom. Only the only person who has
> standing to bring such a case is blocked indefinitely.
>
> Why?
> #1 - The admin in question, Naconkantari, was the one who instituted a
> block
> on NoLongerScieno with a reason of "user.."
> #2 - The admin in question, Naconkantari, then blocked ScienoSitter for
> being a "vandalism-only account" and "suspected sockpuppet of
> NoLongerScieno."
>
> Whether ScienoSitter's edits are vandalism? I don't necessarily think so,
> and I think this is failure to AGF on the part of the admin.
> Whether NoLongerScieno is a valid username block? If "Scieno" is a
> derogatory term for Scientologists, perhaps. It'd take more research
> before
> I could declare myself certain. I'm also not sure what ScienoSitter means,
> but it contains the same term and could have been validly blocked as
> another
> username violation without the need to falsely accuse a user of vandalism.
>
> However, Naconkantari also committed the following offenses that warrant
> definite censure and show an extreme lack of judgement:
> #1 - He failed to leave even a message - much less the proper tags - on
> NoLongerScieno's page to let them know the proper course of action in the
> case of a username block.
> #2 - He, himself, the blocking admin, at least twice removed the user's
> unblock request from the page. This is a clear violation: every user
> should
> have the right to an impartial review of their block.
> #3 - He, himself, took action and reverted each of these users. While not
> an
> offense in itself, claiming a content dispute to be "vandalism" is
> troubling
> behavior for any admin, as it shows they do not understand policy.
>
> Under our policies, I also tried to contact Naconkantari privately in IRC.
> He refused to discuss it and promised to put any unblocks or unprotection
> of
> the page back into effect. Not wanting to wheel war, I left it alone.
>
> I would also think, in this instance, that Mr. Lefty and OmicronPersei8
> are
> out of line and deserve some similar official censure. Again, the only
> person with standing to do so is blocked indefinitely.
>
> OmicronPersei8 repeatedly removed the unblock request from the page, even
> though he is not even an admin. I would term this vandalism for
> interference
> with official templates.
>
> Mr. Lefty locked the talk page of ScienoSitter for, of all things,
> "{{unblock}} abuse." Since there was only one unblock request present at
> any
> time, and it was being tag-team removed by the blocking admin and a user
> who
> ScienoSitter had been in content dispute with, this is an amazingly
> problematic behavior to deny a user their proper independent review. As I
> understand it, unless we've expanded the definition of "unblock template
> abuse" so far that it includes the mere posting of the template, that lock
> reason is completely bogus.
>
> But that's my view of the situation as I came across it, based on reading
> the pages involved and the contribution histories of Naconkantari,
> ScienoSitter, NoLongerScieno, and OmicronPersei8.
>
> Parker
>
> On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, here's a basic question. One we should all be able to agree on.
> > > Should a "suspected sockpuppet" (new username) of a username block be
> > > blocked for being a sockpuppet?
> > > It's a simple enough question. Yes or no?
> >
> >
> > Generally not, I'd say. Speaking as the admin you say you are, what
> > would you say should be done concerning such?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 06/10/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.

He's not known for his ability to learn.

> Can we throw this guy off the list now?

You realise he's why the list was set to start all new members
moderated in the first place.

Damn, the list mods will have to work for a living again.

- d.