from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
I agree with Dragontamer (although I'm sure everybody already knows my
opinions on this matter). A user was blocked for misbehavior, and he
complained about it. I can't imagine any user (besides a vandal) getting
blocked and not complaining. This doesnt mean that every instance needs to
become some kind of arbitration nightmare. What I don't see, besides Panic's
plea, is a reason to review or even overturn SBJohnny's decision. People who
make bold decisions to benefit the project should be rewarded, and I dont
think we should be introducing unnecessary oversight into our system.

--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)

>*Sigh* it was only a matter of time. Get a bunch of people working
>together, and people will suddenly not want to work together for
>whatever reason :-/
>
>I have not looked at the current issue (in fact, this is the first
>time I have heard of it. But I feel that in this specific case,
>community consensus may be a bad thing. Eventually, there may be
>groups of users vs other groups of users. Maybe Jimbo or some other
>person would have to step in there.
>
>Oy, this is a whole new can-o-worms in Wikibooks policy...
>
>--Dragontamer
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________
Your Hotmail address already works to sign into Windows Live Messenger! Get
it now
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jay R. Ashworth

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki as a Wikimedia project

body:
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:48:05PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> On 1/7/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikitech at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/7/07, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's just begging for a "somebody set us up the bomb" type response.
> >
> > We get signal.
>
> Commit now.
>
> For great justice.

And I guess it's left up to me...

All your software are belong to us.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274


list: wikien-l

from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
> From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:12:46 +0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>
> [[Special:Userlogin]] is the link to log-in. Try clearing your browser
> cache/purging the page.

I'm afraid this couldn't have happened to a worse person when it comes to
computer understanding. I am completely dependent on my technical support
guy and he is away at a conference right now. So your instructions will need
to be simpler. I really am sorry about this, and I appreciate any help you
can give me. This is a first with WP for me. What does clear my browser
cache/purging the page mean?

Thank you!

Marc
>
> On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know where else to turn for input on this. I closed out of
>> Wikipedia
>> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it and
>> the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections are
>> superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in or other
>> such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and got the same
>> thing.
>>
>> Is anyone else experiencing this? How can I fix it?
>>
>> Help!
>>
>> Marc Riddell
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] SCHEDULING FIX please read Re: London Wikimeet with
	added Jimbo: TUESDAY NINTH Jan, Montagu Pyke, WC2H 0BP

body:
AIEEEE!

OK, fixing page ... rebuilding life ... please hold ...

- d.

On 08/01/07, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> So my brain was broken when I said "Wednesday" because what I meant was
> "the last night of my stay in London" which is Tuesday.  I am speaking
> at the London School of Economics Tuesday evening, so a pub near there
> would be grand.
>
> I botched this, I am sorry.
>
>
> #David Gerard wrote:
> > No-one else has picked a pub, so let's pick the one we tried for last
> > time, which was, ahh, shut. But should be open now. Jimbo will be in
> > town for this one.
> >
> > Montagu Pyke
> > 105?107 Charing Cross Rd
> > London WC2H 0BP
> > http://www.jdwetherspoon.co.uk/pubfinder/details.php?OutletNumber=644
> >
> > It's a Wetherspoon, so they'll have a drinkable real ale and some
> > mediocre food.
> >
> > Tubes: Leicester Square, Covent Garden, Tottenham Court Road,
> > Piccadilly Circus, Charing Cross.
> >
> > It's right in the centre of London, everything is near everything.
> > I'll be getting there sevenish after work. If others will be earlier,
> > please say so.
> >
> > I'll just note this on the wiki as well ...
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> MO
>


list: wikipedia-l

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] SCHEDULING FIX please read Re: London Wikimeet
	with added Jimbo: TUESDAY NINTH Jan, Montagu Pyke, WC2H 0BP


list: textbook-l

from_name: John McC

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
Robert, you really don't understand this situation.
Allow me to clarify:

1. I don't know anything about C++, and am not a
contributor to that book. My involvement was as a
moderator.
2. My request that someone else take over the
arbitration was made because I'm tired of doing it.
This has been going on for months now.

An moderator should feel free to pass the reins to
another moderator if he or she feels the burden has
become more that they want to take on. He or she
should not be dragged through the mud. I don't object
to your overturning the block... my hope was that
whether or not Panic is blocked, reformed, etc. would
simply not be my problem any more.

Another administrator had agreed to take the case, but
you insisted that you be the arbitrator instead. I
said that was fine, since honestly i don't care who's
doing it, as long as it's not me.

I'm an unpaid volunteer, and I did what I did
(moderate) because it was going on for a very long
time and no-one else had stepped in. I (or anyone
else) should feel free to walk away from these
situations. What I was asking for was a clean break,
with the situation in someone else's hands. What's
happened since then is atrocious.

--- Robert Scott Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net>
wrote:

> John McC wrote:
>
> >I don't object to either oversight or arbitration
> (in
> >fact I think both are necessary), but the format
> here
> >is truly appalling. For one thing, the
> >"plaintiff/defendant" structure is unnecessarily
> >hostile, made even more so because it's really
> unclear
> >who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Are we
> >reviewing my block? Panic's behavior? If (as it
> seems)
> >we are reviewing Panic's behavior, it seems a bit
> >strange to name me as the "plaintiff": I'm not
> >involved in an editorial dispute with Panic... my
> role
> >has been as a mediator and later arbitrator of a
> >dispute that's been going on for years without any
> >previous arbitration of constructive mediation.
> >
> >Worse, this has devolved into what looks more like
> an
> >inquisition than anything else.
> >
>
> What I've done here is turn this into a formal
> debate.  While prehaps we
> can change the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant",
> the purpose here is to
> allow everybody to air their concerns and grievences
> in a public manner
> that can be reviewed later on by all parties
> involved, and by those
> chared with oversight of this project, including
> other administrators,
> stewards, and ultimately the WMF board of trustees.
> Without this
> information being collected, nobody can possibly
> really know what has
> happened without a very tedious investigation.
>
> A key part of this is also to "equalize" the
> situation between
> administrator and registered user.  Normally an
> admin is sitting in a
> very much stronger position, particularly when it
> gets to edit wars.  By
> having a formal setting like this, everybody can
> spill their guts out
> and try to explain what is going on without fear of
> reprisals from the
> other parties involved.
>
> This format also gives a cooling off of the issues
> at hand as well, as
> it is completely removed from the content where the
> edit war is taking
> place.  Far from being an inquisition, what this is
> trying to do is to
> find the truth about what is going on.  It is also
> forcing the parties
> involved to put to words their emotions, and try to
> stick to the facts
> rather than wear their emotions on their sleeves.
> This would only be
> related to the [[w:Spanish Inquisition]] if it were
> set up in such a
> manner that Panic had no opportunity to defend his
> actions at all, nor
> allow those sympathetic to his point of view to
> support him.  Nor is
> this a witch hunt to go after SB Johnny either.
>
> While I intend to also add my opinion on this whole
> issue, what I'm
> trying to do is allow the two parties involved to
> come up with a
> concensus on the ultimate course of actions after
> they have said their
> piece.  Only if there is a strong disgreement on the
> ultimate course of
> action is a formal arbitration decision going to be
> made, and even that
> is available to appeal and reversal.
>
> If you have a reasonable alternative, I am willing
> to hear about it.
>  Mind you, the reason why this seems like a judicial
> proceeding is
> because that is a format that has worked to resolve
> political disputes
> for litterally thousands of years, and is something
> I'm drawing upon to
> help out in this situation.  I'm also trying
> deliberately to set this up
> so that when it is ever invoked again, that it won't
> be taken lightly
> and will be something that all parties will want to
> avoid if at all
> possible.
>
> >
> >What we will suffer in the long term is an even
> >stronger reticence on the part of administrators to
> >get involved in content disputes (I for one will
> >certainly say "no" next time around). This
> particular
> >dispute had gone on unaddressed for far longer than
> it
> >should have been, and while this arbitration might
> end
> >up bringing a resolution to this particular issue,
> >it's going to make it a lot harder to address the
> next
> >one.
> >
> >
> >--- Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> One huge problem that administrators face at all
> times when an edit war
> is taking place is that we are also very much human.
>  It is very easy to
> get caught up in the moment and "choose sides", in
> effect becoming a
> party in the dispute rather than somebody who is
> seeking a resolution.
>  You should be reluctant to try and get embroiled in
> such a manner.
>  When it was requested that I try to come in and
> mediate this particular
> issue, I felt it had reached the point that the more
> information method
> of writing on the user talk page and trying to find
> a bit of middle
> ground would have been completely ineffective and
> that going that route
> would have put me in the position of being yet
> another voice in the
> fight but no more.  And perhaps turning the fight
> from a mere edit war
> to a full all out wheel war.
>
> That is clearly something I want to avoid.
>
> I hope that when all is said and done, that this
> will actually
> strengthen the position of administrators, as it
> will give us an
> additional "tool" to fall back upon when editorial
> disputes are starting
> to get out of hand.  As an administrator, you can
> say "if you don't like
> my suggestion, take it
> [[Wikibooks:Arbitration|here]] instead."
>  Hopefully those who have a cool head will think
> twice about that
> suggestion and try to resolve the issue first.
>
> --
> Robert Scott Horning
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Textbook-l mailing list
> Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:42:03 -0500
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>
>
>
>> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:22:37 +0000
>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>,  "Wikimedia
>> developers" <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>>
>> On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I'm in full screen. I'm using Internet Explorer, 5.1. This just
>>> happened overnight! I've been working in Wikipedia for over a year now.
>>
>>
>> On a Mac, right? Do you have Firefox, Safari or Camino installed? Does
>> it do the same in any of those?
>
> No. I have none of these that I know of. No matter how I try to access WP,
> whether from Google or any other source, the Globe & Site Table of Contents
> stays superimposed over everything.
>
> Marc

I just tried to log in, but the button is partially covered by the overlay &
won't activate.

Marc
>>
>> (It's possible a subtle CSS change on the front page has messed things
>> up in IE Mac 5.1.)
>>
>> (cc'ing to wikitech-l. Original problem: "I closed out of Wikipedia
>> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it
>> and the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections
>> are superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in
>> or other such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and
>> got the same thing.")
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Steve

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Entries for deletion.... issues from the Third
	World

body:
Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that the AFD process tends to
attract people who are focused on keeping wikipedia "uncluttered" and
"relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete" and that's
that. You can present anything to the people at AFD, but its a systemic
habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite
suggestion.

While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without
loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well
connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've
noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears our
pedia is being perceived as full of unverified internet rabble.

-S

On 1/8/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
>
> Maybe we should use some discernment, instead of the mechanical rule
> of 'number of links' on Google or where-ever. In journalism, it is
> always easy to make out what is a 'plug' for someone and what is a
> genuine news-item. Guess Wikipedia could depend on local teams to also
> offer some cross-checking. FN
>
> On 08/01/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2007/1/8, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>:
> >
> > > This is unfortunately not just a problem on the English wikipedia but
> in
> > > the Dutch one as well. and I would think in many other big language
> > > editions. As soon as something isn't covered by google people
> > > unfortunately assume it isn't notable :( .
> > >
> >
> > Then  again, where's the alternative? I can remember you making a big
> case
> > of this on the Dutch Wikipedia once. Tracking things down, in all
> > probability you had been reverting the removal of vandalism on the basis
> of
> > it.
> >
> > --
> > Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
> > ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
>
> --
> FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:

>I agree with Dragontamer (although I'm sure everybody already knows my
>opinions on this matter). A user was blocked for misbehavior, and he
>complained about it. I can't imagine any user (besides a vandal) getting
>blocked and not complaining. This doesnt mean that every instance needs to
>become some kind of arbitration nightmare. What I don't see, besides Panic's
>plea, is a reason to review or even overturn SBJohnny's decision. People who
>make bold decisions to benefit the project should be rewarded, and I dont
>think we should be introducing unnecessary oversight into our system.
>
>--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
>
>
A large difference between this situation and other typical user blocks,
however, is that it occured due to a content edit war rather than from a
blatant vandal, which really is a very different sort of problem.  While
I may agree that this edit war is getting out of hand, the justification
for performing a user block is definitely one of a grey area rather than
something as clear cut as Johnny seems to be implying here.

The more I started to dig into reviewing Johnny's actions, and to see
explicitly what exactly Panic did, the more confusing to me that it
became.  In addition, apparently some very heated exchanged happened on
IRC that have tainted this whole process and precipitated some of this
action, independent of what was actually done on Wikibooks.  While I can
appreciate some individuals being offended by a particular user due to
some very crass and pointed remarks on IRC, that by itself doesn't
justify a user block on the Wiki as a result of those heated exchanges.

I would also like to point out that on Wikipedia, it is precisely this
sort of situation where user arbitration cases are established, and
Wikipedia policy expressly forbids administrators from performing a user
block in this situation without having it be reviewed by an arbitration
committee.  I know Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, but the policies simply
havn't been established at all for Wikibooks on this topic.

More to the point, I just want to know what is going on.  Simply logs
like the block log and page move log (apparently one justification for a
user block) doesn't seem to from my viewpoint provide justification or a
clear explaination for what has happened.  It is for this reason and
others that I simply requested some additional information.  Based on
IRC chats I've had with Johnny, there did seem to be a strong motive for
the block, but it wasn't apparent right away.

BTW, some comments here seem to imply that we should (seemingly) always
accept what the other admins are doing.  It is one of the key
responsibilities of administrators to police each other, and make sure
we aren't stepping over the line.  I have been critical in the past of
the actions of some administrators, although in the case of Johnny I've
never had any real cause to have concern in the past.  Certainly in this
situation it needed to be reviewed.

I would also like to note that I didn't "overturn" Johnny's decision in
terms of unblocking, except after consulting him and getting a general
agreement from Panic that by performing the unblock that both of them
would use this time to cool off and avoid altogether editing on the
Wikibook where the dispute seems to be occuring (C++ Programming).
 Based on the user contribution history, Panic also seems to be abiding
by this agreement as well.

--
Robert Scott Horning


list: foundation-l

from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Fundraising and site notice

body:
Let me first state that I do not write fancruft articles as I am not
interested in them. I do feel though that they have their place on a
project like wikipedia. And I am getting tired of the relatively very
small group on NL. wikipedia who try whatever they can to get these
articles deleted. They have been trying this for years. This proposal
from them is in my opinion to xxxxth attempt to accomplish this.

>2) Communities have to grow. This was the same with Wikipedia, Wikibooks and
>so on. I don't see why a Fanpedia would not grow.
>
>
There could be many reasons. Like people simply choose not to work on
this, but go elsewhere.

>3) Fanstuff is a part of Wikipedia. There are people fully devoted to these
>mini-projects, they would move to the new project, even more when they share the same ideals as we have.
>
>
They would not. If I would ban you from a website writing about the
stuff you like, would you go and work on a new website I set up for you
to do your thing? The answer is no! I have seen it tried at fora where
people wrote OT stuff. The siteowner stopped it set up a seperate forum
(a new site). But instead of the people going there the people set up a
totally new place where they could combine the new topics with the old.
So the old forum lost a lot of its contributors. And the new forum never
had the amount of contributors to get a good forum going. So both lost
out. People do not like in general to go from site to site. People are
usually dedicated to only one or two places on the internet. The other
places they go to marginally. It is a time issue.

Also look at our own projects. People usually contribute really a lot to
one project and only marginally to other projects. Which means that
apart from the fancruft writing we would loose out on the spellchecking
and other contributions these people do when exiled somewhere else.

Also splitting up means we are setting up new fiefdoms where people can
go by their own rules etc.

>4) I have no idea how much cash it could or would generate. People involved
>in Wikia might have an answer though.
>
>
The last I heard (over 6 months ago though) was that Wikia was turning a
loss.

>5) Until now I have heared answers why it would not work, but not much
>answers which say what *would* work to raise to at least 1.5 million per
>fundraiser. There are not many acceptable ideas, are there? I see your point in the necessity of  loads of money, but there must be alternatives for advertising on all projects.
>
>
MAybe because people only see reasons why it would not work?

>This is the core of the proposal: we have one project which generates cash
>so the other projects can be funded without advertising. It doesn't have to
>be fanstuff, but that is popular and will generate a lot of traffic and
>therefore money. It might also help keep editors who have a problem with
>advertising on the projects.
>
>I still don't understand the problems and would like to ask if we could make a pilot-project. Let's say on the dutch projects and then see how this would develop.
>
>
Never on the Dutch projects, it is already hopelessly divided and
splintered. nl.wikiquote, nl.wikinews, even nl.wikibooks and
nl.wikisource barely have contributors. Why? Because people do not like
to be send somewhere else. Same when I go looking for something I do not
like having to visit different sites if one has it all. If you want the
Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it amongst the
community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you
on this. If you want to try it out why not seperately from the
foundation yourself and when it seems to work have it become a part of
the foundation. More things have been tried out that way.

Waerth


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
> From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 23:39:46 +0800
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>
> And for userlogin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin should
> work.

I just tried to log in, but the button is partially covered by the overlay &
won't activate.

Marc
>
> On 08/01/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge
>>
>> Does that work?

No, the Globe, etc. is still superimposed, blocking access to everything
else.
>>
>> On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com>
>>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org >
>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:12:46 +0800
>>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>>>>
>>>> [[Special:Userlogin]] is the link to log-in. Try clearing your browser
>>>> cache/purging the page.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid this couldn't have happened to a worse person when it comes
>>> to
>>> computer understanding. I am completely dependent on my technical
>>> support
>>> guy and he is away at a conference right now. So your instructions will
>>> need
>>> to be simpler. I really am sorry about this, and I appreciate any help
>>> you
>>> can give me. This is a first with WP for me. What does clear my browser
>>> cache/purging the page mean?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>> On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know where else to turn for input on this. I closed out of
>>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access
>>> it and
>>>>> the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections are
>>>>> superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in or
>>> other
>>>>> such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and got the
>>> same
>>>>> thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is anyone else experiencing this? How can I fix it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Help!
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc Riddell
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
On 08/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> AIEEEE!
> OK, fixing page ... rebuilding life ... please hold ...

By the way, the LSE is approximately here (red arrow):

  http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=530778&y=181130&z=0

The Montagu Pyke is approximately here (red arrow):

  http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=529855&y=181107&z=2

Note that that second map includes both your source and destination,
so would be suitable for printing and looking at confused should you
be in London without a native guide.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] [Wikipedia-l] SCHEDULING FIX please read Re: London
	Wikimeet	with added Jimbo: TUESDAY NINTH Jan, Montagu Pyke, WC2H 0BP

body:
On 08/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> AIEEEE!
> OK, fixing page ... rebuilding life ... please hold ...

By the way, the LSE is approximately here (red arrow):

  http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=530778&y=181130&z=0

The Montagu Pyke is approximately here (red arrow):

  http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=529855&y=181107&z=2

Note that that second map includes both your source and destination,
so would be suitable for printing and looking at confused should you
be in London without a native guide.

- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


body:
On 08/01/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

> The Montagu Pyke is approximately here (red arrow):
>   http://streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=529855&y=181107&z=2

And I should note, the signup sheet is here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/London#Informal_socials

- d.


body:
On 07/01/07, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them
> being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next
> matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming
> them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take
> into account.

That's the stupidest thing I've yet heard of in this entire thing.

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] A quiet,
	peaceful email list for experienced en contributors?

body:
On 08/01/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

> Isn't that what the mailing list moderators are supposed to keep an eye on?

Nope! We just keep the rowdier kids from fouling the sandbox *too* much.

- d.


from_name: Thomas Dalton

subject: [WikiEN-l] I appeared to be banned from Wikipedia.

body:
> wikispeaker at gmail.com isn't Jimbo's email address...
>
> Or is there some underlying joke that I'm not getting because I'm
> unbelievably daft?

Also, Jimbo's grammer is better than that. Parts of that email were
almost completely incoherent, but I've never had any trouble
understanding Jimbo before...

Is this a joke by RCT or on RCT?


body:
>   I notice that lately this mailing list seems to be almost overrun
> with a lot of noise: complaints about blocking, diatribes about
> perceived wrongs, requests of various kinds. Whereas what I would
> really like is a place where the most committed and experienced
> Wikipedians can discuss more serious issues in a bit of depth: where
> the project is going, recurring problems at a more abstract level,
> general issues more distilled than "omg [[foo.com]] is so crap!" etc.

I think a fair bit of the complaining is by experienced editors. You'd
lose most of the more trivial "I've been blocked" emails, but that's
all, and those emails aren't hard to ignore.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

body:
What's the point of showing everyone the code? Are we afraid the owner is
going to abuse the bot?

Mgm

On 1/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/8/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I can imagine how that can be benefit; it'd allow for public auditing of
> the
> > code.
> >
> > Problem is, if you let everyone see it, you let EVERYONE see it -- even
> the
> > people who will take a look at it and figure out how to compromise the
> bot.
>
> Yup. Historical consensus is that the advantages outweigh the
> disadvantages. See [[Security through obscurity]].
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
Heresy!

On 1/8/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
>
> Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
> sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
> Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
> context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
> be born in, say, Upper Egypt?
>
> I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
> institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
> about institutions or organisations or individuals.
>
> Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
> to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
> tallies with the reality. --FN
>
> On 08/01/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that the AFD process tends
> to
> > attract people who are focused on keeping wikipedia "uncluttered" and
> > "relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete" and
> that's
> > that. You can present anything to the people at AFD, but its a systemic
> > habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite
> > suggestion.
> >
> > While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without
> > loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well
> > connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've
> > noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears
> our
> > pedia is being perceived as full of unverified internet rabble.
> >
> > -S
> --
> FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
On 08/01/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think a fair bit of the complaining is by experienced editors. You'd
> lose most of the more trivial "I've been blocked" emails, but that's
> all, and those emails aren't hard to ignore.

The best thing to do for wikien-l is to start more good threads.

- d.


subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
John McC wrote:

>I don't object to either oversight or arbitration (in
>fact I think both are necessary), but the format here
>is truly appalling. For one thing, the
>"plaintiff/defendant" structure is unnecessarily
>hostile, made even more so because it's really unclear
>who the plaintiffs and defendants are. Are we
>reviewing my block? Panic's behavior? If (as it seems)
>we are reviewing Panic's behavior, it seems a bit
>strange to name me as the "plaintiff": I'm not
>involved in an editorial dispute with Panic... my role
>has been as a mediator and later arbitrator of a
>dispute that's been going on for years without any
>previous arbitration of constructive mediation.
>
>Worse, this has devolved into what looks more like an
>inquisition than anything else.
>

What I've done here is turn this into a formal debate.  While prehaps we
can change the terms "plaintiff" and "defendant", the purpose here is to
allow everybody to air their concerns and grievences in a public manner
that can be reviewed later on by all parties involved, and by those
chared with oversight of this project, including other administrators,
stewards, and ultimately the WMF board of trustees.  Without this
information being collected, nobody can possibly really know what has
happened without a very tedious investigation.

A key part of this is also to "equalize" the situation between
administrator and registered user.  Normally an admin is sitting in a
very much stronger position, particularly when it gets to edit wars.  By
having a formal setting like this, everybody can spill their guts out
and try to explain what is going on without fear of reprisals from the
other parties involved.

This format also gives a cooling off of the issues at hand as well, as
it is completely removed from the content where the edit war is taking
place.  Far from being an inquisition, what this is trying to do is to
find the truth about what is going on.  It is also forcing the parties
involved to put to words their emotions, and try to stick to the facts
rather than wear their emotions on their sleeves.  This would only be
related to the [[w:Spanish Inquisition]] if it were set up in such a
manner that Panic had no opportunity to defend his actions at all, nor
allow those sympathetic to his point of view to support him.  Nor is
this a witch hunt to go after SB Johnny either.

While I intend to also add my opinion on this whole issue, what I'm
trying to do is allow the two parties involved to come up with a
concensus on the ultimate course of actions after they have said their
piece.  Only if there is a strong disgreement on the ultimate course of
action is a formal arbitration decision going to be made, and even that
is available to appeal and reversal.

If you have a reasonable alternative, I am willing to hear about it.
 Mind you, the reason why this seems like a judicial proceeding is
because that is a format that has worked to resolve political disputes
for litterally thousands of years, and is something I'm drawing upon to
help out in this situation.  I'm also trying deliberately to set this up
so that when it is ever invoked again, that it won't be taken lightly
and will be something that all parties will want to avoid if at all
possible.

>
>What we will suffer in the long term is an even
>stronger reticence on the part of administrators to
>get involved in content disputes (I for one will
>certainly say "no" next time around). This particular
>dispute had gone on unaddressed for far longer than it
>should have been, and while this arbitration might end
>up bringing a resolution to this particular issue,
>it's going to make it a lot harder to address the next
>one.
>
>
>--- Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
One huge problem that administrators face at all times when an edit war
is taking place is that we are also very much human.  It is very easy to
get caught up in the moment and "choose sides", in effect becoming a
party in the dispute rather than somebody who is seeking a resolution.
 You should be reluctant to try and get embroiled in such a manner.
 When it was requested that I try to come in and mediate this particular
issue, I felt it had reached the point that the more information method
of writing on the user talk page and trying to find a bit of middle
ground would have been completely ineffective and that going that route
would have put me in the position of being yet another voice in the
fight but no more.  And perhaps turning the fight from a mere edit war
to a full all out wheel war.

That is clearly something I want to avoid.

I hope that when all is said and done, that this will actually
strengthen the position of administrators, as it will give us an
additional "tool" to fall back upon when editorial disputes are starting
to get out of hand.  As an administrator, you can say "if you don't like
my suggestion, take it [[Wikibooks:Arbitration|here]] instead."
 Hopefully those who have a cool head will think twice about that
suggestion and try to resolve the issue first.

--
Robert Scott Horning


body:
On 08/01/07, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Nobody can deny the close relationship between Wikimedia and MediaWiki.
> Some might worry about Wikimedia taking control of MediaWiki,

Well, that's pretty much the de facto condition - it's software
written and actively developed almost entirely for one organisation,
that just happens to be open source and useful to lots of other
people.

OTOH, it's only good sense that getting outside users involved in
development will make for a better and more robust application.
Actively recruiting outside developers doing interesting stuff will
mean the weird and wonderful ideas can go in as extensions rather than
being separate forks.

(Remember the chitchat about "distributed MediaWiki"? Seen
http://www.wikileaks.org/ ? I've already written a note to one of the
devs strongly suggesting they participate in the mainstream of
MediaWiki development.)

[Mind you, I was sure this would be the case with Slash, which is of
industrial robustness ... but an exercise in pain to sysadmin. I want
to hurt it. Real bad. In the face.]

So the question becomes: What would or could Wikimedia being the
official (not just de facto) organisational umbrella do to or for
MediaWiki? Assuming things aren't actually broken right now, which it
appears from this thread is the case.

+ Legal backup in case of attacks from the querulous? Lots of
prominent free software has a legal backup these days. Though most of
the legal concern for Wikimedia is our content.
- Too many eggs in one basket
+ Express task of recruiting outside devs
- ... who then have to be herded by current devs

Please add more.

> which is
> amusing considering the amount of influence MediaWiki developers have over
> Wikimedia affairs. They have as much to fear from us as we do from them ;)

The cure for en:wp admin politics is to point out the devs have all
the REAL power ;-D

- d.


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Print stylesheet: Fixed font size hinders scaling

body:
On 1/8/07, Bernd vdB <bb_tech at kanka.de> wrote:
> Hello,
> after trying several other places I hope to find an open ear for this issue here.
> I stepped on this in the german wikipedia, but its the same in the english and
> probaly others:
>
> The stylesheet for printing is called via:
>   <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print"
> href="/skins-1.5/common/commonPrint.css?41" />
>
> Now for the mostly relevant style it contains a fixed font size:
>   #content { ..  font-size: 11pt; .. }
>
> The effect is that a print page can not be scaled prior to printing, as for
> example in Firefox.
> Fixed font size reduces the accessability and IMHO makes sense only for
> printing on fixed paper forms.
>
> The simple solution would be to replace the '11pt' with a percent or em-Value
> that renders similar in popular browsers, like '92%'.

That seems reasonable.  Any objections?


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> What's the point of demanding openness?

Because secrecy is detrimental to the project?  Because the code may be
useful as a basis for other processes?

> The script has had a test run, it
> works and it fulfills a need and on top of it all it's run by a trusted
> admin. It would be unanimously supported if it was a regular admin
> request.

Would it?  I couldn't possibly say that.  Furthermore, the "need" is only
partially demonstrated, in my mind.  The vandalism on the FA I had
requested for the front page might not be protected by this, and this bot
may not solve the problem, but merely adjust it.

> Seems overly bureaucratic to demand the code to be open source.

Oh, no, not "bureaucratic!"  Come on, seriously.

> One or
> more
> of the antivandal tools are also closed code to prevent vandals from
> abusing
> it and there hasn't been anyone questioning that yet.

It's not being run automatically as an administrative account.  Apples and
oranges.

-Jeff

--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.


from_name: Peter van Londen

body:
Hallo,
@Michael Snow 1: garbage has no place on Wikipedia, nor on something like
Fanpedia. I agree turning garbage into gold is not possible. OK, but the
question is if all the fancruft is garbage?
Turning garbage into gold has been a fantasy since the alchemists.
There's a reason it's a fantasy.
@Michael Snow 2: I like your idea of using templates for disputed content
for advertisements. But it would bring advertisements in all projects.
a) the consequence of this idea is that Wikimedia projects *should* have
advertising, and that the advertising should be used specifically to improve
the content.
b) Anything that is tagged as being disputed, controversial, needing
cleanup, unsourced, original research, vanity, or a host of other problems -
using one of the many such templates on the English Wikipedia, for example -
automatically gets advertising space added along with the tag.

@Waerth 1: it is not a way to get rid of fancruft from the Wikipedia: the
idea is a way to make money!! Fancruft is popular and therefor a project
like Fanpedia would have a kick-start. I am OK with another solution: like a
add-driven wine-encyclopedia, or an animal encyclopedia (allthough I hate to
loose that in wikipedia), or any other idea. Is is not focused just on
fancruft. I do invite you to start adding content on Wikipedia again.
And I am getting tired of the relatively very small group on NL. wikipedia
who try whatever they can to get these articles deleted. They have been
trying this for years. This proposal from them is in my opinion to xxxxth
attempt to accomplish this.
@Waerth 2: You are the only one advocating to join all sister-projects into
Wikipedia. I have never heard of anyone backing up that idea. Besides I
agree that the communities on other projects are not that big as on
Wikipedia, but 1) Wikipedia has a head start and 2) not everything needs to
be as successful as Wikipedia
@Waerth 3: I don't, I was asking for a feasibility of this project, before I
start-up a discussion which brings as nowhere, because it is not possible to
do.
If you want the Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it
amongst the
community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you on
this.
@GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of
money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and
even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a
compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does
sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to
back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but
because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of
the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the
community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation
or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further
if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by
working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do
so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate
matching donations.
My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and
the arguments
used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have
not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no
compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se,
I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to
continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions.
The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by
preventing the  corresponding need for funding
@GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome.
There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
wiggle any more.

I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which
could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside
the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical
opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language
to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to
find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.

So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not
backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds
are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.

Kind regards,
Londenp

> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Hallo,
@Michael Snow 1: garbage has no place on Wikipedia, nor on something like
Fanpedia. I agree turning garbage into gold is not possible. OK, but the
question is if all the fancruft is garbage?
Turning garbage into gold has been a fantasy since the alchemists.
There's a reason it's a fantasy.
@Michael Snow 2: I like your idea of using templates for disputed content
for advertisements. But it would bring advertisements in all projects.
a) the consequence of this idea is that Wikimedia projects *should* have
advertising, and that the advertising should be used specifically to improve
the content.
b) Anything that is tagged as being disputed, controversial, needing
cleanup, unsourced, original research, vanity, or a host of other problems -
using one of the many such templates on the English Wikipedia, for example -
automatically gets advertising space added along with the tag.

@Waerth 1: it is not a way to get rid of fancruft from the Wikipedia: the
idea is a way to make money!! Fancruft is popular and therefor a project
like Fanpedia would have a kick-start. I am OK with another solution: like a
add-driven wine-encyclopedia, or an animal encyclopedia (allthough I hate to
loose that in wikipedia), or any other idea. Is is not focused just on
fancruft. I do invite you to start adding content on Wikipedia again.
And I am getting tired of the relatively very small group on NL. wikipedia
who try whatever they can to get these articles deleted. They have been
trying this for years. This proposal from them is in my opinion to xxxxth
attempt to accomplish this.
@Waerth 2: You are the only one advocating to join all sister-projects into
Wikipedia. I have never heard of anyone backing up that idea. Besides I
agree that the communities on other projects are not that big as on
Wikipedia, but 1) Wikipedia has a head start and 2) not everything needs to
be as successful as Wikipedia
@Waerth 3: I don't, I was asking for a feasibility of this project, before I
start-up a discussion which brings as nowhere, because it is not possible to
do.
If you want the Dutch project to be a guinea-pig better first discuss it
amongst the
community, instead of assuming the nl: projects will blindly follow you on
this.
@GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of
money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and
even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a
compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does
sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to
back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but
because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of
the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the
community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation
or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further
if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by
working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do
so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate
matching donations.
My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and
the arguments
used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have
not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no
compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se,
I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to
continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions.
The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by
preventing the  corresponding need for funding
@GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome.
There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
wiggle any more.

I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which
could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside
the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical
opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language
to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to
find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.

So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not
backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds
are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.

Kind regards,
Londenp

> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
I don't think it would be a grave error, but our opinions about this do not
matter. There are people who do think its heresy.

Because these people are so focused on notability and reduction of error,
these like minds collect at AFD/Speedy delete. Since Wikipedia is a
volunteer effort, people will gravitate towards jobs which fulfill their
particular passion. So, I think this rule explains why deletionists are
attracted to AFD as a hangout.

Its kind of like the tenant here in American law (and probably elsewhere)
that says its better to let 100 guilty people free than to send 1 innocent
person to jail. However, the inverse of this is true at AFD.

In the west, where something like an Oral tradition/history is so foreign to
us its not hard for us to write it off as hearsay, non-notable, even gossip.
And yet any random thing that our news media decides to attend to for the
minute becomes instantly notable. There's no way to appeal this because its
just what Wikipedia has become. At the very least I hope this discussion is
generating rhetoric for you to use in AFD debates against deletionists. It
sounds like a lot of very wonderful things are being lost.

-S

On 1/8/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
>
> Hmmm... some interesting issues being raised below. Just for argument
> sake: what happens if an "un-notable" entry makes it to Wikipedia?
> Would it be a grave error? Notability, after all, is mostly related to
> context. Would Shakespeare have been as "noted" a writer, if he had to
> be born in, say, Upper Egypt?
>
> I think the problem lies elsewhere. The trouble is: people or
> institutions being packaged to be what they are not. Or bloated claims
> about institutions or organisations or individuals.
>
> Rather than just delete entries for being un-notable, perhaps we need
> to find ways to ensure that what's written is both accurate and
> tallies with the reality. --FN
>
> On 08/01/07, Steve <subsume at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe this is a rookie opinion, but I think that the AFD process tends
> to
> > attract people who are focused on keeping wikipedia "uncluttered" and
> > "relevant". They're always going to "err on the side of delete" and
> that's
> > that. You can present anything to the people at AFD, but its a systemic
> > habit. Those aren't just going to undo because of one person's polite
> > suggestion.
> >
> > While I happen to think deletionists could be restrained greatly without
> > loss to Wikipedia (since the articles they're deleting are hardly well
> > connected and widely viewed), I'm just one opinion. Over the years I've
> > noticed a kind of institutional insecurity grow in Wikipedia, over fears
> our
> > pedia is being perceived as full of unverified internet rabble.
> >
> > -S
> --
> FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Abigail Brady

subject: [WikiEN-l] yay, we got to be in Pseuds Corner

body:
(for those not in the know, see [[Private Eye]].  they run a column
dedicating to pseudointellectual waffling spotted by readers)

Apparently at some point we had this paragraph about [[Robbie Williams]]

"WIlliams' lyrics emphasize the philosophic concepts of objective
reality, reason, rational egoism and laissez-faire capitalism, while
attacking what he sees as the irrationality and immorality of
altruism, collectivism and communism ..."

It's not there now.  Can't find it in edit history, but it was clearly
there at some point 'cos answers.com have this in their copy.

--
Abi


body:
My are these slopes slippery this time of year. And me without my sled.

-S

On 1/8/07, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's a big hypothetical - if he had been born there, how much and what
> would he have written? Having somehting un-notable may not be a grave
> error,
> but having thousands of un-notable things clogs Wikipedia, makes
> fact-checking harder and opens the doors wide to usage of Wikipedia for
> advertisement.
>
>


subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
Andrew Whitworth wrote:

>> I know Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, but the policies simply
>> havn't been established at all for Wikibooks on this topic.
>
>
> If this case wasn't happening, what do you think are the odds that the
> wikibooks community would accept an Arbcom, or create a policy on the
> matter? If you look through the list of rejected policies (you can
> find them on [[WB:PAG]]) you will see that the community has already
> rejected a proposed creation of a mediation committee (which is far
> less imposing then an arbitration committee). Using arbitration in
> this case is essentially an attempt to shotgun the creation of such a
> mechanism into practice, when the community at large generally doesnt
> need or want it.
>
Part of the reason for the rejection was that so many policies have been
discussed, that many people (myself included) felt that we didn't need
to create more policies just for the sake of having policies.  The
arbitration policy that was originally proposed was quite complicated.
 I'm still not sure if Wikibooks has enough users to justify a full
standing ArbCom at the moment, although there do appear to be enough
administrators who are active that such an ad-hoc group could be put
together if the situation is warrented.  The final wording of the policy
at [[Wikibooks:Ad hoc administration committee]] is more common sense
anyway, and not necessarily something that needs to be stated as a
formal policy in order to be effective.

BTW, this is a far cry from the position we had on Wikibooks about a
year and a half ago, when there was effectively only a single active
administrator for the whole project.  That we are talking about
administrators with significant differences of opinions here and
multiple admins, with users who aren't even administrators but are none
the less very active Wikibookians is a very pleasant situation to be in
all around.  [[Special:Log/rights]] shows a huge growth of Wikibooks
from the prespective that we are finally able to get some decent
infrastructure into the Wikibooks project that has been been missing
from when it first started.

Wikibooks is also growing to the point that I don't necessarily know
each of the active users that are now participating.  The days of
reading the recent changes log just to see if anybody cared to
contribute to Wikibooks are now over.  That is now a firehose of
information.

--
Robert Scott Horning


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
> From: Gurch <matthew.britton at btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:15:29 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>>
>>> From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 23:39:46 +0800
>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>>>
>>> And for userlogin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin should
>>> work.
>>
>> I just tried to log in, but the button is partially covered by the overlay &
>> won't activate.
>>
>> Marc
>>> On 08/01/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge
>>>>
>>>> Does that work?
>>
>> No, the Globe, etc. is still superimposed, blocking access to everything
>> else.
>>>> On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "NSLE (Wikipedia)" <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org >
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:12:46 +0800
>>>>>> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [[Special:Userlogin]] is the link to log-in. Try clearing your browser
>>>>>> cache/purging the page.
>>>>> I'm afraid this couldn't have happened to a worse person when it comes
>>>>> to
>>>>> computer understanding. I am completely dependent on my technical
>>>>> support
>>>>> guy and he is away at a conference right now. So your instructions will
>>>>> need
>>>>> to be simpler. I really am sorry about this, and I appreciate any help
>>>>> you
>>>>> can give me. This is a first with WP for me. What does clear my browser
>>>>> cache/purging the page mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Marc
>
> How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin?useskin=nostalgia
>
> -Gurch

Yes! Using the link you gave I was able to do a successful log in. But the
damned overlay is still there, and I don't have access to the top row of
buttons such as my Watch List, etc.

Thanks

Marc
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

body:
On 1/7/07, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> However, the decision to not have the firm a matching donor was more
> technical. They will not be called matching donor, but they will still
> give a hand. So there is no loss of support.
>

Just because they're going to give us money doesn't mean that they're going
to give as much money as we otherwise would have gotten. The stats show
that, on days where there were notices that announced matching donations,
there was a clear uptick in donations. Without matching donations, there are
very few donations at all. The amount donated per day has been going
steadily downward, and now we're getting only a fraction of what we were
getting during the time when the anonymous person was matching donations.
See http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2007/1 and
http://fundraising.wikimedia.org/en/fundcore/browse/2006/12


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2007/1/8, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net>:

> This is unfortunately not just a problem on the English wikipedia but in
> the Dutch one as well. and I would think in many other big language
> editions. As soon as something isn't covered by google people
> unfortunately assume it isn't notable :( .
>

Then  again, where's the alternative? I can remember you making a big case
of this on the Dutch Wikipedia once. Tracking things down, in all
probability you had been reverting the removal of vandalism on the basis of
it.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
On 1/8/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't know where else to turn for input on this. I closed out of Wikipedia
> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it and
> the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections are
> superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in or other
> such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and got the same
> thing.
>
> Is anyone else experiencing this? How can I fix it?

First of all: please upgrade to the latest version of IE if possible.
Many modern Web features are not supported by IE5.  I will fix this
mistake immediately, but other website authors might not be so quick
to respond.  Not many website authors have IE5 installed to test with.

Second of all: this is an error on my part.  I changed the format of
the Monobook stylesheet to add better support for handhelds, but
unfortunately the way I chose to do so was problematic for very old
browsers.  I'll fix it now.  It might be an hour or two until this is
fixed on-site.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Hoi,
> @GerardM 1: You want advertisements on all projects to generate a lot of
> money. Some persons have stated on this list: they want no advertising and
> even no sponsoring (when we visually thank them). This proposal is a
> compromise. It is like Swiss politics: a proposal from the center does
> sometimes not have a chance to be accepted, because the left don't want to
> back up that idea and also the right don't want to back up that idea, but
> because of totally different reasons: the result is stagnation until one of
> the forces becomes so strong that they win, leaving a big part of the
> community with a bad feeling. A compromise is aimed at a win-win situation
> or at least a partly satisfied feeling. And yes I would compromise further
> if needed, allthough I have no clue why the growth would be prevented by
> working on this proposal, we also have a resources problem: you can only do
> so much. I want to make clear I did not sabotage and in fact do advocate
> matching donations.
> My problem with the whole argumentation against "advertisements" and
> the arguments
> used by the people who sabotaged the fundraiser is that they do not, have
> not come up with any believable alternatives. I have been asked is there no
> compromise .. My answer to that is that I do not want advertisement per se,
> I want enough funding for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to be able to
> continue to grow. For a compromise there is a need to water down positions.
> The question is therefore: are you willing to sacrifice our growth by
> preventing the  corresponding need for funding
>
For the record: I have no doubt that you did not sabotage the fund-raiser.

When you ask me do I want advertisements, then the answer is no. When
you ask me "am I willing to sacrifice our growth by preventing the
corresponding need for funding" then I do not know what you mean because
We ARE growing and this results in a need for funding and we are NOT
investing where it is most needed. We need to invest more in the
languages where we do not have an organisational presence. It is for
this reason that I am glad that our Wikimania 2007 will be in Taiwan,
you will appreciate that I would not mind it to be in Nairobi next year
and Brazil the year after. I would be glad to prevent growth where it is
least needed. This would be the English Wikipedia but the problem is
that you cannot prevent this growth. I would not advise anyone to try to
limit this growth because the backlash would be phenomenal.

Where you say: "you can only do so much", I agree. The problem is that
you propose a project that is not viable as a consequence. Personally I
expect that you can not make a community in the way you propose. I want
you to be realistic. How would you limit the growth, what will be the
consequences. We have an overstretched organisation it is not rocket
science to understand that the sheer amount of work will only grow.
People are organising themselves to get functional Wikipedias for
Africa. There are NGOs paying money for the translation of Wikipedia
content to other Wikipedias. You do not have a clue how the tsunami of
our growth is continuing. You cannot put your finger in the dike and
prevent this from flooding you.

The fact that we are struggling with the notion of advertisement is
exactly what is preventing a lot of cooperation with organisations. Even
not for profit organisations and universities welcome to be publicly
thanked. It makes a difference to them. Many people confuse saying
"thank you" with advertising. Many people think that our editorial
freedom will be compromised when we give in to the demands of others.
Hell, we have situations where our content is completely removed because
of legal reasons. We have to cope with what others think and want
already. The question that was not asked is: do you really think that
the Foundation can stop people writing as they do? Do you have a notion
what would happen if our editorial independence was compromised?? You
will find me on the barricades when that happens !!

> @GerardM2: Here is a fair argument, which might not be overcome.
> There is another reason why the proposal will not work. In the current
> Wikipedia projects we have some latitude when we have a picture that is
> a copyvio and bring it as part of what people call "fair use". When we
> explicitly have these fan sites to make money, there is no room to
> wiggle any more.
>
> I have tried to expand on the ideas living in the Dutch community, which
> could generate cash and would compromise for the different fractions inside
> the communities. The answers here are in fact not-backed-up theoretical
> opinions; I would like to work with a pilot-project on a ''small'' language
> to see if it would work and what we can expect from it. It is very easy to
> find reasons why something will not work, it is the easiest way.
>
> So, alas, forget about the idea behind Fanpedia, it seems this is not
> backed-up by you all, and please do expand on the idea of Michael Snow: Adds
> are introduced to work on improving the Wikipedia-content.
Adds would be introduced to work on improving the WikiMedia-content !!!

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> I don't know where else to turn for input on this. I closed out of Wikipedia
> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it and
> the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections are
> superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in or other
> such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and got the same
> thing.
> Is anyone else experiencing this? How can I fix it?
> Help!

Works For Me. What web browser were you using? Does it look okay in a
different one?

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
> From: Simetrical <Simetrical+wikienl at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:01:59 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>
> On 1/8/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>> I don't know where else to turn for input on this. I closed out of Wikipedia
>> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it and
>> the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections are
>> superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in or other
>> such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and got the same
>> thing.
>>
>> Is anyone else experiencing this? How can I fix it?
>
> First of all: please upgrade to the latest version of IE if possible.
> Many modern Web features are not supported by IE5.  I will fix this
> mistake immediately, but other website authors might not be so quick
> to respond.  Not many website authors have IE5 installed to test with.
>
> Second of all: this is an error on my part.  I changed the format of
> the Monobook stylesheet to add better support for handhelds, but
> unfortunately the way I chose to do so was problematic for very old
> browsers.  I'll fix it now.  It might be an hour or two until this is
> fixed on-site.
>
Thank you very much for the explanation. In the world of computers I am very
much in awe of the experts.

Thanks again,

Marc Riddell
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
On 1/8/07, Silas Snider <swsnider at gmail.com> wrote:
> One problem -- Microsoft has stopped supporting internet explorer on
> the mac at all and has removed all download links from their site.

Then switch to a new browser.  Again, as long as any significant
number of people are using IE5 we'll support it, but for your own sake
you (Mr. Riddell) shouldn't use such an outdated browser.

On 1/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Browser sniff and graceful degrade?

That would be a possibility: we have a file for IE5 fixes.  However,
browser-sniffing means ignoring browsers you don't know about, and
while Gabriel Wicke might have a comprehensive list of what browsers
only support CSS1 and how to sniff all of them, I don't.  I'm just
separating the handheld and the screen/projection rules into separate
files.  Quite irritating from a maintainability perspective, but no
help for it.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Marathi localisation

body:
Hoi,
I received this e-mail as a reply to a blog entry. Could someone please
help our Marathi speaking community by making sure that Marathi (mr) is
a language that is supported in MediaWiki. I do not have a clue where
the best localisation effort can be found. Probably on the
mr.wikipedia.org. I also do not have a good contact for you..

Thanks,
      GerardM

Mahitgar schreef:
> Dear GerardM,
> Thanks, you took note of Developments in Marathi Wiktionary.I work at
> Marathi Wikipedia too,majior localisation of MediaWiki is going on, in
> a special project meant for same.
>
> I am not a technical person , but still wanted to help localisation at
> MediaWiki,I did a little touring there to find if I can transalate
> some interface there , but I did not find any facility for non
> technical persons there.Then lot of simmillerly named projects
> Mediawiki,Wikimedia and so on kept confusing me more as I tried to
> understand more.
>
> Again I have some unanswered questons in my mind ,like pace of
> wikimedia software development is faster than the pace of our
> translations ,so every time a new version comes we will start a new
> marathon which we know we are slow at running.
>
> On Marathi Wiktionary,I did localisation to take care of minimum level
> for immidaiate needs.
>
> Another thing ,at Omegawiki as a new visitor I could not browse
> Marathi entries comfortably enough , neither purpose of simmiller wiki
> was clear to me.
> I hope over a time peiod I can understand omegawiki better
> .I use the same user name at Marathi Wikipedia.
> Thanks again and Happy new year to you!
> -mahitgar
>
> --
> Posted by Mahitgar to Words and what not
> <http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2006/12/statistics.html> at
> 1/08/2007 08:58:15 AM


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Request for usage statistics

body:
Anyone got ideas on this?

- d.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Junde Yu <junde2 at gmail.com>
Date: 07-Jan-2007 19:36
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for usage statistics
To: wikitech-l at wikipedia.org

Hi Everyone,

I would like to request for some usage and participation statistics from
Wikipedia. I am a student from Singapore working on my thesis on online
knowledge sharing and contribution with a particular focus on Singapore.

Wikipedia is a shining example of online knowledge sharing and
collaboration. I would like to know the amount of traffic to Wikipedia from
Singapore (can be filtered by IP), and what is the percentage of lurkers vs
contributors. If possible, I would like such statistics for a few more
notable countries for comparison.

I have obtained some statistics (http://www.nedworks.org/~mark/reqstats/)
from an administrator, but i don't understand the notations and i think it's
only general statistics, not sorted by physical location.
My purpose is to back my hypothesis that users from Singapore and generally
Asia, contribute less by metrics of the ration of lurkers against
contributors/wikipedians. My thesis aims to analyse such a situation and
suggest recommendations.
I hope this request is not too much of a hassle. I am a honours student in
Communications and Media from the National Unviersity of Singapore (
www.nus.edu.sg). I can also be contacted at junde at nus.edu.sg

Thank You & Regards,
Yu Junde
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Brion Vibber

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

Bernd vdB wrote:
> Now for the mostly relevant style it contains a fixed font size:
>   #content { ..  font-size: 11pt; .. }
>
> The effect is that a print page can not be scaled prior to printing, as for
> example in Firefox.

Could you please describe how one "scales prior to printing"?

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFoq5wwRnhpk1wk44RAkhKAKDfr0pAdmv+hPOVykLwv18m8dQYUgCfSvWl
0bu5EJvGO9scEzdUatUm2As=
=UaEo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote

> Isn't that what the mailing list moderators are supposed to keep an eye on?

I'm all for much more pro-active moderation here (previous comments of mine). That would be better than a new list, IMO. But as I'm not prepared to moderate in that fashion I have no immediate solution to 'noise'. (I used to killfile several people, which helped quite a lot.)

Charles

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


from_name: bbatsell

subject: [WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

body:
On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:30 AM, Jeff Raymond wrote:

> Because secrecy is detrimental to the project?  Because the code
> may be
> useful as a basis for other processes?

As has been said numerous times, any trusted user has access to the
code.  Anonymous people, whose purposes can't be determined, do not.
Feel free to e-mail Dragons flight for the code.

> Would it?  I couldn't possibly say that.  Furthermore, the "need"
> is only
> partially demonstrated, in my mind.  The vandalism on the FA I had
> requested for the front page might not be protected by this, and
> this bot
> may not solve the problem, but merely adjust it.

I have no idea what that means; this bot protects all templates and
images transcluded on the [[Main Page]].  That's it.  It doesn't
protect articles linked to the front page or anything of that sort ?
it simply handles the extraordinarily tedious process of going
through every template used on the front page, checking every
template to see if *it* has any templates that need to be protected,
copying transcluded images from Commons, protecting them, then
unprotecting the templates that are off the front page and requesting
deletion of the copied images (it doesn't perform any deletions itself).

These steps are so tedious and error-prone that we have screwed up
numerous times already, and that has been exploited.  I'm not sure
how many more times we can allow pictures of cleft penii or vaginal
sores ON OUR FRONT PAGE without losing tremendous amounts of
credibility.


from_name: dmehkeri at swi.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Jeez (ANI)

body:
> > > I hadn't had time to read ANI for the last 3 days, and just went and
> > > started catching up.
> > >
> > > It's not just me; everyone's pissed off and behaving badly right now.
> > >
> > > We should put en.wikipedia on a one-week cooldown edit freeze....
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No that is just normal WP:AN/I.
>
> No, it's not.
>
> It's been worse, but it's pretty bad right now.
>
> Longtime experienced contributors / admins are going at it with each
> other over what are fundamentally pretty trivial incidents.
>

So then put just them on an edit freeze.

IP/new account only day. I wonder what would happen.

Dan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionism

body:
No, a top-poster is someone who posts really well. Are you Wikipedia's Next Top
Poster?

>
> What's a top-poster? A person who posts above all the stuff beneath it?
>
> On 1/5/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> >
> > On 5 Jan 2007 at 06:09, "James Hare" <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We really should stop throwing that word "trolling" around... it can be
> > very
> > > offensive towards those who mean well.
> > [top-posting trimmed]
> >
> > I suggest making "top-poster" the new universal insult of choice.


from_name: Andrew Whitworth

subject: [Textbook-l] Wikibook User Arbitration

body:
I prefer not to do this, but for clarity I will discuss some points
individually.

>While
>I may agree that this edit war is getting out of hand, the justification
>for performing a user block is definitely one of a grey area rather than
>something as clear cut as Johnny seems to be implying here.

It may be difficult to see it in hindsight, but as these things were
happening, there was certainly plenty of rationale to go around. People had
looked to me originally to perform the block myself (I was deemed neutral to
the issue), and I refused initially because there was no precedence nor
policy on this matter

>The more I started to dig into reviewing Johnny's actions, and to see
>explicitly what exactly Panic did, the more confusing to me that it
>became.  In addition, apparently some very heated exchanged happened on
>IRC that have tainted this whole process and precipitated some of this
>action, independent of what was actually done on Wikibooks.  While I can
>appreciate some individuals being offended by a particular user due to
>some very crass and pointed remarks on IRC, that by itself doesn't
>justify a user block on the Wiki as a result of those heated exchanges.

As a matter of clarification, Panic never came onto IRC (as far as I know),
and all the discussion in the chat room was between SBJohnny, Darklama, and
myself. There were no logs on these discussions, but I can attest that they
centered around us discussing panic, and determining whether a block was
warranted. We discussed the matter at length, and it was a collective
decision to block him. I mention these IRC chats only to show that proper
forethought and discussion went into the matter before the blocks occured,
and that it wasnt a rash decision by SBJohnny.

>I know Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, but the policies simply
>havn't been established at all for Wikibooks on this topic.

If this case wasn't happening, what do you think are the odds that the
wikibooks community would accept an Arbcom, or create a policy on the
matter? If you look through the list of rejected policies (you can find them
on [[WB:PAG]]) you will see that the community has already rejected a
proposed creation of a mediation committee (which is far less imposing then
an arbitration committee). Using arbitration in this case is essentially an
attempt to shotgun the creation of such a mechanism into practice, when the
community at large generally doesnt need or want it.

>More to the point, I just want to know what is going on.  Simply logs
>like the block log and page move log (apparently one justification for a
>user block) doesn't seem to from my viewpoint provide justification or a
>clear explaination for what has happened.  It is for this reason and
>others that I simply requested some additional information.  Based on
>IRC chats I've had with Johnny, there did seem to be a strong motive for
>the block, but it wasn't apparent right away.

I can understand this, even with all the history pages and archives and
whatever, it can still be very difficult to follow a wiki-discussion from
beginning to end. Unfortunately, the problem with Panic is very old, and
extends very far back into the history trail. It was only brought to light
with Darklama's problems, and those alone almost dont warrant a block.
However, given his history and his actions with Darklama and James Bennett
(being the two most recent), a block seemed warranted. Darklama probably
knows most about this.

>BTW, some comments here seem to imply that we should (seemingly) always
>accept what the other admins are doing.  It is one of the key
>responsibilities of administrators to police each other, and make sure
>we aren't stepping over the line.  I have been critical in the past of
>the actions of some administrators, although in the case of Johnny I've
>never had any real cause to have concern in the past.  Certainly in this
>situation it needed to be reviewed.

I'm sure you're referring to my comments, so let me elaborate. En.wikibooks
is one of the most strict projects in terms of the creation and maintenance
of admins. I know we've received lots of criticism from people because of
our policies. to become an admin on our project recently, candidates must be
nothing less then vandal-fighting, content-contributing supermen. These are
people who are, i think, worthy of some trust.

Beyond that, the current admin staff forms a pretty tight-knit group, and we
do tend to discuss actions among one another in advance. A little planning
in this manner reduces our need to police actions, because we have already
agreed on most actions that occur. To reiterate, several of us discussed the
Panic block before it happened, and we all tended to agree on the matter.

Sorry for the long email.

--Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)

_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place! ?MSN Shopping
Sales & Deals
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639


from_name: RCTLocoWikiSpam

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wiki violation that did NOT happen, man!

body:
As they didn't request any unblocking, I get a message that sayd "This user
is no longer a member of Wikipedia." They said it's against Wikipedia policy
to remove any semi-protected tags while still protected in this park as the
Wikipedia police still have not got back to me about my so call wiki
violation in the park.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wiki-violation-that-did-NOT-happen%2C-man%21-tf2942098.html#a8226587
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body: This should now be fixed.  Please confirm.


from_name: Bernd vdB

body:
Hello,
after trying several other places I hope to find an open ear for this issue here.
I stepped on this in the german wikipedia, but its the same in the english and
probaly others:

The stylesheet for printing is called via:
  <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print"
href="/skins-1.5/common/commonPrint.css?41" />

Now for the mostly relevant style it contains a fixed font size:
  #content { ..  font-size: 11pt; .. }

The effect is that a print page can not be scaled prior to printing, as for
example in Firefox.
Fixed font size reduces the accessability and IMHO makes sense only for
printing on fixed paper forms.

The simple solution would be to replace the '11pt' with a percent or em-Value
that renders similar in popular browsers, like '92%'.

There are other issues with commonPrint.css (like: why should it not be
appropriate to have the Wikipedia logo on a printed Wikipedia page?), so as a
second step I would propose an option in the user parameters "Turn off
specialized stylesheet for printing".

But let us clarify the fixed font issue first.

Greetings
// Bernd


from_name: Earle Martin

body:
On 08/01/07, Abigail Brady <morwen at evilmagic.org> wrote:
> Apparently at some point we had this paragraph about [[Robbie Williams]]
>
> "WIlliams' lyrics emphasize the philosophic concepts of objective
> reality, reason, rational egoism and laissez-faire capitalism, while
> attacking what he sees as the irrationality and immorality of
> altruism, collectivism and communism ..."
>
> It's not there now.  Can't find it in edit history, but it was clearly
> there at some point 'cos answers.com have this in their copy.

Added by an anon IP in October:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robbie_Williams&diff=81520020&oldid=81510722

"Leave this sort of crap to the Guardian", someone has commented on
their talk page. :)

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


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
Are you using a full screen window? What is your browser and its version?

Mgm

On 1/8/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I don't know where else to turn for input on this. I closed out of
> Wikipedia
> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it and
> the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections are
> superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in or other
> such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and got the same
> thing.
>
> Is anyone else experiencing this? How can I fix it?
>
> Help!
>
> Marc Riddell
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Bennett [mailto:stevagewp at gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2007 11:06 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] A quiet,	peaceful email list for experienced en contributors?
>
>Hi all,
>  I notice that lately this mailing list seems to be almost overrun
>with a lot of noise: complaints about blocking, diatribes about
>perceived wrongs, requests of various kinds. Whereas what I would
>really like is a place where the most committed and experienced
>Wikipedians can discuss more serious issues in a bit of depth: where
>the project is going, recurring problems at a more abstract level,
>general issues more distilled than "omg [[foo.com]] is so crap!" etc.
>
>Is there such a list, or place to talk? Is there interest in creating one?
>
>There is certainly a need for the current list, to allow such
>day-to-day discussions to take place, but somewhere to escape the
>noise and engage in a bit of deeper reflection would be nice.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Steve

Good idea. Such an invitation only list, provided games are not being played with the invitations (fat chance) would return some part of the serious discussion now being conducted on private lists such as the arbcom list to the community. However if the usual spammers are still here, what would be the point. A problem there, as some of those whose posts I always delete consider themselves valuable contributors to the conversation.

Fred


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
> From: Simetrical <Simetrical+wikienl at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:16:29 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Help!
>
> This should now be fixed.  Please confirm.

Yes!! It is working fine now. Thank you very much for your patience and your
tolerance. I do realize, now, how outdated the version of Internet Explorer
I'm using is. I can also see where it could prove to be a real pain in the
ass for developers like yourself who are trying to constantly upgrade the
system. I'm really sorry about that. I'm planning to do something about it
soon.

Thank you again,

Marc Riddell
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] [WikiEN-l] Help!

body:
On 1/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/01/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm in full screen. I'm using Internet Explorer, 5.1. This just
> > happened overnight! I've been working in Wikipedia for over a year now.
>
>
> On a Mac, right? Do you have Firefox, Safari or Camino installed? Does
> it do the same in any of those?
>
> (It's possible a subtle CSS change on the front page has messed things
> up in IE Mac 5.1.)
>
> (cc'ing to wikitech-l. Original problem: "I closed out of Wikipedia
> last evening - everything was fine. This morning, I tried to access it
> and the entire page is a mess. The WP Globe and contents selections
> are superimposed over the page, and I don't have access to the log-in
> or other such buttons. I tried to access WP via a Google search, and
> got the same thing.")

This has been fixed.  Bloody CSS1 browsers.


from_name: Frederick Noronha

body:
Hi all, Thank you all for your patience. I'm not being difficult here,
but just feel I need to explain how things work in this part of the
globe.... not always logically!

Okay, I'm as Indian as they come... my unusual name is because I'm
from Goa, the former Portuguese colony.

My wager is that en.wikipedia.org would be far, far more
representative of India than, say hi.wikipedia.org Sad but true. And
there are reasons for that.

Have you seen the way Indians interact with themselves? If meeting
outside the North Indian belt, there's a good chance they  (we?) would
be taking to each other in English. There are just so much diversity
here, that like it or not, English often serves as a link language.

Added to this, many of the Wikipedia contributors would be
college/university-educated types, often more comfortable to express
ideas in English than, say, in an Indian language. I've made hundreds
of edits in English
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fredericknoronha]
but am litterally struggling to get a Konkani Wikipedia going (Konkani
is India's smallest "national" languages, with between 1.5 to 5
million speakers, depending whose estimates one accepts).

On 08/01/07, Roberto Alfonso <rpgrca at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Personally, I prefer to prod articles with notability asserted but no way
> to verify that. In these "cases", I also check if the Wikipedia in the
> language related to the article (in this case, hi.wikipedia.org) has an
> entry about this topic.
>
> I haven't, but maybe I should suggest creating an article in the user's
> native language. In the same way as a Google test fails, an AFD may also
> fail due the inability of users to check the claims.
>
> Oh, once I even posted a note at WikiProject India to get some feedback
> about Mair Rajputs :-)
>
> Roberto / ReyBrujo
>
> On 1/7/07, Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> wrote:
> > Hi all, I'm from India, a contributor to the Wikipedia. In recent
> > times, the 'mortality' of new Wikipedia entries seems to be higher
> > than usual. While one can understand the need for abundant caution,
> > it's also important to allow for a diversity of concerns and issues in
> > this space.
> >
> > Should we presume that because an initiative is not very visible in
> > cyberspace (okay, we are under-digitised societies!) that it is not
> > prominent or noteworthy? See as one example:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikalp This is a campaign against
> > censorship of documentary film in India, one which has the
> > participation of about 250 documentary film-makers.
> >
> > There must be some way out. Your suggestions would be welcome. FN
> > --
> > FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
> > http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com
> > http://www.goa-india.org http://feeds.goa-india.org/index.php

--
FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please)
http://fn.goa-india.org  http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com


from_name: Łukasz Garczewski

body:
On 1/8/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/07, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll add that some people wrote to Virgin United to complain about them
> > being matching donors. I wonder if they will do the same with all next
> > matching donators, maybe even going as far as trying to publicly shaming
> > them for being matching donors. This will be certainly something to take
> > into account.
>
> That's the stupidest thing I've yet heard of in this entire thing.

Not only that, that's one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of
during my years in this organization and community.

The effects could go far beyond this fund-raiser and the issue of ads
vs. no ads, beyond even the issue of matching donations. Think,
people! Virgin Unite is a *BIG*, international charity. Do you think
they don't have contacts with other similar charities? If somebody
from one of these other organizations comes to them and asks "How did
you do with the matching donations thing? I saw your logo." they'll
say "Well... We got flamed."

Not only that, Virgin might have been considering normal donations on
a regular basis. Or a whole lot of other things to do in cooperation
with WMF.

Nice going, people. You've probably set us back a mile or so.

--
?ukasz 'TOR' Garczewski


from_name: Jeff Raymond

subject: [WikiEN-l] New bot up for RFA

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> That's why I don't understand some people are uncomfortable with it.
> It does something simple and it's not dangerous what exactly do they feel
> is
> so scary that the code needs to be released?

For me, it's exactly this kind of dismissive attitude about it.  "Trust
us, it does what it says.  Why do you need to know?"

-Jeff