from_name: Robert Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 06/04/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 1.2) Pre-*s*election
>> We could state extra conditions to become candidate. For instance, you
>> need 25 or 50 supports of your candidature by different Wikimedians
>> with >1000 edits and 9 months experience on one project. Just for
>> instance, the numbers can easily be changed. It's about the idea.
>> Every serious candidate should be able to get these endorsements, and
>> the candidates who won't state any chance, wont get these
>> endorsements. Disadvantage is that you won't be able to foresee how
>> many candidates there will be. Another disadvantage is that you will
>> have bureaucratic problems with the checking of the endorsements.
>>
>
>
> This sounds a good way to weed out any hopeless candidates. Can anyone
> see a downside to this one?
>
>
> - d.
>

For myself, if I were to suggest another alternative, is to try and go
with Instant run-off voting

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting

In other words, there is more than one way to try and weed down a large
number of candidates to just a few.  Particularly in this case when
there is going to be a great many candidates for several offices.  I
will also point out that there are advantages and disadvantages of
almost any election system, and no single method is really ideal.  The
main point is that the system needs to be in place and firm before
anything happens.

I would also try to suggest that multiple rounds of voting are as likely
to turn people off as anything else.  Some people just love to vote on
nearly everything possible, but for something this serious we shouldn't
be appealing to just that kind of Wikimedia user.  I'm referring here to
things like the picture of the day/week/month/year or other similar
kinds of contests that regularly use voting.

As far as why I support instant run-off votes:  It allows you to rank
your preferences instead of merely casting votes.  Far too often in
things like logo decisions (look at the failed example of the "new"
Wikibooks logo that has been rejected by all but fi.wikibooks... and
expressly rejected by en.wikibooks) end up with only the most tolerable
of a minority, where a few leading candidates come forward out of
mediocrity but others who might have made a stronger concensus are
rejected.  Multiple rounds merely test the patience of both voters and
the candidates.  Certainly two rounds isn't too bad on this end, but it
does require double the work to put it together compared to just one
round of voting.

Even this sort of pre-screening that is suggested here is just another
way to put an extra round into the voting process.  There certainly
should be some eligibility rules (as there has been in the past) that
would require disclosure of your name, nationality, and age (needed for
legal purposes if you actually are elected).  Not everybody would want
to do this, and that is also understandable.  The screening should
involve some sort of verification of this identity.  As far as getting
some public supporters/endorsements of a particular candidate, I would
be wary of sock puppets and other gaming that could happen, but it does
sound like a way to demonstrate viability.  This whole thing is a
popularity contest of a sort anyway, and signing for viability doesn't
mean you will actually vote for them in the election itself.


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] elections


list: wikitech-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
On 06/04/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think syntax checking is a desired feature, ... but having a
> grammar which is well defined enough that changes can be made without
> breaking dependencies on unexpected aspects of our behavior would be
> very desirable. ... but doing so without breaking compatibility with
> the existing syntax is probably impossible.

It should be definable slowly if we work out just what the breakages
will be and set bots loose to fix them.

Or just break them, *then* let bots loose to fix them.

- d.


list: wikien-l

from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Any Chicago Wikipedians... WP:ANI report of suicidal
	Wikipedian

body:
If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
we have a user who threatened suicide.  Someone should notify Chicago
PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
them.

If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...

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


body:
On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I'm a horrible person, because after I headed over to their userpage
> after reading the discussion on ANI and saw the massive sign:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540
>
> stating their intentions, I cracked up laughing. I doubt this person is a
> serious risk, however, I suppose we should try and contact the appropriate
> people as a matter of precaution... and if this is indeed just a cry for
> attention being contacted by people in the real world (i.e. the police)
> about it should teach them not to do it again ;)
>
> On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
> > we have a user who threatened suicide.  Someone should notify Chicago
> > PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
> > them.
> >
> > If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
> > then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...

I've had friends and relatives working crisis hotlines and mental
health hotlines.  The procedure is, if someone says they're going to,
take them at their word and get them intervention.  Particularly if
they admit or self-identify as depressed and think about suicidal
stuff a lot.

Every now and then you find someone who's just joking.  A lot of them
are not-really-serious-suicidal-but-need-to-talk-to-someone.  A lot of
them are suicidal.  Only a moderate fraction intend to do so
immediately, but enough do that you have to take them all seriously.

I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
and get the PD that way...

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


body:
On 4/6/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess I'm a horrible person, because after I headed over to their userpage
> > after reading the discussion on ANI and saw the massive sign:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540
> >
> > stating their intentions, I cracked up laughing. I doubt this person is a
> > serious risk, however, I suppose we should try and contact the appropriate
> > people as a matter of precaution... and if this is indeed just a cry for
> > attention being contacted by people in the real world (i.e. the police)
> > about it should teach them not to do it again ;)
> >
> > On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
> > > we have a user who threatened suicide.  Someone should notify Chicago
> > > PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
> > > them.
> > >
> > > If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
> > > then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...
>
> I've had friends and relatives working crisis hotlines and mental
> health hotlines.  The procedure is, if someone says they're going to,
> take them at their word and get them intervention.  Particularly if
> they admit or self-identify as depressed and think about suicidal
> stuff a lot.
>
> Every now and then you find someone who's just joking.  A lot of them
> are not-really-serious-suicidal-but-need-to-talk-to-someone.  A lot of
> them are suicidal.  Only a moderate fraction intend to do so
> immediately, but enough do that you have to take them all seriously.
>
> I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
> and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
> and get the PD that way...

Update: 312-744-5501 isn't the right number, either.  Still looking
for someone in Chicago, if possible.

Thanks.

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


body:
On 4/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 4/6/07 9:33 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
> > and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
> > and get the PD that way...
>
> Do we have a address? Any US 911 can patch it to the Chicago police.

We don't have an address or detailed name.  "PatPeter" is the username
(User:PatPeter) so presumably Peter Patrick or Patrick
Peter-something.  Between that and Marist High School in Chicago, they
can probably track it down.

Last time I tried to do a 911 forward to remote city, they couldn't do
it.  A local Chicagoan, or a working remote number for Chicago PD,
would be best.

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


body:
On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I guess I'm a horrible person, because after I headed over to their
> > userpage
> > > after reading the discussion on ANI and saw the massive sign:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540
> > >
> > > stating their intentions, I cracked up laughing. I doubt this person is
> > a
> > > serious risk, however, I suppose we should try and contact the
> > appropriate
> > > people as a matter of precaution... and if this is indeed just a cry for
> > > attention being contacted by people in the real world (i.e. the police)
> > > about it should teach them not to do it again ;)
> > >
> > > On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
> > > > we have a user who threatened suicide.  Someone should notify Chicago
> > > > PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
> > > > then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...
> >
> > I've had friends and relatives working crisis hotlines and mental
> > health hotlines.  The procedure is, if someone says they're going to,
> > take them at their word and get them intervention.  Particularly if
> > they admit or self-identify as depressed and think about suicidal
> > stuff a lot.
> >
> > Every now and then you find someone who's just joking.  A lot of them
> > are not-really-serious-suicidal-but-need-to-talk-to-someone.  A lot of
> > them are suicidal.  Only a moderate fraction intend to do so
> > immediately, but enough do that you have to take them all seriously.
> >
> > I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
> > and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
> > and get the PD that way...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert at gmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> Yes, you're right. Sorry, my original response was a bit hasty. The page I
> linked to on the ANI thread (http://www.kcb.org/kcb_dir_cityofchicago.html)
> has some other potential numbers you could try.
>
> We have a bit of a problem here as we don't know the guy's actual name or
> address... not sure that there's a hell of a lot that the police could do if
> the school is closed. (Or at least, if the threat is real, by the time they
> managed to ask someone from the school and figure it out it might be too
> late.)

They usually have student directories at the PD, and we have enough of
a name, and the school, that they can probably help.

I'm just getting jack shit trying to call them from California 8-(

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


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] Report on unprotected, high-profile articles

body:
On 6 Apr 2007 at 12:38 -0500, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Earth - Still unprotected. Fairly heavy IP vandalism.

Mostly harmless...

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


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Kaihsu Tai

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] add alias nan: for zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org per ISO
	639-3

body:
Hello. Now that ISO 639-3 has the entry "nan" for Min Nan,
is it possible please to add an alias "nan:" for
"zh-min-nan:"?  Cheers.
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=nan
http://zh-min-nan.wikipedia.org/
"http://nan.wikipedia.org/" (does not exist yet)


list: foundation-l

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 4/6/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> I see roughly two ways to go there:
> 1.1) Pre-elections
> We could have, like in many presidential elections, have two
> elections. The first would be to decrease the number of candidates.
> The candidates we want in the final elections would be selected by an
> election. For instance, we have three seats available. We could have
> then select the six best in the pre-election, and let them go on the
> the "Finals". Disadvantage is that you still have to read everything
> (but maybe not that thorougly) in the first round.

To an extent this is what already happens with no hoper candidates in
en arbcom elections generaly getting low vote counts after getting
largely negative votes in the first 24 hours.

> 1.2) Pre-*s*election
> We could state extra conditions to become candidate. For instance, you
> need 25 or 50 supports of your candidature by different Wikimedians
> with >1000 edits and 9 months experience on one project. Just for
> instance, the numbers can easily be changed. It's about the idea.
> Every serious candidate should be able to get these endorsements, and
> the candidates who won't state any chance, wont get these
> endorsements. Disadvantage is that you won't be able to foresee how
> many candidates there will be. Another disadvantage is that you will
> have bureaucratic problems with the checking of the endorsements.
>

Forces a type of campaining that we probably don't want.

> 2) the time
> Last year, the elections took three whole weeks. I think it should be
> possible to shorten this period. In real life elections usually take
> one day. I can understand that it should take some longer in an online
> community, as people can be at work, temporarily very busy etc. But on
> the other hand, these elections demand quite a work from the
> candidates, and I think it will also mean usually that the board will
> not decide a lot of things. (As it is not very good to decide while
> being voted on you) Thus, a three week period seems a bit long to me.
>
> I think it should be possible to have the final elections in 3-10 days
> on the condition that it is outside the summer vacation.
>
>
Experence from en arbcom elections suggests a full week is needed (two
is the current standard) . After thay votes really only trickle in.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 06/04/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:

> 1.2) Pre-*s*election
> We could state extra conditions to become candidate. For instance, you
> need 25 or 50 supports of your candidature by different Wikimedians
> with >1000 edits and 9 months experience on one project. Just for
> instance, the numbers can easily be changed. It's about the idea.
> Every serious candidate should be able to get these endorsements, and
> the candidates who won't state any chance, wont get these
> endorsements. Disadvantage is that you won't be able to foresee how
> many candidates there will be. Another disadvantage is that you will
> have bureaucratic problems with the checking of the endorsements.

This sounds a good way to weed out any hopeless candidates. Can anyone
see a downside to this one?

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
On 06/04/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> > This is a philosophical issue about how Wiki works.  The lack of hard
> > syntax rules that people must conform to facilitates discover and
> > greatly softens the learning curve. ... it also means that our content
> > will perpetually be rubbish syntactically.

> It could be made sane on save, though, rather than on render.

Hmm ... could give unexpected results. "That's not the text I
entered!" And bug reports.

OTOH, MediaWiki reporting it fixed syntax problems might be enough.

OTOOH, correcting a typo and getting back that 20 other changes have
been made could be ... doing the unexpected.

- d.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
> If I recall correctly, the term of three board members (Erik, Oscar
> and Kat) will end in june this year. That will mean elections. I would
> like to start a civil discussion on what (if anything) should be
> changed compared to last year in the procedure, so the elections will
> be as nice as possible.

Perhaps we should also have a rule that results won't be leaked to
candidates this time. Or even not made available to anyone at all
until the end of the voting period. The situation with the last
election was a disgrace.

Angela


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


body:
On 4/6/07, Pilotguy <pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Danny is on the phone w/ police right now about it (and Georgewilliamherbert
> has also called) so keep watching the ANI thread.
>
> On 4/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > on 4/6/07 9:52 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > They usually have student directories at the PD, and we have enough of
> > > a name, and the school, that they can probably help.
> > >
> > > I'm just getting jack shit trying to call them from California 8-(
> >
> > You have more information on him than I do right now. The number for the
> > National Suicide Hotline is 1-800-784-2433. Tell them what you know, they
> > should be able to help.
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Pilotguy
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
> --
> Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
> ---
> Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor,
> and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
> Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site
> operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

My calls haven't actually gotten a real report filed yet, but good
that someone else is getting some traction...

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


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

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

Platonides wrote:
> Simply an alert of "Note that you have syntax errors" (without automatic
> machine "fixing") would be helpful.

That would be extremely user-unfriendly. "Wikipedia won't let me
ediiiiiiit articles! Something about bad sintax!!!!!!11oneone"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGFt2CqTO+fYacSNoRApSXAJ9KPx9KMgnji+cs/8Dh7XqaqxbacgCeKdpn
j/H6q+PYOqdMHDR6c2NfXds=
=lgNG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Rob Church

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Any leads on a basic wiki setup-and-configure
	instruction manual?

body:
On 06/04/07, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon at uspto.gov> wrote:
> I presume there's something painfully simple I'm missing, but I can't
> for the life of me find a reference anywhere simply on how to
> setup-and-configure a wiki!

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/FAQ

Rob Church


from_name: effe iets anders

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
Hello everybody,

If I recall correctly, the term of three board members (Erik, Oscar
and Kat) will end in june this year. That will mean elections. I would
like to start a civil discussion on what (if anything) should be
changed compared to last year in the procedure, so the elections will
be as nice as possible.

There are a few points I would like to bring in myself:

1) The number of candidates
Lat year, there were 15 candidates for 1 seat. A complaint heard a lot
of tmes was that it was very hard to read all the statements. There
was just too much to read. This year, there will be three seats to
decide over, and the community has in the mean while more then
doubled. It is thus very likely that the number of people willing to
be candidate will increase even more. How to keep it possible for
human beings (i.e. the people who are not able to keep track of this
list ;-) ) to read enough of all candidates to make a proper choise,
not just based on "he's american, i dont like him for that reason. I
know her, lets vote on her. He's French, and we dont want too many
french people, so oppose" and other not very rational reasons. Because
you force people to irrationalism when you make it too hard to decide
rationally.

So somehow we should be able to decrease the amount of information,
without breaking down the quality of it. That is possible by somehow
making a selection in the candidates. Somehow we should be able which
candidates should make a good chance in the elections. But without
letting an "authority" decide how imho! (elections shouldnt be
influenced by an authority that much)

I see roughly two ways to go there:
1.1) Pre-elections
We could have, like in many presidential elections, have two
elections. The first would be to decrease the number of candidates.
The candidates we want in the final elections would be selected by an
election. For instance, we have three seats available. We could have
then select the six best in the pre-election, and let them go on the
the "Finals". Disadvantage is that you still have to read everything
(but maybe not that thorougly) in the first round.
1.2) Pre-*s*election
We could state extra conditions to become candidate. For instance, you
need 25 or 50 supports of your candidature by different Wikimedians
with >1000 edits and 9 months experience on one project. Just for
instance, the numbers can easily be changed. It's about the idea.
Every serious candidate should be able to get these endorsements, and
the candidates who won't state any chance, wont get these
endorsements. Disadvantage is that you won't be able to foresee how
many candidates there will be. Another disadvantage is that you will
have bureaucratic problems with the checking of the endorsements.

2) the time
Last year, the elections took three whole weeks. I think it should be
possible to shorten this period. In real life elections usually take
one day. I can understand that it should take some longer in an online
community, as people can be at work, temporarily very busy etc. But on
the other hand, these elections demand quite a work from the
candidates, and I think it will also mean usually that the board will
not decide a lot of things. (As it is not very good to decide while
being voted on you) Thus, a three week period seems a bit long to me.

I think it should be possible to have the final elections in 3-10 days
on the condition that it is outside the summer vacation.

I hope for all your ideas on this, and I hope that the discussion will
be fruitfull. I don't know exactly who will be arranging the
elections, and who is final responsible for the rules etc of it, the
foundation or the community.

Yours sincerely,

Lodewijk Gelauff


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA reform

body:
> The system I have in mind would involve an expanded list of questions
> to ask the candidate in more detail about their contributions and how
> they see themselves fitting in. Then, instead of asking editors to
> support or oppose, editors would be asked to assess the candidate's
> contributions in several different aspects

But the important thing is that not all admins do everything.  A user who
has never reverted a single vandal can become an admin as much as a user who
has never tagged an article for speedy deletion, or written a featured
article.  This system would prevent that.
--Mets501


subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 4/6/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds a good way to weed out any hopeless candidates. Can anyone
> see a downside to this one?
>

A number.

1)you are likely to get a de-facto comity of say 60 people deciding
who can run since other people may not care enough
2) you get more direct campaigning since candidates will need to get
the vote out for them thus there is a risk of the elections
interfering with the normal running of the wiki.
3)it further selects against the smaller wikis. en.pedia can find 50
voters with the sufferage requirements no problem but how many others
can?
4)it streches the length of the election ah season which is something
best avoided.

--
geni


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 4/6/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:

Lodewijk, thanks for this email.

> 1.1) Pre-elections
> We could have, like in many presidential elections, have two
> elections. The first would be to decrease the number of candidates.
> The candidates we want in the final elections would be selected by an
> election. For instance, we have three seats available. We could have
> then select the six best in the pre-election, and let them go on the
> the "Finals". Disadvantage is that you still have to read everything
> (but maybe not that thorougly) in the first round.
> 1.2) Pre-*s*election
> We could state extra conditions to become candidate. For instance, you
> need 25 or 50 supports of your candidature by different Wikimedians
> with >1000 edits and 9 months experience on one project. Just for
> instance, the numbers can easily be changed. It's about the idea.
> Every serious candidate should be able to get these endorsements, and
> the candidates who won't state any chance, wont get these
> endorsements. Disadvantage is that you won't be able to foresee how
> many candidates there will be. Another disadvantage is that you will
> have bureaucratic problems with the checking of the endorsements.

I find both ideas equally good. We could maybe have both?
>
> 2) the time

> I think it should be possible to have the final elections in 3-10 days
> on the condition that it is outside the summer vacation.

Yes. Any length of time should include both a week-end and some
week-days. But this is a great proposal too. I would cap it at 4 to 7
days

Delphine

--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 4/6/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> I have spoken to the police. They are investigating.
>
> Thank you to everyone who brought this to our attention and especially to
> the people who provided me with the information for the police.
>
> Danny

I just got a callback from my local PD to take my report, right after
Danny's email arrived.  I let them know someone else had made a report
on it and it seemed redudant to me and them for me to make another
report, so we aren't going to bother with mine.

Thanks to everyone here and on ANI who helped in various ways, and
obviously Danny for finally getting the info in flight properly...

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


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
No matter who was winning, it seems pretty obnoxious to me. It totally
ruins democracy when the God-King steps down from his throne to
endorse certain candidates.

Mark

On 06/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > I can confirm that a leak of the ongoing vote counts did, in fact,
> > occur in the last election. It occurred because an election official
> > felt that the then-Board (and possibly others) should know the results
> > of the election ahead of time to prepare. The leak occurred at a time
> > when the result was very unlikely to change.
>
> Presumably this was just before Jimbo made his announcement supporting
> certain candidates and making vague reference to others not being
> suitable, then?
>
> I always suspected that was all about him finding out that you were
> winning and trying to sabotage you.  Pretty obnoxious if it's true.
>
> Anthony
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)


from_name: Tels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

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

Moin,

On Friday 06 April 2007 18:26:31 Simetrical wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a philosophical issue about how Wiki works.  The lack of hard
> > syntax rules that people must conform to facilitates discover and
> > greatly softens the learning curve. ... it also means that our content
> > will perpetually be rubbish syntactically.
>
> It could be made sane on save, though, rather than on render.

Could be with a big red warning shown on preview:

	"The version you are trying to save has been tidied up to prevent invalid
HTML syntax. Please check ..."

It is a bit like my POD extension actually tells you before you save (on
preview) that your POD is malformed.

All the best,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Fri Apr  6 20:31:01 2007 with key 0x93B84C15.
 View my photo gallery: http://bloodgate.com/photos
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

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

iQEVAwUBRhauYncLPEOTuEwVAQJ7uAf+KRfEcduNJo5o98A2MX15ncegHoMPEcNv
szYTNnwluIVcWxh+P+ExUdixrLiXxYj2Y5iA3ym6Ak3PiodphUUySj6hI31lfUmV
dxhYO2H+AKwYlU3pK2F0DCI40ljHzhgTOGnMFi3hUHJqPgJNnAEVMxXVJ+oSakSq
YqL5khhjhaHQ0tazZ6l1XXyl8R/ZxApFfO97Xge7YYuHRUPdAfRfDX4KKdhRsicr
079GM8Pxm+QSFWTo5fQPn5QaMp56QQzEMwkRsp0mDwmhBiXe4DL/Gnbw3QLyJ2Fo
0M8Ehh7AYzrO3HJWkxw8pvC54O8L/DD1ZG7I6+AtfBsmW9CXR8vuqg==
=waW2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly
say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or
another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the
community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not
the fault of the bureaucrat.

-Phil


subject: [Foundation-l]  Leaking (was:elections)

body:
Ehm, guys, although I am as well interested in the answer as you are,
maybe it is wise to discuss this in another thread :) Here you go! (to
keep the subjects seperated)

Lodewijk

2007/4/6, James Hare <messedrocker op gmail.com>:
> But who?
>
> On 4/6/07, daniwo59 op aol.com <daniwo59 op aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/6/2007 2:35:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > beesley op gmail.com writes:
> >
> > Perhaps  we should also have a rule that results won't be leaked to
> > candidates this  time. Or even not made available to anyone at all
> > until the end of the  voting period. The situation with the last
> > election was a  disgrace.
> >
> >
> >
> > The best way would be to have a completely outside organization audit the
> > elections.
> >
> > Danny
> >
> >
> >
> > ************************************** See what's free at
> > http://www.aol.com.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l]  Leaking (was:elections)

body:
Ehm, guys, although I am as well interested in the answer as you are,
maybe it is wise to discuss this in another thread :) Here you go! (to
keep the subjects seperated)

Lodewijk

2007/4/6, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com>:
> But who?
>
> On 4/6/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 4/6/2007 2:35:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > beesley at gmail.com writes:
> >
> > Perhaps  we should also have a rule that results won't be leaked to
> > candidates this  time. Or even not made available to anyone at all
> > until the end of the  voting period. The situation with the last
> > election was a  disgrace.
> >
> >
> >
> > The best way would be to have a completely outside organization audit the
> > elections.
> >
> > Danny
> >
> >
> >
> > ************************************** See what's free at
> > http://www.aol.com.
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:09:46 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

>The sad thing is that even if everyone who has had something to say in
>this thread were a copyright lawyer the opinions would have been just as
>divided.

Olde Joak: If you laid all the copyright lawyers in the world end to
end, they still would not reach a conclusion :-)

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


body:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0500, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:

>Take the information for what you will. I am not sure I accomplished
>anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an
>interesting experiment.

Yes, it was interesting.  It's reinforced my view that timed
protection is a good idea, in that we will effectively do this same
study serially for new protected articles, and it shows that
semiprotection is a very useful tool in helping to maintain a balance
between editability and usefulness.  Thank you for doing this, and
doing the work monitoring the articles, and sharing the results.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
> On 4/6/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

> > The best way would be to have a completely outside organization audit the
> > elections.

On 4/6/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> But who?
>

Surely there are law firms or the likes with the technical staff
needed to do that kind of auditing.

Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
I can confirm that a leak of the ongoing vote counts did, in fact,
occur in the last election. It occurred because an election official
felt that the then-Board (and possibly others) should know the results
of the election ahead of time to prepare. The leak occurred at a time
when the result was very unlikely to change. Still, this was a serious
error in judgment, and it is certain that this particular election
official will not be asked to coordinate future elections.

Working with an independent group seems like a reasonable way to
reduce risks. The Board has discussed this internally. The Debian
project was named as a potential partner in overseeing the next
election. If we do want to pursue that, it is about time to initiate
discussions with them.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic


subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)


from_name: Anthony

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
On 4/6/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I can confirm that a leak of the ongoing vote counts did, in fact,
> occur in the last election. It occurred because an election official
> felt that the then-Board (and possibly others) should know the results
> of the election ahead of time to prepare. The leak occurred at a time
> when the result was very unlikely to change.

Presumably this was just before Jimbo made his announcement supporting
certain candidates and making vague reference to others not being
suitable, then?

I always suspected that was all about him finding out that you were
winning and trying to sabotage you.  Pretty obnoxious if it's true.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Newimages search

body:
On 4/5/07, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> haha, yeah, thats how some fuzzy search methods work. Have you tried
> performance of such an index - would be interesting to find out it
> could be viable solution :)
> of course, it would be better to put 'png' and 'jpg' into stopwords
> (ergh, or strip file extensions entirely).

Yes, I know. I carry a trigram index on page_titles in my local
database, for fuzzy union based title searches.  It's very fast when
storing the trigrams in an inverted index.

wikidb=> CREATE INDEX page_page_title_gintgm ON page USING gin
(page_title gin_trgm_ops) where page_namespace=0;
CREATE INDEX
wikidb=> explain ANALYZE  select page_title from page where page_title
% 'evil' and page_namespace=0;
                                                                 QUERY
PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bitmap Heap Scan on page  (cost=109.19..8578.91 rows=2491 width=21)
(actual time=142.416..370.970 rows=262 loops=1)
   Recheck Cond: (page_namespace = 0)
   Filter: (page_title % 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)
   ->  Bitmap Index Scan on page_page_title_gintgm  (cost=0.00..108.56
rows=2491 width=0) (actual time=138.176..138.176 rows=15258 loops=1)
         Index Cond: (page_title % 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)
 Total runtime: 371.636 ms
(6 rows)

wikidb=> select page_title from page where page_title % 'evil' and
page_namespace=0 limit 10;
   page_title
-----------------
 Devil
 The_Evil_Dead
 EV
 Evil
 Evil_Dead_II
 Problem_of_evil
 Axis_of_evil
 Evil_empire
 Evil_clown
 Touch_of_Evil
(10 rows)

wikidb=> explain ANALYZE select
page_title,similarity(page_title,'evil') as sim from page where
page_title % 'evil' and page_namespace=0 order by sim desc,page_title
limit 9;

QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limit  (cost=8725.66..8725.68 rows=9 width=21) (actual
time=365.257..365.299 rows=9 loops=1)
   ->  Sort  (cost=8725.66..8731.89 rows=2491 width=21) (actual
time=365.252..365.266 rows=9 loops=1)
         Sort Key: (similarity(page_title, 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)), page_title
         ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on page  (cost=109.19..8585.14 rows=2491
width=21) (actual time=142.305..363.793 rows=262 loops=1)
               Recheck Cond: (page_namespace = 0)
               Filter: (page_title % 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)
               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on page_page_title_gintgm
(cost=0.00..108.56 rows=2491 width=0) (actual time=138.125..138.125
rows=15258 loops=1)
                     Index Cond: (page_title % 'evil'::pg_catalog.text)
 Total runtime: 365.435 ms
(9 rows)

wikidb=>  select page_title,similarity(page_title,'evil') as sim from
page where page_title % 'evil' and page_namespace=0 order by sim
desc,page_title limit 9; page_title |   sim
------------+----------
 Evil       |        1
 Evil_E     | 0.833333
 Dr_Evil    |    0.625
 Dr._Evil   |    0.625
 Evil_eye   |    0.625
 Evil_Eye   |    0.625
 WP:EVIL    |    0.625
 Evile      | 0.571429
 Evil_Ash   | 0.555556
(9 rows)

wikidb=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE select
page_title,similarity(page_title,'effencicy') as sim from page where
page_title % 'effencicy' and page_namespace=0 and page_is_redirect=0
order by sim desc,page_title limit 5;

QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limit  (cost=8590.99..8591.00 rows=5 width=21) (actual
time=368.520..368.541 rows=5 loops=1)
   ->  Sort  (cost=8590.99..8591.02 rows=12 width=21) (actual
time=368.514..368.521 rows=5 loops=1)
         Sort Key: (similarity(page_title,
'effencicy'::pg_catalog.text)), page_title
         ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on page  (cost=108.57..8590.77 rows=12
width=21) (actual time=343.597..368.475 rows=5 loops=1)
               Recheck Cond: (page_namespace = 0)
               Filter: ((page_title % 'effencicy'::pg_catalog.text)
AND ((page_is_redirect)::pg_catalog.text = '0'::pg_catalog.text))
               ->  Bitmap Index Scan on page_page_title_gintgm
(cost=0.00..108.56 rows=2491 width=0) (actual time=340.771..340.771
rows=3640 loops=1)
                     Index Cond: (page_title % 'effencicy'::pg_catalog.text)
 Total runtime: 368.614 ms
(9 rows)

wikidb=> select page_title,similarity(page_title,'effencicy') as sim
from page where page_title % 'effencicy' and page_namespace=0 and
page_is_redirect=0 order by sim desc,page_title limit 5;
   page_title   |   sim
----------------+----------
 Effendi        | 0.384615
 Recency_effect | 0.315789
 Effeminacy     |   0.3125
 Efficiency     |   0.3125
 Effect         | 0.307692
(5 rows)

:)


from_name: Tomasz Ganicz

subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
2007/4/6, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com>:
> Hello everybody,
>
> If I recall correctly, the term of three board members (Erik, Oscar
> and Kat) will end in june this year. That will mean elections. I would
> like to start a civil discussion on what (if anything) should be
> changed compared to last year in the procedure, so the elections will
> be as nice as possible.
>
> There are a few points I would like to bring in myself:
>
> 1) The number of candidates
> Lat year, there were 15 candidates for 1 seat. A complaint heard a lot
> of tmes was that it was very hard to read all the statements. There
> was just too much to read. This year, there will be three seats to
> decide over, and the community has in the mean while more then
> doubled. It is thus very likely that the number of people willing to
> be candidate will increase even more. How to keep it possible for
> human beings (i.e. the people who are not able to keep track of this
> list ;-) ) to read enough of all candidates to make a proper choise,
> not just based on "he's american, i dont like him for that reason. I
> know her, lets vote on her. He's French, and we dont want too many
> french people, so oppose" and other not very rational reasons. Because
> you force people to irrationalism when you make it too hard to decide
> rationally.
>

It is maybe not good idea, but we could create 2 level elections in such a way:
*First level - candidate has to win local election on one of the
projects - the rules for this local elections should be similar on all
projects, the number of candidates per projects might depend on the
size of the project. Smaller projects may create an "alliance" to be
able to propose a candidate.
*Second level - 7-10 days elections on meta of the candidates
preselected on projects.

The good thing with such a system will be to give a chance to vote for
all those who do not speak English and are not active on meta.

--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


body:
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:11:30 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
<macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:

>It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with some
>form of protection.
>Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.

Assuming you mean without, then yes, it's a decent confirmation that
the balance between protectionists and editists is being struck at
roughly the right level.

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


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Any Chicago Wikipedians... WP:ANI report of	suicidal
	Wikipedian

body:
on 4/6/07 9:33 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:

> I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
> and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
> and get the PD that way...

Do we have a address? Any US 911 can patch it to the Chicago police.

Marc Riddell


body:
on 4/6/07 9:52 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:

> They usually have student directories at the PD, and we have enough of
> a name, and the school, that they can probably help.
>
> I'm just getting jack shit trying to call them from California 8-(

You have more information on him than I do right now. The number for the
National Suicide Hotline is 1-800-784-2433. Tell them what you know, they
should be able to help.

Marc


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with some
form of protection.
Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.

Mgm

On 4/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:38:04 -0500, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Take the information for what you will. I am not sure I accomplished
> >anything other than reasserting what we already know. But it was an
> >interesting experiment.
>
> Yes, it was interesting.  It's reinforced my view that timed
> protection is a good idea, in that we will effectively do this same
> study serially for new protected articles, and it shows that
> semiprotection is a very useful tool in helping to maintain a balance
> between editability and usefulness.  Thank you for doing this, and
> doing the work monitoring the articles, and sharing the results.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Pilotguy

body:
Danny is on the phone w/ police right now about it (and Georgewilliamherbert
has also called) so keep watching the ANI thread.

On 4/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> on 4/6/07 9:52 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > They usually have student directories at the PD, and we have enough of
> > a name, and the school, that they can probably help.
> >
> > I'm just getting jack shit trying to call them from California 8-(
>
> You have more information on him than I do right now. The number for the
> National Suicide Hotline is 1-800-784-2433. Tell them what you know, they
> should be able to help.
>
> 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
>

--
Pilotguy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
--
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor,
and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site
operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

body:
I am talking to the authorities.

danny

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


list: commons-l

from_name: geni

subject:
[Commons-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Cool tool that lets you check
	forcopyright renewals on books

body:
On 4/6/07, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The copyright holder of the book still under copyright would still be
> > the copyright holder thus surely Stewart v. Abend would apply?
>
> I can't see that Stewart v. Abend is really applicable in this
> situation, which is rather different; Stewart v. Abend covers a
> copyrighted work and the details of how rights over a copyrighted work
> pass to the heirs on the author's death and how this affects copyright
> assignments and permission for derivative works.
>
> The scenario I asked about is when two independently copyrighted
> works, where neither is a derivative work of the other, include the
> same image that has not been independently copyrighted.
>
> -Matt

It was the case used to back up the copyright claim on "It's a
Wonderful Life". I would argue that just because a specific copyright
claim has not be renewed that does not mean that the image enters the
public domain. That can only happen if all copyright claims failed to
be renewed.

--
geni


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
Simply an alert of "Note that you have syntax errors" (without automatic
machine "fixing") would be helpful.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
I have spoken to the police. They are investigating.

Thank you to everyone who brought this to our attention and especially to
the people who provided me with the information for the police.

Danny

************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


from_name: Rory Stolzenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 4/7/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> I have spoken to the police. They are investigating.
>
> Thank you to everyone who brought this to our attention and especially to
> the people who provided me with the information for the police.
>
> Danny

Now we should get back to building this encyclopedia thing.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 4/6/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:On 4/7/07,
daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

>Now we should get back to building this encyclopedia thing.

We're building a what now????

On 4/6/07, Rory Stolzenberg <rory096 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/7/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have spoken to the police. They are investigating.
> >
> > Thank you to everyone who brought this to our attention and especially
> to
> > the people who provided me with the information for the police.
> >
> > Danny
>
>
> Now we should get back to building this encyclopedia thing.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

--
Pilotguy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
--
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
---
Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor,
and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site
operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.


from_name: John Lee

subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Danny&curid=10430325&diff=120748248&oldid=120747699
>
> "
>
>    1. *Strong oppose* per many of the above,
> WP:OFFICE<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICE>is the antithesis of
> consensus
>    building <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON>, which is the heart of
>    Wikipedia. Danny was the tool that implimented this vicious and
> unfeeling
>    policy. He's made his decisions, and those decisions are inconsistent
> with
>    adminship.
>
> ??? I think I just lost what little faith I had in the RfA system. How
> dare
> Danny stop us from getting sued!
>
> Also, what's with the trend of writing 'strong', 'firm', etc before votes?
> Does it actually add more weight to your opinion?

While we're complaining about illogical votes, I found it incredibly odd for
someone supporting to write "Danny = WP. WP = Danny." Perhaps it was just an
ill-phrased comment, but I think it's dangerous to equate the project with
any one person. Let's not go overboard, shall we?

Johnleemk


from_name: James Hare

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
We already had this discussion. We already concluded it was unbecoming of
Jimmy-Jimmy to endorse candidates.

On 4/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No matter who was winning, it seems pretty obnoxious to me. It totally
> ruins democracy when the God-King steps down from his throne to
> endorse certain candidates.
>
> Mark
>
> On 06/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > On 4/6/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > I can confirm that a leak of the ongoing vote counts did, in fact,
> > > occur in the last election. It occurred because an election official
> > > felt that the then-Board (and possibly others) should know the results
> > > of the election ahead of time to prepare. The leak occurred at a time
> > > when the result was very unlikely to change.
> >
> > Presumably this was just before Jimbo made his announcement supporting
> > certain candidates and making vague reference to others not being
> > suitable, then?
> >
> > I always suspected that was all about him finding out that you were
> > winning and trying to sabotage you.  Pretty obnoxious if it's true.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)


from_name: Charli Li

subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
George Herbert just had to cough out the following stream of bytes from
the specified email client, on 4/6/2007 8:43 PM:
> On 4/6/07, Phil Sandifer <XXXXXXXXXXX at XXXXX.XXX> wrote:
>
>> I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly
>> say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or
>> another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the
>> community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not
>> the fault of the bureaucrat.
>>
>
> IMHO:
>
> Unnecessarily confrontational.  He's going to "win" the RFA anyways in
> a few days, at this rate, and letting the community vent about someone
> is an important function of having RFAs.  Clearly not all the opposes
> here are cranks or poorly founded.
>
>
>
Of course he will win RFA.  Everybody's two cents are there, but it
looks like the rational reasons for *Support* are dominating.

--
Charli (Vishwin60)
I'm pleased that the Ministry of Culture is protecting the morals of the
expat bankers and their girlfriends that are going to be coming. ~Mick
Jagger


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Persistent addition of untrue "facts"

body:
On 4/6/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have now expanded the "Club Records" section to include the
> counter-example, and added a hopefully appropriate reference and
> commented on the talk page, but what should I do if the false
> statement is added again? I'm conscious of the existence of
> [[WP:3RR]]...

Best way is to make other editors aware of the issue, as you have done here.

Article RFCs are also a way of doing that.

-Matt


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)

body:
Yes, yes we did.

Mark

On 06/04/07, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:
> We already had this discussion. We already concluded it was unbecoming of
> Jimmy-Jimmy to endorse candidates.
>
> On 4/6/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No matter who was winning, it seems pretty obnoxious to me. It totally
> > ruins democracy when the God-King steps down from his throne to
> > endorse certain candidates.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On 06/04/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > On 4/6/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > I can confirm that a leak of the ongoing vote counts did, in fact,
> > > > occur in the last election. It occurred because an election official
> > > > felt that the then-Board (and possibly others) should know the results
> > > > of the election ahead of time to prepare. The leak occurred at a time
> > > > when the result was very unlikely to change.
> > >
> > > Presumably this was just before Jimbo made his announcement supporting
> > > certain candidates and making vague reference to others not being
> > > suitable, then?
> > >
> > > I always suspected that was all about him finding out that you were
> > > winning and trying to sabotage you.  Pretty obnoxious if it's true.
> > >
> > > Anthony
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Leaking (was:elections)


references:
<692f200a0704061038nef90d21w41bf67e8d2be655d@mail.gmail.com>
	<ko9d13th17niet07k77ukit2hhg4u50n6a@4ax.com>
	<fb7fdd9c0704061311p22deca29m57e92fed6e9a8e44@mail.gmail.com>
	<rabd13tm7ht6elfvj2gu3405crelr9hqqm@4ax.com>

body:
Oops, you're right. That was a typo. I meant without, of course.
Mgm

On 4/6/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:11:30 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm"
> <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's also pretty clear that the majority of articles can't exist with
> some
> >form of protection.
> >Most of them were vandalized when they were left unprotected.
>
> Assuming you mean without, then yes, it's a decent confirmation that
> the balance between protectionists and editists is being struck at
> roughly the right level.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Sam Blacketer

subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA reform

body:
Having looked at some debates on this mailing list from before when I
joined it about how RfA is broken as a process, read tonight's
'Request for Arbitration' read the almost surreal RfA for Danny, and
(most importantly) read Mackensen's statement in his Request for
Bureaucratship, I have a half-formed idea for a replacement system
might be organised. Thought it best to try here rather than by putting
up a proposal because the audience is more select and thoughtful
(flattery will get you everywhere).

The key problem with RfA that too many people have identified is that
although it is formally 'not a vote', it is a vote in effect and in
practice. The second problem is that oppose notvotes are cast for
reasons which have little importance on  Any replacement needs to move
away from a system of pure votes. However, it does need to offer an
opportunity for editors at large to evaluate a candidate's editing to
assess whether they are likely to fall into any of the problem areas
for admins.

The system I have in mind would involve an expanded list of questions
to ask the candidate in more detail about their contributions and how
they see themselves fitting in. Then, instead of asking editors to
support or oppose, editors would be asked to assess the candidate's
contributions in several different aspects. That might fall into these
divisions (this is just an example):

* Article writing
* Interactions with other Wikipedians
* Contributions to Wikipedia internal debates
* Vandal-fighting and cleanup
* Miscellaneous

Instead of 'support' or 'oppose', editors judging the candidate would
comment on whether the candidate's contributions in each area were
worthy of commendation or indicated unsuitability. They could add, if
they wanted, a recommendation to the closing bureaucrat that the
candidate had such serious problems that they should not be promoted.

At the end of the debate, the bureaucrat would ascertain whether any
problems with the candidate taken overall made them unsuitable, not by
counting numbers but by qualitative assessment. The way this might
work is that the candidate who registered an account last week and has
10 edits would fail almost immediately, as now. The candidate who has
no involvement with copyright checking but has good experience in
everything else would pass because they can pick that experience up
later if they need to. The candidate who edits controversial articles
and is inevitably accused of bias and targeted by trolls, will pass if
it is clear they react calmly.

I recognise this proposal vastly increases the discretion of the corps
of bureaucrats but that would probably be inevitable in any change. I
am not suggesting that RfB procedure should be changed. Also, I think
I should declare an interest in that I'm rather hoping to go through
RfA myself sometime in the future.

--
Sam Blacketer
London E15


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
Sam Blacketer wrote:

>The Cunctator cunctator at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>On 4/3/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:21:12 -0600, Bryan Derksen
>>><bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In this case, the criterion for list membership is "has been on the Top
>>>>Gear Cool Wall". This is no more a matter of subjective interpretation
>>>>than coming up with a cast list for an ongoing TV show.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That is defensible in the case of an individual car, yes.  Like saying
>>>it was No. 1 in the charts.  But, as with the charts, including the
>>>entire list violates copyright.
>>>
>>>
>>Huh? You keep repeating this, but the evidence for the claim just isn't there.
>>
>>
>I am not a copyright lawyer (thanks be to God after reading this thread)
>but it is quite clear that this list is a violation of copyright.
>
The sad thing is that even if everyone who has had something to say in
this thread were a copyright lawyer the opinions would have been just as
divided.

>The decision
>to put cars in various sections of the 'Cool Wall' is a creative process.
>
Yes.

>Copying the results of this creative process in its entirety is therefore
>a violation of copyright.
>
Maybe.  Are we copying the information or the presentation.  If it is
the information it is not protected.  If it is the presentation it very
well could be.  The "merger principle" essentially states that a
copyright cannot prevent the use of information.  A piece of Lexmark
software that effectively prevented the use of third-party ink
cartridges was ruled uncopyrightable on that basis.

>The copyright rests in the compiling of a list
>by arbitrary criteria; compiling a list by objective criteria would not be
>copyright.
>
The copyright does not rest in the act of compiling as much as it does
in the compiled product.  I don't think it matters whether the criteria
are objective or arbitrary.  An objective criterion can be creative or
original.

>The Stanford guide to Copyright and fair use is clear:
>
>http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-a.html#1
>
>"the work must be original -- that is, independently created by the
>author. It doesn't matter if an author's creation is similar to
>existing works, or even if it is arguably lacking in quality,
>ingenuity or aesthetic merit. So long as the author toils without
>copying from someone else, the results are protected by copyright.
>
Yes.  Two identical works can both be protected independently as long as
neither was copied from the other.  This cannot be a practical issue
except in the case of very short material.  The argument is most often
raised in relation to musical passages.  In our present case, if for the
sake of argument we assume that the list is protected, a person in the
US who was unaware of the British TV programme and come up with his own
independent but identical list would be entitled to his own separate
copyright protection.  Of course, that's a highly improbable situation.

>Finally, to receive copyright protection, a work must be the result of
>at least some creative effort on the part of its author. There is no
>hard and fast rule as to how much creativity is enough. As one
>example, a work must be more creative than a telephone book's white
>pages, which involve a straightforward alphabetical listing of
>telephone numbers rather than a creative selection of listings."
>
>What we have here is a creative selection of listings.
>
That depends on whether you consider "all" to be more creative than an
alphabetical listing.  A selected subset of the list is more likely to
be creative than all of them.  Who created the list is a factor too.
The material did not exist in list form untilt our own Wikieditor got
involved.  This is why I asked before:  If we had applied our category
process to this problem would we still have the same copyright issue?

Ec

Ec


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-04-07

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

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r21070).

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

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

Passed 494 of 511 tests (96.67%)... 17 tests failed!


body:
On 4/6/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> It was the case used to back up the copyright claim on "It's a
> Wonderful Life". I would argue that just because a specific copyright
> claim has not be renewed that does not mean that the image enters the
> public domain. That can only happen if all copyright claims failed to
> be renewed.

"It's a Wonderful Life" involved a derivative work, again.  The
scenario I brought up does not, unless it's argued that the first
publication of an image in a larger work gave the copyright holders of
that larger work a copyright over even parts of that work not created
or owned by them where the owner has not sold exclusive rights but is
still free to sell to others.

If the first publication as a part of a much larger work did create a
copyright in that image independent of the larger work, and thus the
second publication of the image would be technically a derivative work
of the first, and the lack of ability of restriction of the second
work by the copyright holders of the first deemed to result from
contract law - that would mean that if the first work was not renewed
and entered the public domain, then the image (if copied from that
work, at least) would also be in the public domain, since copyright
does not flow backward from derivative to original.

I suspect that issues like these are why it's in some ways better that
the US signed the Berne Convention and adopted the principle of all
works being copyrighted at birth independent of publication status.
It does simplify this kind of thing immensely.  The flip side, of
course, is that everything is copyrighted even when it does nobody any
good.

What I'm guessing is that there is actually no truly applicable case
law in this matter, as with a lot of edge cases in copyright law.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead

body:
The problem is that it's a one-way 'try as often as you'd like'.  It's
a lot harder to re-try a delete decision, and while it can be done,
it's nowhere near as easy as just filing AFD again and again after
'keep' or 'no consensus' decisions.

-Matt


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead

body:
On 4/7/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, in the current case, there was no consensus, but an admin
> deleted it anyway.

It'd be nice if someone actually let those of us learning about it
here know what article this is about.

-Matt


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tidy upgraded

body:
On 07/04/07, Edward Z. Yang <edwardzyang at thewritingpot.com> wrote:
> That would be extremely user-unfriendly. "Wikipedia won't let me
> ediiiiiiit articles! Something about bad sintax!!!!!!11oneone"

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SYNTAX INQUISITION!

Rob Church


subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
On 4/7/07, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>
> I have spoken to the police. They are investigating.
>
> Thank you to everyone who brought this to our attention and especially to
> the people who provided me with the information for the police.
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at
> http://www.aol.com.

Note that PatPeter just edited again, saying "PatPeter is currently sleeping
and will be for 8-10 hours, or the rest of eternity." By the way, his IP is
67.167.255.36.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 07:26:50 -0500, Rich Holton wrote:
>
>
>>Here is where I see the crux of the issue in this thread: you are not
>>interested in keeping the information in question. You do not value it.
>>You are willing to eliminate it at request (which is all that their
>>reply could possibly be seen as).
>>
>>
>And you are wrong in your assertion.  I am interested in the article
>subject, I just don't think we may or should include the list in its
>entirety.
>
>Yes, I am prepared to eliminate it on request.  I am prepared to
>eliminate *any* asserted copyright on request, and allow it back in
>only when it is established that it does not violate copyright.  We
>get a steady trickle of complaints of copyright violation, and we
>generally *do* remove them.
>
While the development of the thread makes it easy to impute motives to
Guy, those motivations do not help us to solve the copyright question..
I have never supported the idea that just because somebody alleges their
ownership of a copyright they must presumably be right.  It is a clear
basis for further investigation.  If, after a very brief investigation,
the facts do not support the claim, there should be no obligation to
take down the material.  The claimant should then be invited to make a
formal request, and fairly guided to the proper procedure.

Even when material has a prima facie basis for take down, he should be
advised that since his claim was essentially made ex parte, other views
of the law may arise, that the deleted material may be restored, and if
so he should again be prepared to make a formal request.

>Wikipedia/Wikimedia was established (and I hope continues to exist) to
>make information freely available. Caving in to unreasonable claims of
>copyright is not the way to do that.
>
Absolutely.

>You are, I think, confusing free-as-in-beer with free-as-in-speech. We
>are not allowed to include content that violates other people's
>copyright, and this is not in any way seen as incompatible with
>Wikipedia's mission.
>
Nobody is arguing that we should violate the copyrights of others.
Disagregating the two types of freedom is not always a straightforward task.

>Removing unfree content has never been incompatible with Wikipedia's
>mission to make information freely available. We do it all the time.
>
It doesn't matter if the inputs are free as long as the outputs are
free.  If an unfree input can be transformed into a free output that is
consistent with our mission.

>>Note that I'm not saying that their claim would be unreasonable--I am
>>not an expert in copyright law. But your position is that their mere
>>request should result in our removing the information, when the question
>>of whether this is a copyright violation is still very much in question.
>>
>>
>Yes.  The request of any rights owner should always be respected, even
>if that respect takes the form of removing the content, debating,
>proving that the claim to rights is invalid, and re-inserting.
>
A rights claimant is not necessarily the rights owner.  That can be an
important factor in copyright suits.  As a part of his suit the claimant
must prove that he owns the right to sue.  This effectively prevents
claims from people who have no business making them.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Copyright question

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:09:46 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>The sad thing is that even if everyone who has had something to say in
>>this thread were a copyright lawyer the opinions would have been just as
>>divided.
>>
>>
>Olde Joak: If you laid all the copyright lawyers in the world end to
>end, they still would not reach a conclusion :-)
>
I can tell from your olde spelling that this version must go back to the
time when people believed in a flat earth.  Since then they just go
around in circles. :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
On 4/7/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One of the reasons for a nay vote on a recent RFA was that the editor at
> issue is a teenager (16 I think).  Now that was a shameful no vote--can't
> think of a reason to vote against them, so knock them for their age.
> Meanwhile, she really is a teenager and works in areas where few admins
> walk.  I didn't see the no vote, so don't know if there was more attached
> to
> it, but age alone?  Since when did Wikipedia show that age in either
> direction should be at a premium?  KP

I became an admin when I was 14. I can't see anything wrong with teenaged
admins; IIRC at one point we had a 13-year-old 'crat. Still, as long as this
ageism is only a fringe thing on RfA, it's probably not worth knocking the
process itself over a few misguided Wikipedians.

Johnleemk


from_name: Vee

body:
I guess I'm a horrible person, because after I headed over to their userpage
after reading the discussion on ANI and saw the massive sign:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540

stating their intentions, I cracked up laughing. I doubt this person is a
serious risk, however, I suppose we should try and contact the appropriate
people as a matter of precaution... and if this is indeed just a cry for
attention being contacted by people in the real world (i.e. the police)
about it should teach them not to do it again ;)

On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
> we have a user who threatened suicide.  Someone should notify Chicago
> PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
> them.
>
> If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
> then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/07, Vee <vee.be.me at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess I'm a horrible person, because after I headed over to their
> userpage
> > after reading the discussion on ANI and saw the massive sign:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540
> >
> > stating their intentions, I cracked up laughing. I doubt this person is
> a
> > serious risk, however, I suppose we should try and contact the
> appropriate
> > people as a matter of precaution... and if this is indeed just a cry for
> > attention being contacted by people in the real world (i.e. the police)
> > about it should teach them not to do it again ;)
> >
> > On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you're a Chicago resident, please see WP:ANI "PatPeters" thread -
> > > we have a user who threatened suicide.  Someone should notify Chicago
> > > PD, but I can't find any out-of-area contact numbers to use to call
> > > them.
> > >
> > > If we have anyone in Chicago reading, please read the ANI thread and
> > > then call 3-1-1 and let Chicago PD know about the situation...
>
> I've had friends and relatives working crisis hotlines and mental
> health hotlines.  The procedure is, if someone says they're going to,
> take them at their word and get them intervention.  Particularly if
> they admit or self-identify as depressed and think about suicidal
> stuff a lot.
>
> Every now and then you find someone who's just joking.  A lot of them
> are not-really-serious-suicidal-but-need-to-talk-to-someone.  A lot of
> them are suicidal.  Only a moderate fraction intend to do so
> immediately, but enough do that you have to take them all seriously.
>
> I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
> and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
> and get the PD that way...
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

Yes, you're right. Sorry, my original response was a bit hasty. The page I
linked to on the ANI thread (http://www.kcb.org/kcb_dir_cityofchicago.html)
has some other potential numbers you could try.

We have a bit of a problem here as we don't know the guy's actual name or
address... not sure that there's a hell of a lot that the police could do if
the school is closed. (Or at least, if the threat is real, by the time they
managed to ask someone from the school and figure it out it might be too
late.)


body:
On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > on 4/6/07 9:33 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I just tried the 312-747-6000 external contact number for Chicago PD
> > > and got nothing.  Still seeking a local in the area who can dial 3-1-1
> > > and get the PD that way...
> >
> > Do we have a address? Any US 911 can patch it to the Chicago police.
>
> We don't have an address or detailed name.  "PatPeter" is the username
> (User:PatPeter) so presumably Peter Patrick or Patrick
> Peter-something.  Between that and Marist High School in Chicago, they
> can probably track it down.
>
> Last time I tried to do a 911 forward to remote city, they couldn't do
> it.  A local Chicagoan, or a working remote number for Chicago PD,
> would be best.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

I just asked in IRC and nobody is replying.

Am looking through
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago and seeing if
anyone there is active at this second.


from_name: zetawoof

subject: [Wikitech-l] More live mirrors

body:
* http://feedbus.com/wikis/wikipedia.php?title=Special:Recentchanges
* http://allrss.com/wikipedia.php?title=Special:Recentchanges
Obvious live mirrors.

* http://www.radiofreeithaca.net/search/Main_Page
Refuses to display special pages, but pretty clearly doing some sort
of remote-loading - I touched a page, and it showed up as soon as I
looked.

(Picked these three up with a few targeted searches.)


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
> OK, sure, but when you have community for the sake of community that's the
> sort of stuff you can expect to put up with. Wikipedia has an encyclopedic
> purpose distinct from that: we are not supposed to be collection of
> self-help services, suicide prevention, and social services all rolled into
> one.
>
That doesn't mean we can't act like human beings from time to time. I
don't want us to be like one of those offices where the guy dies while
sitting at his desk and nobody notices for three days.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Original research or common sense inferral?

body:
John Lee wrote:

>On 4/3/07, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>On 02/04/07, Seraphim Blade wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In reply to Phil, as to how that guts NOR: The entire point of NOR is
>>>that you do -not- use your own "editorial judgment" when writing an
>>>article, you use information in reliable secondary sources. It also
>>>helps to ensure that information is relevant-sometimes, something can
>>>be technically true, but also irrelevant. I'd ask the same
>>>question-why should we adopt the role of "first reporter"? If someone
>>>wants to do that, isn't that what Wikinews is for?
>>>
>>>
>>This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial
>>judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle
>>course.
>>
>>Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
>>
>>
>It's an unfortunate truth that many of our editors aren't exactly capable of
>exercising good editorial judgment. Also, while I disagree that we should
>replace editorial discretion with rules, it's certainly non-contestable that
>WP is never the right place for the role of "first reporter".
>
>The solution, I think, is to stay true to NOR as it has always been: don't
>use primary sources unless you are using them to present a non-novel
>interpretation.
>
At least this is an improvement over those who seem intent   Nobody is
arguing in favour of being "first reporter", which would be about
creating primary sources.  The discussion is about using primary
sources.   The likely result of a fixation on secondary sources is that
those sources would be preferred even when they contradict the primary
source.

Ec


body:
Matthew Brown wrote:

>On 4/2/07, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
>>This appears to be the sort of obsession with replacing editorial
>>judgement with rules that makes Wikipedia into a red tape obstacle
>>course.
>>
>>Unfortunately, good sense and quality cannot in fact be Taylorised.
>>
>>
>100% agreed with David here.
>
>I'd add that any sufficiently complex system of rules can be
>rules-lawyered by the intelligent and nitpicky to allow results not
>anticipated by the rules' crafters.
>
That likelihood increases with the volume of rules.

Ec


from_name: Oldak Quill

body:
On 07/04/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Pilotguy <pilotguy.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Danny is on the phone w/ police right now about it (and Georgewilliamherbert
> > has also called) so keep watching the ANI thread.
> >
> > On 4/6/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > on 4/6/07 9:52 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert at gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > They usually have student directories at the PD, and we have enough of
> > > > a name, and the school, that they can probably help.
> > > >
> > > > I'm just getting jack shit trying to call them from California 8-(
> > >
> > > You have more information on him than I do right now. The number for the
> > > National Suicide Hotline is 1-800-784-2433. Tell them what you know, they
> > > should be able to help.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pilotguy
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pilotguy
> > --
> > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
> > ---
> > Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by a Wikimedia contributor,
> > and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the
> > Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, you may contact the site
> > operators at <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
> My calls haven't actually gotten a real report filed yet, but good
> that someone else is getting some traction...

You were doing the *right* thing and maybe that isn't something
someone should be thanked for (?), but the effort you put into this is
commendable. Thank you for taking this seriously and committing to
doing the right thing "in the real world".

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] elections

body:
On 07/04/07, Robert Horning <robert_horning at netzero.net> wrote:
> For myself, if I were to suggest another alternative, is to try and go
> with Instant run-off voting
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_run-off_voting
>
> In other words, there is more than one way to try and weed down a large
> number of candidates to just a few.  Particularly in this case when
> there is going to be a great many candidates for several offices.  I
> will also point out that there are advantages and disadvantages of
> almost any election system, and no single method is really ideal.  The
> main point is that the system needs to be in place and firm before
> anything happens.
>
> I would also try to suggest that multiple rounds of voting are as likely
> to turn people off as anything else.  Some people just love to vote on
> nearly everything possible, but for something this serious we shouldn't
> be appealing to just that kind of Wikimedia user.  I'm referring here to
> things like the picture of the day/week/month/year or other similar
> kinds of contests that regularly use voting.
>
> As far as why I support instant run-off votes:  It allows you to rank
> your preferences instead of merely casting votes.  Far too often in
> things like logo decisions (look at the failed example of the "new"
> Wikibooks logo that has been rejected by all but fi.wikibooks... and
> expressly rejected by en.wikibooks) end up with only the most tolerable
> of a minority, where a few leading candidates come forward out of
> mediocrity but others who might have made a stronger concensus are
> rejected.  Multiple rounds merely test the patience of both voters and
> the candidates.  Certainly two rounds isn't too bad on this end, but it
> does require double the work to put it together compared to just one
> round of voting.
>
> Even this sort of pre-screening that is suggested here is just another
> way to put an extra round into the voting process.  There certainly
> should be some eligibility rules (as there has been in the past) that
> would require disclosure of your name, nationality, and age (needed for
> legal purposes if you actually are elected).  Not everybody would want
> to do this, and that is also understandable.  The screening should
> involve some sort of verification of this identity.  As far as getting
> some public supporters/endorsements of a particular candidate, I would
> be wary of sock puppets and other gaming that could happen, but it does
> sound like a way to demonstrate viability.  This whole thing is a
> popularity contest of a sort anyway, and signing for viability doesn't
> mean you will actually vote for them in the election itself.

This is a problem all democratic real-world legislatures have to deal
None have found a solution (?), so we're not going to. But we should
explore the options and identify the least worse system for our needs.
:)

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [Foundation-l] elections


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Chicago situation resolved.

body:
on 4/7/07 6:17 AM, Oldak Quill at oldakquill at gmail.com wrote:

> This kind of thing is not specific to Wikipedia. Communities exist on
> the internet and all such communities can be faced with this. It is
> the price of having a community at all.

And, to a great degree, the response of our Community was the very
definition of one.

Marc


subject: [WikiEN-l] RfA reform

body:
On 07/04/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Having looked at some debates on this mailing list from before when I
> joined it about how RfA is broken as a process, read tonight's
> 'Request for Arbitration' read the almost surreal RfA for Danny, and
> (most importantly) read Mackensen's statement in his Request for
> Bureaucratship, I have a half-formed idea for a replacement system
> might be organised. Thought it best to try here rather than by putting
> up a proposal because the audience is more select and thoughtful
> (flattery will get you everywhere).
>
> The key problem with RfA that too many people have identified is that
> although it is formally 'not a vote', it is a vote in effect and in
> practice. The second problem is that oppose notvotes are cast for
> reasons which have little importance on  Any replacement needs to move
> away from a system of pure votes. However, it does need to offer an
> opportunity for editors at large to evaluate a candidate's editing to
> assess whether they are likely to fall into any of the problem areas
> for admins.
>
> The system I have in mind would involve an expanded list of questions
> to ask the candidate in more detail about their contributions and how
> they see themselves fitting in. Then, instead of asking editors to
> support or oppose, editors would be asked to assess the candidate's
> contributions in several different aspects. That might fall into these
> divisions (this is just an example):
>
> * Article writing
> * Interactions with other Wikipedians
> * Contributions to Wikipedia internal debates
> * Vandal-fighting and cleanup
> * Miscellaneous
>
> Instead of 'support' or 'oppose', editors judging the candidate would
> comment on whether the candidate's contributions in each area were
> worthy of commendation or indicated unsuitability. They could add, if
> they wanted, a recommendation to the closing bureaucrat that the
> candidate had such serious problems that they should not be promoted.
>
> At the end of the debate, the bureaucrat would ascertain whether any
> problems with the candidate taken overall made them unsuitable, not by
> counting numbers but by qualitative assessment. The way this might
> work is that the candidate who registered an account last week and has
> 10 edits would fail almost immediately, as now. The candidate who has
> no involvement with copyright checking but has good experience in
> everything else would pass because they can pick that experience up
> later if they need to. The candidate who edits controversial articles
> and is inevitably accused of bias and targeted by trolls, will pass if
> it is clear they react calmly.
>
> I recognise this proposal vastly increases the discretion of the corps
> of bureaucrats but that would probably be inevitable in any change. I
> am not suggesting that RfB procedure should be changed. Also, I think
> I should declare an interest in that I'm rather hoping to go through
> RfA myself sometime in the future.

Many of the jobs that admins engage in can't be divided into having
been done "well" or "not well". Grunt tasks are just a matter of doing
repetitive work for the sake of the encyclopaedia.

Admins have a few more powers which can be used to benefit Wikipedia:
article moves, protection, blocking, &c. They also have a capacity for
abuse. The greater number of users who have them, the better. We just
need to ensure that the users that do have these powers do not abuse
them.

RfA should be reduced to a determination of whether the user is
trustworthy or not. Their ability to make intelligent decisions should
come into it somewhere.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] And over at RFA ...

body:
On 07/04/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I strongly encourage any 'crat to promote Danny to admin and publicly
> say that the RFA was not a factor in their decision one way or
> another - this was a slam dunk case by any standard, and if the
> community's head is too far up its own ass to recognize that it's not
> the fault of the bureaucrat.

Didn't Danny resign his adminship to go through the process of RfA again?

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


body:
Seraphim Blade wrote:

>The harm there is exactly why we -do- prohibit original research.
>
Sounds like a circular argument.  No original research was adopted to
deal with people who wanted a host for their crackpot theories in physics.

>How do old issues of the NYT show something in general?
>
That he is showing something "in general" is your inference, not his.
He shows the statistical results, and leaves it to the reader to draw
his conclusion.  Raw statistical data is still a presentation of facts.
In the scientific method the presentation of data, and theorizing about
that data are distinct acts.If the NYT  is going to be accepted as a
source for the factual content of its articles, why should it not be an
authority for its statistical data.

>What if the NYT
>used to have a paragraph in its style guide that said you shouldn't
>use the phrase except in a few rare cases, put into place in the early
>50s, changed that in the mid-80s to state that it was acceptable, and
>it's been used more and more in the paper to this day?
>
This argument is based on speculation unless you can cite the specific
style guide issues that say this.

>What if it was
>used all over the place, and the NYT was behind the curve?
>
Then you show evidence to substantiate that.

>You're not
>a statistician (at least, I presume not), and interpretation of raw
>statistics is -always- more complex than it appears, especially when
>having to look for (and eliminate) potential skewing factors like the
>ones I mentioned above.
>
Presenting raw statistics and interpreting them are two different acts.

Ec


from_name: James Farrar

body:
Ladies and gents,

I've not come across this in the past, so am unaware how best to deal
with it, so any thoughts, comments and/or advice is gratefully
appreciated!

There's a bit of an edit war developing in [[Stockport County F.C.]]
as one or more individuals (anon, natch!) have made several attempts
to introduce a "fact" that s/he/they believe to be true (and they
actually have a reference for - albeit merely an assertion that is not
backed up) - namely that the said football club's recent 7-2 home
defeat was the first time the club had conceded seven goals in a home
game.

I know this to be untrue because I have a counter-example.

I have now expanded the "Club Records" section to include the
counter-example, and added a hopefully appropriate reference and
commented on the talk page, but what should I do if the false
statement is added again? I'm conscious of the existence of
[[WP:3RR]]...

J.


subject: [WikiEN-l] AFD is dead

body:
It's official: AFD is dead.

Because if you don't like the decision, you can always just try again,
and keep trying until you get the decision you want.

A disgrace.