from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Patrick, Brad wrote:

>You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
>copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
>i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the place
>where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>
The problem is that juriwiki-l is a closed list which keeps its
discussions secret.  That simple fact makes the foundation list
productive.

Ec


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


list: wikien-l

from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[Wikimediauk-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow
	(Financial Times and BBC today)

body:
On 09/02/06, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Or maybe the Financial Times is more to your taste:
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/24e11752-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html

Oh, that's an excellent one! I neglected to talk up Wikinews in the
Guardian interview ...

- d.


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:48:12AM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>
>>You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
>>copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
>>i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the place
>>where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>>
>>
>I'm currently looking for public (aggregate) data on the magnitude of the
>problem, or if there even actually is one.
>
That is certainly information that should be made public.  Most of the
discussions that I see about copyright are entirely speculative.  The
lack of data provided leave the impression that we have never received a
take-down notice.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] nobs on moderation

body:
On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

I always get worried when I see that word in one of your posts, David.
> Nothing personal, but the thought of you in drag makes my blood run cold.

On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I can vouch for this. David's a fair man, but hard.
>
> Peter (Skyring)

Peter

I think we're learning more than we want to about your and Davd's
relationship ;)

Ian


from_name: Alison Wheeler

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
> We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media
> contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other

Well I've been told that I'm "special" a few times in the past, so I guess
this is another of those times ;-) Happy to take phoned interviews at
minimal notice (have done before, will do again, I guess). In person if
they send a car ...

Alison
020 7419 1017


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Cleanup required? By tonight at
	9pm!!

body:
Duly forwarded.

>Delivered-To: gordon.joly at pobox.com
>X-Original-To: wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org
>Delivered-To: wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org
>Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 12:05:05 +0000
>From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>To: wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Cleanup required? By tonight at 9pm!!
>Cc:
>X-BeenThere: wikimediauk-l at Wikimedia.org
>Reply-To: wikimediauk-l at Wikimedia.org
>List-Id: wikimediauk-l.Wikimedia.org
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l>,
>	<mailto:wikimediauk-l-request at Wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikimediauk-l at Wikimedia.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:wikimediauk-l-request at Wikimedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l>,
>	<mailto:wikimediauk-l-request at Wikimedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: wikimediauk-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
>
>On 08/02/06, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly at pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>  There is a three part documentary series called "Lefties" starting
>>  tonight on BBC4 TV tonight at 9pm. The first external link on this
>>  page
>>  http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/lefties.shtml
>>  is to
>>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics
>>  Nice to have a link to Wikipedia - but it would nicer still if the
>>  article  was cleaned up today (or the cleanup notice removed?).
>
>
>Wanna forward this one to wikien-l as well? It should be feature
>quality by 9pm UTC ;-)
>
>
>- d.
>_______________________________________________
>Wikimedia UK mailing list
>wikimediauk-l at wikimedia.org
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
>http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l

--
Gordo (aka LoopZilla)
gordon.joly at pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
http://www.loopzilla.org/


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] They love us! They really love us!

body:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard

> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:SAWW

I look forward to your contribution being set to music and sung by the
Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Pete, trying to think of a rhyme for SPUI


from_name: Jon

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: UK press: Guardian tomorrow (Times Online now,
	plus offer your own comments)

body:
The Times has already got its article up.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2032346,00.html

  They've opened up a specific "Comments"/Weblog section to discuss the issue. Those who want can offer their views on http://timesonline.typepad.com/technology/2006/02/washington_edit.html

  Jon

David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
  On 09/02/06, Jon wrote:

> Or maybe the Financial Times is more to your taste:
> http://news.ft.com/cms/s/24e11752-9911-11da-aa99-0000779e2340.html

Oh, that's an excellent one! I neglected to talk up Wikinews in the
Guardian interview ...

- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.


subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of
> the terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence
> would be that material that is not available under the GFDL should not
> be included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?
>
> One other question, why do you single out the en.wp to take action on
> copyvio? What is it that makes this project special ? Would this
> advise not be as appropriate for any project and any language ?

If material is already in the public domain it is not subject to GFDL
because it does not need to be licensed.  This seems to suggest that yo
would prevent inclusion of public domain material.

en-wp is probably singled out because of its high traffic.  Copyright
issues affect all projects in varying degrees.  Wiktionary, however,
does not have much to do with image copyrights because very few images
are uploaded in the first place.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
>>>
>>>
>>Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is
>>American, yes.  That is why I drew the line there.  Yes, I know it
>>isn't perfect.  But it's better than anything else I've seen.
>>
>>
>But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed.
>After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States.
>Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all
>advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the
>First Amendment has stopped them.
>
IIRC US courts have also ruled information about how to make bombs is
also protected under the first amendment.  You just can't advocate that
people use those bombs for illegal ourposes.  You could still use them
to blow up stumps on your own back 40.

Ec


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 2/9/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Sam Korn wrote:
>
> >If the userpages are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation
> >(and this certainly is), and add nothing to the project, yes, fine,
> >remove the information.
> >
> >
> Reputation in which culture?  Is this a western-centric policy?

Where did I say it should be limited to a culture?

And if it is western-centric, so what?  We have to draw a line in my
opinion.  So I'm drawing one.  Yes, it's arbitrary.  But it makes
sense.  The vast majority of people will not fall shy of it anyway.
This is in the user namespace, not articles.  As the pro-userbox
brigade have said so loudly: NPOV does not apply to the user
namespace.

--
Sam


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 2/9/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> Also, perhaps the user with that statement on his page in fact only
> smokes weed while he is in other countries where it is allowed, such
> as the Netherlands.

One might note also that "weed" is a euphemism which may mean
marajiuana, but other weeds have been smoked historically and many are
quite legal ;)

-Matt


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] More editing of user pages,
	please (was Arbcom has completely lost its mind)

body:
On 2/9/06, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> some nation shouldn't exist, that some other user is a menace to the
> project -- all of which I have seen in the past few weeks -- start an
> argument that no one else can respond to, because it's on your user
> page that no one can touch.

This is an excellent point that deserves repeating somewhere. Starting
an argument on your userpage is wrong because it can't be rebutted.
Therefore you shouldn't have anything on your userpage which
constitutes a starting point for an argument. "I am a Catholic"
satisfies that, but "George Bush is dumb" doesn't.

I like this as a dividing line. No opinions, basically. Objective
facts about yourself, but no opinions which people might disagree
with. It's just not the place.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
Hmm, not a bad article, but this bit is worrying:

""They've got an edit provision on there for the sake of editing when
things are not accurate," Mr Mische told the Associated Press.

"I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn't
allow you to edit." "

Somehow the 30 odd policies and nearly 200 guidelines specifically
relating to editing got overlooked.

Steve

On 2/9/06, Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Congress 'made Wikipedia' changes" says the BBC:
>
>   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4695376.stm
>
>
>   Jon
>
>
> David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>   The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media
> Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in
> both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper
> version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
>
> There should be TV coverage as well, if Danny can match interviewees
> with interviewers fast enough - if everyone could try to record the
> assorted TV news tonight, that'd be great, particularly if you have a
> DVD recorder and/or can do multiple channels!
>
> We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK media
> contact for *special* days like this. (Alison, you're drafted!) Other
> suitable UK volunteers who can get away from their desk by day at
> short notice might be good too.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger  NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] nobs on moderation

body:
On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
>
> > On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > I always get worried when I see that word in one of your posts, David.
> > > Nothing personal, but the thought of you in drag makes my
> > blood run cold.
> >
> > On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > I can vouch for this. David's a fair man, but hard.
> >
> > I think we're learning more than we want to about your and
> > Davd's relationship ;)
>
> An edgy one, to be sure! Perhaps I'm overly fond of wordplay, but
> honestly,
> the first time I saw David's Travelcard photograph and realised that "Red
> Drag Diva" was more than just an anagram, I shivered!
>
> To explain further, David is a LiveJournal blogger, and he writes a witty,
> entertaining and literate journal that reveals just how little of a life I
> have in comparison. I occasionally dip into his blog but I think we're on
> very different wavelengths.
>
> By way of example, here's David's selection of userpics:
> http://www.livejournal.com/allpics.bml?user=reddragdiva
>
> And here's mine. Who has the richer, more fun-filled life, I ask? And the
> more entertaining way of describing it?
>
> Peter (Skyring)

Yeah, I've seen David's blog.  My comment was just a bad joke, reading
bothcomments as sexual innuendos.


subject: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
On 2/9/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That was user Amalekite / [[Alex Linder]], and he was blocked for
> endangering Wikipedians (he also suggested ways of subverting Wikipedia
> using sockpuppets and proxies).  Nevertheless, he wasn't blocked for simply
> being a neo-Nazi/white supremacist; neo-Nazis/white supremacists regularly
> post on Wikipedia.

Seems reasonable to me - to exclude their input would be to create a
deliberate bias. Would we allow relatives of victims of Auschwitz to
edit, but not relatives of Nazis who worked at Auschwitz?

Steve


body:
On 2/9/06, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a slippery slope. I mean, yeah, I'd rather not block either
> side. But if it comes to a point where we block Nazis, am I going to
> shed too many tears? No. No, I'm not.

It's a very short slippery slope to *not* block (since apparently
we're not blocking anyone on ideological grounds, except possibly
pedophiles). It's a very long slippery slope to *start* blocking.

Steve


from_name: Brian Anderton

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews IOTM: February

body:
I'm pleased to announce that Michael Geist has accepted a request for
an interview with Wikinews.

This months Interview will be taking place on
Wednesday, 15 February 2006 at 19:00 UTC in the International Wikinews
IRC channel (irc://irc.freenode.net/wikinews).

Michael Geist  is a Canadian law professor, newspaper columnist, and
blogger. Involved with the Canadian Internet Policy and Public
Interest Clinic. Recently embroiled in a very public debate with MP
Sarmite Bulte over her statements in support of expanding copyright
law.

We will be doing research and developing questions at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Interview_of_the_month/February_2006_Questions
.

Brian


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews IOTM: February


body:
On 2/9/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> In reality, though, neo-Nazis/white supremacists have a great deal of
> difficulty editing, mostly because they cannot seem to comprehend or abide
> by content policies like [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].  As well, the
> interaction policies like [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]] seem to elude them.
> Given their views, none of this surprises me.

Any more so, than say, religious fanatics or pokemon fans?

> Would we allow relatives of victims of Auschwitz to
> > edit, but not relatives of Nazis who worked at Auschwitz?
>
> Not sure how either group would be relevant, since Wikipedia considers
> personal experience to be a kind of original research, which is not
> permitted in articles.

Relevant? Most Wikipedia editors write about their own personal
interests and experiences, hopefully referring to published facts in
the process. It seems likely to me that families of Auschwitz victims
might find their way to [[Auschwitz]]. I'm not saying we would make an
exception to WP:V for them, but they would probably bring a certain
POV
to their editing. In my purely idealist way of seeing this, some sort
of Nazi sympathiser might bring a sort of counter-balance to that POV.

Totally theoretically, of course..

Steve


body:
On 2/9/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com> wrote:
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.

I hereby promise to quote you on that!

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] nobs on moderation

body:
nobs03 wrote:

>Yah but rules are only applied based upon a) Who you are; b) who your
>friends are; c)  your ideological purity.

I've put nobs on moderation after one querulous trolling post too
many. nobs: quit whining or your posts will be discarded.

- d.


from_name: Kim Bruning

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I lose, my right
> honerable opposition shall likely successfully endeavour to severely reduce copyright
> checks on the english wikipedia.

The lack of response is deafening! :-P

I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and incorrect use of fair
use provisions are NOT a concern for the foundation at this moment in time?

Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as disruptive on
en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given to the community. I shall
concede this point to my opposition, and request for copyright checks on
en.wikipedia to be curtailed.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


subject: [Foundation-l] Thomas est n? - Thomas is born

in_reply_to:
<453b6e50602080319l6e97cc6fh3e00b33ecbc0b6ff@mail.gmail.com>;
	from notafishz@gmail.com on Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 12:19:48PM +0100

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


from_name: Sherool

body:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:21:29 +0100, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little
>> corner on
>> the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it
>> would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the
>> links I need to work effectively will remain?
>> If editing of userpages wasn't discouraged, who says we wouldn't get
>> more
>> disputes (which are now confined to other  pages). If there's things
>> clearly
>> unacceptable for userpages like rants, attacks, and certain disruptive
>> things, we should simply state those outright and take action against
>> those
>> who break those rules.
>
> By the same token, we should feel free to edit user pages when they
> cross certain boundaries. Preferably clearly defined ones.
<snip>

If you leave a verbose edit summary and explain the edit on theyr talk
page you can usualy get away with editing other people's pages if you have
a good reason (though there are still some knee jerk reverts), but there
are a few users who consider *any* edit (beyond simple typo fixing) of
theyr userpage to be vandalism regardles, and they can be extremely vocal
about it.

Things like removing fair use images for example should be
uncontroversial, at least if explained properly (though after some
complains I have none the less started asking people to remove them
themselves instead, and give them a few days before I intervene). When it
comes to removing offensive material things are more "tricky", users who
put such things on theyr userpage tend to be attention seeking and/or
"troublemakers" in the first place, so when "the man" comes alog and mess
with theyr page they are far more likely to declare all our war over it.

--
[[User:Sherool]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] WMF lawyer on copyright: if in doubt, delete.

body:
If someone complains about removal of their fair-use image, please
reference this message from the Foundation's lawyer:

    http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-February/006001.html

If someone doesn't accept what the WMF's lawyer has to say on the
subject, I think it becomes their problem rather than yours.

On 2/9/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com> wrote:

> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.
> Quote should include...[insert]..."in accordance with existing copyvio
> policy."  See en:wp:Copyvio.

- d.


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On 2/9/06, Phil Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we
> > should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are*
> > policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they
> > should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in
> > particular about the project.
> >
>
> Step #1 - Make the policies readable and intelligible.
>
> -Phil

Are you going to make that policy or a guideline?
--
geni


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
Like this is news?

There has been a lot of tripe lately in defense of blatant copyright
infringement and how we're supposed to respect an editor's good faith
belief in all kinds of fictions like fairies, pixies and the
all-pervasiveness of the fair use provision.

I hope we can declare that excuse to be dead.  We really should be
acting to defend this encyclopedia.


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On 2/9/06, Phil Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we
> > should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are*
> > policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they
> > should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in
> > particular about the project.

> Step #1 - Make the policies readable and intelligible.

We should note that Steve has been working on just that, with the
project to put a one-line description at the top of each policy or
guideline.

Now we need to hack away at the guidelines removing everything that's
aimed at the clueless or at bad-faith editors, because they're the two
groups that don't or can't read the guidelines, and writing aimed at
them is the #1 source of instruction creep.

Then we can get to work on making sense of badly-written policies ...

- d.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

body:
Hoi,
The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black hole.
Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out. When it
comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the implementation
of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement them. This results
in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This in turn results in
people telling organisations that use Wikipedia content that they cannot
use the content as is.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, the license of the Wikimedia
project (GFDL) states that everything that is included in the projects
needs to be available under this license. When people license things
under a license that is more Free, that is fine, but it needs to allow
for GFDL publication.

My question to the nice people that are also on the juriwiki-l am I
correct in what I just said.

Thanks,
    GerardM

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
> copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the place
> where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>
> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.
>
> -Brad
>
> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
> Fowler White Boggs Banker
> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
> Suite 1700
> Tampa, FL  33602-5239
> (813) 228-7411 main
> (813) 222-3336 direct
> (813) 229-8313 fax
> bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
>> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
>> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
>> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
>>
> wikipedia.
>
> The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>
> I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
> incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
> foundation at this moment in time?
>
> Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
> disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given
> to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
> request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>
> sincerely,
> 	Kim Bruning
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


subject: [WikiEN-l] user pages

body:
On 2/9/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
> While checking out the new shiny proposed deletion, I came across
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liberalundergrnd
>
> Whats the process for dealing with this sort of User: space
> abuse?

I recently encountered a case a bit like this.  The fellow was using
his userpage to promote his aviation museum.  Obviously a good faith
editor and one we didn't want to lose.  Improv and I handled it
together and he fixed it.  He now mentions his business (which sounds
like a really interesting place to visit) but doesn't use promotional
language and doesn't write solely about that part of his life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Check-Six

We had no problems once we had convinced him that we meant business.


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On 2/9/06, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't imagine why someone would notice the tagline "the free
> encyclopedia that anyone can edit" but ignore 230 pages of dense rules.

Exactly. I'm not really sure what my point is here, but perhaps we
should make a token effort to impress upon people that there *are*
policies, and as long as they edit in ignorance of such policies, they
should not claim any particular rights or presume anything in
particular about the project.

Analogy: You get hired to work as a programmer for Microsoft. On the
first day, you make a couple of major changes to the kernel. When your
CVS changes get reverted, you express surprise - "If they didn't want
me to edit code, why would they hire me?".  The point is, you know
that there are rules for what code you should and shouldn't edit, even
if you aren't aware of what those rules are.

So, we should be happy for users to edit in blissful ignorance, but at
the very very least we should make them aware that there are rules,
and if they break them, we will politely let them know, and tell them
which one they broke.

Steve


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 09/02/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Like this is news?

It's not news, but it's rather nice to be able to point and say "Look,
our *lawyer* says we should be doing this!"

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On 09/02/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm, not a bad article, but this bit is worrying:
>
> ""They've got an edit provision on there for the sake of editing when
> things are not accurate," Mr Mische told the Associated Press.
>
> "I presume that if they did not want people to edit, they wouldn't
> allow you to edit." "

Huh. Parse that as "They've got a provision in the Constitution for
politicians passing laws when the law needs fixing. I presume that if
they didn't want us to change all the laws [in our favour], they
wouldn't have that provision" and see how far it gets you.

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


body:
On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their
> userpage

Well obviously they are.  On the evidence page for the userbox page,
someone cites examples of several people who do precisely that, and
have absolutely clean block logs.  Nobody is hunting down these people
and preventing them from editing Wikipedia.  You were blocked, not for
being a pedophile, but for trolling.


body:
On 2/9/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It makes people happy for a reason. It gives them their own little corner on
> the site which is "theirs". If anyone was able to edit my userspace, it
> would no doubt kill the formatting I like so much, and who is to say the
> links I need to work effectively will remain?

Why don't you try it?  Anybody who wishes can edit my userpage.  I'll
remove stuff I dislike intensely, but basically it's just like any
other part of the wiki.

Presently my userpage is just a redirect to my talk page, but if
someone wants to have a go at producing a userpage for me I've no
objection.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ambi's two week block of Bobblewik

body:
On 2/9/06, bobble wik <bobblewik at mail.com> wrote:
>
>  It is bizarre to have MoS guidance that cannot be implemented because some admins disagree with it and block editors rather than obtain new MoS wording.

If you've been blocked for making a nuisance of yourself, the fact
that what you did is written down in a manual somewhere doesn't excuse
your behavior.

Style is a matter of personal taste.  Unfortunatly I've seen at least
one sysop also making a nuisance of himself on such matters, provoking
and alienating editors who were doing good work, simply because they
didn't dot their i's or cross their t's in a manner that he agreed
with.  This is not the way to foster a productive editing environment.
 Nobody is obliged to change the manual of style; you must instead
modify the way that you interact with other editors.


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints

in_reply_to:
<5E85BEBD53B83F45B2B52761ED963FE607D0963A@tpaex1.us.firm.fowlerwhite.com>;
	from bpatrick@fowlerwhite.com on Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:48:12AM -0500

body:
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:48:12AM -0500, Patrick, Brad wrote:
> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
> copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the place
> where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.

I see! Let's see if I can join that.

> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.

Would that be merely off-list, or rather per telephone? (The latter is an
international charge for me)

I'm currently looking for public (aggregate) data on the magnitude of the
problem, or if there even actually is one.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
>> Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool
>> ?  It offers a filtered list of RC; with the ability to view the diffs
>> all-in-one-page, and convieient revert and rollback buttons...  Is
>> that
>> hose high powered enough for you?
>
> Unfortunately I don't see the revert button, and rollback doesn't work
> if you're not an admin.
You're quite right.  I'm not sure on what side you fall on the
give-anyone-rollback issue, but, either; get godmode-lite(and politely
request the maker of it get it working with Lupin's tool), or sign up
on Requests for Rollback...

> Also the warn button doesn't work if the user
> doesn't already have a talk page.
That's a bug.  Please drop a note on Lupin's talk page.

>> Admittedly, we haven't got sprinkler systems, AFAIK (although blocks
>> might count, I suppose), but the rest is there...
>
> Yeah, would it be that much of a stress on the servers to check edits
> against a regex and automatically quarantine them if they matched
> certain basic patterns?
No idea.


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:SAWW
>
> I look forward to your contribution being set to music and sung by the
> Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
>
> Pete, trying to think of a rhyme for SPUI

"Tiara in place, he rises, he speaks!
And kisses the GodKing on both of his cheeks."

Quite brilliant Pete!

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


body:
Hoi Brad,
I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of the
terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence would be
that material that is not available under the GFDL should not be
included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?

One other question, why do you single out the en.wp to take action on
copyvio? What is it that makes this project special ? Would this advise
not be as appropriate for any project and any language ?

Thanks,
   GerardM

Patrick, Brad wrote:
> Not everything that is on Wikipedia is by virtue of it simply being
> there, magically transformed into GFDL, as you indicate.  That is the
> essential problem, and the fallacy (some) users erroneously believe.  So
> long as there are uploads, there will be copyvio.  It must be dealt with
> accordingly.
>
> To editors on en.wp in particular, don't hesitate to take action on
> copyvio.  It is better to err on the side of caution and aggressively
> delete.  The license problem is as much an educational problem as an
> actual systemic copyvio problem.
>
> -Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: juriwiki-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
> [mailto:juriwiki-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:03 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Cc: juriwiki-l at mail.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Juriwiki-l] Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>
> Hoi,
> The great thing of juriwiki-l is that it is in essence a big black hole.
>
> Things get in there and it is not seen that something comes out. When it
> comes to issues with licenses and issues to do with the implementation
> of the rules many projects *choose* how to implement them. This results
> in content that is inconsistent with the GFDL. This in turn results in
> people telling organisations that use Wikipedia content that they cannot
> use the content as is.
>
> In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, the license of the Wikimedia
> project (GFDL) states that everything that is included in the projects
> needs to be available under this license. When people license things
> under a license that is more Free, that is fine, but it needs to allow
> for GFDL publication.
>
> My question to the nice people that are also on the juriwiki-l am I
> correct in what I just said.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>> You would be mistaken to conclude that the Foundation does not regard
>> copyvio as significant.  Rather, your choice of venue for discussion,
>> i.e., Foundation-L, is not the most productive.  Juriwiki-L is the
>> place where hot copyvio action may be found more readily.
>>
>> Please contact me offline to discuss particulars.
>>
>> -Brad
>>
>> Bradford A. Patrick, Esq.
>> Fowler White Boggs Banker
>> 501 E. Kennedy Blvd.
>> Suite 1700
>> Tampa, FL  33602-5239
>> (813) 228-7411 main
>> (813) 222-3336 direct
>> (813) 229-8313 fax
>> bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kim Bruning
>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:34 AM
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright complaints
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:12:04PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is important for wikipolitical reasons on en.wikipedia. If I
>>> lose, my right honerable opposition shall likely successfully
>>> endeavour to severely reduce copyright checks on the english
>>>
>>>
>> wikipedia.
>>
>> The lack of response is deafening! :-P
>>
>> I guess I was mistaken. :-( I take it that copyright issues and
>> incorrect use of fair use provisions are NOT a concern for the
>> foundation at this moment in time?
>>
>> Due to the fact that copyright and fairuse checking is seen as
>> disruptive on en.wikipedia, I suppose that priority must then be given
>>
>
>
>> to the community. I shall concede this point to my opposition, and
>> request for copyright checks on en.wikipedia to be curtailed.
>>
>> sincerely,
>> 	Kim Bruning
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Juriwiki-l mailing list
> Juriwiki-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/juriwiki-l
>
> This email and its attachments are strictly intended for use and viewing
> by the sole addressee(s) on the juriwiki-l mailing-list.
>
>
> They cannot be published outside of this list without the prior
> authorization of their author(s).
>
> They may contain legally privileged and/or confidential or proprietary
> information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email, or
> this email has been sent to you through inadvertence, mistake or
> negligence, or you have otherwise received this email without the
> knowledge, authority and consent of the sender, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination, forwarding, distribution or copying of this
> email, and/or any attachments is strictly prohibited.  If you believe
> you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the
> juriwiki-l mailing list by writing to juriwiki-l at wikimedia.org and
> permanently delete the original email and any attachments and discard
> any copies or printouts of this email and any attachments.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.
>
> If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

body:
On 8 Feb 2006 at 17:14, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
> > law should be forbidden as well.
>
> Like "This user smokes weed"?

In some states, this is legal if it is for medical purposes.

Also, perhaps the user with that statement on his page in fact only
smokes weed while he is in other countries where it is allowed, such
as the Netherlands.

--
== 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/


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
> The next major thing to accomplish would be to come up with a definite
> "recommended reading order" of policies (as hinted at on WP:POL) and
> shove step #1 down newbie's throats. This should probably be a
> condensed version of [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]]. Then we
> can start to educate them on the very very basic policies of V, OR,
> NPOV, copyvio etc.

I think the first policy new editors need to be educated in is "allow
your contributions to be edited mercilessly". I've always seen that
as the flip side of IAR: if you're a new user or otherwise not
inclined to pay much attention to learning the rules, *ignore them*,
but let the rest of us massage your edits into a usable form. This is
how my interpretation of IAR differs from most: I actually think that
we're *supposed* to ignore NPOV much, if not most of the time.
Contributing information and making sure that information is written
from a NPOV are two separate tasks. Give us information in whatever
form you're best able to and let other editors make sure it conforms
to NPOV. (Writing polemics doesn't help us much, and neither does
writing polemics but prefacing each point with "some say". On the
other hand, if you write "the Spanish-American war was primarily
caused by U.S. expansionism" and are able to give a source, we don't
need to beat you over the head with a stick because we can rephrase
it ourselves.)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
Let's not pretend that it didn't happen.

Actually at the time Carbonite blocked Joeyramoney the first time, he
*did* do so with the summary "user identifies himself as a pedophile"
and in the deletion discussion he said:

"Just for the record, I plan on indefinitely blocking anyone who uses
this template. If someone wants to announce their disgusting tendency
to have sexual thoughts about children, so be it. You're not welcome
here though. I'd also block anyone identifying themselves as a rapist
or murderer. The only user to currently include this template is
User:Joeyramoney. He's now been blocked"

He then made the following announcement on the administrators' noticeboard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=38313867

"The userbox Template:User pedophile is a great way of identifying
those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on
indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've
already blocked the only user to include this template,
User:Joeyramoney. Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to
edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to
yourself and stay off Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare
that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being
written by self-identified pedophiles."

Of course Carbonite's action was utterly unacceptable, but let's not
airbrush it out of history.  Later blocks on Joeyramoney where on the
basis of the assumption that he did so in a deliberate attempt to
provoke.  There is evidence that he did not intend this, or at least
that when he realised what a fuss he had caused he acted sensibly and
removed the template.


body:
On 2/9/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:

> Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool
> ?  It offers a filtered list of RC; with the ability to view the diffs
> all-in-one-page, and convieient revert and rollback buttons...  Is that
> hose high powered enough for you?

Unfortunately I don't see the revert button, and rollback doesn't work
if you're not an admin. Also the warn button doesn't work if the user
doesn't already have a talk page. But the idea is good (I think I've
played with it before actually).

I sort of like the basic format of CryptoDerk's vandalfighter tool
better, but it's sort of about garden hose level now. If it
automatically showed diffs, and let you warn/revert with a single
click, that would be the firehose I'm looking for.

> Admittedly, we haven't got sprinkler systems, AFAIK (although blocks
> might count, I suppose), but the rest is there...

Yeah, would it be that much of a stress on the servers to check edits
against a regex and automatically quarantine them if they matched
certain basic patterns?

Steve


body:
>>>> I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone
>>>> breaks US
>>>> law should be forbidden as well.
>>>
>>> Like "This user smokes weed"?
>>
>> In some states, this is legal if it is for medical purposes.
>
> Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?

Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:

> Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and
> other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After
> all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing.
> I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the
> laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how
> many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions
> that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure
> right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia -
> maybe I should go and rob a bank).

Is IAR an admissible defense in court? :)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
>
> Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is
> American, yes.  That is why I drew the line there.  Yes, I know it
> isn't perfect.  But it's better than anything else I've seen.

But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed.
After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States.
Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all
advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the
First Amendment has stopped them.

--
== 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/


from_name: Delirium

body:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

>But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed.
>After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States.
>Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all
>advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the
>First Amendment has stopped them.
>
>
Or even, for that matter, to discuss, or advocate, adults having sex
with children who are below the age of consent.  After all, NAMBLA is
headquartered in the United States...

-Mark


body:
>> Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
>
> Is this likely to happen again?
>
> Pete, whistling dixie

I am forced to say no; to say otherwise is hate speech.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: wikitech-l

from_name: wiki at marcusbuck.org

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Captcha on nds.wikipedia.org

body:
Why have I to ask this the third time, without getting any answer despite the
wacko calling me to ask in french? If there is any problem, then tell me!

> Could somebody with the right for it please deactivate the Captcha at the new
> users registration page on nds.wikipedia.org like it is deactivated on other
> wikipedias? There is everyday activity on the wiki and we can handle good
> with the incoming spam and vandalism. There is no need for this kind of
> barrier.

Thanks

Slomox
Marcus Buck


from_name: Nathan Carter

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipubs Project Proposal.

body:
What sort of information is on the site that could not be published on
Wikipedia, a project already ran by the Foundation?
Cheers,
Nathan

admin at wikipubs.org wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
> prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type directory
> was appropriate. I have found that the software easily meets the
> requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible future
> project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were purchased
> when I first came up with the idea and now am putting this forward for
> discussion as project proposal.
>
> Cheers,
> James.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Snow
> >I mean, the bible
> >says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse
> with lust in
> >your heart
> >
> Actually, for the excessively literalistic among us (that
> would be all of you, I expect), the text of the Bible only
> says looking upon "a woman". You're already adding your own
> interpretation by using gender-neutral language and adding
> the "not your spouse" bit, even if it can be inferred from
> the fact that the topic is adultery.

Ahhh, blame my failing memory. My time at Sunday School was a long time ago.
Not that we put much effort into adultery. It was infantry in those days...

Pete, too young for the cavalry as well


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Bain
> Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2006 19:07
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] They love us! They really love us!
>
> On 2/9/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:SAWW
> >
> > I look forward to your contribution being set to music and
> sung by the
> > Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
> >
> > Pete, trying to think of a rhyme for SPUI
>
> "Tiara in place, he rises, he speaks!
> And kisses the GodKing on both of his cheeks."
>
> Quite brilliant Pete!

I was inspired by David's awesome effort.

Pete, poet larrikin


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is America

body:
> Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?

But... Wikipedia _is_ America!

Wikipedia! Wikipedia!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

I hear Wikipedia singing, the varied carols I hear;
Those of mechanics?each one singing his, as it should be, blithe and
strong;
The carpenter singing his, as he measures his plank or beam...

Britannica may rule the waves, but Wikipedia waives the rules!

God bless Wikipedia!


from_name: Christopher Larberg

body:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 04:01 +0000, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 2/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> (I wrote:)
> > >
> > > Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
> >
> > Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
> >
>
> Um, what?

I believe what he's getting at is the fact that the Wikimedia
Foundation's database servers all reside in St. Petersburg, and the
content on them is thus subject to United States and Florida law.
--
Christopher Larberg [[w:en:User:Slowking Man]]
<christopherlarberg at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060209/36b8b7ee/attachment.pgp


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] New diff extension

body:
I've made a new diff extension, called wikidiff2. It uses the same diff algorithm that we've been
using in PHP, ported to C++. I've done some benchmarks on test sets which require lots of word-level
diffs. For the lines "a b c d" -> "a b c e" repeated many times, on srv31, the timings are:

PHP DifferenceEngine: 10230us per line
wikidiff (old C++ extension): 379us per line
wikidiff2 (new C++ extension): 11.5us per line

No doubt the ratios will be different under realistic conditions, but I know where I'm putting my money.

We've been using the PHP version lately rather than wikidiff, because wikidiff wasn't finding diffs
as short as people were used to. Because the new extension uses exactly the same algorithm as the
PHP version, there should be no user-visible differences.

wikidiff2 can also be compiled as a standalone executable and used to diff files.

It's not tested to my satisfaction yet, but once it is, I imagine we'll put it live on the Wikimedia
cluster. Eventually I imagine we could ditch the original extension and rename my one to wikidiff,
but I wanted to keep both of them around for the moment so that I could compare them.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Australian IRC channel: #wikimedia-au

body:
#wikimedia-au on Freenode has just been created, for Australians and
Australian topics on, relating to, around and with even the vaguest
tangential link to Wikimedia. I expect to idle there 24 hours a day,
away from the keyboard two to three days at a time, much as I do
everywhere else. I also added chanop there to the list of jobs on my
userpage. In Soviet Wikipedia, job finds YOU.

- d.


from_name: Patrick, Brad

body:
I think all would agree a unified license would be the best.  I defer to
soufron with respect to the multilingual comparative approach you
suggest.

My recollection from earlier discussions was that the biggest problem
with copyright was the anonymous images which are found by the bushel on
Commons.  Anonymous is an awful place to be in terms of protection.  But
there is very little to be done with that, I surmise.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright
complaints)

Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it

> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of
> the terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence
> would be that material that is not available under the GFDL should not

> be included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?

Our current practice as I understand it is:

- GFDL text can only be combined with text under licenses that are
explicitly compatible with the GFDL. We currently consider simple
attribution-only licenses to be compatible, while there is as of yet no
two-way compatibility to other copyleft licenses like the CC-BY-SA.
Limited fair use quotations are considered outside the scope of
applicability of the license.

- GFDL text can be combined with images under any license which we
permit per project-level policy, e.g.., we consider it a policy issue,
not a legal one, to forbid images which do not allow commercial use.
This combination of GFDL text with non-GFDL images is taken to be
covered by the aggregation clause (section 7) of the GFDL.

Since, with the exception of fair use images, all our allowed image
licenses are philosophically similar to the GFDL, we should strive for
explicit compatibility in the long run.

In addition, there is the practice of multi-licensing both text and
image contributions under the GFDL and one or more other licenses; this
is to ensure that external parties can choose which license to follow,
while all internal use is covered by the GFDL. This is not without its
problems, since in the case of text contributions e.g. under
CC-BY-SA/GFDL, it allows external parties to circumvent the copyleft
requirement by creating a derivative work under a license which is not
compatible with the GFDL.

Our biggest copyright black hole at the moment are fair use images on
en.wikipedia.org. However, we seem to be evolving towards the reasonable
practice of limiting fair use to an explicit whitelist of cases where it
is most defensible; on the English Wikipedia, this is currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use

Different language projects have different policies of fair use; some
follow their national laws (e.g. Polish Wikinews), others exclude it
entirely (German Wikipedia). There might be some which use US Copyright
Law as a basis since our servers are in Florida, and there are certainly
language editions which are fairly lax about image copyrights. I would
suggest an explicit cross-language survey of the issue to be conducted
by the Legal Committee.

HTH,
Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


subject: [Foundation-l] Re: GFDL compatibility (was: Copyright complaints)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: New diff extension

body:
Phil Boswell wrote:
> Just to double-check (3 sig-figs since that's all we've been given in some
> cases):
> PHP: 97.8 lines/s
> wikidiff: 2640 lines/s
> wikidiff2: 87000 lines/s
>
> Strewth! Unless there's something devastatingly wrong with your coding, this
> would seem likely to make a huge impact on performance.
>
> Is this currently a serious bottleneck?
>
> What is the next bottleneck that needs consideration?

It won't have a big impact on average performance. Even with the PHP algorithm, diffs take only 10ms
each on average, and they're not a particularly common operation. The main motivation for doing it
was robustness. Particularly large or pathological diffs can run PHP over its memory limit, or may
require minutes to generate. That's kind of annoying. Vandals use this to annoy patrollers, and it's
a potential DoS vector.

So what I'm interested in is worst-case performance. This extension seems to fare fairly well on
test input that makes PHP choke.

-- Tim Starling


from_name: Fire

subject: [WikiEN-l] looking for a moderation plugin

body:
Hi there, I was wondering if any programmer would be able to pogram for
me a plugn for mediawiki that would
filter all posts / edits to me, before they are put on my website.

I want to beable to monitor/reject/approve all content being submitted
to my sight.

Does this functionality exist in a  plugin somewhere?

If not, how much would you charge to program this functionality for me?

Thanks


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

> On 8 Feb 2006, at 22:10, Sam Korn wrote:
>
>> I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
>> law should be forbidden as well.
>
> Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and
> other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After
> all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing.
> I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the
> laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how
> many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions
> that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure
> right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia -
> maybe I should go and rob a bank).

Free room and board can save you a lot of worries.

I'm glad to hear that when you are working for Her Majesty that way you
are allowed to spend your time constructively.  Some countries,
including ones which still have the death penalty, would prefer not to
have rehabilitation interfere with the society's thirst for revenge.

Ec


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi Brad,
> I appreciate that everything that gets uploaded is not by virtue of it
> being uploaded to a wikimedia project GFDL licensed material. Now the
> crux to me is that when it is not, it is in essence in violation of the
> terms of the GFDL license. If this is correct, the consequence would be
> that material that is not available under the GFDL should not be
> included in a WMF project. Am I correct on this one ?

Our current practice as I understand it is:

- GFDL text can only be combined with text under licenses that are
explicitly compatible with the GFDL. We currently consider simple
attribution-only licenses to be compatible, while there is as of yet no
two-way compatibility to other copyleft licenses like the CC-BY-SA.
Limited fair use quotations are considered outside the scope of
applicability of the license.

- GFDL text can be combined with images under any license which we
permit per project-level policy, e.g.., we consider it a policy issue,
not a legal one, to forbid images which do not allow commercial use.
This combination of GFDL text with non-GFDL images is taken to be
covered by the aggregation clause (section 7) of the GFDL.

Since, with the exception of fair use images, all our allowed image
licenses are philosophically similar to the GFDL, we should strive for
explicit compatibility in the long run.

In addition, there is the practice of multi-licensing both text and
image contributions under the GFDL and one or more other licenses; this
is to ensure that external parties can choose which license to follow,
while all internal use is covered by the GFDL. This is not without its
problems, since in the case of text contributions e.g. under
CC-BY-SA/GFDL, it allows external parties to circumvent the copyleft
requirement by creating a derivative work under a license which is not
compatible with the GFDL.

Our biggest copyright black hole at the moment are fair use images on
en.wikipedia.org. However, we seem to be evolving towards the reasonable
practice of limiting fair use to an explicit whitelist of cases where it
is most defensible; on the English Wikipedia, this is currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use

Different language projects have different policies of fair use; some
follow their national laws (e.g. Polish Wikinews), others exclude it
entirely (German Wikipedia). There might be some which use US Copyright
Law as a basis since our servers are in Florida, and there are certainly
language editions which are fairly lax about image copyrights. I would
suggest an explicit cross-language survey of the issue to be conducted
by the Legal Committee.

HTH,
Erik


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 2/9/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> That seems a false distinction to me---you're defining "provocation" as
> "stating who they are", but only for certain classes of users (saying
> you're a Satanist, Republican, or gay is ok, saying you're a neo-Nazi
> isn't).

Sadly, I think the only fair way to treat these is retrospectively -
to see if the "provocative" statements actually provoked anyone. With
the pedophilia template this was clearly the case.

Note that I'm only talking about justifying blocking someone - a
general rule against offensive material on user pages would be a good
thing.

Also to clarify for Sarah, my original point in starting this thread
was not so much to question whether or not we had blocked
inappropriately, but to take stock, and hopefully define once and for
all that we do not condone blocking people for who they are or what
they believe, no matter how offensive we find it. We only block for
actions that harm Wikipedia in some way. I do accept though that
blocking someone for an offensive template is a bit of a grey area -
is it blocking them for *being*, or for *doing*?

Steve


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-10

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 264 of 281 tests (93.95%) FAILED!


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Most referenced article ever?

body:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 11:39 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:

> [[Katie Holmes]]
>
> 85 footnotes and a similar number of "bibliography" entries.
>
> Can anyone top that? :)
Pardon the shameless plug, but

[[Warren Beatty/References]] probably has more.

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
On 2/9/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> We should note that Steve has been working on just that, with the
> project to put a one-line description at the top of each policy or
> guideline.

Oh yeah, there's [[Wikipedia:List of policies]] now, which contains
all those summaries. I was unable to convince the community at large
(or, less politely, certain individuals rather protective o individual
policy pages) of the benefit of having a one-line description at the
top of every single policy page. However, about a quarter of them have
such a thing, using {policy in a nutshell}.

I've also done what I can to chop some of the deadwood off some of our
sillier policies, and merge a couple here and there. And tried to
rework [[WP:POL]] a bit. But there's a lot of work left to do.

The next major thing to accomplish would be to come up with a definite
"recommended reading order" of policies (as hinted at on WP:POL) and
shove step #1 down newbie's throats. This should probably be a
condensed version of [[Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes]]. Then we
can start to educate them on the very very basic policies of V, OR,
NPOV, copyvio etc.

> Now we need to hack away at the guidelines removing everything that's
> aimed at the clueless or at bad-faith editors, because they're the two
> groups that don't or can't read the guidelines, and writing aimed at
> them is the #1 source of instruction creep.

Nicely put. Maybe we should have policies, guidelines, policies for
bad faith editors, and guidelines for bad faith editors. Then we can
keep shovelling the instruction creep into the latter two categories,
so that they're there if someone really badly enough wants to beat
someone over the head with policy.

> Then we can get to work on making sense of badly-written policies ...

Most of them aren't that bad, I've concluded. Generally a bit wordy,
but they're fairly meaningful, and mostly cover actual situations that
arise, or so it seems. A firmer definition of exactly what a policy
is, and how a policy comes to be would be nice though. Someone
recently split a policy into three separate articles with no
discussion before or afterwards. Someone else insisted that [[WP:ENC]]
was policy. sigh.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 2/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The UK media has discovered the US Senate story and today is Media
>>Batshit Day. I just did a Guardian interview for tomorrow (to be in
>>both paper and online - the online version is 3x the size of the paper
>>version, so it's always a good idea to ask!). So look out for it.
>>
>>
>
>The Australian press has discovered it too:
>http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18101931-2,00.html
>
>
It's an interesting example of how errors manage to creep in.  The
article states that Meehan is a Senator; he's a Representative.  It also
states that he had planned to limit himself to four years in Congress;
that should read four terms.  These are innocent errors that do not
affect the impact of the article.  It's easy to spot these when you are
familiar with the issue, but it leaves one wondering about fact checking
and the reliability of what we read in the newspapers. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 2/10/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> On 8 Feb 2006 at 17:14, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
> > > law should be forbidden as well.
> >
> > Like "This user smokes weed"?
>
> In some states, this is legal if it is for medical purposes.

Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hilarious--WoW

body:
I know I'm coming late to the party, but Willy on Wheels is hilarious,
as is the Wikipedia tribute page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels

And I remember when LMS threw a hissy fit because I was preserving
home page vandalism, out of fear it would only encourage them. People
these days are doing a better job than I ever could.

Shouldn't this be in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?


from_name: Justin Cormack

body:
On 8 Feb 2006, at 22:10, Sam Korn wrote:
>
> I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
> law should be forbidden as well.

Why? Not only do we have articles about people who have broken US (and
other countries) law, we can expect contributors who have too. After
all [[Civil disobedience]] is important, just to mention one thing.
I dont expect most people who have broken US law to write about the
laws they have broken and be irredeemably NPOV. In fact I wonder how
many excellent contributors we have in prison - it is contributions
that count (in fact if I was incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure
right now it would give me far more time to work on wikipedia -
maybe I should go and rob a bank).

Justinc


from_name: Jay Converse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hilarious--WoW

body:
On 2/10/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know I'm coming late to the party, but Willy on Wheels is hilarious,
> as is the Wikipedia tribute page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Willy_on_Wheels
>
> And I remember when LMS threw a hissy fit because I was preserving
> home page vandalism, out of fear it would only encourage them. People
> these days are doing a better job than I ever could.
>
> Shouldn't this be in Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?
>
>
This page seems to be so deeply rooted in the zeitgeist of the site that it
seems to have about as much of a chance of getting deleted (or BJAODN'd) as
much as BJAODN does.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is America

body:
On 2/10/06, Daniel P. B. Smith <wikipedia2006 at dpbsmith.com> wrote:
>
> Britannica may rule the waves, but Wikipedia waives the rules!

This goes into my quote file.

But you are a very naughty boy and I should spank your rebellious colonial arse.


from_name: Brion Vibber

body:
Magnus Manske wrote:
> brion at pobox.com schrieb:
>> An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:
>>
>> Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
>> Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
>>
> I fixed these two a few days ago so they generate additional
>

 elements. Can someone please confirm that it works OK
> now, so owe can fix parserTests.php to recognize that?

How do you know you fixed it if it doesn't pass the parser test?

There are several possibilities:
* The fix is wrong
* The fix is incomplete, and didn't cover the test case
* The test case is wrong
* Differences in configuration or software versions cause different results in
your run of the parser tests and my run of the parser tests.

For reference, here's the long output from these two tests:

Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
--- /tmp/mwParser-913954976-expected    2006-02-10 11:02:44.000000000 +0000
+++ /tmp/mwParser-913954976-actual      2006-02-10 11:02:44.000000000 +0000
@@ -1 +1,3 @@
+

+

This is outputting a
 with no contents, which is technically invalid
HTML. The output fails the W3 validator. The fix is incomplete.

Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
--- /tmp/mwParser-1216448957-expected   2006-02-10 11:02:44.000000000 +0000
+++ /tmp/mwParser-1216448957-actual     2006-02-10 11:02:44.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,6 +1,4 @@

 caption
-

-

-
-

+

+

This looks like it has all the right pieces, but the difference in whitespace
arrangement causes the comparison to the expected output to fail. Fix the test
case's expected output.

>> Running test Simple category... FAILED!
>>
> This seems to work as well.

Running test Simple category... FAILED!
--- /tmp/mwParser-579799119-expected    2006-02-10 11:02:49.000000000 +0000
+++ /tmp/mwParser-579799119-actual      2006-02-10 11:02:49.000000000 +0000
@@ -1 +1 @@
-MediaWiki User's Guide
+MediaWiki_User's_Guide

It looks like this test is trying to read from an internal structure which
changed format. It probably needs to be fixed up somehow.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060210/14ca8edd/attachment.pgp>


body:
On 2/10/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

(I wrote:)
> >
> > Could we get out of the "Wikipedia is America" thing?
>
> Sure, as soon as St. Petersburg, Florida secedes from the Union.
>

Um, what?


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] The cart before the horse: policy changes

body:
February 10, 2006

Dear Wikipedians:

Would you be bold and update policy? Does it seem bolder to take
administrative action without proper justification? This is what needs
to be addressed.

The foundations of wikipedia are based on (a) discussion, (b)
discussion, and (c) discussion. Somewhere along the way was inserted
others option: (d) block and (c) end of discussion.

There are many reasons to start discussion, and there are some reasons
to block, and there are even better reasons to continue discussion.
Would you rather block and end discussion or attempt to follow the
foundations and allow for discussion?

Let's get to the point and work with that (to avoid a lengthy business
like letter). Sometimes when the block is done, it puts the cart before
the horse. The block is given but no discussion to justify the block is
done until (maybe) some later time. Given that wikipedia is open
content, the only justification that seems applicable for such swift
action is if continual vandalism is in progress, and the block is the
only way to stop it. However, blocks are given out much easier than that.

We have examples of where blocks are given out that are not based on
technicalities of policy, and I'll provide evidence below:

It took about 10 minutes for a user to make a 3RR report and for the
block to be instated. Reason: "Blocked for 24h for 3RR on the Template.
Not technically 3RR on the Talk because the first edit wasn't a revert,
just a total waste of everyones time. Dzontas: please learn to get along
with people. D's complaints about personal attack I judge totally
unfounded. William M. Connolley
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley> 22:21, 9
February 2006 (UTC)."  [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/3RR#User:Dzonatas ]

Further discussion with wikipedians on #wikipedia led to the belief
where the block was almost entirely undone. The block for the template
was found as not valid since the first edit was not a revert, so both
technically were not 3RR.

Discussion continued on the #wikipedia to justify a block. It took about
a half hour to find any decent justification. It took about an hour to
pinpoint justification, which isn't explicitly stated in the Three
Revert Rule policy.

I agreed to a block on the basis that once one person contests an edit
then discussion must follow on the talk page about the edit, like to
find consensus before another edit. This is the policy change to make
that would make this much clearer. The 3RR has implied such but it
doesn't explicitly state it; although, a 3RR block has been used
regularly on this basis. "The point is," it wasn't obvious.

The policy change would make it obvious.

Also realize in the case above, the user that made the 3RR report never
did discuss the reason for his revert. Discussion did happen on the talk
page, but none of the discussion specifically addressed the edit summary
of the revert. The question about the reason for the revert was avoided
and a block handed out instead. This needs also to be covered in policy
to make sure that relevant discussion on the talk page justifies any
revert; otherwise, they are subject to count towards a 3RR rule block on
the person that doesn't answer the questions to justify that person's
revert.

I know by this process I have actually exploited a common tactical
revert-war technique. That is to revert, not discuss the revert, and let
the other user edit again until there is enough edits to make a 3RR
report. An admin might block upon it, as in the above case proves it
happens. Also, in the above case, the edit summary stated "gr" and later
"grammar" but the user never stated the point of exactly where he
thought the grammar was wrong enough to justify a revert - it is a
personal attack to just comment without reason on someone's grammar,
otherwise.

Thanks for you time to read this. I plan to post diffs on this activity,
but not on this mail-list.

The block is the cart while the horse is the discussion. The horse needs
to pull the cart -- it doesn't seem right other way around.

I also expect mutual application of such policy. To continually apply it
to some wikipedians while it is not equally applied to others implies
seditious activity against wikipedia and wikipedians.

Concerned,
Jonathan


body:
On 2/10/06, Patrick, Brad <bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com> wrote:
> My recollection from earlier discussions was that the biggest problem
> with copyright was the anonymous images which are found by the bushel on
> Commons.  Anonymous is an awful place to be in terms of protection.  But
> there is very little to be done with that, I surmise.

No Wikimedia project currently allows uploads by unregistered users,
so all uploads are at least associated with a user-chosen pseudonym
(and often with an e-mail address, which many users set when creating
an account). Images which were created by other people than the
uploader must include source informaion, and this is generally
enforced nowadays. Commons is neither special in this regard, nor do I
see the situation as being substantially different from that with
text, which is also most commonly contributed pseudonymously, or even
under an IP address.

Perhaps you're referring to a particular problem Commons had earlier
in its history with images that were copied over from the local
language Wikipedias, where the uploaders often forgot to add the
correct source information (other than a brief text like "from
en.wikipedia"), sometimes implicitly taking credit for the work of
others. This problem is less serious today because many more uploads
go directly to Commons.  It's true we still have some legacy uploads
to sort through. Fortunately, most of them are probably not genuine
copyvios.

The problem will become even less serious thanks to Brion, who is
working on the single login transition this month. We can then add
neat features like the ability to move files, including their correct
history, to Commons with the click of a button, or to upload directly
to Commons from a local project..Both should result in cleaner
metadata.

We do not often have the problem that users maliciously upload the
works of others and claim to have created them on their own. What is
much more common is careless uploading of files from the web, with a
license either not given, or one randomly selected. The Commons
community is very diligent in weeding out these uploads, and there are
some good indicators to identify them. For example, because new users
generally don't immediately create user pages, we can identify them as
newbies (their username will be red) and treat them accordingly.

In general, I'm fairly confident that the Commons collection is
reasonably clean of clear copyright violations. There might be some
glaring exceptions hidden deeply in our archives, but that's no
different from Flickr, Ourmedia or any other media sharing service. In
fact, due to our very watchful community, we might even do better than
them already. With FlickrLickr, I've certainly come across some
blatant copyright violations which have not been removed in over a
year, labeled as Creative Commons no less.

The more difficult cases for us are those where users try to be
clever. For instance, the German Wikipedia allows no fair use, which
is quite a PITA when you want to illustrate an article about, say,
"The Simpsons". So what happens is that the users take a photo of some
plastic doll^W^Waction figure and put it under the GFDL. Of course,
the character design is no less copyrighted than before, but people
tend not to grasp the (truthfully rather bizarre) notion of
copyrighting three-dimensional objects. The same happens with photos
of buildings, statues etc. - there's a lack of awareness of the
international standards, and a lack of willingness to enforce them.

This is where Commons needs to find a way to strike a middle ground
between trying to comply with every single national law, and only
following US law and US precedents. Something like "national
applicable law or the internationally prevalent legal standard,
whichever is more permissive" might do the trick.

On the positive side, look at this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Georgia_Aquarium_-_Ocean_Voyager_Tunnel_Jan_2006.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_Public_Library_Research_Room_Jan_2006.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Dave_Matthews_Band_-_Band_Shot_Melbourne_2005.jpg

(Note the resolution!)

Kind of makes up for the copyright issues, doesn't it? ;-)

Erik


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Kat Walsh

> User pages don't belong to the user, they belong to the
> project. It's been generally beneficial to let people have a
> fair bit of leeway with this, as Matt said: it aids
> communication and makes people happy. But ultimately, if you
> want unrestricted free speech, this isn't the place; it
> belongs on your own personal website. If you want to be part
> of this project, you are expected to follow community
> standards, and if you don't like them, to try to change them
> rather than act against them.

An editor's user page should present the editor AS A WIKIPEDIAN. It's where
people go if they click on a user name. If someone wants to check on your
contributions to what is supposed to be a serious fact-filled encyclopaedia,
then how they judge your edits may well be affected by how they are struck
by your user page.

I'd be inclined to question the validity of statements made in articlespace
if the editor had a user page saying that he believed in alien abduction,
flatearthness, tolerance for paedophilia and, yeah, freedom of speech.

In fact I'd probably say to myself, if I didn't know any better, "This thing
is being written by fork-tailed ranting lunatics!"

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] UK press: Guardian tomorrow

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
>
> We'll probably try to drag in Alison Wheeler as a backup UK
> media contact for *special* days like this.

I always get worried when I see that word in one of your posts, David.
Nothing personal, but the thought of you in drag makes my blood run cold.

Pete, with the greatest respect


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] More AfD toxicity

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

This morning I began the process of writing [[cart00ney]] (with two
zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I
returned, [[User:Savidan]] had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion
with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article
had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no
attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously
in-progress article on its talk page.

Perhaps the full article would still be an "apparent nn selfref
neologism," whatever that is.  Perhaps the full article would deserve to
be obliterated with all the contempt that the AfD regulars regularly
heap on articles they don't understand or simply dislike.  Perhaps it
would belong in Wikipedia.  You'll never know now.  Nine (9) minutes
after it was begun, Savidan eagerly began the process of destroying it
before its creation had completed.

I don't really think we needed further demonstrations of the
disgustingly toxic assumptions of bad faith that are inextricably
integral to the entire AfD process, but I will take this opportunity to
thank Savidan for yet another demonstration of how despicable it is.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Careful. We don't want to
 sean at epoptic.org | learn from this. --Calvin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD7LcPMAt1wyd9d+URAtJMAJ9xLtS51w8hdfghMtSTT24rB11OOQCfYym7
u5pBgyHNRl3q4+N10pBbQG4=
=9qCT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: admin Yellowikis

subject: [Wikitech-l] IM interface

body:
I just stumbled upon this chat interface to Amazon and the BBC:

Simply add:
chat at insidemessenger.com to your MSN Messenger (or AOL) and start chatting.

Something like this might make a cool way to search Wikipedia -
especially if disambiguation pages could be integrated.

Paul

--
Yellowikis is to Yellow Pages, as Wikipedia is to The Encyclopedia Britannica


subject: [WikiEN-l] nobs on moderation

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard

> nobs03 wrote:
>
> >Yah but rules are only applied based upon a) Who you are; b)
> who your
> >friends are; c)  your ideological purity.
>
>
> I've put nobs on moderation after one querulous trolling post
> too many. nobs: quit whining or your posts will be discarded.

I can vouch for this. David's a fair man, but hard.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [Foundation-l] One click answers

body: What happened to the one-click answers deal?  Inquiring minds want to know.


subject: [Foundation-l] One click answers


from_name: David Gerard

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Guardian article: Doctoring the past - Wiki style
	(Patrick Barkham)

body:
Today's Guardian article is up:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1706597,00.html

Not bad at all. Even my quote is accurate :-)

Did anything hit TV news at all?

- d.


from_name: Guettarda

body:
[[Neuro-linguistic_programming]] has 259

On 2/10/06, Jake Waskett <jake at waskett.org> wrote:
>
> At time of writing, [[Medical analysis of circumcision]] has 150 inline
> refs.
>
> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 08:39 +0100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> > [[Katie Holmes]]
> >
> > 85 footnotes and a similar number of "bibliography" entries.
> >
> > Can anyone top that? :)
> >
> > Steve
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: admin at wikipubs.org

body:
Robert Scott Horning wrote:

> admin at wikipubs.org wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
>> prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type
>> directory was appropriate. I have found that the software easily
>> meets the requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible
>> future project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were
>> purchased when I first came up with the idea and now am putting this
>> forward for discussion as project proposal.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James.
>
>
> As long as you are showing a willingness to transfer these domains to
> the Wikimedia Foundation upon acceptance of this project, I don't see
> anything wrong with doing a project proposal like this.  It is a bit
> different than other proposals, but every new project proposal seems
> to go about its creation through slightly unique circumstances,
> especially as the proposal matures.
>
> The quality of the proposal and the merits of it becoming a Wikimedia
> sister project should be irrelvant as to if it has an existing website
> or not.  I do think a project demonstration is a good idea, and I hope
> that others looking at this proposal understand the nature of the
> demonstration.
>
Hi,

The domains are of course transferrable if this project was to be
accepted. I believe the cost of domains is negligible these days and to
secure a worthwhile proposal one should secure the domains of choice
before they are hijacked.

Cheers,
James.


body:
On 2/10/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> You're quite right.  I'm not sure on what side you fall on the
> give-anyone-rollback issue, but, either; get godmode-lite(and politely
> request the maker of it get it working with Lupin's tool), or sign up
> on Requests for Rollback...

It's a weird issue, surely it's not that difficult to implement
rollback from within Lupin's tool.

Pity that RfR isn't actually active. I might need to become an admin.

>
> > Also the warn button doesn't work if the user
> > doesn't already have a talk page.
> That's a bug.  Please drop a note on Lupin's talk page.

Ok. I must be the millionth person to notice it though.

Steve


body:
[[Katie Holmes]]

85 footnotes and a similar number of "bibliography" entries.

Can anyone top that? :)

Steve


from_name: Rob Smith

body:
The law was added to be our school ma'arm.  The bible says 'I did not
know sin, except the law said "Thou shalt not covet"'; in other words,
without rules to give direction, we're lost.

nobs

On 2/9/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >I mean, the bible
> >says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your
> >heart
> ...If people would work to *understand* rules instead of trying to lawyer
> them, they would find them much easier both to follow and to enforce.
> Those who are clearly trying to circumvent the rules, we can do without.
>
> --Michael Snow


from_name: Rob Lanphier

subject: [Wikitech-l] Add script to header

body:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 14:03 +0100, Kai H?ner wrote:
> I'm trying to add a new javascript to the header block. I want to use the
> function "addScript(...)" of the File "OutputPage.php" in an extension which
> uses the hook "ParserAfterStrip". All this is working fine: While debugging,
> I can see the given text is stored in the member "$this->mScripts" and I can
> read the given text by using "getScript()".
>
> The function "getScript(...)" is only used one time in the function
> "outPage()" of the file "SkinTemplate.php" in this way:
>
> $tpl->set('headscripts', $out->getScript());
>
> But here the script is seen for the last time! It is NOT added to the
> output.
>
> I have no idea how to handle this, since to use this function
> "addScript(...)" seams to be the right way for an extension. Please help me
> to find my problem.

Apply the patch in this bug report:
http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3603

Rob


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>On 2/10/06, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
>
>>On 8 Feb 2006 at 22:49, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is
>>>American, yes.  That is why I drew the line there.  Yes, I know it
>>>isn't perfect.  But it's better than anything else I've seen.
>>>
>>>
>>But it's not against U.S. law to discuss, or advocate, smoking weed.
>>After all, "High Times" magazine is published in the United States.
>>Some of the government's drug warriors have wished they could ban all
>>advocacy of drug use as well as the drug use itself, but so far the
>>First Amendment has stopped them.
>>
>>
>No.  But it's bad publicity to say that we accept people who break the
>law and proclaim it proudly.  No, it's not a legal necessity.  But it
>is a public relations matter, and I see no reason why it should not be
>applied.
>
>Can anyone think of an alternative line to draw?
>
Why should drawing a line be so important?  Giving users the maximum
flexibility to express who they are is good for everybody, because the
whole world then has a transparent view of where that individual is
coming from.

Nobody is even promoting that people should proclaim that they are
breaking the law.  It's a big leap from someone saying that he smokes
weed to his proclaiing that he is breaking the law.  If what people say
is tantamount to admitting to breaking the law we can offer them no
protection against self-incrimination.

There's something sad about a situation where PR becomes the driving
force behind what we do.  It's equally disturbing when a bunch of
hypocrites loudly shout "IANAL", and then proceed in an attempt to
enforce the law that they don't know anything about.

A better approach might be to put a disclaimer at the top of every user
page saying that the page represents the views of the user alone, and
that we collectively accept no responsibility for what this person says
even though it may sometimes be outrageous.

Wikipedia got where it is by applying a vision boldly, not by engaging
in a PR paranoia game.  To be sure being bold puts the leaders on a
media hotseat. The media thrive on confrontationist journalism, but
respecting free speech is not a defect.   They should be encouraging
free speech, not manipulating interviewees into making distorted and
compromising statements.  Sometimes what is written or spokend does
ignite the passions of the ignorant into stupid action, but if we allow
that argument to hold sway we are dumbing down our efforts for the sake
of pandering to our societies' lowest common denominators.  We end up
sacrificing NPOV because we are afraid that some of the constituents
that must be balanced to achieve neutrality are too embarassing or too
contentious.

Ec