from_name: Draicone

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

body:
This is similar to the system we have on Wikiversity, actually. Anyone
can nominate themselves for custodianship (our term for sysop), but a
present custodian has to accept them for mentoring, and then they
undergo a mentoring period for a number of weeks, after which the
community can comment on their performance and decide if they can
become a full sysop or not. Their actions generally come under further
scrutiny during their mentorship period, and its assumed that they'll
learn not to do anything stupid (of course, tests are acceptable and
encouraged, I blocked myself for 10 minutes during my probation period
to familiarise myself with it). It is, in essence, quite an effective
system considering Wikiversity is just coming up.

On 10/7/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really? I don't see how it's prone to confusing rules. They simply won't see
> the option - or they'll get an error - if they try to do something they
> don't have the power to do.
>
> Part of the problem I think with admins who get on power trips is that one
> day, they went from being an un-powerful little normal editor, to the next
> day being able to do all these amazing things. Imagine if you one day woke
> up with x-ray vision: your first thought would probably be to use it on your
> hot next-door neighbor, wouldn't it?
>
> I'd consider my proposal sort of a "training wheels" time for new admins, so
> they can work with the tools and get used to it without being able to cause
> too much havoc. It wouldn't stop those who deliberately gamed the system to
> get admin power, if they are determined, but it might stop some of those who
> are simply in over their heads or prone to having 'bad days'.
>
> And it might help people lower their expectations, and get more candidates,
> if they weren't pushing them instantly to so heavy of a position.
>
> Parker
>
> On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The example you listed is particularly prone to confusing rules and stuff.
> > It's best to determine whether to give someone a specific power without
> > any
> > artificial restrictions. That way the editor can apply for some powers and
> > explain why they need them and show their expertise in that particular
> > field.
> >
> > Does anyone know why the proposal failed? I seem to remember it did.
> > If nominations are drying up, the current system isn't scaling and if WP
> > is
> > growing we need more admins to do housekeeping.
> >
> > Mgm
> >
> >
> > On 10/6/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mgm,
> > >
> > > I could agree with that. I think that maybe there ought to be multiple
> > > grades of admin, who have specific abilities. Part of the problem right
> > > now
> > > is that so many admins wield what might as well be "absolute power" when
> > > compared to a normal user.
> > >
> > > For instance, why not have a "first grade" admin who have the power only
> > > to
> > > semiprotect articles (to protect from systemic anon-ip/newuser
> > vandalism),
> > > not to lock talk pages at all (including user talk pages) and to impose
> > > blocks up to 48 hours but no longer? Make them ask for help if they see
> > > anything that needs anything longer or appears to be a problem?
> > >
> > > You could have a lot more of those less-powerful admins handling many of
> > > the
> > > issues without worry about whether they went nuts, because even if they
> > > went
> > > nuts, there's be a lot less permanent damage they could do.
> > >
> > > Parker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar
> > in
> > > a
> > > > specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give
> > > people
> > > > the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed.
> > > > Perhaps
> > > > it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.
> > > >
> > > > Mgm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/6/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Originally, I planned to answer Parker Peters's email. I wanted to
> > say
> > > > > something, at least, but I didn't want it to be trite. I didn't want
> > > to
> > > > > defend
> > > > > some admin actions while agreeing with him about others. There will
> > be
> > > > > (have
> > > > > been?) plenty of people to do that. In the end, all of that is
> > > > irrelevant,
> > > > > because it is his perception of the problem that really matters, not
> > > > > whether the
> > > > > problem is truly relevant in particular instance X or Z. It is a
> > > > > macro-issue,
> > > > > and it deserves macro-answers, or alternately, macro-changing in
> > > > > our  thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the real issue can be boiled down to a single statement:
> > > > > "Wikipedia
> > > > > is big ... really, really big." As of yesterday, Alexa ranks us the
> > > > number
> > > > > 12
> > > > > website in the world, and we are still climbing. In English alone,
> > we
> > > > have
> > > > > close  to 1.5 million articles and 6 million total pages. We have
> > over
> > > > 2.4
> > > > > million users and close to 600 thousand images. I don't know
> > how  many
> > > > > edits we
> > > > > are getting per day, per hour, per second, but I can  only assume
> > that
> > > > it
> > > > > is a
> > > > > very substantial number.
> > > > >
> > > > > No single person, or even small group of people, can tend to
> > something
> > > > > this
> > > > > big, or even familiarize themselves with all its nooks and crannies.
> > > Yet
> > > > > we
> > > > > have  to. That is the challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are 1,015 people with admin powers, and for various reasons it
> > > is
> > > > > assumed that the burden of responsibility lies with them (it really
> > > > > doesn't,
> > > > > since it should rest on the entire community, but that is a
> > different
> > > > > story). Of
> > > > > these thousand or so people, some are more active than others. Some
> > > can
> > > > be
> > > > > found  patrolling the projects every hour of every day, while others
> > > pop
> > > > > in for a
> > > > > few  minutes every few months, and still others are gone for good.
> > > > >
> > > > > As such, the burden is overwhelming. There is so much to do, so much
> > > > that
> > > > > needs tending, but we've grown faster than our admnistrative
> > > structure,
> > > > > and the
> > > > > fissures are beginning to show. By piling on the load, it is only
> > > > natural
> > > > > that  admins (and here I mean people who perform admin tasks,
> > whether
> > > > they
> > > > > are
> > > > > admins  or not) begin to feel frustrated and burn out. It is
> > > especially
> > > > > onerous
> > > > > when  every action is going to be viewed by people who will
> > challenge
> > > > > it--and
> > > > > the  admin--any way they can. Do you risk making all the rapid
> > > decisions
> > > > > that
> > > > > need to  be made, one after the other, even if it means that some
> > bad
> > > > > decisions will  inevitably be made? Do you risk maintaining old
> > > > > procedures, which once
> > > > > worked  quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or
> > do
> > > > you
> > > > > experiment  with something new and untested? If there is to be
> > change,
> > > > > what are
> > > > > the  priorities? If there is to be discussion about change, at what
> > > > point
> > > > > do we
> > > > > end  the talking and decide to act?
> > > > >
> > > > > These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising.
> > Note
> > > > that
> > > > > they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no
> > > right
> > > > > answer,  except perhaps from the safety of hindsight. And yet,
> > > decisions
> > > > > have to be
> > > > > made.
> > > > >
> > > > > Danny
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Wikipedia-l] FYI: Missing images tool, V2.0

body:
I believe Interiot or Essjay have a list of tools on the toolserver,
but I don't think there's a list of tools for a specific purpose.

On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/10/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php
>
>
> *applause*
>
> Is there an index (on meta, presumably) of tools like this?
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: HeinzJ

subject: [Wikitech-l] disabling editsection does not work (MW 1.71)

body:
In Mediawiki 1.71 in LocalSettings.php i set

    $wgDefaultUserOptions['editsection'] = 0;

But anonymos users still see [edit].

I got it worked in an older mediawiki-version.
Are there still further things to do. Dit there change something in
Mediawiki 1.71

Thx, HeinJ


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jonathan Leybovich

subject:
[Foundation-l] Ensuring veracity of articles based on print
	sources

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>
>
>>Fundamentally, use of an offline (or subscription, etc) source is a
>>good and sensible thing, but it requires a modicum of trust that we're
>>getting a reliable link between the page and the information quoted;
>>we can't get around this by preparing lists of reliable and unreliable
>>texts, we can only get around this by someone "trusted" saying yes,
>>I've looked at that, it's there.
>>
>
> Everything should be checked and re-checked independently, but that's
> only an ideal.  We're already having difficulties getting software that
> gives us a stable version that has only been checked for common
> vandalism.  In time we should go much further than that, and allow
> statistically based algorithms that will give a measure of probably
> accuracy based on the review of multiple readers.
>

Yes, a blind-vote citation-checking system in which aggregate results
are captured.  Once nice property of such a system is that the votes of
good-faith, competent citation-checkers will correlate strongly with one
another, while the votes of bad-faith and/or incompetent checkers will
have a basically random distribution.  This, of course, assumes no
widespread collusion among checkers, but in most cases such collusion
will be more trouble than its worth.  In addition, it would be possible
to seed the citations shown to checkers (even on an individual basis)
with random false citations which they would be expected to flag as
incorrect/fabricated.  Access to open bibliographic catalogs would allow
for the creation of completely random but quite legitimate-seeming
citations, as it is only a matter a randomly picking a work returned by
querying on the article's main subjects.

I think it might also be useful to use the results of citation-checking
as a feed into some sort of trust ecology.  Fact-checking is mostly
tedious, unrewarding work, and so the users who have shown themselves to
be competent and reliable at it are probably going to be trustworthy or
at least good-faith in other areas as well.  This would of course not be
the only input to a user's "trust rating", but probably one of the more
significant ones.


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

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

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

Here's an idea: if you give us your username and you're not instantly
blocked by some ROUGE ADMIN, it's a wikibreak...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061007/98f84a90/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
SPUI wrote:
> Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
> have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
> could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
> page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny
> 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
>
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn
> seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
> office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they
> are "non-notable", and get salted.
>

Wrong. Any company can contact Danny saying "hello, you keep changing
our spam, can you let us have total control of the page?" and have it
deleted as spam under CSD G11.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061007/feadaa66/attachment.pgp


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
*plug*
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Tools
but most of them are benefiting the Commons or helping uploaders.

Brianna

On 07/10/06, Draicone <draicone at gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe Interiot or Essjay have a list of tools on the toolserver,
> but I don't think there's a list of tools for a specific purpose.
>
> On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/10/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php
> >
> >
> > *applause*
> >
> > Is there an index (on meta, presumably) of tools like this?
> >
> >
> > - d.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
HeinzJ schrieb:
> In Mediawiki 1.71 in LocalSettings.php i set
>
>     $wgDefaultUserOptions['editsection'] = 0;
>
> But anonymos users still see [edit].
>
> I got it worked in an older mediawiki-version.
> Are there still further things to do. Dit there change something in
> Mediawiki 1.71
>
>
> Thx, HeinJ

Found a solution.

Parser.php function initialiseFromUser has to be changed from

    $this->mEditSection = true;

to

    if ($user->getID()) {
       $this->mEditSection = $user->getOption( 'editsection' );
    } else {
       $this->mEditSection = 0;
    }


subject: [Wikitech-l] error in parser.php ?

body:
MediaWiki 1.71
Function initialiseFromUser( &$userInput ) {
Line 4591

     $this->mEditSection = true;

meaning imho that by default the possibility to edit section is set to
true. I think this is a reason why in LocalSettings.php

     $wgDefaultUserOptions['editsection'] = 0

does'nt work (It did not in my wiki).

In MediaWiki 1.46 you can find the line.

     $this->mEditSection = $user->getOption( 'editsection' );

Here the possibility to edit section is defined by LocalSettings.php.

I used this lines for my purpose

    if ($user->getID()) {
       $this->mEditSection = $user->getOption( 'editsection' );
    } else {
       $this->mEditSection = 0;
    }

by Zigger, from (http):
mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2004-November/002099.html

HeinzJ


from_name: George Herbert

body:
On 10/7/06, Markus Sz <echalone at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:32:38 +0200
> > From: Yorian <webmaster at compumania.nl>
> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia
> >
> > Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
> >
> > I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
> > content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
> > website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
> > source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
> > to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> > Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
> > on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
> > this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
> > a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Yorian
> >
>
> Interesting question. The GFDL is about documents and therefor only mentions
> documents. It doesn't say anything about websites. The two applying sections
> in the GFDL are:
> ----
> You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
> the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
> the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
> Version filling the role of the Document.
>
> A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
> Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
> modifications and/or translated into another language.
> ----
> The problem is, what is a "work" in terms of internet websites? Is a whole
> website a "work"? Or is a single page a "work"? This could for example be
> the case if every single page can again be edited by different people...
> which would probably make it a single "work" again.
> So, if you say a Website is a "work", than it would be the modified version
> and therefor any text on the website must be under the terms of the GFDL. If
> a single page is a "work", than only this page has to be put under the terms
> of the GFDL again. Hard to tell... You would be on the secure side if you
> put everything under the GFDL. It seems to me, the GFDL is not yet internet
> ready ;) You can of course take a chance and if you get rich with your
> website and the Wikimedia Foundation sues you, you can afford a lawer who
> will maybe win the case for you ;) Its realy hard to tell because those free
> software and free document licenses are rarely taken to court and therefor
> only few official legal interpretations for them exist.
>
> greetings,
> Markus
>
> PS: I am no lawer and all I'm saying can be just crap anyway ;) Just to
> disclaim any liability ;)

I am also not a lawyer, but I think this GFDL section is what would apply:
-----
 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright
resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights
of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit.
When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not
apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves
derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these
copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one half of
the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on
covers that bracket the Document within the aggregate, or the
electronic equivalent of covers if the Document is in electronic form.
Otherwise they must appear on printed covers that bracket the whole
aggregate.
-----

If I were going to re-use WP content in a commercial website, what I
would do is use an unmodified version of the WP GFDL content in a
separate frame within a larger page.  That should help keep the GFDL
stuff 'separate' while including it.

But you really should talk to a lawyer, if this is a moneymaking idea.
 Getting this wrong could be catastrophic.

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


subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>I'm quitting wikipedia because I don't like what I've seen too many admins
>become. Self-righteous, arrogant, self-centered, conceited... jerks.
>
I've known a few of those.

>I've seen admins block accounts with the reason of "name..", and then block
>another account for the reason that it was a "suspected sockpuppet" - of the
>offensive username block.
>
Perhaps we need to clarify the difference between "sockpuppet" and
"suspected sockpuppet".

>I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of
>another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see
>it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until
>they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an
>afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a
>sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of
>the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie to the
>point of cussing or vandalizing.
>
Incivility is clearly a more serious offence than sockpuppetry.

>I saw a thread earlier today which I thought was monstrous - a user whose
>talk page was locked for "unblock template abuse", whose only crime or
>"abuse" of the template was removing the template after the blocking admin
>consistently and maliciously removed it.
>
Where was it removed from?  It's obvious that if it was on his own talk
page there's absolutely nothing wrong with removing it.

>This thread was stopped by the
>assertion of David Gerard that the person who started the thread was
>"Enviroknot." I don't give a damn who started the thread, if the question is
>valid, the question is valid. I looked at the user in question, and I see
>plenty of problems with the way it was handled, and at least two admins who
>deserve at the least a stern censure and at the most, de-adminning for
>abusive behavior. We NEED users to bring these problems up. We NEED to cull
>the herd of abusive administrators.
>
I've only vaguely heard the name Enviroknot, and I don't think I want to
know anything more about him.  In most conversations on this list David
tends to be relatively moderate.  Personalizing your points in this way
detracts from the otherwise valid points that you make.

>We are too arrogant. I've seen Jimbo use the excuse of "well troll X doesn't
>like it so they are doing right" or "well you must be correct because the
>wikipediareview crowd doesn't like you" as a way to justify bad behavior in
>the wikimedia IRC room and even on this list. I've seen countless times
>where good users are attacked for speaking up and saying this same thing:
>We, the overwhelming number of admins on the project, are too arrogant. Too
>self-centered.
>
It's a very real and very serious problem.

>We spend too much time "defending" wikipedia and not enough time bringing
>new users into the fold, being polite, being nice. Teaching them about
>policies, about the manual of style. Editing alongside them. Admins are
>supposed to be "just another editor with a few extra buttons", but too many
>admins today get drunk on that power.
>
Yes.  Mentorships would be a good idea.  That relationship should also
include guidelines for Ignoring All Rules or Being Bold since these too
are an important part of Wiki life.  They also need to be taught that
what often passes as rules are nothing more than guidelines, and that
what is in the Manual of Style can easily be ignored in certain
circumstances.

>And you know what? I'm tired of it. Our articles are suffering because even
>the good edits of supposed "sockpuppets" are being reverted by
>overly-zealous admins who believe that they have to hunt for every edit made
>by someone they think is banned - even if it's just a typo fix - and revert
>it. Yes, I have watched this in action. I have watched admins put obvious
>page-tagging edits like an insertion of "joe is a fag" back because the user
>who reverted the vandalism was someone deemed a "sockpuppet" by our
>completely erroneous and pointless system.
>
That's ad hominem editing.  You have to admit that it is a convenient
excuse to avoid applying common sense.  The constructive people will
take the time to look at the edits.  Nobody "owns" the edits, not even a
sockpuppet.  Thus if an otherwise completely vile sockpuppet does
nothing more to an article than fix an obvious typo he does not acquire
ownership of the article.  The edit should stand or fall on its own
merit.  If through this process a person restores vandalism, that too is
an act of vandalism.

>The Wiki is broken. It's not the vandals who broke it. Those we could
>handle. It's not the edit warriors who broke it. Those we can handle.
>
Easily.  At a national level this pandering to paranoia is sometimes
called Homeland Security.

>WE, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks.
>We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full
>of ourselves.
>
This is not unusual in the history of organizations.  One of my favorite
Nietzsche quotes has always been, "There are no Christians alive today;
the last one died on the cross."  If one were to draw parallels with
Christian history those in immediate contact with Jesus had the inside
track on what Jesus was trying to say, but those who followed, notably
Paul, immediately set about corrupting the message.  Similar things
happened in other religions and we end up with Sunni vs. Shia or
Mahayana vs. Hinayana.  In the hands of the rulemakers the initial
message of liberation becomes an opiate.

>And every one of the admins on wikipedia, myself included, has been guilty
>of it at one point. Some are more guilty than others. Some are jerks 100% of
>the time. Some have become so obsessed with their pet sockpuppet, be it
>Enviroknot, Freestylefrappe, Willy on Wheels,  Entmoots,  Pigsonthewing,
>JarlaxleArtemis, Karmafist, Lir, PoolGuy, or whatever else their pet
>sockpuppet of the week is that they are no longer useful.
>
Fair enough.  The key to changing that is to recognize when you're doing
it, and to go through a rational self-examination and reflection on the
circumstances.  Some of these "pet sockpuppets" are genuine problems (a
few I never even heard of before), but when obsession overwhelms
rationality it becomes more difficult to even deal with the genuine
problems.

>Some never should have passed RFA to start with. Some deliberately gamed the
>system and pulled support from a specific interest group to get passed, then
>turned around and started immediately abusing their power to help the
>interest group and haven't stopped since. Some are likely sockpuppets of
>serial edit warriors.
>
>Some are just insane.
>
Yet Pinky is more likely to get things done.

>Too many things are not open for discussion. Too many of the verboten topics
>center around people who are on power trips, or were at the time they took
>some action. Too many times admins seeking to consolidate their power bases
>or trading favors with other admins have stood up for improper, abusive
>behavior.
>
That sounds awfully lot like a dose of Realpolitik.

>Jimbo, this might as well be an open letter to you too. None of the rest of
>these spineless yes-men will ever say these things to your face. Hell, I
>couldn't at the last meetup, because I was so afraid that you or Danny or
>one of the other high-ups would note down my username and ban me. That's the
>atmosphere you've cultivated.
>
That's an interesting observation.  How many others are so intimidated?
I don't remember meeting you in Boston, though I certainly remember
meeting Jimbo and Danny.  I actually found Danny easier to talk with,
but that's just a personal observation.  Danny does not have Jimbo's
theological aura.  A lot of this is a reflection on myself.  As I sit
here and make these comments I can pause and think as long as I want
between sentences or words; I can even take time for a bite to eat.
That doesn't work in a face to face conversation, when it comes down to
say what you want to say or be ignored.  That's not a matter of fault,
but of practicality.

I am not uncritical of Jimbo, and most of my criticism is rooted in the
notion that a person who develops an idea at the big picture level may
not be the best person to apply his underlying principles at a level of
broad participation.  That dissociation between the ideas and the public
is just the opportunity that the micromanagers want.  A big picture
person tends to make half-baked policy pronouncements.  He can see a
proposed solution to a problem, and in his ideal world those solutions
will work.  The big picture makes so much sense that it's unimaginable
that anyone could see things differently.

The premise of an ideal world is shaky.  It's too easy to imagine a
world where nothing goes wrong.  For the true disciple anything
inconsistent with his narrow interpretation of the vision, must
necessarily be wrong.  He believes in a rigid vision, and that is
antithetical to vision.  A prophet deludes himself when he believes that
success of his vision among the masses implies that the message has been
understood.

Your overall analysis was an important one, though I think that
introducing your personal squabble with David damaged its tone.

Ec


body:
David Gerard wrote:
> On 06/10/06, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/missing_images.php
>
>
> *applause*
>
> Is there an index (on meta, presumably) of tools like this?
>

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Toolserver/TStoc

Note that it's human updated and as such not guaranteed to be accurate...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061007/fd7e4188/attachment.pgp


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
On 07/10/06, Lars Aronsson <lars at aronsson.se> wrote:

>   This probably
> happens already.  Do we know where all the detailed articles on
> various BMW car models come from?  Why does the [[en:Saab 9-5]]
> article "require cleanup", while all BMW articles are good?
> I don't want to start any witch hunt.  I'm glad that there are
> good articles about BMWs.  I don't care who wrote them.  Let's
> hope other brands can radiate the same inspiration to contributors
> of good articles.

OTOH, technology accumulates fanboys. I pay close attention to
[[:en:Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[:en:Casio Exilim]]. I particularly
keep the former in good shape because I buy and sell them on eBay
(which is how come I took the photos of quite a few of the camera
models) and the table full of model info is a fantastically useful
reference to *me*.

- d.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Jonathan Leybovich <jleybov at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Fundamentally, use of an offline (or subscription,
> etc) source is a
> >>good and sensible thing, but it requires a modicum
> of trust that we're
> >>getting a reliable link between the page and the
> information quoted;
> >>we can't get around this by preparing lists of
> reliable and unreliable
> >>texts, we can only get around this by someone
> "trusted" saying yes,
> >>I've looked at that, it's there.
> >>
> >
> > Everything should be checked and re-checked
> independently, but that's
> > only an ideal.  We're already having difficulties
> getting software that
> > gives us a stable version that has only been
> checked for common
> > vandalism.  In time we should go much further than
> that, and allow
> > statistically based algorithms that will give a
> measure of probably
> > accuracy based on the review of multiple readers.
> >
>
> Yes, a blind-vote citation-checking system in which
> aggregate results
> are captured.  Once nice property of such a system
> is that the votes of
> good-faith, competent citation-checkers will
> correlate strongly with one
> another, while the votes of bad-faith and/or
> incompetent checkers will
> have a basically random distribution.  This, of
> course, assumes no
> widespread collusion among checkers, but in most
> cases such collusion
> will be more trouble than its worth.  In addition,
> it would be possible
> to seed the citations shown to checkers (even on an
> individual basis)
> with random false citations which they would be
> expected to flag as
> incorrect/fabricated.  Access to open bibliographic
> catalogs would allow
> for the creation of completely random but quite
> legitimate-seeming
> citations, as it is only a matter a randomly picking
> a work returned by
> querying on the article's main subjects.
>
> I think it might also be useful to use the results
> of citation-checking
> as a feed into some sort of trust ecology.
> Fact-checking is mostly
> tedious, unrewarding work, and so the users who have
> shown themselves to
> be competent and reliable at it are probably going
> to be trustworthy or
> at least good-faith in other areas as well.  This
> would of course not be
> the only input to a user's "trust rating", but
> probably one of the more
> significant ones.
>
>

I think this is an absolutely brilliant idea!

Birgitte SB

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


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

body:
daniwo59 at aol.com wrote:

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

>I think the real issue can be boiled down to a single statement: "Wikipedia
>is big ... really, really big." As of yesterday, Alexa ranks us the number 12
>website in the world, and we are still climbing. In English alone, we have
>close  to 1.5 million articles and 6 million total pages. We have over 2.4
>million users and close to 600 thousand images. I don't know how  many edits we
>are getting per day, per hour, per second, but I can  only assume that it is a
>very substantial number.
>
Yep!  According to [[List of countries by population]]  this puts us
between Oman and Latvia, and we have a bigger growth rate. :-)

There are dangers when you become big without ever having learned to
think big.  The governance principles that were fine for a small
community may not have scaled very well in a large and diverse population.

>No single person, or even small group of people, can tend to something this
>big, or even familiarize themselves with all its nooks and crannies. Yet we
>have  to. That is the challenge.
>
>There are 1,015 people with admin powers, and for various reasons it is
>assumed that the burden of responsibility lies with them (it really doesn't,
>since it should rest on the entire community, but that is a different story). Of
>these thousand or so people, some are more active than others. Some can be
>found  patrolling the projects every hour of every day, while others pop in for a
>few  minutes every few months, and still others are gone for good.
>
That 1,015 is only for the ones on en:Wikipedia.  Elsewhere different
policies and procedures have developped which work just as well, and
perhaps better.  There is nothing to be alarmed about in the different
rates of participation as long as those differences are not used as an
excuse for making one person's efforts and ideas superior to those of
another.

>As such, the burden is overwhelming. There is so much to do, so much that
>needs tending, but we've grown faster than our admnistrative structure, and the
>fissures are beginning to show. By piling on the load, it is only natural
>that  admins (and here I mean people who perform admin tasks, whether they are
>admins  or not) begin to feel frustrated and burn out. It is especially onerous
>when  every action is going to be viewed by people who will challenge it--and
>the  admin--any way they can. Do you risk making all the rapid decisions that
>need to  be made, one after the other, even if it means that some bad
>decisions will  inevitably be made? Do you risk maintaining old procedures, which once
>worked  quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or do you
>experiment  with something new and untested? If there is to be change, what are
>the  priorities? If there is to be discussion about change, at what point do we
>end  the talking and decide to act?
>
There are similarities between this and the way that Israelis make
domestic and local decisions.  (This has nothing to do with
Palestinians, or Israel's foreign relations.)  There are probably
positive models that we can draw from their example.  The situation can
be completely maddening for a person whose job it is to implement policy.

The person who is comfortable in his own corner of the Wiki, and who is
able to make decisions that are easily accepted by everyone in that
sub-community, may be completely unsuitable to the task in a bigger
community.

The problems need to be reviewed at the broadest possible level without
descending to the point where all we are considering is individual pet
peeves by people who can't look beyond their personal involvement.  If a
vandal fighter is so taken up by his role that every aspect of his
involvement in Wikipedia is tainted by his vandal-fighting perspective,
he has limited his usefulness to his own area of operation.  He has a
hard time seeing how his efforts fit in with everyone else's completely
different efforts.

Most people challenge a decision because they do not feel temselves to
be a part of the decision, though they may themselves be poor decision
makers.  Properly applied consensus can help make them a part of the
decision.  There will still be some people who challenge everything as
some part of a game to be won, but we do best not to spend too much time
with these; nothing silences a troll more effectively than silence.

One of the biggest deficiencies at Wikimania 2006 was not having a
session where those who have been directly and seriously involved with
the Wikimedia projects could deal with the kind of problems that you
raise.  There were a lot of lecture based sessions with one person at
the head of the room could be asked questions at the end of his speech.
These sessions included many visitors and press who just wanted to find
out about Wikipedia, but it did nothing to find solutions to the very
real problems that are a natural part of rapid growth.  The sessions
seemed to do no more than nibble at the edges of the problems.  In some
of the informal conversations that took place after the conference was
over there was a clear need expressed that we desparately need a major
session at Wikimania 2007, closed to all but active editors, to address
the problems that need to be addressed.  The unassigned time slot
between hacking days and the opening of the main conference could serve
for that.

>These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising. Note that
>they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no right
>answer,  except perhaps from the safety of hindsight. And yet, decisions have to be
>made.
>
At the rate things move I don't know how many of these decisions can
wait until Wikimania 2007.  I don't think that it's good for your mental
health to put yourself in the position where all these decision rest on
your shoulders.  Nor should anyone else be put into that position.
Doing things that way maximizes the possibility of bad decisions.
Still, some decisions MUST be made.  As few as possible should be
irreversible, at least until the next Wikimania.

Yes we are huge.  This is complicated by the fact that there is no model
for this kind of organization.  There is no reliable body of laws to
guide all our practices.  There are no comparable multi-national
non-profits with such a grass roots base.  Profit oriented
multinationals have different priorities, and easily available material
resources for implementing their goals.  It boggles the mind, and
frankly, I am humble enough to say that I don't know what the fuck we
should be doing.

Ec


body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>I've welcomed new users. I really wish our welcome message included item
>links to the dispute resolution areas (broken as they are) these days. I
>think it would help new users who get into a conflict when being bold, since
>bold behavior often leads to conflicts with others. For that matter, why
>isn't a welcome message automatically generated on the creation of any new
>account's talk page, so they'd instantly see a "You have new messages" bar
>and be able to see the welcome message? Why not do that instead of waiting
>for an admin to come along and do it?
>
I don't know that an automated message will help.  The templated welcome
messages that I have seen strike me as very cold and impersonal.  A
pleasant welcome without references to a lot of rules would be more
friendly.  When one person shows a willingness to answer question and be
a mentor it gives the newbie someone to turn to.

>I've screwed up and blocked someone in a conflict of interest. Twice. I
>apologized later, but the damage was done. In one case I didn't apologize
>until the 24 hours was up, because I didn't calm down quick enough and
>nobody - thanks to the "contact the blocking admin first" stupidity we have
>these days - was willing to unblock once I logged out. I got two "I want to
>talk to you about this case" messages, but since I didn't respond, nobody
>unblocked. In the second case, I unblocked after 10 hours, but only after
>another admin contacted me on IRC. Their statement was that they wouldn't
>unblock as it would be "incivil" to me to do so, but they thought I should
>reconsider.
>
Sounds like somebody needed a reality check.  There is nothing uncivil
about a single reversal with relevant comments.  It merely deals with
the fact that none of us can be online 24/7

>Yes, it does bother me that I did this, and yes, this is partially why I'm
>leaving, or at least taking a decently long wikibreak. Because I'd seen this
>behavior in others, but catching myself doing it makes me unhappy with
>myself, and realizing that I did it in part because I'd absorbed the "admins
>are gods" culture in Wikipedia makes me worry I'd do it again on another bad
>day.
>
Congratulations for being able to recognize when you do this yourself.
Too many spend a lifetime here incapable of understanding that they are
sometimes the one at fault.

>- I've seen plenty of edit wars and enforced 3RR. Three times in my memory
>someone's unblocked someone that I blocked for 3RR/edit warring when they
>were tag-teaming someone else. Yes, they technically didn't violate 3RR.
>Were they trying to provoke the other guy into it? Damn skippy they were.
>Policy says you block both sides in an edit war, not just the 3RR violator,
>and I was following that.
>
I've never supported 3RR, but one needs to remember its purpose, which
is to calm an argument, not to solve it.  Persistently using it as a
punitive weapon tends to lose track of its purpose.

Ec


body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>I believe that the policies are problems. Starting with the number of
>roadblocks to starting an RFC - the requirement of "evidence of trying to
>resolve the difference beforehand" (hard to do when an admin is blocking
>you!), the requirement of finding a second user to sign on with you
>(especially if they become fearful of being blocked).
>
In 4 1/2 years I have never been involved in an arbcom fight.  If I had
to deal with it I'm sure that I would make the same mistakes as a
newbie. :-)

Ec


from_name: Sean Whitton

subject: [Foundation-l] New channel operators channel

body:
#wikimedia-ops has just been launched to allow people to get help from
channel operators quickly and efficiently. It's also a place for
co-ordinating efforts on mass attacks, but it's not private and is
open to all. We've started off with ops for all access-modifying
existing operators, and autovoice for all other operators. Let myself
or Mark_Ryan know if you haven't been given this.

We hope this is a useful resource on IRC, and as always are totally
open to discussion and comments. Thank you.

S

--
	?Xyrael / Sean Whitton ~ Knowledge is power, but only wisdom is liberty
		sean at silentflame.com | xyrael.net


list: commons-l

from_name: Siebrand Mazeland

subject: [Commons-l] Flexible tagging on Commons

body:
It is definately possible this will be implemented within the next 3 years.
If you would be able to assist in getting any funding to have it implemented
by a programmer, please let me know.

Cheers!

Siebrand

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:commons-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] Namens Brianna Laugher
Verzonden: zaterdag 7 oktober 2006 17:24
Aan: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] Flexible tagging on Commons

Yeah, that would be nice. But is there any even remote possibility it will
ever be implemented in any fashion any time in the next, I don't know, 3
years? Automatic translation of templates, even? I'll jump for joy when I
see this code is actually in the pipeline, not just a pipedream.

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 06/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_Ultimate_Wiktionary_for_Commons
>
> GerardM here outlines a way to use WiktionaryZ work for what I
> mentioned last night.
> - d.


from_name: Yorian

body:
Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:

I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!

Yorian


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
I have no personal squabbles with David, though he seems to be trying to
create one.

His was just the most recent example I'd seen of an accusation stopping all
rational discussion.

Parker

Your overall analysis was an important one, though I think that
> introducing your personal squabble with David damaged its tone.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
The "original" account was claimed to be NoLongerScieno (blocked for
"name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter.

Possible sockpuppet? Certainly.

Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe.

Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to block for
being a sockpuppet of a username block? Definitely.

On 10/7/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:37:51 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, plus, blocking is preventative.  Is there  a potential problem to
> >> be averted?  Will blocking and then discussing on the user talk page
> >> be a better result for the project than letting them edit?
>
> >In the case I quoted, there was no "blocking and then discussing on the
> user
> >talk page", there was instead "blocking and chain reverting the unblock
> >template and then getting someone to block them for supposed template
> >abuse."
>
> Name names.  If it was a Zephram Stark sock, for example, then that is
> absolutely as it should be.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Except that the admin involved never went back and re-did the good edits.

On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:37:51 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> > <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >In the case I quoted, there was no "blocking and then discussing on the
> user
> > >talk page", there was instead "blocking and chain reverting the unblock
> > >template and then getting someone to block them for supposed template
> > >abuse."
>
> > Name names.  If it was a Zephram Stark sock, for example, then that is
> > absolutely as it should be.
>
>
> Indeed. It's often most efficient to mass-revert the sock's edits then
> go back and make the good ones again under one's own name. In
> practice, this saves other admins tracking the sockpuppeteer having to
> check each edit. It also nullifies gaming by trolls who say "no, no,
> my sock made three good edits!" "That's nice, dear. Go away."
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Markus Sz

body:
> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:32:38 +0200
> From: Yorian <webmaster at compumania.nl>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Using content from Wikipedia
>
> Hey everyone, I have a question I'd like to ask:
>
> I have an idea for a (hopefully profitable) website, and I'd like to use
> content from Wikipedia for it. About half of the content from the
> website will be from Wikipedia. Of course I will mention Wikipedia as a
> source and I will donate some of my profits to Wikimedia, but is it okay
> to have other content on an individual webpage, besides the
> Wikipedia-content, that is not GFDL-licensed? The GFDL is not very clear
> on that, and people on the Dutch and English Wikipedia couldn't answer
> this question. Is there anyone who knows this? I'm afraid I can't afford
> a lawyer :( Thanks in advance!
>
> Yorian
>

Interesting question. The GFDL is about documents and therefor only mentions
documents. It doesn't say anything about websites. The two applying sections
in the GFDL are:
----
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release
the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified
Version filling the role of the Document.

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the
Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with
modifications and/or translated into another language.
----
The problem is, what is a "work" in terms of internet websites? Is a whole
website a "work"? Or is a single page a "work"? This could for example be
the case if every single page can again be edited by different people...
which would probably make it a single "work" again.
So, if you say a Website is a "work", than it would be the modified version
and therefor any text on the website must be under the terms of the GFDL. If
a single page is a "work", than only this page has to be put under the terms
of the GFDL again. Hard to tell... You would be on the secure side if you
put everything under the GFDL. It seems to me, the GFDL is not yet internet
ready ;) You can of course take a chance and if you get rich with your
website and the Wikimedia Foundation sues you, you can afford a lawer who
will maybe win the case for you ;) Its realy hard to tell because those free
software and free document licenses are rarely taken to court and therefor
only few official legal interpretations for them exist.

greetings,
Markus

PS: I am no lawer and all I'm saying can be just crap anyway ;) Just to
disclaim any liability ;)


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

body:
Parker Peters wrote:

>Do you risk maintaining old procedures, which once
>
>
>>worked  quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or do you
>>experiment  with something new and untested?
>>
>>
>I would hope we risk the new and untested procedures, but I've rarely seen a
>new policy or procedure pass unless it actually increases admin power while
>decreasing admin responsibility.
>
Being new by itself is not an adequate reason for adopting new
procedures.  The transclusion templates have been a big favorite among
the geeks, but making editing difficult for everything else.  I suppose
you could say that that makes them admin friendly

>These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising. Note that
>
>
>>they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no right
>>answer,  except perhaps from the safety of hindsight. And yet, decisions
>>have to be
>>made.
>>
>>
>Yes, decisions have to be made. I've made a few suggestions today that I
>hope will be taken seriously:
>
>#1 - the creation of a "mini-admin" or "first grade" admin position, as a
>"training wheels" step for new admins, so that they have some power but not
>the total power an admin today has, to minimize the damage they can do while
>allowing them to learn the role of an admin.
>
That would be fine if the problem were purely technical, but I don't
think it will accomplish much in dealing with jerks.

Ec


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

body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 06/10/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The answer is simple.  Since RfAr is considered a major roadblock to
>>removing adminship, make it easier to do.  Then, people who you may have
>>trust issues with can be more easily promoted, because they can easily be
>>removed.  I'm much more likely to vote support on a candidate with a long
>>history, but some questions about, if I know that if they abuse the tools
>>or continually do the wrong thing, I can work to get them removed.  That's
>>not the case currently.
>>
>>
>In practice I don't think this is such a problem. I can think of a
>couple of people who are now admins who I had pretty much this qualm
>over, but who both shaped up fine after a slightly rocky start.
>
Maybe a probation period is needed.

>And deadminning is a much bigger deal than adminning by its nature.
>
That alone is a problem.  The hoops that one must jump through to become
an admin establish it as a big deal, even when we say it isn't.

Ec


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

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar in a
>>specific field of administrator work. If we could specifically give people
>>the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed. Perhaps
>>it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.
>>
>>
>Even as screwed up as things are today with respect to RFA the fact
>remains that adminship is more about trust than about knowledge. If we
>can't *trust you* to refrain from breaking the site too badly than you
>should have exactly zero admin features.
>
I agree

>That adminship is mostly is sometimes being obscured the fact that
>there is no clear way to measure trust... but breaking up adminship
>into little boxes will not solve that.
>
I'm somewhat inclined to believe this.  If you break adminship into five
levels it will just mean five promootion levels for people to complain.

Ec


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

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

>It's pretty easy to say "thuggish admins going wild"... but what is
>needed are specific examples and cases.
>
Yes, but not on this thread.

>There is no doubt in my mind that some of what has been raised in this
>thread is valid.  As the community has grown, it has become harder to
>maintain the distinction between the kindness and love of Wikipedia and
>the hostility you find in most of the Internet.
>
Does the fact that I still believe in those principles mean that I have
been here too long?

Ec


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>David Boothroyd wrote
>
>
>>In February, blocked wrongly for a
>>non-existent 3RR, at 1 AM in the middle of an edit that had taken
>>an hour, I self unblocked. I was a very naughty boy and I was
>>punished by being blocked again, but everyone seemed to think that
>>was closed.
>>
>>Then, months later a completely unrelated issue in which I was
>>tangentially involved goes to ArbCom and results in this issue being
>>dragged up again.
>>
>>
>Yes, you can have forgiving, and you can have transparent, but you may not be able to have both at once.
>
Why not?

>>2) If ArbCom is the only body that can remove admin status, excluding
>>self-administered recalls, then how does it cope with low-level but
>>persistent admin misbehaviour? ArbCom is much better at dealing with
>>egregious single incidents.
>>
>>
>But that comment is in tension with the previous point.
>
>If there is persistent incivility by someone, and there is a case brought, then everything from the year dot can in principle be brought up. Everyone should bear in mind that the site has an elephant's memory.
>
Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than
six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.

Ec


body:
David Gerard wrote:

>On 06/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>enwiki has over 1000 administrators now - 1015 at present, although how
>>many are "active" is another matter - who knows how many of these are
>>sockpuppets of people who have been banned for stalking, death threats,
>>POV pushing, and other lunacy.
>>
>>
>Presumably none who've continued with such behaviour since.
>
The absent administrators have a remarkable record for good behaviour. ;-)

Ec


body:
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com wrote:

>"Parker Peters" wrote
>
>
>>I am
>>not "exaggerating" or "shifting" my position. I would ask at this time that
>>you please calm down and perhaps take a breather.
>>
>>
>You must think I have no knowledge of flame wars.
>
>Can we throw this guy off the list now?
>
That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
Alison Wheeler wrote:

>On Fri, October 6, 2006 22:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>It might be useful to have a disclaimer somewhere that states that any
>>such arrangements are strictly between those parties.
>>
>>
>Whilst it might be accurate I doubt it wuold be sensible. Those who hadn't
>thought of it might see this clause and believe we were condoning such
>activity and go search for someone whereas before they might not have even
>thought of it.
>
There is that.  :-)

In a broader context, rules that prohibit relatively uncommon behaviours
can be an inspiration to evildoers.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

body:
SPUI wrote:
> Fleshlight and its representatives have contacted us, asking that they
> have sole discretion over the content of the page, because any edits
> could ruin its advertising value. This is a non-notable product. The
> page was created solely for promotional purposes. It is now gone. Danny
> 01:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
>
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=fleshlight&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn
> seems "notable", verifiable, whatever. But our hands are tied by the
> office shit. Any company can now contact Danny, convince him that they
> are "non-notable", and get salted.
>

That seems kind of silly.  I'd actually looked up this article before
myself, because the "fleshlight" is notable enough that it's entered
slang use, at least in some subcultures, and I had no idea what the word
was referring to.  It's also gotten quite a bit of press, and a quick
google news search turns up a claim in the _Village Voice_ (a mainstream
news magazine) that it's "one of the best-known boy-centric toys".

I would have to say Danny erred in this case with his ignorant statement
that it is a "non-notable product".

-Mark


from_name: Daniel R. Tobias

subject: [WikiEN-l] I Am the Very Model of a Modern Wikipedian

body:
I just happened to get the muse for a topical song... enjoy!  (NOTE:
This is my original work, and I hereby release it under GFDL in case
anybody wants to make some sort of use of it.)

(To the tune of the [[Major-General's Song]])

I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian,
My knowledge of things trivial is way above the median,
I know, and care, what Kelly Clarkson's next CD might just be called,
And all the insults Hilary and Lindsay to each other bawled.
I'm very well acquainted, too, with memes upon the Internet,
I think the dancing hamster would be excellent as a pet.
About the crackpots' physics I am teeming with a lot o' news,
The Time Cube has but four sides and it's not got a hypotenuse.

I'm very good at grammar, and I spell all words right to a "T",
Even when they're done all weirdly from the far side of the sea.
In short, in matters big and small, minute or sesquipedelian,
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian.

I know how to "Ignore All Rules", except when I'm enforcing 'em,
I know which version's wrong to be protected by those bossing 'em.
I show respect for all admins, except the ones who have gone "rouge",
But I still wish they'd let us keep the U.K. girl whose face has
spooge.
Jimbo is our own God-King; the things he says are always right,
But I still think that Brian Peppers should be listed in our site.

I'm good at edit-warring, and I stay within the 3RR,
I know just how to make you show just what a troll you really are,
In short, in matters big and small, minute or sesquipedelian,
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian.

In fact, when I know why the elephant count changes really fast,
Why anarchists are socialists... or not, based on whose edit's last,
Is Oscar Gutierrez 5'2", 5'3", 5'5", or maybe 5'4"?
I need to know so I can win that very lamest edit war!
But when I know at least as much on conflicts Peloponnesian,
as I do about characters in Galactica's latest season,
When I finally learn something that matters in academia
You'll say a better Wikipedian has never came by here.

For my formal education, though I'm certainly no fool,
Has not yet been advanced anywhere further than high school;
But still, in matters big and small, minute or sesquipedelian,
I am the very model of a modern Wikipedian.

--
== 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: Stephen Bain

subject: [Foundation-l] Age?

body:
On 10/7/06, Asher Heimermann <sheboyganpolitics at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   I was asked today if there was an age limit on the wikimedia.org website.
>
>   Like, how old do you have to be in order to edit and make articles.
>
>   Even, I did not know...

New policy: you can't edit once you turn 30. We'll call it Jimbo's Run.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Age?


from_name: Nathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Clearing the air regarding SlimVirgin.

body:
Hi,

I'm a blocked user (but I'm not here to discuss that) and I've been
accused of something (else) that I didn't do so I'm here to clear the air:

Please direct your attention to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=79893307&oldid=79889878

Specifically, this comment:

":::Your cryptic "cough, Nathan, cough" is, I take it, a reference to
e-mails I supposedly sent to Nathandotcom. That was a banned user using my
e-mail address, and he did the same to several other admins. The abuse was
reported to his university who managed to identify him and it has stopped.
Like Cyde, you need to learn all the facts before commenting on issues.
Cyde, you're now calling me a "liar" over an issue that is my business,
not yours, and that I know about, and you don't. I have asked you many
times to stop raising the issue, stop gossiping about me and others, and
to stop attacking me. I am hereby asking you again.
[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 18:56, 6
October 2006 (UTC)"

Quite honestly, I'm sick of being accused of things I didn't do by
arrogant admins who think they're right.

Let me clear the air with the following points:

1) While I may have something against those involved in the situation that
led to my blocking, I have absolutely nothing against any other admin of
Wikipedia, save for Cyde (who was involved). Therefore I have no logical
reason to harass any admin on Wikipedia.

2) I do not attend college or university nor have I ever in the past. When
my userpage was visible, I clearly mentioned who my employer was. I'm the
Director of Technical Services of xytra.net (Services Internet Xytra SENC
of Gatineau, Quebec - this can be verified by e-mailing nathan at xytra.net
or by asking info at xytra.net or support at xytra.net). Therefore these
accusations that I have harassed any admin of Wikipedia are purely false.
As I have said over and over, if someone's going to accuse me of
something, at least provide proof. Proof wasn't given and it makes
SlimVirgin out to be just ranting about nothing (apologies if this can be
read as a personal attack).

The only places I access the Internet from are: my place of residence, my
place of work and the home of my two co-workers.

The only times I have ever used universities or colleges for Internet
access are:
* 2001-2002 when my girlfriend (at the time) attended university
* late 1990's when I lived in Toronto

4) Just because someone forged the e-mail addresses of admins and me being
a blocked user, does that automatically mean "Nathanrdotcom has reason to
harbour negative feelings towards Wikipedia as a whole and believes he has
a reason to take it out on random admins"? No, of course it doesn't. Now I
admit I have a mood disorder but I don't appreciate being accused of
things I didn't do. I don't attack anyone without provocation. I have had
a talk with Jimbo about my block - why would I contradict myself and start
attacking random admins? It just doesn't add up.

5) I have used the Internet since 1995 and consider my knowledge of how
things work[tm] to be better than average. On the Internet, anyone can
forge anyone's identity, e-mail address or etc and deflect the blame to
anyone else. In other words: Anyone can send an e-mail and claim to be me,
that doesn't mean in any way that I was the person responsible. There are
enough people on Wikipedia who dislike me (and plenty who have read that
defamatory "article" about me on a..less than reputable Wiki and wish to
manufacture some stunt to blame me for).

I really resent the implication that I would go around attacking other
admins without provocation and I want it said for the record that I
haven't been involved in such activities.

Honestly, SlimVirgin owes me an apology for her baseless accusations but
it's highly unlikely that I'll get one.

If anyone has ANY questions regarding the above, I would appreciate
it if you would please e-mail me and I'll answer rather than you making up
your own information and calling it true.

Thank you for your time,
Nathan (User:Nathanrdotcom)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:37:51 -0500, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Oh, plus, blocking is preventative.  Is there  a potential problem to
>> be averted?  Will blocking and then discussing on the user talk page
>> be a better result for the project than letting them edit?

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

Name names.  If it was a Zephram Stark sock, for example, then that is
absolutely as it should be.

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


body:
On 07/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:37:51 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

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

> Name names.  If it was a Zephram Stark sock, for example, then that is
> absolutely as it should be.

Indeed. It's often most efficient to mass-revert the sock's edits then
go back and make the good ones again under one's own name. In
practice, this saves other admins tracking the sockpuppeteer having to
check each edit. It also nullifies gaming by trolls who say "no, no,
my sock made three good edits!" "That's nice, dear. Go away."

- d.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight and the Voice

body:
Delirium wrote:

That seems kind of silly.  I'd actually looked up this article before
myself, because the "fleshlight" is notable enough that it's entered
slang use, at least in some subcultures, and I had no idea what the word
was referring to.  It's also gotten quite a bit of press, and a quick
google news search turns up a claim in the _Village Voice_ (a mainstream
news magazine) that it's "one of the best-known boy-centric toys".

I  would have to say Danny erred in this case with his ignorant statement
that  it is a "non-notable product".

Danny comments:

Before proclaiming my ignorance to the world, I would invite Delirium to
look a bit more closely at Google News, supposedly the font of knowledge here.
Typing in Fleshlight resulted in exactly one hit on Google News, the Village
Voice article he mentioned.

A percursory glance at the article itself shows that it is titled: "Boys' Toys
Cock rings, butt plugs, finger  massagers and other guy goodies" Before the
brief paragraph on the Fleshlight it  says, "Neil's not the only hetero male
seeking out women-friendly sex toys.  According to Carolyn Riccardi, Education
Coordinator for Babeland New York (_babeland.com_ (http://www.babeland.com/) ),
35 percent of their customers  are men, and their most popular boys' toys are
the Sonic Ring, a vibrating cock  ring, the Blossom Sleeve, and the Aneros
prostate stimulator." I suppose our  next step would be to ensure we have
articles on each of these products, as well  as Babeland and their educational
coordinator. After all, they are each  mentioned in the "Voice." This week's
edition also has a fascinating review of a  stirring new film, "Black Monster Dicks
Fucking White Chicks," complete  with a comparison to [[Das Boot]]. I would
have watched the film and written the  article myself, but alas, Netflix didn't
have it (yet).
(_http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/dirtypornos/_
(http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/dirtypornos/) ).  Instead I will write about another Voice topic, Xiao
La Jiao, NYC's  "foremost Sichuan restaurant," and in Flushing, no less.

I read the Voice regularly when I lived in New York. I even took circuitous
routes home from work just so I could get a copy. But not everything in the
Voice (or even in the NY Times for that matter) deserves an article. Editing
isn't only about knowing what to add, but about knowing what not to add as
well.

Danny


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/10/6, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>:
>
> > Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
> > paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
> > that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.

> The scary thing is... This already exists. [...]
> http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=16892
> [...]  [[en:User:MyWikiBiz]]

I didn't know about MyWikiBiz before this.  Apparently the case
was discussed already in August 2006 on wikien-l, a list I don't
read.  However, I fail to see what the problem is.  Jimbo has now
blocked the user account based on their marketing, not based on
the content they contributed, which I find strange.  Where can I
find any indication that MyWikiBiz has been "posting blatant PR
puffery" in articles?

Jimbo earned his money first, then retired and started Wikipedia.
Not everybody is so happy.  Most need to earn their daily lunch
money.  If they can do so by writing free software or contributing
free contents to projects such as Wikipedia, all the better.  If
the content is good, I don't see why this should be a problem.

At 22:32, October 5 on the [[user talk:MyWikiBiz]], Jimbo says
MyWikiBiz "is resisting the new policy".  Which new policy?
Where is this written?  Jimbo also says WikiMyBiz "used the
Wikipedia trademarks inappropriately and did not warn customers on
some key pages that using his service is no guarantee of getting
an article into Wikipedia" and the obvious remedy would be to have
those details fixed, not blocking and banning the contributor for
good.

Perhaps MyWikiBiz is a really, really bad guy.  If that is the
case, Jimbo has failed to show how or why.

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-10-08

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

Running test TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Template with thumb image (with link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Template infinite loop... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Parsing optional HTML elements (Bug 6171)... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting... FAILED!
Running test TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold... FAILED!
Running test TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line... FAILED!
Running test TODO: HTML Hex character encoding.... FAILED!
Running test TODO: dt/dd/dl test... FAILED!

Passed 420 of 437 tests (96.11%) FAILED!


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Commons-l] Flexible tagging on Commons

body:
On 10/7/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that would be nice. But is there any even remote possibility it
> will ever be implemented in any fashion any time in the next, I don't
> know, 3 years?

Yes. Gerard and I have been discussing this with a potential partner a
few days ago, and it looks like we may be able to fund something
before the end of the year.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik

Member, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, all views or opinions expressed
in this message are solely my own and do not represent an official
position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Just to clear the air re SlimVirgin's accusation.

body:
Hi,

I'm a blocked user (but I'm not here to discuss that)
and I've been accused of something (else) that I
didn't do so I'm here to clear the air:

Please direct your attention to
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=79893307&oldid=79889878

Specifically, this comment:

":::Your cryptic "cough, Nathan, cough" is, I take it,
a reference to e-mails I supposedly sent to
Nathandotcom. That was a banned user using my
e-mail address, and he did the same to several other
admins. The abuse was reported to his university who
managed to identify him and it has stopped.
Like Cyde, you need to learn all the facts before
commenting on issues. [snip]
[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]
18:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)"

Quite honestly, I'm sick of being accused of things I
didn't do by arrogant admins who think they're right.

Let me clear the air with the following points:

1) While I may have something against those involved
in the situation that led to my blocking, I have
absolutely nothing against any other admin of
Wikipedia, save for Cyde (who was both involved and
has done more than his fair share of attacking me in
the past and present). Therefore I have no logical
reason to harass any admin on Wikipedia. The reasoning
of "Nathan is a blocked user therefore he harbours
negative feelings toward Wikipedia and would take them
out on admins" is faulty logic.

2) I do not attend college or university nor have I
ever in the past. When my userpage was visible, I
clearly mentioned who my employer was. I'm the
Director of Technical Services of xytra.net (Services
Internet Xytra SENC of Gatineau, Quebec - this can be
verified by e-mailing nathan at xytra.net or by asking
info at xytra.net or support at xytra.net). Therefore these
accusations that I have harassed any admin of
Wikipedia are purely false. As I have said over and
over, if someone's going to accuse me of something, at
least provide proof. Proof wasn't given and it makes
SlimVirgin out to be just ranting about nothing
(apologies if this can be read as a personal attack).

The last time I used university/college facilities to
browse the Internet was in 2001-2002 when my
ex-girlfriend (then-girlfriend) was attending
university. Before that, somewhere in 1999-2000 when I
was living in Toronto.

3) I have been using the Internet since 1995 and
therefore consider my knowledge of the way things
work[tm] to be above average. Anyone can forge e-mail
headers and claim to be anyone else just like anyone
can do the above and attribute it to someone else.
Just because "it looks like Nathan did it" doesn't
make it true. Also "it's true because I say it is"
also doesn't make it true.

I resent the implication that I would go around
attacking other admins without provocation and I want
it said for the record that I haven't been involved in
such activities.

Further, I would like all questions regarding any
suspicious activities I'm suspected of being involved
in brought to me directly so that I may confirm or
deny them myself.

If ANYONE has any questions about this e-mail, please
feel free to e-mail me and I will address them.

Thanks,
Nathan (User:Nathanrdotcom)
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace

body:
On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> OTOH, technology accumulates fanboys. I pay close attention to
> [[:en:Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[:en:Casio Exilim]]. I particularly
> keep the former in good shape because I buy and sell them on eBay
> (which is how come I took the photos of quite a few of the camera
> models) and the table full of model info is a fantastically useful
> reference to *me*.

Worth remembering.  It is hard to find a kind of product that SOMEONE
isn't geeky about.  When researching what vacuum cleaner to buy, I
found some really scary vacuum-cleaner nerds, including people who
wired UK-compatible 240-volt sockets in American homes in order to use
British appliances ...

-Matt


subject: [Foundation-l] Mywikipediaspace


from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Flexible tagging on Commons

body:
Yeah, that would be nice. But is there any even remote possibility it
will ever be implemented in any fashion any time in the next, I don't
know, 3 years? Automatic translation of templates, even? I'll jump for
joy when I see this code is actually in the pipeline, not just a
pipedream.

Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

On 06/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Using_Ultimate_Wiktionary_for_Commons
>
> GerardM here outlines a way to use WiktionaryZ work for what I
> mentioned last night.
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


from_name: George Herbert

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fleshlight and the Voice

body:
On 10/7/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
>[...] But not everything in the
> Voice (or even in the NY Times for that matter) deserves an article. Editing
> isn't only about knowing what to add, but about knowing what not to add as
> well.

WP:NOT censored.

It's not particularly suprising that searches through mainstream press
don't catch many sex-related brand names.  Most sex-related products
don't show up in mainstream press.

Despite that, sex related topics are a major economic field, including
media, birth control and "safe sex" stuff, and other topics including
sex toys.

Pursuant to that, WP has generally tasteful and encyclopedic articles
on related topics.

Do you not believe those of us who are saying that Fleshlight is very
well known if not notorious within the field?

Do you have a reason for opposing this that is not general
uncomfortableness with having the topic in Wikipedia?

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


from_name: Birgitte SB

body:
--- Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> wrote:
> > Andrew Gray wrote:
> >
> > >On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >It would be simpler just to toss the name into
> copac.ac.uk or
> > >catalog.loc.gov and see if it appears! But this
> still doesn't tell us
> > >anything beyond "I am claiming this book supports
> me".
> > >
> > Absolutely!   And that claim is only sometimes a
> hoax.  It can as easily
> > be a good-faith misinterpretation of the
> information.
>
> But of course.
>
> The problem is, the original proposal here was to
> deal with people
> making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith action.
> But the suggested
> system is a system that is equally suceptible to
> being gamed in
> bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a false
> claim with regards
> to a reputable (but hard to identify) work. Done.
>
> So instituting this system wouldn't deal with the
> bad-faith people in
> any way, and just create vast amounts of (admittedly
> automatible, but
> still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't
> really help the
> project, it just plasters around the original
> problem...

So you do not believe in having any organized method
of fact checking?  That people should only fact check
disputed articles?  I am not sure what your position
is  after reading the above.

I think at some point an organized method of fact
checking needs to happen, although it is debatable if
we are at that point yet.  My understanding of this
method is it would assign fact checkers work "per
book" rather than "per article" which is IMHO *much*
more efficient.  And on top of that it would have an
internal check to discover any person who is not
really doing the checking.  And making fact-checking
so divorced from article creation should also
eliminate alot of non-nuetral people from the process.
 Of course fact checking is only the first step in
verifing an article, but any efforts along these lines
is an improvement over where we stand today.

Birgitte SB

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


from_name: François Patte

subject: [Wikitech-l] italic in links

body:
Bonjour,

I have a problem that I can't solve: when I want to purt a word in
italic in a link, the link doesn't work anymore...

ie.

[[Contenu de la Lilavati]]  works

[[Contenu de la ''Lilavati'']] doesn't work: iit is displayed "verbatim"
with the two square brackets and Lilavati is in italic though.

Thank you.
--
Fran?ois Patte
UFR de math?matiques et informatique
Universit? Ren? Descartes
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte


from_name: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

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

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

> Why not?

'Forgive and forget', as in some sort of statute of limitations for old stuff, is not really compatible with everyone being able to see older edits, and say 'there's a track record a mile wide here'.

> Perhaps that the solution should be to disallow any evidence more than
> six months old except in some predetermined kinds of cases.

Except in cases where, for example, a user returns and wreaks the same havoc as before. You want another policy drafted about this? Or can you perhaps assume this fact of past-sell-by-date is normally taken into account?

Charles

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


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
On 10/8/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> Ray Saintonge wrote
>
> > That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.
>
> Well, no, he has been posting some very wild and generalized claims.

Wild? No. Generalized? In asserting that there are too many admins who have
lost sight of civility and AGF, perhaps.

He has been playing the 'how can I be a troll, look at how provocative my
> posts are?' card.

Sigh. Is everything a game to you?

He has bad netiquette.

I made a mistake. I apologized for it, more than once. I have no control
over your refusal to take an apology seriously.

He is claiming admin status, while not being transparent about his identity
> on the site.

And I explained why.

He has been personalising the discussion, in dealing with David Gerard.

David's action that I questioned was only the most recent example. And I
will make no apologies for questioning a user's conduct, because we are
supposed to question conduct that we don't agree with.

The 'in sorrow, not in anger' doesn't convince me, anyway.

If you are determined to be closed-minded, I can certainly filter your posts
and speak instead with those who are going to be serious.

The actual content (I think) boils down to one concrete claim of observed
> admin misbehaviour.

No, there are a large number of times I've witnessed this sort of behavior
since I've been at wikipedia.

This took a _large_ number of posts to extract.

Actually, I emailed out one example so far to the list, and I sent a
different example directly to Jimbo. Jimbo gave me an indication he
preferred to keep our discussion private, so that won't be sent to the list
until he either does it himself or tells me to go ahead and do it.

Voluminous claims look a bit less impressive in the light of what has
> actually come out.I don't know about you, but I have met this profile
> before, and the very best thing about it is having time on his hands.

You're spending a lot of time attacking the messenger. In my experience, the
only time people do that is when they are afraid of the message.

Charles

Parker

P.S. Take a chill pill, ok?


body:
Ray Saintonge wrote

> That sounds like a good way of validating everything he has been saying.

Well, no, he has been posting some very wild and generalized claims. He has been playing the 'how can I be a troll, look at how provocative my posts are?' card. He has bad netiquette. He is claiming admin status, while not being transparent about his identity on the site. He has been personalising the discussion, in dealing with David Gerard. The 'in sorrow, not in anger' doesn't convince me, anyway.

The actual content (I think) boils down to one concrete claim of observed admin misbehaviour. This took a _large_ number of posts to extract. Voluminous claims look a bit less impressive in the light of what has actually come out.

I don't know about you, but I have met this profile before, and the very best thing about it is having time on his hands.

Charles

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


references:
<46d9b7490610060531g2371021q8d9d37ed4805b9ac@mail.gmail.com>
	<b4kdi2tjpd5cfl4vtsb9f44btf2qmq3e6k@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061501q3e961858tb31c5415d5e735bb@mail.gmail.com>
	<keldi25kovo7pje8udg4ep3mkfe62i2m52@4ax.com>
	<fhldi2l741f7bg3hsdu0vfcqqhqs0v0pr9@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610061537k196289fal67710e0e26047e55@mail.gmail.com>
	<a1agi2hppufv1g3kmupgnj738l065hhg52@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490610071650x5513f452i5cf2cc156ea6b53@mail.gmail.com>
	<qishi29jsmaqlg4qfd6fuojmkth1o030bn@4ax.com>

body:
And I disagree with your assessment. Non-righteous block, fraudulent claim
of "vandalism only" account, edits had sources including sources brought
from other articles on wikipedia that have not been challenged.

Parker

On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:50:40 -0500, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The "original" account was claimed to be NoLongerScieno (blocked for
> >"name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter.
> >Possible sockpuppet? Certainly.
> >Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe.
> >Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to block for
> >being a sockpuppet of a username block? Definitely.
>
> I reviewed the edits of both accounts, 100% vandalism (POV-pushing).
> Righteous block.  Next case, please.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> >On 03/10/06, James Hare <messedrocker at gmail.com> wrote:

> >It would be simpler just to toss the name into copac.ac.uk or
> >catalog.loc.gov and see if it appears! But this still doesn't tell us
> >anything beyond "I am claiming this book supports me".
> >
> Absolutely!   And that claim is only sometimes a hoax.  It can as easily
> be a good-faith misinterpretation of the information.

But of course.

The problem is, the original proposal here was to deal with people
making up sources - an explicitly bad-faith action. But the suggested
system is a system that is equally suceptible to being gamed in
bad-faith. You want to game this? You make a false claim with regards
to a reputable (but hard to identify) work. Done.

So instituting this system wouldn't deal with the bad-faith people in
any way, and just create vast amounts of (admittedly automatible, but
still) make-work for "verifiers". Which doesn't really help the
project, it just plasters around the original problem...

> >It still doesn't get past the fact that I belive David when he says
> >"This band does indeed appear on page seventeen of Australian Indie
> >Rock Monthly, August 1979", but am slightly less inclined to believe
> >the unknown chap claiming he's found something earthshattering in a
> >1937 issue of a Russian underground newspaper...
> >
> It takes a long time to build trust, and there are still many long
> standing Wikipedians whose judgement I would question on some issues but
> I would trust on others.  I'm sure we all keep personal lists of that
> source.  The newbie who quotes the 1937 Russian newspaper in support of
> his point could very well be right.  It would a gross assumption of bad
> faith to reject his citation solely on the basis that he is a newbie.

Oh, indeed. It's just... there's a difference between "assuming good
faith" and "assuming trust"

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


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Wikitech-l] italic in links

body:
Fran?ois Patte wrote:
> Bonjour,
>
> I have a problem that I can't solve: when I want to purt a word in
> italic in a link, the link doesn't work anymore...
>
> ie.
>
> [[Contenu de la Lilavati]]  works
>
> [[Contenu de la ''Lilavati'']] doesn't work: iit is displayed "verbatim"
> with the two square brackets and Lilavati is in italic though.
>
> Thank you.
>
That's expected. Syntax for italics can't be within a link like that.
Try [[Contenu de la Lilavati|Contenu de la ''Lilavati'']]

Filip


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Any suggestions for editing refs?

body:
habj wrote:
> 2006/10/5, Maury Markowitz <maury_markowitz at hotmail.com>:
>> I'm trying to be the good wikipedian and adding lots of on-topic refs, but I
>> find editing them to be extremely difficult and error prone. IMHO the actual
>> "body" of the ref should definitely not be placed in the article body, where
>> it is now, as this makes reading the source difficult, to say the least.
>
> Agreed. At least it should be possible to put a line break before and
> after the reference tags, to help the eye distinguish between the text
> and the ref and make the source text more readable. I have tried that,
> but it puts a space between the text and the little superscript letter
> that tells which source supports the statements. I guess I will
> continue doing that when working on a text, then remove the line
> breaks.

You can put the line breaks right _after_ the ref tag without adding
extra spaces.<ref>
{{cite mailinglist| first=Bryan| last=Derksen| list=wikipedia-l|
title=Any suggestions for editing refs?| date=2006-10-08}}</ref>
And if the line break after the /ref tag adds a space it's no problem
since that's usually intended anyway.

> For the future, could we imagine a citation system where the pair of
> reference tags enclose the portion of the text that the source refers
> to? The text of the reference itself then needs to be put someplace
> else.

I don't like this idea much, it seems likely to make the references a
lot more "fragile" than they currently are. If you've referenced a large
block of text this way then one could easily wind up cutting and pasting
chunks that might break the citations, and it goes back to the {{ref}}
template's old problem of having to change two separate sections of the
article when adding or removing a reference. I'm not sure it'd be worth
the extra trouble.

I like the current system because it's so "atomic"; a reference's text
lives in just one location, and that location is in the same place where
the citation's link is supposed to go in the final result. The only
problem I've seen with the current system is that occasionally when
there are multiple tags for one reference and the first instance gets
removed we wind up with blank references below, but at least that's
easily noticeable.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20061008/6106ca8f/attachment.pgp