body:
george william herbert wrote:
>  You don't see what's wrong with calling the RFC infantile?

In point of fact, just about everything concerning that
particular RfC is, if not "infantile", certainly dreadfully
silly.

1. It's silly to spend a bunch of time trying to distinguish
   yourself with an elaborate signature, when you could spend
   time distinguishing yourself by making high-quality edits.

2. Be that as it may, it's silly to get upset about someone's
   elaborate signature, let alone go to the extreme of editing it.

3. Be that as it may, it's silly to get too upset about someone's
   simplifying the elaborate signature that it was silly to have
   in the first place.

4. Be that as it may, it's silly to act all surprised (let alone
   defensive, let alone proud) when someone takes offense at the
   WP:POINT you made by simplifying their elaborate signature
   (particularly when you knew perfectly well they would).

As Berke Breathed once wrote, "Bailiff, kick these two nuts in
the butt."


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
	userbox

body:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather explicitly
> said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would
> bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.

This is not a problem.   That is precisely what I did.


from_name: Peter Ansell

body:
On 6/1/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the response...
>
> On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> > On 6/1/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:22 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> >>> So we can promote things
> >> Could you expand on this?  AFAIK, the topic under discussion was a
> >> template, intended to be placed on user pages, containing the text:
> >> "This user is a Satanist" (IIRC).  Is this intended to promote
> >> something?  Is this intended to promote the improvement of some
> >> article
> >> in Wikipedia?  Generally, most things in the non-article space parts
> >> of
> >> Wikipedia are designed to assist in writing the encyclopedia, or
> >> reflect on such writing.  Unless I am mistaken, very few if any things
> >> on Wikipedia are designed to promote anything, except possibly
> >> Wikipedia itself.  I look forward to you expanding on what you mean by
> >> this.
> >>
> >> <major sniping>
> >>
> >>> Wikipedia should allow editors no matter what background they come
> >>> from.
> >> And (baring the Islamic issue discussed here ad nausaum), what
> >> evidence
> >> do you have that Wikipedia does not?  Deleting a template is not
> >> blocking anyone from editing the encyclopedia, unless I am seriously
> >> out of touch here...
> >
> > You make it seem like the issue about templates and articles are two
> > totally different issues.
> Er, I asked for two things. 1) What did you mean by "promote"?  2) What
> evidence do you have that Wikipedia is not allowing people to edit
> because of their background?  Unless I am misunderstanding, you didn't
> provide either of these in your response. I look forward to you doing
> so.
>
> <part of original message removed>
>
> >  Calling my post major sniping seems very premature when you didn't
> > understand that.
> As for the comment about "major sniping", that was a typo. ;-)  I meant
> to say <large parts of the original message removed>.  Sorry about
> that.
>
> Continuing to wonder about "promote",
>         Jesse Weinstein
>

The promote statement was a rhetorically worded question, which
implied a position based on the previous post which implied that any
other action was disruption of wikipedia (which is a serious and
blockable offense no less). I was pointing out that their point of
view which allowed This user is a christian and strictly disallowed
this user is a satanist, to be against in wikipedia's neutral
philosophy. The word promote may not have been the right word,
however, the action which based the wikipedia definition of
inflammatory and divisive in the american christian way of life has
not been rebutted.

I didn't actually say that wikipedia was not allowing people to edit
based on their background. I apologise if it came across that way. I
was merely stating the position that it should and does indeed promote
edits by any serious editor wanting in good faith to improve
wikipedia. That goes against someone who claims that no serious editor
(given their personal culture) would ever in good faith say that they
were a satanist. They were bringing in far more of their personal bias
to wikipedia than these templates ever have (as long as they are all
available and not deleted by people with personal religious agendas)

Peter Ansell


list: foundation-l

from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>2006/6/1, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>
>
>>Hoi,
>>You assume that people get to know the Wikimedia Foundation through
>>Wikipedia. A common assumption but it is wrong in that the Wikimedia
>>Foundation is there not only for Wikipedia but also for Wikipedia.
>>
>>There are other project and when people consider things it is most
>>often seen in the light of what is good for Wikipedia must be good for
>>the rest. Well, suprise that is a fallacy.
>>
>>
>
>This reminds me of the attitude of the founders of the Dutch Wikimedia
>chapter: "You are of the opinion that the Dutch Wikimedia chapter is
>there for Wikipedia. We're not, we're for those other projects too.
>And because of that we don't need to answer questions from people from
>Wikipedia."
>
>
>
>
Precisely

Still no answer from these people to questions now asked months ago. The
"ostrichpolicy" seems to work perfectly in the wikimedia organisation.
Stick your head in the sand, refuse to answer and you will get by
unpunished. While the people who complain get called and asked to leave
wikimedia.

Waerth/Walter


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 10

body:
On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> The burning embassies and other violant protests started after
> the cartoons have been *published*, not after some caricaturists
> have been drawing a picture of Mohammed at home.
> It is the publication and the many republications (incl. WP)
> which insulted resp. insults so many people, not some caricaturist
> drawing a picture at home.

You enjoy hairsplitting, apparently.

Perhaps the cartoonist is drawing Mohammed for a second time.


body:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The problem with making this claim now is that you have rather
> > explicitly
> > > said that you went after Satanism because it was disreputable and would
> > > bring Wikipedia into disrepute by having the userbox.
> >
> > This is not a problem.   That is precisely what I did.
>
>
> Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things, the
> LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item which
> you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.

Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.

And that would be presuming that I were "campaigning".

This isn't what Wikipedia is about at all.  All of the religious
userboxes are obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted.
Some for multiple reasons--in the case of the Satanist box it's not
only unsuitable, it's got the added problem that it would bring
Wikipedia into disrepute.

And as I explained in the original email:

"I don't think the goal
of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging,
though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the
like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and
coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only
bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse.
Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where
traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors
vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of
votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be
appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be
made for this particular template"


from_name: geni

body:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't matter how many people vote to say that unencyclopedic
> materia should stay.  It still has to go.  That's what the policy is
> about.

I don't don't think they are ending up in the article namespace to any
degree. Thus it doesn't matter if they are unencyclopedic. AN/I is
unencyclopedic.

--
geni


body:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> it's got the added problem that it would bring
> Wikipedia into disrepute.
>

Allowing gays to edit does that in the eyes of some people. Dito
non-muslims, non-christians, athiests, agnoistics, furries, people
without Phds and people who don't use US/british spelling.

--
geni


body:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tony... When engaged in a general campaign regarding a class of things,
> > the
> > > LAST thing you do is to initiate it starting with a particular item
> > which
> > > you personally despise, while admitting publically that you despise it.
> >
> > Well I don't see why not--if I were to particularly despised it.
>
>
>
> WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
>

That is a non-sequitur.  Please address the arguments.


body:
On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So we can promote things only if they are not divisive and
> > inflammatory in American English Christian culture?
>
> No, this is an encyclopedia.  We do not promote ANYTHING.
>
> However, if we're going to have to debate this issue thousands of
> times (roughly once per five userboxes removed, I suspect) then at
> least we can weed out the obviously absurd reviews.  Such as those
> that should be rejected on other grounds, even if people are prepared
> to pack polls and vote against "What Wikipedia is NOT".

If we dont promote anything, then why are you putting down your bias
towards what you feel is inflammatory and divisive, while ignoring
others pleas that such things are not in any way included in that
criteria.

What wikipedia "is" is more important than what it is not. It is a
neutral point of view area. By putting down your obvious point of view
against satanism, and just making the christian box go to be
consistent, you are showing that you are not infact driven by "what
wikipedia is" (ie. a place where you are neutral and therefore
accepting of others biases in good faith that they will not take them
to articles).

BTW, "packing the polls" may just be a reflection of how many people
are actually trying to show how much support (and hence not
divisiveness) the "keep" side has.

Peter Ansell


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

body:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
> Resid Gulerdem,
>
> As a permanently blocked user you are not in the correct position to
> be discussing policy. This is particularly true when you continue to
> utilize sockpuppets [[User:TheLightning]] to be edit disruptively (re:
> [[Fethullah G?len]] earlier today ).
<snip/>
Actually I'd rather consider the addition of a {{NPOV}} tag
to [[Fethullah G?len]] without any explanation on the talk
page "disruptive".

--
Raphael


from_name: Kelly Martin

subject: [Foundation-l] H.R. 5252 and H.R. 5417

body:
On 6/1/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> I think in the specific case of the Wikimedia Foundation, it'll have
> negligible impact.  We're large enough and have little enough
> competition that the power balance tips more our way than their way---if
> Wikipedia is slower on one ISP than on one of their competitors, that
> will reflect badly on that ISP.  And in any case, latency caused by
> differential IP-traffic priority is likely to be negligible compared to
> latency caused by things like hitting the database.

We might care more if we were peering.  Since we pay for all of our IP
traffic as transit, it's unlikely we'd run into this issue.  The real
issue behind net neutrality is the desire of Tier 1 and Tier 2 ISPs to
give preference to customers who are buying transit (and who are thus
paying for bandwidth) over partners who are peering (and who thus do
not pay for bandwidth).  Most large providers (such as Google) carry a
substantial portion of their traffic over peering relationships,
thereby avoiding traffic charges, and the beancounters at the Tier 1s
see this as lost revenue.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] H.R. 5252 and H.R. 5417


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
I treat ideas like civility and NPOV as prionciples rather than rules.

Ec

There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the
cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as
written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished
and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either.
Nepotism determines everything.

Please see my list of wikipedia's pro's and con's, if your interested
in why your losing volunteers and creating "trolls".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sam_Spade/Workshop#Where_the_hell_am_I_supposed_to_discuss_matters.3F

SS


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Volunteering--where are we heading

body:
This has been a very instructive discussion for me, at least.

Unofficially, at least, I would like to make a proposal. I would like to
invite people on this list to email me at _dwool at wikimedia.org_
(mailto:dwool at wikimedia.org)  if they are

a) interested in volunteering in various capacities,
b) in what particular capacities they are interested
c) what particular skills and experiences they bring to the table
d) when they would be available to volunteer
e) how much time they would be able to devote to this
f) what particular equipment they have that can be used (color printer,
scanner, an amazing long-dstance phone plan, etc.)
f) how they can be contacted
f) any other ideas you might have

I will then begin to create a database with this information.

This does not mean that you will automatically be given something to do.  Nor
does it mean that you will be asked to do exactly what you want. It will,
however, help to coordinate some of the many tasks that need doing, such as
stuffing envelopes, coordinating databases, etc.

I think that this can be a first step toward greater involvement.

Remember, send it to my work address: _dwool at wikimedia.org_
(mailto:dwool at wikimedia.org) . Do not send it to  this address.

Note that I am not doing this in any official capacity whatsoever. I would
be more than happy to have one or two volunteers help organize this.

Thanks,

Danny


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
> Raphael1,
> Seeing as you are the only editor who truly is pushing for a change
> regarding the display of the cartoons, the lines you are citing in
> WP:NBD do not apply. Where is this supposed change in consensus?
> I realize now how hypocritical you are and how much of an equivocator
> you are. You have yourself in these threads said that you'd be fine if
> the cartoons were on display in the "Islamophobia" article. Your
> equivocation is utterly illogical and borderline asinine. If you can
> not see this then there truly is no hope for you and it will not be
> long before you truly will have "exhausted the community's patience".
> How can you reconcile this difference? I can only imagine that you'd
> agree with displaying the cartoons on that articel for informational
> purposes. Why can you not get it through your mind that the same logic
> applies on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article,
> that they are displayed there as they are for informational purposes?
> The display of the cartoons there is not a moral affront by Wikipedia.

Well, if it's not meant as a moral affront, but readers still get
offended by the way Wikipedia displays the cartoons, wouldn't it
be reasonable to think about how to inform without offending people?
I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not
to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia"
considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.

> Here's a quick lesson in logic about why Wikipedia doesn't insult
> muslims by displaying the cartoons:
>
> Let's say that I were to tell Vkasdg that you were a complete idiot
> who wasted his time (and others) by constantly droning on about the
> display of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on Wikpedia. So then Vkasdg
> goes and tells Rgulerdem that I said you were an idiot (even mimicing
> exactly the way that I said it). Rgulerdem subsequently comes to you
> and mimics what I said when explaining that he'd heard that I called
> you an idiot. Has Rgulerdem insulted you? Clearly not. This same logic
> applies to Wikipedia does it not?

No, Rgulerdem wouldn't have insulted me, but he would have denounced
you. I know, that you particularly enjoy in relaying messages in order
to divide people and to create discord, but I consider this a bad
habit of yours.

Back to the cartoons:
I guess you don't mind looking at the MC in the lower right corner:
"A nervous caricaturist, shakily drawing Muhammad while looking over
his shoulder". If the cartoon is funny, it is because of an
exaggeration. Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of
drawing a Mohammed picture at home. The publication of the cartoons has
been the offense and the 3rd sentence of our article "As the controversy
grew, some or all of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more
than fifty other countries, which led to violent protests, particularly
in the Muslim world." implies, that republications insulted even more.

--
Raphael


subject: [Foundation-l] jobs

body:
On 6/1/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Right. I have one job for you. I forwarded on checkuser list yesterday
> an email of someone complaining of misuse of checkuser on fi. I do not
> have the time to study the case. You are in charge of exploring the
> issue, clarify if there was blantant abuse (in this case, please ask us
> to remove the status) or mostly ignorance (in that case, please inform
> the checkuser). Do you accept the job ?

I'll look into it.  Note that I lack much insight into fi policy or
events, and as I cannot read Finnish, cannot examine their project
pages to meaningfully determine if CheckUser was used inappropriately
there.  To whom may I refer questions of that nature?

If you ever have anything else of this or any other nature which you
think I might be able to help with, please feel free to email me
*directly* (or chat with me on IRC).  I do not reliably read the
public mailing lists; the signal-to-noise ratio is too low on the
public lists and my free time too limited.  I guarantee that any mail
addressed directly to me will be read within 24 hours unless I am ill
or traveling.

> Interesting question.
> Is the job of a board member
> 1) define the strategy of the Foundation in the long run
> 2) manage everyday operations of the organisation
> 3) focus on human management of volunteers
>
>
> According to books, it is 1. According to reality, it is 2. According to
> wishes, is it 3 ?

The proper duty of the board is to steer the organization, that is,
item 1 above.  Item 2 should be handled by the paid professional staff
of the foundation, but the Board has been reluctant to date to hire
paid professional staff, and so has to do those items in lieu of
having them done by that staff.  This is one of the major mistakes
that the Board has made to date, and until they correct it they will
forever be struggling to deal with matters they should not have to
deal with anyway.  Item 3 falls within the scope of "managing everyday
operations" and should also be handled either by paid professional
staff or a volunteer selected by and managed by the paid professional
staff.

I have no intention of suggesting that the Board should be doing more
than it is doing.

> Let me see... I need
>
> 1) someone with good knowledge of cell phones to help us figure what we
> could do with wikipedia and cell phone (technical description). Able to
> answer all emails on OTRS of cell-phone people proposing various
> partnership.

Not an area I know much about.

> 2) Someone with good graphical skills to improve the look of a CD for
> kids 7-13. And make the external jacket. Speaking french will be a bonus.

My graphics arts skills are about as good as my French.

> 3) Someone to clean up and rearrange all pages on meta related to the
> Foundation. Good english skills required as well as knowledge of the
> Foundation structure

I find the current structure confusing (at least once one gets beyond
the Board itself), and freely admit that I do not understand it.  On
the other hand, my English skills are reasonably good.

> 4) Someone to update various pages on the foundation website. To check
> the discrepancies between the english version and the other languages
> version. To contact the various editors responsiable of this version to
> tell them about the discrepancies. Require : access to WMF site and good
> communication skills.

I lack the requisite access to the Foundation site, and being
monolingual cannot help much with reconciliations of translations.

> 5) A baby-sitter at Wikimania for my baby. Skills : knowledge of kids.
> Plump preferred. Male, female, trans welcome. Date and location : early
> august in Boston.

If I go to Wikimania at all, I suspect I will be going to attend
events and actually try to accomplish something productive.  And if I
wanted to watch a child while doing this, it would be my own.  Sorry.

> 6) A lawyer or legal counselling to fix broken contracts received on
> OTRS. Skills required : patience and availability.

Not a lawyer (althougb not legally clueless), nor do I understand what
you mean by "fixing broken contracts received on OTRS".

> 7) Checkuser issue : it seems the privacy policy, the checkuser policy
> are not making everyone happy. I am looking for someone to review both
> and make new proposals. Additional jobs : doing stats of useage. Asking
> Brion to add a system to allow easier consulting. Skills : tough skin.

Please write me privately about this.

> 8) OTRS assistant : job, improve the spam filter. OR, clean up the board
> queue.

I have no access to the board queue, although I've been working OTRS
for several months now.  The spam filter is a technical issue that I
don't know much about (the spam filter I use at work is a commercial
product sold by Sophos and I don't know much about how it works, just
how to make it work, and I'm not knowledgeable of the solution being
used now).  I freely admit that my open-source technical skills are
rusty.

> 9) Fundraising assistant : someone to help Mav to write a resolution
> allowing the creation of that committee. Then, help to make a GREAT
> fundraising before summer. Skills : being creative with good
> communication ability. Urgent job.

Not an area I'm good at.

> 10) Business development : I need someone to help figuring out how much
> are trademarks are worth. Example : if we make a dvd, how much to ask
> per item. If we make a board game : how much to ask per item.

I have past experience in this area.  Write me privately.

> 11) Also in business development. I need someone to collect the names
> and addresses of all mirrors (in all languages) and to contact them one
> by one to propose them a live feed; Will require to contact translators
> to fix languages templates. Should get a tech description from Brion.
> Skills and various : should have tech knowledge and OTRS access.
> Multilingual preferred.

Write me privately about this one, too.

Kelly


subject: [Foundation-l] jobs


list: textbook-l

from_name: Piotr "Derbeth" Kubowicz

subject: [Textbook-l] Use of this mailing list...

body:
Dnia Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:38:23 +0200, Lord Voldemort napisa?(a):

> Just wondering if this list gets very much use.  Any ideas?  Wouldn't
> this be the appropriate place for the whole "game guides" discussion?
> Thanks.
> --LV

No, such debate should be completely public, only a small number of people use this list. I see this list as place for perhaps some less formal discussions (like commenting important articles and blog entries about Wikibooks) and cross-project coordination (like informing about new MediaWiki features). Some of these topic should be forwarded to staff lounge or bulletin board, but there are many topics that are irrelevant for most users (like very specific software changes or discussing blog entries).

--
Piotr 'Derbeth' Kubowicz
Derbeth Site <http://derbeth.glt.pl>
Jabber id: derbeth at jabber.wp.pl

Pom?? Wikibooks stworzy? najwi?kszy zbi?r otwartych podr?cznik?w! http://pl.wikibooks.org/

Opera - the fastest browser on Earth! http://www.opera.com/


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
 personal attack

body:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
> The fact that Raphae1 (Wegmann) spammed an almost exclusive list of
> Muslims about his "Persecution of Muslims" list:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipidian&diff=prev&oldid=54372695
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BhaiSaab&diff=prev&oldid=54372702
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arno&diff=prev&oldid=54372712
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgulerdem&diff=prev&oldid=54372720
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=prev&oldid=54372736
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremygbyrne&diff=prev&oldid=54374434
> Without ever informing the actual admins on his list of his having
> created it, make the "hit list" comparison particularly accurate.

Well, you did that already for me, didn't you?

> After this "hit list" was deleted, rather than accept the deciscion to
> do so (which other than himself and User:Striver no one rejected) he
> continued on strongly trying to resurrect it (without ever having
> acknowledged that his initial actions were wrong).

I don't know how you define a "hit list", since according to
http://dictionary.reference.com a "hit list" can be both,
a list of potential victims and a list of designated targets,
but I sincerely hope, that you don't assume I tried to compile
a list of admins, who I planned to attack in the future.

<snip/>
> Your droning on is really beating on a dead horse over this and if you
> continue to conduct yourself as you have been and do not follow the
> advice of your fellow contributors as far as trying to form a
> consensus for your actions then it is safe to say that the likelyhood
> for your eventually becoming permanently blocked is very good.

That sentence doesn't really make sense to me.
Am I supposed to stop what you call "droning" respectively
"beating on a dead horse" or am I supposed to try to form
a consensus? Or is the likelyhood for becoming permanently
blocked very good either way?

--
Raphael


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
>> On 6/1/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> did not write:
>>
>> A process whereby every committee holds open, widely announced
>> meetings and where advisor status is granted instantly without
>> bureaucratic process was discussed, but does not seem to be practiced
>> by any of the committees.
>>

> I don't know if anyone has pointed out to you, but the Communications
> Committee holds weekly IRC meetings which are open to the public and
> everyone is invited to participate.

> These meetings are scheduled on the Meta comcom page,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee. I'm sure it was
> simply an oversight on your part to use grand generalizations without
> being certain of their veracity.

> Amgine

Amgine, I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part, but this quote
isn't mine :)

Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Patrick, Brad

subject: [Foundation-l] jobs

body:
I have contacted El Wiki about their logo and trademark usage.  I have not heard back.  This situation will escalate if I don't hear from them.

--------------------------
Brad Patrick
Fowler White Boggs Banker
bpatrick at fowlerwhite.com
(813)-454-3420 cel/BB

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org <foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thu Jun 01 21:41:43 2006
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] jobs

Anthere schrieb:

> 10) Business development : I need someone to help figuring out how much
> are trademarks are worth. Example : if we make a dvd, how much to ask
> per item. If we make a board game : how much to ask per item.

The Wikimedia trademarks won't be worth a damn in the near future
because the Wikimedia Foundation does nothing to prevent them from
becoming generics.

No offense meant to you, you've done your best.

greetings,
elian

PS: second enquiry: Has anything been done about
http://onepiece.elwiki.com/index.php/Main_Page and the
[http://www.elwiki.com/gallery.php rest]?

PPS: Wikimedia Deutschland got 1 Euro per sold DVD, to answer your question.

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

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

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


subject: [Foundation-l] jobs


from_name: Essjay

subject: [Foundation-l] jobs

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Let me see... I need
>
> 1) someone with good knowledge of cell phones to help us figure what we
> could do with wikipedia and cell phone (technical description). Able to
> answer all emails on OTRS of cell-phone people proposing various
> partnership.
>
> 2) Someone with good graphical skills to improve the look of a CD for
> kids 7-13. And make the external jacket. Speaking french will be a bonus.
>
> 3) Someone to clean up and rearrange all pages on meta related to the
> Foundation. Good english skills required as well as knowledge of the
> Foundation structure
>
> 4) Someone to update various pages on the foundation website. To check
> the discrepancies between the english version and the other languages
> version. To contact the various editors responsiable of this version to
> tell them about the discrepancies. Require : access to WMF site and good
> communication skills.
>
>
More than happy to help with updates, but unfortunately not very
multilingual (damn US schools). Is there anything someone with good
communication skills and a fluency in English, but not other languages,
can do?
> 5) A baby-sitter at Wikimania for my baby. Skills : knowledge of kids.
> Plump preferred. Male, female, trans welcome. Date and location : early
> august in Boston.
>
> 6) A lawyer or legal counselling to fix broken contracts received on
> OTRS. Skills required : patience and availability.
>
> 7) Checkuser issue : it seems the privacy policy, the checkuser policy
> are not making everyone happy. I am looking for someone to review both
> and make new proposals. Additional jobs : doing stats of useage. Asking
> Brion to add a system to allow easier consulting. Skills : tough skin.
>
More than happy to help with this, and have already run stats privately
several times on the use on en.wiki, and sent them to checkuser-l at
least once; no problem to do on the other projects, since it is a common
log and I have access as an en.wiki checker. What stats would you like?
> 8) OTRS assistant : job, improve the spam filter. OR, clean up the board
> queue.
>
>
Can't really help with the spam filter, but more than happy to have a
shot at the Board queue. Of course, I only know the things I've moved
into it, as I'm not allowed to access it, but assuming there are no
three-headed monsters hiding behind the "no permission" screen, I'll do
what I can.
> 9) Fundraising assistant : someone to help Mav to write a resolution
> allowing the creation of that committee. Then, help to make a GREAT
> fundraising before summer. Skills : being creative with good
> communication ability. Urgent job.
>
> 10) Business development : I need someone to help figuring out how much
> are trademarks are worth. Example : if we make a dvd, how much to ask
> per item. If we make a board game : how much to ask per item.
>
> 11) Also in business development. I need someone to collect the names
> and addresses of all mirrors (in all languages) and to contact them one
> by one to propose them a live feed; Will require to contact translators
> to fix languages templates. Should get a tech description from Brion.
> Skills and various : should have tech knowledge and OTRS access.
> Multilingual preferred.
>
>
> More later as soon as I had time to really think about it.
>
>
>
Keep the ideas coming, always willing to help.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


subject: [Foundation-l] jobs


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org don't work

body:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>
> I walked in a bit late... but are you suggesting that the proper
> orthographical representation of the language in question requires 2
> successive apostrophes in the middle of a word?

Yes, this is what she meant. You only need to look at the pages she
linked to to see.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Sam Spade wrote:

> There is only one rule : don't offend the "cabal" (or any of the
> cliques w admin members), or you will be punished. The policies as
> written seem nice, but they have nothing to do with who is punished
> and who is not. Quality of articles has nothing to do with it either.
> Nepotism determines everything.

Technically this will always be true, but ideally, admin cliques
should only be offended by things that hurt Wikipedia.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Live mirrors of de.wikipedia

body:
Peter Jacobi wrote:
> These popup-infested warts mirror de.wikipedia by
> live inclusion of content:
>
> http://www.nachgeschlagen.com/wiki/Hauptseite
> http://www.easy-lexikon.de/wiki/Hauptseite
> http://www.web01.de/wiki/Hauptseite

The third one appears to display only English content for me. However,
the text at the bottom that attempts to fulfill the GFDL links to the
German Wikipedia, but using English article titles, giving broken links.
It is also still a live mirror:
http://www.web01.de/wiki/Special:Recentchanges


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Birgitte SB wrote:
>
> --- Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 6/1/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Later we got closed wikis and private board chats
>>
>>as a side affair. Recent
>>
>>>statements like the ones quoted above give the
>>
>>impression that both board
>>
>>>members find the Wikimedia community has become a
>>
>>pain in the neck at times,
>>
>>>better to be ignored, or kept in the dark.
>>
>>No. What Angela pointed out is that there was an
>>open meeting about
>>the committees, about the need for a CEO, and so on
>>(we created a
>>separate meeting specifically to discuss the
>>ExecCom). For arguing for
>>the open meeting, Angela and myself received little
>>but scorn from the
>>existing group of people who were likely to serve on
>>these committees.
>>(Anthere was in the middle of her pregnancy at the
>>time.) The
>>community members from the outside who joined hardly
>>participated at
>>all.
>>
>>This wasn't a small number of people, something like
>>70 in the main
>>meeting. See the logs at:
>>
>>http://scireview.de/wiki/com2/channel.log
>>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Executive_committee/February_11%2C_2006_open_meeting_log
>
>>Note that to this day, the second log contains a
>>claim by Jimbo that I
>>"deeply misrepresented" him during the ExecCom
>>meeting, without any
>>actual elaboration of why or how that is the case. I
>>will not repeat
>>some of the other things that have been said.
>>
>>You will also note that in the end, it was mostly me
>>and another small
>>group of people arguing. I know you were there, but
>>there are many
>>people who are on this list who weren't. Now we are
>>given the usual
>>round of whining: "I don't like IRC!" "I wasn't
>>informed!" "My cat ate
>>my homework!"
>>
>>Participating in these meetings, for me, has not
>>exactly been an
>>exercise in gaining popularity or favor; rather the
>>opposite. Taking a
>>stand against a prevailing line of thinking strains
>>relations with
>>people, and that should not be done unless there is
>>a clear benefit.
>>
>>This was a crucial meeting where a case could have
>>been made, by the
>>community, for organizing and structuring Wikimedia
>>in an open and
>>participatory fashion. There are very few people who
>>were willing to
>>actually make that case.
>>
>>For the "inside people" this is easy to explain: as
>>we see with
>>adminship on Wikipedia, open and accountable models
>>are quickly
>>subjected to constant harassment by self-appointed
>>"accountability
>>activists". Having your private little clubs and
>>mailing lists (some
>>of which, as we have heard, even the Board doesn't
>>know about or have
>>access to) makes things so much easier. Why put up
>>with the hassle of
>>an open meeting when you can have a closed one?
>>
>>As for the outside people, perhaps their lack of
>>participation is
>>because they don't care about "organizational
>>stuff," perhaps it's
>>because Wikimedia has historically been so opaque
>>that people have
>>expected that it needs to stay that way. Whatever
>>the reason, people
>>like myself frankly lose the motivation to invest
>>time in a lost
>>cause.
>>
>>Just like Wikipedia has to deal with vandalism and
>>trolls for allowing
>>anyone to edit, an open organization would have to
>>deal with
>>incompetence and maliciousness in return for rapid
>>growth and network
>>benefits. Rather than invent the organizational
>>equivalent of wiki
>>processes -- something which would require a lot of
>>creative thinking
>>from the brightest minds of Wikimedia -- it's much
>>more convenient to
>>say: "wiki and organization are different things and
>>need to be kept
>>separate." And, guess what, the lawyers agree!
>>
>>There is virtually no active pressure or demand from
>>the actual
>>community for openness, participatory processes and
>>transparency
>>within the Wikimedia Foundation. As a result, there
>>are very little.
>>The committees which have been formed are useful,
>>but they pick and
>>choose their members on a case by case basis (or
>>perhaps I should say
>>"face by face") -- cf. GerardM's rejected membership
>>application to
>>the Special Projects committee. At least during the
>>transitional
>>phase, the amount of bureauracy is even worse than
>>it was at the time
>>we were ruled by the Board and the Board alone.
>>
>>A process whereby every committee holds open, widely
>>announced
>>meetings and where advisor status is granted
>>instantly without
>>bureaucratic process was discussed, but does not
>>seem to be practiced
>>by any of the committees.
>>
>>Even a trivial idea like putting a couple of new
>>community-elected
>>members on the Board has been proposed years ago but
>>never
>>implemented. But, then again, has there been any
>>pressure from the
>>community for such change to hapepn? Hardly at all.
>>When a couple of
>>"big shot" outside people are appointed to Board
>>positions and the
>>Board remains otherwise as it is, sure, there will
>>be the usual round
>>of whining. But during the processes that actually
>>matter, the people
>>who whine later tend to be conspicuously absent.
>>
>>So, Wikimedia is shaped by people who feel that the
>>very philosophy
>>that made WP a success is not applicable to
>>organizations. Wikimedia
>>will become a functioning non-profit with the usual
>>bureucratic
>>processes, some successful fundraising, a few good
>>partnerships here
>>and there, a bunch of "professionals", lots of
>>infighting among
>>volunteers, etc. It will not become the open
>>platform for social and
>>technological change that it could be -- the wide
>>network of people
>>who are interested in building a free knowledge and
>>free culture
>>movement.  And who is to blame for that? Not the
>>people who made it
>>so. They have only the best interests of Wikimedia
>>in mind and work
>>their ass of to do what they can to make it a
>>success. The people who
>>are to blame are those who did not participate in
>>turning Wikimedia
>>into something else, something larger, when it
>>mattered.
>>
>>Erik
>>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Without knowing the full history, or many details at
> all, I can understand both sides of this.  It is a
> difficult issue.  Right now, the people who will end
> up with access to the system, will simply be those who
> have made themselves known to the people with access.
> This is generally how the world works, and there has
> been some discusion about the problems with this in
> the Checkuser thread as well.  Within an organization
> like WMF, this leads to a few problems in my eyes.
> One you miss out on the qualified, experienced
> people's input who do not happen to have a political
> bent. And most importantly you skew the whole
> organization away from the diverse and global feel.
> That saddens me sitting here in the US, so I imagine
> is really upsets the more "diverse" people  around.
> This is also the reason there is the blurry line
> between en.WP and WMF that has been brought up here.
> Because most people only get access to the latter is
> through the former.
>
> That said it is much easier to get things done when
> they are kept closed.  I cannot imagine how a truly
> open system would work, and can easily believe it
> would not work well.  I am not so much of an idealist
> as I once was to insist on principles.  I understand
> the need for pragmatism.  However, I would like
> encourage everyone to take a minute to examine where
> we are.  Examine what are the criteria for information
> being put in a public area vs. a closed one.  Be sure
> things are pushed to open areas whenever it is
> practical.  Make a real effort to recruit more people
> in from smaller languages instead of just waiting for
> them to show up here.  I think more recruiting should
> be done period.  For needed skill sets, etc.  I have
> never seen the WMF foundation asking the communities
> for anything besides money and trust.  I believe the
> communities have much more to offer.
>
> Honestly I trust you all, I don't need to read all the
> discussions to feel comfortable here.  However, I
> think that by doing things as you are, you are
> overwhelming yourselves and missing out on the
> experience available in the wider communities.  I
> think anyone who reads this list must get the feeling
> many people are simply overwhelmed with what they have
> taken on.  The idea seems to be this will be fixed by
> hiring professionals, but the further that route is
> followed the more closed this will become.  Or else we
> will have major retention problems.  I can not imagine
> having my *job* open to the critique of all of you.
> The email where it was misunderstood that BradP was a
> paid employee is the tip of the iceberg.  I would
> suggest putting out a call for volunteers for specific
> tasks, and ask for resumes(which is a good example of
> something that *should* be kept closed).  Look for
> people with actual experience and that can work
> together so no one is overwhelmed.  And whenever
> possible people you do *not* already know well.
> Seriously on a wiki a through read of someone
> contributions can tell you most all the things you
> would learn from a solid acquaintance.
>
> I truly believe if there is not a effort made to keep
> everything as open as possible now, there will be when
> the chapters come into thier own.  So I am not too
> concerned.  Although it would be better from a
> practical standpoint, if the middle ground could be
> found now.
>
>
> Birgitte SB

--------

"I have never seen the WMF foundation asking the communities
  for anything besides money and trust.  I believe the
  communities have much more to offer. "

You probably have limited memory. I remember explicitely calling loudly
for help for many topics and various skills.
Hell, I remember distinctly I called *you* Birgitte to help for setting
up decent rules for new languages creation. Hardly a month ago. On this
  list. After I asked you help, you basically answered "errr, not now.
Sorry ".

I also remember distinctly I called for help many times for Quarto. We
got a certain amount of help, but not sufficient to handle things. So,
Quarto was closed. It was closed because, *YOU* the community, failed to
answer calls for help.

In the past month, I have taking care of answering all the questions on
OTRS which were business related. Most of them, I can not answer alone.
I need help. I need help to answer stuff about mobile phone. I need help
to answer proposal related to trademarks use ...

We received a proposition from a big firm that I will not cite here.
This was a little bit discussed amongst the community volunteers
lawyers. For the past three weeks, I have been asking for a contract for
that deal. I got none. None, none, none. It is not exactly as if I asked
not for help. I did, but got nothing. (And this is why we need
hiring.... believe me, if someone were writing these contracts on a
volunteer basis, we would not need to hire people).

So, claiming that the Foundation never asked more to the community than
money and trust is worse that *false*. That's an *insult*.

There is something hugely upsetting in the comments I read in this
thread. It is seeing people complain things are not publicly
discussed... but who do not even comments when the issues are raised
publicly. It is seeing people complain things are not done... but they
do not do things themselves. It is seeing people complain we do not
welcome their help... but they say no when we ask them.

I am not gonna blame you because you refuse to help me on something.
That's fine. You're a volunteer. But do not try to pretend we do not ask
for help please. That's dishonnest.

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia

body:
On 5/31/06, le Richard <lerichard at free.fr> wrote:
>
> >As a mathematician I'm particularly interested on his contributions to
> see
> >why (if they were correct) were removed and think of possible reasons,
> but
> >again, no user with that username
>
> Sorry I got it wrong. My username on the English wikipedia is Herve661.
> And the contribution that was deleted is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=26373995
>
> Thanks for the replies, everyone.

Okay, that edit doesn't conform to the Wikipedia neutrality and "no original
research" policies. You can read these policies here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR

I realize that it's ironic for me to say this, since you said that Wikipedia
articles are dominated by people who make the rules. But these policies
exist for good reason; they ensure that the articles are, well, factual and
neutral, as well as verifiable. I would encourage you to familiarize
yourself with these two policies and write us back if you have any further
questions.

Ryan


from_name: Wildrick Steele

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice
	(Forwarded email)

body:
On 31/05/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > First submit something, then complain it's there.
> > If that case ever got to court, he'd be suing himself for copyright
> > infringement.
>
> Yes, he doesn't have a case, and is of absolutely no threat to us
> whatsoever. Which totally destroys any reason we could possibly have
> for mocking him publicly.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

We've had some problems with this user on en.wiktionary as well, including
legal threats about the Wikimedia bylaws in Florida and such.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Wytukaze#Block_indeed
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room#Irresponsible_Sysop_Actions

I've been wondering whether his threats were anything serious, but this
incident clarifies it all. It seems that on Wiktionary, we're going to see
more things that I had always thought would remain restricted to Wikipedia
(compare the Primetime incident, for instance).

Cheers,
Wildrick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus


subject: [Wikitech-l] autoloading classes

body:
> I have a small patch (2k lines) that eliminates most of
> require_once() calls and uses require() in __autoload() handler.
> Generally it makes things faster, as less require_once means less
> stat(), as well as that might be more APC-friendly.

Not questioning anything, but out of interest: I don't understand how
this saves any stat()s? Surely multiple calls to require_once for the
same file still require only one stat().


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Gavin Chait wrote:
> Accountability is created by the tension that exists between groups that
> watch each other.  Having a set of committees reporting to a single board is
> simply a pyramid.
>
> A director (CEO, whatever you wish to call the position) and their team is
> one locus of control.  A board is another.  The board's task is to offer
> guidance, select individuals to perform specific tasks, remove
> non-performers from office and so on.  But the actual running of the
> organisation is left to the director and team.
>
> Reconstituting Anthere's list of committees into a set of line functions
> overseen by a director would look as follows:
>
> * Finance and internal audit - task is to ensure bookkeeping, and audit, as
> well as assist auditors appointed by board; insurance can be pasted in here
> as well.
> * Chapters - I'm assuming this has some oversight of the projects?
> * Communications and Public Relations - press releases, events, promotions,
> as well as watching media for outside coverage, etc.
> * Information technology and technical development - server maintenance and
> development
> * Special projects - should this simply be part of an enlarged Chapters
> role?
> * Legal - specialist required in international law, trademarks, etc.
> * Fundraising - works closely with communications and PR
> * HR and admin - if you are going to have an office, you need to ensure it
> gets cleaned, stocked with coffee / tea, salaries paid on time, contracts
> drawn up ... that sort of thing

Just to clarify the discussion.
special project committee scope :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special_projects_committee
chapter committee scope :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_committee/Scope_and_area_of_delegation

> These are all simply technical roles - there is no assumption that they
> would be a single person, or a group, simply tasks that may need to be
> performed.  The board gets standardised feedback and has the right to
> intervene to fire the director or any of the other role-players.  The board
> does not run the operation, it simply has oversight and ultimate control.
> The director knows that they report to the board.

Ideally yes. Not yet the case.

> Board's normally do not require a massive time commitment and so they can be
> stocked with celebrities who are able to open doors (and consequently make
> the fundraising task a lot easier).

There is a balance to achieve here. If you stock the board with big
shots, you lose the continuity. And if you put too many community people
  and big shots, you lose in efficiency.

I was under the presumption 9 could be a nice choice for us. With
roughly 2 big shots.

You raise the issue of efficiency, in particular to make it possible
that all members be able to meet together. Just for the reference, our
last board meeting was in january.

> Typically, any organisation has the following core requirements:
> * financial control
> * marketing
> * strategic planning
> * operational support (includes: IT, legal, HR and so on)
>
> You could, depending on the work-load, bundle many of these tasks together:
> * finance, internal audit, admin, hr
> * IT, technical development
> * chapters, special projects
> * communications, PR, fundraising
> * legal
> * director
>
> So then you need six people in your head office.  Your board could be as
> large as you like (remembering that the bigger your board, the harder it is
> to get everyone to get together at the same time, or agree on anything).
> The overall strategy - it goes without saying - can be the responsibility of
> the board.  Implementation belongs to the director.
>
> Anthere again:
> "Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a
> project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves
> independently of the Foundation,  only respecting the general goal of
> the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality
> essentially)."
>
> I don't suggest anything like absolute power (editorial control, that sort
> of thing) but it is useful to have a person in charge who keeps track of
> what is going on.  They act as champion for the project.  If you really want
> to create a Chinese wall between the Foundation and its projects then you
> have to have someone at any particular project that the Foundation can talk
> to.  Someone has to guarantee the core rules will be applied.

Hmmmm, we actually had some champions in the past. I think we can
qualify Erik as such for wikinews. I do not think the idea of a unique
champion is fit, because this champion would have to be very little
controversial to be acceptable by either side. I rather believe in a
small group of trusted editors. This is already what is happening on the
english wikipedia.

> It's no good simply cutting a perfectly good project loose when it crosses
> the line.  Someone, tasked with championing the project, should have the job
> of keeping the project inside those lines ... as gently as possible.  Only
> when they completely loose the ability to control those guidelines should a
> project be cut.

Nod. This is what was done before closing the french wikiquote.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not
>> to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia"
>> considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.
>
> And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon its
> core principles.
>

Which one?
Do you think, that the UN is biased towards Muslims?

It's not WP:OR:

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20060319&hn=31079

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=92
Symbol: E/CN.4/2006/17

--
Raphael


subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Others must have noticed this - is this a recognised issue?
> Basically: Given some article whose title is in title case (eg, Lyon
> Metro), you can type the lower case version in the go/search box, and
> still get there. However, if you link to [[lyon metro]] in an article,
> it will show up as a red link.
>
> This has the effect that it's actually difficult to create the article
> *other* than going through the redlink - if you try and type in the
> name, you get silently redirected.
>
> Would it be wrong to be redirected towards the other cased version
> instead of having a redlink?

Surely the most useful solution would be to make the Go button redirect
non-silently, i.e. in the same way as a real redirect. A wikilink [[Lyon
metro]] would still be a redlink, but typing "Lyon metro" in the Go box
or the actual URL should bring up [[Lyon Metro]] with the note,
"(redirected from _Lyon metro_)", where "Lyon metro" is, of course, a
redlink. You can then use that to create the page if you wanted to.

Timwi


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Erik Zachte wrote:
>>>On 6/1/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> did not write:
>>>
>>>A process whereby every committee holds open, widely announced
>>>meetings and where advisor status is granted instantly without
>>>bureaucratic process was discussed, but does not seem to be practiced
>>>by any of the committees.
>>>
>
>
>>I don't know if anyone has pointed out to you, but the Communications
>>Committee holds weekly IRC meetings which are open to the public and
>>everyone is invited to participate.
>
>
>>These meetings are scheduled on the Meta comcom page,
>>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications_committee. I'm sure it was
>>simply an oversight on your part to use grand generalizations without
>>being certain of their veracity.
>
>
>>Amgine
>
>
> Amgine, I'm sure it was simply an oversight on your part, but this quote
> isn't mine :)
>
> Erik Zachte

"As far as I know most or
all members on these committees were appointed by the board,"

However, I am sure this one was yours.
On the spc committee, the only members appointed by the board are Danny
and myself. Danny was even re-approved by the group. That lets me,
Anthere, being the only member appointed by the board.

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
Rob wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of
>> drawing a Mohammed picture at home.
>
> I would be afraid of doing *anything* at home were I targeted by a mob
> of violent religious fanatics.  (A cartoonist would of course have
> nothing to fear from the sternly worded letters of non-violent
> reasonable religious folks.)

Surely, but why would you be targeted by a mob of violent
religious fanatics?

--
Raphael


from_name: Plyd

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Wantedpages only once

body:
Hello,

Special:Wantedpages doesn't mean anything now because it gives a too
high value to links included in very-used templates.

Is it possible to count template links only once ?

Plyd


from_name: Mathias Schindler

body:
> Special:Wantedpages doesn't mean anything now because it gives a too
> high value to links included in very-used templates.
>
> Is it possible to count template links only once ?

See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6011

Marked as Wontfix.

Mathias


from_name: Resid Gulerdem

body:
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 16:48:40 +0200
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >    After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
> > admin-user relations - below) the link to the
updated
> > version of another proposal
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> > under my old user page is deleted for ''the good
of
> > Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones
who
> > would like to see that proposal with the correct
link.
> > Earlier version can be found at
> > [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as
'rejected'
> > but the truth is, I could never find an
opportunity to
> > put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the
> > updated version below this message for the sake of
> > completeness and for your convenience.
>
>Fortunately I've made a backup of your last version
here
>[[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]]
>though I am not sure whether some administrator will
censor
>this too.
>
>--
>Raphael
>

   Dear Raphael,
   That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for it.
It will be a humble contribution of mine to the Wiki
community if it has a chance to be discussed fairly in
the future.
   On the other hand you take a high risk by posting
that proposal to your user page. A lynch chorus may
start 'ringing the bells' for you. I am pretty sure
you know that, by doing so, you will also be a target
of 'The' Troublemaker [[User:TT]] (It may be read as
The Troll, but not a problem, both apply to the case).
Since he will continuously be trying to create a
negative atmosphere around you by any means possible,
you should be really careful about his actions. My
suggestions would be just ignore him and do not let
him force you to into a negative, unfruitful cycle
which is hard to escape from. You already seem to be
smart enough (more than enough :) maybe) to be able to
see what is happening though.
   I would appreciate if you could let me know what
you think about the proposals [[WP:OURS]] (and
[[WP:Wikiethics]] about which you made some
suggestions before) if possible. Realizing that there
is a problem and identifying it is one thing, trying
to find a reasonable solution to the problem is
another thing. I think only talking about the problem
does not lead the project to a better place and will
not do any good other than increase frustration.
   Best,
   Resid

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


body:
oops sorry...

On 6/1/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Special:Wantedpages doesn't mean anything now because it gives a too
> > high value to links included in very-used templates.
> >
> > Is it possible to count template links only once ?
>
> See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6011
>
> Marked as Wontfix.
>
> Mathias
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
On 6/1/06, Plyd <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> wrote:
> oops sorry...

not at all. I wish there was a solution for this the way you described it.

Mathias


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > WP is NOT your dictatorship, unless your real name is Wales.
> >
> > That is a non-sequitur.  Please address the arguments.
>
>
>
> I did.  You are substituting your judgement for process and consensus and
> assuming executive powers and authority you don't have.

Nonsense.


body:
On 6/1/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > > That is a non-sequitur.  Please address the arguments.
> >
> > You're both arguing at cross-purposes.  You keep explaining why
> > what you did was necessary and important, while he keeps asking
> > why you are doing it so high-handedly.
>
>
> Speaking of which, this lovely comment:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=56396077&oldid=56368286

I'm quite proud of it, too. What I don't see is any excuse for your
attempt  to turn it into the bases of a personal attack on me.


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-06-02

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 328 of 338 tests (97.04%) FAILED!


body:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm quite proud of it, too. What I don't see is any excuse for your
> > attempt  to turn it into the bases of a personal attack on me.
>
>
>  You don't see what's wrong with calling the RFC infantile?

Absolutely not.  It's a silly, petty, mindless, disgrace to Wikipedia.


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>> Matt Brown wrote:
>>> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>>>> I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not
>>>> to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia"
>>>> considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.
>>> And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon its
>>> core principles.
>
>> Which one?
>
> WP:NPOV.  Specifically, (paraphrase) "Wikipedia does not *consider*
> anything to be anything. Wikipedia reports that other people consider
> things to be other things, and tries to take as few positions as
> possible."
>

That's a noble goal, but experience shows, that sometimes "Wikipedia"
*has to* take a position. IMHO both to publicate as well as to refrain
from publication of information sometimes means to define one's
position. If it's not obvious on the JP article, think about AfDs on
[[Religion of Peace]], [[Israeli apartheid]], [[Movement to impeach
George W. Bush]], ...

--
Raphael


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And we
>>haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in
>>establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
>>
>>
>>>It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
>>>
>>So?  That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.
>>
>No, it doesn't.  However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a
>*reliable* source.
>
That conclusion is not logical..If you are going to be imposing such
strict criteria on one kinde of publication you should be applying these
criteria to them all.  Very few publications would pass your test of
reliability.

Ec


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Anthere:

> There is something hugely upsetting in the comments I read in this thread.
> It is seeing people complain things are not publicly discussed...
> but who do not even comments when the issues are raised publicly.
> It is seeing people complain things are not done...
> but they do not do things themselves.
> It is seeing people complain we do not welcome their help...
> but they say no when we ask them.

Anthere, it is difficult to argue against generalisations. Several people
who argued in this thread are doing a lot,
be it in Mediawiki activities that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the
board or any subcommittee. Do you accept critical remarks only from people
that you work with every day?

Clearly all comments in this thread are here because an issue was indeed
raised publicly, namely about Mediawiki core values.
I for one consider it good taste not to reply on a thread unless I feel I
have something new to contribute and feel strongly about the issue.
So from me no 'yes, I think so too' replies. Actually I only send part of
the replies that I write and occasionaly only after several revisions and
more thought. Hopelessly out of touch with the IRC generation.

If people are overdemanding here and plainly work-shy everywhere else please
be specific.

Even then, it is one of the preconditions for a non-autocratic system that
people in a position of power answer to the public at large regardless of
what specific members of the public are doing themselves, at least those
members read posts and ask questions and show they are involved to a certain
degree.

In the outside world, in established political systems of any kind, power
corrupts almost without exception. Lip service is paid to a free press until
one has to deal with those 'press mosquitos' oneself, those people who
'always whine' and 'should start to do somethings themselves for the country
instead of scandalizing good people' etc etc. Clearly we do things
differently here and need not worry, or do we?

If your answer to people who ask critical questions is to discredit them, I
start to worry even more that Wikimedia has come close to the outside world.

Please let us not get personal. I respect your work for Mediawiki a lot.
Please assume good faith of others.

Erik Zachte


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
 userbox

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:
>
> Somewhere downthread, I notice the comparison to hospital staff
> wearing tags describing their political affiliation. Yes, there is an
> ethical difference between one of the nurses handing out boxes of
> little badges they made at home to their colleagues, versus an
> administrator handing out packets of them to staff.
>
If the Hospital is able to reply "one of the staff knocked them up on their
own initiative and at their own expense" this has a very different context
to "those were prepared here in the Hospital using official resources, at
official expense".

For one thing, the former would make it a simple matter of discipline at
most, if the disciplinary code even covered such a situation, whereas the
latter might well be a sackable offence.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cancelation-of-the-deletion-review-of-the-satanism-userbox-t1712895.html#a4675594
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


body:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Tony is going around pissing people off badly enough that they RfC him over
> it.

George, if I breathe someone gets pissed off. This isn't normally
regarded as a cause for concern.


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
On 6/1/06, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "I have never seen the WMF foundation asking the
> > communities
> >   for anything besides money and trust.  I believe
> > the
> >   communities have much more to offer. "
> >
> >
> > You probably have limited memory. I remember
> > explicitely calling loudly
> > for help for many topics and various skills.
> > Hell, I remember distinctly I called *you* Birgitte
> > to help for setting
> > up decent rules for new languages creation. Hardly a
> > month ago. On this
> >   list. After I asked you help, you basically
> > answered "errr, not now.
> > Sorry ".
> >
>
> Yes you did.  I was more thinking of asking across
> projects not just asking people who already are in
> contact with the mailing list.  A site-wide note
> similar to fundraising, but a call for volunteers.
> With a page asking for people with specific skills
> sets or experience.  To bring in people who have not
> already sought out the Foundation themselves
>
[snip]
>
> I am very sorry my email upset you.  I do not mean to
> imply in any way that I felt my help was unwelcome, or
> that my help was not asked for.  I was really not
> talking about me or any one who's name you might
> recognize from this list.  I meant a direct appeal to
> all the people out there who do not know what the
> Foundation is doing much less what it needs doing.  I
> meant recruiting from the untapped reasource of people
> who use thes projects.  Recruiting.  Not asking people
> who have already show interest.
>
> I am do not mean this to be taken so critically.
> Trully it is impressive what so few people have
> accomplished here.   And also did not mean that I
> thought no one should be hired.  Just that hiring
> professionals is not a panacea.  It will take a very
> special sort of professional to work in this
> enviroment.  I really want to see a middle ground.  I
> am not against things being closed either.  It is just
> a matter of degrees.
>
>
> Birgitte SB

Yes, if I may just chip in at this point, I think that your point was
taken unfairly, Birgitte. I agree with you that we need to better seek
out and recognise the talent/initiative we have within the community,
and use this as best we can for the furthering of our goals, which we
are achieving through the organisational front of the Wikimedia
Foundation (including its chapters and committees). Obviously, we have
achieved so much, as individuals contributing to our projects of
passion, but many of us do other work besides all this - writing grant
proposals, answering OTRS mails, evaluating and answering proposals
from external businesses/charities, addressing legal concerns/threats,
organising conferences - to name just a few activities that are going
on. These are jobs that are being done by *community* members, who
have volunteered themselves or themselves been volunteered by other
people ;-). Essentially, my point (echoing Anthere's) is that some of
the people who complain that the organisation is moving on without
them, either haven't bothered to get involved (yet), or don't know
how. Possibly we need to have something like a page on Meta which
outlines what our talents/expertise/interests are, so that, when the
need arises, they can be called on to help out? Dunno, maybe somewhere
like: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_volunteers (?)

Cormac


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Of course read Mediawiki as Wikimedia in previous post. Could we rename
Mediawiki some time?

Erik Zachte :)


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 6/1/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>No, it doesn't.  However, it does mean that a phone book isn't a
>>*reliable* source.
>>
>>
>I don't think it's ever been stated that Wikipedia only incorporates
>material from known, infallible sources. Our minimum requirements are
>much more vague however - words like "reliable" and "verifiable" get
>used a lot, but with no clear definition.
>
>Given that, providing the source of all information and taking steps
>not to ridiculously misuse sources (eg, quoting speculative material
>from a tabloid and presenting it as established fact), is what we
>should be aiming for. So far, we're not even close.
>
I essentially agree.  Some people still argue that Wikipedia itself is
not a reliable source.  On the other hand "Scientific American" for this
month used [[Sudoku]] as a reference in an article on the same subject.

Diferent sources will have different levels of reliability for different
types of information.  It's ultimately up to the user to exercise
critical thinking in making such evaluations, not us.

Ec


body:
On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them
> off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because they're
> silly, is a serious problem.

Obviously not.  There comes a point at which one must simply recognise
that a completely and utterly fatuous complaint is being made, and
move on.


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
>To Platonides: Wikipedia is "cased". It's just that the first letter
>isn't case sensitive. However, "soap" and "SOAP" are definitely two
>different entries, for instance. It's just that the interface
>apparently does some primitive case resolving when there *aren't* too
>separate articles - type NOSTRADAMUS in the search box and it will
>take you (silently) to "Nostradamus". Make a link to [[NOSTRADAMUS]]
>in an article, and it will be a redlink (and clicking it will
>definitely not redirect silently).

Now i see the problem. I didn't realised as examples had different cas on
first one too. In fact i almost never use the Go. I use to edit the address
bar directly. When is use the wikipedia search is only with 'search'.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the	satanism
 userbox

body:
Nick Boalch wrote:
> Steve Summit wrote:
>> If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between
>> saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully
>> ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
>
> Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity
> and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made
> up longer ago...
>

Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a
banned troll is that you're not banned yet...

--
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/20060602/066eb519/attachment.pgp


from_name: shi zhao

subject: [Foundation-l] Announcing... CommonsTicker

body:
zh wp long time....

:)

[[zh:user:shizhao]]

On 6/2/06, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> CommonsTicker is a special tool created by
> (commons:,meta:,:de:w:)User:Duesentrieb to allow for greater
> communication and transparency between the Commons and local projects
> (all projects, all languages) that use the Commons. When it is set up,
> a log page is created and a bot posts updates about any critical
> events that occur to any Commons images that are being used by that
> project. Critical events are: image replacement (a new version of an
> image being uploaded over the top of an existing one), an image being
> marked or unmarked with a deletion tag (including no source, etc), and
> an image being deleted.
>
> This allows local project users to immediately identify any images
> that have been nominated for deletion, giving them plenty of notice to
> take part in the deletion discussion, as well as checking that image
> replacements are not vandalism and removing any red links from deleted
> images.
>
> CommonsTicker is completely translatable (if you provide a
> translation). All it needs to be set up is a project admin to
> "sponsor" it through the early days. Now taking requests! :)
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker :
> instructions on set-up, contact, translation, request queue
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:CommonsTicker : Example
> Ticker in English
> (There are also Tickers already set up in German, Indonesian, Italian,
> Dutch, Chinese and Slovak.)
>
> (Note that it will not be possible to set up on English Wikipedia
> until the toolserver issue is resolved.)
>
> cheers,
> Brianna (commons:user:pfctdayelise)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Tels

subject:
[Wikitech-l] User-specified JavaScript execution Vuln with two
	specific extensions

body:
Moin,

On Friday 02 June 2006 01:02, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> > The new one-pass tag stripping* is now in trunk and live on
> > Wikimedia's sites. It passes all parser tests, and has additionally
> > fixed bug 5384 (<!-- comments --> in <ref> tags).
> >
> > * Comments are actually done on a separate pass, but unstripped back
> > into tag contents where they can be dealt with appropriately by the
> > extension.
[snipabit]

> Under the new system this can actually work correctly. The embedded
> second <ref> gets rendered during the rendering of the <gallery>, which
> is between the external first and third <ref>s. Since they're executed
> in the expected logical order, they keep that order in the references
> list.
>
> Definitely an improvement.

Very cool. I am not sure if this will help my problem with nesting
templates and extensions, but maybe I can nest some extension tags to
achive the effect I want, namely:

 {{slides|output=foo}}

and

 {{slides|output=bar}}

to result in (inside the slides template):

 {{navbar|txt=
 <slides output="{{{output}}}">
 </slides>
 }}

e.g. the template parameter is passed somehow along to the extension. At
the moment (well in 1.6.5) this doesn't work since {{{output}}} isn't
replaced by the parameter text. I also tried to put the {{{output}}}
inside the tags so:

 {{navbar|txt=
 <slides>
 output={{{output}}}
 </slides>
 }}

but had no luck, either. But maybe now I can trick it into working by
using some pseudo-extension tags.

Thanx a lot,

Tels

--
 Signed on Fri Jun  2 01:08:23 2006 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Where shall I put you? Under H, like Hot, Sexy Mama?"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060602/c11bea03/attachment.pgp>


body:
John Lyden wrote:
>> From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at>
>> Rob wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>>>> Nobody really believes, that anyone would be afraid of
>>>> drawing a Mohammed picture at home.
>>> I would be afraid of doing *anything* at home were I targeted by a mob
>>> of violent religious fanatics.  (A cartoonist would of course have
>>> nothing to fear from the sternly worded letters of non-violent
>>> reasonable religious folks.)
>> Surely, but why would you be targeted by a mob of violent
>> religious fanatics?
>
> Are you asking this rhetorically, or are you being obtuse? I'm sure
> I'm not the only one who saw the firebombings and threats related to
> the J-P cartoons.
>

I'm sorry, but I think you missunderstood me.

The burning embassies and other violant protests started after
the cartoons have been *published*, not after some caricaturists
have been drawing a picture of Mohammed at home.
It is the publication and the many republications (incl. WP)
which insulted resp. insults so many people, not some caricaturist
drawing a picture at home.

--
Raphael


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
	userbox

body:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 12:47:45AM +0100, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 6/2/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Your attitude that it's ok to move beyond that into actually pissing them
> >off, and doing things like rejecting RfCs out of hand merely because
> >they're silly, is a serious problem.
>
> Obviously not.  There comes a point at which one must simply recognise
> that a completely and utterly fatuous complaint is being made, and
> move on.

It almost seems as if you're proud to be irritating people.  That you
think that those people are beneath you, or unable to understand the
rightness of your position ... and that the fact that they oppose you
and criticize you, only further demonstrates your rightness.

But Wikipedia makes tough decisions by seeking consensus.  If lots of
people think you're doing the wrong thing, that means you are operating
without the support of consensus.  And that's a problem.

As an administrator, your authorization to use administrative tools
such as deletion extends only insofar as you use them to implement and
support consensus.  You are not authorized to use them to pursue your
own projects.  You are trusted to *implement* consensus decisions, not
to make up the rules for yourself.  When there is a controversy rather
than a consensus, you are not authorized to "settle" it by your own
say-so.  Wikipedia has dispute-resolution procedures for settling
controversies.  Administrative fiat is not one of them.

Now, I'm not saying that just because _anyone_ complains, that you have
to stop.  Obviously, if vandals complain about being blocked, that's not
a bad thing.  But when actual contributors raise objections and go to
the effort of formalizing those objections, a respect for the community
that is supposed to trust you, demands that you stop the objectionable
conduct.

We've seen what happens when an administrator decides that he gets to
make the rules.  We've seen what happens when an administrator decides
that the objections of those he doesn't respect don't count.  That's how
we lost Ed Poor.


body:
Nick Boalch wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>>>> If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between
>>>> saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully
>>>> ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
>>> Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity
>>> and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made
>>> up longer ago...
>>
>> Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a
>> banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
>
> Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
>

No.

> If you really need me to make the implicit conclusion to my statement
> explicit, here it is:
>
> ...so both userboxes, and indeed all expressing a religious bias, should
> be deleted.
>

I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

--
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/20060602/1ba46249/attachment.pgp


body:
Jesse W wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>> Jesse W wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>>>> Matt Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>>>>>> I'd reckon the cartoons displayed on the Islamophobia article not
>>>>>> to be an affront, because it would be clear, that "Wikipedia"
>>>>>> considers the cartoons to be a sign for hatred towards Muslims.
>>>>> And there, concisely, is how you're arguing that Wikipedia abandon
>>>>> its
>>>>> core principles.
>>>> Which one?
>>> WP:NPOV.  Specifically, (paraphrase) "Wikipedia does not *consider*
>>> anything to be anything. Wikipedia reports that other people consider
>>> things to be other things, and tries to take as few positions as
>>> possible."
>>>
>> That's a noble goal, but experience shows, that sometimes "Wikipedia"
>> *has to* take a position.
> OK.  That was why I said "as few positions as possible."  No argument
> here.
>
> Nevertheless, I continue to fail to see how displaying an image *on the
> article about it*(i.e. J-P cartoons controversy) is taking *more* of a
> position than displaying the image on an article about a general topic
> of which the image is an (arguable) example. (i.e. Islamophobia)
>
> But we've been over this before.  You have said nothing new.  This is
> my last comment (or even reading) of this thread.  Have a nice day.
>

Just in case you're still interested in my view:

IMHO it's not a question of more or less position taking,
instead it's a question of which position Wikipedia takes.
Either we support stereotyped hostility towards a religious
group by imitating that Danish newspaper, or we reject any
advocaction of religious hatred?

As you might know already, I prefer the latter. :-)

--
Raphael


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Birgitte SB wrote:

> Yes you did.  I was more thinking of asking across
> projects not just asking people who already are in
> contact with the mailing list.  A site-wide note
> similar to fundraising, but a call for volunteers.
> With a page asking for people with specific skills
> sets or experience.  To bring in people who have not
> already sought out the Foundation themselves

Hmmm. Reaching far away people...
/me scratches her head

The nearest thing to this was a call for developers help that Jimbo did
at a dev conference perhaps 2 years ago.

Somehow... Delphine visits to several chapters this spring can probably
count as reaching out to people far away...

Otherwise..., the only other example I can think of was the
advertisement of Wikimania organiser on WMF website. But that's
streching things...

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 10

body:
Rob wrote:
> On 6/1/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>
>> The burning embassies and other violant protests started after
>> the cartoons have been *published*, not after some caricaturists
>> have been drawing a picture of Mohammed at home.
>> It is the publication and the many republications (incl. WP)
>> which insulted resp. insults so many people, not some caricaturist
>> drawing a picture at home.
>
> You enjoy hairsplitting, apparently.
>
> Perhaps the cartoonist is drawing Mohammed for a second time.

Even if the cartoonist would draw Mohammed a third time,
he wouldn't need be afraid as long as his drawings wouldn't
have been published before.

--
Raphael


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
Hello,

CommonsTicker is a special tool created by
(commons:,meta:,:de:w:)User:Duesentrieb to allow for greater
communication and transparency between the Commons and local projects
(all projects, all languages) that use the Commons. When it is set up,
a log page is created and a bot posts updates about any critical
events that occur to any Commons images that are being used by that
project. Critical events are: image replacement (a new version of an
image being uploaded over the top of an existing one), an image being
marked or unmarked with a deletion tag (including no source, etc), and
an image being deleted.

This allows local project users to immediately identify any images
that have been nominated for deletion, giving them plenty of notice to
take part in the deletion discussion, as well as checking that image
replacements are not vandalism and removing any red links from deleted
images.

CommonsTicker is completely translatable (if you provide a
translation). All it needs to be set up is a project admin to
"sponsor" it through the early days. Now taking requests! :)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker :
instructions on set-up, contact, translation, request queue
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:CommonsTicker : Example
Ticker in English
(There are also Tickers already set up in German, Indonesian, Italian,
Dutch, Chinese and Slovak.)

(Note that it will not be possible to set up on English Wikipedia
until the toolserver issue is resolved.)

cheers,
Brianna (commons:user:pfctdayelise)


body:
Nick Boalch wrote:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>>>>>>> If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no difference between
>>>>>>> saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a Satanist", you are either being wilfully
>>>>>>> ignorant, or disruptive to make a point.
>>>>>> Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between Christianity
>>>>>> and Satanism (whether Theistic or LaVeyan) is that Christianity was made
>>>>>> up longer ago...
>>>>> Well, as far as I'm concerned the only difference between you and a
>>>>> banned troll is that you're not banned yet...
>>>> Does [[WP:NPA]] apply to the mailing list?
>> If it did, your attack on religious believers would eliminate the
>> difference between you and a banned troll.
>
> There's an awful lot of difference between attacking an individual and
> 'attacking' a belief system.
>

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

--
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/20060602/1a0e8a33/attachment.pgp


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Announcing... CommonsTicker

body:
Hello,

CommonsTicker is a special tool created by
(commons:,meta:,:de:w:)User:Duesentrieb to allow for greater
communication and transparency between the Commons and local projects
(all projects, all languages) that use the Commons. When it is set up,
a log page is created and a bot posts updates about any critical
events that occur to any Commons images that are being used by that
project. Critical events are: image replacement (a new version of an
image being uploaded over the top of an existing one), an image being
marked or unmarked with a deletion tag (including no source, etc), and
an image being deleted.

This allows local project users to immediately identify any images
that have been nominated for deletion, giving them plenty of notice to
take part in the deletion discussion, as well as checking that image
replacements are not vandalism and removing any red links from deleted
images.

CommonsTicker is completely translatable (if you provide a
translation). All it needs to be set up is a project admin to
"sponsor" it through the early days. Now taking requests! :)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker :
instructions on set-up, contact, translation, request queue
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:CommonsTicker : Example
Ticker in English
(There are also Tickers already set up in German, Indonesian, Italian,
Dutch, Chinese and Slovak.)

(Note that it will not be possible to set up on English Wikipedia
until the toolserver issue is resolved. But since this is supposed to
be a list for all the Wikipedias, hopefully this message is useful to
some people at least.)

cheers,
Brianna (commons:user:pfctdayelise)


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Announcing... CommonsTicker

body:
Hello,

CommonsTicker is a special tool created by
(commons:,meta:,:de:w:)User:Duesentrieb to allow for greater
communication and transparency between the Commons and local projects
(all projects, all languages) that use the Commons. When it is set up,
a log page is created and a bot posts updates about any critical
events that occur to any Commons images that are being used by that
project. Critical events are: image replacement (a new version of an
image being uploaded over the top of an existing one), an image being
marked or unmarked with a deletion tag (including no source, etc), and
an image being deleted.

This allows local project users to immediately identify any images
that have been nominated for deletion, giving them plenty of notice to
take part in the deletion discussion, as well as checking that image
replacements are not vandalism and removing any red links from deleted
images.

CommonsTicker is completely translatable (if you provide a
translation). All it needs to be set up is a project admin to
"sponsor" it through the early days. Now taking requests! :)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker :
instructions on set-up, contact, translation, request queue
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:CommonsTicker : Example
Ticker in English
(There are also Tickers already set up in German, Indonesian, Italian,
Dutch, Chinese and Slovak.)

Well, I guess this message is mostly for the non-English wiktionaries,
then. If you want to translate the gist of this message for any
project that would be great.

cheers,
Brianna (commons:user:pfctdayelise)