from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Hi Waerth

I think that is fine you go and contact these people. I'll be happy if
something gets out of it.

As for "speaking in the name of the Foundation"... in truth Walter,
board members should not themselves speak *in the name* of the Foundation.

It is not because any of us have an opinion than the others will have
the same opinion. Technically, none of us should do that.

Just present yourself as a long time wikipedian, that should be fine I
guess. You have to remember that most people outside understand
*nothing* of the way we are organised. As long as you do not make
believe others that you are allowed to make decisions in the name of the
Foundation, that's fine. Just make that clear.

Ant

Walter van Kalken wrote:
> This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
> doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them
> tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the Foundation.
>
> As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
> "responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
> to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
> Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the
> foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would
> be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>
> I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
> critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
> trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can
> take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and then
> never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I do not
> understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I have
> always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good job
> with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up late
> for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how you are
> treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>
> Waerth/Walter


list: wikimedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


list: wikien-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Fastfission wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful
>>> that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not
>>> become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where,
>>> and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or
>>> DRV are good places to start in most cases.
>> This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really
>> care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into
>> this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much
>> careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be
>> trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and
>> "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to
>> know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?
>
> I think the lack of transparency -- which is likely for legal reasons
> -- is an unpleasant aspect of the legal end of these sorts of
> decisions. In the end, the question is not "is it fair use under US
> law" but "is it worth our invoking the fair use clause in the face of
> an unhappy owner." I think most lawyers are going to go with "no" in
> almost every case, because 99% of a lawyer's job is to keep you out of
> court in the first place.
>
> I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I think though that we should
> fully articulate that our "fair use policy" is *not* just about being
> within the law, but about avoiding court in the first place. It does
> this *by means of the law* (if we comply with the law, then the
> copyright holder will probably NOT risk sueing us), but at the same
> time this approach makes it clear that there are non-legal aspects
> (i.e. an angry copyright holder) which would dictate policy actions.
> It also would dictate a very conservative approach to "fair use" --
> one which would guarantee all of our "fair uses" are so far within the
> law that even thinking of a lawsuit would be pointless. But I
> understand that a lot of people feel differently on this.
>
> (Though, you have to admit, O RLY? v. Wikimedia Foundation would be a
> really funny case citation.)

O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.

--
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: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060520/c8dc00ce/attachment.pgp


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
Aleksy Schubert wrote:
> Recently it turned out on the Polish Wikipedia that somebody created
> a secret mailing list for Polish Wikipedia administrators. Why I say
> the list was secret?
> * the information on it was not presented anywhere on the usual
>    public Wikipedia fora,
> * the information on the fact that this list is planned has
>    not been announced anywhere,
> * the list was private (only admins could read it and
>    had access to its archives),
> * the information about the list leaked on some of the Wikipedia
>    talk pages.
>

This seems pretty problematic to me.  The point of adminship is to grant
certain technical abilities to users who are unlikely to abuse them.
This is mainly a practical matter---certain abilities, such as moving,
protecting, and deleting pages, are too disruptive to allow completely
uncontrolled access to them.

Administrators are *not* supposed to be an editorial board with
managerial control over the project, though, and having a private
mailing list sounds like a definite move in that direction.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] hooray, hooray, the lunatics have taken over!

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> Two very, *very* weird occurrances in the space of a couple of hours:
>
> a) Someone on AfD requests that a discussion on the notability of the
>     subject of the AfDed article be moved away from AfD, because
>     discussion takes place on talkpages (the inference being that AfD is
>     only for voting, when AfD is not at all a vote).
>
> b) A userbox created for pure vandalism (that is, it's nonsense, created
>     by a vandal, to facilitate filling the main article space --- that's
>     where we used to write articles --- with nonsense) was speedied as
>     "pure vandalism" (because that's what it is), then taken to DRV
>     because "OMG!  Cyde deleted a userbox!  Get him!"
>
> Is it a full moon now, or is Wikipedia just getting stupider?
>
>

Time to prepare the B-Ark...

--
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: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060520/6770c045/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

from_name: Erik van den Muijzenberg

subject: [Foundation-l] Apologies to Brad Patrick

body:
On 20-mei-2006, at 0:28, Walter van Kalken wrote:

> My apologies to Brad Patrick for speaking with such a foul mouth. He
> didn't deserve it.

Here in Holland we use the phrase "Voor het openen der mond
hoofd inschakelen." (Before opening mouth, switch head on.)

+++Muijz


from_name: Johan Bos

body:
That's true. Actually there in an other phrase as well: "Spuit elf geeft
weer modder" (Squirt eleven is giving mud again)

Jcb

----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik van den Muijzenberg" <muijz at wikipedia.be>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Apologies to Brad Patrick

> On 20-mei-2006, at 0:28, Walter van Kalken wrote:
>
>> My apologies to Brad Patrick for speaking with such a foul mouth. He
>> didn't deserve it.
>
> Here in Holland we use the phrase "Voor het openen der mond
> hoofd inschakelen." (Before opening mouth, switch head on.)
>
>
> +++Muijz
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Earthhope Action Network

subject: [WikiEN-l] Message: 8 Unblock Request

body:
------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 14:28:10 -0400
From: Jerry Sweeton <j.sweeton at wnri.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <446E0E3A.9090708 at wnri.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Greetings,

My account, User:j.sweeton at wnri.com (IP 24.248.57.133), has recently
been blocked by User:Cyde.  Uses:Cyde alleges that I have been party to
"personal attacks and disruption".  In addition, he has also deleted my
user page. He did all this without warning.

I fail to see where I have attacked someone.

After further investigation, it appears that User:Cyde has a habit of
blocking user without warning (please see User talk:Mboverload).  I feel
that he has overstepped his bounds as an admin.  I also do not see any
rule that justifies him being able to delete my user page.

Thanks for listening!

This clearly goes against Wikipedia policy. There was a vote a couple
of weeks ago concerning whether there should be off-wiki PA policy.
It was voted down strongly, as it should have been. Not only should
this block be moved immediately, but Cyde should be blocked for
breaking policy. That's a fact. Maggiethewolfstar--
peace and justice for the wildthings http://earthhopenetwork.net/


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
sannse wrote:

>I'm speaking here as someone who works on OTRS, so has to looks at cases
>like this all the time (I'm not claiming extra authority from that, just
>extra insight).
>
>What it comes down to is that fair use is not a right, it is a defense.
>
Wrong!  It is both.

>The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under
>"fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your
>defense..
>
In theory, yes.  But is is unrealistic to expect that anything but a
very small fraction of fair use claims will ever be tested in the
courts.  If it ever gets that far each instance will be decided on the
basis of its own facts.

>In this particular incident, a person with an apparently legitimate
>claim to the image asked us to remove the image, with the understanding
>that he was willing to defend his rights and test our defense in court.
>
How do you recognize a bluff?  What's wrong with saying that you are
willing to comply with a proper takedown order when he issues it?

>Now you may believe, and you may be right, that we would win that
>case... but it would be at a significant financial cost (and possibly
>significant other costs, but lets stick with the financial for now).
>
>The advice the OTRS team were given was to remove the image.  Quite
>sensibly, the foundation doesn't want to pay that cost out of our
>donations, for the sake of an image that can be linked to without /any/
>risks of costs and no significant loss of content.
>
There are no costs to Wikimedia unless it refuses to comply with the
takedown order.

>However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending
>the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be
>some if this image is used - then I say go ahead!  I'm sure Danny can
>arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed.  I'm not sure of
>costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for
>initial legal advice would be sensible too.
>
Good!  There is no need for contracts or anything of the sort.  Once you
have supplied the uploader with a copy of the takedown order the ball's
in his court.  I can't speculate what his legal costs would be; they
would certainly be less than what you suggest if he argues his own case.

My whole point is that there are established legal procedures for
dealing with allegations of copyvio.  They should not be shortcut by
your prematurely judging the outcome.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of
>an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl
>photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect
>to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
>
>Which seems logical - otherwise there would be a massive loophole. We could
>write O RLY on a non-free map of France, and use it in the France article to
>discuss O RLY or whatever...
>
Better still in an article on Orly Airport. :-)

Ec


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
Two very, *very* weird occurrances in the space of a couple of hours:

a) Someone on AfD requests that a discussion on the notability of the
    subject of the AfDed article be moved away from AfD, because
    discussion takes place on talkpages (the inference being that AfD is
    only for voting, when AfD is not at all a vote).

b) A userbox created for pure vandalism (that is, it's nonsense, created
    by a vandal, to facilitate filling the main article space --- that's
    where we used to write articles --- with nonsense) was speedied as
    "pure vandalism" (because that's what it is), then taken to DRV
    because "OMG!  Cyde deleted a userbox!  Get him!"

Is it a full moon now, or is Wikipedia just getting stupider?

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits

body:
On May 20, 2006, at 1:23 AM, abu hamza wrote:

> The last point, why is a persons religious and ethnic background not
> relevant to a wiki site on a person. Any references or sources ,
> however
> slim have claimed he was jewish. One should be asking why certain
> people
> were vehmently opposed to listing his religious and ethnic background

This man is a notorious murderer. To claim that he was Jewish when he
is not, or when there is no proof that he is, constitutes anti-Semitism.

Wikipedia will never be used to further a bigoted, racist agenda. I
am willing to do anything it takes to prevent it. Be glad you were
blocked for a week. I would have blocked indefinitely.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 182

body:
G'day Molu,
[Gah!  Top-posting again!  It's not that hard to send an email, man!]
> See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's
> experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the
> consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing when done
> with malicious intent is called vandalism.

That has nothing to do with WP:POINT.  I suggest that you, and everyone
else who repeatedly cites it without actually knowing what it means,
actually *read* the damn page instead of simply falling in love with the
name.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006


from_name: Aleksy Schubert

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
Hello all,

Recently it turned out on the Polish Wikipedia that somebody created
a secret mailing list for Polish Wikipedia administrators. Why I say
the list was secret?
* the information on it was not presented anywhere on the usual
   public Wikipedia fora,
* the information on the fact that this list is planned has
   not been announced anywhere,
* the list was private (only admins could read it and
   had access to its archives),
* the information about the list leaked on some of the Wikipedia
   talk pages.

There was a hot dispute concerning the problem on the official
Polish Wikipedia mailing list. However, there was no clear result.
A concrete proposal to discuss the issue in a narrow circle and achieve
a compromise of some kind made by [[:pl:User:Ency]] was more or less
ignored by the creators and supporters of the list.

My concern with regard to the issue is that this kind of initiative
spoils to high extent the open character of the Wikipedia community and
therefore the mailing list should be closed or the admins should be
obliged to sign off from the list. Another possibility is to just make
the list open for the whole community in some way. However, the
effective result of the discussion on the Polish Wikipedia mailing list
(that means that the list still exists) stays in contradiction with my
understanding of the  openness of the Wikipedia projects. That's why I
raise this issue here in hope that I'll hear something that will allow
me to better understand the situation and act appropriately.

Bests,
Alx-pl

--
De toekomst is onzeker en het einde is altijd nabij
- Roadhouse Blues, The Doors


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
geni wrote:

>In any case we have located the original high res version:
>
>http://animalpicturesarchive.com/animal/ViewImg.cgi?img=a7/Snowy_Owl_Nyctea_scandiaca_005-by_John_White.jpg
>
>We link to it in the article.
>
It's an ugly picture.  I'm sure we could find better.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

body:
G'day Steve,

> On 5/19/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>>This rule is not that clear cut. A quarrelsome user cannot by picking
>>petty quarrels thus insulate themselves from administrative action.
>>The dispute must have been substantial and the block is good in any
>>event. Treating it as a "non-negotiable directive" is inappropriate.
>>It is more an action which can get you into trouble and possibly lead
>>to loss of administrative status in egregious and repeated cases.
>
> In such cases could the admin leave a message at AN/I and wait for someone
> else to carry out the block (usual complaints of ganging up aside...)
>
> Also, there's a difference between "picking a petty quarrel" and actually
> succeeding in starting an argument. See the Monty Python sketch, "I'm not
> arguing with you", "Yes you are!"...

I agree with you both ...

Sometimes "blocking in a dispute" occurs when there's no dispute in
progress.  Suppose that User A repeatedly inserts a copyvio image into
an article.  Admin B, after giving appropriate warnings, deletes the
image and blocks the user.  User A then says "but Admin B was edit
warring over the inclusion of the copyvio image!  It's a dispute!  He's
not allowed to block!"

It even works if Admin C gets involved, at B's request (on ANI, or IRC,
or a talkpage, or whatever).  Then User A says "Admin B asked C to get
involved!  It's a conspiracy!"  No matter what, there was no dispute,
and User A is being a dick, and we shouldn't pander to him by saying
"you're right, that *was* a legitimate dispute".  Further, Admin B
shouldn't be prevented from blocking a disruptive user simply because
some smartarse decides to pick a fight and impugn her impartiality and
ability to do her job.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Foundation-l] Design for wikipedia's front page (and corporate)

body:
On 5/19/06, Austin Hair <adhair at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every
> > single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble
> > knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange
> > fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

> Precisely.  If you decide to install the most popular wiki software
> package out there, you have to go out of your way to make it *not*
> look like Wikipedia?at least the default logo isn't the MediaWiki
> flower anymore (actually, it is, but at least it's defaced by annoying
> text that compels people to change it quickly).

It should also be noted that the default MonoBook skin isn't even
appropriate for many wikis with its book background image. I'm often
disabling it on wikis I host. I support any effort towards either a
new Wikimedia skin, or a new MediaWiki default skin, as long as the
result is free content.

To get an idea of what is possible -- Novell makes extensive use of
MediaWiki, and has made the heaviest customizations I've seen so far
in the wild:

http://wiki.novell.com/
http://en.opensuse.org/
http://www.hula-project.org/
http://www.mono-project.com/

Given their strong open source commitment, they might even be
interested in collaborating.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
G'day Fastfission,

>>From my reading of [[WP:USER]], it seems to me that a subpage in the
> user namespace which expresses opinions about Wikipedia or admin
> behavior, or one which is the beginning of an attempt to organize
> users towards one goal or another (a pre-born Wikiproject), should be
> totally legal, irregardless of whether other users think the idea is a
> good one or whether or not it "takes up resources".
>
> And yet, at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]], there have been a
> number of cases lately where things are nominated for just this
> reason. People seem to vote without any consideration other than
> whether they think the subpage is "a good idea" or a "waste of
> resources" (of course, the MFD votes often taken up almost exactly the
> same amount of database space as the pages in question, but let's not
> let logic get involved here).

It sounds like our descriptive policy is lagging behind actual practice.
  I guess it needs updating.

(And xfD is not a vote.  If the reasoning behind a "vote" is lacking, it
can and should be ignored.  This applies even in the case of (imagine
we're on AfD now) 20 "NN D"s and 1 "Keep, he was the World Champion in
nude pipe-smoking three years running, represented Canadia in the World
Nude Pipe-Smoking Championships, and was Leader of the Conservative
Party in the UK for a period in the 90s".)

> There are two things I think we should do here. One is to try and
> hammer out if all user subpages must be "useful to the encyclopedia"
> (as many claim they must, when they are on the chopping block), and,
> if so, ADD THAT to the user page guidelines. If we DO want to go down
> that path, we should come up with some clear cut guidelines for what
> counts as "useful". Must it be useful for writing articles? For
> organizing research? For telling others about yourself? Does something
> which facilitates the community count as "useful", even if it does not
> directly apply to article writing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:We_need_a_policy_to_deal_with_policy

Define, and define, and define.  Broad definitions are tyrrany.  We
can't let random people decide what "useful" means!

> For example, I have a page on my subpages which is a list of all free
> images I have drawn for Wikipedia. It serves no direct purpose except
> maybe for me to feel good about my accomplishments, and to encourage
> others to feel good about them too. Does that make it "useful"? Maybe.

Yes.

> Since I'm not getting paid monetarily for my contributions (which take
> hours to create, mind you), a little ego stroking is a good way to
> make sure that I (and others) keep working at it. So in that sense,
> the page is very "useful": it guarantees that I will keep coming back
> and spending my valuable time on this project. (I of course do not
> mean this to refer only or even directly to "me", but mean it as "the
> hypothetical editor".)
>
> But where do we draw the line? Is a page which criticizes the
> implementation of Wikipedia policy "useful"? Is a page which
> criticizes the policy outright "useful"? What if it makes blanket
> statements about the actions of "admins"? Does that go too far? Where
> does "useful criticism and disagreement" end and "personal attacks"
> begin?

If you're talking about one subpage I've seen, it ended when the user
said "X, Y and Z admins are ignorant morons who don't know copyright
law.  I say we fight back and pepper our userspace with purdy pictures
we have no right to use!" (in a somewhat less inflammatory fashion,
admittedly).  Core principles are not negotiable, and attempts to
organise the community in revolt against being an encyclopaedia, being
NPOV, respecting copyrights, etc., should not be tolerated.

<snip/>

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date: 18/05/2006


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>> Obviously writing an NPOV-compliant article isn't a problem. Unduly biasing an
>> article towards your own opinions is not compliant with NPOV.
>
> I don't think you understand NPOV. NPOV allows for multiple points of view,
> not one. We present the facts and let the reader decide.

I can assure you that I understand NPOV perfectly.

I will reiterate: unduly biasing an article towards your own opinions is
not compliant with NPOV.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending
>>the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be
>>some if this image is used - then I say go ahead!  I'm sure Danny can
>>arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed.  I'm not sure of
>>costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for
>>initial legal advice would be sensible too.
>>
>>
>I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign
>such a contract.  Have Danny send me the details.
>
If I had read further in this long thread I would have seen this and
could have avoided my own comments which were very similar.  I don't
know about this contract; perhaps some kind of indemnity bond?

I don't always agree with you on these copyright law issues, but at
least I need to give you credit for looking up the laws that you talk
about.  I can't do that with everybody who makes comments on this subject.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
On 5/20/06, Aleksy Schubert <alx at cs.ru.nl> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Recently it turned out on the Polish Wikipedia that somebody created
> a secret mailing list for Polish Wikipedia administrators. Why I say
> the list was secret?
> * the information on it was not presented anywhere on the usual
>    public Wikipedia fora,
> * the information on the fact that this list is planned has
>    not been announced anywhere,
> * the list was private (only admins could read it and
>    had access to its archives),

Why? What is meant to be discussed on that mailing list that cannot be
open at least to all subscribers?

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
geni wrote:

>On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>
>>That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now
>>the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or
>>not it's worth the financial cost to fight.
>>
>>
>We can't always contact the uploader.
>
Fair enough.  Leave a copy of the takedown notice on his user page.  As
much as I'm in favour of a more aggressive policy in relation to these
alleged copyvios, I admit that we can do much less with those who don't
want to help themselves.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
>>>
>>>
>>No.  The ball is firmly in your court.  Put up or shut up.
>>
>>--sannse
>>
>>
>LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the
>Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to
>find out that your offer was complete nonsense.
>
The contract idea was evidently a bluff, and you called it.  :-)

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
geni wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of
>> an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl
>> photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect
>> to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
>>
>
>
> Sure we are not useing it for critical comment of the original image
> but there are other posible fair use rationals around for example:
>
> http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=O%20RLY&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wi
>
> Is generaly considered to be fair use.

What would you say if I told you that I had located the *original*
high-res version of the "O RLY owl", sans the text, and that it had a
clear copyright notice? The "O RLY" version is a copvio - so, our "fair
use" claim was in error.

--
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: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060520/5c9905ac/attachment.pgp


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
On 5/20/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> So here is my defense. at the moment i am on trial for one week .
> ref 1threeoaths http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
> ref 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey
> ref 3 http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17jeru.html

The first source is the "dodgy website" I referred to earlier. It's an
extreme partisan website. It should not be used as a source.

The second is Wikipedia. It's not allowed to be used as a source in
our articles, for obvious reasons.

The third is a personal website http://www.fsmitha.com/about.html --
also not allowed.

The use of poor sources should be placed in the context of you trying
to add six times to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]], the
British doctor who murdered his patients, that he was Jewish or that
his mother was a Jewish asylum seeker, without a source, although even
with one, why is that fact so relevant to his notability that it has
to go in the intro?

Plus the reverting with a sockpuppet, or, if you prefer, a workmate
with the same IP and same browser, who reverts to the same version of
the same page just in time to stop you from violating 3RR.

Sarah


from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them
tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the Foundation.

As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the
foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would
be nice to have an answer ASAP.

I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can
take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and then
never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I do not
understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I have
always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good job
with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up late
for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how you are
treated like you are a piece of garbage.

Waerth/Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Patrick, Brad wrote:

>You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
>should be clear.
>
>
Says ?????? Do I know you?

Waerth/Walter

>-----Original Message-----
>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>Kalken
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>
>This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
>doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them
>tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
>Foundation.
>
>As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
>"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
>to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
>Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the
>foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would
>be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>
>I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
>critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
>trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can
>take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and then
>never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I do not
>understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I have
>always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good job
>with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up late
>for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how you are
>treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>
>Waerth/Walter
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Patrick, Brad wrote:

>I'm the lawyer for the Foundation.  I represent Wikimedia Foundation,
>Inc.  I answer to the Board.
>
>You are *not* authorized to speak for the Foundation.
>
>
Wow then who can speak to these people? It is obvious that you are one
of the people who put me on the garbagebelt in the foundation judging on
your tone.

Waerth/Walter

>-----Original Message-----
>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>Kalken
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:20 PM
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>
>Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>
>
>>You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
>>should be clear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Says ?????? Do I know you?
>
>Waerth/Walter
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>>Kalken
>>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>>
>>This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
>>doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
>>Foundation.
>>
>>As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
>>"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
>>to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
>>Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>>
>>I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
>>critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
>>trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and
>>then never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I
>>do not understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I
>>have always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>job with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up
>>late for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how
>>you are treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>>
>>Waerth/Walter
>>_______________________________________________
>>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.
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
You are starting to speak like a repetative record. A bit more respect
in your tone could well get us somewhere. A person interested in
wikipedia. I have spend more fucking hours in the past 2,5 years for
wikimedia FOR FREE then you will ever do on your salary! Without people
like me contributing to these projects there wouldn't be any money to
pay for your cushy job earning topdollars over my back. So a bit more
respect and a more normal tone should be warranted. Also you are not on
the board as far as I know.

Waerth/Walter

>Don't assume anything.  If you are speaking as a person interested in
>Wikipedia, great.  I'm sure you have good things to say about Wikipedia
>in Thailand.  Good for you.  All I am saying is that you do *not* have
>the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>Kalken
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:23 PM
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>
>Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm the lawyer for the Foundation.  I represent Wikimedia Foundation,
>>Inc.  I answer to the Board.
>>
>>You are *not* authorized to speak for the Foundation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Wow then who can speak to these people? It is obvious that you are one
>of the people who put me on the garbagebelt in the foundation judging on
>your tone.
>
>Waerth/Walter
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>>Kalken
>>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:20 PM
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>>
>>Patrick, Brad wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
>>>should be clear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Says ?????? Do I know you?
>>
>>Waerth/Walter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>>>Kalken
>>>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
>>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>>>
>>>This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
>>>doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with
>>>them
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
>>>Foundation.
>>>
>>>As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
>>>"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
>>>Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It
>>>would
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>>>
>>>I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
>>>critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
>>>trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme
>>>can
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and
>>>then never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I
>>>do not understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I
>>>have always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a
>>>good
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>job with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up
>>>late for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how
>>>you are treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>>>
>>>Waerth/Walter
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


body:
My apologies to Brad Patrick for speaking with such a foul mouth. He
didn't deserve it.

I really am hurt though by the treatment of the board. I have been
working for over a long time on this Thai contact so I will do my best.
It is very hard though if you are not motivated anymore.

Waerth/Walter


body:
On May 20, 2006, at 2:13 AM, abu hamza wrote:

> hi Philip,
> like i said, the few references we have on shipmans background
> claim him to
> be jewish

Those references are *not reliable*.  It's unacceptable to put
unreliable information in the wiki, period.

If it was reliably established that he was Jewish, there would be no
problem. Since it isn't reliably established, reporting that he was
Jewish, or that he might be Jewish, constitutes anti-Semitism.

Why are you so hell-bent on making this poorly-supported case that he
is Jewish, anyway?

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970/Abu Hamza

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote:

>> Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV,
>> usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written,
>> generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable
>> sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios.  Moreover, they
>> have been reverted by 9 different editors.  He has managed all of
>> this
>> in under 50 edits.  I'm having difficulty understanding what value he
>> could possibly bring to the project.
>
> He's a newbie. He doesn't understand our rules or procedures or
> have any
> sense of institutional memory like those of us who have been around
> for a
> long time. Revert him, zap him with the cluebat a few times, and
> give him a
> chance to reform. This is a wiki and the article histories are
> preserved
> indefinitely. If short blocks have no effect on him, then I'd be
> willing to
> consent to a community ban. But we have to try them first.

All of his edits seem to fall within a POV-pushing, anti-Semitic
agenda. From denouncing Zionism to trying to publicly identify
(without proof) a convicted murderer as Jewish, it's pretty clear
that he's trying to turn Wikipedia content into racist propaganda. I
am quite firm about this--he should be blocked indefinitely. If he is
willing to apologize for his past edits I'd have no problem with
reinstating him. But Wikipedia is not a hate site.

On May 19, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly
>> bring to the project.
>>
>
> Entertainment value?

I don't find anti-Semitism entertaining, thanks.

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


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

body:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>> I agree with you both ...
>>
>> Sometimes "blocking in a dispute" occurs when there's no dispute in
>> progress.  Suppose that User A repeatedly inserts a copyvio image into
>> an article.  Admin B, after giving appropriate warnings, deletes the
>> image and blocks the user.  User A then says "but Admin B was edit
>> warring over the inclusion of the copyvio image!  It's a dispute!  He's
>> not allowed to block!"
>>
>> It even works if Admin C gets involved, at B's request (on ANI, or IRC,
>> or a talkpage, or whatever).  Then User A says "Admin B asked C to get
>> involved!  It's a conspiracy!"  No matter what, there was no dispute,
>> and User A is being a dick, and we shouldn't pander to him by saying
>> "you're right, that *was* a legitimate dispute".  Further, Admin B
>> shouldn't be prevented from blocking a disruptive user simply because
>> some smartarse decides to pick a fight and impugn her impartiality and
>> ability to do her job.
>
> I had a recent RFC over this actually.  A user (who shall remain
> unnamed) was repeatedly removing or altering the image on the
> Jyllands-Posten article (for over a month) to the point where it was
> simple vandalism and it was pissing everyone off.  So I blocked him for
> a week.

You can always assume bad faith and call it vandalism, but I clearly
stated my good reasons many times on the talk page.

> Then he turns around and says my block was invalid because I was
> previously in a dispute with him, and he dredges up an old diff.

I did not only dredge up an old diff, but I dredged up about 15
diffs, where you've repeatedly argued your POV with many editors
beside myself.

> And then another admin comes forward in support of the block, and he comes
> up with another diff where that admin reverted his vandalism to the
> article.  This happened two more times with two more different admins
> stepping forward in favor of the block and he was like, "You can't,
> content dispute, content dispute!"

It's not my fault, that some more admins breached
WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Btw. they did not revert my own
but other editors edits and they've been engaged in the dispute
on the talk page as well.

> It's ridiculous.  When a bunch of admins are coming forward saying you
> did the wrong thing, you should shut up and accept it, not dredge up
> various incidences when you were possibly in a dispute with that admin.

Why? Because administrators are supposed to have a last say
in content disputes?

> Luckily the block stood.  Despite this rules-lawyering, it was clear
> that nobody was buying the argument that you can't block someone for
> very questionable edits if you happened to have interacted with them in
> the past.

I wonder why the policy says, that blocks to gain an advantage in a
content dispute is strictly prohibited, when administrators are
accepted to decide that a position, they disagree with, is questionable.

--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970/Abu Hamza

body:
On May 20, 2006, at 5:57 AM, abu hamza wrote:

> being anti zionism isnt being anti semetic. likewise some of the most
> antisemetic people are christian zionists.
>
> you are slandering me to muddy the water, please refrain from personal
> attacks. I am not anti semetic and could never be
>
> p.s mycontributions included chinese muslims, turkic people and a
> moors
> section in the spanish inquisition

Forgive me. Your contributions have, in addition to anti-Semitic
bias, also included poorly written information about Muslims.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy

body:
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Semi-protection seems to be a great success in many cases.  I think that
> it should be extended, but carefully, in a couple of key ways.
>
> 1.  It seems that some very high profile articles like [[George W.
> Bush]] are destined to be semi-protected all the time or nearly all the
> time.  I support continued occassional experimention by anyone who wants
> to take the responsibility of guarding it, but it seems likely to me
> that we will keep such articles semi-protected almost continuously.

Well, I'm not sure if it will still be necessary after Mr. Bush leaves
office. I think the semi-protection status should be re-evaluated by
2008 or 2009. The template explaining the status can go on the talk
page in the meantime.

I can think of no case where we'll need semi-protection _permanently_.
Just for a very long time, which can mean several years in extreme
cases -- pending better technical solutions, of course.

Erik


body:
On May 20, 2006, at 6:11 AM, Sarah wrote:

>> If it was reliably established that he was Jewish, there would be no
>> problem. Since it isn't reliably established, reporting that he was
>> Jewish, or that he might be Jewish, constitutes anti-Semitism.
>
> The only reference I've found to Harold Shipman being Jewish is a BBC
> news site reporting a comment by [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], an Islamist
> cleric in the UK, who was convicted in February of racial hatred and
> incitement to murder. Abu Hamza told the court that the British
> Foreign Office and media are controlled by Jews, and part of his
> evidence was that, referring to Harold Shipman, "If a doctor kills 250
> of his patients there is not a single word about his religion."
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4644030.stm
>
> This is the attitude that User:Saladin1970 (posting here as Abu Hamza)
> brings to Wikipedia.

So he publicly identifies with a notorious Islamist and anti-Semite.
3,000 people in my country were murdered five years ago in the name
of those attitudes. He should be banned indefinitely just as we would
ban a neo-Nazi who made similar anti-Semitic edits. These people do
not belong in our community.

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


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/20/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Geni, I have to ask you to please stop opining on matters outside your
> professional expertise.

Claiming fair use on a non copyright image strikes me as a tricky
concept and one that is rather pointless in any case. Fair use images
are copyvios. At best they are just copyvios that are allowed within
the US. They are still however copyvios. If they were not you would
not bother trying to claim fair use.

--
geni


body:
On May 20, 2006, at 6:26 AM, abu hamza wrote:

> Abu means father of , and my son is called hamza

Convenient excuses, anyhow. You use the same name as an avowed anti-
Semite and al-Qaeda sympathizer, and then pretend it was a coincidence?

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
There are many private, semi-private and secret lists in which
wikimedians make decisions with eachother without ever telling anyone or
explaining. Openness has gone overboard a very long time ago. Most
things you read on the public lists have been discussed privately long
before an outsider found out about them.

It is the hard truth. The foundation nor any of the projects are 100%
open ....... and should they be in some cases?

Waerth/Walter

>Hello all,
>
>Recently it turned out on the Polish Wikipedia that somebody created
>a secret mailing list for Polish Wikipedia administrators. Why I say
>the list was secret?
>* the information on it was not presented anywhere on the usual
>   public Wikipedia fora,
>* the information on the fact that this list is planned has
>   not been announced anywhere,
>* the list was private (only admins could read it and
>   had access to its archives),
>* the information about the list leaked on some of the Wikipedia
>   talk pages.
>
>There was a hot dispute concerning the problem on the official
>Polish Wikipedia mailing list. However, there was no clear result.
>A concrete proposal to discuss the issue in a narrow circle and achieve
>a compromise of some kind made by [[:pl:User:Ency]] was more or less
>ignored by the creators and supporters of the list.
>
>My concern with regard to the issue is that this kind of initiative
>spoils to high extent the open character of the Wikipedia community and
>therefore the mailing list should be closed or the admins should be
>obliged to sign off from the list. Another possibility is to just make
>the list open for the whole community in some way. However, the
>effective result of the discussion on the Polish Wikipedia mailing list
>(that means that the list still exists) stays in contradiction with my
>understanding of the  openness of the Wikipedia projects. That's why I
>raise this issue here in hope that I'll hear something that will allow
>me to better understand the situation and act appropriately.
>
>Bests,
>Alx-pl
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
On May 20, 2006, at 6:29 AM, abu hamza wrote:

> Well thank you Philip, you have topped the lot.because my name is
> Abu Hamza,
> i am responsible for 911.
> well done Phil

You're getting very good at straw man attacks. All I'm saying is the
obvious?you identify with a notorious anti-Semite who sympathizes
with al-Qaeda and supports the murder of innocent people. People like
you aren't welcome in civil society, and you know it, so you try to
hide behind excuses and rationalizations and straw men. It's not
going to work.

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


body:
On 5/20/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that it's a matter of editorial common sense. If the ethnicity
> is relevant to the person's notability, it's fine to mention it in the
> intro. If it's harmless, ditto. But if it's irrelevant and arguably
> racist, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic, then it's important not to
> mention it with unseemly haste. We shouldn't have articles starting
> with: "John Doe is a British Muslim convicted of child rape," or "Jane
> Doe is an Afro-American who murdered all four of her husbands."
> There's no harm in mentioning ethnic background in the bio section,
> but it shouldn't be used as a stick to beat people with (or to beat
> their ethnicity with).
"John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960)
is an American serial killer. Together with his younger partner Lee
Boyd Malvo, he carried out the Beltway sniper attacks in an apparent
attempt to extort $10 million dollars during his shooting spree."

Not "John Allen Muhammed is a Muslim African-American serial killer".

"Lee Boyd Malvo (alias John Lee Malvo or Malik Malvo) (born February
18, 1985), along with John Allen Muhammad, was arrested on October
24, 2002 in connection with the Beltway sniper attacks. A jury
convicted Malvo of capital murder on December 18, 2003, and
recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on
December 23, 2003,"

Race again not mentioned

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


body:
On May 20, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> "John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960)
>> is an American serial killer. Together with his younger partner Lee
>> Boyd Malvo, he carried out the Beltway sniper attacks in an apparent
>> attempt to extort $10 million dollars during his shooting spree."
>>
>
> Out of curiosity, why do you think nationality ("American") is
> relevant, but
> not race, place of birth etc?

Well, it's a prima facie indication of where the person's
gallivanting around took place. "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is an American
basketball player" tells us, okay, he's in the US, which is big on
basketball, if he was a Canadian basketball player, that would be a
little different, even if he did play in America. ("Stephen John Nash
(born February 7, 1974 in Johannesburg, South Africa) is a Canadian
All-Star National Basketball Association player for the Phoenix
Suns." makes it clear that he did play in America.)

Always cite nationality in the first sentence; if the person had a
significant-place-of-gallivanting-around other than their home
country, cite that place-of-gallivanting-around in the first sentence
as well. "Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence, CB, DSO, Legion
of Honour (August 16, 1888 ? May 19, 1935), professionally known as
T.E. Lawrence and, later, T.E. Shaw, but most famously known as
Lawrence of Arabia, gained international renown for his role as a
British liaison officer during the Arab Revolt of 1916 to 1918. "
establishes he's British, but he did a lot of gallivanting-around in
Arabia.

> Can we formalise some guidelines? When is race
> relevant? Presumably if someone is the victim of a race hate
> crime...but
> when else? I don't think in an encyclopaedia we can ever refrain from
> mentioning something like that, but we can take "not relevant" to
> mean "not
> in the lead".

"Jack Roosevelt Robinson (January 31, 1919 ? October 24, 1972),
became the first African American Major League Baseball player of the
modern era in 1947." is a good example of citing race where relevant.

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


from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
Yes, where they undoubtedly discuss their evil schemes for world domination.

Mark

On 20/05/06, Pawe? Dembowski <fallout at lexx.eu.org> wrote:
> There is also an IRC channel for en.wikipedia admins.
>
> --
> Ausir
> Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
> http://pl.wikipedia.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

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


from_name: abu hamza

body:
So here is my defense. at the moment i am on trial for one week .

I have been accused of copy right infringement, bad writing, attacks on
others, own material, no useful edit. You name it i have been accused of it
. BUt at the end of the day, every accusation turned out to be false. The
reason for my initial ban is below. Judge for yourself if it warrented any
ban at all.

This is the section i added to the 'zionist' page , and further below is the
book i referenced. Both were deleted around 12 times over a period of 3 days
by jaygy, humus sapian and slimline. I also recommend the references are
looked at to see if they are 'dodgy'

"The three talmudic Oaths

The major historical Jewish rabbis, including those in Cordoba recognised
there were preconditions to moving to israel in accordance with the Talmud.
These included the three oaths, that jews would not be unduly persecuted,
that all nations would approve the return from exodus, and that no force was
to be used. ref 1 ()  Because of these conditions millions of Jews exiled
from Europe, Russia since the 9th century have prefered to emmigrate to
neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran.ref 2
(History of the Jews in Turkey) The population of Jews in Palestine at the
turn of the 20th century was just tens of thousands.ref 3(macrohistory) Many
Orthodox Jews vehemently oppose the return from exile as they argue the
conditions have not been met. In particular the second oath wherebye just
2/3rds of the UN general Assembly voted in favour of a recommendation for a
two state solution , and All the neighbouring states opposed the creation.
Historically the vast number of jews have opposed political zionism, based
on these judaic rulings.
"
ref 1threeoaths http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
ref 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey
ref 3 http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17jeru.html

All factual, all referenced, and in the context of the whole 'zionism' page
gives the page a far more rounded and balanced perspective.
I have been accused of bad research, copy right violations, you name. But as
you can see the contribution was important and in the scheme of the page was
balanced.

In addition , i wanted to add the following book to the further reading
"Alan Hart: Zionism the real enemy of the jews"
http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com/
Alan hart was the itn and panarama middle east corrospondent , and the book
is extremly well researched anf factual.

Yet this is apparently pov, or not relevant, whereas other books referenced
such as
A. Dershowitz, The Case for Israel, Wiley, 2003 ISBN 0-471-46502-X.
Sholom Aleichem. Why Do the Jews Need a Land of Their own?, 1898
are not POV and relevant

Both the section and the book were deleted every time i put them in by the
two users arguing against me now
humus sapian
and sarah (slim virgin)
who apparently don't have strong personal feelings about this section and
have no POV

>From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 12:12:32 +0930
>
>jayjg wrote:
><snip>
> > I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly
> > bring to the project.
> >
>
>Entertainment value?
>
>--
>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
>

><< signature.asc >>

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

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
On May 20, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Prasad J wrote:

> Quote from Philip's last message:
>
> "So he publicly identifies with a notorious Islamist and anti-Semite.
>> 3,000 people in my country were murdered five years ago in the name
>> of those attitudes. He should be banned indefinitely just as we would
>> ban a neo-Nazi who made similar anti-Semitic edits. These people do
>> not belong in our community."
>
> 1)"Notorious Islamist"-are you implying that Islamists (as in
> Muslims)are notorious?

"Islamist" does not mean "Muslim". Wikipedia states: "Islamism
describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic
fundamentalism."

Abu Hamza is an adherent to those political ideologies, notorious for
anti-Semitism, sympathies with al-Qaeda, etc.

> 2) 3000 people died on 9/11. Sorry about that. But scores of my
> countrymen in Kashmir are murdered on a daily basis by fundamentalists
> in that state. Do you see me condemning Abu because of that? He can
> symathise with whoever he wants- he has a right to do that, provided
> he does not vandalise Wikipedia.

He's using Wikipedia to promote his bias--trying to turn Wikipedia
into propaganda for his cause. The cause of demolishing skyscrapers
in Manhattan, slaughtering Indians in Kashmir, and trying to drive
the entire nation of Israel into the sea.

I'm glad you can tolerate that, because I can't.

> 3) "People like
> you aren't welcome in civil society, and you know it, so you try to
> hide behind excuses and rationalizations and straw men. It's not
> going to work."
> It is not upto you Philip, to unilaterally pass judgement on who
> belongs in civil society.
>
> I suggest you calm down and be more civil toward Abu. Treating him
> with disdain based on his religion or his beliefs (though these might
> not be acceptable to you) will only make you seem like a bigoted
> Islamophobe-which I am sure you are not.

There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't
welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia
towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic
ideology is no different.

If someone came on here and used "David Duke" as his nom de plume,
and made a bunch of anti-Semitic edits, he would be banned for life
very quickly. We hesitate here because the racist ideology in
question claims to follow the Islamic religion? Please.

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


from_name: Keith Old

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unfree content is our mission? (was:Getting rid of
	bad fair use)

body:
On 5/20/06, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>   Maru,
>
>   So de: is off-mission?  Someone should probably let the foundation know
> that
> de: is doing such a poor job.
>
>                               Jkelly
>
>
> Quoting maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com>:
>
> > fair use is
> > inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles
> > where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely
> > not release the images under a decent license,
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

How do we know? Have we asked the copyright holders?

Quite often, it would be in the interests of the copyright holder to provide
images given that Wikipedia articles on popular topics are widely read. Of
course, it might depend on the fairness of our article on the relevant area.

The use of so-called fair use images is often done without either seeing if
we can obtain images through the public domain, making images ourselves or
contracting the copyright holder and seeing if they are willing to provide
images. It is often adopted as the easy option by editors without
consideration of the alternatives, the ramifications of that option or its
legal basis although copyright law can be quite complex.

Regards

Keith Old

Keith Old
User: Capitalistroadster


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
On May 20, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> He's using Wikipedia to promote his bias--trying to turn Wikipedia
>> into propaganda for his cause. The cause of demolishing skyscrapers
>> in Manhattan, slaughtering Indians in Kashmir, and trying to drive
>> the entire nation of Israel into the sea.
>>
>> I'm glad you can tolerate that, because I can't.
>
> With respect, lots of people attempt to achieve things on Wikipedia
> that I
> don't agree with. Fortunately, in most cases, their efforts are
> futile. The
> very fact that an editor is "trying to turn Wikipedia into
> propaganda for
> his cause" should not cause us any alarm, unless he looks like he
> might
> actually succeed.

I'm not saying it should be cause for alarm--I'm saying it should be
cause for ban.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
On May 20, 2006, at 8:02 AM, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:

>> There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't
>> welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia
>> towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic
>> ideology is no different.
>
> As always, Wikipedia is not concerned with the political views of its
> contributors.

As always, Wikipedia is concerned with contributors editing Wikipedia
to further a political agenda.

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


from_name: Sarah

body:
On 5/20/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
 > If it was reliably established that he was Jewish, there would be no
> problem. Since it isn't reliably established, reporting that he was
> Jewish, or that he might be Jewish, constitutes anti-Semitism.

The only reference I've found to Harold Shipman being Jewish is a BBC
news site reporting a comment by [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], an Islamist
cleric in the UK, who was convicted in February of racial hatred and
incitement to murder. Abu Hamza told the court that the British
Foreign Office and media are controlled by Jews, and part of his
evidence was that, referring to Harold Shipman, "If a doctor kills 250
of his patients there is not a single word about his religion."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4644030.stm

This is the attitude that User:Saladin1970 (posting here as Abu Hamza)
brings to Wikipedia. We see it a lot. A few weeks ago, another user,
User:Jamaissur, created a number of articles about British Jews who
were caught up in a financial scandal. There were other people caught
up in it too, but he didn't create articles about them, only the
Jewish ones, and some of the articles ended up consisting only of the
allegations with practically no other information. When he couldn't
find a source saying they were Jews, he'd add things like "is one of
the 'British friends' of the "Israel Center for Social and Economic
Progress," which made the same point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Townsley&oldid=44187414
Or that the person was married to someone whose father was Jewish. He
even created an article about the charity [[Jewish care]] because one
of the men caught up in the scandal was a major fundraiser, and for a
while that's all the page said: British charity, looks after Jewish
people, controversial Lord X was a major fundraiser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Care&oldid=44486804

Even if Harold Shipman was Jewish and there's a good source for it,
there's no reason it should be in the intro. His ethnicity/religion
wasn't in any way relevant to his notabilty.

Sarah


body:
I disagree with your first point. There are two jewish views of political
zionism one for and one against. The site i gave is the one against which
has less following, but is still valid, and the page referenced to cites the
talmud and the scholars view of talmud, so it is entirely a valid source

the second source , using a wikipedia link  -  ok i was not aware of this,
someone could have told me that you are not allowed to use wikipedia as
references before i was banned indefinatly.

the third source, once again i was unaware that personal websites cannot be
used as a source. Given i have only been editing for 3 days, it would have
only been fair to have pointed this out to me before banning me
indefinately.

The last point, why is a persons religious and ethnic background not
relevant to a wiki site on a person. Any references or sources , however
slim have claimed he was jewish. One should be asking why certain people
were vehmently opposed to listing his religious and ethnic background

as for the sockpuppet, that is my explanation given, it is not entirely far
fetched . When two people work together and one asks the other to help, on a
certain view, then of course they will edit where appropriate. Am i not to
be given the benefit of the doubt? Or even warned that this could constitute
violation of the 3RRs , at least before I was banned indefinately

p.s All the section I wrote, can easily be referenced from what wikipedia
deem appropriate references as it is all factual and undisputed

>From: slimvirgin at gmail.com
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 03:09:44 -0500
>
>On 5/20/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So here is my defense. at the moment i am on trial for one week .
> > ref 1threeoaths
>http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
> > ref 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Turkey
> > ref 3 http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch17jeru.html
>
>The first source is the "dodgy website" I referred to earlier. It's an
>extreme partisan website. It should not be used as a source.
>
>The second is Wikipedia. It's not allowed to be used as a source in
>our articles, for obvious reasons.
>
>The third is a personal website http://www.fsmitha.com/about.html --
>also not allowed.
>
>The use of poor sources should be placed in the context of you trying
>to add six times to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]], the
>British doctor who murdered his patients, that he was Jewish or that
>his mother was a Jewish asylum seeker, without a source, although even
>with one, why is that fact so relevant to his notability that it has
>to go in the intro?
>
>Plus the reverting with a sockpuppet, or, if you prefer, a workmate
>with the same IP and same browser, who reverts to the same version of
>the same page just in time to stop you from violating 3RR.
>
>Sarah
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
>In this situation, he was simply reiterating a position on behalf of his
>client, one that had already been communicated privately to Waerth.
>
Really ???? Can someone resend that private communication that I should
have received than. I for one have never received this. Unless you mean
a mail earlier today by Brad ..... I didn't read it that way. Anyway the
fact that people do not *assume good faith* while I have done these kind
of things before are really disappointing me. I have always taken great
care. Start reading Dutch and listen to my radiointerviews and read my
newspaperintervieuws than come back and make assumptions. Just because
they haven't been done in the Anglosaxon speech, and I am not a native
speaker of the imperialistic lingo doesn't mean that I am some backward
hick who needs a nanny on every step that he takes.

> I trust he will graciously receive Waerth's apology and we need not air
>this matter further. If the prospects for collaboration with this
>organization in Thailand seem promising, hopefully Waerth can get them
>in touch with the Special Projects committee to work out the details.
>
Delivering them to a selfappointed wikibureaucracy not recognized by the
community? We will see, in Asia it is all about face, if I have the
slightest feeling I could loose face with contacts that I have been
working on for a long time if someone not familiair with Thai culture
and Thai sensitivities takes over I will rather save my own face.

Learn to have faith all selfappointed bureaucrats. Just because I do no
life in Europe/North America doesn't mean I am not worthy.

Your pile of trash,
Waerth/Walter


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


body:
On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Even if Harold Shipman was Jewish and there's a good source for it,
> > there's no reason it should be in the intro. His ethnicity/religion
> > wasn't in any way relevant to his notabilty.
>
> I'm probably straying into dangerous territory here, but I do notice that
> ethnic origin is very frequently cited in the intro for people with, shall
> we say, more positive contributions to humanity. "Jim Smith was a Jewish
> scientist of Polish origin best known for his studies of geraniums" seems
> like something you would come across fairly often.
>
I agree that it's a matter of editorial common sense. If the ethnicity
is relevant to the person's notability, it's fine to mention it in the
intro. If it's harmless, ditto. But if it's irrelevant and arguably
racist, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic, then it's important not to
mention it with unseemly haste. We shouldn't have articles starting
with: "John Doe is a British Muslim convicted of child rape," or "Jane
Doe is an Afro-American who murdered all four of her husbands."
There's no harm in mentioning ethnic background in the bio section,
but it shouldn't be used as a stick to beat people with (or to beat
their ethnicity with).

Sarah


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>> I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios.  We are
>> supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances
>> and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
>>
>
> Can we also disable image uploading for new users?  Please?
>
>
Seconded.

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/20/06, Neil Harris <neil at tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Mark Wagner wrote:
> > On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I support serious action to ban people who commit copyvios.  We are
> >> supposed to be using fair use only in certain very limited circumstances
> >> and people who do not realize that should be banned from the project.
> >>
> >
> > Can we also disable image uploading for new users?  Please?
> >
> >
> Seconded.
>
> -- Neil

The effect will be limited. Even quite senior people don't appear to
be able to follow our copyright policy.

--
geni


body:
On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> What if they are famous rather than infamous? Is it ok to give the ethnicity
> a bit of a "boost"? One such issue I recall seeing was on [[Freddie
> Mercury]] - how important are his Indian or Persian origins?
>
> I don't mind if the rules are different for "positive" vs "negative"
> articles - it's a bit of a violation of NPOV, but not a major one.
>
I personally don't mind if it's a positive association, or a very
interesting one, though again you have to be careful. Pointing out
that someone is a British Muslim mathematician sounds a bit odd. And
we wouldn't say a person was a Celtic scientist, so why a Jewish one?

I prefer to add it only when it's relevant to their bio. For example,
saying that Freud was a Jewish psychoanalyst would be okay because his
background in Judaism played a large part in the development of his
ideas (though the current intro doesn't mention it).

Sarah


body:
hi Philip,
like i said, the few references we have on shipmans background claim him to
be jewish
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/archive/display.var.9777.0.yousafs_religious_faith_not_relevant_to_his_acts.php

It seems to be the norm when writing on the background of a celebrity or
serial killer to include details of his background which if he has one , his
religious background.

Perhaps there should be a policy for wikipedia. If someone mentions the
religious background of a criminal they should be banned indefinately as an
anti-semite or an islamaphobe, etc.

But i was most certainly unaware of such a wikipedia policy, and wasn't
informed there was one.

>From: Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 01:46:40 -0700
>
>On May 20, 2006, at 1:23 AM, abu hamza wrote:
>
> > The last point, why is a persons religious and ethnic background not
> > relevant to a wiki site on a person. Any references or sources ,
> > however
> > slim have claimed he was jewish. One should be asking why certain
> > people
> > were vehmently opposed to listing his religious and ethnic background
>
>This man is a notorious murderer. To claim that he was Jewish when he
>is not, or when there is no proof that he is, constitutes anti-Semitism.
>
>Wikipedia will never be used to further a bigoted, racist agenda. I
>am willing to do anything it takes to prevent it. Be glad you were
>blocked for a week. I would have blocked indefinitely.
>
>--
>Philip L. Welch
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


body:
On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why do you think nationality ("American") is relevant, but
> not race, place of birth etc? Can we formalise some guidelines?
>
There is a guideline somewhere, or a rule of thumb that the
ethnicity-list editors use, but I can't remember where I saw it. I
believe it says we should add to the intro the nationality the person
held at the time they became notable (just the nationality, not the
ethnicity). I may be misremembering it because that sounds as though
it could get complicated, but it was something like that.

Sarah


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

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

Prasad J stated for the record:

> Quote from Philip's last message:
>
> "So he publicly identifies with a notorious Islamist and anti-Semite.
>
>>3,000 people in my country were murdered five years ago in the name
>>of those attitudes. He should be banned indefinitely just as we would
>>ban a neo-Nazi who made similar anti-Semitic edits. These people do
>>not belong in our community."
>
>
> 1)"Notorious Islamist"-are you implying that Islamists (as in
> Muslims)are notorious?

If all Islamists (which is not the same as Muslim) were notorious, there
wouldn't be any point in adding that word, would there?  Abu Hamza is a
notorious Islamist, in contrast to all the merely vile Islamists.

But you knew that.

> 2) 3000 people died on 9/11. Sorry about that. But scores of my
> countrymen in Kashmir are murdered on a daily basis by fundamentalists
> in that state. Do you see me condemning Abu because of that? He can
> symathise with whoever he wants- he has a right to do that, provided
> he does not vandalise Wikipedia.

He does not have the right to use an offensive user name on Wikipedia,
regardless of where he claim it is his real name or not.

But you knew that.

> 3) "People like
> you aren't welcome in civil society, and you know it, so you try to
> hide behind excuses and rationalizations and straw men. It's not
> going to work."
> It is not upto you Philip, to unilaterally pass judgement on who
> belongs in civil society.
>
> I suggest you calm down and be more civil toward Abu. Treating him
> with disdain based on his religion or his beliefs (though these might
> not be acceptable to you) will only make you seem like a bigoted
> Islamophobe-which I am sure you are not.

I suggest you quit telling administrators who know policy far better
than you how to enforce policy.  Your strawman attacks, claiming bigotry
where none exists, will not get you what you want.

Except that what trolls want is attention, so perhaps I'm wrong.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A thunder of jets in an open sky,
 sean at epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!"
                  | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb,
                  | And once again you know it's time....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEb0FUMAt1wyd9d+URAp0aAJ4sBDdclqf2oo+b5IcITafvP9OBNACfQyuE
dtn899FjBsv7ikNiPr0eNtw=
=/PHQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject:
[WikiEN-l] New Post to SlimVirgin and many of my posts bounce
 for	no reason

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

Earthhope Action Network stated for the record:

> I expect the same respect on this list that anyone else gets.

You had the same chance to earn our respect as anyone else.

The results you see before you.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A thunder of jets in an open sky,
 sean at epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!"
                  | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb,
                  | And once again you know it's time....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEb0HrMAt1wyd9d+URAnFQAJ9tUa4caDOBTo39KStSZYIws4AfBACfWn0L
p3LKlePIRDWZ8QxrXN1TLGc=
=JwLd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>> Don't assume anything.  If you are speaking as a person interested in
>> Wikipedia, great.  I'm sure you have good things to say about Wikipedia
>> in Thailand.  Good for you.  All I am saying is that you do *not* have
>> the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> I'm not sure if you're new here or what, but this isn't how we do
> things at the Wikimedia Foundation.  We discuss politely, if sometimes
> heatedly, on the mailing list, not brusquely and dictatorially.
>
> Waerth asked if the Foundation had confidence in him to discuss with
> this organization; not if he legally has the authority to enter into
> commitments on behalf of the foundation, which is quite a different
> matter.  In short, his question did not call for a legal opinion, and
> offering one unsolicited was unhelpful, misrepresenting the matter,
> and impolite.

This criticism is totally misplaced. Note that Brad addressed whether
Waerth could *speak* on behalf of the Foundation, responding directly to
Waerth's question. The issue is not limited to whether Waerth is
authorized to act as an agent of the Foundation to enter into agreements.

Lawyers are not restricted to giving legal opinions and nothing else,
sometimes they need to represent their clients in communicating with
third parties, as Brad did here. Brad's intervention was helpful
(because it got across his client's position), misrepresented nothing,
and if it wasn't as polite as suits your tastes, it's because more
polite ways of communicating this hadn't yet gotten the message across.

--Michael Snow


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
 information

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Alphax,
>
>
>> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>>
>>
>>> G'day Jimmy,
>>>
>>>
>>>> We are a massively powerful text generation engine.  People have
>>>> to drop the idea that every little tidbit is precious.  Crap is
>>>> crap.  Yank it.
>>>>
>>> Do you think I could get a framed and autographed copy of that
>>> paragraph?
>>>
>> Signed (or even written) in his own blood, of course.
>>
>
> A message in Jimbo Wales' blood?  I'd make a fortune on Ebay!
>
>
>
And then, of course, there's the cloning...

-- Neil


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 5/20/06, Aleksy Schubert <alx at cs.ru.nl> wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>Recently it turned out on the Polish Wikipedia that somebody created
>>a secret mailing list for Polish Wikipedia administrators. Why I say
>>the list was secret?
>>* the information on it was not presented anywhere on the usual
>>   public Wikipedia fora,
>>* the information on the fact that this list is planned has
>>   not been announced anywhere,
>>* the list was private (only admins could read it and
>>   had access to its archives),
>
>
> Why? What is meant to be discussed on that mailing list that cannot be
> open at least to all subscribers?
In the last item I meant Wikipedia administrators, not the mailing list
administrators.

Bests,
Alx

--
De toekomst is onzeker en het einde is altijd nabij
- Roadhouse Blues, The Doors


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

> On 5/19/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>> >> As it is, it is easy for a company with
>> >> a huge legal staff to shut down small "fair users" with the threat of
>> >> endless, if futile, litigation. Lessig talks about a number of
>> >> instances where this happened in his book, _Free Culture_.
>> >
>> > Only if the fair users roll over and die, like Wikimedia is doing.
>>
>> Since you seem completely unaware of the occasions where the Wikimedia
>> Foundation has received complaints from copyright owners and told them,
>> "Fair use, so buzz off" (couched in more polite terms, of course),
>> perhaps you're not in a position to make informed comments on what
>> Wikimedia is doing.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>
> I really don't see what Wikimedia has done on other occassions has to
> do with what they are doing on this occassion.

 From the message to which I was replying, you appeared to be talking
about fair use law overall, not any particular instance. There have been
several specific situations mentioned in this discussion. Perhaps next
time you might be more precise if you're talking about only one, instead
of making comments that sound like sweeping generalizations.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 19 May 2006, at 21:08, Stan Shebs wrote:
>>
>> company logos are fairly harmless, except where they are being
>> used as
>> decoration, when we can get rid of them.
>>
>> I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones
>> which have articles.
>>
> How is this consistent with your initial declaration that "it will
> all be gone in a few years"? Either fair use is sometimes acceptable
> or never acceptable - even one fair use image, no matter how much it
> is "worth keeping", makes en: non-free.
>
> And of course if you admit the principle that some nonfree images
> are allowable, you've reduced it to a matter of personal opinion as
> to whether any class of nonfree image is worth including. Every
> class of image now accepted has a number of respected editors who
> support including that class.

Personally I believe we should make a free encyclopaedia, and get rid
of all of them. I dont think this will quite happen for a few years. We
will get rid of the vast majority however. Expect the Jimbo decree this
year.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 19 May 2006, at 21:41, maru dubshinki wrote:
>
> Unless you are speaking in the ridicoulously long-term sense in which
> everything (hopefully) passes into the public domain, fair use is
> inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles
> where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely
> not release the images under a decent license, and where recreation
> under a different license is not acceptable. From my own experience:
> the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because
> canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by
> the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will
> only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free
> images relating to Star Wars. Indeed, the absolute best we could do is
> perhaps have some free images of fans, (though trademark and copyright
> issues are still problematic. If we have a picture of a bunch of fans
> dressed up in pitch-perfect Stormtrooper , tusken raider, Royal Guards
> etc. costumes, can that really be GFDL'ed or PD'ed?), or maybe of
> productions.

We do not need pictures in these articles.

We can link to external ones.

If you dont want to make a *free* encyclopaedia you can join another
project.

I wouldnt mind a fork of wikipedia that has "fair use" and other copyvio
images on top of the wikipedia text. Someone else can deal with the
legal
issues and the fact that distribution is a problem. Being free is a
vital
part of out mission. Reuse is vital. It is the reason many of us
participate.
I really do not care if we dont have pictures if we fulfil this mission.

I know other people just want to make the best encyclopedia and thats
fine.
Its just not our project. Our project can support that one because it is
free. But these huge swathes of non free, non redistributable images are
a huge threat to the project.

Justinc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote:

Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?

Justinc