from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitrator recusal

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> James D. Forrester wrote:
>>
>> > geni wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 11/12/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
>> > > > There's an informal (formal?) rule that if a majority of
>> arbitrators
>> > > > ever recuse on a case, they all are automatically unrecused. The
>> > > > justification is that, in all probability, a situation that
>> resulted
>> > > > in a user having personal conflicts with nearly every single
>> > > > arbitrator is more likely to be the fault of the user than the
>> fault
>
> > > > > individually of every arbitrator.  A more practical justification
> > > > > is that it serves as a deterrent to trying to "win" a case by
>
>> > > > forcing everyone to recuse.
>> > >
>> > > No. Last time we disscussed this the general conclusion was that we
>> > > would call up past arbcom members and people from other languages if
>> > > posible. The solution you list runs into the problem that if you
>> have
>> > > multiple sibjects to abitration it is posible for none of them to
>> have
>> > > gone overboard in disputes.
>> >
>> > Erm. What on Earth do you mean, "no"? Mark was entirely correct -
>> that > is exactly the policy we came up with back in January 2004,
>> when we > wrote the policies in the first place.
>>
>> That was the policy as it existed in its original draft form, but not
>> the policy that was actually adopted. The provision for "unrecusing"
>> already recused arbitrators was dropped from the policy based on my
>> objections, see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments]].
>
> I remember discussion about it, yes. It wasn't "dropped", though.

It was quite definitely dropped; I don't know where you get the idea
that it wasn't. We had a ratification vote on the arbitration policy in
April 2004, and Jimbo then approved the policy in conjunction with that
vote. The version of the policy being voted on
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy&oldid=3025406
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy&oldid=3025406>
) did not include the "unrecusal" provision. That provision had been
removed earlier in March because of my objection to it.

> > I refuse
>
>> to accept that this could be policy, formal or informal, since it's
>> never been done in practice and was specifically objected to at the
>> time.
>
> Hmm. You mean, in the same way that the clause in the 25th Ammendment
> to the Constitution of the United States allowing (the majority of?)
> the Cabinet to sign a letter stating that, in their opinion, the
> President is unfit for and can be removed from office, never having
> been used, is not actually part of the Constitution? Emergency
> special-powers rules exist for a particular reason.

No, I mean that this rule was never adopted as part of the policy, nor
as an amendment thereto. The objection was raised, acknowledged, and
changes made to accommodate it. I was trying to make it clear that I
still strongly object to an "unrecusal" policy. If you've got that
problem, give the case to Jimbo or the Board of Trustees, or empanel a
different group of arbitrators, but don't "unrecuse" people who are
legitimately recused. I've never heard of such a thing in life, and it's
inimical to notions of fairness and justice. I know Wikipedia
arbitration shouldn't require every aspect of legal due process, but
that doesn't mean we should invent new forms of process that actively
contravene the principles for which due process exists.

--Michael Snow


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion, & recreation

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>It is standard to delete recreations which are exact copies or very
>near copies of previously deleted material. If that's not the case ask
>for undeletion at WP:DRV and tell it was wrongfully deleted as a
>recreation, because it is not sufficiently similar.
>
>
Oy, another abbreviation to remember. This profusion of WP:TLA redirects
may make it easier to link to pages but they certainly don't make it
easier to understand what's being talked about.

In the case of [[The Jar]], I just went ahead and undeleted the article
and added an external link, as well as mentioning on talk: why I thought
the reason given for its deletion was invalid. That seemed to work, but
a short while later some editors came along who expanded the article
greatly so it may not be the best counterexample since it may have
simply gone unnoticed until then.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] disputing block: 69.108.172.162, lysdexia

body:
Autymn D.C. wrote:
<snip screed about english being polluted>
> What in specific haven't I proven?
>
> -Aut
> 1^2 = -1^2
> (1^2)^.5 =^.5 (-1^2)^.5
> ?1 :: ?-1
> ?1 = ?1; ?-1 = ?-1
>

Since you've just tried to prove that +1 = -1, I think we can safely
assume that your banning was in good order. If you want to write in some
language that isn't english, go do it somewhere other than the English
Wikipedia.

--
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: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051112/f58e3d48/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: dominik.bach at web.de

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request for a Ripuarian Wikipedia

body:
Hello,

I would like to ask for the creation of a Ripuarian Wikipedia. The
discussion has been around on MetaWiki for some time and seems to
be finished. The TestWiki on http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de has
already more than 500 articles, and there have been several requests
from users who want to join as soon as it is a real Wikipedia.

Thankx
Dominik


from_name: Brian Haws

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee members granted checkuser tool

body:
geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/05, Brian Haws
wrote:
> So your concerns are about the process and not the particular arbitrator involved?
>
I didn't say that. We have a tempory apointed arbcom memeber who has
just failed on an RFB (ok to be fair the "we don't need more
buracrats" group is large enough to make promotion extreamly tricky).
They then open a trainreck of a RFC. Under these conditons giving the
user checkuser is unwise.

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

You feel it'd be unwise because of the possibility Kelly might  abuse it?

It looks like checkuser is going to be added to the bureaucrats positions  "toolkit" so if it's going to be denied to one shouldn't there be some specific reason for doing it?


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionitis

body:
Maybe if you turned it into a general rewrite tag that can be used on
all articles, it might be kept...

Mgm

On 11/12/05, Tom Cadden <thomcadden at yahoo.ie> wrote:
>
> --- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > As someone said in #wikipedia the other day: "the
> > deletionists go around
> > deleting stuff; the inclusionists just whinge on
> > wikien-l about how bad
> > it is." So: stop complaining, and start telling
> > people *why* they need
> > to be kept.
>
> Unfortunately the greek chorus of deleters all group
> around chanting ''delete, delete delete. Begone you
> nasty template'' like something out of Lord of the
> Flies.
>
> And they don't like anyone saying 'Hold on a minute'.
> You get the image they all turn around and mutter in
> unison: did someone dare speak on our page? How dare
> he? He isn't one of us.' lol
> >
> > Notifying the creator/last editor of such templates
> > would be a Polite
> > Thing To Do. But no, it's far easier to subst: and
> > {{d}} something,
> > because that way you can get away with it.
>
> I'm beginning to think they do it that way in the hope
> people who might disagree with them won't notice.
>
> When recently a whole blitz of Irish templates were
> put up for deletion by the one user (He seemed to be
> having one of his 'and today I will wipe out Ireland'
> moods) I dared to contact Irish users to suggest they
> look at the proposed deletions. One of the deleters
> went beserck. How DARE I "spam" users to tell them
> about the deletions. She went on and on and on and on
> in the "How dare I" rant in message after message.
> Obviously users are meant to have psychic powers to
> know that she and her colleagues had now picked Irish
> templates for wipeout. And for daring to disrupt the
> smooth running of deletions by bring aliens who might
> vote 'no' onto the page. (She made snide comments
> about how they were all doing my bidding when they
> dared disagree with her.) she promptly nominated a
> another template I had created on the page even though
> WP was perfectly happy with it and using it all
> over!!!
>
> The Deletioners and their antics  makes Lord of the
> Flies sound positively heavenly.
>
> Thom
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Model Search 2005 - Find the next catwalk superstars - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/hot/model-search/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion, & recreation

body:
It is standard to delete recreations which are exact copies or very
near copies of previously deleted material. If that's not the case ask
for undeletion at WP:DRV and tell it was wrongfully deleted as a
recreation, because it is not sufficiently similar.

Mgm

On 11/11/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/05, Jason Y. Lee <jylee at cs.ucr.edu> wrote:
> > Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight?  Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
> >
> > --
> > Jason Y. Lee
> > AKA AllyUnion
>
> Do you have any evidence that such a philosophy existed in the first
> place? If it ever did is suspect it died over the notabilty arguments.
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Request for a Ripuarian Wikipedia

body:
> The TestWiki on http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de

Da m???ter abba noch wat dran arbeiten. :)
http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de/index.php/Bild:Houpsick-Screenshot.png


list: foundation-l

from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject:
[Foundation-l] Incubator Wiki for New Wikimedia Projects (was
	Vote to create Wikiversity Vote)

body:
On 11/12/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 11/11/05, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Anyway, send me a link to a page on meta and I'll transfer my thoughts
> > on this there.  Or if I don't hear from you about it in a few hours
> > I'll do it myself.
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> Yeah, my IP address is currently blocked from editing meta, so forget it.
>
> Anthony

Well, when you get back to meta, you could take a look at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Seed_wiki - I've just set it up and got
in touch with the people who said they were interested in the proposal
at the August open board meeting.

Cormac


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Keith Old

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lifting of a block

body:
Folks,

Thanks to everyone who voted for me as an Admin in the recent Request for
Adminship.

Unfortunately, I have to ask your assistance in another capacity. An hour
ago, Who blocked a user 203.26.16.67 <http://203.26.16.67> for leaving an
offensive message on a user page. It seems that my IP range has been blocked
as part of the ban. It was not me who left the offending message.

I was wondering if it would be possible to unblock my account. I understand
if it is not possible.

Thanks in anticipation of any assistance you may be able to offer.

Regards

Keith Old
User: Capitalistroadster


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Help needed for helpdesk-l

body:
> Ah, you want Bugzilla! :)
>
> (Why go for a proprietary solution when a free one will work just as
> well! And even if LiveJournal Support *is* free, we already use Bugzilla
> and know how to set it up and use it...)

LiveJournal Support is free software.

Bugzilla is notoriously unusable for non-technical users. And it's not
designed for support requests, anyway.

Timwi


body:
geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/12/05, Brian Haws
wrote:
> It looks like checkuser is going to be added to the bureaucrats positions "toolkit"

That is not the case.

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

Nope, you're right. I misunderstood the default status (there is none). In that light, when selecting people to give those rights to, getting in (or being able to stay out of) high profile train wrecks as you called it should count for something.

I'm not sure if that implies abuse but perception is reality and it does look bad....

Giving someone involved in a highly avoidable, high-profile conflict such rights when others are denied them probably isn't a great idea..sorry about the misunderstanding, my fault.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion, & recreation

body:
On 11/11/05, Jason Y. Lee <jylee at cs.ucr.edu> wrote:
> Since when it has become standard to keep articles and delete recreations on sight?  Whatever happen to the philosophy we had on allowing an article to be deleted so that someone with the proper knowledge can properly write the introduction of the article?
>

That's a poor argument for deletion.  If an article is rubbish, you
don't have to delete its history to produce a rewrite.

On recreation, I do think there is a tendency to over-zealous use of
the recreation CSD.  In particular parking protection tags on certain
subjects seems to go against the spirit of both the encyclopedia and
the wiki.


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Hi all,

Seeing as there hasn't been much public discussion on this (at least on
the English-language Wikipedia) I thought it would be a good idea to let
you all know that Raul654, Fred Bauder, Kelly Martin, The Epopt and
Jayjg have all been granted access to the checkuser tool[1] (the tool
which allows for checking of sockpuppets by giving access to IP
addresses, including those of signed-in Wikipedians).

According to the CheckUser policy[2], editors approved by the
Arbitration Committee may be granted access to the checkuser tool.

The Arbitration Committee decided who would get access to the tool on
their private mailing list[3].

Chris

1. http://tinyurl.com/7da8j
2. http://tinyurl.com/7rtn3
3. http://tinyurl.com/89g4k


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation website

body:
Angela wrote:

> On 11/9/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>I no longer think an uneditable wiki is the best way to present the
>>>Foundation to the world.
>
>
>>I'll let other people make that decision.
>
>
> I'd like to know if anyone still thinks it is a good idea, and if so
> why? It clearly doesn't present an official view, so where is the
> benefit in it being uneditable?
>
> Angela.

Incidently, if you read Traroth report, what does it says...

It says

1) Le Louvres is a famous french museum; hosting art, with most of it
much much older than 100 years old, so likely to be considered owned by
humanity

2) Le Louvres has started forbidding taking pictures from this art

3) Only photographers authorized to take picture of art will be Le
Louvres photographers, so ALL photos will be under cp. Which means that
unless you go to Paris and pay the entrance, all this artwork will be
only visible through work under copyright. None will be free to use.

4) And Traroth concludes he does not think art and freedom will gain
much of this;

Now, on another note, compare it to Jimbo's speech at Wikimania, about
freeing 10 things...

How different is that ? How unofficial is it to try to push so that
people are free to take pictures of famous paintings 500 years old ?

To me, there is no difference. What Jimbo said in his Wikimania speech
is exactly what Traroth says about what is happening in Le Louvres; The
only difference is that Jimbo was speaking generally, while Traroth is
taking an example. But if the Foundation agrees that what Le Louvres is
doing (ie if the Foundation public view is that forbidding access to old
painting is just fine) then I must say I do not agree with the
Foundation public view at all.

I will go further in saying that Jimbo's public speech does not fit
either with the Foundation position.

Then, if neither Jimbo's nor my position are the positions of the
Foundation... how do we define what the official position of the
Foundation is ?

--------

Now, there is another important point.
Traroth position on Le Louvres issue is clearly supported by Wikimedia
France. Similarly, other people are currently working to free some
information, such as the people working on the ESA images issue. Most of
these actions are linked with the French and/or German associations.

Should we also remove all descriptions of what the german and french
associations are doing from the WMF website, upon the principle that
those actions are not official views of the Foundation ? Does that mean
what the associations do are contrary to the Foundation goals ? If so,
why do we authorize them to use trademarks and such ?

I am quite worried of what you seem to imply in saying that this article
does not reprensent our official view, because it represents my view and
quite probably the view of at least one chapter. If we remove everything
but only what Jimbo's words, then, I agree, there is no sense in that
website.

The bottom point might well be : are only Jimbo's words the official
view, or may other people view have any interest ? If not, I have no
interest at all in the Foundation web site and will not put one more
word over there.

In short, yes, I agree that the existence of the whole website as well
as the relevancy of our own existence as board members are questionable.

Ant


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter recusal

body:
On 11/11/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Emphasis on "should". The reason for rules is people often fail to do
> what they should, or even end up doing what they should not ;)
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)

I believe one reason for selecting someone as an arbitrator is that
they *would* do what they ought in this regard.

Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Lifting of a block

body:
Chris,

Thanks to the kind person who unblocked me.

There were two reasons. The first is that it might be seen as a conflict of
interest even though I was innocent. The second is that I was blocked from
all editing including unblocking as far as I understood.

Regards

Keith Old

User:Capitalistroadster

On 11/12/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
>
> Keith Old wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Thanks to everyone who voted for me as an Admin in the recent Request
> for
> > Adminship.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I have to ask your assistance in another capacity. An
> hour
> > ago, Who blocked a user 203.26.16.67 <http://203.26.16.67> <
> http://203.26.16.67> for leaving an
> > offensive message on a user page. It seems that my IP range has been
> blocked
> > as part of the ban. It was not me who left the offending message.
> >
> > I was wondering if it would be possible to unblock my account. I
> understand
> > if it is not possible.
>
> I don't see any reason why you can't unblock yourself if you're caught
> in a block by mistake.
>
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Any File

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikinews is giving out press credentials

body:
Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> > So an organization cannot, without permission of government-sanctioned
> > bodies, send people to observe and report on events?  We're not talking
> > about official government press passes here (the U.S. analog is
> > state-issued passes), simply a piece of paper that indicates the person
> > in question has the sanction of Wikinews to report on their behalf.
> > People are free to ignore that piece of paper of course, and demand
> > something government-issued, but are you saying that the mere act of
> > issuing that piece of paper is illegal,
>
> I am just saying that not only can it be illegal, but also that it will
> certainly engage the liability of the foundation.
>
> Unions accreditating journalists will certainly be mad at it (as in
> France), and it would picture the foundation as a liable editor rather
> as a not-liable publisher.
>

Would make thing easier if the the word journalist is never used?
What the matter if a person is just accredited as external
(unprofesional) collaborator?

Form Italian laws being unprofessional there is no need to be register
(actualle there is not the need to pay the fee to be register) as
journalist and being declared that is an external collaborator (and
not an employed by the newsagency) should limit very much any action
againt the comunity or the foundaton.

By the way wikinews editor act just exactly like an external
unprofessional collaborator. The only difference is that they made it
for free and that there is not  a editor-board approvation (actually
this last point is not irrivelant)

About an eventual legal reponsability of the foundation a possible
(but unfortunately not free of charge) solution would be to required
accredited Wikinewsers to have an insurance to cover their civil
responsabilities and foundation civil responsabilities.

As for any other thng like this it would very interesting to know what
legislation is in acts (since every country could claim that their own
legislation should be consider valid).

AnyFile


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion, & recreation

body:
On 11/12/05, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On recreation, I do think there is a tendency to over-zealous use of
> the recreation CSD.  In particular parking protection tags on certain
> subjects seems to go against the spirit of both the encyclopedia and
> the wiki.

So does protection full stop. However you can't always block everybody.

--
geni


body:
On 11/12/05, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> Seeing as there hasn't been much public discussion on this (at least on
> the English-language Wikipedia) I thought it would be a good idea to let
> you all know that Raul654, Fred Bauder, Kelly Martin, The Epopt and
> Jayjg have all been granted access to the checkuser tool[1] (the tool
> which allows for checking of sockpuppets by giving access to IP
> addresses, including those of signed-in Wikipedians).

I could of sworn Kelly Martin withdrew. Oh well.

--
geni


body:
On 11/12/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> She "withdrew" cause they were giving her a hard time. The
> arbitration committee had no reason to withdraw her name.
>
> Fred

So arbcom can give people check user rights without their consent.
That is an ... intersting interpritation of policy.

--
geni


body:
On 11/12/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> > She "withdrew" cause they were giving her a hard time. The
> > arbitration committee had no reason to withdraw her name.
> >
> > Fred
>
> So arbcom can give people check user rights without their consent.
> That is an ... intersting interpritation of policy.

Kelly Martin said she *would* withdraw, *if* it would expedite the
implementation of policy.  This doesn't seem to have been necessary.
As she's one of those most highly qualified to use and interpret the
checkuser tool, it's reasonable that she should have access, but
nobody is being forced to use it.


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 11/12/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:
> It looks like checkuser is going to be added to the bureaucrats positions  "toolkit" so if it's going to be denied to one shouldn't there be some specific reason for doing it?

There are no plans to grant checkuser to all bureaucrats.

Kelly


from_name: Jtkiefer

body:
geni wrote:

>I didn't say that. We have a tempory apointed arbcom memeber who has
>just failed on an RFB (ok to be fair the "we don't need more
>buracrats" group is large enough to make promotion extreamly tricky).
>They then open a trainreck of a RFC. Under these conditons giving the
>user checkuser is unwise.
>
>--
>geni
>
Ok now your starting to annoy me, the fact that she recently had a
failed RFB is moot to whether she should get checkuser rights and
everyone's view on this is bordering on being paranoid as people seem to
think that the arbcom will try to read their minds by knowing their IP
address and also it is very easy for her checkuser rights to be removed
the minute her term expires which I assume is the plan so her having
them for no bears no risk whatsoever.

-Jtkiefer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletionitis

body:
Tom Cadden wrote:
> I was always in favour of deletion of pages, and
> disagreed with those who wanted to keep every
> irrelevant, impossible-to-make-encyclop?dic article.
> But rampant deletionism has hit ridiculous levels on
> WP now. I daren't even go near the article deletion
> page because of what goes on there. Now the template
> deletion page has become ridiculous.
>

As someone said in #wikipedia the other day: "the deletionists go around
deleting stuff; the inclusionists just whinge on wikien-l about how bad
it is." So: stop complaining, and start telling people *why* they need
to be kept.

<snip>
> We could no with a page of ''useful templates'' where
> existing templates could be picked out for use in new
> articles.
>

See [[WP:TM]]. It's a bit of a mess, but it's the best place to start.

> It seems to be the same 'greek chorus' of deleters who
> do the blanket nominating and do blanket voting to
> delete everything in sight. They seem all too often to
> drown out protests from others that their deletionitis
> is out of control.
>
> Once it was the case that only crap was deleted. Now
> it seems that crap survives while the delete gang
> propose good articles, good templates and good
> infoboxes for deletion.
>
> Wikipedia needs to do something to reign in the delete
> brigade. Deletion used to be used to keep up
> standards. Now it is bringing down standards, doing
> damage to content and design and seriously pissing off
> users who are doing serious work and have to spend
> their days fighting off attempts to delete things. The
> final twist is that many of the most fanatical
> deleters seem to be down damn all writing themselves,
> simply proposing large numbers of things for deletion
> all the time, irrespective of quality, usefulness or
> benefit to Wikipedia.
>

Notifying the creator/last editor of such templates would be a Polite
Thing To Do. But no, it's far easier to subst: and {{d}} something,
because that way you can get away with it.

Deletion is Evil.

--
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: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051112/105e83a6/attachment.pgp


from_name: Rowan Collins

references:
<9f32edf1cdb9ed9db8a65c43cc95dd32@sbcglobal.net>
	<9f02ca4c0511081159i4306e447p@mail.gmail.com>
	<278724ff1c5e25a3a43c9d6c7c33f6df@sbcglobal.net>

body:
On 10/11/05, Autymn D. C. <lysdexia at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2005, at 11.59, Rowan Collins wrote:

> Since "erroneous" means nothing more than "straysome" or "strayish",
> you are trivially riht.  Original languages do not overwrite
> themselves: They are /forgotten/.  They are not changed because
> speakers are making conscious choices that their words are better, but
> because they are too lazy or ignorant to learn or use the older words
> which are more diverse, full, and accurate than theirs.

So do you see language change as a constant decline away from some
historical perfection? I admit that there are changes which leave
languages "poorer", but there are plenty which - however accidental -
make them far more powerful and useful at their purpose of
communication and expression. And I am very firmly of the conviction
that there is not some historical point at which language in general,
or any "separate" language in particular, attained some state of
"completeness" deserving of preservation.

> The rules should if the changes should, not if the changes do.  And
> only if there is something /wrong/ with the earlier rules.  Otherwise,
> the language should grow like any person or nation would and not, like
> a cancer, grow everywhich way so that it eats and poops itself and eats
> that.

I would argue that the above is, in a subtle way, contradictory:
people, nations (and, the underlying metaphor, plants) do not grow
"only if there is something wrong". They grow dynamically, complexly,
by trial and error, and with natural checks and balances. Essentially,
the process is one of evolution, as currently understood by mainstream
science: random changes occur, and may or may not die out; those which
are harmful are *more likely* to die out, and those which are
beneficial *more likely* to spread, but it all comes down to chance,
not certainty. What's more, there's no outside definition of "better"
or "beneficial" which governs these chances, because that depends on
the circumstances. Still, *in general*, life evolves to be better at
passing on its genes, and language evolves to be better at allowing
communication.

> Anglo-Saxon?  No, it's English.  What people speak today is a mutt of
> English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English.  And I'd write
> "pure" as "sheer".

So, like I say, the argument comes down to different definitions of
"English": what I call "English", you would call
"Greek-Latin-French-English" or somesuch; what you call "English", I
would call something like "artificial Anglo-Saxon". However, when the
average person who considers themselves an "English speaker" says
"English", their meaning will be a lot closer to mine than to yours.
And, crucially, when en.wikipedia.org calls itself "the English
Wikipedia", it is using "English" in this popular sense, which is why
your edits are being rejected as inappropriate.

> A lone language has only one word for the same
> meaning.

Well, I've never heard of a "lone language" before, but I can't
imagine this claim has ever been true for any natural language.

> But none of writing this is making me feel better
> for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I
> hold is riht.

Just because you hold it to be "riht" doesn't mean that it is in the
interests of the Wikipedia project, or that other contributors to that
project are somehow compelled to agree with you. Your input is
welcome, but only if you are willing to co-operate, compromise, and
welcome the input of others.

> I didn't say that it /wasn't/ others' article.  I said it was my
> article.  Logic goes over most people's head.

Well, "my" certainly implies some sort of ownership or possession; I
suppose you could argue that there is a sense in which all Wikipedia
articles "belong to" everybody, but that would seem to render the "my"
logically true, but somewhat redundant. The problem is not that logic
goes over our heads, but that it is not logic we use to communicate in
every day situations, it is expressive, sometimes ambiguous, language.

> Were we talking about English?  I was using a Greek word.

Yes, we were talking about content on the English Wikipedia, which is
(except when specifically discussing foreign languages) in English.
Specifically, the English word "kinetic", which is based on a Greek
word only ever spelled in a different alphabet, is *not* generally
spelled "cinetic". Once again, I'm using "English" to mean the
language spoken by millions of people the world over, which is
inherently *not* logical, and does *not* conform to historical or
logic rules. You can argue that it *should* (though I would disagree),
and demonstrate how it might look if it did, but the English Wikipedia
is not the place to do so; maybe you should join the community around
artificial languages like "Lojban"?

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Editor_tags

body:
No, I think you are wrong about this - I dont think
that excessively overused and large templates which do
nothing but say "see the talk page for discussion" do
anything useful. If the concern is that the editortags
are too small to get noticed or provide any "warning"
we can make them bright red and orange - with
sprinkles on top. Theres no need for me - an
experienced editor to see the verbose version, and
claiming that newbies need to see them as warnings is
probably lacking of WP:AGF and redundant with our
general disclaimer anyway. Everyone knows that the
site is perpetually under construction, and everyone
knows that controversial articles are going to be
disputed. Why keep CAUTION tape and the traffic cones
in the way? To point people to our proverbial
'overpaid state highway construction workers?' (i.e.
one guy in the hole and eight standing around
watching).

SV
The guy in the hole
--- Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:

> MGM is right, and if nothing else, dispute tags will
> let certain
> journalists know that the article they are making
> fun of isn't exactly
> our best work.
>
> I, as a reader, was perfectly happy reading a
> disputed article, and
> having a knowing chuckle when I found foolish
> content, rather than the
> outrage I felt when finding it on an undisputed
> page. It was one of
> those untagged outrages that inspired me to edit in
> the first place ;)
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 11/11/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm
> <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tags that warn an article is disputed or subject
> to controversy need
> > to be on the article page to inform the casual
> passerby who doesn't
> > think of checking the talk page. And having
> certain tags on the
> > article itself will also make the fact they need
> to be improved more
> > visible and may speed that process up.
> >
> > Shouldn't we be trying to fix the articles to get
> rid of these tags
> > entirely. If we do, there'd be no discussion on
> where to put them.
> >
> > --Mgm
> >
> > On 11/10/05, steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > This is a summary of the criticism of the WP:ET
> idea's
> > > at
> > >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Editor_tags
> > >
> > > # Template messages should be bigger! -
> > > ## Too small!
> > > ## Readers should read (and understand) them,
> not just
> > > editors
> > > ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for
> > > others)
> > > ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes
> > > ### Suggests the talk page is in dispute as
> opposed to
> > > the article itself.
> > > ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign
> to the
> > > reader"
> > > ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read
> the
> > > article."
> > > #### "If they do, then they'll get false
> information."
> > > # "Messes up categorizations"
> > > # I dont like it!
> > >
> > > ROFL
> > > SV
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites
> in one click.
> > > http://farechase.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com


body:
geni wrote:

>
>"no risk"? This is not a concept I am hudely familia with. Everything
>has risk attached. The question always boils down to a risk benifit
>analysis.
>
>--
>geni
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
Yeah but is there really a risk of giving someone who can prove that
they have good intentions adminship even if they haven't been here for a
long time and haven't had a huge amount of edits, editcountitis and
agecountitis in terms of adminship has gone way overboard.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitrator recusal

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:

> I am not for a minute saying that it was discussed here. I am just
> pointing out that discussions here (or, indeed, anywhere, on- or
> off-wiki), have nothing to do with how the Committee runs itself. It
> is not a community organisation. The community has, for the time
> being, agreed that the Committee, Jimbo's experiment, should be
> treated as sovereign (the "Arbitration policy ratification"
> documents). That is all.

Well, in practice that makes it a community organization of sorts.  More
to the point, it's only useful insofar as the community sees the
arbitration committee as performing a useful function in a useful way.
If it were ever the case that there were strong community consensus
against some portion of how the AC works, then it would be problematic
for it to continue working that way, fiat or no.  Legally, of course, it
can do whatever, since the community doesn't own the servers, but it
would be undesirable to say the least.

-Mark


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [Wikitech-l] Users with 'fun' tools.

body:
On 11/12/05, Brian <brian0918 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The point of that tool is to check the diff for common vandalism tools,
> not to have 'fun'.  I know NullC is working on a bayesian filter tool
> that connects directly with the database, which will make this tool
> obsolete, but until then this is useful.

Yep, lame verson one of it is online in #wikipedia-en-vandalism as
user roomba... I'm working out some performance issues with the full
bayes engine, so it's currently just wordlist based.

'Fun' was the name I gave it after starting it and seeing it make 200
http gets in a minute. :)


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter recusal

body:
I agree, but I didn't select these people, nor did you, Jimbo did.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 11/12/05, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Emphasis on "should". The reason for rules is people often fail to do
> > what they should, or even end up doing what they should not ;)
> >
> > Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> I believe one reason for selecting someone as an arbitrator is that
> they *would* do what they ought in this regard.
>
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Samogitian Wikipedia

body:
Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) wrote:
<snip>
> (PS: Is it possible to get feeds of individual messages on this mailing list
> - I only get digests and for that reason I can't reply to individual
> messages in a thread)

You change change your digest preferences at:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

--
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: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20051112/9211b1d3/attachment.pgp


body:
On 11/12/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:
> So your concerns are about the process and not the particular arbitrator involved?
>
I didn't say that. We have a tempory apointed arbcom memeber who has
just failed on an RFB (ok to be fair the "we don't need more
buracrats" group is large enough to make promotion extreamly tricky).
They then open a trainreck of a RFC. Under these conditons giving the
user checkuser is unwise.

--
geni


from_name: Wikipedia Romania (Ronline)

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Wikimedia

body:
Hi,

I'm glad to see there's this discussion on the issue of minority languages,
since I think it's very important to formulate a policy that encourages the
growth of these Wikipedias

> On 10/11/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> > > Sadly, it's a fact that roughly half of all Wikipedias
> > > are clinically dead at present. Being enthusiastically

Yes, I think it's a trend that people simply apply for Wikipedias and then
abandon them, but is there anything particularly wrong with that? The point
I'm trying to make here is - are 4 articles in a minority language worse
than none at all? I don't think so. That's why *any* contribution should be
seen as beneficial.

> Node said:
> >
> > Some ideas:
> >
> > - Find language activists, or people who have a website about the
> language
> > - Find people on ICQ who claim to speak the language, and let them
> > know about that WP
> > - Let governmental or other official or authoritative organisations
> > know about that WP
> > - Get grant money to initially pay people to write good articles /
> > translate articles, especially in countries with a low per-capita
> > income (sub-saharan Africa, for example), and when a sizable article
> > base has been established, it will be much easier to attract new
> > editors. This includes having people write articles offline, and then
> > typing it up yourself.
> > - Depending on the size of the WP and the narrowness of its reader
> > base, you can put a sitenotice up at one WP that another WP exists --
> > the Romanian WP did something similar for a proposal for a Vlax Romany
> > WP, and it was relatively successful.
> >
> > These are all things that have worked in the past. There are obviously
> > many more possibilities.
> >
> > Mark

I think contacting NGOs and governments is fairly unproductive - I've
actually worked with many NGOs here in Romania and they do some great things
but when it comes to supporting Wikipedia, they never reply back :) I've
contacted three of them in relation to the Vlax Romany Wikipedia - only one,
RomaniCRISS, replied, but then they didn't reply the second time.

I think the idea that we implemented at the Romanian WP for the Vlax Romany
WP was actually very successful. We realised that there were many Roma
people in our readership, and we actually got three native speakers out of
that notice. It would be a good idea for projects like Samogitian, the
Italian languages, etc.

Thanks,

Ronline


body:
Kelly Martin wrote:
> My reason for temporarily withdrawing was because some people had
> irrational objections to my selection which seemed to be slowing down
> the process of getting anybody selected to supplement David Gerard.
> This is an important problem that has been delayed long enough, and I
> was simply willing to "take one for the team" if that would help get
> us closer to where we need to be to effectively deal with the problems
> that the ArbCom has to deal with on en.
>
> I have grave objections to the process that was followed, and am glad
> that the situation has been resolved in accordance with policy without
> even more interminable debate and mudslinging.

Kelly, just because people disagree with you does not make their
opposition "irrational".

Chris


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Samogitian Wikipedia

body:
*Zordsdavini iz Litvy said:
*
>
> hello
>
> I'm onw of these who can't get wp for 4-5 monthes (since the middle of June) :(
> Couse we are small community (about 0.5 mln) my plan is:
>    when wp will be created I will give report about it to Samogitian
> Cultural Society. I think I will have some conversations with young
> people and government of Samogitian Cultural Society and here I hope I
> will find big help (about 80%).
>    in the begining this wp would be for samogitian subjects (culture
> and like that)
> That's it.
> The domain is "bat-smg" or if You like only local domains - 'qsm".
> Interface could be Lithuanian at thirst. There is only one little
> problem about one letter which isn't in other languages (but it
> doesn't change the facts - Samogitian wp have to be created).
>
> Hi,

Are there any other Samogitian speakers at the Lithuanian Wikipedia?
Maybe they could help contribute as well.
I think maybe it would be better to contact the Samogitian Cultural Society
now, when the Wikipedia is still pending, so that they could help you with
the Test-Wikipedia. At Vlax Romany, we're proposing to have at least ten
articles in the test-wp, as well as the interface file translated.

As to the subdomain - I think it would be better to have the native name as
the subdomain - perhaps bat-zmt.

I'm looking forward to the Samogitian Wikipedia - I'd like to help if you
want, by doing some template articles like countries, similar to what I did
at Voro. I think it's really important that we promote Baltic-area
languages!

(PS: Is it possible to get feeds of individual messages on this mailing list
- I only get digests and for that reason I can't reply to individual
messages in a thread)


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for nonexistent "3RR vio"

body:
The reason given was not exactly what you did, but it was vandalism,
"Roadcruft at its worst"

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 5:48 PM, SPUI wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
> Interchanges_on_Ontario_provincial_highway_401&action=history
> I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom
> templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it
> was also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%
> 3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASPUI
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
Never heard of it but it looks like a worthy effort.
[[Wikipedia:Probation]] provides that any administrator may enforce
probation. There are errors in their setup, for example the notion
that a banned users in on probation on their return (Not an
arbitration committee idea). I suggest everyone work with this and
make the most of it.

Violations of probation may be reported to
[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] but not every administrator
may be ready to deal with someone on probation despite having the
authority to do it. A specialized group could help. In fact,
demonstrated finesse in dealing with users on probation would make an
excellent recommendation for further responsibilities.

It is possible the arbitration committee would consider this group as
a resource if it turns out to be well organized and competent.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Carbonite wrote:

> I just came across
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Probation_Committee on
> recent changes
> and I'm a bit concerned by it. This page was only created about an
> hour ago
> and already four users have been appointed (by themselves as far as
> I can
> tell) as a board. The page also claims that "The committee is an
> auxiliary
> of the Arbitration Committee." Has the ArbCom sanctioned or even
> heard of
> this committee before? I think the last thing Wikipedia needs at
> this point
> is another committee or more bureaucracy.
>  Carbonite
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Gerrit Holl

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Status of Serbia and Montenegro chapter

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Well, on the day of judgement, you're going to burn in Hell for all
> eternity. And unlike you, I have sources to back up my claim.

Since Hell gets approximately 1000 mm of precipitation per day, this
strikes be as very unlikely.

http://met.no/observasjoner/nord-trondelag/normaler_for_kommune_1714.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stj%C3%B8rdal

Gerrit.

--
Temperature in Lule?, Norrbotten, Sweden:
| Current temperature   05-11-12 18:19:50    6.8 degrees Celsius ( 44.2F) |
--
Det finns inte d?ligt v?der, bara d?liga kl?der.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20051112/dc4829ef/attachment.pgp


from_name: Bishonen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: HelpDesk-l

body:
This is a message I'm passing on from Phroziac at gmail.com, who
isn't subscribed to wiki-en.

Begin forwarded message:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hey, the HelpDesk-l mailing list (A new-ish list for newbies to ask
> questions about Wikimedia projects) has been *really* busy lately. We
> have a truckload of questions to answer and messages to moderate. If
> anyone wants to join the list, you can do that at
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l . If you would
> like to help out with administration of it, please email phroziac at
> gmail.com.
> - --
> Phroziac
> Encrypted Email Preferred
> OpenPGP key ID: 0x8DA573EA
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFDdiR1qkDk742lc+oRAmQ/AJ42+BYFQZQFrqFHmJ41Sckvm3Kk4wCfVskH
> 7zEiJhwyQ5OvDM34aLRAZBo=
> =jVXA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>


body:
Look at the edit history of

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial
highway 40

and check the diffs.  4 times you tried to close it as a "Speedy
Keep" although it was just listed today.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:04 PM, SPUI wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The reason given was not exactly what you did, but it was
>> vandalism,  "Roadcruft at its worst"
>>
>
> Exactly what are you talking about?
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
I see this as people seeing a problem and taking the initiative.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:25 PM, Arkady Rose wrote:

> Carbonite wrote:
>
>
>> I just came across
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Probation_Committee on
>> recent changes
>> and I'm a bit concerned by it. This page was only created about an
>> hour ago
>> and already four users have been appointed (by themselves as far
>> as I can
>> tell) as a board. The page also claims that "The committee is an
>> auxiliary
>> of the Arbitration Committee." Has the ArbCom sanctioned or even
>> heard of
>> this committee before? I think the last thing Wikipedia needs at
>> this point
>> is another committee or more bureaucracy.
>>
>>
>>
> Reaing the Talk: page, I must admit I'm a little bothered by the fact
> this has been set up following a discussion amongst a handful of
> people
> on IRC who then decided to arbitrarily set this up without discussion
> elsewhere such as this mailing list or somewhere on WP itself.
>
> There are enough accusations of major decision-making being made by
> "secret cabals" already as it is; this is just one more thing to
> substantiate such suspicians and conspiracy theories.
>
> -a
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Desperate for a linkification expert

body:
> I did something wrong, and now I end up with :
> src="<a href="http:
> in some links.

It would help if you told us what you were trying to do, and what you
"did wrong".

Timwi


from_name: FxParlant

subject: [Wikitech-l] Desperate for a linkification expert

body:
hi,

I did something wrong, and now I end up with :

src="<a href="http:

in some links.

I've also noticed the **class='external free'** attribute in these
catastrophic links. Can someone tell me in which function the 'external
free" attribute is set ?

Thanks a lot for any help

Fran?ois


from_name: Tels

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Moin,

On Saturday 12 November 2005 13:31, dominik.bach at web.de wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to ask for the creation of a Ripuarian Wikipedia. The
> discussion has been around on MetaWiki for some time and seems to
> be finished. The TestWiki on http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de has
> already more than 500 articles, and there have been several requests
> from users who want to join as soon as it is a real Wikipedia.

Is "Ripuarian" a dialect or a language? Funny, living in the Rheinland for
some time, and never heard the word "ripuarian" before. And

	http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripuarian
	http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinl%C3%A4ndisch

don't even exist yet.

Best wishes,

Tels

- --
 Signed on Sat Nov 12 18:53:11 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
 Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
 PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.

 "Any sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from an advanced
 technology."  -- Don Quixote, slashdot guy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ3YslXcLPEOTuEwVAQGX0Qf/U8UvoZDPeKF+F7QJ9zpyTCf0urIBZIby
CH6LPvTEKUbhL6hcSbe1CytwE/oPnbTwRTshj2p6IfGxlqIAe0SOb6fDX50I7YJW
WYRWVZ68X7P9q+gNaQkoADINYVNYC1OeNKh7c+wYsjMaqvY2QC1gzzWDZkPujJv7
r8HkuZculkSWo6ktH5Pi7PXikVlRkn2umSUVgdtU3N+EPttvGnZwzH89FtCJslk5
fKhPr0/xbLEQtu/KlNHTpLMbKUs2LzI3GsFspdMfWqlhgOSFgCfeOGjXz7zqUqpx
th3Cp1DyaMx2x0J980lrVByLQO4z8vb5M1BEa53U7fz+mf5djDyM/Q==
=F4AX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: [HelpDesk-l] permission

body:
Fastfission wrote:

>2. It *is* a loophole in a sense, though. I've been somewhat fretting
>about this for awhile and not sure where I stand on it. Here's my
>argument:
>
>A. Wikipedia is not supposed to have Wikipedia-only or
>encyclopedia-only or non-profit-only media.
>B. But we allow Fair Use media.
>C. But most of our legitimate Fair Use claims rides on the fact that
>we are a non-profit encyclopedia.
>D. So we end up allowing a lot of things which are unlikely to be
>usable except in non-profit contexts.
>E. Which seems to contradict A.
>
I don't think most of our fair use claims rely on C., that we're a
non-profit encyclopedia.  They rely primarily on the fact that we are an
encyclopedia, and using them for informational purposes.  I think a
for-profit encyclopedia could also make use of most of them for the same
reasons---for example, Britannica is probably well within their fair-use
rights to illustrate their encyclopedia article on "Super Mario World"
with a screenshot from the game.

The major difficulty would come if people tried to reuse the content in
some form that made it no longer primarily  informational/educational;
if they simply distributed Wikipedia articles as is for profit, there's
unlikely to be an issue.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

>(There's also a [[Statutory rapists]] subcat, which I'm less
>comfortable with having - it's rarely a defining feature of anyone in
>the same way as being a convicted rapist is - but also less worried
>about; the very nature of the term means you have to be convicted!)
>
>
I'm kind of uncomfortable with this for the same reason, and it applies
more generally.  In particular, [[Category:Statutory rapists]] sounds
more accusatory than [[Category:People convicted of statutory rape]],
which, to my ears at least, sounds more neutral and matter-of-fact.  Of
course in non-controversial situations the plain term is fine
([[Category:Physicists]]), but in potentially controversial categories
I'd prefer we word things a bit more carefully.

Consider, for example, this case:
-- [[Category:Traitors]]
-- [[Category:People convicted of treason]]

I think in almost all cases the 2nd is preferable.

-Mark


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

BJ?rn Lindqvist stated for the record:

> My cents: I think this whole checkuser shit is totally re-tarded. It's
> a grave violation of privacy. I have accounts on Wikipedia only
> because I care about my anonymousity (otherwise I would edit as an
> "anon"). I do NOT wan't someone to connect my contributions to my
> identity. Especially not someone I don't know and who identifies
> itself with a random and totally meaningless userid!

No one with CheckUser privileges has a "random and totally meaningless
userid."  If you want to point to a specific individual, please don't be
disingenuous about it.

> Dumb dumb dumb. Stupid stupid stupid.

I agree completely.

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

iD8DBQFDdq25MAt1wyd9d+URAjq6AJ9d6BvN+u3iebgoJyw/zOOr6i3cxACfW7bg
9rIY3e4NsTFQQAo1ra7qL3A=
=I96X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Ilario Valdelli

body:
This is not a dialect but a group of dialet like "lombard".

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripuarische_Dialektgruppe

The "funny" Ethnologue call it "language" but for Ethnologue all is
language.

Ilario

Tels wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Moin,
>
>On Saturday 12 November 2005 13:31, dominik.bach at web.de wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I would like to ask for the creation of a Ripuarian Wikipedia. The
>>discussion has been around on MetaWiki for some time and seems to
>>be finished. The TestWiki on http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de has
>>already more than 500 articles, and there have been several requests
>>from users who want to join as soon as it is a real Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
>Is "Ripuarian" a dialect or a language? Funny, living in the Rheinland for
>some time, and never heard the word "ripuarian" before. And
>
>	http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripuarian
>	http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinl%C3%A4ndisch
>
>don't even exist yet.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Tels
>
>- --
> Signed on Sat Nov 12 18:53:11 2005 with key 0x93B84C15.
> Visit my photo gallery at http://bloodgate.com/photos/
> PGP key on http://bloodgate.com/tels.asc or per email.
>
> "Any sufficiently rigged demo is indistinguishable from an advanced
> technology."  -- Don Quixote, slashdot guy
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iQEVAwUBQ3YslXcLPEOTuEwVAQGX0Qf/U8UvoZDPeKF+F7QJ9zpyTCf0urIBZIby
>CH6LPvTEKUbhL6hcSbe1CytwE/oPnbTwRTshj2p6IfGxlqIAe0SOb6fDX50I7YJW
>WYRWVZ68X7P9q+gNaQkoADINYVNYC1OeNKh7c+wYsjMaqvY2QC1gzzWDZkPujJv7
>r8HkuZculkSWo6ktH5Pi7PXikVlRkn2umSUVgdtU3N+EPttvGnZwzH89FtCJslk5
>fKhPr0/xbLEQtu/KlNHTpLMbKUs2LzI3GsFspdMfWqlhgOSFgCfeOGjXz7zqUqpx
>th3Cp1DyaMx2x0J980lrVByLQO4z8vb5M1BEa53U7fz+mf5djDyM/Q==
>=F4AX
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Samogitian Wikipedia

body:
Thanks Alphax and Andre!
And Alphax especially, for the Gmail invite :)

Ronline


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Personal information - where do we draw the line

body:
I've been involved in a pleasant private correspondence with a very
controversial Internet figure who normally writes and works under a
pseudonym.  Wikipedia, along with many other outlets including prominent
mainstream media outlets, publishes this person's real name.

I have been asked to remove the real name from the Wikipedia article,
but of course given recent history in which random things I post to the
mailing lists make international headlines :-(, me doing something like
that would likely make his name more known rather than less known.

My correspondent claims that he's gotten death threats at his doorstep
due to people knowing his real name (not necessarily due to our
publishing it, of course).

Nonetheless, my correspondent asks me an interesting question: where do
we draw the line?

As a practical matter, I think what we follow is a non-policy in this
area, that is to say, we follow the same exact policies we follow for
all sorts of information: is it verifiable, is it NPOV?

I am not asking about libel.  We must not libel anyone, ever.  I am
asking about privacy and respect.

My own opinion is that in most cases we should publish real names if any
mainstream media outlet has done so first.  We should not (usually)
regard blogs and hate sites as sufficiently reliable confirmation for
real names.  We never post anyone's home address (since this is just
totally unencyclopedic and irrelevant to our mission anyway), though of
course there could be some bizarre exceptions I suppose.

Your thoughts?

--Jimbo


body:
One of the advantages of having arbitrators do this is that they are
subject to constant monitoring by the community, being in no way
anonymous persons. Their real identities  are known and a host of
folks are looking at what they do, freely criticizing them and
vocally expressing their observations.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:43 PM, M. Creidieki Crouch wrote:

> I've made several "anonymous" posts on various sensitive pages and I
> don't like the idea that my IP  records could be checked by an
> administrator with little oversight.


body:
The log is at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:43 PM, M. Creidieki Crouch wrote:

> Is
> there a publically available log showing which administrators have run
> checkuser checks on which users?


from_name: Wikiacc

body:
On 11/12/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:

> Bugzilla is notoriously unusable for non-technical users.

You mean users who can't read instructions carefully [1]. If you look
for the right buttons everything is fairly easy (this is coming from a
moderately technical user).

[1] I know people like that--a link will be right in front of their
face and they'll ask, "Where's the link?"
--
--~~~~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiacc


from_name: SPUI

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interchanges_on_Ontario_provincial_highway_401&action=history
I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom
templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it was
also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASPUI


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocked for nonexistent "3RR vio"

body:
SPUI wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interchanges_on_Ontario_provincial_highway_401&action=history
>
> I have five edits there. The first was adding the top and bottom
> templates; it was not a revert. The last was making my "vote"; it was
> also not a revert. Yet I've been blocked for a "3RR vio".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASPUI
>
I forgot to mention that I talked with karmafist on IRC and he maintains
that the "vote" was a revert. What the fuck?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
[[Wikipedia:Probation]] is a new thing and folks we have put on
probation and those they interact with don't necessarily know what is
involved. For example User:Onefortyone was placed on probation but
those who interact with him are upset with what he is doing and are
calling for a ban while he, trying to do better, is asking for help
from his tormentors. I have listed this case with the new committee
in the hope they can help with the situation. As it was they were all
hitting on me and my role as an arbitrator makes it impossible for me
to do anything for any of them effectively.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> On 11/12/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  It's now been clarified on the talk page that the committee is
>> rather
>> informal right now. It was just very strange to see a committee
>> suddenly
>> appear out of nowhere with a board already chosen and a claim
>> that's they're
>> an auxiliary of the ArbCom (that text is now removed). I guess it was
>> discussed on IRC so it probably wasn't quite as sudden as it seemed.
>>
>
> It was discussed on IRC, and I was present for some of the discussion.
>  My comment to them at the time was "The ArbCom would obviously be
> interested in such an activity" or something like that, but I said
> nothing to indicate that their existence or activities are sanctioned
> by ArbCom; there is no basis to the claim that they are an "auxiliary"
> of ArbCom.
>
> I understand that this was partially spurred by the negotiated terms
> by which the community bans of Jarlaxle Artimis and MARMOT were
> lifted; to that end these people appear to pursuing a useful goal and
> should be allowed to do so as long as they do so in a nonharmful way.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Maybe you have to have permission to view that page. I'll look into
it more.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 7:53 PM, geni wrote:

> On 11/13/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> The log is at
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>
> I get the error special page does not exist message
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Carbonite

subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
I just came across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Probation_Committee on recent changes
and I'm a bit concerned by it. This page was only created about an hour ago
and already four users have been appointed (by themselves as far as I can
tell) as a board. The page also claims that "The committee is an auxiliary
of the Arbitration Committee." Has the ArbCom sanctioned or even heard of
this committee before? I think the last thing Wikipedia needs at this point
is another committee or more bureaucracy.
 Carbonite


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 11/12/05, M. Creidieki Crouch <creidieki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid I'm only recently following these policy discussions.  Is
> there a publically available log showing which administrators have run
> checkuser checks on which users?  The feature seems to be designed for
> times when there's a public perception that someone is a sockpuppet,
> so I'd imagine that that log wouldn't be a privacy violation on the
> people who get checked out.

Public perception is not required.

Kelly


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> The reason given was not exactly what you did, but it was vandalism,
> "Roadcruft at its worst"

Exactly what are you talking about?


body:
A log is kept of who has made which queries with the tool. This log
is available to those with the checkuser permission:

From

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_CheckUser_Policy

Sorry for the confusion. I believe the log is confidential to protect
privacy of users. I am not sure what alternatives were considered.

Fred

On Nov 12, 2005, at 7:53 PM, geni wrote:

> On 11/13/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> The log is at
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>
> I get the error special page does not exist message
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbiter recusal

body:
Jack Lynch wrote:
> I certainly agree, it is statements made by the arbiter, not by the
> defendant, which concern me.
>
> "That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no
> reason to participate in such a clearly broken process."
> (regarding an RfC initiated by Silverback)
> \
> Let's check the outrage at the door and discuss this reasonably, ok?
> Hyperbolic screaming does not benefit your cause. Kelly Martin (talk)
> 12:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
>
> etc...
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)

I haven't seen the 'etc' but I would not consider the above remark to be
even remotely close to the sort of thing that would cause me to urge an
arbiter to recuse from a case.  It was _not_ an RfC, it _was_ a rant by
a known troublemaker.  Checking outrage at the door and avoiding
hyberbolic screaming _are_ good ideas.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
On 11/12/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>  It's now been clarified on the talk page that the committee is rather
> informal right now. It was just very strange to see a committee suddenly
> appear out of nowhere with a board already chosen and a claim that's they're
> an auxiliary of the ArbCom (that text is now removed). I guess it was
> discussed on IRC so it probably wasn't quite as sudden as it seemed.

It was discussed on IRC, and I was present for some of the discussion.
 My comment to them at the time was "The ArbCom would obviously be
interested in such an activity" or something like that, but I said
nothing to indicate that their existence or activities are sanctioned
by ArbCom; there is no basis to the claim that they are an "auxiliary"
of ArbCom.

I understand that this was partially spurred by the negotiated terms
by which the community bans of Jarlaxle Artimis and MARMOT were
lifted; to that end these people appear to pursuing a useful goal and
should be allowed to do so as long as they do so in a nonharmful way.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitrator recusal

body:
James D. Forrester wrote:
> Saying "no", and that "we would call up" is... odd. You are not Jimbo.
> In fact, the number of people who are not Jimbo is quite astonishingly
> large. "You" will do no such thing as "call up" people. It is, has been,
> and seems likely to continue to be, Jimbo's Committee - after all, it is
> merely a delegation of his powers given committee form.

And indeed if we ever did have such a case (where a majority of the
ArbCom felt it necessary to recuse) then we still have, as far as I
know, the very reasonable ability for me to simply talk quietly with a
number of people of good sense and then to do something ad hoc as per
their recommmenation and generally satisfactory to all, whether it be
make a decision in the case myself, call up past arbiters, form a
special committee, call a community vote, etc.

--Jimbo


from_name: Arbeo M

body:
Milos Rancic wrote:

>You didn't read last messages well? ;)

>Mark said that he supported Zlatiborian hoax because
>of fun.

Yes, I have. My point was that the very mention of
such words can have unwanted side-effects, no matter
if they are meant ironically or seriously. Especially
when the irony is not obvious to everybody at first
sight.

Arbeo

On 11/10/05, Arbeo M <arbeo_m at yahoo.de> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> >It wasn't a real problem until Milos and the other
> >anti-Zlatiborians decided to make a big fuss to try
> to >prevent the glorious people of Zlatibor from
> getting the >Wikipedia they so richly deserve in
their
> beautiful >native language, and for petty political
> reasons.
>
> Hi Mark!
>
> The other day I wrote that Milos ought to be a
little
> bit more tolerant of various opinions (including
> yours) here.
>
> On the other hand, I don't think using words like
> "nationalists", "oppressors" or "anti-Zlatiborians"
> will help establishing a good atmosphere of
discussion
> here when the issues themselves are difficult
enough.
>
> Best,
>
> Arbeo

___________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitrator recusal

body:
Delirium wrote:
> Well, in practice that makes it a community organization of sorts.  More
> to the point, it's only useful insofar as the community sees the
> arbitration committee as performing a useful function in a useful way.
> If it were ever the case that there were strong community consensus
> against some portion of how the AC works, then it would be problematic
> for it to continue working that way, fiat or no.  Legally, of course, it
> can do whatever, since the community doesn't own the servers, but it
> would be undesirable to say the least.

Absolutely right.  As our system has evolved, I think we are in a fairly
reasonable position vis-a-vis the relationship between the community and
the arbcom.

The arbcom is a judicial sort of body, not a legislative sort of body,
and as such, having them worry too much about popularity is not a good
thing.  Judges sometimes have to make hard decisions and editing
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest.

On the other hand, of course, it's extremely important that judging
reflect community consensus about the detailed application of our
customs and rules _in the service of our mission_.

I regard my role in the process as primarily being about a defense of
the community in the service of our mission.  This means that we won't
be overrun as the community grows by people who don't share our core
values.  "The community" is defined ultimately by "people who share our
values in terms of writing a high quality NPOV encyclopedia", not
defined ultimately by "people who come on the website and make a lot of
noise".

--Jimbo


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
> If someone argues for something without _any_ knowledge about cultures
> which are included in that "something", (s)he is a fool. If (s)he is a
> young person, (s)he can learn something in the future and stop being a
> fool. If (s)he is a mature fool, it is better that society isolate
> such person to prevent any further damage.

Alright, it seems quite clear that you're discussing me here without
mentioning names.

Again, you're assuming I don't have "_any_" knowledge of which
cultures are included.

As regards your "better that society isolate such person", that idea
strikes me as very Naziistic -- isolate all of the people who are a
harm to society as you judge them to be, even if it's something really
trivial or silly.

It's not as if people who do the things in questions are murderers, or
rapists, or even mentally insane.

> If someone argues for something only because of fun AND without any
> knowledge about cultures which are included in that "something", (s)he
> is NOT ONLY a fool, but a very dangerous person. If (s)he is a young
> person, I hope that (s)he can learn something and that (s)he would not
> be such person in the future. For such adult persons I think that the
> less damage is to kill her/him than to wait to see mass graves because
> of such "Innocent games".

First of all, as I noted many times before, this discussion is _not_
for fun. Your continued insistence to the contrary seems to me to be
an attempt to mock the glorious people of Mt Zlatibor, making you an
anti-Zlatiborian. For that, you will not be judged kindly when the day
of judgement is upon us.

It strikes me as anti-human to propose KILLING any adult who argues in
a joking manner and without any knowledge about it... Really, that's
just plain SADISTIC. Insane, really. If anybody needs their head
checked, I'd say it's you -- talking an awful lot about killing people
here where it's not really relevant to the topic at hand.

> Neoliberal social POV is the biggest bullshit as I know. (And Mark is
> highly influenced with that kind of bullshit.) It is trying to merge
> cultures without any knowledge about these cultures. This is the clear
> example of colonialist behaviour which is deep in the souls of
> (almost) all Westerners.

Nobody said anything about trying to merge _cultures_. There are not
Wikipedias for _cultures_. Wikipedias are created for LANGUAGES.
Languages and cultures are two very separate entities. Spanish is
spoken by the majority of Mexicans as well as the majority of
Spaniards, and yet their cultures are as different as night and day.
Portuguese is shared between Portugal and Brasil, and yet they are
very amazingly different. The differences reflected within the
Francophonie, the Commonwealth, the CIS, and other such groups of
places based on the languages they share are also extreme.

Language can be either a tool to unite or divide. Now, it is
linguistically impossible that 20 years ago, there was one language,
and today, it is 3. The process is much, much, slower than that.
Separate cultures, sure -- Bosnian and Croatian cultures are clearly
very different. But separate languages -- definitely not, it's a
ludicrous suggestion.

> And this is not related only to Balkans... I saw the same conversation
> about Low Saxon. Even it is reasonable to start to work on
> computational translator between Dutch and German one, it is not
> reasonable to force people to work together in this moment. The same
> is for Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedias.

What was it you said earlier about arguing about things we don't know
about? If you don't want to be a hypocrite, perhaps you should recuse
yourself as regards Low Saxon.

> And someone is making an irony about our problems? And (s)he is far a
> way of our problems?

Let me guess -- their skulls should be bashed in? They should be
killed? Or some other similarly sadistic and gruesome fate which is
clearly undeserved for an offense so minor??

Mark

--
"Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
On 11/12/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> Never heard of it but it looks like a worthy effort.
> [[Wikipedia:Probation]] provides that any administrator may enforce
> probation. There are errors in their setup, for example the notion
> that a banned users in on probation on their return (Not an
> arbitration committee idea). I suggest everyone work with this and
> make the most of it.
>
> Violations of probation may be reported to
> [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] but not every administrator
> may be ready to deal with someone on probation despite having the
> authority to do it. A specialized group could help. In fact,
> demonstrated finesse in dealing with users on probation would make an
> excellent recommendation for further responsibilities.
>
> It is possible the arbitration committee would consider this group as
> a resource if it turns out to be well organized and competent.

 It's now been clarified on the talk page that the committee is rather
informal right now. It was just very strange to see a committee suddenly
appear out of nowhere with a board already chosen and a claim that's they're
an auxiliary of the ArbCom (that text is now removed). I guess it was
discussed on IRC so it probably wasn't quite as sudden as it seemed.
 I do see some real potential in this group and wish them the best of luck.
 Carbonite


body:
We use otrs for this sort of thing.

Timwi wrote:
>
>> Ah, you want Bugzilla! :)
>>
>> (Why go for a proprietary solution when a free one will work just as
>> well! And even if LiveJournal Support *is* free, we already use Bugzilla
>> and know how to set it up and use it...)
>
>
> LiveJournal Support is free software.
>
> Bugzilla is notoriously unusable for non-technical users. And it's not
> designed for support requests, anyway.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 11/12/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Public perception is not required.
> >
> > Kelly
>
> However it normaly exists. I can't at short notice think of any cases
> involveing it's use where no one had raised any questions.

To be fair, you don't know of very many cases.

Kelly


subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
On 11/12/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we really need more committees and projects? Couldn't we get by
> with just a "mentorship" page? This sudden drive to factionalize,
> make committees, and make small and obscure rules pages
> ([[Wikipedia:Ivies]] being the most flagrant recent example) is just
> ridiculous.

Welcome to Wikipedia High School!  (Yes, Wikipedia is starting to turn
into a high school, at least from a sociopolitical standpoint.)

Kelly


from_name: M. Creidieki Crouch

body:
> Seeing as there hasn't been much public discussion on this (at least on
> the English-language Wikipedia) I thought it would be a good idea to let
> you all know that Raul654, Fred Bauder, Kelly Martin, The Epopt and
> Jayjg have all been granted access to the checkuser tool[1] (the tool
> which allows for checking of sockpuppets by giving access to IP
> addresses, including those of signed-in Wikipedians).

I'm afraid I'm only recently following these policy discussions.  Is
there a publically available log showing which administrators have run
checkuser checks on which users?  The feature seems to be designed for
times when there's a public perception that someone is a sockpuppet,
so I'd imagine that that log wouldn't be a privacy violation on the
people who get checked out.

I've made several "anonymous" posts on various sensitive pages and I
don't like the idea that my IP  records could be checked by an
administrator with little oversight.

-- Creidieki


body:
Timwi wrote:

>
> It would help if you told us what you were trying to do, and what you
> "did wrong".
>

Nice shot, thatss my problem, I haven't got a clue where I did something
wrong. i've only noticed this problem later.

This link problem comes in the templates. I've also noticed someting
weirder:
If I call a template with a link, it comes broken.
If I put an ISBN call, befor the template call, the link is perfect
If the ISBN call is afterwards, the link is broken again.

I'm in mw1.5

Thanks for your help

Fran?ois


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Help needed for helpdesk-l

body:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since the helpdesk-l address was made more instantly visible, there
> has been a surge of questions to the list - of a wide range of
> queries/problems/issues. Your help would be appreciated. You can
> subscribe at http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l
>

To add to this:

The moderation queue is being cleaned out, so there are a *lot* of new
messages to answer. You can subscribe to the list at:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/helpdesk-l

Or by sending an email to:

helpdesk-l-request at Wikimedia.org?subject=subscribe

Thanks,
--
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: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20051112/6603296e/attachment.pgp


body:
On 11/12/05, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> The log is at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CheckUser
>
> Fred

Fred, that page is only visible to people who have CheckUser rights.

Kelly


body:
On 11/12/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > To be fair, you don't know of very many cases.
> >
> > Kelly
>
> I know of every case in which the result turned up on AN and AN/I.
> After all trawling for IP matches makes no sense.

I would estimate that only a small fraction of uses of CheckUser
result in a comment made on one of the noticeboards.

Kelly


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

references:
<dl59cm$9uc$1@sea.gmane.org> <dl5ce2$gvj$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<dl5hg2$trp$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
FxParlant wrote:
<snip>
> Nice shot, thatss my problem, I haven't got a clue where I did something
> wrong. i've only noticed this problem later.
>
> This link problem comes in the templates. I've also noticed someting
> weirder:
> If I call a template with a link, it comes broken.
> If I put an ISBN call, befor the template call, the link is perfect
> If the ISBN call is afterwards, the link is broken again.
>
> I'm in mw1.5

Just download the original mediawiki tar.gz and do a recursive diff to
find your changes :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Probation Committee

body:
Do we really need more committees and projects? Couldn't we get by
with just a "mentorship" page? This sudden drive to factionalize,
make committees, and make small and obscure rules pages
([[Wikipedia:Ivies]] being the most flagrant recent example) is just
ridiculous.

-Phil

On Nov 12, 2005, at 9:08 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:

> On 11/12/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  It's now been clarified on the talk page that the committee is
>> rather
>> informal right now. It was just very strange to see a committee
>> suddenly
>> appear out of nowhere with a board already chosen and a claim
>> that's they're
>> an auxiliary of the ArbCom (that text is now removed). I guess it was
>> discussed on IRC so it probably wasn't quite as sudden as it seemed.
>
> It was discussed on IRC, and I was present for some of the discussion.
>  My comment to them at the time was "The ArbCom would obviously be
> interested in such an activity" or something like that, but I said
> nothing to indicate that their existence or activities are sanctioned
> by ArbCom; there is no basis to the claim that they are an "auxiliary"
> of ArbCom.
>
> I understand that this was partially spurred by the negotiated terms
> by which the community bans of Jarlaxle Artimis and MARMOT were
> lifted; to that end these people appear to pursuing a useful goal and
> should be allowed to do so as long as they do so in a nonharmful way.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Status of Wikimedia

body:
Raphael Wiegand wrote:
> Just this point: I think what Elian wanted to say is that we should have
> a real clear policy for the creation of new language WPs - NOW. But this
> policy would not collide with language/dialect WPs already existing:
> those editions of WP will not be closed down.

That's right.  One trap we don't need to fall into is the assumption
that because we've made mistakes in the past, we have to either keep
making mistakes in the future *or* delete our past mistakes, all in the
name of consistency.  We don't actually have to be consistent to the
last decimal place, although a certain degree of consistency is of
course desirable.

> The idea is to prevent WP
> becoming a project to keep endangered languages "alive".

Yes, and there's more than that.  My concern is that we are getting to
the point where it isn't just about keeping endangered languages alive
(I don't have a particular problem with that) but where we are risking
dividing up perfectly sensible communities with bogus distinctions
between "languages" that actually do not differ more than American and
British English.

I want to use a hypothetical example so as to avoid the risk of speaking
ignorantly on any particular case.  There is no need for a Wikipedia to
save the "Bostonian" language, because there is no such language.  There
is, most likely, a Bostonian _accent_, or perhaps (if we are generous) a
Bostonian _dialect_, but there is no Bostonian _language_.

This is particularly true if we are speaking of formal written
Bostonian, the written language of the people of Boston.  It might be
hard for me to understand the slang of some cabdrivers and bartenders in
Boston, but I can read their newspapers just fine.

The nice thing about this example, of course, is that no one is
clamoring for political reasons that Bostonian is a separate language.
But in some parts of the world, there are deep political divisions
which, for reasons that are very hard for the rest of the world to fully
comprehend, lead people to champion what are absolutely not separate
spoken or written languages as being separate languages.

That's bad.

--Jimbo


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
On 11/13/05, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
> My cents: I think this whole checkuser shit is totally re-tarded. It's
> a grave violation of privacy. I have accounts on Wikipedia only
> because I care about my anonymousity (otherwise I would edit as an
> "anon"). I do NOT wan't someone to connect my contributions to my
> identity. Especially not someone I don't know and who identifies
> itself with a random and totally meaningless userid!
>
> Dumb dumb dumb. Stupid stupid stupid.

That is why it is only being used by a trusted set of users and only under
strict terms. The developers have always had the ability to see your IP. The
ArbCom needs it to check for sock puppets.

-- mav

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


from_name: geni

body:
On 11/12/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
> Ok now your starting to annoy me, the fact that she recently had a
> failed RFB is moot to whether she should get checkuser rights

And the RFC issue

> and
> everyone's view on this is bordering on being paranoid as people seem to
> think that the arbcom will try to read their minds by knowing their IP
> address

Strawman.

> and also it is very easy for her checkuser rights to be removed
> the minute her term expires which I assume is the plan so her having
> them for no bears no risk whatsoever.
>
> -Jtkiefer

"no risk"? This is not a concept I am hudely familia with. Everything
has risk attached. The question always boils down to a risk benifit
analysis.

--
geni


subject: [Wikipedia-l] "How to get a girl"

body:
Gerrit Holl wrote:
> Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
>>There's rubbish on wikibooks like the "How to get a girl manual"?
>
>
> What's wrong with it? Do you mean that the book is not mature yet or is
> there something (?) inheritently wrong with having a book on the subject?
> The only thing I can see is 'no original research', but then I wonder if
> this would be called research at all. It survived a deletion vote.

It did?  Good grief.  I'm going to delete it myself, then.

It is a blatant violation of the charter of Wikibooks and takes the
project in a completely wrong direction.  Wikibooks is not the place for
any random concept of a book that people may have.  It is a place for
_textbooks_, and the defining rule needs to be the ability to point to a
specific course at the early childhood, kindergarten, elementary, junior
high, high school, or university level in which such a _textbook_ is
_currently_ used.

> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/A_survival_guide_for_people_on_the_autistic_spectrum
> is similar but just not yet started. What's the problem?

It is not a textbook.

--Jimbo


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 11/12/05, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/12/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:
> > So your concerns are about the process and not the particular arbitrator involved?
> >
> I didn't say that. We have a tempory apointed arbcom memeber who has
> just failed on an RFB (ok to be fair the "we don't need more
> buracrats" group is large enough to make promotion extreamly tricky).
> They then open a trainreck of a RFC. Under these conditons giving the
> user checkuser is unwise.
>

Why?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Totally unscientific investigation...

body:
kosebamse at gmx.net wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. One interesting point with my little test seems to
> be that the average quality of our content has not much improved since March
> (or since 2003, as far as I can remember).

Of course this is because the volume has increased so much.  I think if
you took any random 20 articles and compared them to their predecessors
2 years ago, virtually _all_ articles would have improved.  The only
articles that might have declined in quality, I think, would be some
feature articles which have now fallen into a contemporary edit war, etc.

> A thought experiment: if we were the editorial committee of an encyclopedia
> to be written from scratch and were given Wikipedia's current content as a
> basis (but not the user base), what would we do? I guess we would put our
> energy into improving the material, i.e. rewriting/deleting/merging most of
> it. But we would not try to acquire more articles of that quality. (Ah wait,
> we ARE the editorial committee of an encyclopedia to be written from
> scratch...)

I think this is a brilliant observation. :-)

I absolutely do think that acquisition of huge numbers of additional
stubs on increasingly narrow topics ought not to be a priority, and
certainly ought not to be allowed to get in the way of quality
improvement on existing articles.

(At the same time, of course, it's worth pointing out that there's an
easy mental trap to fall into... assuming that time people are spending
working on obscure fancruft could in any way be diverted into increasing
the quality of other articles.  That's probably not true.)

--Jimbo


body:
Justin Cormack wrote:
> Ok, just had a chance to go through your list, and yes the World of
> Warcraft
> article is fancruft. But it has been edited by 6 people. If people  afre
> going to
> write this much it is hard to recommend merging.

And there's no obvious way that I can think of to persuade these people
to do something more "serious" with their time.  They want to write
about World of Warcraft, so that's what they'll write about.  We can
hold them to NPOV and all that good stuff, and that'll be fine.

It'd be a fine thing if all the authors of waaaaaay too many Pokemon
articles turned their attention to more "serious" endeavors, but there's
no way to make that happen.

--Jimbo


from_name: steve v

body:
I think its the question of 'who's definition' of
"trusted members" that people have a problem with.

Being a Wikipedian for at least a year might be a good
idea.

SV

--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 11/13/05, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My cents: I think this whole checkuser shit is
> totally re-tarded. It's
> > a grave violation of privacy. I have accounts on
> Wikipedia only
> > because I care about my anonymousity (otherwise I
> would edit as an
> > "anon"). I do NOT wan't someone to connect my
> contributions to my
> > identity. Especially not someone I don't know and
> who identifies
> > itself with a random and totally meaningless
> userid!
> >
> > Dumb dumb dumb. Stupid stupid stupid.
>
> That is why it is only being used by a trusted set
> of users and only under
> strict terms. The developers have always had the
> ability to see your IP. The
> ArbCom needs it to check for sock puppets.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com


body:
On 11/12/05, Brian Haws <brian at bhaws.com> wrote:
> It looks like checkuser is going to be added to the bureaucrats positions  "toolkit"

That is not the case.

--
geni