subject: [Wikipedia-l] Logo ratification and variants

body:
Erik Moeller wrote :
> The new logo has been ratified by all Wikipedias.

Hebrew, Interlingua, Inukitut and Romanian people all vote against this
ratification. Theirs opinions don't care just because they are less than 10
!?
For english wikipedia we have 46% of people against this ratification.
Don't you think there is a problem ??

Aoineko


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Server upgrade status needed in order to distribute
	press release

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Note to self: never buy anything from ewiz.com.

Here's a paraphrase of a long conversation I had on the phone with
them yesterday:

"You'll need to call your bank to authorize shipping to that address."
"I already did."
"Well, we called and couldn't confirm it."
"What number did you call?"
"1-800-xxx-xxxx."
"Well, that's not the number for my bank, call this one: 1-800-yyy-yyyy."
"Oh, we can't do that, that's a number that you gave us, we need to confirm
that it's the right one."
"Well, it's on their website, you can look at it."
"Oh, uh... we did that already, and uh, we already called that number
and they couldn't confirm your shipping address."
"You just told me that you couldn't call that number."
"Oh, but we did."
"Well, so did I, and I was able to confirm it."
"Yes, but we called 1-800-xxx-xxx and they could not."
"But that other number, as I have said, is NOT MY BANK.  Call the other one."
"We can't do that, that's a number that you gave us."

Imagine about 4 more cycles of this until they broke down and put me on
hold and did what I told them to do, and then authorizing the shipment.

I was *this close* to getting the approval and then cancelling anyway,
just to be mean.

But, we need the parts and I envisioned myself doing the whole thing
over again.

Here's the funny thing -- the first batch of parts went to the same
address, from ewiz.com, without a problem.

Anyhow...

--Jimbo


list: wikien-l

from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence), Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...

Our next question is:

* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban? Or,
* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?

Ed Poor


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Server upgrade status needed in order
	todistributepress release

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> Well, I'd be willing to donate a few hundred dollars. Where do I send
> it?

Checks payable to:
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

can be mailed to:
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
3911 Harrisburg St., NE
St. Petersburg, Florida 33703

These will be deposited into our bank account.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] WHO IS ANTI-SEMITIC?

body:
I read with interest RK's long quote from the Encyclopedia Judaica, from
which most parts have been snipped below.  There appears to be a common
tendency in many Jewish circles to muddle the concepts anti-semitic (or
anti-Jewish) with anti-Israel (or anti-Zionist).  In non-Jewish circles
the tendency is to consider these as two separate issues.  There is an
interesting contrast between the first and third paragraph of what I
have preserved.  In the first, "Older people tend to be more
anti-Semitic;" in the third, "...younger people are more likely to be
unfavorable to Israel."  Do others see a contradiction here?

The second quoted paragraph illustrates a transition in the article.
 What does Andrew Young's dismissal have to do with the other clearly
more extremist positions cited.  Young was dismissed because he took a
position contrary to the stated views of his government; that does not
justify extrapolating his act of meeting PLO officials into some form of
anti-semitism.  It is great that American blacks and Jews should find
common cause about problems in the United States, but how does one get
from that to the security of Israel just because it is "significant to
Jews".  It is irrelevant to the issue.  If it's relevant then so too is
the security of Liberia where blacks went to escape oppression just as
Jews went to Israel to escape oppression... but Liberia is right off the
radar screen.
Ec

Robert wrote:

>WHO IS ANTI-SEMITIC?
>>From the Encyclopedia Judaica.
>. . .
>
>Older people tend to be more anti-Semitic than younger
>individuals. This might be explained by lower educational
>level, by the fact that anti-Semitism was more prevalent
>when the older people were themselves young, and by the
>possibility that the aging process might have led to
>greater feelings of insecurity and intolerance.
>
>. . .
>
>That confrontation has taken the form of disputes over
>political goals and the exercise of power. But also the
>dismissal in 1979 of Andrew Young as American ambassador to
>the United Nations for meeting with a PLO official, the
>abusiveness of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's
>remarks about Judaism as a "gutter religion" and his
>declared admiration for Hitler, the references to New York
>City as "Hymietown" by presidential candidate Jesse Jackson
>in 1984, the injection of Black-Jewish animosity into the
>1988 Democratic party primary in New York, have all
>inflamed passions on both sides. Blacks hold about 10% less
>favorable attitudes to Israel than do whites. Jews and
>blacks have strongly differed on questions of open
>enrollment in New York City colleges and, above all, on the
>issues of quotas for employment. Yet, the old black-Jewish
>liberal coalition, with its mutual support for electoral
>office and for policies favoring integrated schools, civil
>rights, and vitality of urban areas on the one hand, and
>issues significant to Jews, especially the security of
>Israel on the other, has not broken down.
>
>. . .
>
>Two other major problems remain. Black anti-Semitism,
>stemming from religious teachings and economic stereotypes,
>exacerbated by the politics of confrontation and, to a
>lesser degree, a rise in adherence to Islam, is a troubling
>issue. The issue of Israel, support for its policies, aid
>for its security, and Jewish relations with the state has
>not yet led to an increase in anti-Semitism. But about a
>quarter of non-Jews are highly unfavorable to Israel, and
>young people are more likely to be so than are older
>people.
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Obviously, I'm studying the situation carefully.  I support what Erik
did here, although I do want to caution against our going down a
precedent-setting road regarding the extent of the right of admins to
ban logged in users.  It's just that there's a slippery slope we want
to be careful about.

Erik Moeller wrote:
> Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK
> should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started vandalizing
> several user and talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being
> vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
> temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through his lengthy diatribes
> which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this temporary
> ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or so.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> BuddhaInside was instantly banned after vandalism. EntmootsOfTrolls is
> banned now because of threats, I'm not aware of any vandalism by him but I
> can assure you that I or someone else would have banned him had that
> happened to a significant extent.

Since wikipedia isn't really accessible at the moment (sigh, new parts
arriving tomorrow or Monday, though!), and also just for the
historical record of the mailing list, can you give the mailing list
some details of what RK was doing?

This might be an ideal case study for 'line drawing' in the case of
temporary bans for vandalism.

BuddhaInside botched the homepage and so a temporary ban was certainly
warranted for simple defense.  Since we don't "know" BuddhaInside in
the same way that we "know" RK, who knows what he might have done.

But RK is a different sort of case.  He's a controversial user, and I
trust your judgment (not having seen what happened) that he wasn't
doing a good thing, but at the same time, he's a known quantity who
has been around for a long time and done an enormous amount of good
work.

--Jimbo


from_name: Dante Alighieri

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK unbanned : a community decision

body:
At 10:22 AM 10/2/2003, you wrote:
> >I have ended the temporary ban on RK.
>
>------
>
>That is what I would call a community decision indeed.
>I suppose the opinion of all those insulted is totally
>irrelevant in this decision.
>
>Anthere

For the record, if Axel hadn't unbanned him, I would have... and I support
the banning of him in the first place. Here''s my reasoning:

*Banning/unbanning is largely irrelevant in this situation, RK certainly
isn't coming back any time soon.

*Banning logged-in users is a temporary emergency step and the emergency
has passed.

*Unbanning him in no way says that his behavior is acceptable, it merely
respects our process.

We have no procedure to ban logged-in users for any specific length of
time. The mandate is in an emergency to protect vandalism. Once the
vandalism threat is over, there is no rationale to continue that form of
ban. At this point, the weeks-long consensus that a ban should (or should
not) occur takes place and then we have our democratic solution. Axel did
not show disrespect to people who were insulted, he showed respect for the
Wikipedia process that we all abide by. I disagree with Axel that he never
should have been banned in the first place, that was an appropriate step to
undertake given the situation. That's just my two cents.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> That power is supposed to be used only to enforce an already-existing
> ban: it was created to deal with Michael's endless aliases and can
> reasonably be used in any similar situation. It doesn't mean that any
> sysop--of whom, as you note, there are many--can exclude someone
> from Wikipedia. That way lies instability at best.

I share your concerns, but did want to add that the power is also
legitimate for sysops to use in cases of 'pure vandalism'.  It was
created to deal with Michael's endless aliases, but remember also the
infamous "MIT Vandal" who wasted an entire Saturday morning of several
people's time by logging in over and over with different usernames.

RK is different from *either* of those cases, of course, in that he's
a "made guy," in the parlance of the mob.  We know him, he's a
Wikipedian, he's one of us, not just some random ip number going
berserk.

Whatever RK may have done, it's *probably* a safe bet that he wasn't
about to go ripping through the wikipedia putting penis pictures and
profanity on various pages.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

references:
<5.2.0.9.1.20031002075931.02a58ab0@smtp.panix.com>
	<8v5NnLKSpVB@erik_moeller> <blhac4$jij$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
> Eloquence obviously has a different idea of "simple vandalism" than
> I do. RK got angry, he lashed out at a few users. He didn't replace
> the contents of an article with "poo poo". I hope Jimbo takes this
> opportunity to clarify the definition of the term.

Yes, I will, but I won't be criticizing Erik for this, even if we all
end up agreeing that this wasn't the right thing to do in this case.

We, the most active participants, surely need to stay on the same page
in terms of mutual respect and cutting each other some slack, even if
we went up disagreeing with particular actions.

It's a test case, and an interesting one at that.

--Jimbo


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Vicki-
> That power is supposed to be used only to enforce an already-existing
> ban: it was created to deal with Michael's endless aliases and can
> reasonably be used in any similar situation. It doesn't mean that any
> sysop--of whom, as you note, there are many--can exclude someone
> from Wikipedia. That way lies instability at best.

It was always allowed for developers to ban signed in users in cases of
obvious vandalism. Now that sysops have the same ability, I see no reason
why it should remain limited to people such as myself.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Drive problem on pliny

body:
Wow, I'm just the bearer of good news today!

The second hard drive on pliny, the one that holds most of the of the
database, has stopped responding.

Log extract attached.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x9
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0x2f, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0x1c
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:08 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:10 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:10 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:13 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:13 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:13 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 159
Oct  2 18:39:13 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 159
Oct  2 18:39:13 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:14 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:14 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169 20:68 24:165 14:108 19:105 1:62 12:206 31:161 30:89 8:118 7:46  13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:14 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,
t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0x44) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa5) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:15 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:15 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 68(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 165(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 237(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0), 160(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0), 131(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0), 170(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:15 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117 51 91 8 184 56 174 205
77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95 181 221 102
251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220 109 230 176 142 11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22 43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:15 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:15 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:16 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:16 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:16 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:16 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:16 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 170 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:17 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:17 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:17 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0xaa, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0xe
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:18 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:19 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:19 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0xe7
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169 20:68 24:165
Oct  2 18:39:20 pliny kernel: QOUTFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: Sequencer Free SCB List: 14 19 1 12 31 30 8 7 18 29 2 13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,
t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0x44) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa5) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 68(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 165(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 237(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0), 160(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0), 131(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 170 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117 51 91 8 184 56 174
205 77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95 181 221
102 251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220 109 230 176 142
11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22 43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:21 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 131 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:22 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x9
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0x83, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0xe
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0xe7
Oct  2 18:39:23 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:24 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:24 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:24 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:24 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:24 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169 20:68 24:165
Oct  2 18:39:24 pliny kernel: QOUTFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: Sequencer Free SCB List: 14 19 1 12 31 30 8 7 18 29 2 13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,
t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0x44) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa5) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 68(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 165(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 237(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0), 160(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 131 170 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117 51 91 8 184 56
174 205 77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95 181
221 102 251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220 109 230 176
142 11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22
43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 160 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:25 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0xa0, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0xe
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:26 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0xe7
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169 20:68 24:165
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: QOUTFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Sequencer Free SCB List: 14 19 1 12 31 30 8 7 18 29 2 13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,
t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0x44) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa5) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:27 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 68(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 165(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 237(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 160 131 170 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117 51 91 8 184 56 174 205 77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95
181 221 102 251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220 109 230
176 142 11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22 43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 237 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:28 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0xed, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0xe
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0xe7
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169 20:68 24:165
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: QOUTFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:30 pliny kernel: Sequencer Free SCB List: 14 19 1 12 31 30 8 7 18 29 2 13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0x44) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa5) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 68(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 165(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 237 160 131 170 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117 51 91 8 184 56 174 205 77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95 181 221 102 251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220 109
230 176 142 11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22 43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 165 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x9
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0xa5, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0x18
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0xe7
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169 20:68
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: QOUTFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Sequencer Free SCB List: 24 14 19 1 12 31 30 8 7 18 29 2 13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,
t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0x44) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0), 68(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 165 237 160 131 170 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117 51
91 8 184 56 174 205 77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95 181 221 102 251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220
109 230 176 142 11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22 43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 68 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:31 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1: Dumping Card State while idle, at SEQADDR 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: ACCUM = 0x0, SINDEX = 0x44, DINDEX = 0xe4, ARG_2 = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: HCNT = 0x0 SCBPTR = 0x14
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: SCSISEQ = 0x12, SBLKCTL = 0xa
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel:  DFCNTRL = 0x0, DFSTATUS = 0x89
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: LASTPHASE = 0x1, SCSISIGI = 0x0, SXFRCTL0 = 0x80
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: SSTAT0 = 0x0, SSTAT1 = 0x8
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: SCSIPHASE = 0x0
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: STACK == 0x3, 0x108, 0x160, 0xe7
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: SCB count = 254
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Kernel NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Card NEXTQSCB = 178
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: QINFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Waiting Queue entries:
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Disconnected Queue entries: 3:169
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: QOUTFIFO entries:
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Sequencer Free SCB List: 20 24 14 19 1 12 31 30 8 7 18 29 2 13 9 22 4 16 21 26 25 0 6 23 11 27 5 15 10 17 28
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Sequencer SCB Info: 0(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 1(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 2(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 3(c 0x64, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xa9) 4(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 5(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 6(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 7(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 8(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0,
t 0xff) 9(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 10(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 11(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 12(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 13(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
0xff) 14(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 15(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 16(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 17(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 18(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 19(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 20(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 21(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 22(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 23(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 24(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 25(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 26(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 27(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 28(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 29(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 30(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t 0xff) 31(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0, t
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: 0xff)
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Pending list: 169(c 0x60, s 0x7, l 0)
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Kernel Free SCB list: 68 165 237 160 131 170 208 52 32 155 148 25 0 4 59 194 228 14 233 111 243 120 226 82 9 23 65 203 26 117
51 91 8 184 56 174 205 77 191 18 119 96 158 87 232 229 127 85 234 223 245 100 163 149 171 72 83 78 225 192 183 99 195 209 116 122 15 175 154 104 189 222 1 19 141 7 95 181 221 102 251 54 39 60 16 239 92 97 238 71 242 240 27 201 143 37 218 70 108 105 62 206 161 89 118 46 10 42 17 36 79 21 125 147 57 2 69 41 210 220 109 230 176 142 11 28 159 47 13 86 75 49 224 177 187 110 50 80 197 29 153 5 136 188 67 61 252 213 204 186 207 219 126 200 35 106 55 199 190 63 179 212 107 115 168 182 167 211 162 66 172 180 140 93 31 249 247 157 173 253 101 30 34 236 114 215 137 250 81 58 103 53 45 38 145 124 214 196 166 231 20 33 164 198 152 241 98 88 22 43 3 113 216 74 144 40 76 112 44 121 235 156 12 24 202 90 227 6 150 73 248 48 244 84 217 94 193 185 146 151 123 64 246 138 139 132 133 134 135 128 129 130
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:0:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: DevQ(0:6:0): 0 waiting
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Queuing a recovery SCB
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Device is disconnected, re-queuing SCB
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Recovery code sleeping
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): Abort Tag Message Sent
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: (scsi1:A:0:0): SCB 169 - Abort Tag Completed.
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Recovery SCB completes
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: Recovery code awake
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:32 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:33 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Command not found
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: aic7xxx_abort returns 0x2002
Oct  2 18:39:34 pliny kernel: scsi1:0:0:0: Attempting to queue an ABORT message


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>RK has been a sysop.

Actually, I think the accurate history is that he was nominated but
wisely and thoughtfully declined.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> If it was Jimbo, then I would like to see his reasoning.

No, Erik did this on his own.  I support it in a limited sense, i.e.
I give my moral support to Erik's good will and legitimate concerns,
but don't want it to set a precedent and do think that it's a good
case for us to discuss the limits on sysop powers.  I won't be
criticizing Erik for it.

I think it's actually a very interesting thing that, so far, the
consensus *of existing sysops* seems to be running against expanded
sysop powers.  So at least we're not power hungry maniacs.  Oh, except
for me, of course.  ;-)

--Jimbo


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK unbanned : a community decision ?

body:
Dante Alighieri said
>For the record, if Axel hadn't unbanned him, I would
>have... and I support
>the banning of him in the first place. Here''s my
>reasoning:

>Banning/unbanning is largely irrelevant in this
>situation, RK certainly isn't coming back any time
soon.

Not sure of this. He seems to be a tough one. He can
cool down

>*Banning logged-in users is a temporary emergency
step >and the emergency has passed.

Very true

>*Unbanning him in no way says that his behavior is
>acceptable, it merely respects our process.

Ah ? Well, if you say so, I believe you

>We have no procedure to ban logged-in users for any
>specific length of
>time. The mandate is in an emergency to protect
>vandalism. Once the
>vandalism threat is over, there is no rationale to
>continue that form of
>ban.

Fair.
Though...I am curious...just how many loggued in users
are banned right now ? How long ago was it ?

>At this point, the weeks-long consensus that a ban
>should (or should
>not) occur takes place and then we have our
democratic >solution. Axel did
>not show disrespect to people who were insulted, he
>showed respect for the
>Wikipedia process that we all abide by.

Good, I am glad to hear that.
Democratic implies of course, that everybody has the
chance to weight in.

>I disagree with Axel that he never
>should have been banned in the first place, that was
>an appropriate step to
>undertake given the situation. That's just my two
>cents.

It certainly was a decision not everybody could agree
on.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK

body:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> I'd just like to point out to everyone that not everyone on the list
> (including Jimbo) can spend hours a day, every day, spread out throughout
> the day, watching the email list.

That's right.  I decided to work for money yesterday, which means that
I'm way behind on my 'daily' 4 hours of Wikipedia email reading and
writing.  So I left 2 days ago with everything being basically joyful,
and then KAPOW, all hell broke loose so quickly!

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Nevertheless, I do believe that he was doing his own cause a disservice.

I don't think anyone, even RK, would disagree with that, at least to a
degree.  I know that I agree.  I'm generally sympathetic to his
concerns, but his explosiveness makes it difficult to say the least.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK - various

body:
Angela wrote:

>Lots of replies in no particular order
>
>*Anthere wrote:
>
>>When has RK been a sysop ?
>>
>He hasn't. I think people are confusing him with RickK
>again. He was nominated for sysophood by Stevertigo
>but RK refused the nomination.
>
OK, I had my fact wrong in this issue.

>*Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>the mentor could be a person whom RK personally
>>
>trusts, and to whom he would pay attention.
>
>I'm not convinced you could find such a person. RK
>regards all comments to him as personal attacks.
>
Obviously, if there is no such person. it can't be made to work

>*Bjn Lindqvist wrote:
>
>>But I get offended by RK, a countless number of anons
>>
>get offended by RK and many contributors have left WP
>because of RK's antics.
>
>I think this is the part 172 and others are missing. A
>lot of people complain about RK, but there are
>doubtless many more people who do not and simply
>respond by avoiding editing any pages that RK edits
>(myself for one), or worse leave Wikipedia.
>
There are people who can't handle any criticism..  I'm sure we've all
chased some away.  They just go away without a fuss, and without anybody
knowing about it.  This does not diminish RK's intimidating effects.

>*Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>Eloquence obviously has a different idea of "simple
>>
>vandalism" than I do.
>
>This is the danger of blocking anyone. There is no
>clear guidance on what "simple vandalism" is. The
>[[Vandalism in progress]] page shows different people
>have different definitions and sections are often
>moved from this page to the [[Problem users]] page by
>those who do not regard something as vandalism. On a
>related note, I don't understand why the procedure has
>to be different for IPs and logged in users. If an
>anon had made those edits they would have been banned
>immediately and no-one would have objected in the
>slightest. IPs are frequently blocked for far less.
>Why should someone be protected simply because they
>bothered to log in?
>
I would define a simple vandal as one who for no particular reason
defaces a page with rude words or goatse.cx type images.

>*Axel Boldt wrote:
>
>>The issue could have brought up on the mailing list.
>>
>In the past, we have often discussed weeks and weeks
>before banning long-term Wikipedians.
>
>The issue *was* brought to the mailing list, and to
>the "problem users" page, and to "RK/ban" and to
>"Community case RK" and to Meta. He has been discussed
>ad nauseum and it was about time someone did something
>about it. He has been given countless chances to
>reform and he hasn't attempted to in the slightest. I
>can't see how a temporary ban is going to change his
>behavior either and I fully support a permanent ban.
>
I generally don't visit the other sites; the mailing list alone provides
me with more than enough of this type of discussion., but then this
isn't the first time that RK has been discussed on the mailing list.

Based on the comments in his departure letter, RK may not want to come
back.  In that case the entire discussion about banning him is moot.

Ec

>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abe's thesis

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> If I understand correctly, his thesis is that if RK is allowed to
> take outrageous positions on Israel/Palestine issues that will be
> more effective in presenting that view than a large number of
> moderates.

Can you give examples of RK taking outrageous positions on
Israel/Palestine issues?  I don't think he does, and I don't think
that's quite what Abe's point was.

RK is a pretty good NPOV writer.  Better than most, I think.

The problem with RK is not that he battles to write absurd things in
articles -- the problem with RK is that he's very difficult to work
with, and that -- in the current case -- he really stepped over the
lines in terms of not treating others with respect and kindness.

Several people have made this claim over time -- that RK is trying to
insert blatant propaganda into articles.  But the examples that I have
seen are very *very* thin, and don't support ANY idea of RK as being
out of line with respect to his article edits.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] I made something like a summary

body:
Apologies if I distorted some opinions. This would be
just a mistake :-(

Eloquence opinion : Shortly after I sent a mail to
Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK should be
banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started
vandalizing several user and talk pages because he
felt *his* talk page was being  vandalized. The
vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have
temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through
his lengthy diatribes  which will inevitably follow).
I strongly suggest turning this temporary  ban into a
permanent one, at least for a month or so. I oppose
unbanning him until he retracts his "Nazipedia"
remarks.

Jack Nelson : I support this; he went a bit insane
there.

LDan : That's good, but I strongly believe that this
ban should be temporary. Eventually, RK not want to
act like this. Even Lir was unbanned eventually, and
RK was, for the most part, a good user.

Delirium : I disagree with both a temporary and a
permanent ban. The vandalizing user talk pages and so
on is over the line, but does not warrants a temporary
ban. Other users who did the same, including
EntmootsOfTrolls and BuddhaInside, among others, who
were not summarily banned.  I don't see why RK should
be treated differently. As for a permanent ban, while
RK has been somewhat obnoxious in his
complaining about anti-Semitism, several other people
(notably SV) have  been equally obnoxious in their
complaining from the other side RK has also added
quite a bit of useful content to Wikipedia, much of it
entirely  unrelated to Judaism, Israel, or related
issues.

Vicki Rosenzweig disagrees with the fact a sysop is
doing the banning.

Tim Starling disagrees with the fact a sysop is doing
the banning ("I strongly believe that sysops should
not be capable of punishing other users in this way.
Threats of such actions could greatly increase the
perception of a power structure; a pecking order.") He
apparently disagrees with the banning "RK got angry,
he lashed out at a few users. He didn't replace the
contents of an article with "poo poo"."

Axelbold disagrees with Eloquence banning. He said "RK
rudely and unexcusably replaced four people's user
pages with angry messages, that's all. Wikipedia was
never under attack."

Eclecticology agrees with Vicky : Anything more than a
short term "emergency" ban needs to be a community
decision.  I've never been a big fan of banning, and I
make no exception with regard to RK. I support 24
hours as the appropriate banning period.  This is an
otherwise productive Wikipedian who has out-of-control
moments. The disrespectful "Nazipedia" comments should
likely be acknowledged as
having come in the midst of a rage. In cases like this
we need some kind of a "mentor" system.  In this case
the mentor could be a person whom RK personally
trusts, and to whom he would pay attention.  When he
shows signs of going out of control, that person could
say "STOP" or some other agreed secrt word, and get
the appropriate reaction.

To Abe : If people who would otherwise bring sane and
rational opinions to a discussion keep quiet simply to
avoid the wrath of an extremist the project has thus
been diminished.

Gutza : Although I don't agree with Erik about
enforcing a permanent ban, I think the temporary ban
for a day was welcome. RK obviously lost it, he was
calling everybody names, he didn't accept even the
most mildly tempered comments and he started
vandalizing user pages because people were placing
comments on his talk page. So I agree with Erik -- he
just did what he had to in order to chill everybody
down. I don't think a month's ban would solve
anything. RK  should either be banned for good (which
I don't support), or receive chill-down kicks (IRC
sense), which I fully support. Goodbye, to the troll
who has been temp-banned.

Anthere : Perhaps temporary is best first. I am sure
it will make him realize that he can't do anything he
wants to, with no punishment ever. Temporary banning
is mostly a way to say to someone "we would like you
to stay with us, but you really have to work on your
behavior". It is a time-break, to allow thoughts.  A
temporary banning is also a nice compromise between
those who do not accept that situation any more, and
those who think it is acceptable. And imho, temporary
banning is an option that any sysop could "initiate",
that is just to us, all together, to discuss what
temporary means, and how we could use that time-out.

Matthew Brown :

Gareth Owen : to the comment "Fuck you sick Nazi
bastards" : Come back Special Relativity kooks, all is
forgiven..

Bogdan Giusca : Goodbye, Uncle Leo*! :-)

Mav : Dude! You have any idea how paranoid that
sounds? Just because people disagree with you and you
happen to be a Jew doesn't mean that that are
anti-Semites! Oh, and anybody who disagrees with me is
a homophobic bastard! ;-)

Quercus Robur : Could you stamp about and slam the
door a little more loudly on your way out? A few of my
neighbours didn't quite hear you.

Dante Alighieri : Even worse, accusing the entire
Wikipedia community of  /anything/ is patently
absurd.... as a matter of fact, it's something that
bigots usually do... making broad generalizations
about entire groups of people.

Abe : I am going to make strong pleas against any
moves to ban RK or marginalize him. He generates chaos
and a lot of ill-will. He?s often obnoxious (but he
can magnanimously admit that he was wrong). He even
alienates his own supporters, and often attacks
potential allies with great bitterness. ... RK?s
intransigence, and often flat out bizarre behavior,
but it?s an indispensable part of a confluence of
opposing forces required for Israeli-Palestinian
neutrality.

Stan Shebs : We shouldn't be tolerating bad behavior
at all. If we make the excuse that we have to tolerate
it for the sake of content

Ed : While technically correct, I think your ban was
unwise. RK did indeed blank some personal pages, the
C-J talk page, and wrongly accused Martin of using an
alias. I would like to un-ban RK.

KNOTT, Theresa : I think a few days is enough time for
him to cool down. I propose he is unbanned on 5th
October.

Bj?rn Lindqvist : I won't lie, I'm QUITE HAPPY that RK
is banned now. Sure he added a lot  of important
information to religious topic and so on, but please!
He  has called everyone that has ever been in a
dispute with him an  anti-semite. Not only those
contributors who debate with him in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict as I firsth thought, even
contributors who has praised his work and/or are Jews
themselves have gotten the stamp "anti-semite". It is
no fun for one who has spent a lot of time and effort
fighting racisim to be called that again and again and
again. ... But I get offended by RK, a countless
number of anons get offended by RK and many
contributors have left WP because of RK's antics. It's
impossible to edit articles in the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict because if you do, RK will be there reverting
and calling you an anti-Semite. It is not fun and is
one of the reasons why I don't spend as much time on
WP anymore.

And it isn't like he hasn't been warned. He has
been varned many many times, he got countless more
chances than for example EofT did but he has never
listened, not changed the slightest. He has gotten his
chances and he has burnt them all. It is time to say
goodbye.

Angela : I don't think that was a good idea. The last
thing we need is block/unblock wars. There was a lot
of objection to the EofT ban, but it would be very
wrong for any sysop to simply go and unblock the
account.

To Ec mentor proposition : I'm not convinced you could
find such a person. RK regards all comments to him as
personal attacks. All I said to him was that Martin's
comment should not be regarded as vandalism and I
explained why Martin may have put what he did on RK's
page. RK then accused me of being a vandal for having
made such a comment.

To Abe defense : No, we can not let RK be RK if this
means allowing such abominable behavior. To suggest
that Wikipedia can not be NPOV without RK's help is
ridiculous. And it's not just the Israeli-Palestinian
articles that you mention that he is doing this
on.

To Bj?rn feeling offended : I think this is the part
172 and others are missing. A lot of people complain
about RK, but there are doubtless many more people who
do not and simply respond by avoiding editing any
pages that RK edits (myself for one), or worse leave
Wikipedia.

About banning : I don't understand why the banning
procedure has to be different for IPs and logged in
users. Oppose unbanning him until he retracts his
"Nazipedia" remarks. I fully support a permanent ban.
RK has been discussed ad nauseum and it was about time
someone did something about it.

Adam : Now that RK knows he can be banned, and will
hopefully not continue in his previous course of
action. I beg the court show him mercy and allow him
the chance to atone himself. He has been punished
enough

Robert comment :

Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and
this was PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards
began harassing me and vandalizing my home page.  You
lied about him and his edits, falsely accused me of
saying things that SV wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own home page, and then
BANNED me when I pointd out that such behaviour is
wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of
violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews,
who privately write me that they all agree with me,
but
publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from
now on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that
it allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those
who speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a
well
deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

-------

I can't help feeling sad.

Anthere

Robert RK

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK ban deemed unwise

body:
Axel Boldt wrote:
> I have ended the temporary ban on RK.

Well, I haven't caught up with email yet, but let's leave it at that.

We can decide later whether this sort of temporary ban is a good idea
or not.  The consensus appears to be leaning away from it.

But we can certainly cut Erik some slack, because he's a good person,
you know, so whatever the consensus ends up being, he's going to
respect it.  Let's not confuse problematic situations with problematic
people.  This situation is problematic, and Erik's decision is of some
concern, but Erik is not problematic at all, in my opinion.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> * Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban? Or,
> * Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?

I doubt very much that I would endorse a permanent ban on RK just for
this incident.  I do think he needs to get a grip, of course.  And it
seems that Axel Boldt already ended the temporary ban, so it lasted
only a few hours, right?

--Jimbo


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Wikitech-l] http://wikimediafoundation.org/ not working nice...

body:
Major oddness at:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers
already sent by (output started at
/usr/local/apache/htdocs-foundation/extract.php:14) in
/usr/local/apache/common/php/DatabaseFunctions.php on
line 85

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Profiling

body:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 04:13, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Anybody wanna look into optimizing OutputPage::replaceInternalLinks()?
> It's a known troublemaker; it's got a bit loop that could probably be
> much much more efficiently done.

Why would not pages be rendered when saved and stored on disk as HTML, as
they are typically saved once and viewed many times? As I understood, disk
space is not a problem, but processor time is.


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>In light of comments from Erik (aka Eloquence), Axelboldt, Vicki R.,
>Gutza, Abe, and I hope I haven't left anyone out...
>
>Our next question is:
>
>* Shall we set a date for ending the temporary ban? Or,
>* Shall we ask Jimbo to endorse a permanent ban?
>
>
My personal preference would be to unban him in some relatively short
period of time (perhaps 2-3 days to allow things to cool down slightly),
and dispatch to him an email informing him that he has been unbanned,
and is welcome to return in a productive fashion, but will be rebanned
if he engages in any vandalism.  If he does in fact engage in vandalism
again, then I'd support banning him for an indefinite period of time
(basically, "permanently," unless he in the future requests to come back
and promises to behave, like Lir did).  If he chooses not to return at
all, then unbanning him does no harm either.

-Mark


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Consensus on Banning

body:
Since I doubt I can add anything to this topic that someone
else probably hasn't said beter than me, I'd like to ask if
this is the consensus that is emerging from the discussion on
this mailing list:

1. RK had been rude & obnoxious.

2. The act of banning him, however, sets a disturbing president.

   The banning tool could be abused quite easily, e.g. two Sysops
   get into an edit war, which escalates to where one bans the
   other.

3. To prevent abuses, we need to establish -- or acknowledge --
   some kind of due process. (A few people have indicated that
   this was followed in RK's case.)

To this, I'd like to add a following point:

4. This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for the simple
   reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia,
   & may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or
   ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his
   own POV onto all of us.

Geoff


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

references:
<8v5NkaASpVB@erik_moeller> <3F7B9EF8.7080805@rufus.d2g.com>
	<8v5NkaASpVB@erik_moeller>

body:
he's a known quantity who
has been around for a long time and done an enormous amount of good
work.

--Jimbo

He certainly is a known quantity and has done an enormous amount of harm,
but because you seldom edit you don't know. Essentially it has generally
been his way or the highway. He probably should have been banned long ago
for reasons that have nothing to do with the current anti-semitic
accusations.  He has a long-standing pattern of tenditious advocacy of an
ideocentric point of view, a sort of scientism, that simply will not admit
any alternative. I first ran into it on the chiropractic article. He simply
would not admit a postitive point of view into the article. Now if I see he
is editing actively on an article I just abandon it.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK ban deemed unwise

body:
Poor,-
> My impression is that several users ganged up on RK and goaded him into
> a "bannable offense".

That impression is demonstrably wrong. Nobody ganged up on RK. I oppose
unbanning him until he retracts his "Nazipedia" remarks.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Tim-
> Eloquence obviously has a different idea of "simple vandalism" than I
> do. RK got angry, he lashed out at a few users.

He did so by vandalizing their user pages. I told him to stop. In response
he vandalized mine. After he was banned, he called everyone nazi and
Wikipedia Nazipedia. I think he should stay away until he gets some
treatment for his persecution complex.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Drive problem on pliny

body:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 12:06, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Wow, I'm just the bearer of good news today!
>
> The second hard drive on pliny, the one that holds most of the of the
> database, has stopped responding.

Jason got it hard-rebooted (it wouldn't reboot nicely on its own) and it
seems to have come back okay.

www.wikipedia.org is up and running.

I'm having some trouble apache on pliny talking to mysql, however, so
all other sites are temporarily unable to access the database. Sigh.

(Oh, and larousse is back up and working.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at joey.bomis.com> wrote:
> Yes, I will, but I won't be criticizing Erik for
> this, even if we all
> end up agreeing that this wasn't the right thing to
> do in this case.

So you agree that, in some cases but not necessarilly,
longtime logged-in contributors can be banned without
discussion?
>
> We, the most active participants, surely need to
> stay on the same page
> in terms of mutual respect and cutting each other
> some slack, even if
> we went up disagreeing with particular actions.
>
> It's a test case, and an interesting one at that.
>
> --Jimbo

RK was also a very active participant. Why don't you
cut him some slack?
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
> > Yes, I will, but I won't be criticizing Erik for
> > this, even if we all
> > end up agreeing that this wasn't the right thing to
> > do in this case.
>
> So you agree that, in some cases but not necessarilly,
> longtime logged-in contributors can be banned without
> discussion?

Temporarily, sure!  For example, if someone starts going through and
putting pornographic pictures on articles about Mother Theresa or
things of that nature, the sort of stuff we have always called "simple
vandalism".

Now, "simple vandalism" has never been clearly defined, it's sort of
an "I know it when I see it" sort of thing.

USUALLY in cases like that, we should assume the best of the person
involved.  Maybe they were drunk.  Maybe someone stole or guessed
their password.  I mean, if you started doing stuff like that, I'd
want your account banned temporarily, but I'd also want everyone to
forgive you if it turned out to be totally not your fault later on.

> RK was also a very active participant. Why don't you
> cut him some slack?

I think it's a bit early to use the past tense in speaking of him,
isn't it?  If he really doesn't want to work on wikipedia ever again,
I think that'd be a shame.

Sure, I think that's right.  I like RK.  I'm one of his biggest
defenders, I guess.  I think he's a pain in the neck, but I also think
that his edits are good, and that *sometimes* when he feels
persecuted, it's because he *is* being persecuted.  And he's way way
way over the top sometimes.

---Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Consensus on Banning

body:
Geoff Burling wrote:
> 4. This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for the simple
>    reason eventually he won't be involved as closely with Wikipedia,
>    & may be replaced by someone who is not as ``hands-off" or
>    ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to push her/his
>    own POV onto all of us.

Well, I'm not going anywhere.  I might die, of course, as might
happen to any of us.  But I have no plans to that effect.  :-)

So, although I agree that we should devise processes that rely less
and less on me, it isn't because I'm not going to be as closely
involved as I am now.  I'm here for the long haul, as far as I know.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Picking up the pieces

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> The next day, the owner saunters in and all he says is that he's not
> going to reprimand the bouncer.

Well, in my defense, that's not *all* that I said, right?

I'll say this, too: I think you did the right thing, as usual.  I
think RK went ballistic for no good reason.  And I think that a case
like this is *very* unusual.

> We need a better system.

No doubt, no doubt!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Drive problem on pliny

body:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 14:21, Brion Vibber wrote:
> I'm having some trouble apache on pliny talking to mysql, however, so
> all other sites are temporarily unable to access the database. Sigh.

Got that sorted out. Had forced a failure in the db connect code earlier
in the day to get the cache fallback working right, so then it wouldn't
reconnect. :P

Anyway, we've suspected disk or SCSI controller problems on pliny before
in relation to its crashes. If the main disk went out in the same way
that the second disk did today, it would produce the customary symptoms:
kernel and some processes stay running (so responds to ping, and partway
through ssh connect), nothing in logs (because it can't write to the
logs), and then after reboot it's as though nothing happened.

BLEEEEEEH!

Thanks to Jason for getting the hard reboot done, and for getting
larousse back online as well.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


body:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 13:02, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Major oddness at:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/
>
> Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers
> already sent by (output started at
> /usr/local/apache/htdocs-foundation/extract.php:14) in
> /usr/local/apache/common/php/DatabaseFunctions.php on
> line 85

The db probs mentioned in my other post. Up and running now.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Drive problem on pliny

body:
Well, I hope we make it through the weekend, and then I hope the new
hardware fixes things.  The new motherboards have their own SCSI
controllers, so if that's the problem, that'll fix it.  If it's the
drives themselves, well, we can buy new drives anytime, that's not
really an obstacle.

Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 14:36, Brion Vibber wrote:
> > Anyway, we've suspected disk or SCSI controller problems on pliny before
> > in relation to its crashes. If the main disk went out in the same way
> > that the second disk did today, it would produce the customary symptoms:
>
> FWIW both drives are the same model, and are on the same controller.
> Could be a drive problem, could be a controller problem (though I'd then
> expect both drives to go at once). Could be anything. The log extract I
> posted earlier could be useful to someone who understands these things.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


body:
Very valuable, thanks Anthere!  Like you, I can't help feeling sad.

I hope we all feel a little sad today about this entire spectacle.
I'm sure that this sort of thing is not why any of us are here.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] Drive problem on pliny

body:
On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 14:36, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Anyway, we've suspected disk or SCSI controller problems on pliny before
> in relation to its crashes. If the main disk went out in the same way
> that the second disk did today, it would produce the customary symptoms:

FWIW both drives are the same model, and are on the same controller.
Could be a drive problem, could be a controller problem (though I'd then
expect both drives to go at once). Could be anything. The log extract I
posted earlier could be useful to someone who understands these things.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Stevertigo

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia-l logo (Erik)

body:
I think the below is very gracious Gutza. And re: the previous comment regarding the new logo variants, I think thats a very good way to go-- I suggested a kind of metallic look --"anisotropic shading" sorta deal, maybe. Or just allow people to make some uniform alterations, every week or two... keep it fresh.

And....

Yes, I know some funny shits happened.  I dont have time or inclination to read comment except that Im reminded of a line from a old (yeesh) U2 ditty: "...You can hold onto something so tight/ that you've already lost it."
As someone with some experience with the mentally ill- I reccommend a change of environment as a usual cure all. Im going to do that now...

~S~

In fond memory of EofT -- a respectable fellow, and a true smart ass

Although I never criticized the way the voting was organized, I also had
my share of clashes with Erik, and I know he felt like I did criticize
his effort. So I'll full-heartedly subscribe to thanking you Erik, and
reiterating I never doubted your good faith and success in keeping
everything going smoothly during a rather controversial and busy voting
session. Congratulations for a job well done!

Gutza

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031002/d2a8414a/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Server back up after partial crash

body:
Sorry about the downtime today; everything _should_ now be back up and
running.

On first look this seems to be similar to the crashes we've gotten on
the server all too frequently since we acquired it: one of the disks
froze up and wouldn't respond anymore until the machine was rebooted --
which was complicated by the machine not being willing to reboot until
it had cleanly unmounted the disks, which it couldn't do because it had
to wait until the disk responded...

Anyway, the parts for upgrades should be arriving over the next few days
and the machine can be rebuilt early next week. If the problem is
related to the motherboard, that should resolve it once and for all.

If it's a problem inherent to the disks, well, that won't help, but
it'll reboot faster! ;)  And we'll have a better idea where the problem
lays.

Since it was the secondary disk that halted this time, not the primary,
we did get some info in the logs. If anyone out there is familiar with
decoding SCSI failures on Linux, I posted a log extract on wikitech-l:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-October/006314.html

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Consensus on Banning

body:
> To this, I'd like to add a following point:
>
> 4. This process should not rely on Jimbo. That's for
> the simple
>    reason eventually he won't be involved as closely
> with Wikipedia,
>    & may be replaced by someone who is not as
> ``hands-off" or
>    ``wise" or ``lazy" as Jimbo has been, & starts to
> push her/his
>    own POV onto all of us.
>
> Geoff

I agree that we shouldn't be too dependant on Jimbo
because, eventually, wikipedia will grow to big and/or
Jimbo will die and he won't be able to run it anymore,
but I don't see anything wrong with his current
leadership. I don't see why we need a leader that
tries to push their POV on everything; that's kinda
undemocratic. If Jimbo ever is unfit to lead wikipedia
for some reason, I think the leadership will turn over
to the developers because we won't be able to get a
consensus on who to be the leader, but I also think
that this would be the best outcome. In any event, we
can't kick Jimbo out of power because he owns the
servers.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


from_name: Bogdan Giusca (disc)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Goodbye, from the Jew you banned.

body:
Hello Robert,

Thursday, October 2, 2003, 4:43:12 AM, you wrote:

R> Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

R> Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is.  I am gone.  But from now
R> on the word will *widely* spread about the violent
R> anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it
R> allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who
R> speak out against hatespeech.

R> You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well
R> deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist
R> anti-Semites.

R> Goodbye.

Goodbye, Uncle Leo*! :-)

*from Seinfeld:

"My uncle Leo, I had lunch with him the other day, he's one
of these guys that anything goes wrong in life, he blames it on
anti-Semitism.  You know what I mean, the spaghetti's not al
dente?  Cook's an anti-Semite.  Loses a bet on a horse.
Secretariat?  Anti-Semitic.  Doesn't get a good seat at the
temple.  Rabbi?  Anti-Semite."


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK ban deemed unwise

body:
Richard Grevers wrote:
> Ed, won't the latter action reinforce RK's misguided impression that his
> talk page is sacred and for his use only, the thing which seemed to
> trigger his flying off the handle?

I don't necessarily think so.  I think in a dispute of any kind, we
should try to give the other person what they want to whatever extent
possible, rather than trying to teach them a lesson of some kind.

> His acceptance that user talk pages are intended for Wikipedians to leave
> each other messages is probably one of the keys to resolving this.

Sure, but he's more likely to accept that if we stand back from it a
bit, don't you think?

RK might be too mad to ever come back, in which case we can move from
talking about this to talking about just what we can do in the future
to try to prevent such strife.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK temp-banned

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I for one don't like being called a nazi, in rage or not, and I
> don't like to work with people who do so.

Yes, and I think that's the crux of the matter.

Well, please let his unbanning stand for now, and I'll chat with him.
It seems likely that he's angry enough to never come back anyway, in
which case we can all just talk about how to best avoid this sort of
thing in the future.

--Jimbo


from_name: blairr

subject: [WikiEN-l] When has RK been a sysop ?

body:
I have to agree with Viki and Anthere on this.

Vancouverguy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:13 AM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] When has RK been a sysop ?

> I agree with Vicki on this.  Anything more than a
> short term "emergency"  ban needs to be a community
> decision.  In the case of enforcing an
> already-existing ban that community decision has
> already been made.
> Vicki's stability concerns are very real.  RK has been
> a sysop.  It is certainly conceivable that he would
> apply the same interpersonal skills to that role as he
> has to his discussions of anti-semitism.
>
> Ec
>
> -------
>
> When has RK been a sysop ?
>
> anthere
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] unban RK

body:
No. If he has vandalized pages in the past, and chances are that he will continue to vandalize pages if he is unbanned.

Vancouverguy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031002/3cbbbbb7/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] RK's vandalism spree

body:
This only proves that he should be banned.

Vancouverguy
----- Original Message -----
From: <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org.>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 3:31 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] RK's vandalism spree

> Axel wrote
> > 4 edits
>
> Here is a list of RK's pure vandalism edits today. In these edits, RK
blanks
> the page and (optionally) adds insults and profanity.
>
> 23:54, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While you are
> harassing me and slandering Catholics and Jews, this page will be blanked.
> What is so hard to understand about this?)
> 23:53, 1 Oct 2003 User:Eloquence (Stop vandalizing my home page. Your
> harassment of me is not acceptable.)
> 23:47, 1 Oct 2003 User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu
> 23:45, 1 Oct 2003 User:MyRedDice
> 23:45, 1 Oct 2003 User:Angela (You win Angela! If you can vandalize my
> home page, I can vandalize yours. As long as you keep vandalizing other
> people's pages, yours will be too.)
> 23:43, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While censorship,
> Jew-baiting and Catholic bashing is being practiced, this page WILL be
> blanked.)
> 23:38, 1 Oct 2003 User:MyRedDice (oK, Martin, you win. I will let you keep
> vandalizing my home page. )
> 16:42, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation
> 16:17, 1 Oct 2003 Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (WARNING. Anti-
> Semitic racists have vandalized this page and protected it.)
>
> That's nine, I think.
>
> -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor temp-banned

body:
Poor,-
> I found my ability to edit Wikipedia pages blocked a few
> minutes ago. Apparently Eloquence thought I was RK.

>> Your user name or IP address has been blocked by
>> Eloquence. The reason given is this:
>> Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "RK".
>> Reason "Repeated vandalism. Calm down, drink some tea,
>> learn the difference between user and talk pages."

> I un-banned myself; no harm done.

I had nothing to do with that. It's Tim's automatic IP blocking feature in
action. It automatically bans users with the same IP as previously banned
users. Seems like RK is using a popular ISP.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: RK temp-banned

body:
Axel-
>> He did so by vandalizing their user pages. I told him to stop. In response
>> he vandalized mine.

> And so you got angry and banned him.

Wrong. I warned him, he continued his vandalism spree, I banned him. I
would have banned him if he had vandalized any other user page. I and
other developers have long had the authority to ban signed in users in
cases of vandalism. I did not even use developer privileges -- any other
sysop could have, and should have done the same. You should be more
worried about users who call all other Wikipedians nazis and refer to the
whole project as "Nazipedia" than accusing those who try to maintain some
semblance of sanity of abusing power. Nonsensical accusations like that
are poisoning the atmosphere of this project, and I would very much
appreciate it if you would keep them to yourself.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: I made something like a summary

body:
>it's a way of stopping things from happening faster
>than the list members can react. It's also a usful
way >to cause someone to do what they should be doing
when >involved in a heavy dispute: take deep breath,
sleep >on it and come back the next day.

I dearly agree with you

>I suggest the following: one administrator or 3
sysops >who have not previously been involved in the
issue can >decide to put the temporary ban in place
and raise the >matter on the mailing list then or as
soon as the >request is made. Ban lifted in 12 hours
(or 24?) or if >3 people on the list say so, after
reviewing the >situation, not out of general dislike
for bans. Ban >not lifted if the list result is longer
term ban.

Administrator and sysops mean the same.

Perhaps you meant developer by admin ? If so, it is
not a good idea. Though we love and trust our
developers, several don't think they should have more
weight than others in this type of decision.
Especially since in reality only Erik risks to oppose
the group in doing so. Several people precisely
consider he has no right to do so.
3 sysops is a better choice. Note that in that case,
there certainly were at least 3 sysops supporting the
banning, though admitedly, no open discussion was made
on the topic of course.

24/48 hours is a good time to cool down. Though
perhaps not in this case.

>That gives the list the greatest possible notice and
>cuts the potential for inappropriate use of the
>capability, while still letting it be used to give
the >list time to start to react to a rapidly
developing >situation.

nod

>On a different subject, RK is an interesting and
tough >problem. Some of the hardest choices I've had
to make >have been when, in dictator position with a
philosophy >resembling that I've seen Jimbo express
here, I've had >to decide that the interest of the
community is best >served by asking or compelling a
contributor to depart >because their discouraging
effect on others does more >harm than the good of
their contributions. There's >some reason to believe
that this may apply for RK but >the case hasn't been
made yet, just claimed. This is >just about the
toughest decision Jimbo will have to >make, so if you
think RK needs to be banned for this >reason, please
gather the case together with a >collection of
specific examples for Jimbo and others >to review.

At some point, I wonder what is the real difference
between a case being made and a case claimed. I am
serious here.

As for gathering...I...doubt... many would deny here
that RK is often using inappropriate words, is naming
others vandals, calling for ban on them, and rather
generously accusing others of being antisemites and
nazi.

The argument might be between those with tough skins
who think it is not so important, and those who have a
hard time to cope with it and are driven away from
articles where RK edit.
Giving more credit for the thin skin position would be
offering more humanity and compassion, and probably
favor diversity in editors.
And giving more credit for the thick skin position
might be selecting stronger people perhaps more fit to
cope with wikipedia environmental conditions. Both
points of view are defendable I guess.

The other argument might be up to which point RK being
a good editor (or an important editor to assure
balance on very controversial topics as 172 argue) is
enough to balance him being a difficult editor.
Accepting him as such would (arguably) benefit some
articles, and officially set a leval of rudeness
tolerance depending on the perceived benefit one bring
to the project.
Not accepting would be (arguably) a loss to the
project, and would set clearer behavioral guidelines,
similar to anyone.

It is perhaps up to us (or to Jimbo ?) to decide if
the place is a jungle or a garden ?

As for the collection of cases, the most recent were
listed on meta, since (that is what I understood) it
was considered anti wikilove, to gather evidence about
a difficult user. I doubt not that if necessary we can
set a list of those who shared a conflict with RK.
However, I would prefer that we do not come to this.
Mud moving is not good. This is a difficult topic as
some argue we should avoid gathering evidence for the
sake of good relationships, and some argue that
evidence is necessary to ban someone.

>OK, enough boldness for my first post to this list.
>I'm the user:JamesDay Alex756 has mentioned a few
>times in recent discussons on legal issues. Not a
>lawyer, just a community manager with a keen interest
>in online community law. More background on my user
>page.
>
>James

the one with attached name ? :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Upgrades on the way!

body:
I've just gotten word that Jason will be going to San Diego tonight to
upgrade the machines!  Of course, nothing ever goes wrong with
hardware upgrades, and computers always work, so we can expect to be
fully upgraded and functional very quickly.

Or, reality check, let's all hope for the best.  :-)

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Upgrades on the way!


subject: [Wikitech-l] Upgrades on the way!


from_name: Axel Boldt

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a
	WIKIArticle--]

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> The term "crackpot" should really be avoided, because of the attitude
> that it carries.

I agree.

> I support allowing each of them to have
> an article where the proponent has virtually free reign to explain his
> ideas.  Opponents of the theories should learn to apply some restraint,
> and to note that it will suffice for the purpose of NPOV to make a note
> at the end of the article saying something like, "The ideas in this
> article are disputed by the mainstream of scientific thought."  The more
> outrageous and ridiculous you consider a theory to be, the less you
> should say about it.

I thoroughly disagree, for three reasons:

* nobody should ever get virtually free reign over any Wikipedia
   article.

* NPOV, as well the duty to our readers, requires that people are
   informed *why* mainstream scientists dispute a given theory. How
   else would they be able to properly judge the matter?

* A theory that only exists in one head and maybe in an incomplete
   outline in some usenet articles and web pages is not a proper
   subject of encyclopedic coverage. An encyclopedia reports about those
   things that *have had* an impact, it does not help people along who
   want to *make* an impact.

Axel