from_name: Arvind Narayanan

subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

in_reply_to:
<20040307170559.GA5512@wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>;
	from taw@users.sourceforge.net on Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:05:59PM
	+0100

body:
On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:05:59PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:19:31PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 12:34:55PM +0100, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:21:21PM +0530, Arvind Narayanan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have uploaded a few chess images by taking screenshots, which is quite
> > > > cumbersome.
> > > >
> > > > Wikiproject Chess says
> > > >
> > > > 	Having uniform chess diagrams will be easy once LaTeX chess support is
> > > > 	here. Word has it that it will soon be implemented on wikipedia. It is
> > > > 	already implemented on http://wikisophia.org.
> > > >
> > > > Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org implementation into MediaWiki?
> > >
> > > Where's documentation for that chess package ?
> > In the doc/ directory. Not sure if that's what you're asking though.
>
> None in http://wikisophia.org/doc.
> I want url to documentation for the TeX chess package you're using there.

I thought by package you meant http://wikisophia.org/doc/chess12.tar.gz,
which has the Chess TeX fonts etc. There's some documentation in the doc/
directory of that tarball.

Arvind
--
Its all GNU to me


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: RSS and other syndication feeds

body:
>>>>> "BV" == Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

    BV> It's been suggested in the past to allow users to mark their
    BV> watchlists as public, so for instance someone could go to
    BV> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/Brion_VIBBER to
    BV> see my watchlist (if I marked it as public). A public
    BV> watchlist could then also be syndicated as RSS.

I was thinking the same thing.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


body:
>>>>> "BV" == Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

    BV> It's been suggested in the past to allow users to mark their
    BV> watchlists as public, so for instance someone could go to
    BV> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist/Brion_VIBBER to
    BV> see my watchlist (if I marked it as public). A public
    BV> watchlist could then also be syndicated as RSS.

This would also make the perennial favorite "Who's watching this
page?" feature practicable, too.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


list: wikien-l

from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA controversy: 168, Lir, Mav, and Erik

body:
I have been trying to follow the list-serve discussion of this, and have
gone through the talk-page and page history of DNA, and admit that I may be
missing some facts.  The whole thing is overwhelming.  Unless this
discussion ends with some sort of productive resolution, a whole lot of
capable people will have wasted an awful lot of time.  This distresses me.

As I see it, there are really three different issues here and it would be
unconstructive to reduce it to one, even if that one were the one that
started it all:
1) a conflict between 168 and Lir over the content of the DNA article
2) a conflict between 168 and Mav over the process of editing an article
3) a conflict between 168 and Erik over the rights and responsibilities of
a sysop

As for the first conflict, I have little to say except I myself have been
involved in revert wars with both parties.  In my experience, 168 knows
more about molecular biology and I respect his knowledge.

As for the second conflict, I must confess that some time ago I was caught
up in a revert war with 168 concerning genes and drift.  Obviously I am
biased, but my experience was that it is practically impossible to work
with 168 because s/he is highly resistant to compromise.  But compromise is
a crucial value for a community project. We have to be able to distinguish
between factual knowledge and process -- not because facts are unimportant
but because each of us has to admit that we may not know all the facts and
that another contributor might have something important to offer.  This is
even more important when it comes to style (i.e., a matter over which no
one has particular expertise; that is, a molecular biochemist may have
authority in molecular biochemistry, but not necessarily in style).  I
agree that ultimately there was an edit war between Lir and 168 that has to
be resolved, and that the merits of the DNA article provide the basis for
resolving it.  But there is a larger issue which is how to work with
others, and I am very concerned that 168 cannot work well with Mav who,
besides being quite knowledgeable about biology, is clearly someone who is
devoted to wikipedia and a congenial member of the community.

As for the third matter, do I understand correctly that Erik merely
de-sysoped 168?  It seems to me that he did so with good cause.  Perhaps
there should have been dome discussion first, but really, things did seem
to be getting out of hand.  One reason for clear policies is to ensure that
we don't have to get bogged down in endless discussion.  Perhaps some want
to revisit the matter of a de-sysop policy -- okay, that certainly merits
discussion.  But de-sysoping isn't, in my mind, so awful.  I admit were I
de-sysoped, my ego would be bruised.  But it wouldn't silence me, I could
still work on articles like most people; I don't think of de-sysoping as
being as serious as even a temporary ban, especially since it can easily be
reversed.  If I were de-sysoped I would make an appeal here, to create some
general discussion, or would contact other administrators for help.  That
168 would blank Erik's pages, however, really upsets me.  It is childish
and unconstructive and shows absolutely no interest in being part of a
community and working with others.

We have a problem that keeps escalating.  The three escalations all have
one person in common -- 168.  Now, I hate suggesting that someone be banned
and am not saying 168 ought to be banned, especially when he knows so
much.  But knowing a lot is not enough here; contributors have to be able
to work with others.  Can someone communicate with 168?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040308/645eafaf/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
KNOTT, T wrote:

>
>A couple of days ago I removed the page [[Davide Mana]] from VfD and redirected it to [[User: Davide Mana]].
>
>Another user wrote this on my talk page
>
> "I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)"
>
>I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?
>
It's yet another misuse of the VfD system.  Newbies generally are not
aware of the user: namespace, and redirect is the proper thing to do.
 Eventually the page should be deleted, but there is no rush about it.
 It doesn't need to appear on VfD at all.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
Delirium wrote:

> KNOTT, T wrote:
>
>> I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to
>> other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should
>> redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?
>
> I would prefer that, as a technical matter, it became impossible to
> redirect anything in the article namespace to anything not in the
> article namespace.  This includes redirects to user pages, redirects
> to Wikipedia: pages, and especially interwiki redirects.  The article
> namespace should be self-contained and extractable, and all redirects
> should be essentially "see [[articlelocation]]" links.

I disagree about redirects within the same project; I have no problem
with them.  Redirects to a sister project are a different matter,
because the page does not have a "redirected from" notice, and that
makes revising the redirect more awkward when it needs to be done.

Ec


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Marco Krohn

subject: [Wikipedia-l] no derivative work?  was: Creative Commons Licence

body:
On Sunday 07 March 2004 17:17, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Maybe, but there's another side. I've just tried to get permission to use
> some example webcomics on Wikipedia in the respective articles. I received
> one positive and three negative replies. The main problem was that people
> are worried about third parties modifying their work.
>
> And I can understand that concern. If you have an example comic which
> features the main characters, someone else can easily rip off these
> characters and create their "fork" of the strip, even market it
> commercially, as long as it's copylefted.
>
> What does it do for us to have it modifiable though? We're an
> encyclopedia, our purpose is not the creation of new artwork but the
> improvement of encyclopedia articles. The purpose of the comics is to
> illustrate these articles. Modifying them does not further that purpose
> (except for resizing, converting etc. which are probably allowed anyway).
>
> I think there's an argument to be made to allow something like "no
> derivative works" for *some* images. It doesn't really hurt our purpose as
> a "free encyclopedia", IMHO.

Of course I understand the concerns of companies being afraid of "forks". I
also agree with you that, in order to build the best "encyclopedia", we
should be fine with restricting the rights of some images, e.g., using more
fair use, no-derivatives and so on. This surely allows much more content and
a better encyclopedia.

What I don't agree with is the focus or better the change of focus that is
taking place. Our top priority shouldn't be to become the best
"encyclopedia"--we should become the best "free encyclopedia".

Where "free" is meant to be in the spirit of science and scientific work:
everyone builds on the works from others and everyone let others build on
your own work -- "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders
of giants" -- Newton (btw: the quote itself is another nice example for
derivative work [1])

Sure, Disney would lose millions if they would allow us to use Mickey Mouse
under GFDL. And every other company producing comic strips might lose money
too. On the other hand one should not forget that Mickey Mouse is a
derivative work and the only thing that has changed since 1928--when Walt
Disney "stole" Willie (ancestor of Mickey Mouse) from Buster Keaton's
"Steamboat Bill"--is that Walt Disney and Co. now have the power to buy the
law (Mickey Mouse protection act, see [[Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension
Act]]).

These are just three randomly choosen examples: science, quote and Mickey
Mouse and they all have in common that they build on past work. And even this
text is partially based on work from others, in particular on Lawrence Lessig
talk about "Free Culture" [2]. In this talk he made some very important
points:

<quote>

* Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
* The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
* Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
* Ours is less and less a free society.

</quote>

We as a _free_ encyclopedia project should support those who produce free
content and not those which give us their content under some non-free license
only. As I said in the beginning I agree with Erik that it's the best for us
as an encyclopedia (at least mid-term) to use more works even if they are not
free. But for a _free_ encyclopedia this is unacceptable in my humble
opinion.

Coming from science I have seen how important derivative work is and I have
benefited from that principle very much--I love standing on the shoulders of
giants :-)

best regards,
  Marco

[1] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0162b.shtml
[2] http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html

--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked usernames

body:
David Speakman wrote:

>Isn't there a "red flag" list of blocked troll-tempting or obviously
>inflamatory usernames to head off future disputes?
>
It's impossible.  The latest one was "Jesus Chirst" rather than "Jesus
Christ".  How many permutations can you cover?  When such a name has
been attempted, it should be kept in the user name file, but made
inaccesible for use.  Then if someone else tries to use the name he will
receive a "Name already taken" message.

Ec


from_name: Steve Cooney

subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 06:52:22AM -0800, Peter
> Danenberg wrote:
> > > Any plans of integrating the wikisophia.org
> implementation into
> > > MediaWiki?
> >
> > Tag-dogmatism has stalled the project:
> >
> > 	http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Rend
> >
> > "creativity management" and developers have found
> no medium.
> >
> >
> Throwing the baby out with the bathwater :(
>
> Arvind

I agree - I left this the below text at the on the
above link, with a comment for Erik.

===Simple===
If differentiation is required, it's not because
*users need to know what the difference technically
means. <Rend> is no doubt supposed to mean "render" -
is this material to the user? If a distinction between
<rend math> and <math> is required, an <rmath> tag
will work just fine. Same obviously goes for the
others. This problem does not appear to be
neurosurgery.  -Kunishiro

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked user: Jesus Chirst

body:
--On Saturday, March 06, 2004 12:49 AM -0800 Optim <optim81 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Summary: EdPoor blocked a user "Jesus Chirst".
>
> My reply:
>
> His/her username was the only reason for the
> block?
>
> There was no discussion before the block?
>
> If these two statements are true, then this user
> should get unblocked.
>
> --Optim

We have *never* allowed offensive usernames.  Those blocked before have been perhaps offensive to a broader range of people, but that's beside the point.  Check the block list - some of the names blocked in the past were obviously chosen *to* give offense.

Nathan


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Daniel-
> This is unfortunate. Much of the work that I and others have put into the
> dispute resolution process aims to help in this regard by seeking consensus
> if possible, votes if necessary, mediation if needed and arbitration as a
> last resort.
...
> Arbitration is normally the last step of a long process

This amount of bureaucracy is exactly the problem. When I initially
suggested setting up a mediation team, I wanted a *single* group which
could act quickly -- use both carrot and stick -- to enforce policies.
This whole mediation/arbitration distinction seems fallacious to me. Alas,
we're in this mess now, and it is unlikely to be fixed.

I don't care if we complement this system with emergency polls, specially
appointed "enforcers" or anything like that. I don't even care about being
one of the people who make these decisions, I have better things to do
with my time. What I care about is that our policies are enforced, and
this is currently only happening to a very small degree.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Subpages

body:
An idea - DoWithWhatYouWill - a tag which writes a
bulleted list of any subpages from the subpages
attached to the page. ?

-Kunishiro

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
Theresa wrote:

> A couple of days ago I removed the page [[Davide Mana]] from VfD and
redirected it to [[User: Davide Mana]].
>
> Another user wrote this on my talk page
>
>  "I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It
is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect
seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database
extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it
will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please
reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar
2004 (UTC)"
>
> I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other
formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non
famous people to their userpages be stopped ?
>

I don't see a problem with this - [[Sannse]] is a redirect to
[[User:Sannse]] too.  Obviously, if the name is famous or otherwise used on
the 'pedia it can't be done this way, but if there is no other use for the
page I see no problem.  In cases where a user biography has been deleted,
redirecting in this way might reduce conflict - it's a friendlier way of
dealing with the article than outright deletion.

--sannse


subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
KNOTT, T wrote:

>Um I take it you mean - move to the user space then delete the redirect.
>
>The thing is this person is mentioned briefly in another article [[Alia (CoopStudi)]]. Now what should we do when a person is not  famous, but gets a mention in another article like this and happens to be a wikipedia editor ? Should they have their own page anyway, separate from the user page. Or should we unwikify the name on the other page or what?
>
>To be general (as I'm probably just going to repost him on VfD anyway). Suppose someone famous happens to be a wikipedia contributor. Is it ever a good idea to put a link to their user page on a page in the article namespace?
>
>Theresa
>
>Redirect to the User space then delete the redirect.
>
>RickK
>
Why is there such urgency about deleting the page with the redirect?
 What harm does it cause?  Will anybody be hurt if it is still there at
this time next year?  Reading 'Dilbert' should be mandatory.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik a couple of issues

body:
Anthere-
> Next time you decide to do that, please check with the
> user first, make campaign, but do not decide for other
> people please.

I respect your opinion on this, but I will continue to act in the manner I
have explained. If there is clearly no consensus on a matter which
requires consensus, the discussion needs not be prolonged unnecessarily.
We can, however, agree to move such discussions to a separate page instead
of deleting them outright, if that makes you happy.

As for reporting desysoppings, I agree - I simply forgot to do it. By now
everyone has probably heard about it, though. ;-)

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, sannse wrote:

> Jimbo wrote (in part)
>
> > The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that.  Here we have two
> > valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
> > parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
> > paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
> > either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
> > compromise).
> >
> > They want to go to arbitration over it.
> >
> Jimbo, have you read any of Anthere's messages on this?  She has written to
> the list and privately to the mediators (copied to you).
>
> mav and 168 *have* been in mediation.  Anthere has spent considerable time
> and effort in trying to find solutions.  Suggesting the mediation step was
> slighted is really unfair to her.

I feel that this is important to acknowledge, speaking as a Mediator. We
are trying to settle disagreements & get contributors to talk to each other,
which too often is unsuccessful.

In other place, I wrote about feeling discouraged after my one stint of
mediation. There were a lot of issues that led to this discouragement, but
a good part of it is that I'm an information nerd, not a social
butterfly. Given my druthers, this is my ranking of what I like to on
Wikipedia:

0. Research for articles (which I know I spend too much time on ;-)
1. Contributing material
2. Discussing with other people issues regarding contributions
3. Mediation

And I suspect I'm not the only one with a ranking like this. I wouldn't
be surprised that a lot of contributors to Wikipedia end up in conflicts
because they lack strong interpersonal skills. I can't help but suspect
that mediation is often slighted in its value -- which only guarrantees
that more conflicts will end up before the Arbitration Committee.

Geoff


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] DNA, Mav, 168

body:
Anthere wrote

> And I do not think there was an emergency to unsysop
> 24 hours after the reversion war. This should have
> been Jimbo or arbitration committee to decide.

Exactly.  Who decides what is an emergency?  What is an emergency?  Would
something affecting 20 pages, or 0.01% of Wikien, qualify?

Loud talk on this list, unilateral action, lack of a collegial approach - it
all seems to come down to those closest to an active issue reckoning they
are the best judges of its seriousness.

I beg to differ.

Charles


from_name: Peter Danenberg

subject: [Wikitech-l] LaTex chess support

body:
> I agree - I left this the below text at the on the
> above link, with a comment for Erik.

Truth is, we're planning support for svg, gnuplot, go and genaeology.
Sysops will be able to change tag parameters on the fly; removing, if
necessary, the 'rend' element and substituting local equivalents for class
names.

Look for it mid-April; and Erik asked us to upload a tarball for you guys to
play with.

Best,
Peter


from_name: David Speakman

subject: [WikiEN-l] Call for opinion... WikiProject Schools

body:
If you have one, please voice your opinion about what qualifies a
children's school for admission into WP and ... if qualified, what info
should be included.

URLs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-348-1786


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] 'INSTALL' instructions

body:
On Mar 8, 2004, at 14:33, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Wanting to play with Wikipedia on my own comp, i tried to install
> MediaWiki 1.1.0. Using MediaWiki 1.1.0 (stable), Windows 2000,
> Apache2, php 4.3.4 (latest), MySQL 4.0.18 (latest).

I'd highly recommend trying MediaWiki 1.2.0rc3 instead. I've tested it
briefly on Windows (WinXP, Apache 2.0.48, PHP 4.3.4, and a MySQL 4 on
one of my Unix boxes), and it seems to work... :)

> I followed the instructions from INSTALL document. But there's a
> mistake there: if you reply 'no' to database overwrite, the software
> doesn't correctly install / configure some stuff.
> I'm using fr: locale, so i set that as language. After install,
> characters were a real mess, accents wrongs & such.
>
> So finally, I just trashed everything, did a fresh php install, then
> restored database from dump (i restored it prior to mediawiki install
> the previous attempt). This time it worked.
>
> Or maybe that's just a mistake from me at some point, but i think i
> trashed everything, then installed, replying 'no' to overwrite, and
> still some issues...

The command-line installer is HORRIBLE. 1.2.0rc3 now includes a
web-based install/update script which may be friendlier.

Note however that both installers may get confused if you only have a
partial database, such as if you imported just a 'cur' table into an
otherwise blank database. The correct way to do this is to install
MediaWiki into a blank database, *then* import the dumped tables (which
will delete and overwrite the tables initially created by the
installer).

> Also, MediaWiki apparently requires php to be an apache module, using
> getallheaders function. Which isn't specified in the install document
> ^_-
> (ok, implicitely with the --with-apache= directive on the ./configure
> line for php... not intuitive for poor Windows users :))
>
> As a side note, i get a warning in 'recent changes' saying Windows
> can't handle dates before 1970, January 1st, 00:00. Only seems to
> appear when no change to show, though, so not that a big deal :)

Yes, iirc these are both resolved in 1.2.0rc3.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040308/5682b81a/attachment.pgp>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] DNA controversy: 168, Lir, Mav,
 and Erik: I am sorry for my mistake

body:
In my last e-mail I expressed dismay that 168 had blanked Erik's pages.  I
was mistaken.  Someone has explained to me that 168 had blanked his own
pages; another explained to me that 168 has left the project.  I apologize
to 168 and to the list for my mistake.  Of course 168 has a perfect right
to blank his/her pages, and even to leave.  I stand by the spirit of my
posting -- there is something profoundly wrong when things reach the state
of a multiple revert war, and people have to find some way to work together
-- not that anyone should be banned, or should leave the project.  I am
sorry 168 has left, because s/he has made important contributions, and I
hope 168 comes back and is able to work well with others once again to
produce good articles.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1729

body:
I have intervened in the endless 1729 edit war, splitting the page into
three. Now [[1729 (number)]] and [[1729 (anecdote)]] are protected, since
[[User:Wik]] is reverting again.

I'll just add that I have a doctorate (and more) in number theory, and feel
confident I have improved matters here.

Charles

http://www.speakingasaparent.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Visual suggestion; Straw Poll

body:
Theresa Robinson wrote:

>I prefer it without the bright boxes.  I agree that it is very prominent
>to editors, and that it screams "please fix me."  However, it is overly
>distracting to people who have stumbled to the pedia from google and just
>want to read the article.
>
Speaking as a committed non-supporter of VfD, I find the "cleanup box"
much more palatable.

I don't think that exposing casual visitors to it is all that bad.  It's
there because somebody thought there was a problem.  There should be as
much an alert to the visitor as to the regular.  Letting the visitor
know that there may be a problem is a matter of openness and
transparency.  It warns him to read critically.  Without it he may put
undue reliance on the material, and blame Wikipedia when it turns out to
be wrong.

Of course everybody should apply critical reading skills to evertyhing
on the net. ...but that's another story.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Self-block

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:

>(I'll still check messages though)
>
>"Came to believe that a Power higher than us could restore us to
>sanity..."
>
Ask Dogbert.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Jimmy-

> The big problem I see right now is that too many people say "forget
> mediation, I want to go straight to arbitration".

True. The real reason for that is not that the mediation process is
broken, but that we have no formalized decision making process. We say
things like "You have to search consensus", but we do not say how we
determine when consensus has been found. Some people go so far to say that
a 2/3 majority is consensus! We say "You can hold a poll if nothing else
works", but our guidelines for polling are new, unapproved and rudimentary
at best.

What I want to do is create a formal decision making process, which states
clearly how long the discussion period has to be for minor, moderate and
major decisions, how to determine consensus, how to collect the options
for a poll, what voting methods are acceptable, who can vote, when a vote
is binding, what threshold should be used.

This would have allowed settling the [[DNA]] dispute within a reasonable
time framework.

The other thing is that we have no effective, quick enforcement of "no
personal attacks". I suggested a policy [[Wikipedia:Remove personal
attacks]] a while back. I still think it's a good idea, but it barely has
majority support, let alone consensus. People are very conservative about
editing other people's words.

Lastly, I still think it is very important that we enforce certain rules
strictly, and sysops using their privileges to get what they want in a
dispute is one of the things we cannot tolerate.

... and please, please approve the "24 hour bans for edit warring" policy.
Wik is at it again right now.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Theresa Robinson

body:
I prefer it without the bright boxes.  I agree that it is very prominent
to editors, and that it screams "please fix me."  However, it is overly
distracting to people who have stumbled to the pedia from google and just
want to read the article.

moink

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, David Gerard wrote:

> On 03/08/04 20:59, Timwi wrote:
>
> > So I was bold and made a little change to [[MediaWiki:Vfd]] (this edit
> > is actually by Eloquence, thanks for the improvement to the colours):
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:Vfd&oldid=2682561
> > So, uhm, please let me know what you think!
>
>
> Brilliant idea! I thought the same when I saw {{msg:cleanup}} -
>
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cleanup
>
> It says quite loudly: "Please fix me!" And does so without looking like
> just another part of the article.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
It was based on the University project. I am fixing those issues now.

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-348-1786

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Timwi
> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 2:37 PM
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Call for opinion... WikiProject Schools
>
>
> David Speakman wrote:
>
> > If you have one, please voice your opinion about what qualifies a
> > children's school for admission into WP and ... if qualified, what
> > info should be included.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools
>
> It reads:
>
> 	A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions
> 	about how we might organize data in articles about schools
> 	(excluding colleges and universities).
>
> Later:
>
> 	Scope
> 	This WikiProject aims primarily to structure all college and
> 	university articles.
>
> Contradiction?
>
> I am very confused, because the Talk page and the rest of the article
> don't give any clear indication either. On the one hand, your
> WikiProject page makes heavy use of vocabulary such as "Campus",
> "Student", "Alumni" and "Faculty", all of which seem to suggest you
> *are* talking about colleges and universities after all, but
> then on the
> Talk page you seem to be talking about "High School, Middle School,
> Elementary School". There is also a link to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject
> Universities]], so I'm doubly confused.
>
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik> ien-l
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Self-block

body:
I blocked myself from Wikipedia, so that I can actually TAKE my
vacation.

(I'll still check messages though)

"Came to believe that a Power higher than us could restore us to
sanity..."

Ed Poor
Wikiholic


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: a couple of requests

references:
<20040308070949.44018.qmail@web60507.mail.yahoo.com>	<94UIPOyCpVB@erik_moeller>
	<c2inv5$qhs$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting page, it operates
>> by  consensus, and when it is clear that no consensus will develop,
>> then it is  pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same on
>> VfD. Cunctator has  been much chastised for removing items on VfD,
>> but I agree with him on  that point.
>
> Do you realise what you are saying here? You are saying that if no
> consensus can be reached on whether or not to delete a page, then you
> decide that it won't be deleted. What sort of consensus is that?

A reasonable one. ;-)

> If they don't want sysop status, then they should remove their own
> nomination.

That should continue as their right, and would include the right to
remove any discussion of the nomination.

It might be useful to have an associated list on the RfA page of
Wikipedians who have declined to be Wikipedia sysops.  This may keep
some names from being repeatedly nominated by people who know nothing
about a previous refusal.

Ec


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:

>What a minute!
>
>When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
>there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
>reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really
>was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three
>times or not.
>
>Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either
>understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote
>is about and not just a guideline.
>
>
While that's true, I'd still like it to be decreed as a rule.  If we sit
around for another vote, nothing will ever get done.

Either that, or people need to stop whining to the arbitration committee
about people who revert a lot.  Either come up with guidelines to fix
the problem, or allow reverts to continue.  We can't simply ban people
who revert a lot who we don't like, and allow reverts in general to go
unpunished.  I, for one, will be voting against any bans for "excessive
reverting" on the arbitration committee, as I do not feel this is a
problem to be solved on a case-by-case basis.

-Mark


from_name: KNOTT, T

subject: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

body:
Um I take it you mean - move to the user space then delete the redirect.

The thing is this person is mentioned briefly in another article [[Alia (CoopStudi)]]. Now what should we do when a person is not  famous, but gets a mention in another article like this and happens to be a wikipedia editor ? Should they have their own page anyway, separate from the user page. Or should we unwikify the name on the other page or what?

To be general (as I'm probably just going to repost him on VfD anyway). Suppose someone famous happens to be a wikipedia contributor. Is it ever a good idea to put a link to their user page on a page in the article namespace?

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick [mailto:giantsrick13 at yahoo.com]
Sent: 08 March 2004 16:20
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] redirecting to user pages

Redirect to the User space then delete the redirect.
?
RickK

"KNOTT, T" <tknott at qcl.org.uk> wrote:

A couple of days ago I removed the page [[Davide Mana]] from VfD and redirected it to [[User: Davide Mana]].

Another user wrote this on my talk page

"I don't think Davide Mana should become a redirect to the user page. It is a bad precedent to allow redirects to user pages. It makes the redirect seem to be a legitimate article to outside links and during database extracts and other forms of porting to other formats for the encyclopedia it will not take user pages (I think) and thus it goes as a broken link. Please reconsider your redirect and return the issue to VfD. - Texture 23:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)"

I don't think that we should worry about broken links in porting to other formats, but I'm interested in what you all think. So should redirecting non famous people to their userpages be stopped ?

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

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
>
>> What a minute!
>>
>> When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
>> there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
>> reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really
>> was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three
>> times or not.
>> Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either
>> understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote
>> is about and not just a guideline.
>
> While that's true, I'd still like it to be decreed as a rule.  If we
> sit around for another vote, nothing will ever get done.

I prefer guidelines instead of rules.  The people who set about to
"enforce" a rule can easily be as much of a problem as those they are
criticising.  Admittedly, some of those same people see very little
difference between a guideline and a rule.

> Either that, or people need to stop whining to the arbitration
> committee about people who revert a lot.  Either come up with
> guidelines to fix the problem, or allow reverts to continue.  We can't
> simply ban people who revert a lot who we don't like, and allow
> reverts in general to go unpunished.  I, for one, will be voting
> against any bans for "excessive reverting" on the arbitration
> committee, as I do not feel this is a problem to be solved on a
> case-by-case basis.

I agree that these matters need to be considered on a case-by-case
basis.  A person who engages in a protracted revert war on a single
article is very different from one who repeatedly does this across a
broad range of articles.

Ec

>


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I agree that these matters need to be considered on a case-by-case
> basis.  A person who engages in a protracted revert war on a single
> article is very different from one who repeatedly does this across a
> broad range of articles.

I guess I don't see what the problem with solving them all in the same
way is.  A person who engages in a protracted revert war on a single
article will get a single 24-hour ban, which is not really the end of
the world.  A person who repeatedly does this across a broad range of
articles will be repeatedly banned for 24-hour periods, resulting in
effectively a permanent ban until they decide to stop engaging in
revert-wars.

-Mark


from_name: John Davenport

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: An Idea for a Wiki Project

body:
Agreeing with Timwi, that would be a copyright violation, but older
public domain lyrics could be posted over at:

http://sources.wikipedia.org

The wikisources project is a great idea and could use some more
contributers/articles in general if anyone's interested.


subject: [WikiEN-l] 1729

body:
I wrote

> I have intervened in the endless 1729 edit war, splitting the page into
> three. Now [[1729 (number)]] and [[1729 (anecdote)]] are protected, since
> [[User:Wik]] is reverting again.

Well, Wik nominated me for de-admin on the strength of this.

Charles


from_name: Rick

body:
That fight has been lost.  I give up, it's been decided that anything anybody wants to put on Wikipedia which has the name of a school on it is acceptable.

RickK

David Speakman <david at speakman.com> wrote:
If you have one, please voice your opinion about what qualifies a
children's school for admission into WP and ... if qualified, what info
should be included.

URLs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-348-1786

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040308/280cdcb4/attachment.htm


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Erik Moeller a ?crit:

> This amount of bureaucracy is exactly the problem. When I initially
> suggested setting up a mediation team, I wanted a *single* group which
> could act quickly -- use both carrot and stick -- to enforce policies.
> This whole mediation/arbitration distinction seems fallacious to me. Alas,
> we're in this mess now, and it is unlikely to be fixed.

This is precisely why I decided (unilaterally :-)) to have the top of
the DNA article virtually frozen while the page itself is unprotected,
and to ban any person who would edit it. Mix of mediation and
arbitration somehow.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Erik a couple of issues

body:
Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> Anthere-
>
>>Next time you decide to do that, please check with the
>>user first, make campaign, but do not decide for other
>>people please.
>
>
> I respect your opinion on this, but I will continue to act in the manner I
> have explained. If there is clearly no consensus on a matter which
> requires consensus, the discussion needs not be prolonged unnecessarily.
> We can, however, agree to move such discussions to a separate page instead
> of deleting them outright, if that makes you happy.

I am glad then.

> As for reporting desysoppings, I agree - I simply forgot to do it.

I am sure you did not do it on purpose. If you had been acting in bad
faith (which is very unlike you), you would not have told me while doing
it.

  By now
> everyone has probably heard about it, though. ;-)

Trust me on this :-)

> Regards,
>
> Erik

ditto


body:
Jimmy Wales a ?crit:

> The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that.  Here we have two
> valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
> parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
> paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
> either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
> compromise).
>
> They want to go to arbitration over it.

Jimbo

ahum, ahum

Mav and 168 requests for mediation then arbitration were NOT over the
content of the DNA article

The initial request of Mav (I copy it, so to ensure I do not deform words)

As noted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 (I have to refer to a
diff because 168... has been reverting my changes to that and other
pages) I feel that 168... has abused his sysop user rights and has been
a disruptive force in the community by engaging in revert wars (often
using the rollback feature as a tool in those wars and on at least two
occassions using page protection as a revert war tool as well). What I
want is for 168... to stop abusing his sysop user rights, stop engaging
in edit wars and for him to start cooperating with others (as noted on
the RfC page he has ignored the consensus on the DNA talk page). 168...
indicated on my talk page that he was willing to start mediation. --mav
06:05, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The initial layout of the problem by 168 (I have some more detailed and
more constructed ones, but these were privately given) is this one

  168..., an admin, feels that mav, another admin, has attempted to
intimidate him by citing what are regarded by many others as rules of
thumb as if they are absolute rules that demand de-adminship when
breached ([example below]). 168... feels that the manner of mav's
continuing inquiry into 168...'s actions shows a prejudice, which
continued to characterize Mav's conduct, despite evidence of more
tolerant views among other admins around him. Even before Mav made his
first public calls for scrutiny of 168...'s conduct, 168... feels mav
should have consulted with Cyan, an admin that mediated the disputed
page and who is much more familiar with the context of the objected-to
behavior than himself. 168... sees this failure to consult Cyan a
failure of due dilligence and evidence of a disregard for principles of
fairness and neutrality. 168... also sees this as an exploitation by Mav
of Mav's notoriety and 168...'s lack of notoriety as a do-gooder. Other
accusers could not have rallied so much support so quickly, 168...
contends, and the presence of any bias or unjustified zeal in Mav's
accusation can be expected to have had a very large impact on the public
perception of 168..., which 168... could not effectly balance through
self-advocacy. 168... would like to note that this whole conflict,
involving many admins and many pages and many kilobytes of text, has
only occurred because of the failure, despite the calls of many, to
permanently ban User:Lir. 168... would also like to point to a bias or
discrimination implied by Mav's having discouraged others from
participating in a poll of opinion that 168... attempted to conduct
about Lir [1] and Mav's failure to speak against a poll that others
conducted about 168... here, and which resulted in 168...'s public
condemnation and stripping of sysop powers. Mav claims to have brought
accusations against 168... justly and without prejudice.

On top of many other accusations (see
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/168) Mav accuses 168... of raising
accusations against Mav only in order to distract from the accusations
against 168.... 168... says this is untrue and typical of how Mav has
been prosecuting his case against 168, which 168... sees as involving at
every turn either an assumption of bad faith and/or an action tending to
bias public opinion against 168... and favor a resolution that Mav
prefers: That the current version of community rules and guidelines
should be obeyed "to the letter" and that 168... be harshly reprimanded
for having interpreted them liberally.

An example of Mav's use of what 168... calls "guideline exaggeration" is
this:

(cur) (last) . . 00:42, 3 Feb 2004 . . Maveric149 (putting Ed's note
back again; Note that 168 used the auto revert feature to erase it last
time; another abuse of sysop user rights)[2]

You may find this statement at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mav

As you may see, this is of a different nature than the two paragraphs in
question.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

body:
Jimbo wrote (in part)

> The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that.  Here we have two
> valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
> parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
> paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
> either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
> compromise).
>
> They want to go to arbitration over it.
>

Jimbo, have you read any of Anthere's messages on this?  She has written to
the list and privately to the mediators (copied to you).

mav and 168 *have* been in mediation.  Anthere has spent considerable time
and effort in trying to find solutions.  Suggesting the mediation step was
slighted is really unfair to her.

The real issues are *not* the DNA paragraph, they are issues of perceived
sysop abuse on one side and perceived unfairness on the other.  I realise
you have a lot of reading to do, not a lot of time and so are likely to miss
things, but this is an important point to acknowledge.

--sannse


subject:
[WikiEN-l] An important clarification (was: DNA controversy: 168,
	Lir, Mav, and Erik)

body:
Steve wrote (in part)

>  That
> 168 would blank Erik's pages, however, really upsets me.  It is childish
> and unconstructive and shows absolutely no interest in being part of a
> community and working with others.

This was in response to mav writing:

>After 168's last revert to his
>favored version, he protected [[DNA]]. Erik later de-sysoped him for this.
168
>then blanked his user and user talk pages.

By this mav meant that 168.. blanked *his own* user pages (which he did
because he was leaving Wikipedia)

168 *did not* blank Erik's pages

--sannse


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: DNA controversy: 168, Lir, Mav, and Erik

body:
Hello Steve,

I appreciate the whole piece of what you wrote, though I do not agree on
all of it.

But one thing hits me real hard.

It is the comment you make saying this "That 168 would blank Erik's
 > pages, however, really upsets me.  It is childish and unconstructive
 > and
 > shows absolutely no interest in being part of a community and working
 > with others."

I saw NO evidence of this.

This is 168 contributions list

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=168...

I see no indication that 168 blanked Erik page.

These are Erik pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Eloquence&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Eloquence&action=history

There is NO evidence that 168 vandalised Erik pages

I think 168 never did that. If he did, it was not on Erik pages. And it
is the first I hear about it.

That sounds like witch hunt.

The fact you say that this behavior is childish and unacceptable and a
clear sign he can't participate to the community, because he vandalised
Erik pages, and that finally you suggest banning him.... is
just...letting me... totally abashed.

I hope no one will ban him without checking facts and without offering
him this arbitration he requested so much to justify himself.

Yes, I can communicate with 168, but not to announce him he was banned
for having vandalised Erik pages among other vandalisms.

It is impressive how things can turn.

steven l. rubenstein a ?crit:
> I have been trying to follow the list-serve discussion of this, and have
> gone through the talk-page and page history of DNA, and admit that I may
> be missing some facts.  The whole thing is overwhelming.  Unless this
> discussion ends with some sort of productive resolution, a whole lot of
> capable people will have wasted an awful lot of time.  This distresses me.
>
> As I see it, there are really three different issues here and it would
> be unconstructive to reduce it to one, even if that one were the one
> that started it all:
> 1) a conflict between 168 and Lir over the content of the DNA article
> 2) a conflict between 168 and Mav over the process of editing an article
> 3) a conflict between 168 and Erik over the rights and responsibilities
> of a sysop
>
> As for the first conflict, I have little to say except I myself have
> been involved in revert wars with both parties.  In my experience, 168
> knows more about molecular biology and I respect his knowledge.
>
> As for the second conflict, I must confess that some time ago I was
> caught up in a revert war with 168 concerning genes and drift.
> Obviously I am biased, but my experience was that it is practically
> impossible to work with 168 because s/he is highly resistant to
> compromise.  But compromise is a crucial value for a community project.
> We have to be able to distinguish between factual knowledge and process
> -- not because facts are unimportant but because each of us has to admit
> that we may not know all the facts and that another contributor might
> have something important to offer.  This is even more important when it
> comes to style (i.e., a matter over which no one has particular
> expertise; that is, a molecular biochemist may have authority in
> molecular biochemistry, but not necessarily in style).  I agree that
> ultimately there was an edit war between Lir and 168 that has to be
> resolved, and that the merits of the DNA article provide the basis for
> resolving it.  But there is a larger issue which is how to work with
> others, and I am very concerned that 168 cannot work well with Mav who,
> besides being quite knowledgeable about biology, is clearly someone who
> is devoted to wikipedia and a congenial member of the community.
>
> As for the third matter, do I understand correctly that Erik merely
> de-sysoped 168?  It seems to me that he did so with good cause.  Perhaps
> there should have been dome discussion first, but really, things did
> seem to be getting out of hand.  One reason for clear policies is to
> ensure that we don't have to get bogged down in endless discussion.
> Perhaps some want to revisit the matter of a de-sysop policy -- okay,
> that certainly merits discussion.  But de-sysoping isn't, in my mind, so
> awful.  I admit were I de-sysoped, my ego would be bruised.  But it
> wouldn't silence me, I could still work on articles like most people; I
> don't think of de-sysoping as being as serious as even a temporary ban,
> especially since it can easily be reversed.  If I were de-sysoped I
> would make an appeal here, to create some general discussion, or would
> contact other administrators for help.  That 168 would blank Erik's
> pages, however, really upsets me.  It is childish and unconstructive and
> shows absolutely no interest in being part of a community and working
> with others.
>
> We have a problem that keeps escalating.  The three escalations all have
> one person in common -- 168.  Now, I hate suggesting that someone be
> banned and am not saying 168 ought to be banned, especially when he
> knows so much.  But knowing a lot is not enough here; contributors have
> to be able to work with others.  Can someone communicate with 168?
>
> Steve
>
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration policy

body:
Hi everyone.

The arbitration committee has "completed" its guidelines at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy . "Completed" in
quotes because while everything that needs to be covered for us to function
probably is covered in one way or another, everything is still subject to
change, and everything will likely be tweaked as we deal with more cases,
gain experience and whatnot.

If any of you plebs, I mean *non-abritrators*, want to look them over,
suggest changes, tell us we're idiots or whatever, then please do so
(preferably on the talk page). Then we'll have a simple yes or no vote
which everybody on the Wikipedia can take part in as to whether to accept
the guidelines or not (bearing in mind they're always subject to change),
and if the vote is yes and Jimbo doesn't object in any way, then we'll be
fully functioning (ie, not needing Jimbo to refer cases to us) and ready to
ban people willy-nilly (that's what we're for, right?).

Best
Lee (Camembert)


from_name: Timwi

body:
Hi,

I just want to gather some opinions on this. Please don't be afraid of
telling me that you strongly disagree, but also don't hesitate to voice
support of this idea ;-)

Basically, I thought that messages like "This is listed on VfD" or "The
neutrality of this article is disputed" or "This is a stub", etc. --
i.e. messages that are really supposed to be temporary -- could really
be a little bit more visually apparent. Especially with stubs, as the
message is supposed to encourage their expansion :)

So I was bold and made a little change to [[MediaWiki:Vfd]] (this edit
is actually by Eloquence, thanks for the improvement to the colours):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:Vfd&oldid=2682561

It is quite obvious that before we had the {{msg:}} feature, it was
necessary to have just a short text that we could copy & paste, but now
that we have {{msg:}}, something like this is really quite easy to do. I
can understand that some people have gotten used to the old looks of it,
but maybe some of you will be able to look past that for a second ;-)

So, uhm, please let me know what you think!

Timwi


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 03/08/04 20:59, Timwi wrote:

> So I was bold and made a little change to [[MediaWiki:Vfd]] (this edit
> is actually by Eloquence, thanks for the improvement to the colours):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:Vfd&oldid=2682561
> So, uhm, please let me know what you think!

Brilliant idea! I thought the same when I saw {{msg:cleanup}} -

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Cleanup

It says quite loudly: "Please fix me!" And does so without looking like
just another part of the article.

- d.


from_name: Rob Hooft

subject: [Wikitech-l] Strange behavior

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2004, at 03:41, Rob Hooft wrote:
>
>> The pywikipediabot uses Special:Export whenever it can download more
>> than one page at a time. Sometimes, however, there are characters in
>> pages or usernames which are not decodable in the right character set;
>> in such a case the XML produced by this option is unparsable
>> (according to the standard, any XML compliant parser has to generate a
>> fatal error upon such an event). Unless that is fixed, the "export"
>> via the "edit" option, even for a locked page, is necessary for a
>> complete robot run to succeed.
>
>
> Rob, I'd like to get this fixed before I push out the final 1.2.0
> release of MediaWiki. I remember there were problems with line endings
> and perhaps some misencoded Windows-1252 characters... could you point
> to a few pages that exhibit problems to test with?

The line endings are not so important; these are invisible. What is more
annoying is pages that are made by a user whose name is given using
non-utf, non-ascii characters:

======================
import wikipedia

ar = [
wikipedia.PageLink('ca','Lept%C3%B3'),
           ]
ga = wikipedia.GetAll('ca',ar)
ga.run()

for pl in ar:
     try:
         print len(pl._contents)
     except AttributeError:
         print -1
========================

Gives:

Dumped invalid XML to sax_parse_bug.dat
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "x.py", line 7, in ?
     ga.run()
   File "/usr/local/home/rob/p/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 583, in run
     xml.sax.parseString(data, handler)
   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/xml/sax/__init__.py", line 49, in
parseString
     parser.parse(inpsrc)
   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/xml/sax/expatreader.py", line 107, in
parse
     xmlreader.IncrementalParser.parse(self, source)
   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/xml/sax/xmlreader.py", line 123, in parse
     self.feed(buffer)
   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/xml/sax/expatreader.py", line 211, in feed
     self._err_handler.fatalError(exc)
   File "/usr/local/lib/python2.3/xml/sax/handler.py", line 38, in
fatalError
     raise exception
xml.sax._exceptions.SAXParseException: <unknown>:7:25: not well-formed
(invalid token)

And line 7 is encoded in iso-8859-1 and therefore contains invalid utf-8
references:

      <contributor><ip>Pl?cid P?rez Bru</ip></contributor>

I don't know whether this is the only problem that occurs, but it is the
only one I can find now in my last log file.

Rob

--
Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob at hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/


body:
Jimmy Wales a ?crit:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>>This whole mediation/arbitration distinction seems fallacious to me. Alas,
>>we're in this mess now, and it is unlikely to be fixed.
>
>
> I don't know, I'm up for radical change if the current system is not
> working out.
>
> The big problem I see right now is that too many people say "forget
> mediation, I want to go straight to arbitration".  So the mediation
> step is slighted.  And people aren't just being annoying when they do
> that, it's that by the time it gets to formal "mediation", things are
> so bad that only "arbitration" is possible.
>
> The Mav/168 situation strikes me as being like that.  Here we have two
> valued contributors arguing endlessly about something that outside
> parties see as entirely pointless (the wording of the introductory
> paragraph of [[DNA]], where there's nothing transparently wrong about
> either alternative, and it seems impossible that there could be no
> compromise).
>
> They want to go to arbitration over it.
>
> --Jimbo

Could you be more specific Jimbo ?

You write here that to your opinion, there has been no mediation between
168 and Mav. You write here that they both want to step directly to
arbitration without having gone through mediation.

I may be wrong here, but I have in my mail box perhaps 400 ko worth of
discussions. I also sent several times reports to mediation, for which
you were in copy. As far as 168 is concerned, he said he appreciated my
efforts, and felt better from them. I doubt he told you the opposite. I
discussed much less with Mav, because I had no trouble understanding
what he was waiting from 168, and saw quickly that 168 would not agree
with Mav wishes unless other wishes were offered back.
So, I would like to know if your feeling that no mediation occured is
just a personal opinion.

Also, I regret I was just leaving on holidays when the conflict took
place. So it was a week before I started talking to 168. Just a week. It
does not seem to me so much of a long time that it would mess any
attempt of discussion. The hardest for me was to understand the whole
mess, and to convince 168 to talk privately rather than publicly.

This is just the mediation as we laid it down together. Roughly.
It was also meant to relieve you of some discussions, that we thought we
could handle like adults. For example, some people could discuss
conflicts and then take decisions, without you having to spent enormous
amount of time on these cases. Which necessarily induced longer time for
processing.

Now, if each time we want to step from mediation to arbitration, we have
to justify it is the only way possible, and to make you fill all the
holes, so that you can evaluate whether the request is valid or not
valid, perhaps we will lose even more time than before and you won't
gain time you could use more constructively.

If not, perhaps we could decide that you are in copy of ALL mails
exchanged during mediation, so that you can judge by yourself whether
the decision to stop mediation is correct or not.

Now, what I decided to do yesterday (before Erik unsysoped 168 and led
him to quit) was to try a mix of mediation and some arbitration. It may
be a wrong solution in the sense a mediator should stay neutral, but on
the other hand, it can compensate the lack of arbitration conclusion. I
view this as a possible solution. A sort of mediation with some direct
enforcement of certain rules. I do not know what people think about
that. It is just a proposition.

I am personally not very happy to see that my efforts did not have any
good conclusion. I am more unhappy to see that 168 quit, without being
granted either public trial as he initially wished, nor arbitration as
he requested. I am even more unhappy to see that the current
mediation/arbitration process is broken, because of all the hopes I had
in it, and all the time I invested in it. I am disappointed that it
seems that the reasons why Mav and 168 requested arbitration are
misunderstood. I may have reached the limits of my ability to make
myself understood. I am definitly not happy to hear that the mediation
job was not done.

Grumble grumble grumble, grumble, grumble, grumble


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: a couple of requests

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

>>If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do
>>like everyone else (but you) does : vote against Sam.
>
> No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting page, it operates by
> consensus, and when it is clear that no consensus will develop, then it is
> pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same on VfD. Cunctator has
> been much chastised for removing items on VfD, but I agree with him on
> that point.

Do you realise what you are saying here? You are saying that if no
consensus can be reached on whether or not to delete a page, then you
decide that it won't be deleted. What sort of consensus is that?

You seem to think that not deleting a page, or not granting sysop
rights, is some sort of "default" value to fall back to when you think
consensus cannot be reached -- is that right? If so, when and how has
consensus been reached on that?

I don't mind if you remove flames, personal attacks, and anything of the
sort, but I think removing a sysop nomination can sometimes come across
as rather impertinent.

If they don't want sysop status, then they should remove their own
nomination.

Timwi


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
>Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably
>did not either understand that the vote was about
>bannings. If that is what the vote is about and not
>just a guideline.

Guidelines and rules to consider become policy when broad-based consensus is
reached on those items. Breaking polices have consequences. The 24 hour
time-out was proposed and it is up to Jimbo to decree this remedy for breaking
this policy.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: a couple of requests

body:
Timwi-
> Do you realise what you are saying here? You are saying that if no
> consensus can be reached on whether or not to delete a page, then you
> decide that it won't be deleted.

The current deletion policy requires consensus. Of course discussions
which could result in a compromise solution should never be removed
prematurely. But if it is clear that nothing will come out of a request,
removing that request is entirely legitimate refactoring. That's done on
VfD regularly - check the page history.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 1729

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

> I wrote
>
>>I have intervened in the endless 1729 edit war, splitting the page into
>>three. Now [[1729 (number)]] and [[1729 (anecdote)]] are protected, since
>>[[User:Wik]] is reverting again.
>
> Well, Wik nominated me for de-admin on the strength of this.

It appears that you protected a page on which you were involved in an
edit war yourself. This is generally considered abuse of sysop power. Do
not do this again if you don't want to appear [[Wikipedia:Requests for
de-adminship]] again ;-)

Timwi


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: a couple of requests

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:

> That's done on VfD regularly

Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

What's this fallacy called again? Argumentum ad popularem or something?
I can't find it on [[Logical fallacy]].

Timwi


body:
Yaron Shahrabani wrote:

> My idea is to have a Wiki Lyrics project

That would be a copyright violation. We've actually had this suggestion
before. :-)


from_name: Stephan Walter

subject: [Wikitech-l] automatic PDF generation from WP articles

body:
The script is now permanently available at:

http://lart.info/~stw/wiki2pdf/

Recent improvements:
* uses Unicode (UTF-8) - fixes bug reported by Yann Forget
* supports HTML-entities a la &xxx;

Regards,
Stephan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Call for opinion... WikiProject Schools

body:
David Speakman wrote:

> If you have one, please voice your opinion about what qualifies a
> children's school for admission into WP and ... if qualified, what info
> should be included.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools

It reads:

	A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions
	about how we might organize data in articles about schools
	(excluding colleges and universities).

Later:

	Scope
	This WikiProject aims primarily to structure all college and
	university articles.

Contradiction?

I am very confused, because the Talk page and the rest of the article
don't give any clear indication either. On the one hand, your
WikiProject page makes heavy use of vocabulary such as "Campus",
"Student", "Alumni" and "Faculty", all of which seem to suggest you
*are* talking about colleges and universities after all, but then on the
Talk page you seem to be talking about "High School, Middle School,
Elementary School". There is also a link to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject
Universities]], so I'm doubly confused.

Timwi


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration policy

body:
On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 22:44, Lee Pilich wrote:

    Hi everyone.

    The arbitration committee has "completed" its guidelines at
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy . "Completed" in
    quotes because while everything that needs to be covered for us to function
    probably is covered in one way or another, everything is still subject to
    change, and everything will likely be tweaked as we deal with more cases,
    gain experience and whatnot.

    If any of you plebs, I mean *non-abritrators*, want to look them over,
    suggest changes, tell us we're idiots or whatever, then please do so
    (preferably on the talk page). Then we'll have a simple yes or no vote
    which everybody on the Wikipedia can take part in as to whether to accept
    the guidelines or not (bearing in mind they're always subject to change),
    and if the vote is yes and Jimbo doesn't object in any way, then we'll be
    fully functioning (ie, not needing Jimbo to refer cases to us) and ready to
    ban people willy-nilly (that's what we're for, right?).

Not a moment too soon, but just in the nick of time!

J-V. Heiskanen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040308/1522ff33/attachment.htm


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

subject: [Wikitech-l] 'INSTALL' instructions

body:
Hello.

Wanting to play with Wikipedia on my own comp, i tried to install MediaWiki
1.1.0. Using MediaWiki 1.1.0 (stable), Windows 2000, Apache2, php 4.3.4
(latest), MySQL 4.0.18 (latest).

I followed the instructions from INSTALL document. But there's a mistake there:
if you reply 'no' to database overwrite, the software doesn't correctly install
/ configure some stuff.
I'm using fr: locale, so i set that as language. After install, characters were
a real mess, accents wrongs & such.

So finally, I just trashed everything, did a fresh php install, then restored
database from dump (i restored it prior to mediawiki install the previous
attempt). This time it worked.

Or maybe that's just a mistake from me at some point, but i think i trashed
everything, then installed, replying 'no' to overwrite, and still some issues...

Also, MediaWiki apparently requires php to be an apache module, using
getallheaders function. Which isn't specified in the install document ^_-
(ok, implicitely with the --with-apache= directive on the ./configure line for
php... not intuitive for poor Windows users :))

As a side note, i get a warning in 'recent changes' saying Windows can't handle
dates before 1970, January 1st, 00:00. Only seems to appear when no change to
show, though, so not that a big deal :)

Nicolas


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Bjorn-
> When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
> there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
> reverts" or not.

Uh-huh. That'll work for Wik. He loves guidelines. They can be easily
ignored.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration policy

body:
> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 22:44, Lee Pilich wrote:
and ready to
> ban people willy-nilly (that's what we're for, right?).

Euh, no. Not only.
I feel a ping of anxiety here...


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Delirium wrote:

> Daniel Mayer wrote:
> >poll that would make a 3-revert per day limit policy has 45 votes to 6 [68]
> >Jimbo has not decided yet whether to allow admins the ability to block users
> >for 24 hours for breaking this rule.
> >
> I'd like to lobby for this to happy ASAP.  The rule has a massive
> majority (nearly 90%), and we need some way of enforcing it.  It should,
> hopefully very quickly, become simply unacceptable to revert any one
> article more than 3 times in a day.  Once you've wrangled back and forth
> a few times, you stop.  There is really no justification at *all* for a
> revert-war going on for longer than that---it accomplishes absolutely
> nothing.

What a minute!

When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really
was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three
times or not.

Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either
understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote
is about and not just a guideline.

BL


from_name: David Speakman

subject: [WikiEN-l] 66.185.84.208

body:
Being relatively new here (started in November), this may be a dumb
question:

Could it be that most folks in North America with cable or DSL internet
do not have a fixed IP address?

Unless I'm mistaken, customers with Rogers Communications cable
broadband in Toronto are randomly assigned IP addresses in the range
from 66.185.80.0 to 66.185.95.255 every time they log off and re-log in
to the system.

Could it be possible that this is the case here? The person may be using
a temporary IP address that once belonged to a vandal or troll. And the
new IP address for each power-up and reconnect to the NET could account
for this user's seemingly sporadic nature of the ban.

Or am I totally off base?

--
David Speakman
http://www.DavidSpeakman.com
501 Moorpark Way #83
Mountain View CA 94041
Phone: 408-348-1786

> -----Original Message-----

> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Manske

>
> I found this in my inbox today:
>
> I'm a user who has the number 66.185.84.208.
> I've found myself blocked on the accusation of vandalism and
> plagarism.  Can you please unblock me? Please note that this
> is the 4th time in 5 months and I hope this is the last time.
>
> I quickly scanned through his contributions, and there are
> quite a few. Some of his new articles had a leftist bias, and
> he seems to be pro-Palestine, but I didn't see real
> vandalism. Some of his edits might be a little weird, though.
>
> But, if he was really banned 4 times already, I probably
> missed something.
>
> Magnus
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Developers should mind their own business

body:
Great idea Tim! I don't care much for the name - "developer" has been used for
a long time to refer to those blessed and wonderful code junkies that hang out
on WikiTech-l and play with MediaWiki. Replacing their title with
site-administrator will add more confusion as well. Why not just add all those
abilities to bureaucrat accounts?

Or better yet, couldn't we even get rid of the bureaucrat account type by
requiring at least 3 admins to approve bureaucrat+-type actions? Kinda like
requiring two keys turned by two people at once and having to enter the correct
codes in order to launch a nuke.

The idea of adding yet another level of hierarchy to our community doesn't rub
me the right way...

Tim Starling wrote:
>I'll also take this opportunity to drop a few subtle hints.

>Maveric149
>
>Wikipedia's most active contributor,

Not in the article space lately. I think over half my edits are to non-article
pages now (lot's of organizational and meta-type work) I'm also not currently
the most active (just historically and *only* based on number of edits - most
of which are small edits I do while I'm checking anon and other edits on
Recentchanges). To see who is most active currently, look for names off the
'last 30 days' column at
http://www.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#wikipedians

>Maveric149 has done a tremendous amount of work
>for Wikipedia over the last two years.

Thanks for the compliment. :-)

>Mav is always cool and rational when dealing with
>a dispute, and works hard to find a compromise
>amenable to all parties.

I try to be that way - but I've been more or less told by some people that I am
sometimes borderline cold in my coolness. Some of those same people seem to
think I take my rational tendencies a bit too far (I've been accused of not
giving emotional context enough consideration - only looking at the bare
facts). While I don't agree with those criticisms, I cannot say that I really
disagree.

>Respect for him in the community is universal.

If true, which I don't think it is, then I would be very uncomfortable with
that - I don't want my words to have disproportionately more force than their
actual content and inherent merit.

There is also at least one former Wikipedian that would probably disagree with
your statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:168...

I'm sure there are others but none have yet stated that fact on my RfC page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mav

>Angela
>
>Angela has been extremely active in the Wikipedia
>and Wikipedia talk namespaces over the last 6
>>months, organising the formation of many policies.
>In her enthusiasm for weeding and quality control,
>she has edited almost every functioning Wikimedia
>wiki.

I completely agree with all that.

>She also lives in a different time zone to Mav,
>so she'll be able to deal with situations arising
>when Mav is unavailable.

IIRC Bryan Derksen lives in British Columbia and is thus in the same timezone
as I am. There are certainly many other highly-respected and very active
Wikipedians in time zones near mine.

--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l the 3 revert rule

body:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
>Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably
>did not either understand that the vote was about
>bannings. If that is what the vote is about and not
>just a guideline.

Guidelines and rules to consider become policy when broad-based
consensus is reached on those items. Breaking polices have consequences. The 24 hour time-out was proposed and it is up to Jimbo to decree this remedy for
breaking this policy.

-- mav

-------

So, the consensus is currently not clearly in favor either of a guideline nor of a rule.
The poll indicated "do you agree with this as a guideline"
Unfortunately, some people voted for that proposition "as a rule".

Should we take care of opinion of people who voted under the wrong header ? :-)

Second...there is nowhere in that poll, indicated that
voting "yes I agree for a 3 revert rule as a guideline"
meant "yes, ban the user after 3 reverts".

Since that is not indicated, here is what I remember I voted for
voting "Yes, I agree for a 3 revert rules as a guideline"
meant "yes, protect this page from this user after 3 reverts for 24 hours".

I like this option. The community will decree this is a good option.

For more on the proposition, look at the bottom of the 3 reverts page in question :-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040309/319ad162/attachment.htm


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l French Wikipedia decided to switch to
	UTF-8 !

body:
Some weeks ago, we restarted speak to switch the French Wikipedia to
UTF-8.
The discussion deadline was schedule to yesterday and a very large
consensus
is achieved:

* For: 27,

* Neutral: 1,

* Against: 0.

The only concerns relate to tell users how to get a Unicode compliant
browser and fix eventual problem the switch may generate.

--------------------

Is my vote included here ?

I hope you will not follow the opinion of some to just ban and automatically revert those using non utf browsers as some users were suggesting :-)

Was the page of explanation for these unfortunate users set as suggested before the switch ?

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040309/36901c66/attachment.html>


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Pedro Fortuny wrote:
> I agree with Tim. This reminds me of the "three powers" (and I know this
> is not a State and there is no such thing as a "government")

But, even though this is not a State and there is no such thing as a
"government", we all tend to talk this way, and with good reasons.  We
are a social community and we have social problems ("crime",
"disputes") and the mechanisms of government do provide us with
analogous concepts to guide us in selecting better mechanisms.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Bjorn Lindqvist wrote:
> When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
> there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
> reverts" or not. Nowhere on that page did it say that the poll really
> was about whether to allow admins to block a user that reverts three
> times or not.
>
> Many of the 51+ persons that has voted probably did not either
> understand that the vote was about bannings. If that is what the vote
> is about and not just a guideline.

I share Bjorn's concern.

It's one thing to say that we have a very strong community guideline
or norm that says 3 reverts in a day is enough.  It's quite another
thing to introduce an entirely new paradigm in which 24 hour bans are
made for things that are not really emergency situations.

I'm not 100% opposed to the idea, but my foot dragging on making any
sort of decree about this is grounded in the fact that I see this as a
rather radical departure from past practice.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Bjorn-
> > When *I* voted on that poll some week ago, the poll was about whether
> > there should be a *guideline* that reads "do not do more than three
> > reverts" or not.
>
> Uh-huh. That'll work for Wik. He loves guidelines. They can be easily
> ignored.

Well, Erik, I'm sympathetic to that, but I'm not sure that a 24-hour
ban power for sysops is the minimally intrusive solution.

What I tend to follow is a "strict scrutiny" rule that says that any
policy involving curtailment of editing should be narrowly tailored to
achieve some legitimate interest.

It might make more sense for me to just say that it's policy with a
capital P, but to *not* introduce the 24-hour temp ban idea.  Rather,
it's that repeated violations are grounds for the arbitration
committee to do something about it, for example.

There *is* a legitimate interest here.  Edit warring is unproductive.
Revert-edit-warring is the least productive kind of edit war, too.  A
revert is a slap in the face.  Sometimes (vandalism), a slap in the
face is the right thing to do.  But other times, it's just a way to
say 'screw you' to someone who is sincerely trying to find a
compromise.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Just to keep everyone guessing here, ha ha, I'm actually very
sympathetic to what Mark is saying.

One of the things that's tempting about the 3-revert rule is that it's
easy to administer and judge after the fact.  There are precious few
borderline cases.  Reverting is reverting, anyone can check the logs
after the fact and see it.  This is very different from subjective
judgments like "hostility" and "rude" and even "vandalism".

If we had a rule that say "3 reverts and you're out for 24 hours", it
would be fairly hard for sysops to abuse it.  It at least has that as
a merit.

Delirium wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> >I agree that these matters need to be considered on a case-by-case
> >basis.  A person who engages in a protracted revert war on a single
> >article is very different from one who repeatedly does this across a
> >broad range of articles.
>
> I guess I don't see what the problem with solving them all in the same
> way is.  A person who engages in a protracted revert war on a single
> article will get a single 24-hour ban, which is not really the end of
> the world.  A person who repeatedly does this across a broad range of
> articles will be repeatedly banned for 24-hour periods, resulting in
> effectively a permanent ban until they decide to stop engaging in
> revert-wars.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
If we are going to give admins the power to enforce a NEW RULE on
signed-in users, there should be:

(a) A very clear vote about this major policy change.
(b) Sufficient notice about when the vote ends, and when the policy
takes effect.

I thought I was paying pretty close attention to Wikipedia -- But this
is the FIRST I EVER HEARD ABOUT THIS!!!!

So I propose that we announce this vote in the mailing list and re-start
the deadline. I don't want to have people boycotting the election or
refusing to abide by its results, and then starting a rebellion (as
recently happened in Haiti).

I hope there is at least 30 days, from today when I first heard of this
proposed policy change, to the "closing of polls". Anything less seems
like a trick, and will not gain sufficient support.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Developer & Bureaucrat
Wikien-l Admin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Tech proposal for 3-revert rule

body:
I have an idea for an abstract generalization of the ban/throttle/
page protection concepts, unifying them in a single table with great
flexibility.  Details at the bottom, but first some quick motivation.

We have a proposal with some support, but also some strong opposition,
for a rule that says that sysops can 24-hour ban people who break the
(widely supported) 3 revert guideline.

I think it's safe to say we have strong consensus that the 3 revert
guideline is a good guideline.  What we don't have yet is consensus
about what should be done about it.

My problem with it, and I think that this would be echoed by many who
have reservations, is that a 24 hour ban is sort of a big hammer to
use in cases like this.

I have some questions about the technical feasibility of some
smaller-hammer ideas.

1.  per-article bans -- this could be very useful in a number of
cases, particularly now that we have an arbitration committee to
divide up the work of studying such things.

2.  per-article, per-person throttles -- this would be the technical
application of the 3 revert rule, applied to individual people and
individual articles.  Basically, a sysop could put Wik (for example)
into throttle-mode for a given article where he's committed a 3 revert
violation, and after that Wik can only edit that article 3 times per
day.  This might push him to be more co-operative.

Or consider the DNA case.  Pretty much all parties to the dispute,
even those who were not guilty of anything bad could be placed,
without stigma of "punishment", into throttle mode for that article.

3. per-article throttles -- for particular articles, instead of
"protecting" it so that no one can edit, we could "throttle" it so
that each person may edit it only 1 time per day.  The idea is to slow
down an edit war to allow people to calm down, and to keep everyone
else from being bothered by an ongoing fiasco.

---

All of these seem fairly technically do-able to me.  I'm especially
keen on the latter two.  (And suspect that the first one could be
implemented as a form of the latter two, with edit_count set to zero.)

Here's a table to show what I mean:

Jimbo Wales      -   Oregon    -     3 # Jimbo throttled on this article
Jimbo Wales      -   Cats      -     0 # Jimbo per-article banned
*                -   DNA       -     1 # everyone throttled here
*                -   Judaism   -     0 # same as protected
Wik              -   *         -     3 # Wik throttled everywhere
Plautus          -   *         -     0 # Plautus banned

Then, to find out if a user has permission to edit a given article, we
just look them and the article up in the table, and see what the
number is.  If it's not there, then all is well, if it is there, then
we have to make an additional check in the history table to see what's
happened in the past 24 hours.

Obviously, it's easy for me to say that this is easy.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The 3-revert rule

body:
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Now some people will bring up the issue of "rights" and "speech". But edit
> warring is an effective method to suppress other people's speech and to
> abuse other people's rights. It's like shouting over whatever someone else
> tries to say. The other person can either also start shouting, or give up
> in frustration.

*nod* I agree with you completely on that.  Despite the impression,
Wikipedia is not an anarchy nor a "free speech zone" (in that sense).
It's an encyclopedia project.

> In any civil discussion in the real world, you would tell someone who
> tries to shout down everyone else to leave until they calm down. All I,
> and many others, are asking for is to apply that same principle to
> Wikipedia.

Yes.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Interesting slashdot thread

body:
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/08/2014231.shtml

The original article cited doesn't mention us, although they should.
I think that anyone interested in why industry-wide sales for
encyclopedia software fell 7.3 percent in 2003 from 2002 should look
at graphs of our growth trajectory.  We're giving away for free a
better product than people can buy, and that's that.

One thing that's interesting to me is how many people said some
variant on "Well, traditional encyclopedias are important because you
can't trust what you find on the web, except for Wikipedia of course,
which you can trust".

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 66.185.84.208

body:
Check the Vandalism in Progress page for a brief discussion of the problems with this address.

RickK

Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
David Speakman wrote:

> The person may be using
> a temporary IP address that once belonged to a vandal or troll.

Magnus specifically mentioned that he did have a look at the
contributions list for the IP address and did not find any real
vandalism or trollage.

Timwi

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040309/014887ae/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 66.185.84.208

body:
Also check [[User talk:66.185.84.208]] for several other users' comments on problems this address has caused.

RickK

Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
David Speakman wrote:

> The person may be using
> a temporary IP address that once belonged to a vandal or troll.

Magnus specifically mentioned that he did have a look at the
contributions list for the IP address and did not find any real
vandalism or trollage.

Timwi

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040309/3a139396/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikitech-l the UTF thing

body:
>> Is my vote included here ?

>You didn't express any opposition, just ask to create help page (that
>we all agree). You didn't vote, so how your vote may be included!? That
>doesn't mean we didn't hear your arguments, but if you don't express clearly
>any opposition, how can we guess?

LOL. No, I was just wondering if I were the neutral ;-)
I was not going to oppose it anymore, you all seem so convinced it is necessary that it probably is.
>From the moment I suggested the documentation, that meant I did not vote against, no?

I truely would not know what to vote :-(

>> I hope you will not follow the opinion of some to just ban and
>automatically revert those using non utf browsers as some users were
>suggesting :-)

>Anyone is free to express his own suggestion; that don't make them
>rules.
>I'm personally fully against this idea.

Good.

> Was the page of explanation for these unfortunate users set as
>suggested
>before the switch ?

We are working on:

* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Unicode
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Unicode/Test
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Test_Unicode_arabe
* http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Navigateur
If you want more, help us ;o)

Neat. I will add the macintosh 9 recommandations then.

>Anyhow, it will be easier to surround all problems after the switch.
>How to
>speak about problem we don't have yet?

Errrr. Usually I think it is best to talk about problems before meeting them...

>I don't understand why you wait the discussion is done to express you?
>You just want to express your disgust about a too pretty consensus? ;o)

No, I expressed myself about that. Our discussion is still on Le Bistro. I think there was nothing more to add :-)
And precisely because the consensus was so pretty, I decided not to say anything any more. I am just worried about that reversion issue. Even if most said they would help the newcomers, a couple of people said they would just revert and prevent the person to edit.

It goes without saying that I would consider that very wrong.
I think that if someone unilaterally decide to ban a person because of his browser, without helping him to upgrade it, there should be a rule added about it, and banning for such a reason not allowed. We shall see.

For all technical considerations, I am useless, so I leave that to you :-)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040309/fd229543/attachment.html>


from_name: Angela

body:
> > On 03/08/04 20:59, Timwi wrote:
> > > So I was bold and made a little change to
> [[MediaWiki:Vfd]]

I didn't read this yesterday, so I had no idea it was
being discussed and I reverted the change, explaining
why on the talk page.

May I please suggest in future people use talk pages
rather than the mailing list to announce such changes.
A very small proportion of Wikipedia editors read this
list, making it a completely inappropriate venue to
talk about article edits.

See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hemanshu/Vfd
:)

Angela.

___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] User:Bird

body:
A User who went by the name of Bird has gone on a vandalism rampage, blanking several articles he/she worked on, claiming that everything he included in Wikipedia was either made up or plaigarized.  I'm wondering if someone got ahold of the user's account and is causing problems, or if this person has had this in mind from the time he/she first logged in.  Regardless, it seems that the user claims that he will be issuing a "press release" pointing out how flawed Wikipedia is.

See [[User:David Newton/Bird Dispute]] for more detail.

RickK

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you?re looking for faster.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040309/5f0faf5b/attachment.htm