body:
Let's use Middle Eastern cultural norms and ban all Pedophiles in addition
to jewish people, homosexuals, christians, et al

(No need to call PC on me I am jewish myself)

shall I go on?

On 2/8/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >Delirium wrote:
> >
> >
> >> It's been suggested in the past
> >>that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense.  Does that
> >>complete the list?  Neo-Nazis and pedophiles out; everybody else ok?
> >>Well, I suppose "I support suicide bombings" is probably out too.  Is
> >>the ArbCom going to be in charge of making these decisions?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think you meant your question to be rhetorical, but the answer is of
> >course "yes".  There is a question of what is good or bad for the
> >project as a whole, and we all agree (right?) that people acting in a
> >disruptive way or in a way that causes harm to our charitable mission
> >can be banned from the project.  (I say "can be" because it is
> >frequently our judgment that although we could ban certain people, it's
> >easier on net to do something else.)
> >
> >
> No, I don't agree with that blanket statement.  Only people who act in a
> way that impedes the process of *writing an encyclopedia* should be
> banned.
>
> I also object to a strongly US- and Euro-centric view of what is
> "offensive" versus "not offensive".  Why should US and European cultural
> norms be the imposed standards?
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ryan Lane

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: OpenID Support

body:
Brion Vibber <brion at ...> writes:

>
> Brion Vibber wrote:
> Sorry to be short about this, but we've had enough fights over this issue in
> the past, and as far as I'm concerned the decisions have been made. I'll get
> flak no matter whether I implement the previously-agreed conversion
> specification or something new, so it's lose-lose for me personally. ;)
>
> However to summarize, my view on why a single namespace is Good includes a few
> points:

What do you plan on using for the single-sign-on transition (from a
technological standpoint)? Is this posted somewhere? I wasn't aware until
recently that this would be happening soon. This discussion sparked my curiosity.

Ryan Lane


list: wikien-l

from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Why did Raul654 restore a nonsense edit?

body:
Because he was fast-reverting all contributions of a sock account
that looked like Lir.

Whoever drove the account was clever and threw some vandalism
reversions in so that whoever cleaned up would accidentally reinstate
some vandalism.

-Phil

On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:02 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

> This makes no sense:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=37862022&oldid=37859683
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: The Cunctator

body:
On 2/8/06, Snowspinner <Snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2006, at 7:02 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > This makes no sense:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=37862022&oldid=37859683
>
> Because he was fast-reverting all contributions of a sock account
> that looked like Lir.
>
> Whoever drove the account was clever and threw some vandalism
> reversions in so that whoever cleaned up would accidentally reinstate
> some vandalism.

Maybe we should reconsider how we go about fast-reverting people. He
was a bit trigger-happy there.

I mean, it's bad to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. But this is an
instance of improving Wikipedia to make a point.


body:
On 2/8/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > This makes no sense:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=37862022&oldid=37859683
>
> Hah, have you been reading Wikipedia Review?
>
Guilty as charged. It's entertaining to see what Lir's up to these
days. An odd duck.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
John Lee wrote:
<snip>
> There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some
> of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to
> mind).
>

[[User:FireFox]] you mean, and [[User:Karmafist]] was desysopped in the
latest wheel war...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/a22873cd/attachment.pgp


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Most immature war ever? Are we embarrassed yet?

body:
On 2/7/06, Hedley <hedleyness at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is fair to say that Jimbo should never be over-ruled in he blocks
> somebody. The main reason is that, although there is always the argument
> that a block may be unfair or that it may be 'uncalled for', Jimbo deals
> with a whole side of Wikipedia that not many of us are 'in the know' about.
> And that side is the legal side of things. If there's ever a legal problem
> with Wikipedia, he is the first to know, and I'm sure I'm right in saying
> that sometimes it just isn't possible for him to go into specifics about it
> all.

He is free list "legal reasons" in the block log.

None of his recent blocks appear to have been for legal reasons.

There are whole sides to wikipedia Jimbo doesn't see. The same is of
course true for all of us.

> He often steps in and blanks pages, and blocks users, and that's
> because he is - no matter how much of a Wiki system this is - the person
> who, along with the other board members, essential runs Wikipedia. He's at
> the top of the tree.
>
> If a serious legal threat ever comes along to Wikipedia, and he blocks
> somebody to eliminate that legal threat, we don't want to be put at risk by
> a sysop coming along and unblocking because the block is 'possibly unfair'.
> I'd say that, when Jimbo steps in, it's pretty important. He doesn't edit 24
> hours a day and when he gets involved in using his sysop capabilities on
> Wikipedia, it's for a very good reason.
>

I doubt anyone would pull a block he put in place as long as he made
it clear it was for legal reasons.

> Simply put, if Jimbo needs to get involved in a 'wheel war', he doesn't need
> his actions to be undone. He's busy enough as it is, I'm sure, and I'm
> absolutely confident, as many of us are, that he is always doing what is
> best for Wikipedia and its future.
>

I will of course accept he is trying to do that. However I don't think
the position that he has never made a mistake is defendible.

> The moral of the story? Instead of talking about how immature the
> 'wheel war' is, we should be trying to move on from it, and we should be
> making it yesterday's news today.
>

[mode=cynical] Probably the simpest way to do that would be to start
another deletion debate[/mode]

> It was mentioned earlier in this thread that 'these rules' don't apply to
> Jimbo, and that is something I agree with. Without Jimbo, Angela and the
> rest of the Wikimedia Foundation, there is no Wikipedia. We need to trust
> their actions, and get back to building Wikipedia, not questioning it.

You know back when Jimbo was basicaly planning to outright apoint
arbcom this year he stated that the community would still have control
because they made policy. I'm sure you can see the issue here.~~~~

--
geni


body:
On 2/8/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> >
> > The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal
> > channels.  A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I
> > speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone
> > who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again
> > without discussion.
>
> Rubbish like this should be killed as soon as possible.  When "proper
> channels" hamper us, we should drop them.  Administrators are expected
> to show commonsense and not dig in their heels inappropriately over
> the great god Process.
>

Waiting 7 days is not hampering.

--
geni


from_name: Joe Gunner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked.

body:
My user name is rafofcon and my IP address is 66.108.243.107. I was blocked from editing pages by clockworksoul tonight for posting two discussion points for the article written about Stony Brook University. I had said nothing offensive and did not edit the actual article. I simply posted comments on the discussion page. I believe the block was without cause as I did not violate any Wikipedia policy.

  Clockworksoul said that the reason he blocked me was because I am a sockpuppet of the user bobbydoop, but this simply is not true. I only happen to agree with some of the statements he made and decided to chime in. Again, I made no changes to the actual Stony Brook University article, but clockworksoul concluded that I was bobbydoop trying to evade a block. I do not understand how a comment made on the discussion page of an article leads to the conclusion that I must be a banned user attempting to evade his block.

  Please resolve.

  Thank you.

---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
 PhotoMail  - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
You totally missed my point.

We can be as open as anyone, but there has to be a place to draw the line.
The reason we use US/Euro cultures is because an overwhelming majority of
users on en.wiki are from said culture.

"Where should the line be drawn?" was never a compelling argument for
drawing no line at all.

On 2/8/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Ilya N. wrote:
>
> >Let's use Middle Eastern cultural norms and ban all Pedophiles in
> addition
> >to jewish people, homosexuals, christians, et al
> >
> >(No need to call PC on me I am jewish myself)
> >
> >shall I go on?
> >
> >
> That's exactly my point---there are plenty of things that offend many
> millions (billions?) of people in the world, some of them very gravely.
> We simply can't afford to start banning people to avoid negative PR,
> because it requires banning too many people.
>
> An alternative is only to ban people who would generate negative PR in
> European and American culture, and tell the other cultures to fuck off,
> but I don't think that's a reasonable approach.
>
> Yet a third approach, the current one seems, to be to ban people who a
> certain subset of Americans and Europeans, represented in proxy by Jimbo
> and the Arbitration Committee, deem offensive.  Presumably this lines up
> mostly with U.S. and European cultural norms, but might reject some of
> them (like banning Satanists or Stalinists).  As you might expect, I
> don't think that's a reasonable approach either, especially for an
> encyclopedia that strives not to be provincial.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


list: foundation-l

from_name: admin at wikipubs.org

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipubs Project Proposal.

body:
Hi,
Please find below a project proposal for wikipubs. More information can
be found either on the project proposals page, via the project page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipubs or on the wikipubs demo site;
http://wikipubs.org.

Kind regards,
James.

=== Wikipubs ===
* Domain names: Currently registered http://wikipubs.org,
http://wikipubs.net, http://wikipubs.com

* Scope: Wikipubs seeks to provide a source for the sharing of
information relating to pubs, clubs, bars and festivals throughout the
world. It will achieve this by encouraging users to post information,
stories, anecdotes, reviews and ratings of their local pubs, clubs, bars
and festivals. Wikipubs will also encourage discussion on pubs, clubs,
bars and festivals between patrons of these establishments. Thus
building a database for users to refer to when planning an enjoyable
night out.

* Details: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipubs

* Proposer: mailto:admin at wikipubs.org

* Demo Site: http://wikipubs.org


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ryan W. (Merovingian)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
Now I'm not condoning pedophilia or anything of the sort.  It's deplorable to the last.  But to disallow editing based on this (given that they don't parade around their POV in articles) strikes me as immediately arbitrary.  I daresay that we've had criminals of all sorts edit Wikipedia.

--Ryan

> From: Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.dunkerson at worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: No more blocking people for who they
> 	*are*?
>
> Ryan W. (Merovingian) wrote:
> > Although I think you're right, I don't think any admins blocked people just
> > for believing certain things.  Those who were blocked were acting in a way
> > that justified their I-hate-to-call-it-punishment.
>
> I think you might be wrong about that.
>
> Carbonite: "The userbox Template:User pedophile (edit ? talk ? links ?
> history ? watch) is a great way of identifying those users who consider
> themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user
> who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to
> include this template, Joeyramoney (talk ? contribs ? page moves ? block
> user ? block log). Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit."
>
> Jimbo Wales: "They said that pedophiles should be banned from editing
> Wikipedia. That's a very respectable position."

--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/


from_name: Delirium

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:

>Rubbish like this should be killed as soon as possible.  When "proper
>channels" hamper us, we should drop them.  Administrators are expected
>to show commonsense and not dig in their heels inappropriately over
>the great god Process.
>
>
I didn't mean to imply that any greatly-convoluted Process should be
followed, just that a bit of discussion is better than wheel-warring
(just like with edit-warring).  If I blocked someone and another admin
blocked them, I would definitely post a message on their talk page and
not immediately reblock.  An exception would be something time-critical
like a vandalbot, but I don't imagine those get unblocked much anyway.

-Mark


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ambi's two week block of Bobblewik

body:
On 2/7/06, bobble wik <bobblewik at mail.com> wrote:

> The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy. I even suspended my edits for a short while and proposed more constrained wording.
>
> Ambi and Talrias also complained that my earlier edits were too fast. So I limited my speed to 120 per hour because I thought that was reasonable. If I can still be blocked for implementing the manual of style at that speed, I would be prepared to reduce to 60 per hour, 30 per hour or even perhaps 12 per hour. Just tell me what the limit is and I will comply. It is bizarre to have a policy that cannot be implemented for fear of being blocked.

I have to say I agree with Bobblewik's reasoning here - if we as a
community have decided that pages should all follow a certain style
with respect to dates, then it seems reasonable to implement that
style wherever possible. Having assumed that, it seems unreasonable to
impose an arbitrary speed limit.

However: Bobblewik is acting like a troll.

"Both those are valid propositions for you to follow even though I do
not follow them myself. Unfortunately the Manual of Style does not
contain such guidance. It actually opposes the first. The interesting
concept of a date threshold (e.g. between 1600 and 1900) has been
mentioned before but is currently totally absent." (talk page)

Bobblewik, you should understand that the MoS serves to communicate
style rules to people who are unfamiliar with the style we want on
Wikipedia. Ultimately, however, the community's desires, no matter how
contradictory or unclear, trump it. If, as you acknowledge, there is a
general desire for older years to be linked, and newer ones not to be,
then you should respect that. You shouldn't attempt to whack people
over the head with the MoS. You will probably alienate people less if
you stop attempting to define rigid rules to follow, and instead act
in accordance with the broader spirit of the community.

To put that a bit more simply: Your being blocked was totally and
utterly predictable from the manner in which you're behaving. Whenever
you try and empirically define the very edges of acceptable behaviour,
you will almost certainly find people who feel you've already crossed
them.

Lastly, be aware that unauthorized bots (which several people have
accused you of running) are, well, unauthorized. :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>If the userpages are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation
>(and this certainly is), and add nothing to the project, yes, fine,
>remove the information.
>
>
Reputation in which culture?  Is this a western-centric policy?

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are
>>usually pretty weak.
>
>
> The problem is that the step from "admitted pedophiles" to
> "pedophiles" has already been taken, and from there, it's a *very*
> small step to "accused pedophiles", an illustrious group that includes
> Ta bu shi da yu, Schissel, and Lucky 6.9, all named by "Parents for
> the Online Safety of Children", Jtdirl, Gmaxwell, and me, all named by
> Jeff Merkey, and no doubt others.
>
>

Quakeaid has also been involved in this sort of mudslinging. But I
agree, next we'll be targetting libertarians, straight people, and then
we will finally have a chance to meet Mr. Treason...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/1c4a9cd7/attachment.pgp


body:
On 2/8/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On blocks, I've always believed in subjecting my blocks to review.  I
> perform the block and write it up on Administrators' Noticeboard.  In
> my experience it makes for firmer blocks, far less likely to be
> challenged.  One or two reviews of this kind have resulted in blocks
> being extended as administrators pieced together more incriminating
> information suggesting a long term career of abuse, which was not
> immediately apparent to me or any of the previous blocking admins.

Funny, I thought that was standard process for all blocks. Should it not be?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] acronym sweep needed

body:
On 2/8/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> These tidy-minded things often have little to do with the real issues in
> writing a dynamic 'Pedia.

The primary reason I try and avoid links to redirects is avoiding
double-redirects if the page changes names one day. A 'softwear' issue
I suppose. Or should we just leave double-redirects to a bot to fix,
if and when it feels like it?

Steve


body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Delirium wrote:
>
>
>> It's been suggested in the past
>>that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense.  Does that
>>complete the list?  Neo-Nazis and pedophiles out; everybody else ok?
>>Well, I suppose "I support suicide bombings" is probably out too.  Is
>>the ArbCom going to be in charge of making these decisions?
>>
>>
>
>I think you meant your question to be rhetorical, but the answer is of
>course "yes".  There is a question of what is good or bad for the
>project as a whole, and we all agree (right?) that people acting in a
>disruptive way or in a way that causes harm to our charitable mission
>can be banned from the project.  (I say "can be" because it is
>frequently our judgment that although we could ban certain people, it's
>easier on net to do something else.)
>
>
No, I don't agree with that blanket statement.  Only people who act in a
way that impedes the process of *writing an encyclopedia* should be banned.

I also object to a strongly US- and Euro-centric view of what is
"offensive" versus "not offensive".  Why should US and European cultural
norms be the imposed standards?

-Mark


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:

> It's been suggested in the past
> that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense.

It has? By whom?

Jay.


body:
jayjg wrote:

>On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>>It's been suggested in the past
>>that saying "I'm a neo-Nazi" ought to be a bannable offense.
>>
>>
>
>
>It has? By whom?
>
>
I don't recall by whom, but fortunately I don't have to go digging
because Jimbo just suggested it again.

-Mark


body:
Ilya N. wrote:

>Let's use Middle Eastern cultural norms and ban all Pedophiles in addition
>to jewish people, homosexuals, christians, et al
>
>(No need to call PC on me I am jewish myself)
>
>shall I go on?
>
>
That's exactly my point---there are plenty of things that offend many
millions (billions?) of people in the world, some of them very gravely.
We simply can't afford to start banning people to avoid negative PR,
because it requires banning too many people.

An alternative is only to ban people who would generate negative PR in
European and American culture, and tell the other cultures to fuck off,
but I don't think that's a reasonable approach.

Yet a third approach, the current one seems, to be to ban people who a
certain subset of Americans and Europeans, represented in proxy by Jimbo
and the Arbitration Committee, deem offensive.  Presumably this lines up
mostly with U.S. and European cultural norms, but might reject some of
them (like banning Satanists or Stalinists).  As you might expect, I
don't think that's a reasonable approach either, especially for an
encyclopedia that strives not to be provincial.

-Mark


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, John Lee wrote:

> Geoff Burling wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Guettarda wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/7/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting
> >>>over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
> >>>
> >>Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of
> >>people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist
> >>wheel warring with Jimbo).  Our constitutional monarchy model has problems
> >>.
[I'm guessing John was referring to this comment; for some reason he snipped
out all of my post:]

> Jimbo is NOT a Godking. Nor a God. Nor a King.
> >
> One problem, Geoff: Jimbo *is* our GodKing. At least, that's what most
> of us refer to him as. I agree with everything else, you said, though. :p
>
ISTR that Jimbo in some email, years ago, disavowed this role in the
scheme of Wikipedia. Looking thru past emails, the best I could do was to
find the following post from Ed Poor (6 Feb 2004):

> Jimbo is amazingly different from a GodKing (as described on Meatball
> Wiki). He subscribes to the principle that "government is best which
> governs least", but when push comes to shove he has occasionally put his
> foot down -- I know, awful metaphor ;-)

which puts me in the odd spot of agreeing with Ed, although I suspect
he might not agree with the rest of what I wrote.

Although I doubt a "GodKing" would write something like the following
as Jimbo had 21 jan 2003, because neither Kings nor Gods like to admit
that they are sometimes conflicted over their decisions:

> And finally, there is a class of decisions that weighs heavily on
> me, namely decisions about banning.  My pleasant demeanor may not
> reveal how much I agonize over these, in *both* directions.  Some
> mornings I wake up in a mood to ban everyone.  Other mornings I wake
> up in a mood that says that everyone can be saved.  So I have to think
> and worry a lot about these.  Despite the difficulty, though, I like
> doing it well enough for now.  But someday I might be exhausted by it,
> and might prefer a more broad-based procedure.

In any case, I still think of him as the guy who can pull the plug on
this whole endeavor if he believes it isn't worth further effort, so
it's a good enough reason to follow his lead. Until it isn't -- but
then everything I've contributed is mirrored somewhere under GFDL or CC-BY,
so I've lost nothing if the experiment implodes.

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] FA bot attacks -- anybody around with checkuser?

body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> Last time we were hit with a random-username creating bot, we blocked
> > >> all of AOL and said "consequences be damned". Now that we are bigger
> > >> than AOL, we *must* demand action on their part.
> > >
> > > More popular. Not bigger.
> >
> > We're not bigger than AOL? Hell, we're bigger than Jesus Christ!
>
>
> Mr. Lennon has a point.
>
> Actually, think about it.  We may not be bigger than AOL, but we sure as
> hell are big enough that if we were to appeal to AOL at some level, there'd
> be a decent chance of them listening.  Heck, with all the media attention
> Wikipedia seems to get every time it farts, you can imagine the headlines...
> "AOL refuses to help Wikipedia" or something...
>
> Or am I just wishful thinking here?
>
> --
> > Jay Converse

media attention to the china issue has been limited.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Throwing out the first ball

body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
> >
>
> I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of Wikipedia.  And
> to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all, indivisible,
> with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
>
> (This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on
> anything.)

TINC.


body:
Ilya N. wrote:

>We can be as open as anyone, but there has to be a place to draw the line.
>The reason we use US/Euro cultures is because an overwhelming majority of
>users on en.wiki are from said culture.
>
>
That's a pretty problematic argument too.  Should ar.wiki ban users who
hold beliefs considered offensive in the Arabic world?  Or is only
en.wiki allowed to self-police in that manner?

-Mark


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sets a bad precedent.  If someone decides they don't like gay
> people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
> established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is
> point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't
> we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we
> should let it happen again.

No-one has said that.  Don't twist people's words.  No-one is being
banned just for being a paedophile.

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.

It's been done. It took quite a while for [[User:Deeceevoice]] to get blocked.

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why has everything gone to hell?

body:
On 2/8/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Running everything a put into the article namespace through a
> spellcheacker take long enough.

You use Gmail.  Gmail has a spell check facility.  Please use it, we'd
all appreciate it!

--
Sam


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Jay Converse" wrote

>This sets a bad precedent.

See for example [[argument from setting a precedent]].

>If someone decides they don't like gay
people because they might edit gay articles to be pro-gay even with no
established history of even editing those articles, all they have to do is
point to "Well, we banned pedophiles for having an inborn POV too, didn't
we?" and then Process(tm)(r) will dictate that since it happened before, we
should let it happen again.

See for example the actual charter wording, as being quoted in one of the
decisions.

It is in any case 100% obvious that gay people are not going to be banned.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
On 2/8/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I have just made a proposal to the infamous ArbCom case now
> > reflecting this. Provided this passes, you can point them to this and
> > say we are not impressed by people messing Jimbo about.
>
> As a general rule we are not impressed with people messing anyone
> about (test1 on the pages of clear vandles does not count as messing
> about).

I really have no idea what you're saying.

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> People are however not allowed to say that they are pedophiles on their
> userpage, and presumably there is a ban to go with it if the Arbcom is
> not just wanking.

Pray, how does saying "look at me, I'm a paedophile, look at my pretty
box" help us to build an encyclopaedia?

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, Rob Smith <nobs03 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now now.  You need a separate category, "Alleged pedophiles" or
> "Accused pedophiles.
>
> nobs
>
> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No-one is being banned just for being a paedophile.

Um, what?  What do you mean?

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Last time we were hit with a random-username creating bot, we blocked
> all of AOL and said "consequences be damned". Now that we are bigger
> than AOL, we *must* demand action on their part.

More popular. Not bigger.

Steve


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of John Lee

> One problem, Geoff: Jimbo *is* our GodKing. At least, that's
> what most of us refer to him as. I agree with everything
> else, you said, though. :p

Wikipedia is just a website. How much of this talk of GodKings and contracts
would hold up under the gaze of the law is debatable.

However, we all have our own way of regarding Wikipedia, and it sems that
most of us are more or less congruent in our views. Jimbo is the benevolent
dictator of a growing online community where we happily labour away and
discuss points of behaviour that must sound delightfully arcane to outside
observers.

Peter (Skyring)


body:
On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.

Yes. That will certainly help the situation.

There are reasons these kinds of draconian guidelines are being
written up - because there is a genuine problem that needs to be
solved. Maybe you could propose a more constructive way of solving it.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] acronym sweep needed

body:
On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> What the hell? You fix the double redirects when you move the page. The
> message says it in bold. "Links to the old page title will not be
> changed; be sure to check for double-redirects (using "What links here")
> after the move."

Fair enough :) Don't worry, I haven't been rampantly going around
"fixing" links to redirects. If there are bots that fix up in these
cases, so much the better.

As for the mover of a page being expected to do it...well...I recently
moved "cock (chicken)" to "rooster" and set out to fix the 10 or so
double redirects. But my god what a tedious, painful process. I got
through about 5 and said to hell with it. We really should do
completely away with all menial labour of this kind...

Steve


from_name: MAURICE FRANK

body:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

On 2/8/06, SPUI  wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Proposed_decision#User_pages
> We have gone from a "live and let live" culture to one of political
> correctness, where anything that could "bring the project into
> disrepute" is a bad thing. This just leaves me totally speechless, to
> the point where I'm considering making my user page more and more
> "disreputable" until I am blocked.

Glad you've noticed. This is what a stream of short-lived and quickly-purged visitors to Wiki have already known for months. When it is recognised by former core devotees of Wiki, that's because its truth has been demonstrated more and more.

---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked username

body:
On 2/8/06, Josh Gordon <joshua.p.gordon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That would likely be [[User:Thejesusgod]].
>
> -- jpgordon

If that's true, that would imply he believes himself to be jesus and/or god,
which is no doubt offensive to devout Christians. Why not simply choose a
different name?

Mgm


body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought that's what started this whole mess.

Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full
decision on the matter.

--
Sam


from_name: Jay Converse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Throwing out the first ball

body:
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps admins should publicly swear an oath of allegiance to Jimbo?
> > >
> >
> > I pledge allegiance, to the Jimbo, of the United Articles of
> Wikipedia.  And
> > to the cabal, for which it stands, one oligarchy, under all,
> indivisible,
> > with speedy tags and vandalbots for all.
> >
> > (This is meant to be entirely humorous and does not reflect my views on
> > anything.)
>
> TINC.

What?
--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Pedro Sanchez

body:
> From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 19:06:44 +0000
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals?
> On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/6/06, Joanne <joannebennaoj at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In my opinion, CVU activities and people could benefit from another name and
> > > structure (and there are people working on that), but regarding CVU as the
> > > source of all evil, like the Cunctator appears to do, is not likely the way
> > > to accomplish anything...
> >
> > I don't regard it as the source of all evil, nor have I said that I do.
> >
> > I do think declaring war on vandals is the wrong approach.
>
> It has it's uses.
>
> > I do think that the name should be changed.
>
> How about you start your own anti vandle project with a different name
> and see how that does?
>
>
> --
> geni

Which is what I tried to achieve with [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up
vandalism]] provide an alternate venue for those who don't want to be
associated with fighting imagery. Notice however that removing or
changing its name ***will NOT change the way users approach wiki***

Let me explain (and I stress this is my personal opinion) we don't all
approach wiki in the same way, there are plenty of different mindsets,
and they are all helping on one way or another. So, one person
believes other mindsets are wrong. That person is entitled to his
opinion, but it's an opinion after all.

Think about this. If after a long fight, hurted feelings, alienated
contributors,  etc etc etc CVU name gets finally changed, those with a
combat approach will keeping do so!!!

Thus providing an alternate venue I believe is going to be more
helpful in the long run.


subject: [WikiEN-l] CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > G'day Sherool,
> > > [CVU]
> > > > Whatever happened to just plain old "Recent Changes/RC patrol".
> > >
> > > No, we can't have that, it's *boring*.  We've gotta have fancy
> userboxen
> > > and copyvio logos and people declaring "war".  Otherwise, why would
> > > anyone even *bother* fighting vandalism?
> >  The difference is that RC Patrol is more of an idea, a job.  CVU is a
> > collection of people who subscribe to that idea and perform that job.
> >
> > That's the way I see it, anyway.
>
> That's yet another problem with the CVU. Every Wikipedian should be
> considered part of the collection of people who subscribe to the idea
> of keeping Wikipedia clean and neat. It's detrimental to have some
> people say "This is my job" because then everyone else goes "Goody!
> Now I don't have to worry about it."
>
>
This is endemic to Wikipedia because of its massive size.  No one person can
do every job on the site unless they stretch themselves so thin that they do
all of them poorly.

Also, you appear to be part of the "Goody! I don't have to worry about it."
crowd, after looking at your edits before and after what is an apparent
wikibreak.

The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people who have seen fit
to ignore the vandalism fight.  Some because they're simply better at other
things and find it a waste of theirs and others time to devote themselves to
something they're not as good at, some because they've done it for a while
and are tired of it, and others because of an apparent feeling that they've
been around so long that they'll let the peons do it for them.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I thought that's what started this whole mess.
> >
> > Please read through the ArbCom's proposed decision to get a full
> > decision on the matter.
> >
> > --
> > Sam
>
>
> The decision on the matter is not the same as what prompted discussion of
> the matter.  My point was that what started this whole mess was someone
> getting blocked for the simple reason that they were a pedophile.  Am I
> missing something here?
> Pete Mackay said:
> *Oh, an editor can BE a paedophile. We don't mind that. It's just that he or
> she can't SAY it on their userpage. That pisses everyone off and attracts
> criticism.*
> **
> This is what I'm worried about, and the precedent I was mentioning.  All of
> a sudden, userpages now need to be politically correct, or you risk a
> block.  That is, if this precedent does get set.

If the userpages are potentially damaging to Wikipedia's reputation
(and this certainly is), and add nothing to the project, yes, fine,
remove the information.

I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
law should be forbidden as well.

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to
> do
> > it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to
> the
> > laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to me. By all means enforce US copyright
> laws. But banning Chinese users because they profess to breaking US
> laws? Nonsensical.
>
>
I was thinking more along the lines of being sued because we "facilitated"
drug users in some way, not because they said they smoked weed.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject: [Foundation-l] Google AdWords to promote Wikimedia sites

body:
Hi!

Wikimedia Germany has been offered to participate in the Google Grants
International-Programm. We can kidnly use Google AdWords to promote
Wikimedia sites. Suggestions are needed to reasonably benefit:

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

Final dealine for suggestions is February 14th.

Greetings,
Jakob


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Google AdWords to promote Wikimedia sites


body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd go as far as saying that all content saying that someone breaks US
> > law should be forbidden as well.
>
>
> Like "This user smokes weed"?

Yes.  It's a line.  It's arbitrary.  It's needed.

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> I hate to be a curmudgeon - no, really! - but paedophilia isn't actually
> illegal under US law. Not unless you act upon the impulse. I mean, the bible
> says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your
> heart, but I think US law demands the action as well as the thought.
>
> And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?
>
> I'm just wondering where to draw the line, and whether it should be straight
> or curly-wurly.

To be honest, I wasn't thinking of paedophilia here.

--
Sam


body:
On 2/8/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> But you would impose US law even in a country where smoking weed is legal.

Given that most of our users and most significant press coverage is
American, yes.  That is why I drew the line there.  Yes, I know it
isn't perfect.  But it's better than anything else I've seen.

--
Sam


from_name: Jake Nelson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia in the News

body:
I just watched a roughly 5-minute segment on the local news (WCCO 4, the
Minneapolis-St Paul CBS affiliate) about the Congressional edits, very
focused on Norm Coleman. Pretty good piece, very favorable to us (pretty
negative on Coleman) - but ended with a jab at Jimbo: (quoting as best I
can from memory) "There's an ironic twist in this story: Wikipedia's
founder, Jimmy Wales, has been known to edit his own bio."

There might be video at wcco.com later.

-- Jake Nelson


body:
"Matt Brown" wrote

>You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free
speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and
makes people happy.  You never did have the right to say anything you
pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.

Exactly.  Perhaps we need to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a
democracy, _and is not an experiment with how far freedom of speech can be
pushed_ (understood: on a website in the Global Top 20 that soared past AOL
in January).

Charles


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

body:
jayjg wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The FA article, Music of Nigeria, is getting hit with a pretty vicious bot
>>attack -- name-change bot, a new one appears every time the old one's
>>reverted.  It's become necessary to semiprotect this article, as well as
>>the
>>Costa Rica elections article that's also linked off the mainpage.  Each
>>time
>>the semiprotection's lifted, the attacks start back up again within
>>minutes.  Hoping somebody around who has checkuser can look into it and
>>see
>>about foiling the originating IP ...
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>
> Dynamic AOL IP, I'm afraid.
>

Last time we were hit with a random-username creating bot, we blocked
all of AOL and said "consequences be damned". Now that we are bigger
than AOL, we *must* demand action on their part.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/d8ce351f/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] What ever happened to Article Validation? Erratum

body:
Ilya N. wrote:
> On 2/7/06, rose.parks at att.net <rose.parks at att.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Well, I found the site. There is a proposed project called "Stable
>> Versions" at:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stable_versions
>>
>> This is a site where various options are being discussed. As I said
>>  before, this was mentioned in the current edition of PC Magazine.
>>
>
> I would just perfer a seperate tab next to article and talk that just
> said 'stable' and then admins (or someone so designated) could set
> the flag for certain revisions. Easiest way out
>

{{socodeit}} ?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/07424153/attachment.pgp


subject: Fixng double redirects (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] acronym sweep needed)

body:
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> > How is it tedious and painful? You look at the "what links here" list,
> > search the page for (redirect), and edit all of 10 pages.
>
> This was as efficient as I could get it:
>
> 1. Click what links here.
> 2. Choose a double redirect.
> 3. Click link to open in new tab
> 4. Click edit
> 5. Right click > Mozex > Edit text area
> 6. Search for "cockerel" (most of them were that)
> 7. Replace with [[Rooster|cockerel]]
> 8. Save/close
> 9. Click edit box
> 10. Paste edit summary
> 11. Save
> 12. Close tab
> 13. Go to step 2.
>
> Tedious. Especially when computers were designed to do this sort of
> thing for us, not the other way around. Some people thrive on this
> sort of menial task - not me.
>
> And I suspect a lot of users would be doing this without mozex, would
> retype the edit summary each time, and wouldn't think of opening the
> links in new tabs each time. Even more painful!

Quicker with, dare I say it, Lupin's pop-ups.  I'm not sure they can
do more than one a page, though.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
John Lee wrote:
<snip>
> I actually think Wikipedia is headed towards a similar fate like the
> site Geoff mentioned

That's THE original Wiki, thanks. I'm not a die-hard WikiWikiWayWarrior,
but credit where credit's due... :)

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/a4775a10/attachment.pgp


from_name: Brad Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Block (User:Colle)

body:
I,  User: Colle was recently blocked for a 3RR violation.  I was removing the statement: "I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics." from the talk page of the Safe sex article.  I believe that is vandalism intended to offend, not to mention it is unrelated to the article at hand.

I would like to have my name cleared before I continue editing wikipedia!  Thank you.

---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos


body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote

>Nonsensical.

Yeah, well, that's what you get.

The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue,
so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter.  Fortunately,
percentagewise,they don't account for a high proportion of Wikipedians.
Most people can get by with some rough idea of what is expected, and the
realisation that the system is relatively forgiving in the case of
good-faith mistakes.  Do we codify 'relatively forgiving'?  Hell no.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked username

body:
On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
>
> > On 2/8/06, Josh Gordon <joshua.p.gordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That would likely be [[User:Thejesusgod]].
> >
> > If that's true, that would imply he believes himself to be
> > jesus and/or god, which is no doubt offensive to devout
> > Christians. Why not simply choose a different name?
>
> In my experience, the more devout the Christian, the more strongly they
> believe in the second coming. Let us not be too quick to crucify
> [[User:Thejesusgod]].
>
> Pete, pointing out that it's only February

Isn't "crucify" a bit too unfortunate choice of words here. We certainly
shouldn't bite, but it doesn't take rocket science to figure out this
username is problematic. All he has to do to continue editing is pick
another one. It's not the user being blocked, just the name.

Of course, if a username RFC or WP:AN discussion says I'm wrong and that I'm
the only one seeing it as problematic, I'd be happy to leave it alone.

Mgm


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
>> How is it tedious and painful? You look at the "what links here" list,
>> search the page for (redirect), and edit all of 10 pages.
>
> This was as efficient as I could get it:
>
> 1. Click what links here.
> 2. Choose a double redirect.
> 3. Click link to open in new tab
> 4. Click edit
> 5. Right click > Mozex > Edit text area
> 6. Search for "cockerel" (most of them were that)
> 7. Replace with [[Rooster|cockerel]]
> 8. Save/close
> 9. Click edit box
> 10. Paste edit summary
> 11. Save
> 12. Close tab
> 13. Go to step 2.
>
> Tedious. Especially when computers were designed to do this sort of
> thing for us, not the other way around. Some people thrive on this
> sort of menial task - not me.
>
> And I suspect a lot of users would be doing this without mozex, would
> retype the edit summary each time, and wouldn't think of opening the
> links in new tabs each time. Even more painful!
>
> Stev
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

See this email I sent about this back in July 2005:
  --> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/026119.html

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe we should reconsider how we go about fast-reverting people. He
> was a bit trigger-happy there.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you aren't trolling. This is past
ridiculous.

Ryan


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Slashdot questions

body:
On 2/8/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>     http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/06/2223223
>
> I've gone through every comment rated 1 or above, answering all I can.
> Anyone else want to have a go? (I'm wondering if there will be any
> questions left for Jimbo ...)
>
>
> - d.

Good work! Although, one should note that you haven't been modded up a
single time (http://slashdot.org/~David+Gerard) :P I guess
slashdotters really don't appriciate great wikipedians :D


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>I mean, the bible
>says it's adultery if you look at someone not your spouse with lust in your
>heart
>
Actually, for the excessively literalistic among us (that would be all
of you, I expect), the text of the Bible only says looking upon "a
woman". You're already adding your own interpretation by using
gender-neutral language and adding the "not your spouse" bit, even if it
can be inferred from the fact that the topic is adultery.

This makes a nice case study on how important it is to know the
_meaning_ of rules, not just the _definitions_ of the words they
contain. Deliberately ignoring the meaning when it's obvious, as in the
example I showed, places you outside the law and risks losing its
protections.

If people would work to *understand* rules instead of trying to lawyer
them, they would find them much easier both to follow and to enforce.
Those who are clearly trying to circumvent the rules, we can do without.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] My 3rr block

body:
I'm not sure if my other message came through.  Sorry if this is a repeat.

I am appealing my recent block, which was for removing the following from the Safe Sex article's talk page:

"I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics"

I hope my block will be undone, and that I will be vindicated.  I believe some Catholic wikipedians considered my actions a challenge to their faith, which is unfortunate as I too am Catholic (albiet lapsed).  Thank you!
--User: Colle

---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
Delirium wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>
>> And
>> I don't recall him *ever* flaming people on this mailing list; but that
>> hasn't stopped people from attacking *him*, and to be honest, he
>> deserves better.
>>
>>
> If you'd like to be reminded, here's an exchange I had in mind, from
> December 16, 2005:
>
> 1. Jimbo says that he thinks anyone who saw the Seigenthaler article
> should've seen that the mistakes were "blatantly obvious" and
> "transparently outlandish".
>
> 2. Anthony DiPierro replies that they were not obvious to him.
>
> 3. Jimbo replies: "Anthony, I'm not normally one to state harsh
> opinions.  But frankly, if you don't find those errors to be blindingly
> obvious, you need to find another hobby.  Writing an encyclopedia is
> quite frankly beyond you."
>
> Note that several other of us had also expressed agreement with
> Anthony's point in #2, so Jimbo explicitly and publicly flamed a handful
> of dedicated and long-time Wikipedia contributors.
>

Well, I was on wikibreak between November 20th and December 30th,
including not being subscribed to this list. How was I to know?

Also, I think you are being a little harsh - I mean, he was only on the
verge of being sued, having the site shut down, press attacking on all
sides, etc...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/232d7c69/attachment.pgp


subject:
[WikiEN-l] More editing of user pages,
 please (was Arbcom has completely lost its mind)

body:
Matt Brown wrote:

>You don't have a userpage in order to exercise any "right" to free
>speech, but because it helps the project; it aids communication and
>makes people happy.  You never did have the right to say anything you
>pleased there; disruptiveness has always been unacceptable.
>
>
It seems to me that many of our recent social problems could be reduced
by changing the culture that actively discourages editing other people's
user pages. Remember, they are on a wiki, and subject to the same GFDL
and "merciless editing" as anything else. Instead of having the uproars
incited by deletions and blocking, just edit away. You don't have to be
an administrator to help out, either.

And yes, I think it follows from this that there are circumstances under
which someone could appropriately be blocked for violating the
three-revert rule in their own user space. I would defer to individual
preferences on almost all matters, but disruptive use of user pages
should be treated like disruptive editing anywhere else.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked username

body:
Hi,
 We don't need to work everything out from first principles. That's
what we have policies for. From [[Wikipedia:username]]:

Remember that a controversial name may colour other users' perspective
on your own credibility or political viewpoint. In addition remember
that Wikipedia is a world-wide source book and so take care in
selecting a name to avoid anything that might potentially cause
offence to someone from a different culture, religious or ethnic
group.

Wikipedia recommends that users avoid

   1. names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;
   2. any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or
endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public
figure.

People should be able to judge you purely on your contributions, not
an emotional response to a potentially controversial nickname.
Avoiding such names is in your own interest. So do please be careful.
Remember you are working as part of a community. Show everyone else
the respect for their beliefs that you expect them to show yours.

No inflammatory usernames Wikipedia does not allow potentially
inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflammatory usernames are
needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and
distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia.

On the other hand:

If enough people complain about your user name (through talk pages or
the mailing lists or Meta-Wikipedia), the bureaucrats will change it.
Neither complaints nor name changes should be arbitrary, but user
names that are offensive to a significant number of people will be
changed, not without notice, but without appeal.

Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of our
policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via
Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries
and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate
blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good
faith.

Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. This can take
place on either (A) the user's talk page, (B) a subpage of the user's
talk page, or (C) a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It
should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate
section. The user should also be made aware of the discussion.

Steve

On 2/8/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Josh Gordon <joshua.p.gordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That would likely be [[User:Thejesusgod]].
> >
> > -- jpgordon
>
>
> If that's true, that would imply he believes himself to be jesus and/or god,
> which is no doubt offensive to devout Christians. Why not simply choose a
> different name?
>
> Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
geni wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>John Lee wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>There are many userbox fanatics who do great work around here, some
>>>of whom are admins ([[User:Firefox]] and [[User:Karmafist]] come to
>>>mind).
>>>
>>
>>[[User:FireFox]] you mean, and [[User:Karmafist]] was desysopped in the
>>latest wheel war...
>>
>
> Merovingian racked up 66% support in the election with this userpage:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Merovingian&oldid=35010047
>
>

Check my vote and the reason.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060208/d1244921/attachment.pgp


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Wikipedia is Communism! We are the NEW BABYLON! We operate under a
>Totalitarian Unificationist Left-wing Objectivist Jewish Micronation
>Terrorist point of view! (Thanks to Michael Snow for the last one)
>
>
If I had known people were going to start repeating it, I would have
gone to more trouble to come up with something that reduced to a catchy
acronym. For those who are wondering what this is about, it's from a
discussion on another list
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-February/043685.html),
which coincidentally happens to mention those fancy Arbitration
Committee costumes Sean was wishing for earlier.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Sam Spade

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Wheel war" (Worst. Userbox. Ever.)

body:
I've been blocked twice, both controversially, both unblocked ahead of
time (one of which resulting in a wheel-war-esque re-block by the
blocking admin). They both made me re-evaluate why I take part in a
project with such a disgusting imbalance of power. I guess I like
encyclopedia's enough not to let a little thing like self-respect get
in the way of my volunteership... for now.

Sam Spade

> On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Intentionally or not, it looks like this kid started a very, very ugly
> > debate with some poor judgment. A week's block isn't the end of the
> > world...
> >
> > Steve
>
> How often have you been blocked?
> --
> geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Throwing out the first ball

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Phil Boswell

> "Peter Mackay" <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:20060208080943.LCFP24868.omta05sl.mx.bigpond.com at skyringstudy...
> [snip]
> > Pete, enjoying the prospect of the solemn twilight ceremony, the
> > massed bands, the arena full of hushed spectators, the
> flags, the bunting...
>
> Mentioning "bunting" in the same thread as [[Monty Python]]
> might not be the wisest move ("what a silly bunt"[1] :-)...

I see you had a classical education, Phil!

Actually, I was thinking about bunting in a baseball sort of way, and making
my usual sort of silly wordplay.

Regarding Wikipedia as any sort of equivalent to real-life organisations is
always going to end up looking rather strained. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is
Wikipedia. By definition.

Peter, walking with four balls


body:
On 2/8/06, SPUI <drspui at gmail.com> wrote:
> How is it tedious and painful? You look at the "what links here" list,
> search the page for (redirect), and edit all of 10 pages.

This was as efficient as I could get it:

1. Click what links here.
2. Choose a double redirect.
3. Click link to open in new tab
4. Click edit
5. Right click > Mozex > Edit text area
6. Search for "cockerel" (most of them were that)
7. Replace with [[Rooster|cockerel]]
8. Save/close
9. Click edit box
10. Paste edit summary
11. Save
12. Close tab
13. Go to step 2.

Tedious. Especially when computers were designed to do this sort of
thing for us, not the other way around. Some people thrive on this
sort of menial task - not me.

And I suspect a lot of users would be doing this without mozex, would
retype the edit summary each time, and wouldn't think of opening the
links in new tabs each time. Even more painful!

Stev


body:
On 2/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

> How often have you been blocked?

I haven't started a lot of arguments that resulted in five admins
being desysopped, and (if I understand the causality) Wikipedia being
labelled a "haven for pedophiles", either.

Steve


body:
On 2/8/06, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I've been blocked twice, both controversially, both unblocked ahead of
> time (one of which resulting in a wheel-war-esque re-block by the
> blocking admin). They both made me re-evaluate why I take part in a
> project with such a disgusting imbalance of power. I guess I like
> encyclopedia's enough not to let a little thing like self-respect get
> in the way of my volunteership... for now.

Probably a good thing - working in a Wiki is kind of antithetical to
egotism. It's kind of what's so attractive about it, in some ways -
your contribution is all that counts, not who you are or why you did
it. In theory. :)

Steve


body:
Dammit, I need to look at some more of these tools, and they should be
more publicised for new editors. Mozex is great, and I've signed up to
use AWB, but it looks like I have to wait on that one.

Steve

On 2/8/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Quicker with, dare I say it, Lupin's pop-ups.  I'm not sure they can
> do more than one a page, though.
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to do
> it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to the
> laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.

It doesn't make much sense to me. By all means enforce US copyright
laws. But banning Chinese users because they profess to breaking US
laws? Nonsensical.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Slashdot questions

body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, isn't the interview for Jimbo only? I'm assuming they're waiting for
> his answers and are treating everyone else's answers as just comments.

I believe the most popular questions get asked, and if we can answer
some of the dumb or obvious ones, the end result will be interesting
answers from Jimbo to intelligent questions.

Rather than the most popular question being "But if anyone can edit
Wikipedia, doesn't that mean...?"

Steve


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Alternative names for the Counter Vandalism Unit

body:
G'day Cunct,

>>>Slaves for an Unvandalised Wikipedia?
>
> Good.

Requires too much thought.

>>>The Anti-vandalism Superheroes?
>
> That's both us/them and not ironicly ugly.

Also attractive to the wrong people in the same way CVU is: "I just
joined, and I hear there's this thing called a superhero?  How do I
become one of them?"

Fun name, though.

>>>Vandalism Posse?
>
> Us/them.

Better, though, and fun.

> Other ideas--positive:
>
> The Fencepainting Project (Shades of Tom Sawyer, with other
> neighborhood-building connotations.)

Could work.

> Welcome Mat Project (the vast amount of vandalism is
> newbie-ish--enfolding handling vandalism into the concept of welcoming
> new users makes sense to me. I.e. there are no strangers, just friends
> we haven't met (and indoctrinated).)

Also friends who have an irritating habit of kicking in our front door
in the middle of the night, pissing all over the rug, nicking any spare
change that happens to be lying around, then scarpering, only to return
the following night.  Problem is, after a week or so, you start to
wonder whether the sign outside the door that says "Come in!  If you
need to go, use the rug!" is such a good idea.

> Ironically positive:
> Care Bear Brigade (I know this was discussed and negged earlier, but
> it's hilarious.)

I likes it too.

My suggestion: Glaziers.  After all, one problem unchecked vandalism
causes is the "broken windows" phenomenon ...

> Ugly:
> Users for Mindless Conformity.

We could rename admins to that.  Actually, "administrator" is probably a
bad name, implying as it does responsibility for everything Wikipdeia
does, and a deal of say that we just don't have.  We make jokes about
janitors and mop and bucket, but that's not what we are, either:
*anyone* can *clean up* vandalism.  We're not cops, either, despite the
idiotic cries of "police state".

I think admins can be considered volunteer rural firefighters (or the
SES).  We try to clean up any messes (flooding, tree falling down,
etc.), fight to stop messes getting worse (bushfires), and if necessary
are empowered to confiscate matches wielded by self-professed firebugs.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 7/02/2006


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-09

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 264 of 281 tests (93.95%) FAILED!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why did Raul654 restore a nonsense edit?

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> This makes no sense:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=37862022&oldid=37859683

Hah, have you been reading Wikipedia Review?

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 2/8/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikipedia has not been labled a "haven for pedophiles" by anyone.

Not strictly true; 'organisations' which turned out to be sockpuppets
of Quake Aid did.

Not by anyone credible, though.

-Matt


from_name: Jesse W

body:
On Feb 8, 2006, at 3:31 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
> With ordinary users bullied alternately by raving lunatics and any one
> of nearly 1,000 wheel waring perma-blocking popularity contest winners
> (admins),

Not my experience.  Either as a janitor, or a logged in user, or a
non-logged in user.  I have edited the 'pedia for a number of years,
and have not had such problems.  I don't disbelieve you, but it needs
to be stressed, again, that your experience is not common, AFAIK.

And, just as a courtesy, if you are going to describe me (one of the
"nearly 1,000") as a "wheel waring perma-blocking popularity contest
winner", please provide some evidence...  (in my personal case, not in
general.)  Thanks.

Jesse Weinstein


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales

> 1. Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service, your userpage
> is not your own infinite free-speech zone where you can
> pontificate about anything, no matter how bad it makes Wikipedia look.
>
> 2.  Wikipedia is a diverse community with extensive tolerance
> for what people put on their userpages.  We try to get people
> to change with reason and kindness rather than hardcore
> measures, whenever we can.

I like the analogy with a worker's cubicle. A certain amount of
self-expression is accepted. Family photographs, movie posters etc. But
displaying gatefolds from Penthouse or extreme political messages is
generally discouraged, sometimes to the extent of dismissal.

> Now, achieving balance between these two is a difficult
> matter.  But I think that people who self-identify as
> pedophiles (with a userbox or
> otherwise) could bring Wikipedia into serious disrepute, and
> I have a real problem with that disruption.

The editor self-identifies as a sixteen year old boy. A quiet word rather
than a whack over the earhole might be more appropriate.

Looking at the history of [[NAMBLA]] it is clear that there are edits from
several points of view. Whether or not any of these edits were made by
self-identified paedophiles, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that some of
them were made by people with a deep and personal interest.

How do we maintain NPOV and avoid charges that we are a haven for
paedophiles, neo-Nazis and supporters of terrorism?

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom has completely lost its mind

body:
Mark Wagner wrote:

>On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And isn't it legal to smoke dope in the US under some circumstances?
>>
>>
>That's very much in dispute right now.  Federal law says that smoking
>weed is always illegal, while some state laws sat that there are times
>when it's legal.  Court decisions have gone both directions, and some
>police departments have stated that they will not enforce the federal
>law on the subject.
>
Strictly speaking the Canadian law is that it's illegal to possess weed;
it's not illegal to smoke it.  Of course it's difficult to smoke weed
that you don't have in your possession.  If it's legal in the country
where the act would be performed it's not illegal to advocate it.

There is a large part of the world's people who seriously resent the
extraterritorial application of US law.  US copyright law can be applied
because it's not extraterritorial.

Ec


body:
Not my theory! I'm here because '''I''' love encyclopedias. Reading
them, writing them, and sharing them with others.

With ordinary users bullied alternately by raving lunatics and any one
of nearly 1,000 wheel waring perma-blocking popularity contest winners
(admins), the Wikipedia reminds me of being in the Wild West without a
gun.

The power imbalance on the wikipedia is poisonous. Frankly it reminds
me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

I'd prefer a library where I respectfully interact with others who
enjoy books of reference.

Sam Spade

On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've been blocked twice, both controversially, both unblocked ahead of
> > time (one of which resulting in a wheel-war-esque re-block by the
> > blocking admin). They both made me re-evaluate why I take part in a
> > project with such a disgusting imbalance of power. I guess I like
> > encyclopedia's enough not to let a little thing like self-respect get
> > in the way of my volunteership... for now.
>
> Probably a good thing - working in a Wiki is kind of antithetical to
> egotism. It's kind of what's so attractive about it, in some ways -
> your contribution is all that counts, not who you are or why you did
> it. In theory. :)
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kurt Jansson

subject: [Foundation-l] TACD Conferences 2006

body:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: [edri-ip] TACD Conferences 2006
Datum: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:07:08 +0000
Von: Vera Franz <vfranz at osieurope.org>
An: edri-ip at edri.org

Below an overview on the upcoming IP conferences organised by the
Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue <www.tacd.org>. For more information,
please contact Ben Wallis <bwallis at consint.org>

(1)
TITLE: The Politics and Ideology of Intellectual Property
VENUE: Renaissance Hotel, Brussels, March 20-21, 2006

DESCRIPTION:
The conference will bring together a broad variety of political figures
and stakeholders to look at the thinking that drives current
intellectual property rule-making.

In recent years, intellectual property policy issues have gained higher
profiles in Europe and the United States, as debates over patenting of
software and business methods, copyright term extensions, the public
domain nature of the Human Genome Project, access to medicine,
peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, and other hot button issues have
attracted a wide public audience.

The TACD conference will provide an opportunity to stand back from
specific legislative proposals and consider the broader intellectual and
philosophical aspects of the debate. In particular, the meeting will
examine how the struggles over the control and ownership of the new
knowledge economy relates to our concepts of ideology, in party
political positions platforms and political rhetoric. It will also look
at the role of both the transparent and non-transparent lobbying of
government officials, opinion leaders and the public to build consensus
or support for different intellectual property rules.

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS: - Philippe Aigrain, Peter Drahos, Tom Faunce, Hugh
Hansen, Susan Sell, Martin Khor, Bruce Lehman, David Hammerstein MEP,
Eva Lichtenberger MEP, Declan McCullagh, Florian M?ller, Nicoletta Dentico

(2)
TITLE: IP Disputes of the Future
VENUE: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,
D.C., April 27-28, 2006

DESCRIPTION:
The conference will bring together experts in innovation, emerging
technologies and the digitally networked society to explore how
intellectual property (IP) rules will shape the world in the 21st century.

In recent years, intellectual property issues have gained higher
profiles, as debates over patenting of software and business methods,
copyright term extensions, peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, and other
hot button issues have attracted a wide public audience. This conference
will ask what will be the IP disputes in new fields of technology, and
how advances in biotechnology and information technologies will change
the nature of IP disputes in areas such as for medicine, agriculture,
software, music, academic journals, databases.

Discussions will also focus on broader questions about how IP rules, in
the long term, will impact personal privacy, and whether they will
promote or undermine equality and fairness. What are the long-term
consequences of different models for protecting or supporting innovation
and creativity in terms of society? Are we headed into a world of
hyper-litigation and concentration of ownership of new knowledge?

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS: Cory Doctorow, Ben Rosenbaum, James Gleick, Marc
Rotenberg (EPIC) and Susanne Lace (UK National Consumer Council)

(3)
TITLE: The future of creativity: changing relationships between
creators, consumers and citizens
VENUE: Oh 20eme, Paris, June 19-20, 2006

AIM OF CONFERENCE
The goal is to bring people together (mainly representatives of creative
people and users) to look at new and existing social and business models
for the intermediary between the creative person and the consumer. This
would hopefully legitimize and elevate the status of new models of
intermediary that promote the access of users and ensure the livelihood
of the creators.

The conference will look at ideas that realign the livelihoods and
economic interest of the people that create works, with the people that
need access. The idea is to ensure that they're partners rather than
enemies.

Ben Wallis
Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue Coordinator
Consumers International
24 Highbury Crescent
London N5 1RX
Tel: +44 20 7226 6663 Ext. 218

Consumers International is a federation of consumer organisations
dedicated to the protection and promotion of consumers' rights worldwide
through empowering national consumer groups and campaigning at the
international level. It currently represents 234 organisations in 113
countries. For more information, see: www.consumersinternational.org


subject: [Foundation-l] TACD Conferences 2006


body:
Jay Converse wrote:

>On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If the servers are hosted in the US, wouldn't that be another reason to do
>>>
>>>
>>>it? IANAL, but I thought that servers hosted in a country are bound to the
>>>
>>>
>>>laws of that country, no matter where the users come from.
>>>
>>>
>>It doesn't make much sense to me. By all means enforce US copyright
>>laws. But banning Chinese users because they profess to breaking US
>>laws? Nonsensical.
>>
>>
>I was thinking more along the lines of being sued because we "facilitated"
>drug users in some way, not because they said they smoked weed.
>
If you follow the same argument it would be wrong to facilitate
pedophilia, but one could still say that he is a pedophile.

The reasons for doing something should go beyond fear of punishment or
of being sued.  Being consistent with one's own personal ethical
standards is far more important.

Ec


body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 2/8/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>People are entirely too touchy here.
>>>
>>>
>>>>After all we are a community, and sometimes small individual freedoms
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>get sacrificed for the common good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Which, history tells us, is rarely for the common good in the
>>>long run.
>>>
>>>
>>If we let the community decide what is best for it, so long as the ultimate
>>goal of writing an encyclopaedia remains foremost, then surely we will find
>>the common good?
>>
>>
>Not necessarily. Again, history doesn't support that thesis.
>
The Wisdom of Crowds tends to fall apart when fears are involved.
Scared people are too easily willing to give up freedom when they feel
threatened, whether or not the threat is valid.  Politicians know very
well how to exploit that.

Ec


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] user pages

body:
While checking out the new shiny proposed deletion, I came across

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liberalundergrnd

Whats the process for dealing with this sort of User: space
abuse?

Justinc


body:
On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:13 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people who have
>> seen fit
>> to ignore the vandalism fight.  Some because they're simply better at
>> other
>> things and find it a waste of theirs and others time to devote
>> themselves to
>> something they're not as good at, some because they've done it for a
>> while
>
> And speaking for myself, it's like choosing not to join the brigade of
> people putting out fires with buckets of water until people install
> smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, and until the brigade is
> equipped with decent fire engines and hire powered hoses.
>
> Yes, that's a bit snobby. But hopefully I'm helping the project in
> other ways.
Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool
?  It offers a filtered list of RC; with the ability to view the diffs
all-in-one-page, and convieient revert and rollback buttons...  Is that
hose high powered enough for you?

Or if you're an IRC man, there are at least 4 different filters
running, I think... Take your pick. ;-)

Admittedly, we haven't got sprinkler systems, AFAIK (although blocks
might count, I suppose), but the rest is there...

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [WikiEN-l] Perverted justice article updated

body:
Considering that Xavier Von Erck edits the article himself from tiem to time
(as XavierVE), seems like he could fix them himself if he really wanted to.

k

On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11
>
> Contains corrections to "factual errors" - haven't had time to read it
> yet.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, that was Alphax's analysis, not mine.  I do realize that shutting the
> site down never was a possibility, but you still have to admit that media
> attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting
> is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the
> media's yelling at them for.
>

Is that an excuse I can try?

--
geni


list: commons-l

from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [Commons-l] Trademark worries, again

body:
We need a policy on trademarked images to be clearly defined, and if
there is one, it needs to be publicised somewhere prominant - are
trademarked logos which claim to be under a free license really free, or
are they violating copyright? Case in point, I've just deleted
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Exquisite-redhat.png and moved
it to en: per an offical request from Redhat.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060209/ea9553e2/attachment.pgp


from_name: Jakob Voss

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: German wikipedia to be printed - where's the
 stable version feature?

body:
Hi Tim,
Hi Domas,
Hi Magnus,

Thanks for your response about the stable version feature. How about
first activating it in the German Wikipedia only to get some real life
tests? Like any new feature it's not fully clear how it will be used in
the community. In the German Wikipedia at least there is a strong need
and a direction because of WP1.0. Categories had not been perfect from
the beginning neither.

Greetings and happy coding :-)
Jakob


body:
On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > G'day Sherool,
> > > [CVU]
> > > > Whatever happened to just plain old "Recent Changes/RC patrol".
> > >
> > > No, we can't have that, it's *boring*.  We've gotta have fancy userboxen
> > > and copyvio logos and people declaring "war".  Otherwise, why would
> > > anyone even *bother* fighting vandalism?
> >  The difference is that RC Patrol is more of an idea, a job.  CVU is a
> > collection of people who subscribe to that idea and perform that job.
> >
> > That's the way I see it, anyway.
>
> That's yet another problem with the CVU. Every Wikipedian should be
> considered part of the collection of people who subscribe to the idea
> of keeping Wikipedia clean and neat. It's detrimental to have some
> people say "This is my job" because then everyone else goes "Goody!
> Now I don't have to worry about it."

Hmm there is a backlog at [[WP:CP]]. If you want to start worrying
about something start there.

--
geni


body:
On 2/8/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How often have you been blocked?
>
> I haven't started a lot of arguments that resulted in five admins
> being desysopped, and (if I understand the causality) Wikipedia being
> labelled a "haven for pedophiles", either.
>
> Steve

You have not been blocked. I suggest you don't make statements about
what it feels like.

Wikipedia has not been labled a "haven for pedophiles" by anyone.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/9/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni stated for the record:
>
> > On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Well, that was Alphax's analysis, not mine.  I do realize that shutting the
> >>site down never was a possibility, but you still have to admit that media
> >>attention on the scale that Wikipedia, and by extension Jimbo, are getting
> >>is enough to try anyone's patience when they're trying to fix what the
> >>media's yelling at them for.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Is that an excuse I can try?
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> Certainly.  Once you start regularly receiving requests for interviews
> from international media about your top-ten Web site, you will be
> welcome to use that "excuse."
>

Oh well jimbo is safe enough from that one. Wikipedia is not a top ten
website yet.
--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] FA bot attacks -- anybody around with checkuser?

body:
On 2/9/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni wrote:
> > On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/8/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Last time we were hit with a random-username creating bot, we blocked
> >>>>>all of AOL and said "consequences be damned". Now that we are bigger
> >>>>>than AOL, we *must* demand action on their part.
> >>>>
> >>>>More popular. Not bigger.
> >>>
> >>>We're not bigger than AOL? Hell, we're bigger than Jesus Christ!
> >>
> >>
> >>Mr. Lennon has a point.
> >>
> >>Actually, think about it.  We may not be bigger than AOL, but we sure as
> >>hell are big enough that if we were to appeal to AOL at some level, there'd
> >>be a decent chance of them listening.  Heck, with all the media attention
> >>Wikipedia seems to get every time it farts, you can imagine the headlines...
> >>"AOL refuses to help Wikipedia" or something...
> >>
> >>Or am I just wishful thinking here?
> >>
> >
> > media attention to the china issue has been limited.
> >
>
> Yeah, but that's China. Relatively few people care. But if America
> Online, (insert various jingoistic patriotic bullshit here) was not
> cooperating with a website which promotes Free Speech (insert various
> references to US legalalistic cruft here), then oh noes!!1! We might
> even get the ACLU involved.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax

No legal case. AOL are busy showing that the missing mass of the
universe can be accounted for by AOL CDs I don't think they are going
to be too worried about us.

Anyway AOL's system is a selling point. A proxey that webmasters find
it hard to block. To a certian brand of customer that is seriously
worth haveing.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] They love us! They really love us!

body:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:SAWW

- d.


from_name: bobble wik

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ambi's two week block of Bobblewik

body:
>From: "Steve Bennett"
>I have to say I agree with Bobblewik's reasoning here

Thank you.

>However: Bobblewik is acting like a troll.

Wikipedia says "a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants." I am confused as to why you think that applies to me.

>The interesting concept of a date threshold
>(e.g. between 1600 and 1900) has been
>mentioned before but is currently totally absent."
>If, as you acknowledge, there is a general desire for older years
>to be linked, and newer ones not to be, then you should respect that.

You misunderstand what I wrote. I did not acknowledge a "general desire for older years to be linked". I merely told one editor that his/her suggestion had been made before.

Editors that agree with the MoS should be permitted to act on it. Editors that disagree with it should be encouraged to get it changed. It is bizarre to have MoS guidance that cannot be implemented because some admins disagree with it and block editors rather than obtain new MoS wording.

--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/


from_name: Robert Scott Horning

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipubs Project Proposal.

body:
admin at wikipubs.org wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Yes the site currently exists, however this site was designed as a
> prototype to see if the mediawiki software and the wiki-type directory
> was appropriate. I have found that the software easily meets the
> requirements of the proposal and hence would be a possible future
> project. The demo site, email addresses and domains were purchased
> when I first came up with the idea and now am putting this forward for
> discussion as project proposal.
>
> Cheers,
> James.

As long as you are showing a willingness to transfer these domains to
the Wikimedia Foundation upon acceptance of this project, I don't see
anything wrong with doing a project proposal like this.  It is a bit
different than other proposals, but every new project proposal seems to
go about its creation through slightly unique circumstances, especially
as the proposal matures.

The quality of the proposal and the merits of it becoming a Wikimedia
sister project should be irrelvant as to if it has an existing website
or not.  I do think a project demonstration is a good idea, and I hope
that others looking at this proposal understand the nature of the
demonstration.

--
Robert Scott Horning


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Media interviews

body:
As many of you are aware, Wikipedia continues to get regular media
coverage as various issues come up. Jimbo is usually the first person
the media turn to, but he doesn't have time to respond to all of the
increasing requests for interviews, even the ones in English. So
Elisabeth Bauer, Wikimedia Foundation press officer, has asked me to
recruit more people who are willing to do media interviews about Wikipedia.

Please contact me *off-list* if you are interested in being added to the
list of potential contacts. Obviously, responding indicates you agree to
allow your contact information to be disseminated to reporters and
Foundation volunteers/employees who coordinate interviews.

The information we need from you is as much of the following as you're
willing to provide:
-Wikipedia username, preferably along with your real name if different,
because reporters are more likely to consider people giving real names
as credible sources
-Email address and a phone number (for interviews, most reporters still
prefer phone or, if they use it, instant messaging, because it lends
itself better to follow-up questions based on your initial responses)
-General location, to facilitate coverage by local media
-A brief description of yourself, so that some basic information could
be attached if you're quoted in an article (e.g., high school physics
teacher, or student at X university)

Naturally we can't guarantee that anyone in particular will get
interviews, but you may get called on at short notice. We do appreciate
all who are willing to help.

--Michael Snow