from_name: mapellegrini at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
I didn't want to get involved with this on the mailing list, but this is
getting ridiculous. I've been involved in this since the first ten minutes
or so, so I'm uniquely qualified to say - the whole situation is a case
study in how the system has failed to repel a persistent bad user. I'm sorry
to all the good people who put thought into the dispute resolution process,
but it's broken.

Plautus has been here 2 weeks, and virtually every single person he's
interacted with wants him banned - that doesn't happen by accident. He's
apologized time and again, but (each time) courteously rejects any advice
that he should cooperate with other users or obey the NPOV policy. He's
abusive, impossible to work with, and paranoid.

Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's driving
away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and wasting
enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become popular on
the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be
reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place?

--Mark Pellegrini
En. Wikipedia Administrator
User: Raul654
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> 	wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. RE: "Go" back to WikiBooks vs. Wikipedia discussion
>       (Poor, Edmund W)
>    2. Re: Re: recipes (Peter Jaros)
>    3. Plautus (Martin Harper)
>    4. Re: Plautus (Jimmy Wales)
>    5. Re: Paul Vogel and anon IDs (Jimmy Wales)
>    6. Protected Wikipedia:Main Page (James Rosenzweig)
>    7. Re: Re: recipes (Ray Saintonge)
>    8. Re: Instructions (Anthere)
>    9. Re: Plautus (Erik Moeller)
>   10. Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other	imperativecontent
>       (Anthere)
>   11. Re: Plautus (Fred Bauder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:05:04 -0500
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] "Go" back to WikiBooks vs. Wikipedia
> 	discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
> <E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC2801FBB340 at sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> LOL! You want to step outside and repeat that remark? You know, a boxing
> ring is square, too!! ;-)
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Barrett
>
> Not recipes, but the fact that Go is an unacceptable topic for
> Wikipedia: the very raison d'etre of the off-square-ness of the grid is
> the player POV.  NPOV requires a square grid.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:37:41 -0500
> From: Peter Jaros <rjaros at shaysnet.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <38CFB646-67E3-11D8-930E-000A27B3913C at shaysnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Peter Jaros wrote:
> >
> >> Giving a recipe for a particular chocolate cake would not serve to
> >> describe chocolate cake.  If one recipe was particularly famous,
> >> however, it might merit its own section (or possibly article; I'd
> >> like to try *that* cake) where the recipe *would* be descriptive.
> >> It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.  It comes through to
> >> readers, if only in terms of a sense of the style.
> >
> > That's very patronizing of you.
>
> Sorry, I worded that poorly.  What I meant that the distinction may not
> jump out at casual readers, but it sounds better nonetheless.  As
> analogy, using the wrong word in a sentence and making the sentence
> meaningless is obvious to even a casual reader, while using casual
> language in a formal setting is often "felt" while not directly
> noticed.  It can take a bit of working with a sentence to figure out
> what in it sounds too casual (or too formal, or awkward, etc.).
>
> Peter
>
>                                   -- ---<>--- --
>                         A house without walls cannot fall.
>            Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
>                                   -- ---<>--- --
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:55:52 -0000
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D27F8.5938.B4BD82 at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Arno M wrote:
> > When will something be done?
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>
> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
> 1) You decide to act.
> 2) You act.
>
> Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
> -Martin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:49:16 -0800
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040225224916.GK23806 at joey.bomis.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Ed Poor is helping Plautus to try to learn the norms of the community,
> and has great hopes for the future.  Plautus has also written to me
> expressing a desire for change.
>
> I will also try to help.
>
> In the meantime, show him love.  Love is the only hope for us all.
> If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
>
> > I know folks are busy with Irismeister right now, but Plautus satire seems
> > to be eating up a lot of people's time -- both on talk pages and on
> > whichever article he decides to target -- currently
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado and
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
> >
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
> >
> > Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
> >
> > At 12:40:27 2/25/04 +0600, you wrote:
> > >Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:40:27 +0600
> > >From: "Arno M" <redgum46 at lycos.com>
> > >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> > >
> > >Speaking of which - this guy now has 21 signatures (myself included) who
> > >want him banned. He is continuing to make a joke out of the Sep 11 page
> > >and antagonising other users. When will something be done?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:05:26 -0800
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040225230526.GM23806 at joey.bomis.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I'm a little confused.  Why are people so adamant against having an
> article "White Separatism"?  Rather than banging our head against the
> wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
>
> The junk this guy is inserting is junk.  It looks like a quote from
> someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short
> article on the subject.
>
> There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an
> article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White
> Supremacy".
>
> Here's a book about it:
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-1338507?v=g
> lance
>
> My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White
> separatist" and "White supremacy".
>
> The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote
> is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at
> least some people who take action in the world, action that should
> concern us all.
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> > See
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/65.125
> .10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171
> >
> > He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into
> > a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who
> > reverts the spam).
> >
> > He intends to continue however possible:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=2458552&old
> id=2458453
> >
> > "WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being
> > maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article."
> >
> > At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a
> > measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia?
> >
> > (And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to
> > no more than three per article.)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: James Rosenzweig <jwrosenzweig at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Protected Wikipedia:Main Page
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040225232703.18502.qmail at web60707.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Isomorphic caught someone vandalizing [[Wikipedia:Main
> Page]].  Iso reverted, and I decided to protect that
> page for essentially the same reasons that the Main
> Page has traditionally been protected.  If you
> disagree, I have noted the protected status at
> [[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]] (and listed it as
> semi-permanently protected at [[Wikipedia:Protected
> page]]), and am happy to discuss things at W:MP's talk
> page.  I assume I have done the right thing, but am
> happy to hear other perspectives.
>
> James Rosenzweig
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:13:01 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <403D3A0D.5090608 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Peter Jaros wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Jaros wrote:
> >>
> >>> Giving a recipe for a particular chocolate cake would not serve to
> >>> describe chocolate cake.  If one recipe was particularly famous,
> >>> however, it might merit its own section (or possibly article; I'd
> >>> like to try *that* cake) where the recipe *would* be descriptive.
> >>> It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.  It comes through
> >>> to readers, if only in terms of a sense of the style.
> >>
> >> That's very patronizing of you.
> >
> > Sorry, I worded that poorly.  What I meant that the distinction may
> > not jump out at casual readers, but it sounds better nonetheless.  As
> > analogy, using the wrong word in a sentence and making the sentence
> > meaningless is obvious to even a casual reader, while using casual
> > language in a formal setting is often "felt" while not directly
> > noticed.  It can take a bit of working with a sentence to figure out
> > what in it sounds too casual (or too formal, or awkward, etc.).
>
> I do get a little hot over these deletion issues. :-)
>
> The expression that I found most patronizing  was "it might merit its
> own section".  I suspect that the subtleties between descriptive and
> prescriptive or between imperatiuve and indicative might not be
> meningful to the casual reader who wants to find out about a food and/or
> how to make it.  The technical detailsof chocolate cakes are not
> inherently controversial.  If different ways exist for making such a
> cake, the results of which is better can be entirely subjective.
>
> Using a wrong word that gives the sentence a different meaning, rather
> than just making it meaningless can launch a discussion into a very
> different direction.  I confess to being quick to notice this kind of
> thing as I did with the earlier part of your previous post.
>  "Proscriptive" and "prescriptive" have almost contradictory meanings,
> but grammaticaly can fit equally well into the same context.  I couldn't
> pass up the opportunity.
>
> Ec
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:34:18 +0100
> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Instructions
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D3F0A.8060104 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Ray Saintonge a ??crit:
>
> >
> > Let me know, Anthere, if you need help in reverting these changes.
> >
> > Ec
>
> well, thanks Ec :-)
> I'll see how it goes...I am very optimistic :-)
>
> All involved are reasonable people. In case we need more
> reason(s)...your help will be appreciated :-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100
> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <93bAfYQxpVB at erik_moeller>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jimmy-
> > In the meantime, show him love.  Love is the only hope for us all.
> > If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
>
> Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid
> delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get.
> There is a discussion / evidence page at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
>
> In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be
> banned.  3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
>
> This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> banned.  It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
>
> I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
>
> We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or
> more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural
> attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum,
> Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these
> individuals to the proper institutions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:01:59 +0100
> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other
> 	imperativecontent
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D4587.8050609 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Charles Matthews a ??crit:
> >>I really don't think it matters if recipes and other how to's are on
> >
> > wikipedia or on wikibooks, as long as they are not deleted totally. Can we
> > come to some agreement on what to do and just do it. I would like a policy
> > in place so that they don't keep getting listed on VfD.
> >
> >>Theresa
> >
> >
> > Well, I believed it was policy they all went to wikibooks; I thought and
> > think that that's a good, clear policy; and not one that hampers changing
> > the policy later if other thoughts prevail.
> >
> > Charles
>
> No, there is no policy on the matter. It seems it was agreed upon among
> the couple of people doing transwiki and vfd users. In short, that is an
> assumed consensus among a couple of people who care about the matter,
> and want wikibook to progress (which is something I certainly support :-))
>
> But I fear this supposed policy, is clearly not consensual at all.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:08:09 -0700
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BC629508.18EC%fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I didn't actually fall down and roll on the floor, but LOL.
>
> Don't worry, we can do the job.
>
> Fred, arbitration committee member
>
> > From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> >
> > Jimmy-
> >> In the meantime, show him love.  Love is the only hope for us all.
> >> If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
> >
> > Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid
> > delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get.
> > There is a discussion / evidence page at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
> >
> > In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be
> > banned.  3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
> >
> > This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> > banned.  It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> > It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
> >
> > I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> > beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> > can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> > IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> > allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
> >
> > We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or
> > more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural
> > attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum,
> > Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these
> > individuals to the proper institutions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 72
> ***************************************


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
At 01:39 26/02/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
>beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
>can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
>IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
>allowed to make such decisions in the first place.

We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody
asks us to decide it, you know. We're not a police force. But thanks for
the vote of confidence anyway.

Lee (Camembert)


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Instructions

body:
Ray Saintonge a ?crit:

>
> Let me know, Anthere, if you need help in reverting these changes.
>
> Ec

well, thanks Ec :-)
I'll see how it goes...I am very optimistic :-)

All involved are reasonable people. In case we need more
reason(s)...your help will be appreciated :-)


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
Lee-
> We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody
> asks us to decide it, you know.

No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers
them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved
enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral
decisions.

How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days
it's time to return to vigilantism.

Regards,

Erik


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other
	imperativecontent

body:
Charles Matthews a ?crit:
>>I really don't think it matters if recipes and other how to's are on
>
> wikipedia or on wikibooks, as long as they are not deleted totally. Can we
> come to some agreement on what to do and just do it. I would like a policy
> in place so that they don't keep getting listed on VfD.
>
>>Theresa
>
>
> Well, I believed it was policy they all went to wikibooks; I thought and
> think that that's a good, clear policy; and not one that hampers changing
> the policy later if other thoughts prevail.
>
> Charles

No, there is no policy on the matter. It seems it was agreed upon among
the couple of people doing transwiki and vfd users. In short, that is an
assumed consensus among a couple of people who care about the matter,
and want wikibook to progress (which is something I certainly support :-))

But I fear this supposed policy, is clearly not consensual at all.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
Erik-
> No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers

Er, "if" he does refer them to you, not "unless", of course. I think that
was a big mistake from the start, because on the one hand we have an
explicit rejection of "vigilantism" and on the other hand we don't have a
functioning alternative process.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
At 02:51 26/02/2004 +0100, Erik wrote:

>Lee-
> > We can't decide whether somebody is a cadidate for a ban unless somebody
> > asks us to decide it, you know.
>
>No. You only accept cases for arbitration unless Jimbo explicitly refers
>them to you. This should be changed immediately. Jimbo is not involved
>enough in the day-to-day workings of the community to make these referral
>decisions.
>
>How fast can you fix that? If we are talking about weeks rather than days
>it's time to return to vigilantism.

Well, I can't say how long it will take, because I simply don't know, but I
sorely hope it will indeed be days rather than weeks. If we're not in a
position to decide on hearing cases directly (ie, not through Jimbo) by
this time next week then I'll be disappointed.

The problem is that we're all volunteers, and we have other committments.
I've been very pressed for time recently and so unable to take part in the
discussion much, so it's not really fair for me to criticise the slowness
of the process. I honestly believe that the arbitrators as a whole are
going as fast as they can.

All I can say is that I myself will make an effort to move things on a bit
quicker.

Best
Lee (Camembert)


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: wikipedia print edition: wikireader

body:
Alfio Puglisi wrote:

> This is great! I don't speak a word of German, but managed to understand
> most of it via Google translation :) What program was used to generate the
> pdf? I didn't find a good free html2pdf or latex2pdf.

Well, I don't know if this is of any help to you, but there exists
MikTeX (http://www.miktex.org/) which contains a pdflatex.


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing (was: Two projects I'm exploring)

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2004, at 14:48, Timwi wrote:
>
>> My guess is
>
> I hereby forbid

I beg your pardon?


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Coding for Number of Edits a User Can Make

body:
We need software that will allow throttling down the number of edits problem
users can make. Please code something so that we could restrict, should we
decide to, someone like this to a set number of edits per day.

The advantage of this is that it then leaves up to that user whether he
wants to get down to article writing or fool around.

Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee

> From: "Arno M" <redgum46 at lycos.com>
> Organization: Lycos Mail  (http://www.mail.lycos.com:80)
> Reply-To: redgum46 at lycos.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:38:49 +0600
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus - the last three days
>
> Hmm, after viewing messages about Plautus, I must say that I find Jimbo's "All
> you need is love" response most disappointing.
>
> I must say that he's a busy little beaver.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&t
> arget=Plautus_satire&limit=500&offset=0 shows that he has made over 500 edits
> over the last three days alone. This includes some articles such as quasar,
> but mainly in advocating and splattering his ,um, views all over the talk
> pages.
>
> For instance, on the Sep 11 Attacks page, Plautus is now arguing that the
> Flight 93 passengers did not charge the hijackers, and is veering that page
> off in a direction there that may see this site crashing into a lawsuit or
> two. (He does seem to be saying that the families who reported the phone calls
> are all liars) The size of the talk page is also growing.
>
> People have now left the wikipedia site, or so I hear, and there's a list of
> complaints growing on Jimbo's talk page. Let's also not forget what might
> happen if his stuff gets copied across to other sites that use wikipedia
> material as all or part of their content.
>
> My own feeling is that Plautus should be given the "Get back to where you once
> belonged" treatment.
> He is completely fouling thiongs up here.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
> http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?S
> RC=lycos10
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] Coding for Number of Edits a User Can Make


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where the Power Lies

body:
I think the way you hold power in your own hands it that you, who are in
contact with the problem, can initiate the conflict resolution procedure,
beginning with talking to the party, asking for mediation, then arbitration.

The arbitration committee (who if they are careful, are not in contact with
the situation, at least not slugging it out) can if a case comes to us,
rather rapidly decide a matter and prescribe a remedy. (A week or two is
very rapid indeed in this context, even hasty).

Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee

> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:43:36 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus
>
>
>
> Martin Harper a ?crit:
>> Arno M wrote:
>>
>>> When will something be done?
>>
>>
>> Brian Corr wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>>
>>
>> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
>> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
>> 1) You decide to act.
>> 2) You act.
>
> I liked your answer
> But...I have another question
>
> Some people think that something should be done about Lir.
>
> Question they ask : When will something be done ?
>
>
>
> Answer they received from UserA :
> * There is no problem with user Lir. So, you have no problem
>
> ====> Answer of the type : your opinion is irrelevant
>
>
>
> Answer they received from UserB :
> * We are busy thinking about the matter. Please be patient, do not do
> anything, we'll fix the problem for you, that is our job
>
> ====> Answer of the type : please, hold on, you are not in charge, we
> are in charge. Go back to your own business
>
>
> ---------
>
> Still, nothing happen
>
> ---------
>
>
> What they do
> 1) They decide to act.
> 2) They act.
>
> Answer they received from UserC
> * Your action was incorrect. You are out of the game. Next time, refer
> to suggestion of UserB instead of trying to decide and act by yourself.
>
>
> -------
>
> Comment from Anthere
>
> When general guidelines are inconsistant, and that half of people say
> ''you are in charge, take charge'' and the half say ''do not do
> anything, those who have responsability here will take care of the
> matter for you'', is there proper consistancy in our message ?
>
> The vaccum cleaner hole is more than a hole.
> People just do not know, whether they should refer to a group of user
> from now on to fix their problems
> Or if they should manage to deal with problems themselves
>
> -------
>
> So, yes, that is a good answer, but at least people from the arbitration
> committee should be consistant in their answer, to those of us who are
> wondering what action power we still hold. At least, to know whether
> your answer, Martin, is the correct one, or the incorrect one.
>
> (I can have my own answer, but I suppose I would be the one to find
> myself in front of arbitration if I applied it, so will I dare ?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
[Wikitech-l] FW: [WikiEN-l] Coding for Number of Edits a User Can
	Make

body:
----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 04:24:57 -0700
To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>, <wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Coding for Number of Edits a User Can Make

We need software that will allow throttling down the number of edits problem
users can make. Please code something so that we could restrict, should we
decide to, someone like this to a set number of edits per day.

The advantage of this is that it then leaves up to that user whether he
wants to get down to article writing or fool around.

Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee

> From: "Arno M" <redgum46 at lycos.com>
> Organization: Lycos Mail  (http://www.mail.lycos.com:80)
> Reply-To: redgum46 at lycos.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:38:49 +0600
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus - the last three days
>
> Hmm, after viewing messages about Plautus, I must say that I find Jimbo's "All
> you need is love" response most disappointing.
>
> I must say that he's a busy little beaver.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&t
> arget=Plautus_satire&limit=500&offset=0 shows that he has made over 500 edits
> over the last three days alone. This includes some articles such as quasar,
> but mainly in advocating and splattering his ,um, views all over the talk
> pages.
>
> For instance, on the Sep 11 Attacks page, Plautus is now arguing that the
> Flight 93 passengers did not charge the hijackers, and is veering that page
> off in a direction there that may see this site crashing into a lawsuit or
> two. (He does seem to be saying that the families who reported the phone calls
> are all liars) The size of the talk page is also growing.
>
> People have now left the wikipedia site, or so I hear, and there's a list of
> complaints growing on Jimbo's talk page. Let's also not forget what might
> happen if his stuff gets copied across to other sites that use wikipedia
> material as all or part of their content.
>
> My own feeling is that Plautus should be given the "Get back to where you once
> belonged" treatment.
> He is completely fouling thiongs up here.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
> http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?S
> RC=lycos10
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikitech-l] Request

body:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
>     JW> And they're offering us a way to work directly with their new
>     JW> system so that our content can be indexed more or less
>     JW> realtime, i.e. we will give them an ability to grab an xml
>     JW> feed.
>
> We have an XML feed?

Not yet, but we'll make one for them.

--Jimbo


subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS still not changed

body:
Also, that contact information is horribly out of date.

Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> This morning the whois information containing the name servers was still
> unchanged:
> whois wikipedia.org
>
> Domain ID:D51687756-LROR
> Domain Name:WIKIPEDIA.ORG
> Created On:13-Jan-2001 00:12:14 UTC
> Last Updated On:19-Oct-2003 02:52:44 UTC
> Expiration Date:13-Jan-2005 00:12:14 UTC
> Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> Status:OK
> Registrant ID:C3819183-RCOM
> Registrant Name:Jimmy Wales
> Registrant Organization:Bomis,Inc.
> Registrant Street1:4455LamontSt.,Suite3
> Registrant City:SanDiego
> Registrant State/Province:CA
> Registrant Postal Code:92109
> Registrant Country:US
> Registrant Phone:+1.6192739361
> Registrant FAX:+1.6192739363
> Registrant Email:jwales at bomis.com
> Admin ID:C11978190-RCOM
> Admin Name:Jimmy Wales
> Admin Organization:Bomis,Inc.
> Admin Street1:3585HancockSt.,SuiteA
> Admin City:SanDiego
> Admin State/Province:CA
> Admin Postal Code:92110
> Admin Country:US
> Admin Phone:+1.6192961732
> Admin Email:jwales at bomis.com
> Tech ID:C1-RCOM
> Tech Name:Domain Registrar
> Tech Organization:Register.Com
> Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
> Tech City:New York
> Tech State/Province:NY
> Tech Postal Code:10018
> Tech Country:US
> Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
> Tech Email:domain-registrar at register.com
> Name Server:DNS33.REGISTER.COM
> Name Server:DNS34.REGISTER.COM
>
> Those DNS entries need to be changed to point at Zwinger & Joey.
> --
> Gabriel Wicke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: Nick Pisarro

subject: [Wikitech-l] Regarding MediaWiki:All_messages

body:
Based on the unstable branch, the article "MediaWiki:All_messages", used
for maintaining msg values is an interesting idea, but I believe this
would be better built as a dynamically built page, i.e. as
"special:all_messages", rather than as a static page in the database.

This would get around the use of external links to edit the variables
instead of internal links. Is this done to avoid the slow operation of
resolving [[...]] at run time? The problem is that this makes the database
non-portable between wiki sites.

This causes a problem at our site because we update the database on a
development server and then move it to our working server. It means I have
to manually edit this page to change all the external links marked up on
that page.

It may also cause problems because WikiMedia distributes the wikipedia
database. That database also will not be portable.

I notice that on the wikipedia site, the similarly sized article
"Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages" does use internal links and seems to
resolve in about the same amount of time.

We plan to actually change the variable '$wgServer' at run time. We want
to present the server address differently if the user links to our site
via our VPN intranet versus coming in through an external URL via the
Internet. So, we rather not have the server domain defined in the
database, but always dynamically determined.

By making All_messages a special page, you can hide it to all but sysops,
developers and/or bureaucrats, who are probably the ones who should see
and maintain these variables. It also will mean that, that as a developer,
if you add variables to "$wgAllMessagesEn" this page will be up to date
without having to run an install procedure.

I also notice this page is built from the variable '$wgAllMessagesEn'. If
this were built as a 'special' page, it could build using the language the
site actually represents.

Nick Pisarro


subject: [Wikitech-l] New magic variables?

body:
I notice that the latest wikipedia home page does inclusions by using the
{{msg:...} "transclusion" variable.

It seems to me that inclusions like this should come from the
$wgMetaNamespace  or other namespace, not the MediaWiki namespace. The
MediaWiki namespace is really for running the software, and should not
really contain specific user modifyable site data.

Perhaps we need a new set of variables for these operations.

How about:

{{incl:article}}            # include from the default namespace
{{incl:namespace:article}}  # include an article from 'namespace'.
{{incl:language:namespace:article}}
{{inclnw: ...} }             # use the nowiki tag
{{repl: ...}}                # new version of {{subst:}}

This provide a more general mechanism without making obsolete the old one
and providing a migration path for the type of include used by Main_page.
It also uses the same naming convention as the [[...]] markup.

Nick Pisarro


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Nevertheless, that was a deplorable motivation for such an act, and I
> am most ashamed at myself for even contemplating it.

Don't be ashamed for that.  You speak to the story of my life for the
last year.  On several occassions, I nearly went on a rampage of
banning with the sole criteria for a ban being that I was sick of
hearing about someone, right or wrong.

To answer something Erik said earlier -- I have no plans at all to be
running an asylum.  This is a serious encyclopedia project.  We *do*
have to make our changes conservatively and slowly, so as to make sure
that we preserve our open spirit to the maximal degree possible.

But some people are just not suitable for editing here, and that's
just a simple brute fact.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
Plautus has now rejected Ed's tuttilage and despite Jimbo's warning on his talk page, persists in his vandalism.

I just got an email from a fellow Wikipedian (who will remain anonymous): "Please tell me that something will happen with Plautus soon.  I'm at the end of my rope with him and I'm about to write wikipedia off if it will actually allow his nonsense to stay in place."

Eloquence said he would support me if I re-banned Plautus, and if something doesn't happen really soon (in the next 24 hours or so), I intend to. I'll even report myself on the misuse of admin powers page, as long as the ban remains in place.

I know Jimbo said to show him love, but (god bless him) I think he is being overly optomistic. Vigilantism is one thing, but I don't think it qualifies when people are so desperate for a user to be banned that Jimbo has 6 people on his talk page begging for it; when the RFC pages shows overwheling support for it. I'm posting this to the mailing list in the hopes that this will spur the arbitration committee into doing something.

--Mark Pellegrini
User: Raul654


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Vigilantism or due process

body:
Gareth Owen wrote:

>"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:
>
>
>>How many people want admins to have the Authority to temp-ban any user
>>who (in their opinion) has violated a community rule?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, please.
>
>Troublemakers (like Wik, Iriskook and Plautus) only have to show a slight bit
>of subtlety and we bend over backwards to please them, frequently alienating
>actual, useful contributors.
>
>
Funny, if you asked Wik, he'd argue that he's the one keeping Wikipedia
free of troublemakers, and that we should perhaps give him ban authority
to keep things happy.  And some people even agree with him (his most
frequent edit-war opponent is [[User:Anthony del Pierro]], who hardly
has a stellar record here himself).

So are we just supposed to ban everyone who some number of people
dislike or thinks are "troublemaker"s?  By that criterion, the following
"troublemakers" would be banned by one person or another:
* Lir,
* Wik,
* 168...
* Plautus Satire
* Irismeister
* RK
* 172
* BL
* OneVoice
* Anthony del Pierro
* Leumi
* Vergina
* etc...

Which I don't think is really a great idea.

-Mark


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that has taken several weeks, if not months, to get there.  We keep getting promises that something, somehow, will get accomplished, and we see absolutely zip.

RickK

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
I can't understand why accusers are so impatient about getting results
from the arbitration committee. One week would not be unduly long.
Impatence should perhaps be taken as evidence that diminishes the
impatient person's case. Impatience puts unfair pressure on volunteer
arbitrators.

Ec

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/2f48bfa1/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where the Power Lies

body:
That's ridiculous.  TWO WEEKS?  When a logged-in user is causing chaos and an attempt by anyone to do something about it will lead to THEIR being banned or having their sysop privileges taken away?  That is NOT hasty, that's molasses slow.  I see no reason why anything more than three days is necessary.

RickK

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
I think the way you hold power in your own hands it that you, who are in
contact with the problem, can initiate the conflict resolution procedure,
beginning with talking to the party, asking for mediation, then arbitration.

The arbitration committee (who if they are careful, are not in contact with
the situation, at least not slugging it out) can if a case comes to us,
rather rapidly decide a matter and prescribe a remedy. (A week or two is
very rapid indeed in this context, even hasty).

Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee

> From: Anthere
> Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:43:36 +0100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus
>
>
>
> Martin Harper a ?crit:
>> Arno M wrote:
>>
>>> When will something be done?
>>
>>
>> Brian Corr wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>>
>>
>> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
>> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
>> 1) You decide to act.
>> 2) You act.
>
> I liked your answer
> But...I have another question
>
> Some people think that something should be done about Lir.
>
> Question they ask : When will something be done ?
>
>
>
> Answer they received from UserA :
> * There is no problem with user Lir. So, you have no problem
>
> ====> Answer of the type : your opinion is irrelevant
>
>
>
> Answer they received from UserB :
> * We are busy thinking about the matter. Please be patient, do not do
> anything, we'll fix the problem for you, that is our job
>
> ====> Answer of the type : please, hold on, you are not in charge, we
> are in charge. Go back to your own business
>
>
> ---------
>
> Still, nothing happen
>
> ---------
>
>
> What they do
> 1) They decide to act.
> 2) They act.
>
> Answer they received from UserC
> * Your action was incorrect. You are out of the game. Next time, refer
> to suggestion of UserB instead of trying to decide and act by yourself.
>
>
> -------
>
> Comment from Anthere
>
> When general guidelines are inconsistant, and that half of people say
> ''you are in charge, take charge'' and the half say ''do not do
> anything, those who have responsability here will take care of the
> matter for you'', is there proper consistancy in our message ?
>
> The vaccum cleaner hole is more than a hole.
> People just do not know, whether they should refer to a group of user
> from now on to fix their problems
> Or if they should manage to deal with problems themselves
>
> -------
>
> So, yes, that is a good answer, but at least people from the arbitration
> committee should be consistant in their answer, to those of us who are
> wondering what action power we still hold. At least, to know whether
> your answer, Martin, is the correct one, or the incorrect one.
>
> (I can have my own answer, but I suppose I would be the one to find
> myself in front of arbitration if I applied it, so will I dare ?)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/612c6113/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Vigilantism or due process (was: Plautus)

body:
I vote for admins to have the authority to temp-ban any user.

RickK

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
Erik (Eloquence) has called for a 'return to vigilantism'. I oppose
this. Let's vote.

How many people want admins to have the Authority to temp-ban any user
who (in their opinion) has violated a community rule? (Confession: This
is precisely what I did myself with Wik a couple of weeks ago, so there
is, er, "blood on my hands").

How many people want to decisions on banning (except for clear-cut
"simple vandalism" or "emergencies") to be handled Only By The
Arbitration Committee?

1. Please clarify whether you agree that these are the two alternatives.
2. Please indicate which alternative you want.

If enough of us on the mailing list have strong feelings about this, I
will create a policy polling page on the English Wikipedia, and we can
see if a consensus develops that merits a change in policy.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

P.S. I'm trying to be impartial about this, even though I have an
opinion.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/42d6592b/attachment.htm


body:
Actually I think you're wrong.  It has accomplished something.  It's accomplished a lot of frustration and the withdrawal of many good editors, and left the asylum in the hands of the inmates.

RickK

Gareth Owen <wiki at gwowen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
It strikes me that the only (partially) succesful rehabilitation of a
troublemaking user (Lir) came through a ban, rather than any "arbitration."
The addition of a layer of committees and bureaucracy has not, as far as I can
tell, achieved anything of any note.
--
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
-- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/3b695d75/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
Martin Harper a ?crit:
> Arno M wrote:
>
>>When will something be done?
>
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
>
>>Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>
>
> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
> 1) You decide to act.
> 2) You act.

I liked your answer
But...I have another question

Some people think that something should be done about Lir.

Question they ask : When will something be done ?

Answer they received from UserA :
* There is no problem with user Lir. So, you have no problem

====> Answer of the type : your opinion is irrelevant

Answer they received from UserB :
* We are busy thinking about the matter. Please be patient, do not do
anything, we'll fix the problem for you, that is our job

====> Answer of the type : please, hold on, you are not in charge, we
are in charge. Go back to your own business

---------

Still, nothing happen

---------

What they do
1) They decide to act.
2) They act.

Answer they received from UserC
* Your action was incorrect. You are out of the game. Next time, refer
to suggestion of UserB instead of trying to decide and act by yourself.

-------

Comment from Anthere

When general guidelines are inconsistant, and that half of people say
''you are in charge, take charge'' and the half say ''do not do
anything, those who have responsability here will take care of the
matter for you'', is there proper consistancy in our message ?

The vaccum cleaner hole is more than a hole.
People just do not know, whether they should refer to a group of user
from now on to fix their problems
Or if they should manage to deal with problems themselves

-------

So, yes, that is a good answer, but at least people from the arbitration
committee should be consistant in their answer, to those of us who are
wondering what action power we still hold. At least, to know whether
your answer, Martin, is the correct one, or the incorrect one.

(I can have my own answer, but I suppose I would be the one to find
myself in front of arbitration if I applied it, so will I dare ?)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
mapellegrini at comcast.net wrote:
> "But some people are just not suitable for editing here, and that's
> just a simple brute fact." --Jimbo
>
> Then Jimbo, I'd like to ask you the same question I asked earlier - just
> what does someone have to do to be banned

Well, we have several examples of people who have been banned, and
several more are well on the way.

> Where do you draw the line between someone who says he'll change
>from someone who actually will? When do 'silly things' like hard
>evidence and overwhelming community opinion come into play?

Please don't put quotes like that into questions that might lead
people to believe that *I* have said that hard evidence and
overwhelming community opinion are "silly things".  I most
emphatically do not think that.

I left a note for Plautus on 22:59, 25 Feb 2004.  Ed expressed hope
before that.  Right now I'll review everything since then and if I
determine that mediation isn't working, I'll refer this to the
arbitration committee.  If I determine that he's too annoying, I'll do
a temp-ban myself, and take the heat for it.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
Oh, in case that was unclear, I have no problem with Lir myself. I
rather like her :-)

Anthere a ?crit:
>
>
> Martin Harper a ?crit:
>
>> Arno M wrote:
>>
>>> When will something be done?
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian Corr wrote:
>>
>>> Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>>
>>
>>
>> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
>> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
>> 1) You decide to act.
>> 2) You act.
>
>
> I liked your answer
> But...I have another question
>
> Some people think that something should be done about Lir.
>
> Question they ask : When will something be done ?
>
>
>
> Answer they received from UserA :
> * There is no problem with user Lir. So, you have no problem
>
> ====> Answer of the type : your opinion is irrelevant
>
>
>
> Answer they received from UserB :
> * We are busy thinking about the matter. Please be patient, do not do
> anything, we'll fix the problem for you, that is our job
>
> ====> Answer of the type : please, hold on, you are not in charge, we
> are in charge. Go back to your own business
>
>
> ---------
>
> Still, nothing happen
>
> ---------
>
>
> What they do
> 1) They decide to act.
> 2) They act.
>
> Answer they received from UserC
> * Your action was incorrect. You are out of the game. Next time, refer
> to suggestion of UserB instead of trying to decide and act by yourself.
>
>
> -------
>
> Comment from Anthere
>
> When general guidelines are inconsistant, and that half of people say
> ''you are in charge, take charge'' and the half say ''do not do
> anything, those who have responsability here will take care of the
> matter for you'', is there proper consistancy in our message ?
>
> The vaccum cleaner hole is more than a hole.
> People just do not know, whether they should refer to a group of user
> from now on to fix their problems
> Or if they should manage to deal with problems themselves
>
> -------
>
> So, yes, that is a good answer, but at least people from the arbitration
> committee should be consistant in their answer, to those of us who are
> wondering what action power we still hold. At least, to know whether
> your answer, Martin, is the correct one, or the incorrect one.
>
> (I can have my own answer, but I suppose I would be the one to find
> myself in front of arbitration if I applied it, so will I dare ?)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
Yes, I truly believe that nothing will happen.

RickK

Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that has taken
several weeks, if not months, to get there. We keep getting promises that
something, somehow, will get accomplished, and we see absolutely zip.

RickK

I have to say I'm not someone who appreciates RickK's line here. Can I ask
him whether he truly believes nothing will _ever_ come of this process? Or
is it that he just feels that needling the arbitration committee will, by
some mysterious process, benefit Wikipedia?

Charles

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/2abb79a0/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs

body:
Well, in my opinion, Pau Vogel is going to end up banned soon anyway.

But, good job.

Brian Corr wrote:

> Well, I took Jimbo's advice to heart and rewrote the article. It was only
> a few minutes later that Paul Vogel edited it. To his credit (and I guess
> mine too) he left most of what I wrote, although he did add in some stuff
> about Palestinians and Jewish supremacy. Here's the difference between the
> two:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&curid=477296&diff=0&oldid=2533889>
>
> However, the main problem -- and the same problem as before -- is that his
> goal is to include two paragraphs about the supposed distinctions. All of
> his previous edits to [[White separatist]] consisted only of those
> paragraphs. This time he added them into the article, and also noted that
> they are quotes -- he says "  According to a white separatist website:"
>
> Anyway, I wanted to 1) let you know it was good advice and we've made some
> progress it seems, and 2) ask some other folks to step in. I want to step
> away from this day-long conflict.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian (Bcorr)
>
> On 2/25/04, Jimbo wrote:
> >I'm a little confused.  Why are people so adamant against having an
> >article "White Separatism"?  Rather than banging our head against the
> >wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
> >
> >The junk this guy is inserting is junk.  It looks like a quote from
> >someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short
> >article on the subject.
> >
> >There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an
> >article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White
> >Supremacy".
> >
> >Here's a book about it:
> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-1338507?v=glance
> >
> >My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White
> >separatist" and "White supremacy".
> >
> >The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote
> >is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at
> >least some people who take action in the world, action that should
> >concern us all.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
Erik,

I disagree with your evaluation of both Clutch and Plautus.

I had a long e-mail dialogue with Clutch, plus a phone conversation. He
told me plainly that he did not accept the NPOV policy and would
therefore leave voluntarily. He made one more post to this mailing list,
and I chided him, "Why post here if you don't support the goals of the
project?" And that was the end of it. I think it was more of a mutual
"we agree to disagree" kind of thing than an actual ban -- unlike Helga.

In Plautus's case, he has shown sufficient willingness to dialogue with
me to merit my continued Mediation efforts. I must chide you for calling
him "mentally unbalanced" and "delusional", for two reasons: (a) you
have not show me that you have psychiatric credentials, and (b) I don't
think a psychiatrist can diagnose someone merely by reading their
Internet posts (both A and B would have to be true, to justify your
"diagnosis"). Please give me more time to teach Plautus our ways: the
way of NPOV and the way of courtesy.

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Where the power lies

body:
>I think the way you hold power in your own hands it that you, who are in contact with >the problem, can initiate the conflict resolution
>procedure, beginning with talking to the party, asking for mediation, then arbitration.

I think you did not understand me Fred.
Me : I am not sportive, so I avoid steps the most I can. I prefer talking to avoid having steps to climb, at the risk of having my opponents (sorry, the other friendly contributors) drop the matter by tiredness. But...I know of the steps, if needed, I know where to go. And knowing where to go, I can also voluntarily decide not to go, and to use another path.

But "me" is not what matters here. I think some wikipedians do not even know about these steps. Or they heard about them, but they do not know how the steps are supposed to be climbed. I might just go as far as saying they are not convinced the right way is to climb the steps.

Right now, when some users complain about something, and ask the committee to do something, they see that nothing is going on. Because it is still in the process of being set, and because things take time, must take time. But still, they wonder. And sometimes, when they ask, they are answered that they should take care of the matter themselves.

On the other hand, other users decide to act themselves, and then are told they have no legitimacy to do so. Only the committee has.

You may turn it the way you want, it is unclear for people, what they are supposed to do.

There is one thing I fear, is that from now on (well, when the committee works), people will try less to resolve matters themselves, they will try to hand it to you, and they will not even know what will lead to the decision. I fear procedures.
Having power is not having the power to ask other people to resolve conflicts for us, having power is having the right to do it ourselves.
Yeah, this is getting too procedural.
If someone is seriously bugging you, start a poll for a 24 hours, or a week banning, advertise it. If the poll shows that 80% of people strongly agree, ban the guy while the committee is working on him, and that is it.

Take it as a worry from someone editing in a wild west wikipedia, where no Benevolent King and no committee decides :-)

>The arbitration committee (who if they are careful, are not in contact  with the situation, >at least not slugging it out) can if a case comes to us,
>rather rapidly decide a matter and prescribe a remedy. (A week or two  is very rapid >indeed in this context, even hasty).

>Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committee

Very true.

Well, I am not sure a mediator should be in contact with the situation either; nor that he should explicitely look for conflicts.

Perhaps is it time to discuss which information can be offered from mediation to arbitration.
I have no memory of that ever to be discussed.
Should we offer a sort of a report to arbitration ?
Or nothing at all ?
Have you discussed the matter together ?

Anthere, member of the mediation committee (geeee, that sounds unecessary serious, but obviously, you did not understand where I was coming from, so...)

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/76387316/attachment.htm


body:
Erik (Eloquence) has called for a 'return to vigilantism'. I oppose
this. Let's vote.

How many people want admins to have the Authority to temp-ban any user
who (in their opinion) has violated a community rule? (Confession: This
is precisely what I did myself with Wik a couple of weeks ago, so there
is, er, "blood on my hands").

How many people want to decisions on banning (except for clear-cut
"simple vandalism" or "emergencies") to be handled Only By The
Arbitration Committee?

1. Please clarify whether you agree that these are the two alternatives.
2. Please indicate which alternative you want.

If enough of us on the mailing list have strong feelings about this, I
will create a policy polling page on the English Wikipedia, and we can
see if a consensus develops that merits a change in policy.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

P.S. I'm trying to be impartial about this, even though I have an
opinion.


from_name: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus

body:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 07:43, Delirium wrote:

    Sheldon Rampton wrote:

    > Mark Pellegrini wrote:
    >
    >> Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's
    >> driving
    >> away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and
    >> wasting
    >> enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become
    >> popular on
    >> the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be
    >> reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place?
    >
    >
    > I think the underlying problem here is that Jimbo has stepped back a
    > bit from his role as "benevolent dictator," referring this kind of
    > decision to the arbitration committee. The problem is that the
    > arbitration committee can't move quickly enough to deal with problem
    > users like this one.
    >
    > One solution might be to designate a few trusted individuals as
    > volunteer "judges" -- people to whom Jimbo in his capacity as dictator
    > grants the authority to take action instantly, if they feel conditions
    > warrant. The decisions of judges, of course, would be subject to
    > review by the arbitration committee, and a judge who repeatedly abuses
    > his authority would have it revoked.
    >
    > As a matter of policy, I think "judges" should not be allowed to
    > simultaneously sit on the arbitration committee, so that we have some
    > separation of powers.

    Well, if this is done, I'm not sure why we'd really need the arbitration
    committee.  Just to rubber-stamp judge decisions?

    I'd feel a little more comfortable with a more streamlined arbitration
    committee, which would basically be your judge idea but with multiple
    people voting, and a lag-time of a few days (I don't think having
    someone unbanned for, say, 3-4 days is the end of the world---it's the
    2-3 weeks that's the problem).  But there's understandably tension
    between "the arbitration committee should publicize at length the
    rationale for its decisions" and "the arbitration committee should work
    quickly".  There's only so many in-depth decisions that a group of
    volunteers are going to write per week.

    I hope the new edit-war policy will actually get rid of some of the
    immediate problem, because anyone will be able to temp-ban people who
    violate it.

    -Mark

First a confession. I very nearly blocked Plautus Satire, without even
reviewing any of his edits. None of you can punish me more than I
punish myself for this. The desire to block Plautus was mostly
motivated by reading about users I respect feeling pain at his
remaining on wikipedia, and a wish to relieve that pain; but a
new-found appreciation of my deficiency at fighting vandalism was
also a minor factor.

Nevertheless, that was a deplorable motivation for such an act, and I
am most ashamed at myself for even contemplating it.

After some soul-searching, I can only offer the following
recommendation:

Change the arbitration process so that once the committee decides to
hear a case for banning, the ban takes effect immediately, and the
decision is about whether to overturn the ban, or not.

Even if this is an imperfect solution, and will have real negative
effects, I honestly think it is the realistic option most likely
to effect the changes in the wikipedia working environment
ambience we all devoutly wish.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/9f085146/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV facts (was: I like Plautus)

body:
Bcorr used this puzzling phrase:

* "NPOV facts"

1. Excuse me, folks, but that is a blatant contradiction in terms. I see
the terms "POV" and "NPOV" misused quite a lot, and I think this misuse
betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.

NPOV = [[Neutral Point of View]]

The NPOV is a /policy/ about how to describe ideas or facts which are in
dispute. The term is /not/ a synonym for "objective truth". I can't
emphasize enough that it is a Conscious Repudiation of the notion that
Wikipedia has the capability or authority to determine what is really
true or good or beautiful or valuable.

The NPOV policy is, in short, an agreement to disagree.

Let's try to distinguish better between "objective truth" (which, of
course, each contributor always thinks their perfectly in command of!)
from "a neutral statement about a controversial matter".

2. People have continued to say, over the years, that if we dignify
fringe theories with any better treatment than utter condemnation,
they'll infect all the mainstream articles. They bring up [[flat earth]]
or [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] (PEZ) as examples. But we already
have a policy for these topics which works well and is stable.

Ideas held by a partisan minority are labelled "held by a minority", and
that minority is identified. Believers in a flat earth, by the way, are
so few that none has ever graced our hallowed halls. Lots of Arabs,
though, believe (or frequently hear their government-sponsored media
say) that the PEZ is authentic. The way we treat PEZ is to say that

* Western historians dismiss PEZ as a fabrication, although several
Islamic nations officially support it.

The job of the NPOV is not to determine facts, but to describe
/opinions/ about reality without endorsing them. Let's get this
straight. Please.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] A compromise proposal for the Plautus issue

body:
My view is that Ed was acting very bravely and forthrightly as mediator.
I take this as a recommendation that this go to arbitration so I am
referring this matter to the arbitration committee.

Also, counter to Ed's proposal, but also in the spirit of not
encouraging vigilantism, I am temp-banning Plautus under the
arbitration committee makes some kind of decision.

--Jimbo

Poor, Edmund W wrote:

> I agree with Mark's "ban Plautus till we decide" proposal, provided that
> the Arbitration Committee agrees BEFORE the temp-ban goes into effect.
>
> This is the crucial difference between Vigilantism and Due Process which
> is essential to preventing a slip into tyranny that folks like the
> Cunctator are always warning us about.
>
> Urgently,
>
> Ed Poor
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
I agree with Mark's "ban Plautus till we decide" proposal, provided that
the Arbitration Committee agrees BEFORE the temp-ban goes into effect.

This is the crucial difference between Vigilantism and Due Process which
is essential to preventing a slip into tyranny that folks like the
Cunctator are always warning us about.

Urgently,

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Judges, or police force (was: Plautus)

body:
Sheldon, as usual, has contributed a very wise observation to the
community. He has also made a potent suggestion which requires
discussion.

Should we invest some users with authority which elevates them from
"vigilantes" and makes them more like a police force ("judges", as
Sheldon put it)?

This is essentially Erik's idea, dressed up in an official uniform (hope
I'm not being tactless, here :-)

I had proposed the same idea many times, a couple of years ago -- but
I'm currently opposed to it.

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Temp ban of Plautus satire

body:
I have banned Plautus satire.  I put '7 days' as the length of time
for the ban, but it really lasts until the arbitration committee makes
their decision (which will be within that 7 days).

It is outside the scope of what I want to do, but the general uproar
was large, and the community consensus broad.  My own judgment of his
actions *since* I warned him and *since* Ed had expressed optimism
suggested strongly that reform was not likely to continue.

--Jimbo


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV facts (was: I like Plautus)

body:
Timwi wrote:

> Imagine death penalty was universally accepted as an adequate
> punishment. Do you think our articles would mention any concerns of
> the moral/ethical implications of it? Certainly not. Not because these
> concerns are invalid or anything, but because no POV represents them.
> Thus, favouring death penalty *is* *the* NPOV of that hypothetical world.

That's an interesting approach that I think I support.  As long as the
supporters of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were the only ones
writing on the subject their views would be NPOV.  (In reality that NPOV
would not last.)  Similarly, as long as there is only one chocolate cake
recipe it represents NPOV, but this NPOV would have a better
survivability than the one on PEZ.

Where more than one view is made evident it is unlikely that ANY one
such view will be NPOV.  NPOV becomes an exercise in tolerance of the
other idiot's POV. ;-)

Ec


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] > 230 request/second - but no Wikipedia news on
	slashdot ; ) what is this?

body:
Tomasz wrote:
>Kuro5hin maybe ?

LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if their servers exploded if we had a prominent
link them on the English Wikipedia's main page.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=large&compare_sites=Kuro5hin.org&url=wikipedia.org#graph

Note that our daily Alexa ranking has dipped into the 500s - our best daily
showing ever.

--mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


from_name: Jason Richey

subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS still not changed

body:
I'm working with Register.com on this...  They have some sort of
problem on their end stopping them from making the switch (or
something along those lines).  I am switching the .com first, then
I'll do the .org.  I want to make ABSOLUTELY sure that everything is
working before I make the .org change.  We deal with enough
catastrophies as it is...

Jason

Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> This morning the whois information containing the name servers was still
> unchanged:
> whois wikipedia.org
>
> Domain ID:D51687756-LROR
> Domain Name:WIKIPEDIA.ORG
> Created On:13-Jan-2001 00:12:14 UTC
> Last Updated On:19-Oct-2003 02:52:44 UTC
> Expiration Date:13-Jan-2005 00:12:14 UTC
> Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
> Status:OK
> Registrant ID:C3819183-RCOM
> Registrant Name:Jimmy Wales
> Registrant Organization:Bomis,Inc.
> Registrant Street1:4455LamontSt.,Suite3
> Registrant City:SanDiego
> Registrant State/Province:CA
> Registrant Postal Code:92109
> Registrant Country:US
> Registrant Phone:+1.6192739361
> Registrant FAX:+1.6192739363
> Registrant Email:jwales at bomis.com
> Admin ID:C11978190-RCOM
> Admin Name:Jimmy Wales
> Admin Organization:Bomis,Inc.
> Admin Street1:3585HancockSt.,SuiteA
> Admin City:SanDiego
> Admin State/Province:CA
> Admin Postal Code:92110
> Admin Country:US
> Admin Phone:+1.6192961732
> Admin Email:jwales at bomis.com
> Tech ID:C1-RCOM
> Tech Name:Domain Registrar
> Tech Organization:Register.Com
> Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
> Tech City:New York
> Tech State/Province:NY
> Tech Postal Code:10018
> Tech Country:US
> Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
> Tech Email:domain-registrar at register.com
> Name Server:DNS33.REGISTER.COM
> Name Server:DNS34.REGISTER.COM
>
> Those DNS entries need to be changed to point at Zwinger & Joey.
> --
> Gabriel Wicke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: DNS still not changed

body:
I can change the contact info...

jason

Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 06:02:16 -0800, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> > Also, that contact information is horribly out of date.
>
> Who can change this? There are about 200 requests per second currently,
> browne is highly loaded and coronelli still idle.
> --
> Gabriel Wicke
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Where the Power Lies

body:
Plautus has not been jailed. Rather, a judge (Jimbo) has issued an
"order" barring him from a single website. It's analogous to "pre-trial
detention", if your whole world revolves around the English Wikipedia.
But for those of us with a Real Life, it's more like being suspended
from school.

Actually, it's more like the manager of the local skating rink telling
one teenage boy he can't skate there for the rest of the week. Then the
adults of the community will decide whether to make it permanent, or
have him help the Zamboni guy for an hour a day after school, or
something.

Jimbo made a good decision.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Crony capitalism

body:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:

> I've noted this at Wikipedia as a Press Source
>
> The CBC Newsworld <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBC_Newsworld> programme
> Counterspin in a discussion on "Corruption and the Political Process"
> made use of the Wikipedia definition of crony capitalism
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism> , February 25.
>
> It's interesting to see that we are being quoted by the primary Canadian
> TV Network in the context of a current domestic political scandal. :-)
>
Should we consider that we're establishing a corollary to Gresham's Law
("Bad money drives out good")? That would be, "People tend to refer to
the least expensive (or most most widely accessible) source of facts."

Geoff


body:
Has anyone looked at the referer logs yet?  I will, right now, if I
can find them.  :-)

Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Tomasz wrote:
> >Kuro5hin maybe ?
>
> LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if their servers exploded if we had a prominent
> link them on the English Wikipedia's main page.
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=large&compare_sites=Kuro5hin.org&url=wikipedia.org#graph
>
> Note that our daily Alexa ranking has dipped into the 500s - our best daily
> showing ever.
>
> --mav
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
I think almost everyone can support these ideas, because they are
"softer" options than what we have now.

1.  per-article bans
2.  edit throttles for problem users

these would enable us to comfortably do

3.  a strictly enforced edit war policy

Erik wrote:
> This is a good idea, I think, as long as it is not overused. This, per-
> article bans and a strictly enforced edit war policy should give us some
> peace.

Yes.  Right now we have only some very blunt tools.  Not many people
think it's a good idea to give sysops the ability to do bans, even
temp bans, because of the side effects of such a policy.

But having the ability to do smaller, short term things, can help a
lot.  Page protection is one that's worked out reasonably well for us.
These additional tools would be good, too.

The softer the touch, the better, I think.

But it is emerging that we need some intermediate steps to try to
avert the kind of crisis that leads to vigilantism and a general
brouhaha.

In this case, a temp-ban of Plautus Satire from [[Tornado]] and a few
other pages might have worked wonders.

--Jimbo


from_name: cprompt

subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 19:39, Erik Moeller wrote:

> This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> banned.  It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
Something interesting to note: Lir is unbanned, he doesn't not
participate in reversion wars. He doesn't make personal attacks anymore.
On at least one occasion, he's requested meditation to resolve a dispute
on an article. I wouldn't say he's everyone's top pick for Wikipedian
poster child, but I can say that he's reformed.

Jimbo says that Ed is helping Plautus "learn the norms of the
community", "has great hopes for his future", and has written to Jimbo
"expressing a desire to change". Maybe reform is possible. I don't see
the urgency in a quick and lasting ban, in that case. We'll see rather
quickly if he's just buying time or if he has a true desire to join the
community.

> I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
>
Sure they're a candidate. But let's let the committee make the decision.


from_name: Brian Corr

body:
Just to clarify, I was referring to Lir's post -- I also found it puzzling
and agree with Ed's assessment of the inherent contradiction:

Lir wrote:
 >In short, Plautus is adding the kind of information
 >which the Wikipedia should contain. I will agree that
 >this information should not be presented as NPOV fact,
 >it most certainly should be presented with an "experts
 >tend to disagree" disclaimer -- however, it should NOT
 >be deleted.

Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)

Ed Poor wrote:
>Bcorr used this puzzling phrase:
>
>* "NPOV facts"
>
>1. Excuse me, folks, but that is a blatant contradiction in terms. I see
>the terms "POV" and "NPOV" misused quite a lot, and I think this misuse
>betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Print edition

body:
I've been approached by a major publisher about the possibility of
working with us to producing and publish a print edition of Wikipedia.
The concept that they are most interested in at the moment is a single
large volume, something similar to the Columbia Encyclopedia (a
desktop encyclopedia, 3200 pages) or Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
(2067 pages).

The Britannica Concise has 28,000 entries.  The Columbia has 51,000
entries.  I have no idea of estimated word or byte counts for those.

One goal would be to have something ready for market by October 1st,
in time for the holiday gift season.  I'm unsure of how early before
that *we* would need to be ready.

I've only begun talking to them about it, which is why I won't say who
it is just yet.  But they understand our license and want to work with
us.

The question was asked of me, and I ask of the community: can we have
something like that ready in time?  Or should we shoot for next year?

I have long stated a goal that "Wikipedia 1.0" be ready in December of
this year, although we haven't actually made any formal decisions
about how we're going to do that.

So this is more ambitious and less ambitious.  More ambitious in the
sense that we'd be trying to meet an earlier deadline.  Less ambitious
in the sense that we'd be trying to do something smaller than a full
Britannica-killer.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] Evidence which surfaces during mediation

body:
Evidence regarding what went on in mediation is inadmissible in arbitration.
That allows folks to talk candidly with the mediators about their actions
and feelings without that information being thrown up to them later.  This
is pretty much standard procedure anywhere mediation is used.

Fred Bauder, member of the arbitration committtee

From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:59:34 -0800 (PST)
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Where the power lies

Perhaps is it time to discuss which information can be offered from
mediation to arbitration.
I have no memory of that ever to be discussed.
Should we offer a sort of a report to arbitration ?
Or nothing at all ?
Have you discussed the matter together ?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040226/085574f7/attachment.htm


from_name: Richard Stallman

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: New "GNU Free Media Licence"? - was: What
	would Richard Stallman say?

body:
    I would assume that what Jimbo meant with point C here is that we got the
    copyright owners to put a version of the image of reduced quality and size
    under the GFDL (or a compatible license).

It look slike I misunderstood that option.  If the reduced quality image
is free, then yes it could be used.


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: New "GNU Free Media Licence"? - was: What would
 Richard Stallman say?

in_reply_to:
<200402242021.09180.news@RobertMichel.de> (message from Robert
	Michel on Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:21:08 +0100)

references:
<E1AuAuo-0001oK-1j@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200402232154.51816.news@RobertMichel.de>
	<E1Avgj8-0006Vu-Ag@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<200402242021.09180.news@RobertMichel.de>

body:
    So instead of B or E we could please the right owner to support us with the
    use:
    Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0
    Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0

If Wikipedia is to remain free, it must not give in to the temptation
to accept material under these licenses.  These licenses are not free.
So please don't think of them as a compromise; think of them as defeat.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

>Gareth Owen wrote
>
>>"Charles Matthews" writes
>>
>>>Until a recent VfD experience, that was, with a mathematical article where
>>>
>>>the 'keeps' really couldn't know why the content was objectionable, and
>>>precisely 'diminishing' to WP.
>>>
>>Can you be more specific please, so we can look up what you're referring to.
>>
>Certainly - [[unifying conjecture]] survived VfD recently.  It was a load of
>tendentious sociological twaddle by a once-notorious now-banned user.  It
>seems that 'looks interesting' is enough in some quarters.  After the vote I
>moved it to [[unifying theories in mathematics]], to give context to the one
>sentence that wasn't pretty well false as it stood.  That's not a finished
>article, though it's not bad, by the way.
>
Is the 142 in question really the same as the banned individual.  His
original posting was dated Feb. 21, 2003, and you made the first
subsequent edit 4 months later.  My guess is that this was put there
before the banned user became active.  Apart from that, it's a good
example for this discussion.

I have to admit that it would take a great deal of effort on my part to
understand what it's about.  On first reading I have no basis for
agreeing whether or not it is in fact twaddle, but if I chose to
participate in the VfD on this I would want to have a reasonable basis
for my vote.  However, I am not ready to spend hours trying to figure
out what the guy is talking about in order to decide on a yes or no
vote.  That being said, I would vote to keep based on giving the
contributor the benefit of the doubt.  That's IF I were voting at all.
 It looks as though the survival vote worked in this case, because it
encouraged you to work for a "not bad" article.

I also do not support arguments that are styled, "I am an expert, and I
know better."  New theories that deviate from orthodoxy tend to be
routinely viewed as muddle-headed by the experts.  In a vast majority of
these cases, the experts will probably be right, but the idea must stand
or fall on its own merits.  If a nutcase proposal is more than
idiosyncratic, it should be enough to add a polite comment about that,
without the need for a detailed demolition of the proponent's points.
 Sometimes a pointed statement can be more effective than copious
verbiage.  If argument B in the proponent's theory is based on perpetual
motion, and he shows that arguments C through K depend on that detailed
discussion of C through K is useless.if you have adequately dealt with B.

Ec

I think that we are perhaps closer to agreeing on a permissive approach
about articles that are harmlessly trivial.


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
Timwi is, of course, completely accurate in all his statements. If I
were a college professor, I would award him A+ and try to get him a job
as a teaching fellow! :-)

My worst error was describing n log n as "log n" -- back to algebra
class for Uncle Ed!

Anyway, since there are lots of sharp minds ready to pounce on any bugs,
why don't we start taking an organized look at the database structure?
I'm clearly no expert on /devising/ sort algorithms, but I'm fairly good
at recognizing whether someone has come up with a good idea.

Who wants to work on database structure with me -- or, at least, is
willing to let me sit in and watch?!

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS still not changed

body:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:01, Jason Richey wrote:
> I'm working with Register.com on this...  They have some sort of
> problem on their end stopping them from making the switch (or
> something along those lines).  I am switching the .com first, then
> I'll do the .org.  I want to make ABSOLUTELY sure that everything is
> working before I make the .org change.  We deal with enough
> catastrophies as it is...

Don't switch the .com! We don't have the .com running on zwinger yet.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040226/3379a032/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Faster parsing

body:
I agree with Brion, and I'm sorry I replied to Timwi before reading
Brion's "I forbid" post.

I've done profiling on Visual Basic 4.0 & 5.0, MS SQL Server 6.5, and
Java; and let me tell you I'm frequently amazed at the kinds of things
that cause slow spots. "But that can't be true!" is the usual response
of my colleagues. Then, you show them the profiling data, and they're
like, "Well, I'll be durned. Who would have known?"

Anyone know how to profile MySQL code?

Ed Poor


subject: [WikiEN-l] Criticisms of arbitration (various and long)

body:
Someone wrote:
>Because arbitration is the end of a long, painful process that
>has taken several weeks, if not months, to get there. We keep
>getting promises that something, somehow, will get accomplished,
>and we see absolutely zip.

The arbitration committee has only existed for less than two months. We've
spent a good deal of that time working on our procedures. Given that and the
huge backlog of cases, it would be nice if people cut us some slack so that we
don't feel pressure to make decisions for the sake of making decisions. Bad
decisions and shaky organizational foundations are made that way.

We are trying to build a structure that will be resilient and longlasting. We
are also all volunteers who are spending a lot of time on our discussions and
deliberations. For example right now we are discussing the case of Wik.

Anthere wrote:
>If someone is seriously bugging you, start a poll for a 24 hours,
>or a week banning, advertise it. If the poll shows that 80% of
>people strongly agree, ban the guy while the committee is working
>on him, and that is it.

Polling is Step 3 of the dispute resolution process. I encourage people to use
it - even in cases of user conduct disputes (but do be careful). I for one
would not recommend any sanction against an admin who temp banned a user based
on such a 80% poll. IMO, such an admin would be expressing the will of the
community. Such a case, IMO, could then by-pass mediation and go to the
arbitration committee.

>When there is very strong suspicion of crime, he can be
>maintained in jail before the trial actually occur.

In the United States this is called probable cause. It gives the police the
ability arrest people based on reasonable suspicion of a committing a crime. It
also gives the courts the ability to hold somebody in jail while they await
trial.

Raul654 wrote:
>By the same token, there are others who feel that vigilantism/
>unilaterialism is bad; that the dispute resolution guidelines are
>worthless if we don't follow them. This is also a very valid point.

That is why we need to get into the habit of following them. Things drifted for
too long and some among us have gotten into the habit of edit wars, rude
behavior, and bullying. It will take time and a good deal of effort by many
people to reverse this trend - I already get the sense that things are changing
for the better, however.

>I think both sides can be placated. I propose that we ban
>him, until such time as the arbitration committee can get
>together and render a verdict. This would remove much of
>the urgency from the issue. The arbitration committee would
>be free to go at whatever pace they want

I tend to agree. But with the caveat that such a temp ban be based on the will
of the community as demonstrated by the poll, and not by the whim of any one
admin. Again, use of step 3 (polling) can and should be practiced if and when
step 2 (request for comment) has either broken down or been beaten to death.
However, I think we should be careful since holding a poll on whether or not to
temp ban a user in good faith would be a personal attack. Thus the need for
step 2 to occur first.

Not all cases will be as clear cut as PS.

Jimbo wrote:
>Also, counter to Ed's proposal, but also in the spirit of not
>encouraging vigilantism, I am temp-banning Plautus under the
>arbitration committee makes some kind of decision.

Good. I will vote to accept the case. But if people want to see PS banned, then
they should give the AC a lot of clear evidence to work with -  statements are
just a starting point (for me at least they need to be backed up by real
evidence). This is especially important now that the AC is hearing more than
one case at a time. I'm already spending 1-2 hours a day several days a week on
dispute resolution and AC topics (on top of everything else I do around here).

I want diffs dammit!

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools


subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS still not changed

body:
Yes we do...  unless it's been commented out since yesterday.

Jason

Brion Vibber wrote:

> On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:01, Jason Richey wrote:
> >I'm working with Register.com on this...  They have some sort of
> >problem on their end stopping them from making the switch (or
> >something along those lines).  I am switching the .com first, then
> >I'll do the .org.  I want to make ABSOLUTELY sure that everything is
> >working before I make the .org change.  We deal with enough
> >catastrophies as it is...
>
> Don't switch the .com! We don't have the .com running on zwinger yet.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

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

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr at bomis.com>


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS still not changed

body:
This morning the whois information containing the name servers was still
unchanged:
whois wikipedia.org

Domain ID:D51687756-LROR
Domain Name:WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Created On:13-Jan-2001 00:12:14 UTC
Last Updated On:19-Oct-2003 02:52:44 UTC
Expiration Date:13-Jan-2005 00:12:14 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R71-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:C3819183-RCOM
Registrant Name:Jimmy Wales
Registrant Organization:Bomis,Inc.
Registrant Street1:4455LamontSt.,Suite3
Registrant City:SanDiego
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:92109
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.6192739361
Registrant FAX:+1.6192739363
Registrant Email:jwales at bomis.com
Admin ID:C11978190-RCOM
Admin Name:Jimmy Wales
Admin Organization:Bomis,Inc.
Admin Street1:3585HancockSt.,SuiteA
Admin City:SanDiego
Admin State/Province:CA
Admin Postal Code:92110
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.6192961732
Admin Email:jwales at bomis.com
Tech ID:C1-RCOM
Tech Name:Domain Registrar
Tech Organization:Register.Com
Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10018
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
Tech Email:domain-registrar at register.com
Name Server:DNS33.REGISTER.COM
Name Server:DNS34.REGISTER.COM

Those DNS entries need to be changed to point at Zwinger & Joey.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [WikiEN-l] Print edition

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I've been approached by a major publisher about the possibility of
>working with us to producing and publish a print edition of Wikipedia.
>The concept that they are most interested in at the moment is a single
>large volume, something similar to the Columbia Encyclopedia (a
>desktop encyclopedia, 3200 pages) or Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
>(2067 pages).
>
>
...

>The question was asked of me, and I ask of the community: can we have
>something like that ready in time?  Or should we shoot for next year?
>
>

Well, part of that would hinge on what exactly we're going to be doing
for them.  Are we going to give them wikitext and they're going to
properly format it and work out the GFDL issues and whatnot?  Or are we
expected to provide them material in whatever their preferred format is,
and with all the details worked out?

If the former, it should be doable, but we'd need to get started quickly
with selecting articles and refining their opening sections to be
suitable as stand-alone "concise" articles.  With long articles this is
ideally already the case (a short summary at the beginning), so can be
edited in-place on Wikipedia, but with medium-length biographies we
don't usually want to give the 5-sentence summary of their life followed
by a 15-sentence elaboration, so a fork of the content might be
necessary there to produce a separate "concise version".

And of course a bunch of coding stuff is needed to handle this gracefully.

-Mark


references:
<BC632598.1927%fredbaud@ctelco.net> <93bAulYxpVB@erik_moeller>
	<20040226181757.GS21056@joey.bomis.com>

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>I think almost everyone can support these ideas, because they are
>"softer" options than what we have now.
>
>1.  per-article bans
>2.  edit throttles for problem users
>
>
Definitely.  Some people are only problematic on a very few articles,
and even more commonly some people are problematic only primarily
because of their vast amounts of free time.  We can handle non-neutral
content from non-belligerent participants, but it's difficult to handle
a veritable flood of it across hundreds of pages and thousands of edits,
which is what leads to exasperated people just reverting anything from
that person rather than tediously salvaging and rewording it.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus

body:
Lir wrote on Plautus's talk page:

<< I advise you redouble your efforts not to make any personal attacks
whatsoever, whenever someone insults you or deletes your text -- you
need to document it and keep a record of it, so that you can build a
case that you are being harrassed. For the time being, it is also in
your interest to avoid making any controversial edits whatsoever. >>

1. Lir is 100% right about this.

2. By bringing point #1 to Plautus's attention, Lir has shown
outstandingly good WikiCitizenship.

3. It's in Wikipedia's long-term interest to try hard to teach new users
our ways. "Those who have been forgiven much, will love much."

4. Yes, Erik, it's a lot of work (!)

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed


subject: [Wikitech-l] DNS still not changed

body:
On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:22, Jason Richey wrote:
> Yes we do...  unless it's been commented out since yesterday.

Hm, apparently it's been added without warning.

It returns the wrong addr for wikipedia.com, lemme fix that... Ok,
should be sending wikipedia.com to the cache on browne instead of
larousse.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040226/58935e4f/attachment.pgp>