from_name: cookfire

subject: [Wiktionary-l] GNU-FDL and Ultimate Wiktionary

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Not really, since the existing wiktionaries would continue as they have
>>all along.
>>
>>
>
>I am not agreeing or disagreeing or taking any position on this at all.
> Please consider my questions about this to be merely data gathering. :-)
>
>Why should we have such a formal break?  Why shouldn't we instead
>transition from one to the other in a seamless way?  I worry a lot about
>duplication of effort, etc.
>
>Are there objections from old-school wiktionarians to the ultimate
>wiktionary plans?  Is it possible that we could address these objections
>through code?
>
>
Hi Jimbo et al,

What GerardM proposes as the ultimate Wiktionary is what I have been
considering to do all along: a dictionary in a relational database. It's
a pity I can't seem to find more time to contribute to its genesis. What
it would mean is basically that we would all be working on the same set
of data, instead of having each language on its balkanized Wiktionary .
People who speak French get a French interface to the data. People who
speak Swahili get an interface in swahili. Part of the interface could
be to show that content exists in other languages for the description of
a word, for an etymology, etc.
It is a pity that there is an enormous duplication of effort and
possibility of errors. An error may get corrected in one Wiktionary, but
it isn't in the other Wiktionaries. The UW wants to solve these
problems. Also if somebody in the Dutch Wiktionary knows the translation
of a word to Frisian, this knowledge doesn't propagate to the other
language Wiktionaries. Not in an efficient way anyway. With the UW if
somebody adds a translation, this translation becomes available to
everybody.

Of course, new problems will crop up. For instance, translations are not
transitive for all but the simplest of terms and concepts. We need to
find a solution to that problem. I was considering to take a step back
and group meanings into one table and concepts in another to try to
solve the problem. The issue with that is that it adds a layer of
abstraction which might obscure things a bit. (It would become possible
to create a 'meaning', where one already existed, thus resulting in two
entries for the same 'meaning'). Such things have to be discovered and
resolved. I'm sure we will find a way to accomplish that the Wiki way.

One would need quite a few layers of information:

words or lemmas with a certain spelling

    language (this is the only one that has to be defined)
    part of speech
    many more properties that are optional, such as whether it is
    normally capitalized, whether it's  a conjugated/flexed form,
    singular/plural, etc.

These words can be grouped to form expressions (and an expression can
also be only one word)
    bathroom could be one entry, salle de bains another
    This is the 'dictionary layer, where the words/expressions can be
described, etymologies can be added etc. This can be done in several
languages. The user gets to see the language(s) he wants to see.

The next layer points to these expressions and combines all the ones
that have the same meaning.

The way I conceived it, I added yet another layer 'concepts'. Here I
grouped the meaning 'mum' and 'mother'. They are the same concept, but
the meaning is different, meaning the translations have to be different
(maman, mama, mam?), (m?re, moeder, madre).

I used some more lookup tables and tables to create many to many
relations which I left out of the picture here. The concepts can be
illustrated with graphical material, sounds and videos and the
pronunciations can be added with something like IPA and point to actual
sound files so one can actually listen to them.

I posted the design of all this before, but apparently the fact that I
chose to name my tables with a neutral language like Esperanto managed
to make it inaccessible to developers.

Polyglot


list: wikitech-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: More about lag

references:
<B37C88960D2C80439C12E9D5FE373FF703343C0B@red.microlink.lt>	<d7eqdm$2is$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<d7f3su$vmh$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Tim Starling wrote:
>
> I should add, queueing would be an appropriate response to cluster-wide
> lag times of up to a few seconds. The request could be queued until a
> slave with zero lag time becomes available. Serving an error message
> only becomes appropriate when the expected queueing time is long enough
> that the user would want an explanation.

Personally, I would think that serving an error message only becomes
appropriate when there is an error.  Extreme slowness is not an error.
I would prefer for a request to take half an hour to complete than to
have to reload every five minutes for half an hour, and the request
still hasn't completed because it keeps timing out.

Timwi


list: wikien-l

from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] What we need now are a few good inclusionist jerks!

body:
An example of a vanity page which is routinely deleted by unanimous vote on VFD:
"John C. Shaw is a freshman in high school in Portland, Oregon. He is
a fan of Indie music, and films. Near the end of eighth grade, he had
pneumonia, so was taken to the hospital, where they found he also had
scoliosis. He wears a brace, and will wear it for another two years.
He takes it off at concerts so that he can mosh easily."

I understand why we can't generally speedy non-trivial content, but
it's very inefficient to go through VFD for material that is just
going to be unanimously deleted.

Can't we nominate some consistent wikipedia inclusionist to allow to
delete, say, any article less than a month old or with less than two
edits, they they believe would be a unanimous delete vote on VFD?
Articles that they don't choose to delete would continue go through
the normal VFD process. If they delete something they shouldn't it can
be VFUD or speedy UD by another admin.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin

body:
As Environknot has said I won't respond to his e-mails, below is a
copy of my response to him.

Environknot, if Yuber has also violated 3RR, he will be blocked too.
If you did not re-insert the text below four times, please e-mail me
privately showing how I'm wrong, and if you're right, I'll unblock
you. However, I won't be responding to any further e-mails from you to
the mailing list.

Sarah

On 5/30/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I did check Yuber's report, and found that you had reverted four times
> to a previous version dated 02:53, May 30. The section of text within
> that version that you subsequently reverted to was:
>
> "Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran
> [http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.html]:
>
> "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in
> the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have
> prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those
> who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or
> unwillingly."
>
> You reverted to this at 17:12, 20:40, 20:58, and 21:18 on May 30.
> Yuber got the fourth diff wrong in his report, which is what may be
> confusing you.
>
> Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The problem
> with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of
> miscalculation is inevitable from time to time.
>
> Sarah
>


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Paid-for-articles WPs in smaller languages

body:
Guaka wrote:

>>But you raise an important issue, which is whether *we* as an
>>*organisation* should financially help similar ideas (ie, paying
>>editors). Of course, this requires specific requirements (such as
>>control, validation of final quality, starting language with few editors
>>expected, local organisers etc...), but on the concept, should we or
>>should we not ?
>>
>>
>I guess *we* is the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think Wikimedia should
>fund projects that pay editors. There are plenty of NGO's and there is
>plenty of money going into development projects for developing
>countries. Lots of that money is spent on expensive plane flights and
>big salaries to send white people to poor countries. So what we (as in
>the broader Wikipedia community) can do is try to get some of that money
>to develop projects we think can make a difference, by directly paying
>many people in poor countries (as opposed to several politicians and big
>men gaining lots of bribes).
>
If I wanted to give to such a place delivery could be a big problem.  If
you send cash or if you send the computers there will always be too many
open hands between you and the recipient.  If you use mainstream NGOs
money also gets wasted sending the cameraman to take pictures of the NGO
agent doing his good deeds.  In the early stages you need someone there
whom you can trust to distribute the funds properly.

Ec


from_name: Cranston Snord

body:
SlimVirgin has blocked me without cause after Yuber started an edit war and
falsely claimed that I broke the three revert rule at the article Dhimmi.

Yuber listed the following in his bad-faith complaint, which the rogue admin
SlimVirgin did not bother investigating before she blocked me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14439874&oldid=14428678
My first Edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14451162
Yuber claims this was a "revert", but it was only an EDIT after checking Mel
Etitis' concerns on the talk page: minor corrections with a part he moved
and edited, and agreement that it needed to be where he had moved it to.
Returned Surah 9:29 to article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14457787&oldid=14457661
1st revert of Yuber: he reverted, reverting not only his concerned section
but also the reference on Surah 9:29 and the item that Mel Etitis and I
agreed should be moved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14458809&oldid=14458393
Second revert of Yuber. Warned him not to start revert wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=0&oldid=14459180
Third revert. At this point he falsely claimed I was in violation of 3RR.

SlimVirgin did not bother to read this, nor did she bother to read my
response on the 3RR page, merely blocked me without cause.

This is utterly unacceptable behavior from SlimVirgin.

-Enviroknot

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it

body:
On 5/30/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details
> are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].

I truly hope that the only reason he is being permitted to mail to
this list is because of the amusement factor.  I seriously doubt
anyone, except the usual suspects, is giving his accusations any
serious consideration.

-Matt (User:Morven)


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Rogue Admin SlimVirgin Lying About Content in justifying
	her block...

body:
And now the Rogue Admin Slimvirgin lies some more...

"Actually, the four reverts had the same exact wording.Yuber(talk) 22:00, 30
May 2005 (UTC)
* Blocked for 24 hours. Yuber, thanks for providing the first edit as well
as the first revert, which was very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, May
30, 2005 (UTC)"

If you click the two links, it is patently obvious that they are different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14439874&oldid=14428678
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14451162

SlimVirgin is lying and abusing her authority. Since she refuses to answer
emails, but is posting regularly to Wikipedia, I have no recourse but to
report her to this list as a Rogue Admin.

-Enviroknot

>From: "Cranston Snord" <enviroknot at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:04:56 -0500
>
>SlimVirgin has blocked me without cause after Yuber started an edit war and
>falsely claimed that I broke the three revert rule at the article Dhimmi.
>
>Yuber listed the following in his bad-faith complaint, which the rogue
>admin SlimVirgin did not bother investigating before she blocked me.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14439874&oldid=14428678
>My first Edit.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14451162
>Yuber claims this was a "revert", but it was only an EDIT after checking
>Mel Etitis' concerns on the talk page: minor corrections with a part he
>moved and edited, and agreement that it needed to be where he had moved it
>to. Returned Surah 9:29 to article.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14457787&oldid=14457661
>1st revert of Yuber: he reverted, reverting not only his concerned section
>but also the reference on Surah 9:29 and the item that Mel Etitis and I
>agreed should be moved.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14458809&oldid=14458393
>Second revert of Yuber. Warned him not to start revert wars.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=0&oldid=14459180
>Third revert. At this point he falsely claimed I was in violation of 3RR.
>
>SlimVirgin did not bother to read this, nor did she bother to read my
>response on the 3RR page, merely blocked me without cause.
>
>This is utterly unacceptable behavior from SlimVirgin.
>
>-Enviroknot
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Feature addition to the gallery

body:
Ed W wrote:
> Any suggestions on the cleanest way to implement this?  Will it be
> accepted for inclusion...?

Look at the patch in bugzilla on parameters for parser hooks and clean
it up.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050530/de11e019/attachment.pgp>


body:
That text was not the whole edit, and part of the text inserted in the
original edit had been moved by Mel Etitis.

She is lying and misrepresenting my content.

3RR applies to REVERTS, not to edits. The edit I made after Mel Etitis'
changes is substantially different from the first edit, and was placed with
respect to Mel Etitis' concerns as listed at the talk age:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Edits_Today

The difference between my two edits is READILY apparent simply by looking at
the diff page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14439874

SlimVirgin has been persecuting me ever since I arrived here a few days ago,
on some personal vendetta or other.

She is a Rogue Admin, this is the second time she has lied in order to
justify unfairly blocking me, and I am reporting her to this list as such.
It is the only recourse I have under Wikipedia policy.

I would also like to point out that Yuber appears to have just used a
sockpuppet to revert a fourth time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=0&oldid=14461199

-Enviroknot

>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: slimvirgin at gmail.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:26:34 -0600
>
>On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <enviroknot at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > SlimVirgin has blocked me without cause after Yuber started an edit war
>and
> > falsely claimed that I broke the three revert rule at the article
>Dhimmi.
>
>Enviroknot was reported on WP:AN/3RR by [[User:Yuber]] for a violation
>at [[Dhimmi]].
>
>Enviroknot reverted four times to a previous version. The previous
>version is the one at 02:53 May 30. It includes the text:
>
>"Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran
>[http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.html 1]:
>
>"You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in
>the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have
>prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those
>who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or
>unwillingly."
>
>Enviroknot reverted to this text another four times:: at 17:12, 20:40,
>20:58, and 21:18 on May 30.
>
>For anyone wanting to check, his contribs are here
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Enviroknot
>
>Sarah
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

body:
Charles Matthews wrote:

> Ray Saintonge wrote
>
>> It's perfectly acceptable to say that an idea is insane, but not that
>> the person putting forth the idea is insane.
>
> It is utter madness to say that it is perfectly acceptable to say that
> an idea is insane.
>
> I wrote that, of course, without prejudice to the question of Ray's
> sanity. But how does it read in practice?  A little of the
> 'transferred epithet'? Ideas of course do not enjoy mental health,
> good or otherwise.

In practice it reads as convoluted double-talk.

I suppose your thesis is right to the ultra-literalist.  Perhaps those
who transfer epthets should learn to read.

Ec


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Wikitech-l] More about lag

body:
Hi,

Le Monday 30 May 2005 16:45, Delirium a ?crit :
> Tim Starling wrote:
> >I should add, queueing would be an appropriate response to cluster-wide
> >lag times of up to a few seconds. The request could be queued until a
> >slave with zero lag time becomes available. Serving an error message
> >only becomes appropriate when the expected queueing time is long enough
> >that the user would want an explanation.
>
> As one (frequent) user, I prefer the queueing response to slowness
> (which seems to be what used to happen) to the error-message response
> (which seems to happen fairly regularly now).  I've talked to a few
> other people who feel similarly, though I don't know what the most
> common preference would be.  If there's queueing, at least you know your
> request will get served eventually, even if you have to go get a cup of
> coffee first; with the error-message responses, you just have to keep
> hitting reload, which is more irritating.
>
> -Mark

If I?may add my POV, I got time to time an error after inserting some text.
However the text was properly inserted. In many cases (minor edits, vote,
etc.), I don't need to view the result of my change. So in these cases, I
just want to know that my change is incorporated, and I will be happy with a
mere "Change saved" message, and that would be much better than an error
message. I will also save some server resources as I will not need to reload
the page.

It could be an option in the preferences:

[X] Do not show / reload the page after a minor edit.

My O.02 ?.

Yann
--
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence
http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net
http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclop?die libre
http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux


body:
SlimVirgin ALSO ignored when I reported Yuber for (YET AGAIN) trying to
start an edit war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism_in_progress&diff=0&oldid=14458564

Not that we should expect Admins to actually pay attention or operate in
good faith...

-Enviroknot

>From: "Cranston Snord" <enviroknot at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:36:01 -0500
>
>That text was not the whole edit, and part of the text inserted in the
>original edit had been moved by Mel Etitis.
>
>She is lying and misrepresenting my content.
>
>3RR applies to REVERTS, not to edits. The edit I made after Mel Etitis'
>changes is substantially different from the first edit, and was placed with
>respect to Mel Etitis' concerns as listed at the talk age:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Edits_Today
>
>The difference between my two edits is READILY apparent simply by looking
>at the diff page:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14439874
>
>SlimVirgin has been persecuting me ever since I arrived here a few days
>ago, on some personal vendetta or other.
>
>She is a Rogue Admin, this is the second time she has lied in order to
>justify unfairly blocking me, and I am reporting her to this list as such.
>It is the only recourse I have under Wikipedia policy.
>
>I would also like to point out that Yuber appears to have just used a
>sockpuppet to revert a fourth time:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=0&oldid=14461199
>
>-Enviroknot
>
>>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>>Reply-To: slimvirgin at gmail.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:26:34 -0600
>>
>>On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <enviroknot at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > SlimVirgin has blocked me without cause after Yuber started an edit war
>>and
>> > falsely claimed that I broke the three revert rule at the article
>>Dhimmi.
>>
>>Enviroknot was reported on WP:AN/3RR by [[User:Yuber]] for a violation
>>at [[Dhimmi]].
>>
>>Enviroknot reverted four times to a previous version. The previous
>>version is the one at 02:53 May 30. It includes the text:
>>
>>"Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran
>>[http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.html 1]:
>>
>>"You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in
>>the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have
>>prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those
>>who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or
>>unwillingly."
>>
>>Enviroknot reverted to this text another four times:: at 17:12, 20:40,
>>20:58, and 21:18 on May 30.
>>
>>For anyone wanting to check, his contribs are here
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Enviroknot
>>
>>Sarah
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rogue Admin SlimVirgin gaming the system

body:
SlimVirgin sent me the following:

"Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The problem
with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of
miscalculation is inevitable from time to time."

SlimVirgin is the Rogue Admin who is gaming the system.
I followed 3RR policy TO THE LETTER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3RR

"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the
3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an
inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an
editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is
unlikely to constitute working properly with others."

"If you find yourself reverting a considerable amount of edits by a banned
user or a vandal, it may be appropriate to block the user or IP address. If
you are not an administrator, you should list the person on vandalism in
progress."

The user Yuber has an established history of being blocked for 3RR and for
starting revert wars on Islamic topics. He was doing so yet again.

I warned him on the Dhimmi talk page.
I reported his attempt to start a revert war on the Vandalism in Progress
page.

I warned him in his edit summaries about revert warring and asked him to see
the talk page.

He submitted a bad-faith 3RR complaint anyways, and SlimVirgin blocked me in
bad faith as fits her goal of persecuting me.

Additionally, my first and second edits are NOT reverts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revert
I have only three reverts.

I expect to see an unblock notice. I am tired of being persecuted and abused
by Admins with chips on their shoulders.

-Enviroknot

>From: "Cranston Snord" <enviroknot at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:41:46 -0500
>
>SlimVirgin ALSO ignored when I reported Yuber for (YET AGAIN) trying to
>start an edit war:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism_in_progress&diff=0&oldid=14458564
>
>Not that we should expect Admins to actually pay attention or operate in
>good faith...
>
>-Enviroknot
>
>>From: "Cranston Snord" <enviroknot at hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:36:01 -0500
>>
>>That text was not the whole edit, and part of the text inserted in the
>>original edit had been moved by Mel Etitis.
>>
>>She is lying and misrepresenting my content.
>>
>>3RR applies to REVERTS, not to edits. The edit I made after Mel Etitis'
>>changes is substantially different from the first edit, and was placed
>>with respect to Mel Etitis' concerns as listed at the talk age:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Edits_Today
>>
>>The difference between my two edits is READILY apparent simply by looking
>>at the diff page:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14439874
>>
>>SlimVirgin has been persecuting me ever since I arrived here a few days
>>ago, on some personal vendetta or other.
>>
>>She is a Rogue Admin, this is the second time she has lied in order to
>>justify unfairly blocking me, and I am reporting her to this list as such.
>>It is the only recourse I have under Wikipedia policy.
>>
>>I would also like to point out that Yuber appears to have just used a
>>sockpuppet to revert a fourth time:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=0&oldid=14461199
>>
>>-Enviroknot
>>
>>>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>>>Reply-To: slimvirgin at gmail.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>>>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:26:34 -0600
>>>
>>>On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <enviroknot at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > SlimVirgin has blocked me without cause after Yuber started an edit
>>>war and
>>> > falsely claimed that I broke the three revert rule at the article
>>>Dhimmi.
>>>
>>>Enviroknot was reported on WP:AN/3RR by [[User:Yuber]] for a violation
>>>at [[Dhimmi]].
>>>
>>>Enviroknot reverted four times to a previous version. The previous
>>>version is the one at 02:53 May 30. It includes the text:
>>>
>>>"Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran
>>>[http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.html 1]:
>>>
>>>"You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in
>>>the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have
>>>prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those
>>>who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or
>>>unwillingly."
>>>
>>>Enviroknot reverted to this text another four times:: at 17:12, 20:40,
>>>20:58, and 21:18 on May 30.
>>>
>>>For anyone wanting to check, his contribs are here
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Enviroknot
>>>
>>>Sarah
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
>get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it

body:
Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details
are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].

Sarah

On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <enviroknot at hotmail.com> wrote:
> All fine and good.
>
> What she has done is still against policy, and I am still blocked.
>
> And she HAS been persecuting me.
>
> Making a big email about why someone should or shouldn't be called a rogue
> admin, when the admin's gaming of the system, harassment of editors, and
> behavior in violation of policy is NOT addressed is ridiculous.
>
> I'll agree to stop calling her a rogue admin if Wikipedia policy is actually
> followed and I see that I've been unblocked.
>
> -Enviroknot
>
> >From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it
> >Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:03 -0400
> >
> >I am no one to throw stones, so let's just say that I know perfectly well
> >what it is like to lose my temper and to be unable to fight the urge to use
> >harsh, even insulting language.  Fortunately, when this happens there are
> >usually plenty of people who tell me to stop, or even to apologize.
> >
> >Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the
> >subject space for the e-mail.
> >
> >This isn't about the fact that I think SlimVirgin is a dedicated editor who
> >has added much to Wikipedia.  We can discuss questions of improper action,
> >or possible reasons for it, here or more appropriately at the Admin
> >bulletin board, incident report page, whatever.  But it doesn't matter who
> >you are talking about.  This phrase "rogue admin" is inflammatory,
> >unnecessarily insulting, and has no place at Wikipedia.  If we as a
> >community or some body representing the community decides that a sysop
> >should be de-sysopped, okay, we de-sysop the person.  But until that
> >happens, they are an administrator.  Period.  If you don't like what that
> >administrator has done, fine, but focus on the action.  And certainly don't
> >go around calling someone a rogue administrator -- this insults the whole
> >community because the person using this phrase is abrogating the authority
> >to decide who is or is not a legitimate administrator.  You may not like
> >what they did, you may not like them personally, but as long as they are
> >administrators, call them that, or don't call them anything at all.
> >
> >And for all those who do not like the phrase "rogue admin" or who do not
> >think X deserves to be called rogue admin, please change the subject
> >heading of your e-mail.  Will it screw up the thread?  Don't worry, anyone
> >going through the archived list-serve will figure it out.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >Steven L. Rubenstein
> >Associate Professor
> >Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> >Bentley Annex
> >Ohio University
> >Athens, Ohio 45701
> >_______________________________________________
> >WikiEN-l mailing list
> >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Do I even need to BOTHER pointing out that your behavior is also a violation
of Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith?

YOU are gaming the system and have been persecuting me for days, and have
previously used another lie to illegally block me. This is completely beyond
any bounds of reasonable behavior or good faith.

-Enviroknot

>From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: slimvirgin at gmail.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocked Without Cause by Rogue Admin SlimVirgin
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:54:06 -0600
>
>As Environknot has said I won't respond to his e-mails, below is a
>copy of my response to him.
>
>Environknot, if Yuber has also violated 3RR, he will be blocked too.
>If you did not re-insert the text below four times, please e-mail me
>privately showing how I'm wrong, and if you're right, I'll unblock
>you. However, I won't be responding to any further e-mails from you to
>the mailing list.
>
>Sarah
>
>On 5/30/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I did check Yuber's report, and found that you had reverted four times
> > to a previous version dated 02:53, May 30. The section of text within
> > that version that you subsequently reverted to was:
> >
> > "Dhimmitude is also mentioned ... in Surah 9:29 of the Koran
> > [http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.html]:
> >
> > "You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in
> > the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have
> > prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those
> > who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or
> > unwillingly."
> >
> > You reverted to this at 17:12, 20:40, 20:58, and 21:18 on May 30.
> > Yuber got the fourth diff wrong in his report, which is what may be
> > confusing you.
> >
> > Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The problem
> > with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of
> > miscalculation is inevitable from time to time.
> >
> > Sarah
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] (no subject)

body:
rb_wiktionary at boult.mailshell.com wrote:

> >>>> I guess "old-school" is probably a good term. I have very little
> involvement on the technical side of things. I do find it a chore to
> insert
> a picture or a table, but I figure it out when I have to. When templates
> appear in an article that I am editing, I need to make extra effort
> just to
> track where some of them come from or what they mean. If I, as a
> person who
> has been here for over three years, am having trouble with this, it
> must be
> worse for a non-technical person who just wants to indulge his love of
> words.
>
>
>
> I too am alarmed at the proposal, as much as I have seen it. I am
> technical(well, used to be) 28 years in the computer industry, starting at
> the most technical levels of system programming, but over the years
> migrating to the role of helping general business users get the best
> out of
> systems, as business analyst, system designer, project manager.
>
>
>
> One thing I learned was - never let a technician design a system. It
> will be
> great for the technician's personal uses, but a huge chance it will be
> useless to the general users.
>
>
>
> Like Ec I find even the present level of codification annoyingly
> complicated. Requiring any significant level of codification from general
> users would just knock out 99%of the population form being contributors,
> asituation we cannot go towards.
>
>
>
> >From what little I have learned so far of this idea, including the
> complete
> lack of communication with the user community, the idea of introducing
> a new
> more technical Ultimate Wiktionary sounds like a disaster waiting to
> happen.
>
>
>
> Richardb
>
>
Hi Richard,

GerardM is not exactly a technical user, or he would be implementing it
all by himself. The idea of the UW, as he likes to call it, is to take
away the need to know anything technical. OK, the markup as it is in
Wikipedia can stay, of course. But it won't be necessary anymore to know
which headings should be used. The UI should propose that, in the
language of the user. It is then stored in the DB with a tag to indicate
the language it was written in.

Polyglot


subject:
PS: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accusedof
	"vandalism"?!

body:
Don't forget the disclaimer:

"Don't edit anything that might be controversial, or our resident rogue
admins will sit around and block you for not sitting lock-step with their
POV.

Oh, and don't ever bother actually following any of the guidelines for
reporting a bad-faith block, because it won't do any good. Admins don't
follow policy unless we can twist it to harass someone."

-Enviroknot

>From: advert <advert at ziplip.com>
>Reply-To: advert <advert at ziplip.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: PS: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits -
>accusedof	"vandalism"?!
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 16:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
>I likewise suggest removing this page from Wikipedia:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction
>
>"Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia?anyone can edit, and we
>encourage users to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in
>content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking
>Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead,
>edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source for information on
>the Internet!"
>
>Yeah, I did and was blocked. You might want to change that to "be careful
>and read the rules before you edit" instead.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: advert [mailto:advert at ziplip.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005, 3:53 PM
> > To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of
> > 	"vandalism"?!
> >
> > I am new to editing Wikipedia and had never previously registered. I did
>not
> > realise this was even a requirement to register in order to make changes
>to an
> > entry. I was blocked after trying to make several edits to the page. I
>was
> > unaware that editing a page was somehow an offense worth blocking
>considering
> > that there is an "edit this page" tab at the top of the entry and that
>is what
> > I was doing - editing the page. Wikipedia should remove the "edit this
>page"
> > link for unregistered users if that is not what it is for.
> >
> > I have been accused of "vandalism" and blocked:
> >
> > "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Brian0918.
> > The reason given is this:
> > numerous repeated vandalisms
> > You can email Brian0918 or one of the other administrators to discuss
>the
> > block..."
> >
> >
> > Please take a look at my edits for "pornography" as of 5/30/05. I don't
> > consider that my edits were "vandalism" nor do I believe that they meet
> > Wikipedia definition given here:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism
> >
> > "for example someone replacing the entire page with profanity, or adding
>a
> > page with useless or offensive content."
> >
> > I did NOT replace the entire page, use profanity, or add "useless" or
> > "offensive" content. I added a feminist perspective which I considered
>sorely
> > lacking on the site entry and I deleted content that I thought was
>offensive.
> > If that is considered useless or offensive content then Wikipedia had
>better
> > check its own "neutral point of view".
> >
> > Also, as I am completely new to editing on Wikipedia, I was  unaware of
>the
> > "neutral point of view" policy until later and I don't consider the
>entry that
> > I was trying to edit to have been "neutral" as it was before I started
>to even
> > edit it.
> >
> > I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist
>perspective to
> > the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is
>"neutral".
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Christopher Larberg

subject:
[WikiEN-l] And the bad faith continues from Wikipedia. ALL ADMINS
	are Rogue Admins

body:
On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <wikipediaisstupid at hotmail.com> wrote:
> All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.
If all Wikipedia admins are rogue admins, what constitutes a non-rogue admin?

Does this mean I get to call myself "The Rogue"? I've always wanted a
cool nickname.

--Slowking Man


subject:
[WikiEN-l] And the bad faith continues from Wikipedia. ALL
	ADMINSare Rogue A

body:
On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <wikipediaisstupid at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't hypocrisy grand?
>
> "Anyone can edit" - but if Admins don't agree with your edits they will
> block you upon a whim.
>
> "If you believe the block is unwarranted email the one who blocked you" -
> which will of course be completely useless when you have an admin pushing a
> particular POV.
>
> "Or else you can email the Wikien-l mailing list" - except you really can't,
> because it's a clique of admins who couldn't care less about the rules, just
> slapping each other on the back for making sure they're the only ones in
> Wikipedia. And actually making complaints will get you banned.
>
> YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF SORRY HYPOCRITES.

Hey, you didn't answer my questions! I think I'm going to go "rogue"
and block you now, for no reason. Because that's, you know, what we
admins do.

--Slowking Man


subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it

body:
All fine and good.

What she has done is still against policy, and I am still blocked.

And she HAS been persecuting me.

Making a big email about why someone should or shouldn't be called a rogue
admin, when the admin's gaming of the system, harassment of editors, and
behavior in violation of policy is NOT addressed is ridiculous.

I'll agree to stop calling her a rogue admin if Wikipedia policy is actually
followed and I see that I've been unblocked.

-Enviroknot

>From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:03 -0400
>
>I am no one to throw stones, so let's just say that I know perfectly well
>what it is like to lose my temper and to be unable to fight the urge to use
>harsh, even insulting language.  Fortunately, when this happens there are
>usually plenty of people who tell me to stop, or even to apologize.
>
>Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the
>subject space for the e-mail.
>
>This isn't about the fact that I think SlimVirgin is a dedicated editor who
>has added much to Wikipedia.  We can discuss questions of improper action,
>or possible reasons for it, here or more appropriately at the Admin
>bulletin board, incident report page, whatever.  But it doesn't matter who
>you are talking about.  This phrase "rogue admin" is inflammatory,
>unnecessarily insulting, and has no place at Wikipedia.  If we as a
>community or some body representing the community decides that a sysop
>should be de-sysopped, okay, we de-sysop the person.  But until that
>happens, they are an administrator.  Period.  If you don't like what that
>administrator has done, fine, but focus on the action.  And certainly don't
>go around calling someone a rogue administrator -- this insults the whole
>community because the person using this phrase is abrogating the authority
>to decide who is or is not a legitimate administrator.  You may not like
>what they did, you may not like them personally, but as long as they are
>administrators, call them that, or don't call them anything at all.
>
>And for all those who do not like the phrase "rogue admin" or who do not
>think X deserves to be called rogue admin, please change the subject
>heading of your e-mail.  Will it screw up the thread?  Don't worry, anyone
>going through the archived list-serve will figure it out.
>
>Steve
>
>Steven L. Rubenstein
>Associate Professor
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>Bentley Annex
>Ohio University
>Athens, Ohio 45701
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it

body:
Well, there's a vote for Wikipedia policy meaning nothing.

I bring complaints to this list because it is my only recourse under
Wikipedia policy. The fact that you are talking about blocking me off
indicates only that you are a Rogue Admin as well.

She broke policy. Good-faith edits are never reverts, and she knows that,
but she did it anyway because she intends to persecute me.

-Enviroknot

>From: Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: slimvirgin at gmail.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] cool it
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 17:16:11 -0700
>
>On 5/30/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who wants to check this block is welcome to do so. The details
> > are at [[WP:AN/3RR]] under [[User:Enviroknot]].
>
>I truly hope that the only reason he is being permitted to mail to
>this list is because of the amusement factor.  I seriously doubt
>anyone, except the usual suspects, is giving his accusations any
>serious consideration.
>
>-Matt (User:Morven)
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


from_name: Phil Sandifer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Notice to an Admin

body:
I think you have me confused with somebody else. Sam's not the
sockpuppeting type.

-Snowspinner

On May 30, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Cranston Snord wrote:

> Given that you were accusing me of being Sam Spade earlier, I'm
> just going to have a good laugh at your expense right now.
>
> -Enviroknot
>
>
>> From: Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Notice to an Admin
>> Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 13:04:53 -0400
>>
>> So your assertion is that  there's a large nexus of users with
>> identical editing patterns all clustered in the same geographical
>> area, on the same ISP, and they all happen to be getting each
>> other's  IPs when their cable modems disconnect?
>>
>> Because I think it's the ice weasels, personally.
>>
>> -Snowspinner
>>
>> On May 30, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Cranston Snord wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I sent a response to this to the en-l mailing list yesterday,
>>> but  it has not appeared. I am attempting to send it again.
>>>
>>> If I do not see it this time, I will assume that one of you has
>>> taken the step of removing me from the list for rightfully
>>> bringing  my complaints. This would be expected from the power-
>>> mad admins who  seem to be in control.
>>>
>>> On to David Gerard's laughable assertions:
>>>
>>> As for same pages of interest, no, we don't, as my edits will
>>> attest: second, even if we did, Wikipedia has policy regarding
>>> that, which I have already pointed out.
>>>
>>> As for the IP, David Gerard insists that Roadrunner keeps users
>>> on  the same IP "for months": actually, my record time for
>>> keeping an  IP has been two weeks. Your IP only stays static if
>>> your cable  modem stays online, and thanks to large-scale
>>> construction in my  area, we are regularly hit with brownouts and
>>> blackouts, not to  mention cable service downtimes.
>>>
>>> If a "Cranston Snerd" has edited Wikipedia, I'd like to see a
>>> reference. Since I only edit with one account (named
>>> Enviroknot),  that is obviously a fake account set up by someone
>>> who is reading  this list and attempting to discredit me.
>>>
>>> I also want Mel Etitis, his puppet Yuber, and whichever else of
>>> you  have been defacing my user page to stop it. I have already
>>> warned  Etitis and Yuber repeatedly.
>>>
>>> -Enviroknot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
>>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Notice to an Admin
>>>> Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 22:19:27 +1000
>>>>
>>>> David Gerard (fun at thingy.apana.org.au) [050529 22:16]:
>>>>
>>>> > ElKabong matches with KaintheScion firstly on writing style
>>>> and  pages of
>>>> > interest, and secondly they both edited [[Talk:George W.
>>>> Bush]]  in the same
>>>> > hour from the same IP. (I sent a list of the edits and their
>>>> times to him
>>>> > and he emailed back saying I must have made that up.)
>>>> KaintheScion and
>>>> > Enviroknot have the same pages of interest and edit from the
>>>> same IP,
>>>> > starting as the IP and then as Enviroknot the moment I
>>>> blocked  Kain as a
>>>> > sockpuppet of ElKabong (who I unblocked - the problem is
>>>> abusing a
>>>> > sockpuppet to pretend to be two people, not running a second
>>>> account per
>>>> > se). Which is a DSL theoretically on DHCP, but I know
>>>> Roadrunner  often
>>>> > keeps people on the same IP for ages. Certainly this one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh - and as well as Enviroknot's home IP matching Kain's,
>>>> "Cranston Snerd"
>>>> has edited (and signed "Cranston Snerd") from the same two IPs
>>>> favoured by
>>>> ElKabong. Thus completing the circle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
>>> it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/
>>> direct/01/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -
> it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/
> direct/01/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it

body:
I am no one to throw stones, so let's just say that I know perfectly well
what it is like to lose my temper and to be unable to fight the urge to use
harsh, even insulting language.  Fortunately, when this happens there are
usually plenty of people who tell me to stop, or even to apologize.

Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the
subject space for the e-mail.

This isn't about the fact that I think SlimVirgin is a dedicated editor who
has added much to Wikipedia.  We can discuss questions of improper action,
or possible reasons for it, here or more appropriately at the Admin
bulletin board, incident report page, whatever.  But it doesn't matter who
you are talking about.  This phrase "rogue admin" is inflammatory,
unnecessarily insulting, and has no place at Wikipedia.  If we as a
community or some body representing the community decides that a sysop
should be de-sysopped, okay, we de-sysop the person.  But until that
happens, they are an administrator.  Period.  If you don't like what that
administrator has done, fine, but focus on the action.  And certainly don't
go around calling someone a rogue administrator -- this insults the whole
community because the person using this phrase is abrogating the authority
to decide who is or is not a legitimate administrator.  You may not like
what they did, you may not like them personally, but as long as they are
administrators, call them that, or don't call them anything at all.

And for all those who do not like the phrase "rogue admin" or who do not
think X deserves to be called rogue admin, please change the subject
heading of your e-mail.  Will it screw up the thread?  Don't worry, anyone
going through the archived list-serve will figure it out.

Steve

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What we need now are a few good inclusionist jerks!

body:
On 5/30/05, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> To balance the inclusionist with the "license to speedy-delete", we
> would need a corresponding deletionist with the "license to
> speedy-undelete". ;-)

:)

Well we've got that. I'd say going hand in hand with a policy allowing
more liberal speedy-delete, we would allow very liberal
speedy-undelete in those cases... The idea is to avoid VFD for
something that would be unanimous or near-unanimous, and anything that
an admin would bother to undelete would count as not unanimous. :)


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: No need to speedy vanity pages

body:
> From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>

> An example of a vanity page which is routinely deleted by unanimous
> vote on VFD:
> "John C. Shaw is a freshman in high school in Portland, Oregon. He is
> a fan of Indie music, and films. Near the end of eighth grade, he had
> pneumonia, so was taken to the hospital, where they found he also had
> scoliosis. He wears a brace, and will wear it for another two years.
> He takes it off at concerts so that he can mosh easily."
>
> I understand why we can't generally speedy non-trivial content, but
> it's very inefficient to go through VFD for material that is just
> going to be unanimously deleted.
>
> Can't we nominate some consistent wikipedia inclusionist to allow to
> delete, say, any article less than a month old or with less than two
> edits, they they believe would be a unanimous delete vote on VFD?
> Articles that they don't choose to delete would continue go through
> the normal VFD process. If they delete something they shouldn't it can
> be VFUD or speedy UD by another admin.

But articles like that doesn't really take much time to handle on VfD.
Speedying those articles wouldn't really affect the VfD process much.

Here's a counterexample. Here's an article in the form in which it was
nominated for VfD. The entire article:

"Jessamyn West, AKA the Rarin Librarian. One of Library Journal's
Mover & Shakers, West is best known for her 'blog, librarian.net."

It turns out that Jessamyn West is the name of two people: an
absolutely-100%-notable famous novelist, author of _The Friendly
Persuasion_, adapted into a 1958 movie that won the Academy
Award for Best Picture, etc. etc. on which we had no article.

And it's _also_ the name of a blogger, who is at least arguably
notable, whose entry got about an evenly-split VfD vote and
hence was kept.

The benefit of running the Jessamyn Wests through VfD
outweighs the very small costs of requiring a few people
to cast pro-forma "Delete, vanity" votes on the John C. Shaws.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


from_name: Kat Walsh

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Blocked after making several edits - accused of
	"vandalism"?!

body:
On 5/30/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> advert stated for the record:
>
> > I would like to be unblocked and be allowed to add a feminist perspective to the entry which I edited. I don't think the entry as it stands is "neutral".
>
> Your edits were not vandalism, but they were not acceptable.  Stating as
> a fact that "[p]ornography ... is the representation of the human body
> or [[human sexual behaviour]] mainly from a male supremacist
> perspective" is highly opinionated.  That statement represents an
> extreme point of view that most editors and readers will not agree with
> and will quickly edit away.
>
> Something along the lines of "many feminists feel that pornography
> represents a male supremacist perspective" would be slightly better, but
> would require a definition of "male supremacist perspective."
>
> Also, we are not interested in your personal definitions of
> "pornography" and "erotica."  If those definitions were created
> elsewhere, please provide references.
>
> You may want to suggest changes on the article's talk page and ask for
> help in wording them so as to conform to the (obligatory) neutral point
> of view.

Looking at the page history and the block log, I am going to unblock
this user. I don't think s/he was adequately warned, and we can't
expect all newbies to know about restrictions on edit warring without
being informed. (However, advert, you've now been informed: discuss
big changes to contentious articles on talk, always, and more than 3
reverts in one day will merit a 24-hour block; further advice will be
left on user talk page.)

I'm all for blocking deliberate vandals, but this appears to be
editing made in good faith, just without knowledge of policy.

-Kat
[[User:Mindspillage]]

--
http://www.mindspillage.net *** IM: LucidWaking
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams


subject: [WikiEN-l] Sam Spade/Report rogue admin

body:
It doesn't matter, Jack.

When a rogue admin decides to persecute someone, there's nothing that can be
done about it. Following policy and bringing it to this mailing list is
certainly beyond useless.

-Enviroknot

>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>,English Wikipedia
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Sam Spade/Report rogue admin
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 02:45:22 +0200
>
>See:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Apologies
>
>I had the page deleted, feeling it was causing more hard than good.
>
>Jack
>
>On 5/31/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> > Charles Matthews wrote:
> >
> > > Ray Saintonge wrote
> > >
> > >> It's perfectly acceptable to say that an idea is insane, but not that
> > >> the person putting forth the idea is insane.
> > >
> > > It is utter madness to say that it is perfectly acceptable to say that
> > > an idea is insane.
> > >
> > > I wrote that, of course, without prejudice to the question of Ray's
> > > sanity. But how does it read in practice?  A little of the
> > > 'transferred epithet'? Ideas of course do not enjoy mental health,
> > > good or otherwise.
> >
> > In practice it reads as convoluted double-talk.
> >
> > I suppose your thesis is right to the ultra-literalist.  Perhaps those
> > who transfer epthets should learn to read.
> >
> > Ec
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: More on multilingualism and the press

body:
Mathias Schindler wrote:

> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> The story is about an author whose Wikipedia biography was apparently
>> falsified, and the information "verified" by somebody impersonating
>> the author on Wikipedia. The Post is written in English, and does not
>> identify the Wikipedia language involved (the incident, it seems,
>> took place on the Hebrew Wikipedia).
>
> I just had a quick look at google and I could not find a page on
> he.wikipedia about him (maybe I did the transscription the Hebrew
> letters wrong).

The Hebrew article, according to the interwiki link on en.wikipedia, is:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%96%27%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%98

Note that en: currently has the spelling as Jackont, whereas the Post
gives it as Jacont.

> 2003 was far from wikipedia's "breakthrough" in public awareness. So I
> really would like to see the history or the article. After all, this
> article is about people who lied and a book "L for lies" :)

The current Hebrew article was started in 2004. There's a note on the
en: talk page, also dating from 2004, confirming that there was such a
controversy. Unfortunately, I can't read Hebrew to figure out what is
stated there about it. The discrepancy could be because the Post somehow
got the year wrong, or because the incident on he: resulted in the
article being deleted and since replaced with the current article.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: my previous emails

body: I deeply thank you for your civility Chad. ant


subject: [WikiEN-l] Rogue Admin SlimVirgin

body:
Yes, I used it again.

As I said: until such time as she starts to follow Wikipedia policy, I
consider her a Rogue Admin.

At least one user on Wikipedia seems to have it right. It's a pity none of
the Admins bother with paying attention to policy.

-Enviroknot

P.S. I've included the relevant part of the discussion below.

1 -- The diff
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&diff=14451571&oldid=14439874)
on the first two edits combined with the discussion page
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Edits_Today) for the article
paints a very different picture from what you are claiming. Good-faith edits
to a page never count as reverts.
Your comments on the mailing list like "However, I won't be responding to
any further e-mails from you to the mailing list" do not help: they indicate
that you are not interested in operating in the open and in good faith.
Your comment "Partial, complex reverts count as reverts like any other. The
problem with gaming the system, as you are doing, is that this kind of
miscalculation is inevitable from time to time" could easily be construed as
an insult itself. I have read the byplay and there is no "invective" but the
quite real frustration of a persecuted user who was wrongly blocked.
User:80.237.206.62

2 -- So-called "good-faith reverts" count just as much as "bad-faith
reverts", except in cases of vandalism, and edits to the talk page are
irrelevant. This user account and other sockpuppets have been
editing-by-revert since they arrived, and I've no idea what you mean about
reading the "byplay" and finding no invective: unless you're me or
Enviroknot, you're unlikely to have read all his e-mails to me. SlimVirgin
(talk) 00:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

3 -- There is no such thing as a "good-faith revert" with the exception of
vandalism cases. There are plenty of cases of good-faith edits being
misconstrued as reverts by admins who are persecuting users for some
personal reason.
I have read all the emails on the mailing list, and have checked your
history and the user's history. I've also checked the Request for
Arbitration that you included this user in. You appear to be in the wrong
here, and I have stated so.
Claiming that an edit made during the working out of a consensus is a
"revert" is counter to Wikipedia policy on what constitutes a revert and
also counter to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. The behavior of other admins on
the mailing list recently towards new users is frightening, as it is showing
a marked cliquishness and hostility towards newcomers that you epitomize.
Besides calling you a rogue admin and then pointing out Wikipedia policies
you have violated, what has Enviroknot said to you? I would ask the same of
him but you have rendered him incapable of putting forth any responses on
here for me to see, and you have already stated that you will not discuss
this in good faith and in public on the mailing list.
This block and 3RR report are in bad faith. I urge any admin who comes by to
remove the block immediately. User:80.237.206.62

>From: "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] cool it
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:27:03 -0400
>
>I am no one to throw stones, so let's just say that I know perfectly well
>what it is like to lose my temper and to be unable to fight the urge to use
>harsh, even insulting language.  Fortunately, when this happens there are
>usually plenty of people who tell me to stop, or even to apologize.
>
>Can we please stop using the phrase "rogue admin," especially in the
>subject space for the e-mail.
>
>This isn't about the fact that I think SlimVirgin is a dedicated editor who
>has added much to Wikipedia.  We can discuss questions of improper action,
>or possible reasons for it, here or more appropriately at the Admin
>bulletin board, incident report page, whatever.  But it doesn't matter who
>you are talking about.  This phrase "rogue admin" is inflammatory,
>unnecessarily insulting, and has no place at Wikipedia.  If we as a
>community or some body representing the community decides that a sysop
>should be de-sysopped, okay, we de-sysop the person.  But until that
>happens, they are an administrator.  Period.  If you don't like what that
>administrator has done, fine, but focus on the action.  And certainly don't
>go around calling someone a rogue administrator -- this insults the whole
>community because the person using this phrase is abrogating the authority
>to decide who is or is not a legitimate administrator.  You may not like
>what they did, you may not like them personally, but as long as they are
>administrators, call them that, or don't call them anything at all.
>
>And for all those who do not like the phrase "rogue admin" or who do not
>think X deserves to be called rogue admin, please change the subject
>heading of your e-mail.  Will it screw up the thread?  Don't worry, anyone
>going through the archived list-serve will figure it out.
>
>Steve
>
>Steven L. Rubenstein
>Associate Professor
>Department of Sociology and Anthropology
>Bentley Annex
>Ohio University
>Athens, Ohio 45701
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


body:
Apparently, for following Wikipedia policy and bringing my complaints, I
have been blocked.

I am not going to swear at you, despite SlimVirgin's lies and David Gerard's
profanity.

But I hope you are happy. I now know why Wikipedia isn't worth anything.
It's because Wikipedia policy isn't worth the electrons used to store it.

All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee?
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


from_name: Tim Starling

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Wikimedia Operations Team saves the Day,
 [was: Personal frustration level linear to replication lag]

body:
My current thinking on replication lag is that lagged servers shouldn't
serve any read requests at all, until they catch up. I've said that it
would be nice if this was implemented with creative thread scheduling
within MySQL, but we can get pretty close at the application level. We
can just send requests to any up-to-date server, and if there are no
up-to-date servers besides the master, automatically switch the wiki to
read only and serve error messages for most reads. The approach Jamesday
was recommending, i.e. making do with lagged data wherever possible,
just seems to exacerbate the problem, because the read load extends lag
times.

To implement this we need a way for the apache threads to get lag
informaton. We can either:

* Give them the PROCESS privilege and use SHOW PROCESSLIST. I have code
for this already, it's used for maintenance scripts. This won't work
with all MySQL configurations but it will work for us. The security
risks are probably pretty small.
* Upgrade to MySQL 4.1. Not easy due to the need to dump and reimport,
and we don't need to do it for any other reason.
* Use "SELECT max(rc_timestamp)" like servmon. It wouldn't work well for
a site like wikicities but it should work for us most of the time.
* Use a daemon running as wikiadmin to pass information to the apache
threads via memcached. Maintenance and administration is an issue. A
variation on this is for the daemon to set load ratios based on lag
information.

Any thoughts? I'm favouring the first option.

-- Tim Starling


body:
Isn't hypocrisy grand?

"Anyone can edit" - but if Admins don't agree with your edits they will
block you upon a whim.

"If you believe the block is unwarranted email the one who blocked you" -
which will of course be completely useless when you have an admin pushing a
particular POV.

"Or else you can email the Wikien-l mailing list" - except you really can't,
because it's a clique of admins who couldn't care less about the rules, just
slapping each other on the back for making sure they're the only ones in
Wikipedia. And actually making complaints will get you banned.

YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF SORRY HYPOCRITES.

>From: Christopher Larberg <christopherlarberg at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Christopher Larberg <christopherlarberg at gmail.com>,English
>Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] And the bad faith continues from Wikipedia. ALL
>ADMINSare Rogue Admins
>Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 18:34:14 -0700
>
>On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <wikipediaisstupid at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.
>If all Wikipedia admins are rogue admins, what constitutes a non-rogue
>admin?
>
>Does this mean I get to call myself "The Rogue"? I've always wanted a
>cool nickname.
>
>--Slowking Man
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Cranston Snord wrote:

> Apparently, for following Wikipedia policy and bringing my complaints,
> I have been blocked.
>
> I am not going to swear at you, despite SlimVirgin's lies and David
> Gerard's profanity.
>
> But I hope you are happy. I now know why Wikipedia isn't worth
> anything. It's because Wikipedia policy isn't worth the electrons used
> to store it.
>
> All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.

Personally I favor being a Barbarian Admin, although
Archaeologist Admin is good for a change of pace, and
Valkyrie Admin has its equipment advantages at lower
levels.

Stan


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
Stan Shebs stated for the record:

> Cranston Snord wrote:
 >
>> All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.
>
>
> Personally I favor being a Barbarian Admin, although
> Archaeologist Admin is good for a change of pace, and
> Valkyrie Admin has its equipment advantages at lower
> levels.

What do you name your pet?  But I digress.  The ultimate Admin, of
course, is the [[BOFH|Bastard Admin from Hell]].

--
  Sean Barrett     | If running against men has wearied you, how
  sean at epoptic.com | will you race against horses? --Paul of Tarsus


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 5/30/05, Cranston Snord <wikipediaisstupid at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently, for following Wikipedia policy and bringing my complaints, I
> have been blocked.
> I am not going to swear at you, despite SlimVirgin's lies and David Gerard's
> profanity.
> But I hope you are happy. I now know why Wikipedia isn't worth anything.
> It's because Wikipedia policy isn't worth the electrons used to store it.
> All Wikipedia Admins ARE Rogue Admins.

Even if you were not a sockpuppet, by some miracle, it is still clear
that you are too annoying for us to tolerate you in our community. I
promise: it's not just a couple of admins in this case. :)

If you'd like to setup a Wiki just for annoying probable socks of
KainTheScion and other of your ilk, drop me a line and I can help you
setup mediawiki.


from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Wikitech-l] Picture doesn't show up

body:
Hi, is there something special that I need to amend to show pictures
that are loaded on my server?

The picture for this page
http://ars-vita-italica.com/index.php?title=Rome

was uploaded in the direcotry /images.

But it does not show up - so I believe that I understood something wrong
or there must something I have to change maybe in a config file.

Thanks for any hint!

Ciao, Sabine

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


body:
On 5/30/05, Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> The benefit of running the Jessamyn Wests through VfD
> outweighs the very small costs of requiring a few people
> to cast pro-forma "Delete, vanity" votes on the John C. Shaws.

Eh, I dunno about that. If the initial article is short enough that it
doesn't establish sufficient notoriety to someone who thinks wikipedia
should be very inclusive, then we don't really lose anything if it
gets deleted before someone has had a chance to point out the
notability.

You might not consider it costly to vote on a bunch of silly vanities,
but it does take a fair bit of work to close the VFDs, and it's work
thats done by too few people.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on

body:
Thank you.
Can you unblock me?
-Enviroknot

>From: "A Nony Mouse" <tempforcomments at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Recent goings-on
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 03:51:37 +0100
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: [141.76.1.121]
>X-Originating-Email: [tempforcomments at hotmail.com]
>X-Sender: tempforcomments at hotmail.com
>Received: from mail.wikimedia.org ([207.142.131.234]) by
>mc11-f35.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 30 May 2005
>19:51:42 -0700
>Received: from zwinger.pmtpa.wmnet (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954951AC1783;Tue, 31 May 2005
>02:51:39 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from hotmail.com (bay18-f20.bay18.hotmail.com [65.54.187.70])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F49A1AC0233for
><wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>; Tue, 31 May 2005 02:51:38 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft
>SMTPSVC;Mon, 30 May 2005 19:51:37 -0700
>Received: from 141.76.1.121 by by18fd.bay18.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Tue,
>31 May 2005 02:51:37 GMT
>X-Message-Info: LGjzam7y+LvsjpDGxM6Oqmnkb/CrgJfZtfx+bYcWYIk=
>X-Original-To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Delivered-To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 May 2005 02:51:37.0579
>(UTC)FILETIME=[A9EEDBB0:01C5658B]
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>
>I have been watching the last week's events with dismay. I have been trying
>to compose this email for two hours, but every time I get close, something
>else comes up.
>
>I have decided to make this anonymous. I do not know how some of you would
>react and I do not wish to take any chance that I would be harassed for
>this.
>
>There are two cases that bother me. Jack Lynch aka Sam Spade and Cranston
>Snord aka Enviroknot. Both of these cases scare me because of the precedent
>that they have set.
>
>In the case of Jack, there was a question of a block war. Administrators
>were fighting over what to do with him. This is not a good thing for
>Wikipedia editors no matter who they are. It indicates that the user is
>less of a concern than something between the two Administrators.
>
>It is the case of Cranston Snord aka Enviroknot that worries me more. This
>is the case that has made me take the drastic step of sending an email to
>the list anonymously. I had originally been trying to type up a response to
>Cranston's concerns about being blocked. I believe that SlimVirgin violated
>policy by doing so. Unfortunately for me, such an email would likely now be
>a day late and a dollar short.
>
>Cranston was a disruption to the list, but much of that disruption was
>caused by other people on this list treating him with incredible
>disrespect. I was taken aback by his accusations against administrators but
>having looked at the cases in hand I believe that he has a point.
>
>There were emails on this list asking whether anyone was taking him
>seriously. This is the height of arrogance, and it is something that
>frightens me. Administrators should never be acting as if ordinary editors
>do not matter.
>
>As for his complaints about being blocked, the dismissiveness on this board
>hurt me. No matter who it is making a complaint, we have a duty to
>investigate it. We are listed as the last resort for users who have been
>wronged. I took the time to investigate SlimVirgin's blocking of
>Enviroknot, and I believe that it is not valid.
>
>By the time I got to the discussion, it was a good series of emails long,
>and despite the number of list members who had posted, none save SlimVirgin
>had bothered to address Enviroknot's concerns on the block in any way.
>SlimVirgin herself made a bad judgement call. An edit made in good faith
>should never be considered a reversion, even if it contains some content
>that is included in a later reversion.
>
>Instead of acknowledging this fact, the list members were universally
>dismissive of Enviroknot from the first email. One went so far as to demand
>that the term "rogue admin" not be used, without addressing the reasons
>that it had been brought up in multiple cases recently.
>
>We have a problem with administrators exceeding their authority on
>Wikipedia. We have a problem with administrators not applying policy
>correctly. And we have a problem with arrogance on these lists, with
>administrators believing that they are somehow better than others.
>
>With the increased power of administrator access comes a responsibility to
>use it fairly and adhere to the established procedures and policies. The
>actions of an Administrator should themselves be NPOV. We have stated
>policy that when a user is found to be violating policy, if they return and
>do not break policy, their previous transgressions should not be held
>against them.
>
>There are a number of administrators who are failing in that
>responsibility, and they are present on this list. One of them, rather than
>addressing Enviroknot's concerns in a calm tone and actually going over
>policy, chose to kickban Enviroknot entirely.
>
>I have never until today been ashamed to be a part of Wikipedia, but there
>it is. Take it as you will.
>
>A.Nony.Mouse, for the purpose of this conversation.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Create the ultimate online companion - meet the Meegos!
>http://meegos.msn.ie
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/


from_name: rb_wiktionary at boult.mailshell.com

subject: [Wiktionary-l] (no subject)

body:
>>>Are there objections from old-school wiktionarians to the ultimate
wiktionary plans?  Is it possible that we could address these objections
through code?

I've been an active administrator on Wiktionary for some months now. But
only recently subscribed to the mailing list - only just noticing that such
a thing exists.

So this discussion of the Ultimate Wiktionary comes as a complete surprise
to me.

Which is even more alarming as somewhere in Wiki-.org land there is clearly
a policy that all changes etc must be notified and approved through the web
site. The mailing list is only an ancillary means of communication.

So I would suggest whoever is managing the idea of change needs to lift
their game in keeping the active Wiktionary community informed.

Richardb

rb_wiktionary at boult.mailshell.com

This mail message is not intended to receive a reply to the address used to
send it. The address used for sending it will not accept replies.

The content may reveal an address you can use.


from_name: Robert Jones

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wantedpages

body:
Sorry if this is an old question, but is there a way to recalculate the
Special:Wantedpages on a private mediawiki installation? I've corrected many
of the listed wanted paged by adding them or changing the links in the pages
that were linking to them but they don't seem to recalculate, perhaps
because some of the links are within templates.

Is there a script to recalculate the links?

Hope you can help, many thanks.


subject: [Wiktionary-l] (no subject)

body:
>>>> I guess "old-school" is probably a good term.  I have very little
involvement on the technical side of things.  I do find it a chore to insert
a picture or a table, but I figure it out when I have to.  When templates
appear in an article that I am editing, I need to make extra effort just to
track where some of them come from or what they mean.  If I, as a person who
has been here for over three years, am having trouble with this, it must be
worse for a non-technical person who just wants to indulge his love of
words.

I too am alarmed at the proposal, as much as I have seen it. I am
technical(well, used to be) 28 years in the computer industry, starting at
the most technical levels of system programming, but over the years
migrating to the role of helping general business users get the best out of
systems, as business analyst, system designer, project manager.

One thing I learned was - never let a technician design a system. It will be
great for the technician's personal uses, but a huge chance it will be
useless to the general users.

Like Ec I find even the present level of codification annoyingly
complicated. Requiring any significant level of codification from general
users would just knock out 99%of the population form being contributors,
asituation we cannot go towards.

>From what little I have learned so far of this idea, including the complete
lack of communication with the user community, the idea of introducing a new
more technical Ultimate Wiktionary sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

Richardb

rb_wiktionary at boult.mailshell.com

This mail message is not intended to receive a reply to the address used to
send it. The address used for sending it will not accept replies.

The content may reveal an address you can use.


from_name: Rowan Collins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Picture doesn't show up

body:
On 30/05/05, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> The picture for this page
> http://ars-vita-italica.com/index.php?title=Rome
>
> was uploaded in the direcotry /images.
>
> But it does not show up - so I believe that I understood something wrong
> or there must something I have to change maybe in a config file.

To be used within the wiki like this, the images have to be uploaded
through the wiki's "upload file" form - so that they can have
appropriate records in the database etc.

This, in turn, requires uploads to be enabled on the wiki - set
"$wgDisableUploads = false;" in your LocalSettings.php file; comments
included in that file should explain some of the related options you
might want to also set. [In general options are set in
LocalSettings.php; some more rarely needed ones are not included by
default, and should be copied from includes/DefaultSettings.php as
needed; but do not edit DefaultSettings.php directly]

See also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Uploading_files and then
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Image

--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikitech-l] Intended changes to namespace management

body:
As part of Wikidata, I'm rather fundamentally redesigning the namespace
logic of MediaWiki, and I'd like to invite input, specifically on

1) whether I should try to get these changes ready for 1.5, or commit
them to a separate branch,
2) whether there are objections or suggestions regarding any of the below.

Simply put, I am moving namespaces from the language files and from
Namespace.php into the database. In my present implementation, the
namespaces are loaded from the DB on every request, but I will add
support for memcached as well.

The goal is to make it easier to change and add namespace names and
properties (some names cannot currently be changed at all without
editing the Language*.php file, which is impractical when you're using a
shared codebase), and to have an arbitrary number of synonyms for any
namespace.

The table structures are as follows:

mysql> show columns from namespace;
+-------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field             | Type         | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| ns_id             | int(8)       |      | PRI | 0       |       |
| ns_system         | varchar(80)  |      |     | 0       |       |
| ns_subpages       | tinyint(1)   |      |     | 0       |       |
| ns_search_default | tinyint(1)   |      |     | 0       |       |
| ns_target         | varchar(200) | YES  |     | NULL    |       |
+-------------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+

(ns_target is a new feature I'm working on which allows you to specify a
default "destination prefix" for any link from within that namespace.
This can be an InterWiki link or a namespace. That will be useful in a
variety of contexts, for example, within a Wikibooks module, all links
could point to pages within the namespace by default; within a Wikidata
page, all links could go to Wikipedia by default, etc.)

mysql> show columns from namespace_names;
+------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field      | Type         | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| ns_id      | int(8)       |      |     | 0       |       |
| ns_name    | varchar(200) |      |     |         |       |
| ns_default | tinyint(1)   |      |     | 0       |       |
+------------+--------------+------+-----+---------+-------+

ns_default is the namespace all other namespace names for that ns_id
will redirect to.

I have got the backend fully working and am now working on the namespace
manager frontend and the installer code. Essentially, what it means is
that you can have stuff like:

mysql> select * from namespace_names where ns_id=6;
+-------+---------+------------+
| ns_id | ns_name | ns_default |
+-------+---------+------------+
|     6 | File    |          1 |
|     6 | Image   |          0 |
|     6 | Video   |          0 |
|     6 | Sound   |          0 |
+-------+---------+------------+

This means that the default namespace name is "File", and that "Image",
"Video" and "Sound" redirect to it. No more "Image" prefix for sound
files! It's quite a pleasure to see this working. There can be an
arbitrary number of namespace synonyms for any namespace.

The major part of the effort is getting this to work properly with all
language files. Essentially, I intend to import the initial namespace
names and English canonical names during installation or upgrade,
similar to the way the MediaWiki namespace is imported. I would also
like to try to figure out a smooth upgrade procedure for
$wgMetaNamespace and $wgExtraNamespaces, as well as the other
namespace-related settings.

The namespace manager will have a separate set of permissions which can
be atomically assigned to a group. I intend to add some checks here, e.g.:
* don't allow it to delete a namespace that contains pages
* don't allow it to create a namespace if there are existing pages with
that prefix (avoid conflicts with pseudo-namespaces)
* warn if there are conflicts with InterWiki prefixes

Again, please let me know what you think about this, if there are any
questions, and whether I should try to get this ready for 1.5. Are we
near/at the feature freeze stage? Is there going to be a REL1_5 branch soon?

Best,

Erik


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Personal frustration level linear to replication
	lag

body:
Timwi wrote:

> While I can surely understand your frustration with the error
> message, I am not entirely sure I understand why it makes you lose
> your motivation for the entire patrolling task.  What browser are you
> using?  I hope that you are using some browser that has tabbed
> browsing features (i.e. not IE).

As I said before, I am using CrytoDerk's Vandal Fighter 2.1 for
following the RCs on de.wikipedia.

This has nothing to do with the browser (which is in this case Firefox
1.0.$current).

The reason for losing motivation is simple: Whenever there is a
replication lag, it prevents me from doing good work. Nobody will notice
if it took me one click or 5 clicks to access the actuall diff. I am
willing to do some good work (and actually I like the idea that someone
comes along my contributions and says "wow, you did a great job"). The
more boring a job gets, the more fun/honored it should be. I am sorry
not to say something altruistic but I assume that there is nothing wrong
in this kind of behavior.

> Whenever I get the error message, I would just press Reload and
> move on to the next tab immediately; by the time I have patrolled all
> the other tabs, it will have reloaded.

This morning (while the servers were indeed relatively fast reacting, I
had up to six times to reload to actually get a single diff from one
edit.). "I would just press Reload" could be acceptable if this was a
unique or rare phenomenon (1 out of 100 or less).

I hope that there are people who are willing to do RC patrolling under
even worse circumstances and I know that no-one of the developers is
actively making this job harder. But it is my firm belief that in order
to enable wikipedians to respond fast on vandalism, they should not be
distracted by a diff tool that has a x>50% chance to destroy your work
flow at least once every minute.

Doing rc patrolling means that you more or less watch every edit (this
is still possible even on highly active wikipedias) so we could start in
thinking about more elegant ways to do this job. For example I would be
happy to omit to have click on a diff link...

Okay, I am getting Offtopic now..

Mathias
(and sorry for being so nasty this morning)