from_name: Recycling Troll

subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of blocking powers (The Recycling Troll)

body:
>
> Let's say it how it is shall we? Collaborative
> editing? You were
> stalking Rick. You were trying o upset him, to
> provoke him even, and
> now you claim to be being abused? It's a 24 hour
> block not the end of
> the world. If you feel you want to "collaborate"
> with someone, feel
> free to stalk me.
>
> Theresa

Thanks for that Theresa, I'm sorry that you think that
checking someone's edits is 'stalking'. I can
certainly see why Rick would not want anyone examining
his behaviour too closely, but are you seriously
suggesting that oversight is inapropriate?
You want to say that anyone who looks too closely at
what another user is doing is 'stalking'?
Stalking is a real-world phenomena where someone is
followed in multiple ways. Checking someone's
contributions to an online encyclopedia is not
stalking. It is responsible checking.
Yours,
The Recycling Troll

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
person on the planet in their own language.  Asking whether the
community comes before or after this goal is really asking the wrong
question: the entire purpose of the community is precisely this goal.

I don't know of any real case where there is a genuine strong tension
between these two things, either.  That is to say, the central core of
the community, the people who are really doing the work, are virtually
all quite passionate on this point: that we're creating something of
extremely high quality, not just goofing around with a game of online
community with no purpose.

The community does not come before our task, the community is
organized *around* our task.  The difference is simply that decisions
ought to always be made not on the grounds of social expediency or
popular majority, but in light of the requirements of the job we have
set for ourselves.

I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a very
tiny minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any
way.  If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist.
That is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very
hard work of getting it right, and we don't accept anything less than
that.  PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and
retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.

There may be some cases of PhDs who think that no one should edit
their expert articles, but there are many many more cases of
completely unqualified people who think the same thing.  It doesn't
matter: if someone can't work in a friendly helpful way in a social
context, that's a problem for them and for us, and we'll always have
to make some very complex judgments about what to do about it.

I'm 100% committed to a goal of "Britannica or better" quality for
Wikipedia, and all of our social rules should revolve around that.
Openness is indispensible for us, but it is our *radical* means to our
radical *ends*.

--Jimbo


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Page move vandal - there is a feature that can
	help with it ...

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>>>Although it's a prominent PITA, the page move vandalism is probably not
>>>presently bad enough to disable the last 10% of accounts from page moves
>>>as an emergency measure.
>>>
>>What if we lowered it to 1%. how many people would that affect and for
>>how long roughly? ( I take it that we are still growing
>>exponentially?)
>>
>
>How many users have EVER used move?  Why not disable it, and make it a sysop only function.  I don't think its meaning is intuitive, the only time I ever tried to use it was to reverse a vandal that had moved the page, and I think I botched it.
>                                                     -- Silverback
>
Moving is the recommended way of fixing a bad title, so we don't
want to discourage its use too much. Has anybody suggested a daily
limit, say five per day? Vulnerable to socks of course.

I wonder how users would like an automated status increase based
on activity; save one's 300th edit, and get a little note on
the talk page saying "Congratulations, you are now considered an
experienced editor, and have received the following new powers:
unlimited page moving and the ability to vote on deletions."
Like MMORPGs, always have a little carrot dangling out there.

"You have have reached 500,000 edits; you may now hard-ban your
foes simply by forming the thought." :-)

Stan


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

body:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions flawlessly, I would still
> argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content.  My main
> reason is that no committee should have too much power.  This is a
> structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of
> the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain
> powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a
> good idea.  This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind
> of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is
> different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral
> issues.  Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve
> as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.

Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues
concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is*
already taking care of. We just have been focusing on violations of
non-content-related policies and guidelines for most of the committee's
existence since those issues are easier to deal with. That is changing due to
the increased amount of skill and confidence we have in dealing with issues in
general.

It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of needless duplication. Most cases
involve some accusation of breaking content guidelines. It would be absurd to
put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and through
this proposed committee for another.

-- mav

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: Stacey Greenstein

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wired News reporter would like to interview you

body:
Here's the article:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66814,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

Too bad Daniel didn't research enough to find out I'm not female.....

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:34:31 +0800, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:38:18 -0000, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > No - Daniel Terdiman has written a few web articles on WP already.
>
> Right. Daniel Terdiman is a Wired News reporter, not of Wired Magazine.
>
> -Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: notafish

subject: [Foundation-l] Request (formal) for bureaucrat status on wikinews.fr

body:
Seing as I was "elected" for adminship with three votes on wikinews.fr
(see : http://fr.wikinews.org/Wikinews:Administrateurs) and that some
things needed to be done, I'd rather go through this list for a formal
request for bureaucrat status on wikinews.fr.

I believe I have at this stage enough comprehension of what the wiki
is all about, I am starting to have a better vision of what Wikinews
is (and is not), having for one followed the project from the very
start, and for second started to translate policies and rules.

It makes no sense to go through a vote within the wikinews.fr
community at this stage, but it makes sense to be prepared for a
(hopefully) growing community and a growing need of admins.

Voil?,

Best,

Delphine


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?

body:
--- slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:16:18 -0000 (GMT), Tony
> Sidaway  That doesn't
> make sense to me.  I do understand the argument that
> tempbans
> > where seen as unjust could drive away good
> editors, but so can seriously
> > bad behavior.  If a week's rest from editing a few
> articles is *worse*
> > than editing those articles in the presence of the
> behavior about which
> > one wants to make a complaint, I just don't see
> that the complaint can be
> > that serious.
>
> Tony, you'd be right if tempbanning were the only
> problem, but there
> is a perception (as is clearly shown by this thread)
> that there is a
> philosophy of seeking to punish both sides
> regardless of the issues,
> in an effort to bend over backwards to be fair -
> which I argue is
> actually leading to unfairness in some cases. It is
> this philosophy
> that is worrying, and the issue of tempbanning
> everyone is simply one
> example of it. Also, in Andy's case, the proposed
> tempban covered
> areas not affected by the dispute, and was therefore
> perceived to be a
> pre-judgment punishment, not just a peace-keeping
> measure. In matters
> of justice, perceptions matter as much as reality.
>
> Sarah

Exactly.  When I made my last arbcom case, against
Guanaco, Fred Bauder, on his own initiative, brought
in other "evidence" which had no bearing on the case
under consideration. It was clear that the arbcom, or
at least one member, was more interested in trying to
punish me than in making a decision based upon the
evidence presented to them.

RickK

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Exeunt 172

body:
Delirium wrote:
> Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder who's annoyed that everyone
> doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you
> wish".
>
> (And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the
> fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into
> outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.)
>
> -Mark

What a load of crap. Ever read the history of Russia? Yeah, that's now a
FA article. You can't GET FA articles that are POV screeds.

TBSDY


from_name: David Gerard

body:
AndyL wrote:

> I have stated once already that someone I know who was working on a
> complaint against Herschelkrustofsky had second thoughts upon seeing
> tempbans implemented (or pondered) in other cases against complainants
> (specifically my complaint against ArmchairVexillologistDon in which the
> ArbComm was initially considering tempbanning *both of us* from all articles
> related to Canada until the arbitration was concluded - this was being
> proposed before any evidence had even been heard

Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace.
I'll also note that this one did not in fact pass, or even close. Are you
saying the idea should not have even been *considered*?

- d.


body:
--- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> To provide specific context, consider journals such
> as "Infinite
> Energy", with a bimonthly distribution of
> 3000--5000, which are hard
> to distinguish in any quantitative fashion from
> 'reputable' journals.
> However, this journal is devotes itself to
> publishing papers on free
> energy, cold fusion, an perpetual motion; and
> running headlines like
> "Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century."  I think many
> of us would agree
> that a paper does not become reputable, or any less
> original research,
> for being published in such a journal.
>
> --
> +sj+

However, an article *about* the journal would be
encyclopedic.

RickK

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Exeunt 172

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>>Delirium wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder who's annoyed that everyone
>>>doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you
>>>wish".
>>>
>>>(And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the
>>>fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into
>>>outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.)
>>>
>>>-Mark
>>>
>>>
>>What a load of crap. Ever read the history of Russia? Yeah, that's now a
>>FA article. You can't GET FA articles that are POV screeds.
>>
>>TBSDY
>>
>>
>
>Yes, you can get FA articles that are POV, and History of Russia is just such an example.  It's POV language was just recently improved and there are many more criticisms/changes such as that which are yet to be made.    Selection of material or focus can be a source of POV, and yet can subtlely masquerade as NPOV, because the POV problem is not with the information included, but with the selectivity of what was included and what was left out.  Strangely, that article also includes superatives, which should have been a red flag.
>
>There are very citations of sources within the article which, while making for easier reading, usually indicates that something has limited peer review, perhaps the community interested in the subject shared the same POV, or there was just lack of interest in general, allowing authorial territoriality to achieve free reign.
>
That sounds like a lot of cowardly bullshit.  It can't be that bad if
the only thing you can bitch about is what's not there.

The length which some anti-communist hyenas will go to to ensure that
their POV prevails is amazing.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Preview?

body:
I just clicked on the submit button and it told me I was doing a
preview! Yet the revision got through. What's going on?

TBSDY


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
-------------- Original message --------------

> Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general
> who is the Queen's representative.
>
> Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a
> monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
> Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
>
> See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
>
> Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is
> Australia's Head of State because:
>
> The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a
> Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal
> legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
>
> The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the
> Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61,
> Constitution).
>
> If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.
>
> TBSDY

Your citation of the constitution only lends credence to Austrailia as a republic, the true "head of state" is the constitution.  All purported human heads are subject to the limitations of the constitution.

Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy.  The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.

                        -- Silverback


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Censorship campaign: Ann Coulter article

body:
I've just about used up my quota of reversions at [[Ann Coulter]], where her critics are censoring my explanation of the campaign to discredit her.

Michael Moore's blog is using a 30-second excerpt from a lengthy interview with Coulter to promote their view that Coulter makes things up and "refuses correction". I am trying to write a Neutral passage of text that balances two POVs:

1. That Coulter makes things up all the time, and her remarks about Canada "sending troops" to Vietnam are FALSE, which proves that Coulter has an anti-liberal bias and is not a trustworthy source of info.

2. That Coulter takes liberals to task for distorting history, and her remarks about Canada "sending troops" to Vietnam are TRUE, which proves that liberals are biased and in need of being set straight.

User:Benna reverted my first attempt ("Removed serious pov") and User:Gamaliel reverted my second attempt ("rm blatant pro-Coulter defense).

I don't understand the reasoning here. Describing the points of view of anti-Coulter or pro-Coulter advocates is certainly on-topic, for an article on a controversial writer. The fact that my text was ABOUT somebody's point of view doesn't mean it VIOLATES our "Neutral Point Of View" policy. Nor does the fact that PART of my text balances the anti-Coulter criticism with a pro-Coulter defense invalidate its relevance to the article.

It smacks of censorship, like all our contributors want to have about Coulter's written or broadcast comments is the anti-Coulter point of view. That would make a very unbalanced article. It might even constitute a [[one-sided argument]] (q.v.) that "Coulter is bad", which would set Wikipedia up as condemning her. I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to take sides in ANY controversy.

Uncle Ed

(cur) (last)  20:03, Mar 8, 2005 Gamaliel (?Coulter's communication style - rm blatant pro-Coulter defense)
(cur) (last)  17:36, Mar 8, 2005 Ed Poor (If the POV is serious, why remove it? Please meet me in talk.)
(cur) (last)  02:26, Mar 8, 2005 Chocolateboy m (?Criticism of Canada - + colon)
(cur) (last)  02:03, Mar 8, 2005 Chocolateboy m (?Criticism of Canada - logical quotation + space)
(cur) (last)  01:27, Mar 8, 2005 Benna (Removed serious pov)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general
who is the Queen's representative.

Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a
monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.

See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:

Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is
Australia's Head of State because:

The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a
Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal
legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).

The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the
Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61,
Constitution).

If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.

TBSDY

Skyring wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 08:03:08 +0000, actionforum at comcast.net
> <actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>------------- Original message --------------
>>
>>>Peter, the Queen IS the Head of state here in Australia , though the matter is
>>>complicated by the G-G representing her.
>>
>>But isn't Peter also correct that Austrailia is a republic?  I thought most constitutional monarchies were republics.  The salient point is whether the monarch or the constitution is supreme.  If the monarch cannot suspend or amend the constitution, then what you have is the rule of law, a "republic".
>
>
> Spot on. The Australian people drew up their Constituion through a
> People's Convention with popularly elected delegates, and the
> resultant constitution was approved by the people in each of the six
> colonies. The constitution may ONLY by changed by a majority of the
> voters in a majority of the six States.
>
> Neither the Queen, nor the Governor-General, nor Parliament, nor the
> Government may amend a single letter of the Constitution without the
> express approval of the people.
>
> The Governor-General's powers are given to him in the Constitution by
> the people, and the Queen is all but powerless. She cannot issue
> instructions nor may she exercise any of the Governor-General's
> constitutional powers.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Skyring wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:23:46 +0600, Arno M <redgum46 at lycos.com> wrote:
>
>>Sigh! I shouldn't have bitten.
>>
>>The Australia page has been through this before, and the  ,um, debate,
>>involving someone called Daeron , whose views seem similar to yours,
>>can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia/Archive_2.
>
>
> Some dodgy reasoning and a lot of shouting. No definitive source given.
>
>>Peter is not correct, period. India is a republic, yes, but Australia is not.
>
>
> Australia is a republic using just about every definition I've ever
> seen. Including Wikipedia's.
>

Look, this is my last word on the matter on the mailing list, but I
notice that you haven't given us your sources on here. Your assertion is
extremely dodgy, and not even the ARM agree with you!

TBSDY


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
AndyL said:
> Considering Don's behaviour and considering that the conflict was
> occurring only on two or three pages related to the very narrow topic
> of red ensign flags the proposal to temp ban both of us from *all*
> articles pertaining to Canada (ie thousands of pages) was excessive and
> had I not noticed it (ie because I was busy with something else for a
> few days) it would have passed. So no, it should never have been
> considered. In fact, I believe it was on the verge of being approved
> (or technically even had the needed number of endorsers) until I
> intervened so this isn't a case of one arbitrator making a wild
> proposal and no one else picking it up but of the ArbComm panel
> agreeing to a proposal until the affected party noticed what was going
> on and said, in essence, "are you guys nuts?"

Suppose it had been passed, what harm would have been done to Wikipedia?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: 3RR and gaming the system

body:
Skyring wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't
>>being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading
>>and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as
>>vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
>
>
> Perhaps you should read the discussion page. There is a gulf between
> public perception and reality here, obviously. Much like people
> incorrectly believing that Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of England.
>

Yes, including the Australian Republican Movement evidently.

Sorry, couldn't resist reply!

TBSDY


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It has nothing to do with trusting the ArbCom.  Disciplinary issues need
>>to be kept separate from content issues.  Otherwise the content will
>>develop the appearance of being decided by a cabal.  The disciplinary
>>role is necessary, and dealing with problem characters often requires
>>harsh measures.  That mentality can too easily creep into other decisions.
>>
>>
>I'm talking about the ArbCom deciding if a user has violated our content
>polices and guidelines. That is very much within the authority of the ArbCom.
>We have just moved slowly so far into enforcing those policies.
>
One then needs to be very careful to distinguish between a violation of
content policies and the contents themselves.  If something is just a
guidleine there should be no enforceability involved.  For some of us,
"Ignore all rules" is still an important part of the rule set.  The only
problem with it is that it is rooted in the spirit of the rules rather
than the letter of the rules.  Some of our colleagues have a great deal
of difficulty with that distinction.

Ec


list: wikitech-l

from_name: suresh.k.kadirvel at gsk.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] Template processing iteratively

body:
Hi,

I am in the process of creating an extension tag to suit my project
requirements.
Actually, we have an xml structure which should be processed using
Templates inside this extension implementation.
Briefly, I woud like to create pieces of a table using different
templates.

Example :

If I need a HTML Table with header "Agents" as follows :
Agents
Agent1
Agent2
Agent3
.
.
AgentN

For the above table with 1 column and N rows, the wiki text would look
something like :

{| border="1" cellpadding="2"
! Agents
|-
| Agent1
|-
| Agent2
|-
| Agent3
|-
.
.
| AgentN
|-
|}

In my case, I dont know the value of "N". This depends on the values from
XML.
So, I would like to create a template to process each row based on the
input from XML iteratively for N rows..

Wikitext for this template would look something like :

| {{{parameterName}}} |-

where parameterName's value could be : Agent1, Agent2, ....AgentN.

But the current mediawiki parser wont parse the above template properly
because it expects complete table syntax not pieces of it.
I am wondering if there is any workaround or way out to achieve this ?

Please let me know if this is not the right place to post questions about
mediawiki.

Suresh


body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>
>> JAY JG wrote:
>>
>>> No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes
>>> original research when it is used to build a case against a position
>>> presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.  Now
>>> if you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive
>>> reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than
>>> aunts were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd
>>> have to find some source which supported it.
>>
>> That's certainly an extremist view.
>
> Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.

Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already
presented.  The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment
pulled out of imagination.  It has no research attached to it at all,
original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by
"more closely related.  So before you complain about the strawmen of
others you should stop using them yourself.

>> You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
>
> I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?

That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.

Ec


from_name: Skyring

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:00:19 +1100, csherlock at ljh.com.au
<csherlock at ljh.com.au> wrote:
> Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general
> who is the Queen's representative.

He is only the Queen's representative in a very limited way, as set
out in the Constitution. His constitutional powers, including the
reserve powers, are given to him in his own right. Unlike other
Commonwealth realms, such as New Zealand or Canada, where the
Governor-General merely exercises the Queen's powers.

> Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a
> monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
> Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.

And it says that where...?

> See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
>
> Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is
> Australia's Head of State because:
>
> The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a
> Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal
> legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
>
> The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the
> Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61,
> Constitution).
>
> If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.

The ARM quotes the Constitution, but the Constitution doesn't say that
the Queen is head of state, unlike the constitutions of other
Commonwealth realms, such as New Zealand or Papua New Guinea. The ARM
is relying on their own opinion rather than any definitive source.

The ARM is a partisan organisation promoting a one-sided view. This is
like saying that the Republican Party's views on gay marriage are
definitive.
Interesting, but unimpressive.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Michael Becker

body:
In true wiki fashion he's made a correction "*^1  Correction, 03/08/2005
10:01 AM:* A previous version of this story incorrectly identified
Stacey Greenstein. (Return
<http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66814-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1#csrc1>
to the corrected text)"

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:45:33 -0500, Stacey Greenstein
<stacey.nj at gmail.com> wrote:
 > Here's the article:
 >
 >
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66814,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
 >
 > Too bad Daniel didn't research enough to find out I'm not female.....

--
Michael Becker


body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

>>>Although it's a prominent PITA, the page move vandalism is probably not
>>>presently bad enough to disable the last 10% of accounts from page moves
>>>as an emergency measure.
>>>
>>>
>>What if we lowered it to 1%. how many people would that affect and for
>>how long roughly? ( I take it that we are still growing
>>exponentially?)
>>
>>
>How many users have EVER used move?  Why not disable it, and make it a sysop only function.  I don't think its meaning is intuitive, the only time I ever tried to use it was to reverse a vandal that had moved the page, and I think I botched it.
>
It's often very useful, especially with non-controversial moves
involving something like correcting page titles with wrong capitalizations.

Ec


body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> AndyL said:

>>Considering Don's behaviour and considering that the conflict was
>>occurring only on two or three pages related to the very narrow topic
>>of red ensign flags the proposal to temp ban both of us from *all*
>>articles pertaining to Canada (ie thousands of pages) was excessive and
>>had I not noticed it (ie because I was busy with something else for a
>>few days) it would have passed. So no, it should never have been
>>considered. In fact, I believe it was on the verge of being approved
>>(or technically even had the needed number of endorsers) until I
>>intervened so this isn't a case of one arbitrator making a wild
>>proposal and no one else picking it up but of the ArbComm panel
>>agreeing to a proposal until the affected party noticed what was going
>>on and said, in essence, "are you guys nuts?"

> Suppose it had been passed, what harm would have been done to Wikipedia?

An editor in good standing feeling mistreated is the sort of thing that
makes volunteers fade away, so all this is a matter of concern. Temp
injunctions need to be applied with care.

- d.


from_name: Zoney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum at comcast.net
<actionforum at comcast.net> wrote:
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general
> > who is the Queen's representative.
> >
> > Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a
> > monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
> > Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
> >
> > See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
> >
> > Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is
> > Australia's Head of State because:
> >
> > The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a
> > Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal
> > legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
> >
> > The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the
> > Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61,
> > Constitution).
> >
> > If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.
> >
> > TBSDY
>
> Your citation of the constitution only lends credence to Austrailia as a republic, the true "head of state" is the constitution.  All purported human heads are subject to the limitations of the constitution.
>
> Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy.  The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.
>
>                         -- Silverback

I'm sorry to jump into the midst of this argument, but I wonder are
the parties in this debate aware of Ireland's previous situation,
between 1937 when we approved a new constitution (one with no
reference to the monarch) and 1949 (when we passed a law to officially
become a Republic). The monarch represented Ireland internationally
until 1949, despite our having a president. The question of who was
head of state is not clear cut (though I think people outside Ireland
tend to see it as the monarch who was head of state).

In other words, I think it's fair to say Australia isn't a Republic,
but probably, like Ireland, they would become one simply by passing
law, rather than the customary new constitution. I think Ireland is
the only country to date that has become a Republic in this fashion.

We do have articles on Wikipedia on the Irish historical situation
(which I probably should have double-checked before writing all this)
which you may find interesting. A good starting point is probably
[[President of Ireland]].

Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and senior admins

body:
I think we should discuss the blocking war, and how it ended. Recall
that 172 was blocked and unblocked repeatedly (I gather he even
self-unblocked at least once.)

I jumped in and removed 172's sysop rights (along with those of three
other admins).

After some talk on various pages, and some mailing list discussion, I
reinstated 172's sysop rights (along with the others). Elapsed time,
just about 90 minutes.

I'm not saying I was "right" to do this (my '''ability''' to do it no
longer remains). But let's look at the consequences. Because this
'''could''' set a precedent.

I suggest that as a general rule if anyone tries to settle an issue that
he is involved in, he should not use sysop, bureacrat or steward power
to settle it. Especially when '''his own conduct''' is the issue. We
expect higher standards of those who have more power (as Peter Parker
said in ''[[Spiderman]]'' :-)

If he does, he ought to be curbed in some way. Ordinary users could be
blocked for, say 3 to 24 hours. Admins could be de-sysopped for a day or
so. (We still need the technical means to permit blocked users to edit
TALK pages - at least in the non-article namespace.)

While thus curbed, (a) the community will be temporarily free of the
nuisance, and (b) the arbcom or others can decide whether to uphold,
extend, or remove the curb.

Uncle Ed


body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:

> Interesting idea, however shouldn't we also use a metric to determine
> whether a newbie rapidly gets up to speed on Wikipedia and becomes a
> very good contributor with thousands of edits?
> Can we take this into account?

So Write The Code (tm). Pleeeeeaassseee!!! (tm)

The present plan is feasible basically because it's just a matter of
enabling existing code, not writing anything new. Whether it'll fly is
another.

> Otherwise - good plan. It's a paint to fixup page moves. And I've
> already pissed off enough developers (hi Brion!) by restoring a moved
> sandbox to try to shift it back during one of Wikipedia's numerous
> downtimes.

Yeah. Possibly the isNewbie() function needs to be set to the last 2% or
whatever, to minimise collateral inability to move pages.

The thing is that's not a definite measure, but advertising the metric
on the move page would only encourage Willy on Wheels! to work around it
with account creations and leaving them dormant until it's time for a
move attack.

Although it's a prominent PITA, the page move vandalism is probably not
presently bad enough to disable the last 10% of accounts from page moves
as an emergency measure.

- d.


from_name: steven l. rubenstein

body:
Abe Sokolov wrote:

>>Daniel Mayer maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:
>>"There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be
>>more
>>aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle
>>these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community
>>support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I
>>think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom
>>itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue.
>
>It would be great if the arbcom would become more aggressive at enforcing
>content policies and guidelines. However, there is no evidence that it has
>the capacity to give equal weight to content and behavioral policies,
>especially considering the slow (but at least increasingly rapid) pace at
>which it still handles cases on behavior-- its traditional sphere. A second
>committee would mean more capacity and more expertise to handle the policies
>that always been difficult for the arbcom to address (No original research,
>Cite sources, NPOV, Verifiability, et. al.).
>Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility,
>particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more
>trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that
>Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly,
>many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an encyclopedia
>whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't
>calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at
>least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older members put
>together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot
>afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any
>meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia articles
>and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.

I don't think this is the time to question the ArbCom's credibility.  I
understand that this is an issue for several editors, and that along with
this discussion over content disputes, there is another discussion over the
fairness of the ArbCom.  But I think it is important to keep these two
discussions separate.

My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions flawlessly, I would still
argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content.  My main
reason is that no committee should have too much power.  This is a
structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of
the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain
powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a
good idea.  This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind
of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is
different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral
issues.  Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve
as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.

I respect Mav's opinion and with the exception of this one issue agree with
everything he has written on this topic.

Steve

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Evidence as to VFD being unusably big

body:
csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
> Rick wrote:
>> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I just saved [[WP:VFD]] as of a few minutes ago. The
>>> HTML alone is 1,324,734
>>> bytes. The associated files are 28,964 bytes.
>>> Here's one suggestion: make the main VFD page just
>>> links to the day pages,
>>> rather than transcluding every one of them.

>> Nonsense.  I have a dialup connection and have little
>> problem working with the VfD page.
>> RickK

> Really? I have broadband and I have lots of difficulty working with this
> page. Firefox and IE takes ages to render the darned thing.

I've started a discussion here. No vote as yet, I want to see what the
consensus is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#VfD.27s_ridiculous_size:_suggestion

Note that breaking it up into days will not alter the substance of the
VFD process and may allow more people to participate, giving it more
legitimacy.

- d.


from_name: Sj

body:
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:51:04 -0500, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 17:15:57 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
> <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would be acceptable so long as it had been published somewhere
> > reputable and credible, and the chances of it being crackpot would
> > therefore be low. If the public genuinely thought a theory so
> > ridiculous that no one had bothered to challenge it, it almost
> > certainly wouldn't have a place in Wikipedia. This is why the NOR,
> > NPOV, and cite sources policies should always be considered jointly,
> > as each policy serves to illuminate the meaning of the others.
> > Jointly, they would be able to deal with the kind of example you
> > raise.
> >
>
> Just a few thoughts on this:
>
> 1. *Who* defines "reputable"? If crackpot is just defined as "not
> reputable" then that just shifts the point of discretion somewhere
> else; it doesn't resolve it.
> 2. "The public" rarely challenges theories. "Pundits", "journalists",
> "writers", and "academics" challenge theories. The vast majority of
> "the public" is informationally mute. Which again gets back to the
> "who?" question.

To provide specific context, consider journals such as "Infinite
Energy", with a bimonthly distribution of 3000--5000, which are hard
to distinguish in any quantitative fashion from 'reputable' journals.
However, this journal is devotes itself to publishing papers on free
energy, cold fusion, an perpetual motion; and running headlines like
"Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century."  I think many of us would agree
that a paper does not become reputable, or any less original research,
for being published in such a journal.

--
+sj+


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions flawlessly, I would still
>>argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content.  My main
>>reason is that no committee should have too much power.  This is a
>>structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of
>>the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain
>>powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a
>>good idea.  This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind
>>of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is
>>different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral
>>issues.  Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve
>>as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.
>>
>>
>
>Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues
>concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is*
>already taking care of. We just have been focusing on violations of
>non-content-related policies and guidelines for most of the committee's
>existence since those issues are easier to deal with. That is changing due to
>the increased amount of skill and confidence we have in dealing with issues in
>general.
>
>It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of needless duplication. Most cases
>involve some accusation of breaking content guidelines. It would be absurd to
>put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and through
>this proposed committee for another.
>
I don't think that what Steven and 172 are getting at is the question of
behaviour or offenses.  If that were the case I would be more inclined
to agree with you.  Let's suppose that the ArbCom is seized of an issue
involving content, and they make some decision about the parties
involved.  There may even be all around agreement that they have made
the right decision about these people, but we still have the article to
deal with.  The NPOV rating of the article must remain independent of
the participating contributors, because it is what must remain after the
warring editors are all gone.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Queen Elizabeth II

body:
Skyring wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:59:49 -0500, Stephen Forrest
> <stephen.forrest at gmail.com> wrote:

>>As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition
>>of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.

> How about the first two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary
> or the first two in Australia's Macquarie Dictionary?
> Australia is a commonwealth, sovereignty resides in the people, the
> monarch is a powerless figurehead, the monarch is not the head of
> government, the form of government is republican and the executive
> power is exercised by an appointed official.
> Australia may share the same Queen as the UK, New Zealand and Canada,
> but the constitutional arrangements are quite different.

I notice you have a severe absence of sources to refer to on the point -
you know, anything other than your own original research that says
the words "Australia is a republic."

- d.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Suitable topics for the family-friendly version of
	Wikipedia

references:
<42289A4E.7070201@thingy.apana.org.au>
	<d0aohu$j5c$1@sea.gmane.org>	<1bfe3eb0503041512b5f1003@mail.gmail.com>
	<d0bt1b$k3g$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
> Theresa Knott wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 23:03:31 +0000, Pete/Pcb21
>> <pete_pcb21_wpmail at pcbartlett.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ermm, it seems to me like the livejournalers (I only read the first few,
>>> admitedly) didn't actually understand the subtlety (such as it is) of
>>> Bell Canada's advert?
>>
>>
>>
>> Well. it's late, and i'm feeling tired and stupid, so please spell it
>> out for me because I didn't understand the subtlety myself.
>>
>> Theresa
>
>
> Isn't Bell Canada saying that censoring a medical poster of the human
> body would be a ridiculous extreme?

Yes. Who says Americans don't get irony?

TBSDY


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:09:39 -0000, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Jimbo wrote
>
> > I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a very
> > tiny minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any
> > way.  If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist.
> > That is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very
> > hard work of getting it right, and we don't accept anything less than
> > that.  PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and
> > retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.
>
> I think Jimbo perhaps meant 'retaining', though in my case 'retraining'
> rings a bell, also.

Attracting, retaining, and measuring specialists.   If we can find a
good complementary metric for expertise, to go alongside the standard
academia metrics, we will be a good part of the way towards meshing
with existing reputation systems.

--
+sj+


from_name: Recycling Troll

body:
> Setting up a userid specifically for the purpose of
> following someone around
> and reviewing their edits, and voting against them
> on VfDs, may not
> technically be "stalking", but it is not
> "responsible checking" either.
> "Harrassment" seems like a reasonable description.
>
> Jay.

Take a moment, if you will, to review the situation,
and you will see that this is not the case. I cannot
imagine why anyone would want to prevent oversight of
edits, or restrict others' voice on vfd.
The Recycling Troll

__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Preview?

body:
-------------- Original message --------------

> I just clicked on the submit button and it told me I was doing a
> preview! Yet the revision got through. What's going on?

The same thing happened to me, I guess I wasn't just seeing things.  These wikipedia death spirals seem to happen when european editing is near its peak, and the USA and Canada start coming online.  Unfortunately,  I bet "traffic" jumps whenever wikipedia stops responding.  I know, I instantly retry again, when I get a server busy or not responding or page unavailable message, in the hopes that I don't lose the thought or edit, that I just laboriously composed (you don't know how SLOWLY  i type).  I bet that is the natural response of a lot of people, and so wikipedia non-responsiveness degenerates into a surge of traffic that exacerbates the discussion.

Unfortunately, sometimes edits do get lost, perhaps the surge in traffic could be avoided if the <submit> button did not make the page go away, but just put up a message, so that it was clear that the edit was still available and could be submitted later.  There would need to be feed back when the edit had gotten through, perhaps the new page could come in then?  Or perhaps a pop-up would notify of acceptance.   Of course <preview> would operate differently, but some assurance mechanism that prevented the edit from being lost there would help too.
             -- Silverback


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I think your feedback regarding this matter (and also regarding punishment
for personal attacks on users) is now fully before the committee. I will
certainly consider it in my decision making. However I continue to maintain
that personal attacks by "good" editors on "bad" editors is unacceptable.

Fred

> From: <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: slimvirgin at gmail.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:27:42 -0700
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:16:18 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway  That doesn't
> make sense to me.  I do understand the argument that tempbans
>> where seen as unjust could drive away good editors, but so can seriously
>> bad behavior.  If a week's rest from editing a few articles is *worse*
>> than editing those articles in the presence of the behavior about which
>> one wants to make a complaint, I just don't see that the complaint can be
>> that serious.
>
> Tony, you'd be right if tempbanning were the only problem, but there
> is a perception (as is clearly shown by this thread) that there is a
> philosophy of seeking to punish both sides regardless of the issues,
> in an effort to bend over backwards to be fair - which I argue is
> actually leading to unfairness in some cases. It is this philosophy
> that is worrying, and the issue of tempbanning everyone is simply one
> example of it. Also, in Andy's case, the proposed tempban covered
> areas not affected by the dispute, and was therefore perceived to be a
> pre-judgment punishment, not just a peace-keeping measure. In matters
> of justice, perceptions matter as much as reality.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Karl A. Krueger

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins and senior admins

body:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:54:04PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> I suggest that as a general rule if anyone tries to settle an issue that
> he is involved in, he should not use sysop, bureacrat or steward power
> to settle it. Especially when '''his own conduct''' is the issue. We
> expect higher standards of those who have more power (as Peter Parker
> said in ''[[Spiderman]]'' :-)

"With great power comes great responsibility."  :)

However, a more direct parallel might be embezzlement, or breach of
fiduciary duty.  Power is not given to administrators so that they may
use it for whatever purpose they see fit.  Rather, it is delegated to
them for the performance of relatively specific duties.

The treasurer of a library has the power to write checks drawing on the
library's bank account to buy books, pay the electric bill, and so on.
However, this power is not granted so that the treasurer can buy
whatever s/he wants (like a new car).  It is also not granted so that
the treasurer can seize control of the library's acquisition policy, for
instance by refusing to purchase books that disagree with him/her
politically.

The treasurer's power is, rather subject to the library's bylaws as an
organization, since it is by dint of those bylaws that the treasurer
holds that power legitimately.  If the treasurer uses the purchasing
power to buy a car, that is embezzlement.  If the treasurer uses that
power to push his/her own political interests, that is conflict of
interest.

The treasurer's position is also not a badge of special status.  It does
not exempt the treasurer from the normal rules of the library.  It does
not permit him/her to make excessive noise in the library, offending
other patrons.  It does not permit him/her to steal books.  If s/he is
fined for not returning books, it certainly does not permit him/her to
cancel that fine, or pay it out of the library's treasury.

> If he does, he ought to be curbed in some way. Ordinary users could be
> blocked for, say 3 to 24 hours. Admins could be de-sysopped for a day or
> so. (We still need the technical means to permit blocked users to edit
> TALK pages - at least in the non-article namespace.)

It seems to me it should be _standard procedure_ that if the Arbitration
Committee accepts a case in which wrongdoing by an administrator is a
central issue, that the administrator step down (accept removal of
administrative powers) for the duration of the arbitration.

(Note that I'm *not* suggesting that any administrator who is accused of
wrongdoing should step down -- only one whose case is *accepted* by the
A.C.  Moreover, the A.C. could specifically state when accepting a case
that stepping down would not be necessary.)

The accused administrator could ask other administrators to take on
specific "mop and bucket" duties that s/he had undertaken.  This would
also emphasize that administrative functions are procedural and not
personal -- countering the attitudes that a few people have shown, that
they are personally "too important to the project" to back away, or that
removal of administrative power is a "demotion".

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


body:
It is not at all clear to me. I continue to consider you a responsible
administrator. Bringing this up over and over perhaps serves some purpose in
your eyes, but I barely remember what it was all about and agree that
expanding the scope of an arbitration case beyond the issues brought up by
the parties is ill-advised.

Fred

> From: Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:16:22 -0800 (PST)
> To: slimvirgin at gmail.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom - too attached to 'equal treatment'?
>
> Exactly.  When I made my last arbcom case, against
> Guanaco, Fred Bauder, on his own initiative, brought
> in other "evidence" which had no bearing on the case
> under consideration. It was clear that the arbcom, or
> at least one member, was more interested in trying to
> punish me than in making a decision based upon the
> evidence presented to them.
>
> RickK


body:
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
>>Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the
>>peace.
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:50:10 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> An editor in good standing feeling mistreated is the sort of thing
>> that makes volunteers fade away, so all this is a matter of concern.
>> Temp injunctions need to be applied with care.
>
> David, one arbitrator has strongly implied that the policy of
> tempbanning has been adopted in order to discourage editors from
> seeking arbitration, and not simply to keep the peace. S/he has
> written of tempbanning: "I strongly encourage you to complain about
> that practice widely and to discourage others from seeking
> arbitration.  If you can build a consensus against us, we will either
> change or be replaced," and "[P]lease remember that arbitration is not
> something that people should want or feel good about doing. It is a
> serious step that can result in a Wikipedia Death Sentence; if these
> temporary injunctions make disputants decide to try a little harder to
> avoid bringing their squabbles before the ArbComm, so much the
> better."
>
> It's a good thing to discourage squabbles from being brought to the
> arbcom; but not all disputes are simply squabbles, and you may be
> discouraging genuine disputants too, in cases where the dispute
> resolution would be for the benefit of Wikipedia.

That doesn't make sense to me.  I do understand the argument that tempbans
where seen as unjust could drive away good editors, but so can seriously
bad behavior.  If a week's rest from editing a few articles is *worse*
than editing those articles in the presence of the behavior about which
one wants to make a complaint, I just don't see that the complaint can be
that serious.  Suppose somebody says "Tony Sidaway, no editing articles
about politics or sex."  Well I'd just get on editing articles about the
hundred-and-one other major subjects an encyclopedia covers.
A sense of proportion: is that something so lacking in Wikipedia editors?


from_name: Charles Matthews

body:
Jay JG:

>>  "Deductive reasoning" becomes
> > original research when it is used to build a case against a position
> > presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.  Now if
> > you were to assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive
> > reasoning" that uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts
> > were to nieces, that would be original research, and you'd have to
> > find some source which supported it.

Ray Saintonge:

> That's certainly an extremist view.  It implies that a crackpot theory
> is acceptable as long as it has previously been published somewhere
> else.

 I was grateful for the clarification later given by Jay JG.  Where I
differ, myself, is in not taking "idea" from the policy page to mean any
proposition, however concrete or factual, but to have some debatable general
or abstract content (e.g. the theory of relativity).

Charles


body:
Stephen Forrest wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:58:31 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>
>>Michael Moore's blog is using a 30-second excerpt from a lengthy interview with Coulter to promote their view that Coulter makes things up and "refuses correction". I am trying to write a Neutral passage of text that balances two POVs:
>>
>>1. That Coulter makes things up all the time, and her remarks about Canada "sending troops" to Vietnam are FALSE, which proves that Coulter has an anti-liberal bias and is not a trustworthy source of info.
>>
>>2. That Coulter takes liberals to task for distorting history, and her remarks about Canada "sending troops" to Vietnam are TRUE, which proves that liberals are biased and in need of being set straight.
>>
>>
>
>Clearly the government of Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.
>Clearly also, Canadian citizens fought alongside Americans in the
>Vietnam.
>
>However, I believe the only reasonable neutral interpretation of
>"Canada sent troops to Vietnam", in the context provided (when talking
>about the actions of the Canadian government w.r.t. wars) is that the
>Canadian government sent soldiers from its army to Vietnam.
>
>I quite agree that the anti-Coulter arguments deserve balance, and I
>think it's important to mention that Canadians did serve there (in
>Coulter's defence).  But I also think that suggesting that Canada
>*did* send troops is an inaccurate characterization of the facts
>surrounding that particular POV.
>
>
You fail to take into account the presence of Canadian troops in the
International Commission for Supervision and Control (ICCS)  alongside
those from Poland and Indonesia, from 1954 to 1974.

Ec


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 09:09:49 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>
> >Temporary injunctions are for the specific purpose of keeping the peace.
>
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:50:10 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > An editor in good standing feeling mistreated is the sort of thing that
> > makes volunteers fade away, so all this is a matter of concern. Temp
> > injunctions need to be applied with care.
>
> David, one arbitrator has strongly implied that the policy of
> tempbanning has been adopted in order to discourage editors from
> seeking arbitration, and not simply to keep the peace.

That's not how i feel about temp bans. If I thought that a temp ban
was being proposed as a punishment for bring a a case to the AC then I
would vote against it. If a case was not worthy of my time, i wouldn't
need to punish people for bringing it to my attention, I'd just reject
the request and be done with it. Do remember that when an arbitrator
speaks on a talk page or in an email they are doing so as an
individual, they do not represent the whole of the AC.

Theresa


body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 06:25:30 -0800, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > Are you saying the idea should not have even been *considered*?
>
> This thread has given me the idea that there are at least a few
> Wikipedians who feel that they have the Divine Right of Long-Standing
> Editors, and as such are permanently beyond reproach in all things.
> That the ArbComm might dare to question their actions is not merely an
> insult -- it is cause to disband the ArbComm and permanently hard ban
> the individual traitors who did not kowtow to their exalted status.

Do behave! No one has said anything even approaching that.

Theresa


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Exeunt 172

body:
On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 12:48:38PM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> That sounds like a lot of cowardly bullshit.  It can't be that bad if
> the only thing you can bitch about is what's not there.
>
> The length which some anti-communist hyenas will go to to ensure that
> their POV prevails is amazing.

Personal attacks are not permitted on this mailing list.

--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>


references:
<422B0F77.1030704@thingy.apana.org.au> <d0jjbq$h95$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<422DAEB8.5060205@thingy.apana.org.au>

body:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:55:04 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> csherlock at ljh.com.au wrote:
>
> > Interesting idea, however shouldn't we also use a metric to determine
> > whether a newbie rapidly gets up to speed on Wikipedia and becomes a
> > very good contributor with thousands of edits?
> > Can we take this into account?
>
> So Write The Code (tm). Pleeeeeaassseee!!! (tm)
>
> The present plan is feasible basically because it's just a matter of
> enabling existing code, not writing anything new. Whether it'll fly is
> another.
>
>
> > Otherwise - good plan. It's a paint to fixup page moves. And I've
> > already pissed off enough developers (hi Brion!) by restoring a moved
> > sandbox to try to shift it back during one of Wikipedia's numerous
> > downtimes.
>
> Yeah. Possibly the isNewbie() function needs to be set to the last 2% or
> whatever, to minimise collateral inability to move pages.
>
> The thing is that's not a definite measure, but advertising the metric
> on the move page would only encourage Willy on Wheels! to work around it
> with account creations and leaving them dormant until it's time for a
> move attack.
>
> Although it's a prominent PITA, the page move vandalism is probably not
> presently bad enough to disable the last 10% of accounts from page moves
> as an emergency measure.

What if we lowered it to 1%. how many people would that affect and for
how long roughly? ( I take it that we are still growing
exponentially?)

Theresa


from_name: Fastfission

body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 14:33:22 -0500, Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> To provide specific context, consider journals such as "Infinite
> Energy", with a bimonthly distribution of 3000--5000, which are hard
> to distinguish in any quantitative fashion from 'reputable' journals.
> However, this journal is devotes itself to publishing papers on free
> energy, cold fusion, an perpetual motion; and running headlines like
> "Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century."  I think many of us would agree
> that a paper does not become reputable, or any less original research,
> for being published in such a journal.

Well, the problem is that any sort of approach to this question, even
the appeal to "many of us," is going to be doing what the
anthropologists call "boundary work."

Without boundaries, we have no realiability and we have no standards.
With boundaries, we will be constantly accused of censorship, bias,
etc. Constantly accused, of course, by the people on the other side of
the boundaries, who we will have already regulated to the category of
"negligible" or "fringe" by our very erection of the boundary.

Trying to come up with a "methodological" approach to the boundary
definition ("only peer-reviewed journals with circulations of X") will
unfortunately just shift the impetus to the interrogation of those
standards once again (anybody can claim they work via peer review, but
can it be verified? Even all that without getting into the question of
the limits of peer review, i.e. the Sokal or Bogdanov affairs).

My take on this: There is no easy resolution, no rule which will work
rigorously. The answer is just to accept that putting forth some
general standards with some amount of flexibility will hopefully work
out for the "best." Problems will be solved in a somewhat ad hoc
manner and there will be compromise involved over things which ideally
ought not need compromise. Some disputes will inevitably occur and
some good contributors will inevitably become too frustrated and will
leave. So what we have here is a system which often privileges
patience over truth. But in this sense Wikipedia is more of a
marketplace than a utopia, and perhaps that's for the better in the
long run.

Again, I think I have maybe elaborated too much, and perhaps my
analytic biases are showing... FF


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues
>concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is*
>already taking care of.

If you say so.  Just to be clear -- the reason I made this distinction is
first, because our catalogue of policies makes this distinction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
and second, because I see a qualitative difference in the nature of the
violations: violation of behavioral guidelines is about the interactions
between one editor and another.  Violations of content guidelines is about
the relationship between one editor and an article.

There has been some pretty vigorous debate concerning the way the ArbCom
investigates the behavior of the complainant and the "defendant" in ways
that often efface the distinction between the two.  Although a number of
people object to this, I do understand why this is so -- the ArbCom by
definition is arbitrating a conflict between two people.

Violations of content guidelines, however, are not by definition, and need
not involve, conflicts between two users.  What is at issue is not how one
person treats another, but the appropriateness of the changes an editor is
making to an article.  These are cases where the committee would
investigate only one person.

I understand Mav's reasons for wanting to keep it one committee.  I do
think these are valid considerations, though,

Steve

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


from_name: JAY JG

body:
>From: Recycling Troll <recyclingtroll at yahoo.com>
>
>Thanks for that Theresa, I'm sorry that you think that
>checking someone's edits is 'stalking'. I can
>certainly see why Rick would not want anyone examining
>his behaviour too closely, but are you seriously
>suggesting that oversight is inapropriate?
>You want to say that anyone who looks too closely at
>what another user is doing is 'stalking'?
>Stalking is a real-world phenomena where someone is
>followed in multiple ways. Checking someone's
>contributions to an online encyclopedia is not
>stalking. It is responsible checking.

Setting up a userid specifically for the purpose of following someone around
and reviewing their edits, and voting against them on VfDs, may not
technically be "stalking", but it is not "responsible checking" either.
"Harrassment" seems like a reasonable description.

Jay.


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>> JAY JG wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>>>
>>>> JAY JG wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes
>>>>> original research when it is used to build a case against a
>>>>> position presented in an article, not when used to do unit
>>>>> conversions.  Now if you were to assert that based on genetics and
>>>>> "simple deductive reasoning" that uncles were more closely related
>>>>> to nephews than aunts were to nieces, that would be original
>>>>> research, and you'd have to find some source which supported it.
>>>>
>>>> That's certainly an extremist view.
>>>
>>> Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
>>
>> Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already
>> presented.
>
> Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something
> like politics or international law.  And, in the latter case, if done
> by the editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original
> research as well, as per the No original research policy.

But your reference was at least stated to be based in genetics.  The
reference to editors is meaningless since we are all editors.  There's
very little in the way of original research done here in politics;
you're confusing original research with original speculation.

>> The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled
>> out of imagination.  It has no research attached to it at all,
>> original or otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean
>> by "more closely related.  So before you complain about the strawmen
>> of others you should stop using them yourself.
>
> Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but
> that would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing
> more important things like arguing about whether or not 172's
> contributions were "balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".

"Bogged the list down" = "exposed your ideas to attack".  The POV that
you push does not need a basis in reality.  As for 172, it's a question
of his bringing balance to some points by removing the half-truths and
innuendos promoted by the anti-communist wolf pack

>>>> You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
>>>
>>> I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
>>
>> That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon
>> theories.
>
> Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors.  If a
> particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it
> too is a "loose cannon theory".

Again the reference to Wikipedia editors is menaingless.  Are you
suggesting yourself as the judge of what is reputable? :-D :-D :-D

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
>From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>
>Jimbo wrote
>
> > I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a very
> > tiny minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any
> > way.  If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist.
> > That is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very
> > hard work of getting it right, and we don't accept anything less than
> > that.  PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and
> > retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.
>
>I think Jimbo perhaps meant 'retaining', though in my case 'retraining'
>rings a bell, also.

"Restraining" might also apply. :-O

Jay.


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

body:
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>> JAY JG wrote:
>>No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes
>>original research when it is used to build a case against a position
>>presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.

>Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already
>presented.  The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment
>pulled out of imagination.

Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His
point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a
set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not
already made in a credible publication. It should not be used to make
cases for certain positions; and in particular, editors should not go
on to present their conclusions as though they're established facts,
which happens a lot. When you're doing a unit conversion, you're just
counting, and if your conversion is correct, you'll find it published
elsewhere anyway, so it wouldn't be original.

Sarah


body:
slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

>>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>
>>
>>>JAY JG wrote:
>>>No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes
>>>original research when it is used to build a case against a position
>>>presented in an article, not when used to do unit conversions.
>>>
>>>
>>Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already
>>presented.  The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment
>>pulled out of imagination.
>>
>>
>Ray - Jay is correct in his description of original research. His
>point is simply that deduction (that is, drawing a conclusion from a
>set of premises) should not be used by editors to make a point not
>already made in a credible publication.
>
This sounds like an argument for the commandment, "Thou shalt not think."

>It should not be used to make
>cases for certain positions; and in particular, editors should not go
>on to present their conclusions as though they're established facts,
>which happens a lot.
>
Presenting conclusions as though they were facts is quite another
matter, and you're right it does happen a lot.

Ec


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

body:
-------------- Original message --------------
> > Although it's a prominent PITA, the page move vandalism is probably not
> > presently bad enough to disable the last 10% of accounts from page moves
> > as an emergency measure.
>
> What if we lowered it to 1%. how many people would that affect and for
> how long roughly? ( I take it that we are still growing
> exponentially?)

How many users have EVER used move?  Why not disable it, and make it a sysop only function.  I don't think its meaning is intuitive, the only time I ever tried to use it was to reverse a vandal that had moved the page, and I think I botched it.
                                                     -- Silverback


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
>
> How many users have EVER used move?  Why not disable it, and make it a
> sysop only function.  I don't think its meaning is intuitive, the only
> time I ever tried to use it was to reverse a vandal that had moved the
> page, and I think I botched it.

I'd not want it disabled, if only because a botched move can be undone
relatively easily but a cut-and-paste that subsequently gets edited is a
nightmare.  Not the least of the problems is that usually you don't even
know just by looking at the page and its history that an article *is* a
copy-and-paste job from another page.  There is no link at all.
If we made page-move a sysop-only function we'd probably need to do
something about non-sysops improvising copy-and-pastes.  I think it
*should* be available to nearly all regular logged-in editors.


from_name: Neil Harris

references:
<422B0F77.1030704@thingy.apana.org.au>
	<d0jjbq$h95$1@sea.gmane.org>	<422DAEB8.5060205@thingy.apana.org.au>
	<1bfe3eb050308084217ccc83d@mail.gmail.com>

body:
Theresa Knott wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:55:04 +0000, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Yeah. Possibly the isNewbie() function needs to be set to the last 2% or
>>>whatever, to minimise collateral inability to move pages.
>>>
>>>The thing is that's not a definite measure, but advertising the metric
>>>on the move page would only encourage Willy on Wheels! to work around it
>>>with account creations and leaving them dormant until it's time for a
>>>move attack.
>>>
>>>Although it's a prominent PITA, the page move vandalism is probably not
>>>presently bad enough to disable the last 10% of accounts from page moves
>>>as an emergency measure.
>>>
>>>
>
>What if we lowered it to 1%. how many people would that affect and for
>how long roughly? ( I take it that we are still growing
>exponentially?)
>
>Theresa
>
>
>
About a month per percent, given the current statistics.

I also think it's reasonable to work on the assumption that WoW is
reading this list. We will still need to rely on soft security in the
end. Currently, the technical advantage WoW has is the ability to user a
tabbed browser to generate vandalism "bursts" that defeat the normal
human processes of reverting and user blocking. (I've tried it, all
apart from actually making the edits, and it's very quick to set up a
batch of page moves, ready to commit by clicking one after another).
Page-move vandals know what they are doing, and deliberately choose that
form of vandalism for maximum annoyance: even when done manually, page
moves take longer to fix and tidy up after than to commit, so the
advantage is to the vandal.

Putting in a 2% block will hold off WoW and imitators for at least a
month or two, which has got to be a good thing, and gives us time to set
up better tools to await the return of the page move vandals. In the
longer run, what we need are three things:

* one-click page-move reverting for admins
* a page move log, working on the same principles as the deletion log
* add page-move rate limiting for non-sysops, and you more or less have
drawn the teeth of page-move vandals.

With these tools, page move vandalism need be no more annoying than any
other trivial edit vandalism: simply block the user, call up their
page-move history, and click revert as many times as needed.

And I agree: we should reserve the right to redefine the heuristics for
is_newbie() without notice, to resist any attempts to "game" it. (I can
think of several ways right now, but I see no reason to make vandals'
lives any easier).

-- Neil


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Page move vandal - there is a
 feature that can help with it ...


from_name: csherlock at ljh.com.au

body:
Rick wrote:
> --- David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I just saved [[WP:VFD]] as of a few minutes ago. The
>>HTML alone is 1,324,734
>>bytes. The associated files are 28,964 bytes.
>>
>>I have a Pentium II 450MHz with 768MB memory running
>>Netscape 7.2. It takes
>>a minute or two just for the page to render.
>>
>>So to vote on VFD, you must have a broadband
>>connection - anyone on dialup
>>is pretty much barred - and preferably be browsing
>>with an Athlon 64. Or
>>maybe a Cray.
>>
>>Here's one suggestion: make the main VFD page just
>>links to the day pages,
>>rather than transcluding every one of them.
>
>
> Nonsense.  I have a dialup connection and have little
> problem working with the VfD page.
>
> RickK

Really? I have broadband and I have lots of difficulty working with this
page. Firefox and IE takes ages to render the darned thing.

TBSDY


body:
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>JAY JG wrote:
>>>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
>>>
>>>JAY JG wrote:
>>>
>>>>No, that's a strawman argument.  "Deductive reasoning" becomes original
>>>>research when it is used to build a case against a position presented in
>>>>an article, not when used to do unit conversions.  Now if you were to
>>>>assert that based on genetics and "simple deductive reasoning" that
>>>>uncles were more closely related to nephews than aunts were to nieces,
>>>>that would be original research, and you'd have to find some source
>>>>which supported it.
>>>
>>>That's certainly an extremist view.
>>
>>Ray, labels like this aren't helpful.
>
>Deductive reason is the application of logic to the facts as already
>presented.

Easy to do in simple cases; quite complex when the issue is something like
politics or international law.  And, in the latter case, if done by the
editor themselves, generally (and wisely) forbidden as original research as
well, as per the No original research policy.

>The uncle/nephew vs. aunt/niece is simply a nonsense comment pulled out of
>imagination.  It has no research attached to it at all, original or
>otherwise; your theory doesn't even define what you mean by "more closely
>related.  So before you complain about the strawmen of others you should
>stop using them yourself.

Well, I could have used real examples from articles I've seen, but that
would have bogged the list down, when it could have been doing more
important things like arguing about whether or not 172's contributions were
"balanced" or "pro-communist screeds".

>>>You seem to forget the original purpose for the rule.
>>
>>I don't think so; what do you think I have forgotten?
>
>That the purpose was to avoid becoming overrun with loose cannon theories.

Including those developed and presented by Wikipedia editors.  If a
particular argument hasn't been published somewhere reputable, then it too
is a "loose cannon theory".

Jay.


from_name: Stephen Forrest

body:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 12:58:31 -0800, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Michael Moore's blog is using a 30-second excerpt from a lengthy interview with Coulter to promote their view that Coulter makes things up and "refuses correction". I am trying to write a Neutral passage of text that balances two POVs:
>
> 1. That Coulter makes things up all the time, and her remarks about Canada "sending troops" to Vietnam are FALSE, which proves that Coulter has an anti-liberal bias and is not a trustworthy source of info.
>
> 2. That Coulter takes liberals to task for distorting history, and her remarks about Canada "sending troops" to Vietnam are TRUE, which proves that liberals are biased and in need of being set straight.

Clearly the government of Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.
Clearly also, Canadian citizens fought alongside Americans in the
Vietnam.

However, I believe the only reasonable neutral interpretation of
"Canada sent troops to Vietnam", in the context provided (when talking
about the actions of the Canadian government w.r.t. wars) is that the
Canadian government sent soldiers from its army to Vietnam.

I quite agree that the anti-Coulter arguments deserve balance, and I
think it's important to mention that Canadians did serve there (in
Coulter's defence).  But I also think that suggesting that Canada
*did* send troops is an inaccurate characterization of the facts
surrounding that particular POV.

Steve


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] conflict resolution at meta

body:
I would like to get the question about conflict resolution at meta
raised again, again about the same issue. For a moment it seemed to
have been resolved by moving the desirability of image suppression to
a separate page, but that page has now also become the subject of an
edit war. Christiaan is reverting Gerard because his arguments 'show
bad faith' (which apparently is a reason to forbid them being spoken),
Gerard reverts Christiaan because his edits are 'vandalism' and 'not
NPOV'.

Apparently the two are not only disagreeing about whether image
suppression is a good idea, but even about which arguments against it
are acceptable enough to be on meta. Who can resolve this conflict?

Andre Engels


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: Page move vandal - there is a feature that can help
 with it ...

body:
Interesting idea, however shouldn't we also use a metric to determine
whether a newbie rapidly gets up to speed on Wikipedia and becomes a
very good contributor with thousands of edits?

Can we take this into account?

Otherwise - good plan. It's a paint to fixup page moves. And I've
already pissed off enough developers (hi Brion!) by restoring a moved
sandbox to try to shift it back during one of Wikipedia's numerous
downtimes.

TBSDY

David Gerard wrote:
>
> Just had the following conversation with Tim Starling on
> #mediawiki. Log quoted with permission.
>
> Basically: there is a feature. Present version is unsubtle
> in its restriction (last 10% of created accounts, which is
> possibly a bit harsh to get consensus. A timed version
> would be nice, but someone interested in it will have to
> write the code.
>
> Of course, if that restriction isn't considered too onerous
> for the moment, it can just be switched on, and it will stop
> Willy On Wheels! in his tracks.
>
>
> <DavidGerard>    a question on page move vandalism: is there a good
> technical reason why e.g. checking a user has been around for a time
> before doing a move is infeasible? or is it just that no-one's coded it
> yet?
> <DavidGerard>    (I assume there's a bug on the subject)
> <TimStarling>    DavidGerard: yes, we wrote code for that when Wik was
> running his vandalbot
> <TimStarling>    it's currently switched off
> <DavidGerard>    ok - does it need a vote or something to ratify
> switching it on?
> <DavidGerard>    TimStarling: and is the code in question production
> quality, of course? I plan to mention it on wikien-l, where it's been
> asked about, and then start a discussion and vote page, if it's usable
> <TimStarling>    the checkuser code? it's ready for use
> <TimStarling>    if there's anything wrong with it, we'll fix it when
> problems come up
> <DavidGerard>    the page move checker. what time limit does it set, or
> is that configurable?
> <DavidGerard>    (I'm asking all this because I don't want to present
> you with consensus for something not quite possible ;-)
> <DavidGerard>    (ideally for somethng that's no more work than
> switching it on)
> <TimStarling>    the current code just denies access to the move page
> function for anyone who satisfies the isNewbie() condition
> <TimStarling>    which generally meant one of the last 10% of user
> accounts created
> <DavidGerard>    what's that set to?
> <DavidGerard>    ah
> <DavidGerard>    no particular time limit then
> <TimStarling>    of course Wik then created 5000 user accounts on meta,
> good for him
> <TimStarling>    so we made an account creation throttle as well
> <TimStarling>    no particular time limit
> <DavidGerard>    how much work to put in a settable time limit? off the
> top of your head
> <DavidGerard>    (i'm thinking what is likely to be comprehensible and
> play well)
> <TimStarling>    the sign-up date is not recorded
> <TimStarling>    it's not in the schema, we were just using the user ID
> <DavidGerard>    oh, so how is the 90 days calculated for votes?
> <TimStarling>    by finding the first contribution, but that's an
> expensive query
> <DavidGerard>    ew. yes.
> <DavidGerard>    i shall mention it on wikien-l that it's possible at
> least ;-)
> <TimStarling>    possible to do it by sign-on date? Yes, it's possible
> if someone wants to write the code
> <TimStarling>    it just means a schema change
> <DavidGerard>    that's what i thought ;-)
> <DavidGerard>    mind if I c'n'p this conversation to a wikien-l mail?
> <TimStarling>    no I don't mind
> <DavidGerard>    cool :-)
>
>
> - d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: FW: Moving to wiktionary and deleting

body:
I think there is a {{deletebecause}}. Check [[Template:Deletebecause]]
to see if there are any template parameters.

TBSDY

Olivier Bilodeau wrote:
> I just want to be sure that once the entry exists on Wiktionary and I
> add {{delete}} that I won't be told that I'm bypassing the VfD process
> or that my csd doesn't fit the established criteria, or worse, that the
> admin who actually deletes the items gets accused of the above. I was a
> bit sarcastic in my reply to your post, but I wanted your opinion on the
> matter to be clarified (which you did, and I appreciate).
>
>
>>What I failed to communicate is that I don't think deletion policies
>>apply.  The articles in question are already listed for moving; I think
>
>
>>that moving them doesn't involve the deletion process, speedy or
>
> otherwise.
>
>>--
>> Sean Barrett     | I don't see you, so don't pretend you're there.
>> sean at epoptic.com |
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Deletion of my images

body:
I'll be honest here. I have deleted a whole bunch of OBVIOUS copyright
violations of FHM pics, etc, without telling the original author. I
suppose I should have.

TBSDY

Anthere wrote:
> For the second time this month, one of my images was deleted on the
> english wikipedia.
>
> I was not warned at all.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthere/PictInsectes&diff=0&oldid=10140585
>
>
> I'll be frank, I AM PISSED OFF.
>
> It is written clearly on my talk page, and my user page that all my
> images are gfdl. All my insects pictures listed on my user subpage are
> labelled, but this one.
>
> Just as I already said on the pump less than 2 weeks ago, I think it is
> really pure disrespect to delete an image without asking the author, and
> then only AFTER deletion, to go on this user subpage to remove the link
> to the deleted image. If there is time to go on my user subpage to
> remove a link, then there is time to drop by my user talk page and talk
> to me. Of there is time to read the mention on my user and user talk
> page and to read my warning about the status of my images and to update
> the image status.
>
> I am sorry, but I really find this of the latest rudeness.
>
>  From now quite far away, as I have no more time to edit the english
> wikipedia, I have the horrible feeling the english wikipedia has become
> a very very cold place, where there is no respect for editors except
> those well known possibly. If feels like if one is not among the major
> editors, he does not count, and his feelings are not important at all.
> It looks like a machine. An automate. Not a great human construction.
>
> We are all here because we believe in what we do, but what we do is only
> good because we do it together and because we trust each other.
>
> Well, at least, some people trust other people. And if it is not
> possible to trust someone who spent already 3 years on wikipedia, I
> wonder how newbies are treated.
>
> In case you feel like telling me "yeah, but this is just one case you
> know, not everybody does that", I will then ask why Quadell is trusted
> to delete images. I do not trust him to do so. Not because he does not
> do this according to rules, but because he does not do this while taking
> human feelings into account. And wiki only works thanks to human power.
>
> Anthere


from_name: David Gerard

body:
actionforum at comcast.net wrote:

> How many users have EVER used move?  Why not disable it, and make it a sysop only function.  I don't think its meaning is intuitive, the only time I ever tried to use it was to reverse a vandal that had moved the page, and I think I botched it.

Because newbies will do cut'n'paste moves right now instead of
going through a nominate for renaming process.

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: upto11.net

body:
Out of interest, are you able to add a notice about the GFDL to that
FAQ? I'd hate your users to get pissed of that they didn't know about
the GFDL!

TBSDY

>> From our FAQ
>
>
> Q. What is Wikipedia?
> A. It's an open-content encyclopedia that has been created by thousands
> of people. The project's aim is to create a free encyclopedia, in fact,
> the largest encylcopedia in history. Information about artists, albums
> and songs that is presented on upto11.net is provided, in part, from the
> Wikipedia.
> Q. What can I do to help make Wikipedia more successful?
>
> A. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that anyone can contribute to.
> Even you. All you need to know is how to edit a page, and have some
> encyclopedic knowledge you want to share. Visit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page to learn more
> about how to contribute.
>
> Q. What does the link "add to or edit this information" do?
> A. Upto11.net encourages its users to become active contributors to the
> Wikipedia project. If, in the course of your use of the upto11.net site,
> you encounter a page with little or no content about a band, album or
> song that you are familiar with, please click on the "add to or edit"
> link to share that knowledge. Over time, the encyclopedia will grow and
> become more useful to all users, especially to you, the music fan who
> enjoys using upto11.net.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: SD Magazine article: The Wiki Way

body:
Can you add this to [[WP:Press]]?

TBSDY

Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> The April 2005 edition of Software Development Magazine has an article
> Rick Wayne wrote about wiki software, and MediaWiki has BY FAR the
> nicest screen shots. You'll recognize the yellow flower and the
> puzzle-world right away. It's in the April 2005 edition, which just
> arrived in my snail mailbox today at work. (The online version lags a
> few days behind, but I'll send in the URL once it's up. And, no, this is
> not an April Fool's joke; I never joke around about the *really*
> important stuff!)
>
> Here's the caption for the Sample Wikipedia Page:
>
> "The Wikipedia is the canonical example of what you can do with
> MediaWiki; here's the entry on data structures, with the navigation bar
> at the left and the toolbar on the top." (P. 32)
>
> Wayne also mentions Wiki Woes:
>
> "Vandals. Unless you're trying for the widest possible user community,
> it's best to hide your wiki behind some sort of access control.
> Otherwise, the maladjusted may take advantage of the Edit This Page
> button until you're ready to chuck the whole thing. . . ." (P. 33)
>
> Who knows? Maybe we'll get a flurry of contributions to our
> computer-programming articles.
>
> Uncle Ed
> (still alive and kickin')


subject: [WikiEN-l] Abuse of blocking powers (The Recycling Troll)

body:
>From: Recycling Troll <recyclingtroll at yahoo.com>
>
> > Setting up a userid specifically for the purpose of
> > following someone around
> > and reviewing their edits, and voting against them
> > on VfDs, may not
> > technically be "stalking", but it is not
> > "responsible checking" either.
> > "Harrassment" seems like a reasonable description.
> >
> > Jay.
>
>Take a moment, if you will, to review the situation,
>and you will see that this is not the case.

I have, and it is.

>I cannot
>imagine why anyone would want to prevent oversight of
>edits, or restrict others' voice on vfd.

And I cannot imagine why anyone would want to present such a blatantly silly
strawman argument.

Oh wait, yes I can.

Jay.


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

body:
Andre Engels wrote:

>I would like to get the question about conflict resolution at meta
>raised again, again about the same issue. For a moment it seemed to
>have been resolved by moving the desirability of image suppression to
>a separate page, but that page has now also become the subject of an
>edit war. Christiaan is reverting Gerard because his arguments 'show
>bad faith' (which apparently is a reason to forbid them being spoken),
>Gerard reverts Christiaan because his edits are 'vandalism' and 'not
>NPOV'.
>
>Apparently the two are not only disagreeing about whether image
>suppression is a good idea, but even about which arguments against it
>are acceptable enough to be on meta. Who can resolve this conflict?
>
>Andre Engels
>
As far as I am concerned, it is not possible to discuss this. So I
stopped discussing it. This subject is apparantly taboo and that is fine
with me. I have not editted it for quite some time and under the present
circumstances I do intend to. I would not mind if their was arbitration
because I am quite sad about the way this whole thing evolved.

Thanks,
    GerardM


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Admins and senior admins

body:
Karl A. Krueger wrote:

>It seems to me it should be _standard procedure_ that if the Arbitration
>Committee accepts a case in which wrongdoing by an administrator is a
>central issue, that the administrator step down (accept removal of
>administrative powers) for the duration of the arbitration.
>
>
The logical corollary of this is that it should be standard procedure
for all editors brought before the Arbitration Committee to cease
editing for the duration of their case. I think the arbitrators are
quite capable of discerning in which cases emergency measures are
necessary and issuing an appropriate temporary injunction.

--Michael Snow


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: "Charles Matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>>
>> Jimbo wrote
>>
>> > I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a very
>> > tiny minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any
>> > way.  If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist.
>> > That is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very
>> > hard work of getting it right, and we don't accept anything less than
>> > that.  PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and
>> > retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.
>>
>> I think Jimbo perhaps meant 'retaining', though in my case 'retraining'
>> rings a bell, also.
>
> "Restraining" might also apply. :-O

Though if they've been properly retrained, meaning they abide by the
spirit of Wikipedia's policies, no further restraint should be necessary.

--Michael Snow