subject: [WikiEN-l] A minor point

body:
By "some people" I assume youre not making some kind
of prejudicial comment about anyone who might see the
issue differently. And Im sure any objective reader
would consider your use of "heartless" "relativism"
and "intellectual lazyness" and "corrupt morality" as
personal attacks, so I'll just ignore them. I
understand how good people can lose their cool. And
any point of view expressed with such articulation as
yours should never be considered "flaming," (certainly
not a blockable offense) even if it does have some of
the above in it. I dont understand how any distinction
of "intrinsic/inherited" can be definitive enough to
make for blocking people.

While I empathize with your desire to not want to be
treated with personal hostility on Wikipedia, it has
be said that there is no premptive remedy for that
problem. Work it out like everybody does, and if you
get wikitired and wikistressed, take a wikibreak. At
least we have a dispute resolution process. First off,
Im not sure that list can qualify as a "hit list," as
the reaction to that list seems to have been
appropriately jovial ("how do I get on the list?"
etc). Granted its on the borderline, but wheras the
weighing of evidence requires some balance, indefinite
bans are an absolutist remedy without any. Others have
correctly noted that such might even encourage
sockpuppetism. Its a close call, no doubt, and only
the absolutist nature of the superprocedural block is
really at issue. Please try to understand my
objectivity here.

For little background, the development of the formal
DR process arose only after (very, very, very) much
long-term tug and pull between prominent members of
the community --as the lack of any formal process was
increasingly viewed as being a failure in terms of
principle and shown in practice to be unresponsive to
WP's exponential growth. There were a few notable
cases wherein conflicts regarding both issues and
personality became larger flame wars, and mere chatter
on the lists proved insufficient to either do the
basic work of making an accurate case for corrective
measures, or for finding any nuanced remedy. Before a
certain point, any banning was an extremely rare-case
issue provided for only extremely disruptive trolls
--meaning only those making overt and
uncontroversially improper edits. The notion that
trollism should be redefined to include not just overt
behaviour but subvert behaviour as well is
controversial enough to merit discussion before
applying to a ban. IAC, banning was once an extreme
rarity. No more apparently.

When I first got into some edit wars, I admittedly was
quick to react to certain offensive personal attacks,
and topical debate of course shifted the issues into
the realm of personal attacks. But despite the
flaming, reason eventually prevailed, and those
conflicts surpisingly enough helped to shape the
formation of the now familiar formal process that was
(up to the time of their institution) missing.  So I
dont care how overworked the understaffed Arbcom is,
or how so much someone doesnt ever again want to run
into people lacking in some areas of basic civility
and decency. The dispute resolution process is
something to be promoted, supported, expanded, and
upheld --not something to be treated like a dying
elephant and relegated back to the good-ol-days of
unilateral decrees. I'm disappointed that many good
people fail to have this basic trust in the culture
Wikipedia has developed, but I attribute that to the
natural unawareness of DR history, coming from those
not present through that formative period. And while
Im at it, anyone seriously citing IAR in the context
of a discussion regarding a preemptive permanent block
is to me just an example of how out of touch some
people are. The notion that we need to enforce
anti-troll measures with the same extreme prejudice
that those mentioned promote is of course one glaring
contradiction, from the point of view of my "so-called
moral high ground of un-"principled" relativism."

SV

--- El C <el.ceeh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings, WikiEN-l,
>
> My point then (and so it remains now) was centred on
> what I termed
> intrinsic/irreversible  properties, the distinction
> between the
> inherent and inherited. The latter says: you may be
> sub-human now, but
> you can convert to what I believe in and then be
> human, just-like-me.
> The former says: you will *always* be sub-human, as
> an intrinsic trait
> that cannot be reversed, you can't be just-like-me,
> ever.
>
> There is an alarming tendency on the part of some
> participants in this
> thread, I find; I will go further, a seemingly
> heartless and ugly
> current, whose basis is intellectual lazyness at
> best, and an utterly
> corrupt and morally bankrupt mindset at worse. The
> so-called moral
> high ground of un-"principled" relativism. But
> before I'm banned from
> the list on account of flaming (which I nonetheless
> am taking pains to
> direct with a measure of moderation, though
> ambiguities will not save
> me), I'll pause for a personal example from
> Wikipedia:
>
> About two months ago or so I encountered an abusive
> editor who refused
> to speak to me because, as he told me, and then all
> of WP:AN in a
> notice he authored, that he does not, as a matter of
> principle, speaks
> to homosexuals (at the event, I never made privy to
> him whether I was
> even male or female to begin with, I was only
> reverting, warning, and
> eventually banning him for homophobic hate speech on
> [[Iran]] -- the
> user was defending the Islamic regime's policy on
> homosexuality and a
> certain infamous execution of underage homosexuals
> in a very prolific
> fashion, but I digress).
>
> The user explained that he considers homosexuals,
> and later he added,
> also Jews, to be lower than animals or something to
> that effect, etc.,
> noting how he would "love to rid the world of gays
> and Jews."
>
> Now, there was a certain vocal user, an established
> user, a user with
> thousands of edits, who insisted that my actions
> were contrary to
> policy and that I should have attempted to resolve
> my *differences*
> with that abusive user (well, his proxies, since at
> that point he was
> propogating his hate speech via block evasion)
> through the dispute
> resolution process. This is what I'm talking about,
> and of course this
> exchange led to a whole lotta (wiki and otherwise)
> love!
>
> Anyway, I do not look forward to the (further
> ensuing?)
> agenda-driven(?), moral abstractions about
> preemptive banning and how
> SlimVirgin's ban amounted to nothing but that;
> insinuations on her
> purported 'selectiveness,' and on how terribly
> unfair this whole
> ordeal was to this neo-Nazi and his
> (surprise-sururpise, who would
> have guessed it) accompanying *hit list* (ah, yes,
> but this hit list,
> unlike some others that I, myself, had been
> subjected to on Wikipedia,
> did take place offsite, though I would still argue,
> within the realm
> of the known universe). Someone get the poor fellow
> a worthy and
> so-called 'righteous' advocate(?). And most of all,
> I am not looking
> forward to the flames, but I sure do expect them
> after having said all
> that (which nevertheless, isn't actually so much).
> Alas, I do confess
> to being mildly curious in seeing how subtle and/or
> decisive they
> get...
>
> *Though*, you can always shower me with love,
> instead. It is within
> your power and even the realm of possibility. Please
> shower me with
> your love. Let it shine, shine, shine. Let it shine.
>
> Love,
> El_C
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Paweł 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [WikiEN-l] Pseudodoxia (neo-Nazi Wikipedia)

body:
> http://pseudodoxia.flawlesslogic.com/index.php?title=User:Shimgray
> Interestingly, yours has a boilerplate saying "This is a Pseudodoxia
> user page" - but mine, still generated from the template, says "This
> is a Wikipedia user page". Seems their search-and-replace wasn't quite
> so hot...

The template you used was probably already corrected by some
Wikipedian.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Scrotum in Korean is Eum Nang

body:
On 8/24/05, Poor, Edmund W <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> wrote:
> I just renamed user:?? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%EC%9D%8C%EB%82%AD>  to user:Eum Nang <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eum_Nang> . Where do I go to check whether I did this correctly? Is there a Bureaucrats Chat page, or something?

The page used to make these requests might have been best -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username - since the
people who do namechanges will see it there.

Records of namechanegs go in the archives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive3

Angela


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Hey shithead

body:
One must wonder how this post got through to the mailing list especially
considering that we've been told that A. Nony Mouse's posts are screened
before being let through.

-Jtkiefer

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

>I believe this should be added to Yuber's RFAR...
>
>A. Nony Mouse
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Yuber <yuber07 at gmail.com>
>Date: Aug 19, 2005 5:20 PM
>Subject: Hey shithead
>To: mousyme at gmail.com
>
>
>How goes it?
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
>


from_name: El C

subject: [WikiEN-l] A minor point

body:
Greetings, WikiEN-l,

My point then (and so it remains now) was centred on what I termed
intrinsic/irreversible  properties, the distinction between the
inherent and inherited. The latter says: you may be sub-human now, but
you can convert to what I believe in and then be human, just-like-me.
The former says: you will *always* be sub-human, as an intrinsic trait
that cannot be reversed, you can't be just-like-me, ever.

There is an alarming tendency on the part of some participants in this
thread, I find; I will go further, a seemingly heartless and ugly
current, whose basis is intellectual lazyness at best, and an utterly
corrupt and morally bankrupt mindset at worse. The so-called moral
high ground of un-"principled" relativism. But before I'm banned from
the list on account of flaming (which I nonetheless am taking pains to
direct with a measure of moderation, though ambiguities will not save
me), I'll pause for a personal example from Wikipedia:

About two months ago or so I encountered an abusive editor who refused
to speak to me because, as he told me, and then all of WP:AN in a
notice he authored, that he does not, as a matter of principle, speaks
to homosexuals (at the event, I never made privy to him whether I was
even male or female to begin with, I was only reverting, warning, and
eventually banning him for homophobic hate speech on [[Iran]] -- the
user was defending the Islamic regime's policy on homosexuality and a
certain infamous execution of underage homosexuals in a very prolific
fashion, but I digress).

The user explained that he considers homosexuals, and later he added,
also Jews, to be lower than animals or something to that effect, etc.,
noting how he would "love to rid the world of gays and Jews."

Now, there was a certain vocal user, an established user, a user with
thousands of edits, who insisted that my actions were contrary to
policy and that I should have attempted to resolve my *differences*
with that abusive user (well, his proxies, since at that point he was
propogating his hate speech via block evasion) through the dispute
resolution process. This is what I'm talking about, and of course this
exchange led to a whole lotta (wiki and otherwise) love!

Anyway, I do not look forward to the (further ensuing?)
agenda-driven(?), moral abstractions about preemptive banning and how
SlimVirgin's ban amounted to nothing but that; insinuations on her
purported 'selectiveness,' and on how terribly unfair this whole
ordeal was to this neo-Nazi and his (surprise-sururpise, who would
have guessed it) accompanying *hit list* (ah, yes, but this hit list,
unlike some others that I, myself, had been subjected to on Wikipedia,
did take place offsite, though I would still argue, within the realm
of the known universe). Someone get the poor fellow a worthy and
so-called 'righteous' advocate(?). And most of all, I am not looking
forward to the flames, but I sure do expect them after having said all
that (which nevertheless, isn't actually so much). Alas, I do confess
to being mildly curious in seeing how subtle and/or decisive they
get...

*Though*, you can always shower me with love, instead. It is within
your power and even the realm of possibility. Please shower me with
your love. Let it shine, shine, shine. Let it shine.

Love,
El_C


list: foundation-l

from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
Well, SA Creative Commons licenses are not really compatible with wiki
philosophy...

On 8/25/05, Joel Konkle-Parker <jjk3 at msstate.edu> wrote:
> I've read the recent discussions on new project policies, and it seems
> that there is somewhat of a consensus that focusing on the existing
> projects is more important than recruiting new ones. I agree with this,
> but I also think that this should not prevent us from working on some
> policies for the future, as least on the question of licensing.
>
> I participate in the WikiTree project [http://wikitree.org], and we're
> seeing some success and popularity. Before we get too big, though, we
> would like to know if there is any licensing policy that would be an
> issue if we later would like to become a part of WikiMedia. We're
> currently BY-NC-SA, and a license switch would essentially force us to
> erase all data and start over. As such, we'd like to get it right.
>
> >From an informal poll
> [http://wikitree.org/index.php?title=WikiTree:License_poll], it seems
> that most people support a liberal license, mainly either Public Domain
> or GFDL. Would either of these be a good choice, and would they allow us
> to participate officially in WikiMedia in the future? Or would something
> else be more appropriate?
>
> I look forward to your comments, either here or on the License Poll page
> linked above.
>
> - Joel
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
--- Joel Konkle-Parker <jjk3 at msstate.edu> wrote:
> I've read the recent discussions on new project policies, and it seems
> that there is somewhat of a consensus that focusing on the existing
> projects is more important than recruiting new ones. I agree with this,
> but I also think that this should not prevent us from working on some
> policies for the future, as least on the question of licensing.
>
> I participate in the WikiTree project [http://wikitree.org], and we're
> seeing some success and popularity. Before we get too big, though, we
> would like to know if there is any licensing policy that would be an
> issue if we later would like to become a part of WikiMedia. We're
> currently BY-NC-SA, and a license switch would essentially force us to
> erase all data and start over. As such, we'd like to get it right.

Non-commercial licenses are evil. I seriously doubt any project with a non-com
license would be adopted by the foundation. CC-BY-SA or FDL would be a better
fit ; esp since CC and the FSF are working on making those licenses compatible.

What is this project about anyway? I can't access it right now for some reason.
If it is, as I suspect, related to taxonomy or is focused on creating articles
about living things, then that would be duplicated of two existing Wikimedia
projects; Wikipedia (which aims to have articles on every genus on earth and
articles on every living thing for which more than a stub can be written about)
and the ill-conceived and poorly-executed fork of that at Wikispecies (a
project that is nearly as embarrassing as the Sep11wiki).

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wrong namespace in recent changes

body:
Arjen Wildemans wrote:
> I recently added some namespaces to my wiki. After adding an article in one of
> the new namespaces the corresponding row in recentchanges is linked to another
> custum namespace (a talk namespace) and no supprise, when following that link I
> get an empty page.
>
> When I look in the cur table I find the correct id in the field cur_namespace.
> In the table recentchanges I find a incorrect namespace id.

You're running 1.4, with a signed TINYINT rc_namespace field -- this
gives a maximum namespace key of 127. Higher keys will be cropped at 127.

Either upgrade to 1.5rc3, which increases namespace fields to a full INT
size for greater range, or manually change rc_namespace to an INT.
(Don't make it an UNSIGNED TINYINT -- this will then cause log entries
to fail to work in recentchanges.)

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050825/c5fafa28/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Lien RSS "encyclopéde"

body:
Roth Philippe wrote:
[snip]
> ATTENTION: L'ENCYCLOPEDE LIBRE.
> Il manque un "I", non?

More significantly than the spelling, the software defaults shouldn't be
claiming to be an encyclopedia, free or otherwise. :) Can you check if
this is still present in 1.5rc3?

> Comment est-il possible de modifier cela? Quel fichier modifier?
> Est-il possible aussi de modifier toute la phrase?

Go to [[Special:Allmessages]] on your wiki and you should find a big
list of all the user interface messages. They're stored in special
editable wiki pages, initialised from the arrays in
language/Language*.php at install time. As a sysop user you can edit
them; use search and click the links from the list.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050825/1144134f/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] A minor point

body:
Intrinsic and irreversible traits being the subject of persecution,
when seen as a general observation on how this dynamic plays in
inter-editorial interactions, is obviously subject to degrees of ...
shall we say, dedicated fanaticism and corresponding expressions of
hate. Focus; context. The irony, though, is that in some cases it is
*that* clear, and this *was* such a case (i.e. the author of and
targets mentioned on The Hit-List, its announcement, its tone and
overtone, etc.) Bottom line: there was overt behaviour. Appearences
aside, it is, at the very least, overlysimplistic and superficial to
title the reaction to the Hit-List as "jovial." Who is trolling whom
is not so elusive.

El_C


from_name: Gordon Joly

subject: [WikiEN-l] The National Gallery.

body:
After Jimbo's comments on the National Gallery's policy to images of
paintings in their collection, I thought we should all vote in this
poll (for BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme).

The page shows some images from the The National Gallery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/vote/greatestpainting/index_vote_secure.shtml

"The Greatest Painting in Britain is in association with The National Gallery"

Remember. One vote each - and no more!

:-)

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly at pobox.com///


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazis and Banning -- NPOV and respect.

body:
One does not have to be Jewish to abhor Nazi philosophy.

One must be respectful of people regardless of the opinions they
hold.

One must be inpartial in the level of care  one exercises in the
creation the Wikipedia. All users bring in POV, and all users help
each other balance POV into NPOV.

--- Richard Rabinowitz <rickyrab at eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:

>
> As a Jewish person, I don't like Naziism one bit. I do recognize
> that
> Nazis are folks like you and me.  Nonetheless, my distaste for
> Naziism is
> not the reason that I advocate keeping a close watch on Nazis for
> Wikipedia. I advocate this because they have vowed to make POV
> edits to
> Wikipedia, and such edits are contrary to Wikipedia rules. If a
> Nazi
> should pop up, we should watch them closely and ban them when they
> start
> fouling our stream of knowledge with biased, worthless tripe (if
> they do).
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Chris Mahan
818.943.1850 cell
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
chris.mahan at gmail.com
http://www.christophermahan.com/

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


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
--- Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
On 8/25/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > Nazis should be banned not just because they are a
> > particularly nasty form of human virus, but because
> > they will inevitably interfere with our goals.
>
> Nazis are individual human beings. A sentient person will not 'inevitably'
> behave badly on Wikipedia because she belongs to a particular sect or
> adheres to a particular ideology.
>
> And please choose your metaphors with more care. The idea of a human virus
> is familiar and somewhat unpleasant.
>
> - - - - -
> The purpose of National Socialism, according to Hitler, was to "maintain the
> life of Germany." He called Germany a "corporate body," a "single organism"
> that consisted of the German people as cells of this organism. The Jewish
> people also constituted cells of the national organism. These cells,
> however, made no contribution to the life of Germany. Rather, as bacteria,
> viruses and parasites, they lived and fed off the body politic, draining the
> nation of its energy and capacity to exist.
> ...
> On the evening of February 22, 1942, Hitler met with Himmler and a Danish SS
> major and expounded his conviction that the "discovery of the Jewish virus"
> was one of the "greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world." The
> battle in which the Nazis were engaged, he said, was of the "same sort as
> the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch." How many
> diseases, he declared, have their origin in the Jewish virus! "We shall
> regain our health only by eliminating the Jew." - http://tinyurl.com/cn5zg
> - - - - -
>
> Regards,
> Haukur

Well said, Haukur.  Recognition of individuality, even in the face of
extreme challenge, is the primary key to retaining the moral high
ground over all Nazi and Nazi-like groups.

And further, if we adopt Nazi ideas and tactics*, in doing so, we also
adopt their morals.

*(demonization of groups, pre-banning, and expelling them from our
realm based on beliefs rather than behavior)

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Pawe³ 'Ausir' Dembowski

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
> Well, SA Creative Commons licenses are not really compatible with wiki
> philosophy...

What's wrong with SA? It's NC that causes problems.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org


subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


from_name: Measure

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
 If you don't ever call anything evil, you also lose the power to present
anything as "Good." I disagree that we should refain from taking a moral
stance and let the facts just sort themselves out because of this.
 For example, if I refuse to call a serial killer 'evil' and just write what
he did, I also lose the ability to call the detecitive who caught him a
'good' person, as all I can do is present the facts. I would also
technically lose the ability to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'.
 I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to
lack moral judgement as well.
 On 8/25/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
>
> Hi, Jay.
>
> Even as parody this wasn't very effective. No-one in this discussion has
> said anything like that. The point is that it is not Wikipedia's job to
> demonize Nazis. We should provide the facts on National Socialism - its
> tenets, practice and history - in a neutral encyclopedic way. Using this
> information our readers can decide for themselves whether it's demonic or
> not.
>
> Regards,
> Haukur
>
>
> > You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis?
> > They're just regular loveable folk, like
> > the rest of us. They just happen to want
> > to oppress and/or kill Jews, Blacks, etc.
> > There's nothing demonic about that. And
> > don't forget all the good they've done,
> > and continute to do, for humanity. Yes,
> > there was the small matter of world
> > conflagration and mass genocide - but the
> > movement was young, and who can honestly
> > say they didn't make mistakes when they
> > too were youthful? Are we going to condemn
> > them simply for being a bit over-enthusiastic?
> >
> > To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I
> > say "look deep within yourself
> > -
> > if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in
> > you, not in them".
> >
> > Wikilove,
> >
> > Jay.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Dariusz Siedlecki

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
2005/8/25, Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron at gmail.com>:
> Well, SA Creative Commons licenses are not really compatible with wiki
> philosophy...

They're now, since you can get the attribution back to the Wiki,
instead of the author, if that's what you're talking about.

That's why there's still a possibility Wikinews will be licensed under
CC-By or CC-By-SA.

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Spell checking in MediaWiki

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>Yes, I hadn't noticed the "it will not serve only Ultimate Wiktionary
>but also Ultimate Wiktionary"... I assume Gerard meant something
>serious by that, but whatever it was, I catch no ball (as they say in
>Singapore).
>
>Mark
>
>
Hoi,
Wikidata is an engine that allows you to use relational data in a Wiki
environment. This means that it can be used for other things than
Ultimate Wiktionary. I have a dream that one day Wikispecies will have
its data in a relational database and that it will take off in a way
that it now fails to do.

The Ultimate Wiktionary IS one project but it does not only deliver
Ultimate Wiktionary, it also brings you Wikidata :)

Thanks,
    GerardM


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article has
a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV.

On 8/25/05, Jake Waskett <jake at waskett.org> wrote:
>
> How can you possibly include moral judgement without expressing a POV? If
> lots
> of people think that a serial killer is evil, then why not just describe
> their views (eg., "describing Grubbins as a "wicked man", Judge Goodheart
> sentenced him to 25 years" or "In a Times poll, 72% of participants
> described
> him as the most evil man on the planet"), rather than endorsing them? It's
> just as effective, and NPOV.
>
> On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:17, Measure wrote:
> >I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has
> to
> > lack moral judgement as well.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:43:12AM -0400, Michael Turley wrote:
> And further, if we adopt Nazi ideas and tactics*, in doing so, we also
> adopt their morals.

Right on.  And that extends to vandalizing their wiki, too.

If they're violating our copyrights, folks should contact their ISP with
a DMCA takedown notice or something.  Putting up "Adolf Hitler on Wheels
was a gay Martian Jew" pages is just stooping to their level.

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


from_name: Phroziac

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Heh, and THEY are calling people subhuman.

On 8/25/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> --- Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/05, Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > > Nazis should be banned not just because they are a
> > > particularly nasty form of human virus, but because
> > > they will inevitably interfere with our goals.
> >
> > Nazis are individual human beings. A sentient person will not 'inevitably'
> > behave badly on Wikipedia because she belongs to a particular sect or
> > adheres to a particular ideology.
> >
> > And please choose your metaphors with more care. The idea of a human virus
> > is familiar and somewhat unpleasant.
> >
> > - - - - -
> > The purpose of National Socialism, according to Hitler, was to "maintain the
> > life of Germany." He called Germany a "corporate body," a "single organism"
> > that consisted of the German people as cells of this organism. The Jewish
> > people also constituted cells of the national organism. These cells,
> > however, made no contribution to the life of Germany. Rather, as bacteria,
> > viruses and parasites, they lived and fed off the body politic, draining the
> > nation of its energy and capacity to exist.
> > ...
> > On the evening of February 22, 1942, Hitler met with Himmler and a Danish SS
> > major and expounded his conviction that the "discovery of the Jewish virus"
> > was one of the "greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world." The
> > battle in which the Nazis were engaged, he said, was of the "same sort as
> > the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch." How many
> > diseases, he declared, have their origin in the Jewish virus! "We shall
> > regain our health only by eliminating the Jew." - http://tinyurl.com/cn5zg
> > - - - - -
> >
> > Regards,
> > Haukur
>
> Well said, Haukur.  Recognition of individuality, even in the face of
> extreme challenge, is the primary key to retaining the moral high
> ground over all Nazi and Nazi-like groups.
>
> And further, if we adopt Nazi ideas and tactics*, in doing so, we also
> adopt their morals.
>
> *(demonization of groups, pre-banning, and expelling them from our
> realm based on beliefs rather than behavior)
>
> --
> Michael Turley
> User:Unfocused
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: steve v

subject: [WikiEN-l] A minor point

body:
I (and others Im sure) greatly appreciate the focus of
your last reply.

Again, it was a close call, and I'm rather agreeable
to the thought that a short-term block was justified
at least to talk it over. But again, making a troll
feel singled out is to make a troll feel loved. And
the two camps seem to fall into either into
anti-Nazism or else a basic understanding of
established procedures in accordance with our founding
principles. Those holding the former have based their
arguments in some degree of pov and worse --all of
which are easy enough to link to some relativistic
switch. (mutatis mutandis)

Without wanting to appear crass or sarcastic,
"intrinsic and irreversible traits" seems like it
needs  policy writeup, according to how you see it
applying to action --perhaps you can accommodate us.
Ive myself been the target of various forms of
"dedicated fanaticism and corresponding expressions of
hate," and again, merely whacking one particular mole
is a failing strategy, wheras following the formal and
open resolution process is far less unsuccessful.

SV

--- El C <el.ceeh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Intrinsic and irreversible traits being the subject
> of persecution,
> when seen as a general observation on how this
> dynamic plays in
> inter-editorial interactions, is obviously subject
> to degrees of ...
> shall we say, dedicated fanaticism and corresponding
> expressions of
> hate. Focus; context. The irony, though, is that in
> some cases it is
> *that* clear, and this *was* such a case (i.e. the
> author of and
> targets mentioned on The Hit-List, its announcement,
> its tone and
> overtone, etc.) Bottom line: there was overt
> behaviour. Appearences
> aside, it is, at the very least, overlysimplistic
> and superficial to
> title the reaction to the Hit-List as "jovial." Who
> is trolling whom
> is not so elusive.
>
> El_C
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
IIRC, the person in question wasnt "banned" --they
were blocked indefinitely, which doesnt mean
permanently. Any sysop can go unblock him, if they
were so motivated (I think Ill be too busy, myself).
But FEI, only two cases would make such a block
permanent: A ruling by the esteemed but understaffed
Arbcom, or a ruling by the benefcient & dedicated
founder-at-large.

One belonging to the former should have a keen
understanding of the circumstances and reasons under
which the Arbcom was founded. IAC, what needs to
happen now is the DR process needs to catch up in
growth to scale with the community. "Bigger
government"? Government needs to be in proportion to
the society, otherwise we fall back to the rule by
decrees, which, irrespective of the particular case in
question should be taken as a sign of DR's failure in
any particular circumstance, and weakening of DR. In
this case, some seem to be suggesting that DR can't
handle certain types of trolls, which I think is
rather sophistic.

SV

--- JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The point is admins are not allowed to
> ban others based on
> >differences of POV, because that violates both the
> letter AND the
> >spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.
>
> Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why
> Amalekite was banned.
>
> Jay.

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


body:
my computer freezes up when I try to load the main page on Psudo. other
pages work ok.

On 8/25/05, Mark Wagner <seriegullwing at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've turned a spellcheck bot loose on Pseudodoxia. I figure it's
> politer to do that than to replace user pages with goatse, or move
> articles around at random.
>
> Sample results:
>
> Page title: Chordate
> Corrected taxon to tax-on
> Corrected Subphylum to Sublet
> Corrected Tunicates to Tunics
> Corrected Lancelets to Lancets
> Corrected Hagfishes to Garfishes
> Corrected Coelacanths to Volcanoes
> Corrected Urochordate to Crochet
> Corrected notochord to blotched
> Corrected Cephalochordates to Schoolchild's
> Spellcheck successful
>
> --
> Your friendly neighborhood spellbot
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Polish websites to block

body:
I checked most of them by my discussion page, or by some random edit
from the RC list:

http://encyklopedia.servis.pl/wiki/
http://www.eldamar.my.link.pl/encyklopedia/
http://www.wiki.brief-reklama.pl/
http://www.artemobili.com.pl/encyklopedia/
http://wiki.optymalizacja.com/wiki/
http://www.polsek.org.pl/Main_Page.pyw (all the links go to the Polish
Wikipedia, but anything you insert in the URL works)
http://www.ee.pw.edu.pl/~kochanor/wiki/ (not the Polish Wikipedia, but
other Polish projects)

--
Pozdrawiam,
Dariusz "Datrio" Siedlecki


from_name: Richard Rabinowitz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazis and Banning

body:
As a Jewish person, I don't like Naziism one bit. I do recognize that
Nazis are folks like you and me.  Nonetheless, my distaste for Naziism is
not the reason that I advocate keeping a close watch on Nazis for
Wikipedia. I advocate this because they have vowed to make POV edits to
Wikipedia, and such edits are contrary to Wikipedia rules. If a Nazi
should pop up, we should watch them closely and ban them when they start
fouling our stream of knowledge with biased, worthless tripe (if they do).


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
> I happen to feel nazis are subhumans themselves.

The statement "I happen to feel _____ are subhumans themselves"
reveals considerably more about the speaker than about the referent.

--
 Sean Barrett     | The magic words are squeamish ossifrage.
 sean at epoptic.com |


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
--- Rob <gamaliel8 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Nazis should be banned not just because they are a particularly
> nasty form of human virus

You also wrote earlier in this thread that:

> For the record, yes, I am in support of oppressing
> Nazis with every legal means at our disposal, and
> perhaps some illegal ones if we get really bored.

You should be aware that you're beginning to sound an awful lot like the very
people you oppose. Do not make any more comments of this nature in this forum.
We certainly wouldn't allow neo-Nazis to post such comments (mutatis mutandis).

> but because they will inevitably interfere with our goals.

I believe it is utterly wrong to bar people from Wikipedia because of what
views they hold, regardless of how unpopular or repellent those views are.
Moreover, I think it would hinder us in our goal of building a complete and
NPOV encyclopedia to do so.

-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


from_name: Arjen Wildemans

body:
Hello,

I recently added some namespaces to my wiki. After adding an article in one of
the new namespaces the corresponding row in recentchanges is linked to another
custum namespace (a talk namespace) and no supprise, when following that link I
get an empty page.

When I look in the cur table I find the correct id in the field cur_namespace.
In the table recentchanges I find a incorrect namespace id.

Anybody any idea?

Tnx,

Arjen Wildemans


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
>How is the demonization of any particular group
>encyclopedic? Or NPOV?

You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis?  They're just regular loveable
folk, like the rest of us.  They just happen to want to oppress and/or kill
Jews, Blacks, etc.  There's nothing demonic about that.  And don't forget
all the good they've done, and continute to do, for humanity.  Yes, there
was the small matter of world conflagration and mass genocide - but the
movement was young, and who can honestly say they didn't make mistakes when
they too were youthful?  Are we going to condemn them simply for being a bit
over-enthusiastic?

To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I say "look deep within yourself -
if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in you, not in them".

Wikilove,

Jay.


from_name: Guettarda

body:
My gut says "ban all Nazis" - as the grandson of a Nazi, as someone
whose relatives died fighting for a cause they believed in, I find it
especially abhorrent.  Jack is right, we can't ban people for their
beliefs.  At the same time, Linder's posts about Jay and other
Wikipedia editors are pretty close to threats, and I think that
off-project threats based on Wikipedia activities should be taken just
as seriously as on-project threats.  IMO, if you see Linder's comments
as menacing or as threatening, then he should be banned - but not for
his "white nationalist" views, but for implied threats.

Ian (Guettarda)

On 8/25/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> and they probably think you are a sub-human. So, the neutral thing to
> do is either a) ban you both, or b) ban nobody based on their POV,
> politics, or race. This IAR "I'll ban who I want to" stuff is
> untenable, however.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 8/25/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I happen to feel nazis are subhumans themselves.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] XML_RPC Remote PHP Code Injection Vulnerability

body:
Neil Harris wrote:
> Does this PHP XML_RPC implementation vulnerability affect MediaWiki at all?
>
> http://www.hardened-php.net/advisory_142005.66.html

MediaWiki does not use PEAR::XML_RPC or any of its relatives; thus no
stock MediaWiki installation is vulnerable to any problems in PEAR::XML_RPC.

The MWSearch extension does use the PEAR::XML_RPC _client_ (not the
server) code to send updates to the C#-based search server; that's a)
for use on an internal network and b) probably not used by anybody out
there except Wikimedia at this stage (it's in a somewhat experimental
state still).

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20050825/0b24fed4/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Over the line (not-sees)

body:
I dont think the last few comments have been very
helpful. Jay has yet to give Michael a straight answer
on the specific block issue.  Jays claim that the use
of an ancient ethnic name as provokational is really
very one-sided and has little substance, as is his
representation of that history. And Jack's personal
speculations about Jay's objectivity are flamebait at
best.

SV
" And let's also not forget..let's not forget...
Dude..that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for
uh, domestic, you know, within the city... That isn't
legal either."

--- Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:

> This discussion keeps reminding me of a photo I saw
> once that moved me
> alot (I can't seem to find it now). In it a black
> woman had thrown
> herself on top of a severely beaten KKK member in
> order to save him
> from an angry crowd. She had the moral highground.
> The newly appointed
> arbiter appears not to.

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
> Nazis should be banned not just because they are a
> particularly nasty form of human virus, but because
> they will inevitably interfere with our goals.

Nazis are individual human beings. A sentient person will not 'inevitably'
behave badly on Wikipedia because she belongs to a particular sect or
adheres to a particular ideology.

And please choose your metaphors with more care. The idea of a human virus
is familiar and somewhat unpleasant.

- - - - -
The purpose of National Socialism, according to Hitler, was to "maintain the
life of Germany." He called Germany a "corporate body," a "single organism"
that consisted of the German people as cells of this organism. The Jewish
people also constituted cells of the national organism. These cells,
however, made no contribution to the life of Germany. Rather, as bacteria,
viruses and parasites, they lived and fed off the body politic, draining the
nation of its energy and capacity to exist.
...
On the evening of February 22, 1942, Hitler met with Himmler and a Danish SS
major and expounded his conviction that the "discovery of the Jewish virus"
was one of the "greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world." The
battle in which the Nazis were engaged, he said, was of the "same sort as
the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch." How many
diseases, he declared, have their origin in the Jewish virus! "We shall
regain our health only by eliminating the Jew." - http://tinyurl.com/cn5zg
- - - - -

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jeff Kinz

subject:
[WikiEN-l] New Tool Suggestion,
	WAS: A cry to save the Asperger's Syndrome page

in_reply_to:
<BAY103-F350BD9C2371369F84F4ACEFFA90@phx.gbl>;
	from zscout370@hotmail.com on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:21:34AM
	+0000

body:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 01:21:34AM +0000, Zachary Harden wrote:
>
>
> >From: Ryan Norton <wxprojects at comcast.net> 22 Aug 2005 18:19:20 -0700
> >
> >>Ok, so I voted to have the FA status removed from the article.Also, if you
> >>payed attention,
> >
> >And I did realize this Z and I thank you for your contributions, but I have
> >to ask - why is this user not banned for 24 hours?  Is it because he claims
> >"injustice" etc. so admins fear getting involved?
>
> I just got involved. I was being asked to block the user before in IRC, but
> as you can tell, he always edits by using IP's, so the likely hood of the
> block working is zero to none, closer to none.  > Regards,
> Zachary Harden

Hmmm...   Suggestion:

When a page is in this type of "trouble", is it possible that one more
tool in the toolbox would help?

That would be a tag which means a page is only editable from a
logged-in Wiki-account.

All logged-in edits to the page would be processed as usual.

When an non-logged in user opened the edit tab on that page they would
get a message indicating that page's special status and a chance to
login or register.

The logic is straightforward. How much work this would be to add is
an unknown, as is how much of a load increase it would add to the
wiki-servers. I'm happy to contribute code if needed.

(Blindingly simplistic ascii flow chart starts here)

User clicks edit tab
      |
      |
      V
Is user logged in ? ---->  YES ---> allow edit
      |
     NO
      |
      V
Redirect to a special message page
      |
      |-----> user logs in ------>  allow edit
      |
      |-----> user registers ---->  allow edit
      |
      V
All others choices are the user using the normal wiki or browser
navigation features to go somewhere else. (BACK, Search etc..)

I'm new to this list, if this has been discussed before please
disregard.

--
speech recognition software was used in the composition of this e-mail
Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is>
>
>No-one in this discussion has
>said anything like that. The point is that it is not Wikipedia's job to
>demonize Nazis.

That was a strawman point, and exposed as such.  The issue was about banning
*one* user, who edited disruptively, targetted a list of Wikipedians for
attack, and said pretty nasty and vile things about them in particular, and
Jews in general.

>We should provide the facts on National Socialism - its
>tenets, practice and history - in a neutral encyclopedic way.

And this has been done, though I hardly see how it is relevant to the
discussion.

Jay.


body:
I happen to feel nazis are subhumans themselves.

On 8/25/05, Christopher Mahan <chris_mahan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> One does not have to be Jewish to abhor Nazi philosophy.
>
> One must be respectful of people regardless of the opinions they
> hold.
>
> One must be inpartial in the level of care  one exercises in the
> creation the Wikipedia. All users bring in POV, and all users help
> each other balance POV into NPOV.
>
>
>
>
> --- Richard Rabinowitz <rickyrab at eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > As a Jewish person, I don't like Naziism one bit. I do recognize
> > that
> > Nazis are folks like you and me.  Nonetheless, my distaste for
> > Naziism is
> > not the reason that I advocate keeping a close watch on Nazis for
> > Wikipedia. I advocate this because they have vowed to make POV
> > edits to
> > Wikipedia, and such edits are contrary to Wikipedia rules. If a
> > Nazi
> > should pop up, we should watch them closely and ban them when they
> > start
> > fouling our stream of knowledge with biased, worthless tripe (if
> > they do).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> Chris Mahan
> 818.943.1850 cell
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com
> chris.mahan at gmail.com
> http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Apparently you are so intent on seeing me as a gutter
dweller for daring to disagree with you that you can't
see an obvious joke for what it was. No need for your
implied threats, though I find it ironic that you'd
make them in the same post while you claim you find it
 "utterly wrong to bar people from Wikipedia because
of what views they hold."

This entire discussion (and the rest of these comments
are about this thread in general and not your post in
particular) has long passed the point of usefulness so
I'm going to try to limit my participation in it
unless someone refers to me as pathological again.
Apparently many of you find the profession of hatred
of Nazis offensive; what I find offensive is that so
many of you are willing to make other editors deal
with these Nazis in the name of your principles.
Terms like "rights" and "day in court" are
inapplicable.  This is not a court and not a democracy
and not a free speech forum.  In those areas, Nazis
should have the rights of anyone else.  This is an
encyclopedia.  You're here to make this an accurate,
NPOV encyclopedia, or you're in the way.  We just have
to decide how much crap you want other people to put
up with before we decide these people have wasted
enough of our time.

Gamaliel

Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk:

You should be aware that you're beginning to sound an
awful lot like the very
people you oppose. Do not make any more comments of
this nature in this forum.
We certainly wouldn't allow neo-Nazis to post such
comments (mutatis mutandis).

I believe it is utterly wrong to bar people from
Wikipedia because of what
views they hold, regardless of how unpopular or
repellent those views are.
Moreover, I think it would hinder us in our goal of
building a complete and
NPOV encyclopedia to do so.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Those apply to article content, not my entire life. I
didn't sign up for the First Church of Wikipedia.

steve v vertigosteve at yahoo.com:

How is the demonization of any particular group
encyclopedic? Or NPOV?

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>
>Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced,
>or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off
>topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on
>differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the
>spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.

Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.

Jay.


from_name: Michael Turley

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned.
>
> Jay.

I went back through the logs to try to discover why Amalekite was
banned, and I cannot find a reason <i>on Wikipedia</i> other than
statements that boil down to "I disagree with his POV" or "I don't
like his edits".  I haven't found anything to indicate that this
users' edits were in bad faith, even though I would revert or rephrase
every one that I've seen.

I've looked a little (but only a little) at the external Stormfront
site, and only saw roughly the equivalent of a "watchlist" of people
whose POVs are opposite this person's.

I suspect I'm not looking in the right places.

You seem to know better than most people in this discussion exactly
why Amalekite was banned.  Can you explain it fully for those of us
who don't know, or cannot find the reason?

Finally, on somewhat offtopic and mildly humorous note, I find this
block a lot more than just a little ironic: "13:55, 21 August 2005,
"Neutrality" blocked "POV destroyer" (infinite) (Inappropriate
username.)"

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


body:
Actually i'm not a jew, black, gay, etc, and I haven't vandalized the
nazipedia, so they probably didn't.

On 8/25/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com> wrote:
> and they probably think you are a sub-human. So, the neutral thing to
> do is either a) ban you both, or b) ban nobody based on their POV,
> politics, or race. This IAR "I'll ban who I want to" stuff is
> untenable, however.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
>
> On 8/25/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I happen to feel nazis are subhumans themselves.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
signature


subject: [WikiEN-l] Stop

body:
Ive made an offlist request to SlimVirgin to either
unblock or take it directly to the Arbcom, who may
apply a temp-block, if they like.

We can now all try to forget this thread ever
happened, --as Im sure everybody wants to do.

New topic: Something,anything else.

SV

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic.
Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've
had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking
it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their
views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can
take it into account.

Sarah


from_name: Delirium

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>What is this project about anyway? I can't access it right now for some reason.
>If it is, as I suspect, related to taxonomy or is focused on creating articles
>about living things, then that would be duplicated of two existing Wikimedia
>projects; Wikipedia (which aims to have articles on every genus on earth and
>articles on every living thing for which more than a stub can be written about)
>and the ill-conceived and poorly-executed fork of that at Wikispecies (a
>project that is nearly as embarrassing as the Sep11wiki).
>
>
Insofar as it would be a more limited taxonomical database, it wouldn't
even be eligible for copyright, at least in the United States
(collections of facts aren't copyrightable), making the licensing
discussion a bit academic.

-Mark


subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>
>I went back through the logs to try to discover why Amalekite was
>banned, and I cannot find a reason <i>on Wikipedia</i> other than
>statements that boil down to "I disagree with his POV" or "I don't
>like his edits".  I haven't found anything to indicate that this
>users' edits were in bad faith, even though I would revert or rephrase
>every one that I've seen.
>
>I've looked a little (but only a little) at the external Stormfront
>site, and only saw roughly the equivalent of a "watchlist" of people
>whose POVs are opposite this person's.
>
>I suspect I'm not looking in the right places.
>
>You seem to know better than most people in this discussion exactly
>why Amalekite was banned.  Can you explain it fully for those of us
>who don't know, or cannot find the reason?

Perhaps you can re-read my previous posting on the list, as well as the
postings of those who banned him; I don't see the point in repetition.

By the way, for those who be wondering where the name "Amalekite" comes
from, in the Bible, the nation of Amalek was the sworn enemy of the
Israelites.

Jay.


body:
>From: Measure <measure at gmail.com>
>
>my computer freezes up when I try to load the main page on Psudo. other
>pages work ok.

It has been heavily vandalized.

Jay.


from_name: James D. Forrester

subject: Wikispecies (was: Re: [Foundation-l] New project licensing)

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Daniel Mayer wrote:

> Wikipedia (which aims to have articles on every genus on earth and
> articles on every living thing for which more than a stub can be written about)
> and the ill-conceived and poorly-executed fork of that at Wikispecies (a
> project that is nearly as embarrassing as the Sep11wiki).

I disagree; Sep11wiki is merely useless, a set of Wikipedia-like
articles that are neither appropriate nor worth-while for an
encyclop?dia. Wikispecies, on the other hand, is actively damaging to
the activities of Wikipedia, being as it is an insider fork, taking away
contributors and putting back, well, nothing. I was very disappointed in
its creation, to say the least; I feel it was a ghastly mistake.

Yours sincerely,
- --
James D. Forrester
Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
E-Mail    : james at jdforrester.org
IM (MSN)  : jamesdforrester at hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDDbzckn3kUxZyJx0RAqOvAJ9ED13bFmuosvnkMctVbLzXG3sKqgCfe2mK
l68e75Q3NTCx/6fwyhNCj4w=
=Rrkh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you can re-read my previous posting on the list, as well as the
> postings of those who banned him; I don't see the point in repetition.

Again, I don't find anything to suport the ban in compliance with our
policies.

Even in re-reading, it appears we've banned someone solely for their
beliefs and philosophy; have I made an error?

Calvinball is fine if everyone wants to play, but I think this
discussion proves that there are a significant number of members who
would rather take the moral high ground and let this user nuke himself
with his actions instead of joining him in the cesspool of prejudice
and discrimination.

> By the way, for those who be wondering where the name "Amalekite" comes
> from, in the Bible, the nation of Amalek was the sworn enemy of the
> Israelites.
>
> Jay.

This is no surprise to me.  The Israelites were sworn enemies of the
Amalekites as well.

Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites!  Genocide,
pure and simple, and merciless.  Documented in 1 Samuel 15.  It was
Yahweh's test of Saul to see if he could follow distasteful
instructions to the letter, for he was later scolded and had the role
of King taken away from him for showing the slightest mercy.

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that
belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

..."He (Saul) took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his
people he totally destroyed with the sword"

..."And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal."

If the original ban was for the choice of user name, and the editor
permitted to come back with a different name, that would make sense,
if we also wouldn't allow a user name of "Israelite".  However, if we
decide to retroactively apply this standard, we should start with an
apology.

(Apologize to a Nazi?  WTF?  Well, the moral high ground does demand
an apology when you make a mistake that harms another.)

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: rickyrab at eden.rutgers.edu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
> The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article
> has
> a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV.

True... but the N doesn't stand for Nazi, either... keep that in mind.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
I thought you were making a reference to my statement
jokingly advocating illegal actions against Nazis,
since you quoted it and posted your comment directly
below it. I apologize for misinterpreting your
comment.

If you want to try to get me banned for "hate speech"
against Nazis, go ahead, I don't care. I have plenty
of unpleasant things to say about them, but I'd just
be violating [[WP:POINT]] to rattle them off. I find
the idea that it's offensive to hate Nazis so
mindboggling that I just don't know what to say
without degenerating into homilies about the Greatest
Generation and all that sort of thing.  Anyway, we
might as well let this die as it doesn't particularly
matter to me that you rank me down with the Nazis on
your moral hierarchy, because I'm able to sleep at
night by just not being a Nazi.

Gamaliel

Matt R matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk:
I certainly found your statements offensive, and it's
not clear that they were
a joke at all. They look very much like hate speech to me

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


from_name: Roth Philippe

subject: [Wikitech-l] Lien RSS "encyclopéde"

body:
Bonjour,

Nous utilisons MediaWiki 1.4.1 et 1.4.7.
Nous avons cr?? des liens RSS et, ? surprise, lorsque les titres des articles s'affichent sur une page web, le titre suivant appara?t:

Wiki - Nouvelles pages [fr]
Un article de Wiki, l'encyclop?de libre.
fr
MediaWiki 1.4.1
Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:14:07 GMT

ATTENTION: L'ENCYCLOPEDE LIBRE.
Il manque un "I", non?

Comment est-il possible de modifier cela? Quel fichier modifier?
Est-il possible aussi de modifier toute la phrase?

Merci d'avance et meilleures salutations.
PRoth


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
 > I don't believe that any one administrator is the gatekeeper for who
> remains blocked, which is why I haven't made a request to any one
> administrator to unblock the user.

Well, actually, that's how it normally works. Admins usually don't
undo blocks unless a clear error has been made.  Normally when we
disagree with a block, we discuss it with the blocking admin. My
objection in this case (apart from what Amalekite did by posting his
Wikipedia ethnic hit list, which I see as grounds for a block) was
that the unblocking admin didn't discuss it with Homeontherange, who
was the blocking admin. Now that I've reblocked, it would be
appreciated if people with concerns would discuss the block directly
with me or with Homeontherange.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>
>Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites!

Well, not completely, apparently; Haman, the descendant of Agag, appears to
have survived.

>If the original ban was for the choice of user name,

The ban obviously had nothing to do with username choice; however, the
editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in identifying with those who
attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is
targeted for genocide by them.  In either case, it is indicative of his
mindset.

Jay.


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
--- Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/25/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's a genealogy site. The main page says:
> "One of the main aims of the WikiTree Project is to provide a central
> place on the Internet for kin information about all people we know
> ever lived, automatically construct bloodline trees, and watch the
> gradual emergence of global family forest of humanity."

Neat - we have a project proposal for that called 'Wikipeople'.

see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipeople

A merger of the above proposal with Wikitree may eventually be in order. But an
NC license is a no-starter for me.

-- mav

____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs


subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>
>This discussion keeps reminding me of a photo I saw once that moved me
>alot (I can't seem to find it now). In it a black woman had thrown
>herself on top of a severely beaten KKK member in order to save him
>from an angry crowd. She had the moral highground. The newly appointed
>arbiter appears not to.

If you're referring to me, please desist from misrepresenting my position,
or from making tortuous, specious, captious, and casuistic analogies
regarding me.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
> >
> >Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites!
>
> Well, not completely, apparently; Haman, the descendant of Agag, appears to
> have survived.

Let's not split hairs over the Israeli genocide of Amalekites.

> >If the original ban was for the choice of user name,
>
> The ban obviously had nothing to do with username choice; however, the
> editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in identifying with those who
> attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is
> targeted for genocide by them.  In either case, it is indicative of his
> mindset.
>
> Jay.

Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites?  By being
attacked and killed down to the very last suckling infant by the order
of Yahweh?  I guess it's true then, that the victors write the history
books.  Being enemies is one thing; committing genocide is quite
another.  "Attempted to commit genocide" by being the victim of
genocide.  Wow.

If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed
his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset?  "Indicative of his mindset"
is not a good excuse for persecuting someone, which is what we've
continued to do by leaving the indefinite block in place, given that
no other policy than "IAR" supports the ban.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: <includeonly> and <noinclude>

body:
Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>
>>I wrote a feature at Wikimania and forgot to announce it outside that
>>audience. It's live now on Wikimedia websites. The feature is the
>>ability to control template inclusion by the use of <noinclude> and
>><includeonly> tags.
>
>
> The feature doesn't seem to work when the template is inserted using the
> subst: method. Should I report this as a bug?

No, you should report it as a feature request, if you think it's a good
idea.

-- Tim Starling


subject: [WikiEN-l] Over the line (not-sees)

body:
>From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
>
>Jay has yet to give Michael a straight answer
>on the specific block issue.

It baffles me as to why anyone would think I owe them an answer on that,
seeing as I had nothing to do with blocking the user.  However, if you're
interested in my viewpoint on the blocking, you can re-read my August 23,
2005 5:12:50 PM e-mail to this list.

>Jays claim that the use
>of an ancient ethnic name as provokational is really
>very one-sided and has little substance,

No doubt, since I never made that claim.  I merely pointed out the
background of the name, and why the user chose it.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>
>On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites?  etc.

Perhaps you can continue this discussion of your understanding of Biblical
history and theology on the Wikien-bible mail-list.

>If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed
>his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset?  "Indicative of his mindset"
>is not a good excuse for persecuting someone,

Please review the [[Straw man]] article.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, Measure <measure at gmail.com> wrote:
>  If you don't ever call anything evil, you also lose the power to present
> anything as "Good." I disagree that we should refain from taking a moral
> stance and let the facts just sort themselves out because of this.
>  For example, if I refuse to call a serial killer 'evil' and just write what
> he did, I also lose the ability to call the detecitive who caught him a
> 'good' person, as all I can do is present the facts. I would also
> technically lose the ability to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'.
>  I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to
> lack moral judgement as well.

Wikipedia is not a place for moral judgements.  We don't need the
power to present anything as "good" or call anything "evil".

In fact, we should <i>avoid</i> all temptation to present things as
"good" or "evil".

Making moral judgements is not the realm of encyclopedia writers.

Instead, we report the moral judgements of others in the world,
properly sourced and cited.

That is what NPOV is.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: Hey shithead

body:
On 8/25/05, Jtkiefer <jtkiefer at wordzen.net> wrote:
> One must wonder how this post got through to the mailing list especially
> considering that we've been told that A. Nony Mouse's posts are screened
> before being let through.
>
> -Jtkiefer

I'm sorry. Since none of the other list admins appear to be tending to
the moderation queue any more, I had a whole week's worth of spam to
go through (goodbye to an hour of my life). I wasn't sure of the
context of this email, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

~Mark Ryan


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Lien RSS "encyclopéde"

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Roth Philippe wrote:
> [snip]
>>ATTENTION: L'ENCYCLOPEDE LIBRE.
>>Il manque un "I", non?
>
> More significantly than the spelling, the software defaults shouldn't be
> claiming to be an encyclopedia, free or otherwise. :) Can you check if
> this is still present in 1.5rc3?

It was still around. I removed the 3 occurences of "encyclop?die" in
1.4, 1.5 and HEAD :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz - WP++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hashar
http://www.livejournal.com/community/wikitech/
IM: hashar at jabber.org  ICQ: 15325080


subject: [WikiEN-l] Over the line (not-sees)

body:
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>
>I wasn't speculating, I was making an observation.

Right.  "It's not a personal attack if it's true".  How many times have I
seen that on Wikipedia?

>I apologise if
>anyone felt it was flamebait, or overly personal.

Ah, the classic non-apology.  "I apologize if you were offended".  Not "I
apologize for doing something offensive".

>I felt it touched on
>a very important fact, the views on policy presented publically by a
>newly appointed arbiter.

Except for the fact that I have presented any views on policy.  And I'm done
feeding for today.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Over the line (not-sees)

body:
>From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
>Except for the fact that I have presented any views on policy.

Have *not* presented any views on policy.

Jay.


from_name: Ryan Norton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stop

body:
> New topic: Something,anything else.

Getting a raise

An act of kindness usually associated with a type of employment.
Getting a raise is considered after time has past between the employer
and employee; used as an incentive to determine the person(s) worth to
the company. Based in earlier history of capitalism, more often than
not the employer is a cheapskate or miser and will not bestow a raise
on said employee. These employers are bastards.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic.
> Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've
> had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking
> it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their
> views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can
> take it into account.
>
> Sarah

I don't believe that any one administrator is the gatekeeper for who
remains blocked, which is why I haven't made a request to any one
administrator to unblock the user.  I am NOT petitioning you to do so
now.

Instead, I was (and still am) hoping that an administrator would
decide for themselves that we need remain on the moral high ground,
and take this action of their own volition.  Because of the higher
trust granted to them, I was actually hoping an arbitrator would make
this moral stand and do so.

If you are willing, I would like a clear explanation of what policy
grounds this user was blocked indefinitely.  If it is "IAR", I hope
you will apologize for the block, if in fact someone removes it.  I
think this discussion is likely to continue as long as people don't
understand the reasoning for what appears to be preemptive action
against an editor.

If I am incorrect, and there is supporting policy other than
"Calvinball", I assure you that you'll have my apology, and five
properly sourced, cited, content contributing edits to any Wikipedia
articles of your choice as token of my sincerity.

It is not my intent to be disruptive, insulting, or otherwise
abrasive.  Wikipedia was founded on some great ideals.  I think that
this is a distinct and unique opportunity to show that those ideals
apply in all situations, and that the moral high ground is worth
claiming, even as we proceed to produce an NPOV final product.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
> >
> >On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites?  etc.
>
> Perhaps you can continue this discussion of your understanding of Biblical
> history and theology on the Wikien-bible mail-list.

It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users'
name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user.  Now
that your point has struck your own buttocks, naturally you wish to
discard it.  Fine.  It is not a bannable offense to choose an
exterminated nation as a user name.  That's all I was explaining.

> >If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed
> >his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset?  "Indicative of his mindset"
> >is not a good excuse for persecuting someone,
>
> Please review the [[Straw man]] article.
>
> Jay.

Again, you were the one to make an assumption of Amalekite's mindset
part of your point.  It is not a straw man argument to then discuss
how we should proceed if your assumption is correct.  You established
the tangent, not I.  I believe you should review the straw man article
more carefully yourself.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


from_name: Snowspinner

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Vis a vis Godwin's law, this discussion should have been over before
it started.

-Snowspinner

On Aug 25, 2005, at 3:28 PM, <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
<slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic.
> Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've
> had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking
> it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their
> views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can
> take it into account.
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Hi, Jay.

Even as parody this wasn't very effective. No-one in this discussion has
said anything like that. The point is that it is not Wikipedia's job to
demonize Nazis. We should provide the facts on National Socialism - its
tenets, practice and history - in a neutral encyclopedic way. Using this
information our readers can decide for themselves whether it's demonic or
not.

Regards,
Haukur

> You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis?
> They're just regular loveable folk, like
> the rest of us.  They just happen to want
> to oppress and/or kill Jews, Blacks, etc.
> There's nothing demonic about that. And
> don't forget all the good they've done,
> and continute to do, for humanity.  Yes,
> there was the small matter of world
> conflagration and mass genocide - but the
> movement was young, and who can honestly
> say they didn't make mistakes when they
> too were youthful?  Are we going to condemn
> them simply for being a bit over-enthusiastic?
>
> To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I
> say "look deep within yourself
> -
> if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in
> you, not in them".
>
> Wikilove,
>
> Jay.


from_name: JAY JG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users'
>name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user.

Your inference was not implied by my statement, which was merely explaining
why the user chose the name, for those who were not familiar with it.

>Now
>that your point has struck your own buttocks,

A point I never made cannot strike my own buttocks.

>It is not a bannable offense to choose an
>exterminated nation as a user name.  That's all I was explaining.

Read [[Straw man]] again.  And I'm done feeding you for today as well.

Jay.


from_name: Mike Morrell

subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?

body:
Dear "Foundation" members,

I'm a very recent newbie so I apologize in advance for asking questions that
are already answered on Wikipedia. My only excuse is that I've not been able
to find them. With a whole 24 hours of Wikipedia experience under my belt,
I'm interested in the following points:

1. My first impression is that the priorities for adding or improving
Wikipedia content are mainly "contributor-driven". I'm not sure whether this
is correct. The statistics pages mainly show the growth in Wikipedia users
and the content added during the past months & years. Do we also have some
statistics showing things like hits per page and also "non-hits"? In other
words, content that non-contributing users would like to have found but
didn't? Have we carried out surveys amongst non-Wikipedians to find out what
they (potentially) would be interested in finding out at Wikipedia? I guess
I'm looking for some kind of handle to distinguish between what contributors
would like to see improved and what non-contributors would like to see
improved.

2. Is there any kind of policy or marketing group that adresses the issues
in point 1.

Thanks in advance for your time and effort in answering this e-mail.
Hopefully you can point me to the right pages and/or lists.

Idaho 2000


subject: [Foundation-l] What? Why? Who?


from_name: Neil Harris

body:
Does this PHP XML_RPC implementation vulnerability affect MediaWiki at all?

http://www.hardened-php.net/advisory_142005.66.html

-- Neil


from_name: Haukur Þorgeirsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
> If you don't ever call anything evil, you
> also lose the power to present anything
> as "Good."

Agreed.

> For example, if I refuse to call a serial
> killer 'evil' and just write what he did,
> I also lose the ability to call the detecitive
> who caught him a 'good' person, as all I can
> do is present the facts.

Exactly.

> I would also technically lose the ability
> to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'.

You're getting the hang of this :)

> I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but
> that doesn mean that it has to lack moral
> judgement as well.

I think we should refrain from explicit moral
judgment as much as we can. Here's an example
of an edit I made in that spirit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margrethe_II_of_Denmark&diff=15143407&oldid=15142093

Queen Margrethe is a chain smoker. Whether that
is a good thing or a bad thing or neither is none
of Wikipedia's business.

Regards,
Haukur


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
> >On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users'
> >name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user.
>
> Your inference was not implied by my statement, which was merely explaining
> why the user chose the name, for those who were not familiar with it.

Yeah, sure, that's why you said "indicative of his mindset".

You wrote: "the editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in
identifying with those who
attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is
targeted for genocide by them.  In either case, it is indicative of
his mindset."

Now you say "indicative of his mindset" has nothing to do with the
topic at hand?  Then why did you mention it?

> >Now
> >that your point has struck your own buttocks,
>
> A point I never made cannot strike my own buttocks.

Not if you deny it ever happened, it cannot.

> >It is not a bannable offense to choose an
> >exterminated nation as a user name.  That's all I was explaining.
>
> Read [[Straw man]] again.  And I'm done feeding you for today as well.
>
> Jay.

If you re-read everything I've written on this subject carefully, I
think you'll find that addressing me as if I were a troll is a very
hostile and unfair thing to do.

I've taken this subject seriously the entire time, and every single
comment has been with the intent of improving Wikipedia.

If you consider that trolling, then I think your judgement is poorer
than the average editor.

--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
> That was a strawman point, and exposed as such.

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. I stand corrected. Interpreting the
message of parodies is probably not one of my strong points. I honestly
thought you were talking about the demonization of nazis, rather than the
banning of User:Amalekite.

> The issue was about banning *one* user, who
> edited disruptively, targetted a list of Wikipedians
> for attack, and said pretty nasty and vile things
> about them in particular, and Jews in general.

He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off
Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no
off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia
users. Among the reasons that have been mentioned is that we can rarely be
completely certain that a Wikipedia user is identical to a person posting
on another site. Another reason is that the content of such sites can
change quickly, making review of decisions based on it difficult. A third
reason is that it can be a daunting task to read through off site forums
for evidence in such a case, especially if the forum in question contains
material which many Wikipedians are likely to find distasteful.

I'm personally 99% certain that User:Amalekite is the same person as the
Frank Sinatra poster on the Stormfront forums (rather than just pretending
to be the same person). That poster did compile a list of Wikipedians -
but not for attack, as far as I can see. His own words are:

"Monitor the activities of the first 5 on the list (watch their user
contribution pages and their user talk pages) and you'll have a good idea
of what the entire gang is up to."

Nevertheless I can understand that people might be uncomfortable with
having their user page on such a list in that particular forum.

The Frank Sinatra poster certainly did say nasty things about the
Wikipedians on the top of his list - calling them "ruthless and vicious"
among other things. He also made some more general remarks on Jews but I
don't feel that's relevant.

Regards,
Haukur


from_name: Jake Waskett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
How can you possibly include moral judgement without expressing a POV? If lots
of people think that a serial killer is evil, then why not just describe
their views (eg., "describing Grubbins as a "wicked man", Judge Goodheart
sentenced him to 25 years" or "In a Times poll, 72% of participants described
him as the most evil man on the planet"), rather than endorsing them? It's
just as effective, and NPOV.

On Thursday 25 August 2005 17:17, Measure wrote:
>I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to
> lack moral judgement as well.


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Nazis and Banning

body:
Sounds great, and I don't think anyone at anytime suggested that we
would do anything less than try to keep an eye on them, and prosecute
them via policy if they violate our rules. The problem is the people
who call them a "human virus" and vow to IAR, whether they be
wiki-policy or even external laws, in order to persecute this
unpopular monority. Thats the kind of mess that shows just how little
people have learned from the past, and how much danger NPOV is in from
wikipedias petty tyrants.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 8/25/05, Richard Rabinowitz <rickyrab at eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> As a Jewish person, I don't like Naziism one bit. I do recognize that
> Nazis are folks like you and me.  Nonetheless, my distaste for Naziism is
> not the reason that I advocate keeping a close watch on Nazis for
> Wikipedia. I advocate this because they have vowed to make POV edits to
> Wikipedia, and such edits are contrary to Wikipedia rules. If a Nazi
> should pop up, we should watch them closely and ban them when they start
> fouling our stream of knowledge with biased, worthless tripe (if they do).
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Spamschutz

subject: [Wikitech-l] {{CURRENTTIME}} ? How to make +2 ?

body:
Hi,

ist {{CURRENTTIME}} the only variable to work with? My local settings are
up to date but if we make a Date in a site we becam ?TC and noch UTC+2.
Only in last changes are the time correct.

If we sa "Welcome, its {{CURRENTTIME}} at
{{CURRENTDAYNAME}},{{CURRENTDAY}}...." we lost 2 hours :(

Regards


from_name: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki software localisation -- Pootle

body:
This appears to be just for projects that use gettext, openoffice and
mozilla formats for their interface messages, we use a custom system,
could this be used for that? (I only gave it a superficial look)


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: Lisa Thurston <lisathurston at gmail.com>
> >Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry
> >guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave
> >Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him?
>
> Lisa, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough:  I didn't block him.
> SlimVirgin has already said if you disagree with the block please write to
> SlimVirgin or Homeontherange ...

Lisa, please drop me a note in private if you have concerns about
this. Just to make clear once again: he was blocked for posting the
list of editors on the other website. The relevant part of the
blocking policy is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Personal_attacks_which_place_users_in_danger

I feel that Amalekite exposed the people on his "hit list" to
potential religious or ethnic persecution outside Wikipedia by posting
on an anti-Semitic website a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews.
Some of the user names allow those people to be traced using only
online information. For me, it was enough to warrant a block. This
kind of behavior has nothing to do with writing an encycylopedia.

I probably won't respond again to this topic, though I'd be happy to
hear from anyone offlist. I just wanted to link to the relevant part
of the blocking policy for those of you who still have concerns.

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Nobody ever asked you to like anybody, nor did anybody say Nazi's were
good. Rather people have suggested that we give some attention to
foundation issues, blocking policy, controversial blocks policy, and
most importantly NPOV.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >From: steve v <vertigosteve at yahoo.com>
> >
> >How is the demonization of any particular group
> >encyclopedic? Or NPOV?
>
> You're right, how dare we demonize Nazis?  They're just regular loveable
> folk, like the rest of us.  They just happen to want to oppress and/or kill
> Jews, Blacks, etc.  There's nothing demonic about that.  And don't forget
> all the good they've done, and continute to do, for humanity.  Yes, there
> was the small matter of world conflagration and mass genocide - but the
> movement was young, and who can honestly say they didn't make mistakes when
> they too were youthful?  Are we going to condemn them simply for being a bit
> over-enthusiastic?
>
> To anyone who says "I don't like Nazis", I say "look deep within yourself -
> if you can't like Nazis, that's a flaw in you, not in them".
>
> Wikilove,
>
> Jay.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Matt R

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
--- Haukur ?orgeirsson <haukurth at hi.is> wrote:
> > The issue was about banning *one* user, who
> > edited disruptively, targetted a list of Wikipedians
> > for attack, and said pretty nasty and vile things
> > about them in particular, and Jews in general.
>
> He did not edit disruptively.

Quite, I agree with Haukur. I don't see that he edited disruptively or called
for Wikipedia or its users to be attacked. He made some very obnoxious
comments, but we don't normally block people for their behaviour outside of the
project.

I propose we lift the ban, as it A) wasn't made in accordance with our policy;
and B) there is no consensus for the ban.

If, as people have claimed, he is here only to disrupt the project, then this
will become immediately apparent from his edits, and he can be swiftly dealt
with at that point.

-- Matt

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto
Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


body:
and they probably think you are a sub-human. So, the neutral thing to
do is either a) ban you both, or b) ban nobody based on their POV,
politics, or race. This IAR "I'll ban who I want to" stuff is
untenable, however.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 8/25/05, Phroziac <phroziac at gmail.com> wrote:
> I happen to feel nazis are subhumans themselves.


from_name: Arkady Rose

body:
JAY JG wrote:

>> From: Measure <measure at gmail.com>
>>
>> my computer freezes up when I try to load the main page on Psudo. other
>> pages work ok.
>
>
> It has been heavily vandalized.

And how! I don't read Hebrew or Latin; does anyone have a (rough) idea
what it says?

There's an awful lot of it....

-a


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Many articles contain '''cited''' POV, but when they are unbalanced,
or express POV in the narrative, they violate NPOV. Were getting off
topic here. The point is admins are not allowed to ban others based on
differences of POV, because that violates both the letter AND the
spirit of the blocking policy, as well as NPOV.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 8/25/05, Measure <measure at gmail.com> wrote:
> The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article has
> a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV.


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Haukur ?orgeirsson wrote:

> It has become clear that there is no consensus for the ban of
>
>User:Amalekite. At least five people (Michael, Jack, Matt, Lisa and
>myself) have expressed their opposition to it in no uncertain terms.
>Several other people have expressed some reservations or ambivalence
>towards the action. In my opinion summary banning of an account is only
>appropriate in the case of undisputed vandals and trolls. If it turns out
>that a summarily banned user is not, in fact, an undisputed vandal/troll
>the ban on him or her should be lifted.
>
>Regards,
>Haukur
>
I said this privately and I will say it publicly. I support the
permanent block on Amalekite. He can edit Nazipedia all he wants now. In
case we all forgot, Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not
providing a platform for every nutbag with an agenda to spill his
nonsense all over us. At risk of extending this thread beyond its
already unnaturally long life, I'll leave it at that.

- Ryan


subject:
[WikiEN-l] admins:emergency copy of blocked user's demand for a
	deletion vote in return for bullying

body:
On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 05:59  PM, geni wrote:

> I am correct in thinking you are [[User:Tern]]?
>

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027715.html


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
>From: Lisa Thurston <lisathurston at gmail.com>
>
>Jay, if this user was to write on the Stormfront noticeboard "Sorry
>guys I've changed my mind. Let's edit our own encyclopaedia and leave
>Wikipedia alone." would you unblock him?

Lisa, perhaps I didn't make this clear enough:  I didn't block him.
SlimVirgin has already said if you disagree with the block please write to
SlimVirgin or Homeontherange, because they are the blocking admins; this, in
fact, is the protocol if you disagree with a block.  I'm sure they'd welcome
an e-mail from you.

Jay.


from_name: Angela

subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing

body:
On 8/25/05, Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> What is this project about anyway? I can't access it right now for some reason.
> If it is, as I suspect, related to taxonomy or is focused on creating articles
> about living things

It's a genealogy site. The main page says:
"One of the main aims of the WikiTree Project is to provide a central
place on the Internet for kin information about all people we know
ever lived, automatically construct bloodline trees, and watch the
gradual emergence of global family forest of humanity."

Angela.


subject: [Foundation-l] New project licensing


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
On 8/25/05, Matt R <matt_crypto at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree this would better be done openly (particularly as the block itself
> wasn't done with a great deal of transparency); perhaps it would be better on a
> Wikipedia page (WP:AN?) than flooding the mailing list.
>
The block was done with a great deal of transparency, and was
discussed on this list, which most blocks aren't.

I don't want to have one-to-one conversations in order to discuss
things secretly; my concern is only that people were getting fed up
with it on this list. I'd certainly support discussing it on a talk
page; perhaps [[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy]]?

Sarah


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

body:
Hey, come on, let's not make this difference of opinion personal.

Jake

On Thursday 25 August 2005 19:44, Jack Lynch wrote:
> This discussion keeps reminding me of a photo I saw once that moved me
> alot (I can't seem to find it now). In it a black woman had thrown
> herself on top of a severely beaten KKK member in order to save him
> from an angry crowd. She had the moral highground. The newly appointed
> arbiter appears not to.
>
> Jack (Sam Spade)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Sabine Cretella

body:
Where can I find the "user interface" as is to be translated?

I know there was a link, but I cannot find it anymore. I'd like to try
some filters on it so I can tell you which one can work.

As for Pootle - as for conicidence during the last days I was having a
look at this project since I am trying to understand how the .po files
are created and if these can be translated easily with OmegaT or better:
how the real ressource files of the softwares are to find out if OmegaT
(an OpenSource CAT-Tool I would like to be used also for wiki contents
translation) can be used for that as is or if we need further parsers.

Ciao, Sabine

?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:

>This appears to be just for projects that use gettext, openoffice and
>mozilla formats for their interface messages, we use a custom system,
>could this be used for that? (I only gave it a superficial look)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>

___________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger: chiamate gratuite in tutto il mondo
http://it.beta.messenger.yahoo.com