body:
On 5/23/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Either that or a separate mailing list for these activities. I don't know
> why experienced editors let themselves get dragged into irrelevant and
> pointless debates and name-calling on silly issues. This is a mailing list
> about Wikipedia, not about conspiracy theories or their refutations. These
> long threads are really lowering the signal-noise ratio. Trolls will be
> trolls, but those of us who are NOT trolls don't need to compete at the same
> level. Let's put an end to this unhygienic practice.

Agreed. wikien-OT would be handy. Then, instead of saying "stop this
conversation" (which can sound like favoring one side over the other,
depending on who's "winning") you can just say "take it to wikien-OT".

(OT = off topic).

Steve


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
>
> A person who in good faith publishes material where a reasonable fair
> use argument can be made is not breaking the law.  Other
> defenses which would exculpate him also exzist.

Mmmm, I don't think anybody's going to be sued for uploading a user
photograph onto Wikipedia where they know the photographer and the
photographer doesn't mind. It's not worth arguing over.

My point in all this is that I uploaded a photograph of myself a while back
and some mean-minded admin had it deleted because the license was
inadequate. He gloated over the fact that I couldn't do anything about it.
What I want to know for when I'm able to upload it again, is what licence to
use so that I can keep my happy snap on my user page.

Pete, seeking information


subject: [WikiEN-l] Historical debates

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

> Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> >Some of WP's greatest debates have been anything but lame, but yes,
> >there would be a bit of overlap.
> >
> >I love [[WP:LAME]]. We can all learn something about not seeing the
> >tree for the leaves.
> >
> >Pete, occasional contributor to the lameness
> >
> Or make a movie about it called "The Silence of the Lame". ;-)

Heh. Lame title. I like it!

But an insightful one all the same - Wikipedia's lamest battles take place
in silence, broken only by the tip-tap of keybards, the vindictive click of
mouse buttons, and the slow, steady drip of bile.

--Pete, adding colour


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

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

> >We should learn about these and other tragedies and say
> "NEVER AGAIN!"
> >
> I visited Dresden last summer.

I was thinking about Dresden this morning. I was skyping with a German
friend and he mentioned an upcoming visit to Dresden, which he described as
being a city full of history. I couldn't speak for a few moments because I
was thinking of what I knew of Dresden's history.

"The firebombing consisted of by-then standard methods; dropping large
amounts of high-explosive to blow off the roofs to expose the timbers within
buildings, followed by incendiary devices (fire-sticks) to ignite them and
then more high-explosives to hamper the efforts of the fire services. This
eventually created a self-sustaining firestorm with temperatures peaking at
over 1500?C. After the area caught fire, the air above the bombed area
became extremely hot and rose rapidly. Cold air then rushed in at ground
level from the outside and people were sucked into the fire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II


from_name: geni

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index
	missing?

body:
On 5/23/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:

> It's damn useful to be able to filter down contributions to a particular
> namespace.  For example, if I know a user has repeatedly violated
> copyrights, I can check all Image:-related edits without needing to wave
> through edits to the other namespaces, to ensure that all his copyvios
> are tracked down and destroyed.

The upload log would probably help with that one.

--
geni


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits

body:
On 5/23/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> On May 23, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> >>> What is an "Islamist" exactly?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. I'm using the term to
> >> denote fundamentalists who support things like terrorism and
> >> destroying the Jews.
> >>
> > That seems like a very narrow meaning for this word.
>
> It is pretty narrow. In general discourse, "Islamist" refers to a
> rather sophisticated political ideology. But I'm using the term
> provisionally.
>
> --
> Philip L. Welch

Mm. I disagree. The majority of usages of "Islamist" I see out in the
mainstream media and by actual people seem to boil down "a Muslim
terrorist who hates America, its allies, and its ideals", and only
rarely and generally in sophisticated, if not downright academic,
discourse, does it refer to the ideology descended in large part from
Salafi thinkers and others such as Sayyid Qutb.

~maru


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
I don't agree with you that it's only in North America where profanities
are so widespread.

>From what I know of the U.S through American T.V shows, music, movies
etc. it seems profanities are used in a more routine manner in the U.S
than in other countries.

These words
are a part of the language like any other.  They can be most effective
when used

Although they are useful when used to indicate emphasis, these words
reflect on the (lack of) refinity of their user.


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer

body:
On 5/23/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> because it is difficult to present answers to the long list of
> accusations.
> It is only the user page that i am asking to be unblocked. At present it
> is
> set to protected, so i can't edit my own user page.
>

Your user page isn't protected as far as I know: you can't edit it because
you are blocked. Blocked users can only edit their talk pages.

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] In which Snowspinner pwns WR.

body:
On 5/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Seed of story:
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1116
>
> What happened next:
> http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52175.html
> http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52385.html
>
> Story at BoingBoing:
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u_florida_cops_ask_f.html
>
> What's the proper gamer term for when you mount a fiendishly clever
> attack on someone and get handed your arse, on a plate, with garnish?

Unfuckingbelievable pretty much sums this up.

Garion


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On 23/05/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

> It's an insult to sensible Muslims worldwide to characterize him as a
> typical Muslim Wikipedian.
>

Just because he goes againt what you believe in doesn't mean he's not
sensible. It's not fitting for you to pass comment on that. Why not
ask a few Muslim users for their opinion?


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
On 5/23/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your informative and conciliatory outline.  In the light
> of this an indefinite block is a premature proposal.  Saladin1970's
> response to this will be important.  If he shows any significant
> tendencies toward understanding what is going on they should be
> profusely rewarded.  The breach of specific Wikipedia rules can be
> forgiven if the broad underlying are grasped.

I feel this way as well. So far his behavior on the mailing list has been
quite disappointing however. I'm not holding out much hope for the
possibility of reform, but he deserves his fair shot anyway.

Ryan


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against feeding the trolls

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

>> Either that or a separate mailing list for these activities. I don't
>> know why experienced editors let themselves get dragged into
>> irrelevant and pointless debates and name-calling on silly issues.
>> This is a mailing list about Wikipedia, not about conspiracy theories
>> or their refutations. These long threads are really lowering the
>> signal-noise ratio. Trolls will be trolls, but those of us who are
>> NOT trolls don't need to compete at the same level. Let's put an end
>> to this unhygienic practice.
>
> I agree with you completely.  I am recommending that Peter McKay be
> removed from the list immediately, and Anthony DiPierro put on notice
> that not much more will be tolerated.

Can we ban the trolls themselves while we're at it? Please? :)

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy

body:
On 5/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jimbo wrote:
>
> >Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we
> >automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
>
>
> Can I propose it then?
>
> 1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
> software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it.
> 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.

IMHO, this is something that would be very well combined with (my conception
of) stable versions, allowing anons to contribute material that is not
"published", and allowing established editors to publish material that does
not appear to be libellous.

Or at least establishing some effective channel whereby anons can still
contribute to such articles.

Do we perhaps also need to create the subcategory [[Category:Living persons
liable to sue]]?

Steve


body:
On 5/23/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is the point of per-namespace contribution feature on live site?
> What are the applications of it?

It would be good to encourage RfA voters to use it. They could then sample a
couple of contriubtions of the candidate from each of the relevant spaces,
rather than just going "OMFG 70% userspace edits!! '''oppose''' ~~~~"

Steve


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
G'day Dan,

> I have a fair use/copyright question for you all.
>
> This template:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Safe_Sex
>
> Contains this image:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Condoms_by_Morrhigan.jpg

<snip stockxchng warning/>

The problem, AIUI, is that many people assume that any image on
stockxchng is automatically under a licence compatible with ours,
however, the photographers themselves may not agree.  In the case of
this particular image, however, the licence displayed *by the
photographer* is: "There are no usage restrictions for this photo."

That said, a template that says "This user supports and encourages the
practice of safe sex." is pretty damn useless.  WP:NOT a webhost, people.

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

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 22/05/2006


body:
As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I
semiprotect and what I don't.  But I must say, that rigor aside, I
very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as
a matter of course.  Accountability skyrockets when someone has to
register for an account to edit.

k

On 5/23/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >Do we perhaps also need to create the subcategory [[Category:Living persons
> >liable to sue]]?
>
> Unfortunately in English law it is potentially actionable to call
> someone litigious.
> --
> David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
> david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
> dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Drini drini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
On 5/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/21/06, SCZenz <sczenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds
> to
> > read them and evaluate the claims they make.  Isn't that bad?
>
> There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day.  I
> think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands
> of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it
> would be nice if there were no bad calls.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

An Jimbo has said as well:

"Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging that
it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the
defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there behind
them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "

Admin actions are reversable anyway


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
On 5/23/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not aware as to how the usefulness of an edit can be judged.

You agree that vandalism is not useful? By contrast, cleaning vandalism is
useful. Uploading a featured article from scratch is very useful. Adding an
informative, NPOV sentence is useful.

Does that help?

Steve


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cydes indefinite blocks

body:
Indefinite blocks need to be very well founded. I have done a few and
always wonder if I have been hasty.

Fred

On May 23, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:

> Hello,
>
> please take a look at
>
> [[WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem]]
>
> Azate files a checkuser request, where he mostly complains
> about comments from Mokotok and Light&Truth. Even before
> the alleged "Sock-puppets" get checkuser tested, Cyde blocks
> Regulerdem for "exhausting community patience" and the
> other editors for being his "Sock-puppets".
>
> Please take a look at Regulerdems contributions as you
> will clearly see, that he didn't utter a single rude word
> instead he is exceptionally friendly.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rgulerdem
>
> best regards
> --
> Raphael
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
>
> On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> > My point in all this is that I uploaded a photograph of
> myself a while
> > back and some mean-minded admin had it deleted because the
> license was
> > inadequate. He gloated over the fact that I couldn't do
> anything about it.
> > What I want to know for when I'm able to upload it again,
> is what licence
> > to
> > use so that I can keep my happy snap on my user page.
>
> So you're angry and want to take it out on another user.

No.

> I'm glad we've come
> to the real basis of this conversation.

The real basis of this conversation is that I want some solid practical
advice that will prevent the same thing happening again. Not just to me, but
to other editors.

While it's been an interesting conversation, the best advice has been from
Jimbo via [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimmy_Wales.jpg]]

1. Get someone else to take a photograph of you.
2. Have that person upload the image and release it into the public domain.

Now I can do that, but if the person who took the photograph is unknown then
the situation becomes problematical. I think we are all agreed that it is no
great sin and unlikely to result in a lawsuit, but it still seems to be a
grey area depending on AGF, and as we know, there are users who do not AGF.

--Peter in Canberra


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> Nevertheless, Snowspinner got harassed by the fuzz and WR didn't. If you
> judge real life by whoever thinks up the coolest reply after thinking about
> it for a while, then you spend too much time in front of your computer.
>
> Personally, I can take any amount of clever dick criticism coming over email
> or the web, but get a couple of policefolk sitting down at my kitchen table
> and hamfistedly investigating my life, and it's no longer fun.

Indeed, the grilled by the cops thing, not good, and you'd have a
point if it ended there.

But for an English/media studies grad student and a writer, getting
yourself and your work featured in the media as an example of that
sort of ridiculous situation... not bad for exposure, no?

I think Phil wins this one.

-Kat

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage  |  G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Very idealistic Jimbo.

Fred

On May 23, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Will we keep one Serbia and Montenogro chapter or will the current
>> chapter separate in two ?
>>
>
> Or, as I would advocate, have one chapter for Serbia, Montenegro,
> Croatia, and Bosnia... if at all possible.
>
>
> --
> ######################################################################
> #
> #    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free
> Knowledge #
> #    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free
> world         #
> ######################################################################
> #
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
On 5/23/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have neglected the second part of my message- the one that deals
> with indefinite blocks placed without benefit of Arbitration. Do you
> have any comments to make about the latter?
>

Well, I'm not generally a fan of indefinite blocks, but then, I'm not
usually the one who has to deal with the consequences either.

Steve


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cydes indefinite blocks

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

Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> please take a look at
>
> [[WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem]]
>
> Azate files a checkuser request, where he mostly complains
> about comments from Mokotok and Light&Truth. Even before
> the alleged "Sock-puppets" get checkuser tested, Cyde blocks
> Regulerdem for "exhausting community patience" and the
> other editors for being his "Sock-puppets".

This is quite simply a lie.  I blocked him AFTER the checkuser evidence.
 A simple examination of the logs will confirm this.

> Please take a look at Regulerdems contributions as you
> will clearly see, that he didn't utter a single rude word
> instead he is exceptionally friendly.

You're right, Rgulerdem was being "friendly" ... because all of his
traditional malice and attacks were being carried out by his two
sockpuppets.

The bottom line is, Rgulerdem has very thoroughly exhausted the
community's patience.  He was indef-blocked before and was unblocked
only on very strict conditions regarding his behavior.  Guess what,
running two sockpuppets to make tendentious edits very flagrantly
violates those conditions allowing for the reinstatement of his
indefinite block.  He's already worn out his one chance of reforming -
this time it's permanent.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEc4LKvCEYTv+mBWcRAsPwAKCYJ1WDfXzS9ieT6Q3foKebDZZNhQCeKUPA
MQtQ4tSzf5YCu2fe7iWy7As=
=vJVI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: sannse

subject: [Foundation-l] Re :  Contact in Thailand - @Jimbo

body:
Traroth wrote:
> sannse a ?crit :
>
>
>> "Would not"? or "did not threaten to"?  Because if you just mean the
>> first, then I'm afraid I have to say the actions taken in removing
>> Waerth as steward and press contact were 100% correct.
>
>> --sannse
>
>
> Please stop to insinuate and say somethinh concrete. Your message seems to me like FUD.
>
> Traroth

There was no insinuation.  Just a request for clarification and an opinion.

--sannse


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Hello
>
> Will we keep one Serbia and Montenogro chapter or will the current
> chapter separate in two ?

Or, as I would advocate, have one chapter for Serbia, Montenegro,
Croatia, and Bosnia... if at all possible.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] saladin request to have user page unblocked

body:
well, it seems that there is no end to the indefinate bans. And any
discussions on my case are to be stifled out (user page blocked)

slimline (the original person to request jaygy ban me) has just UNILATERY
revoked tom harrisons 1 week ban, and placed me on indefinate ban, with the
usual long list. The additional reason given is sock puppetry , as i have
logged on to wikipedia - without using my saladin, to discuss the ban with
the various administrators involved.

My request is to have my user page unblocked, as i was going to use it to
put my case for this week ban, and once my week ban is finished on the 26th
. If there is no consenus to have me banned indefinately it should be
revoked

Now the wikipedia guideline for sock puppetry are

Jimbo Wales has said:

    There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered
uncool unless you have a good reason.
    I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they
are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate
an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from
public scrutiny.[1] (2003)

here are the reasons sock puppetry is not allowed
Voting

Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar
discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion.
Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more
support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any
election, or using more than one account in a discussion at polls and
surveys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for
adminship. Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used in this
manner.
[edit]

Deception and impersonation

In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes
of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position.
This kind of behavior is disruptive and unnecessary for any potentially
legitimate use of sock puppets. In particular, accounts that are used to
maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently.
[edit]

Circumventing policy

Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for
each person's edits. Similarly, using a second account for policy violations
will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account.

Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate
block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this
manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the
ban

**********
So the only one applicable is the last "Users who are banned from editing or
temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to
circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to
restart, and may further lengthen the ban"

I would suggest i wasn't circumventing the ban, as it was only used to
discuss my case with administrators.  And even then it means ban restart or
a lengthening of the ban.
(again i don't see any indefinate ban guidelines)

***********

>From: "Prasad J" <prasad59 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 22:32:56 +0530
>
>Sure.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview


subject: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer

body:
The events that led up to my ban are as follows

I added a section to the zionist page on the three oaths.
It was reverted.
My collegue, put it back,
it was reverted,
my collegue put it back,
it was reverted
It was reported to tom harrison and he placed a 3rr ban on me.
Then jaygy revoked tom harrisons 24 hour ban and placed an indefinate ban on
me.
i requested unblock.
Ryan Delaney, reverted it to 1 week so that consensus could be gained to ban
me indefinately or remove the ban.

I would request that my user page is unblocked so that i can put my case
against the reasons for the ban, as it is quite difficult to do so on the
emailing list. such as proving there was no copyright violations, proving
there was no personal attacks, proving there where useful posts according to
NPOV, not own work etc, and finally to address the horrid and hateful
accusations by welch that i am an antisemite.

>From: "Prasad J" <prasad59 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 22:32:56 +0530
>
>Sure.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


body:
Actually I must admit that I have been involved in off-topic
"debates", at times bordering on trolling. Sorry for any inconvenience
caused, I forgot that these e-mails are sent to everyone on the
mailing-list including those not involved in the arguement.


subject: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer

body:
because it is difficult to present answers to the long list of accusations.
It is only the user page that i am asking to be unblocked. At present it is
set to protected, so i can't edit my own user page.

>From: Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:20:34 -0400
>
>On 5/23/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I would request that my user page is unblocked so that i can put my case
> > against the reasons for the ban, as it is quite difficult to do so on
>the
> > emailing list. such as proving there was no copyright violations,
>proving
> > there was no personal attacks, proving there where useful posts
>according to
> > NPOV, not own work etc, and finally to address the horrid and hateful
> > accusations by welch that i am an antisemite.
>
>You seem to have no problem posting here, nor have you refrained from
>addressing these topics.  Why should you be unblocked on this basis?
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


body:
On 5/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I
> > semiprotect and what I don't.  But I must say, that rigor aside, I
> > very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as
> > a matter of course.  Accountability skyrockets when someone has to
> > register for an account to edit.
>
>
>
> Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days to
> do it?
>
> What proportion of Wikipedia is living people articles?
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I'll tell you when interest in editing Wikipedia really plummets:
when its subject could sue you over potentially libelous content
inserted by someone else.

k


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 5/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Seed of story:
> http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1116
>
> What happened next:
> http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52175.html
> http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52385.html
>
> Story at BoingBoing:
> http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u_florida_cops_ask_f.html
>
> What's the proper gamer term for when you mount a fiendishly clever
> attack on someone and get handed your arse, on a plate, with garnish?

Sure, but this was bad for Phil.

Let us be under no illusion.  Trolls must be given no quarter.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
I support the indefinite block of Saladin1970. He has made no useful
edits,

I'm not aware as to how the usefulness of an edit can be judged. Can
you be more elaborate on this? Perhaps provide a link to his
Contributions page?

This much is,
as far as I can tell, undisputed by anyone except the blocked user
himself.

I don't dispute this block, but if there was no Arbitration or
Community consensus (as can be determined from an RfC or a message on
Administrators' Noticeboard or any other medium on the English
Wikipedia) I feel this block (or any other block made in such a
fashion) should not be an indefinite one. I would suggest that Abu be
unblocked on the condition that he changes his behaviour, and (if
necessary) be put on probationary mentorship.


body:
Clarify one thing Abu, have you been blocked for a week or
indefinitely? And if it is the latter, was there any Arbitration,
RfC,discussion on Administrators' Noticeboard or any other means of
Community consensus (evidence of which is present on Wikipedia, not
just on the mailing list) involved?


body:
If whoever is set as moderator on this list would like to kick this
banned user off for trolling, you have my full support.

Peter Mackay wrote:
>> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Theresa Knott
>
>> On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Sure, but this was bad for Phil.
>>> Yeah, that was my impression. I'd say WR is one up on this one.
>> No WR look like complete twats over this.
>
> WR isn't as homongenous as all that. Some of them are wacko to begin with.
>
> Nevertheless, Snowspinner got harassed by the fuzz and WR didn't. If you
> judge real life by whoever thinks up the coolest reply after thinking about
> it for a while, then you spend too much time in front of your computer.
>
> Personally, I can take any amount of clever dick criticism coming over email
> or the web, but get a couple of policefolk sitting down at my kitchen table
> and hamfistedly investigating my life, and it's no longer fun.
>
>> Can't say
>>> that I'll lose any sleep over Snowspinner being grilled by
>> the cops,
>>> though. Look at his behaviour to other editors suspected of
>>> wikicrimes.
>> Let's see he blocks them from editing a website?
>
> That, too.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
Molu wrote:
> Either that or a separate mailing list for these activities. I don't
> know why experienced editors let themselves get dragged into
> irrelevant and pointless debates and name-calling on silly issues.
> This is a mailing list about Wikipedia, not about conspiracy theories
> or their refutations. These long threads are really lowering the
> signal-noise ratio. Trolls will be trolls, but those of us who are
> NOT trolls don't need to compete at the same level. Let's put an end
> to this unhygienic practice.

I agree with you completely.  I am recommending that Peter McKay be
removed from the list immediately, and Anthony DiPierro put on notice
that not much more will be tolerated.

--Jimbo


subject: [WikiEN-l] request for my talk page to be put to semi protected.

body:
On 5/23/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi , so can i get my user talk page back so i can put my side of the
> story.

I unprotected your user talk page. I don't expect that to last long.

and is it still the case that my ban will be lifted on the 26th if there is
> no consensus on banning me indefinately??
>

SlimVirgin wheel warred with me to revert the block, but I'm not fighting
back, as ridiculous as it is to claim that you're community banned given the
controversy surrounding it. If you want to get unblocked you'll have to find
someone else.

Ryan


from_name: jayjg

body:
On 5/23/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> SlimVirgin wheel warred with me to revert the block,

Oh, the irony!

Jay.


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

references:
<20060519104947.77445.qmail@web32106.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<89BE84E0-94A7-4F97-94A2-5CE14F27DAA5@ctelco.net>	<b8ceeef70605190522m140deefq2bde713a48e34371@mail.gmail.com>	<446DE9B1.7010200@student.canberra.edu.au>	<446DEE09.1050400@gmail.com>	<e4m4jh$mjg$1@sea.gmane.org>	<446E97BE.2010804@wikipedia.org>	<e4nqmj$vqd$1@sea.gmane.org>	<4470BDFA.8080309@crimsonblade.net>
	<e4qvjr$r7t$1@sea.gmane.org> <44725489.5090101@crimsonblade.net>

body:
I hope you don't mind, that I've put it back on-list.

Michelle wrote:
>
> Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>
>> Yeah sure. "Disruption" is the loophole for administrators,
>> who can't find any other policy, which backs their action.
>>
>>
> Or maybe its so we don't have to make a ridiculously long all inclusive
> list?
> Or perhaps so we don't have to deal with people trying to use one thing
> not being on the list, or not being properly worded as a loophole to
> scream they've been blocked unfairly?

Have you ever thought about what wording would be necessary to
include my case?

> Maybe its because we expect people to use common sense, and rules
> lawyering doesn't get you anywhere?
>
>> Can you elaborate in which way the two times I've moved
>> the cartoons behind a link in five days, disrupted the normal
>> functioning of Wikipedia to warrant a 7 day block?
>>
>>
> You were deliberately disrupting and article and the consensus derived
> for the material therein.  Even after people tried to speak with you
> about it, you blindly followed your opinion.

I've never "blindly followed my opinion". Instead I've been
responsive to all discussions and (contrary to some free speech
extremist admins) clearly showed my willingness to make compromises.
Please take a look at:
[[Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display]]

> The fact that you still refuse to see that anything in your behavior
> might have been contrary to the spirit of the Wikipedia community and
> goals further supports the blocks necessity.

In my humble opinion the stubborness of administrators lead to many
blocks of editors, who fell victim to the J-P cartoon display
dispute. I wonder how anything like that should be in the spirit of
the Wikipedia community? Is this how the "community" works? Blocking
editors, whom administrators disagree with, so the rest can write
their single-sided view on the cartoon controversy(!)?

It is truely tragicomic, that the very same free speech extremists,
who blocked those editors for removing the cartoons, removed an
article, where I have documented those cases, and threatend me
with an indefinite block, should I recreate that article in any
fashion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims

>> I wonder, whether you are familiar with the [[Wikipedia:No binding
>> decisions]] policy. There is no reason why a 3 month old poll,
>> which gets ignored by about 10 editors/week (if the article is not
>> protected as it seems to be necessary most of the time), should
>> be regarded as binding.
>>
>>
> Quite.  The rule you cite is about using common sense; something decided
> at one time won't always necessarily be the best thing for the project.
> Just because a small group of vocal people comes along and tries to
> circumvent a consensus also doesn't mean it suddenly gets tossed out.
> You could always hold another poll or discussion to see if consensus has
> changed, but given the overwhelming consensus the first time and the
> reactions since, I highly doubt that is the case.

I wonder who ever got the idea to hold a poll about a MINORITY ISSUE.
Minorities of any society will never ever be protected by any voting.
It's the fundamental rules ("constitution"), which should protect
them from advocacy of religious hatred or incitement to hostility.
Fortunately Wikipedia has such a "constitution":

WP:NPA
"Do not make personal attacks *anywhere* in Wikipedia."
[...]
"Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member
of a purported cult."

Wikiquette
"Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what
would happen if they insulted your religion."

Blocking policy
"*Inserting* material that may be defamatory" is considered disruption
and may result in a block

>> "There are people who have good sense. There are idiots.
>> A consensus of idiots does not override good sense.
>> Wikipedia is not a democracy." (Jimbo Wales)
>>
>> I wouldn't use those words btw, but I agree with them "in spirit".
>>
> Ah, and I would have used precisely the same quote to define my position.
>

I wonder, how you manage to embrace a "consensus of idiots"
in your position.

--
Raphael


subject: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer

body:
hi Ryan, it is my talk page, (sorry not my user page), that i wish to make
my case on. It is fully protected, so i unable to put my case.

>From: "Ryan Delaney" <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:13:25 -0400
>
>On 5/23/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > because it is difficult to present answers to the long list of
> > accusations.
> > It is only the user page that i am asking to be unblocked. At present it
> > is
> > set to protected, so i can't edit my own user page.
> >
>
>Your user page isn't protected as far as I know: you can't edit it because
>you are blocked. Blocked users can only edit their talk pages.
>
>Ryan
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] to Platonides: hide and show at Lombard wikipedia

body:
Well, it works for me, now. I don't see changes to it since your post
(yesterday). I guess the 'non-working' is your browser cache. Have you been
using Ctrl+F5 to force-refresh the (cached) page?

"Claudi Meneghin"  wrote:
Dear Platonides,
  thank you for exactly quoting the code: I have copied and pasted.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid it still doesn't work, even clearing the cache
of  the browser. Please, have a look again at:
  http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Directori_comprimit2
  and
  http://lmo.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js
  Maybe there is a bug elsewhere?
  Many thanks.
  Sincerely yours,

  Claudi


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Historical debates

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Reagle
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 16 May 2006 06:43, Molu wrote:
> >>> What do you think?
> >> There would be some redundancies with:
> >>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever
> >
> > Some of WP's greatest debates have been anything but lame, but yes,
> > there would be a bit of overlap.
> >
> > I love [[WP:LAME]]. We can all learn something about not seeing the
> > tree for the leaves.
> >
> > Pete, occasional contributor to the lameness
>
> I suppose that includes questioning the copyright status of
> an image based on your personal dislike of the uploader?

Nope. When I saw that image I was thinking of my own smiling photograph,
ripped off my used page by someone making bad faith assumptions about
copyright status.

Pete, ever cheerful


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> <snip>
> > I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But maybe
> > you're banned from that too.
>
> For that matter, why are you (Skyring) still on this mailing list?

Because I enjoy discussing Wikipedia issues in a friendly and civil manner.

Pete


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
> (Wikipedia email)
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of
> Anthony DiPierro
> >>
> >> On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> >>> And the ultimate reason why I want this made plain is
> that when I'm
> >>> eventually able to edit my own user page again, I want to
> upload a
> >>> picture of my smiling face, and I don't want the same mean-minded
> >>> individual who pulled it off last time to do it again, citing the
> >>> exact same quibble with ownership.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the photograph I want to upload.
> >>> http://static.flickr.com/35/123137544_d055e4bebf.jpg Me in
> >> Hiroshima
> >>> with cherry blossoms, taken by my friend Cari.
> >>>
> >> Do you still speak to Cari?  If so, just get Cari to agree to
> >> release the photo under a free license.  But please don't
> >> pick {{GFDL}}.
> >
> > She's an angel. She'll happily release the photograph if I ask. My
> > problem is that I can't upload it.
>
> If you tag it with a relevant CC license on Flickr, the FlickrLickr
> (sic) project will catch it.

Mmmm, yes, but it isn't particularly notable - judging by the guidelines it
would be seen as just another happy snap and not uploaded by whoever was
screening the images.

Pete, grateful for the suggestion


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> For god's sake, can you guys give this all a rest? There are lots of places
> where you can argue about this stuff, but this isn't one of them.
>

Listmods?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060523/610f8f1a/attachment.pgp


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:
> Very idealistic Jimbo.

Well, remember, I have been there, and I have met Serbian and Croatian
Wikipedians.  They are... like Wikipedians everywhere.  Friendly people,
interested in sharing knowledge. :-)

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cydes indefinite blocks

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

Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> Ben McIlwain wrote:
>> Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> please take a look at
>>>
>>> [[WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem]]
>>>
>>> Azate files a checkuser request, where he mostly complains
>>> about comments from Mokotok and Light&Truth. Even before
>>> the alleged "Sock-puppets" get checkuser tested, Cyde blocks
>>> Regulerdem for "exhausting community patience" and the
>>> other editors for being his "Sock-puppets".
>> This is quite simply a lie.  I blocked him AFTER the checkuser evidence.
>>  A simple examination of the logs will confirm this.
>>
>
> I still cannot see the checkuser evidence anywhere on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem
>
> Would you please tell me where I can find it.

Sorry, looks like I misread.  Uggghh.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEc69avCEYTv+mBWcRAoqXAJ9ruMRmd1qm1PjDpyEMbYnAcjNf8gCfQCrI
zqdFCaEq5LwSdf8b+gr8Ghc=
=Tdfc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Yesterday, I tried to forward three times a mail with attachment from
> the partnership queue on OTRS. Nothing happened (no mail was received).
>
> Do you guys observe the same issue (no forward when done with
> attachment) ?

No one answered this, so I'll reply with an empirical test.
I'm replying twice, once with and once without an attachment.
This reply has an attachment.
-------------- next part --------------
This
is
an
attachment.


subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

body:
Anthere wrote:
> Yesterday, I tried to forward three times a mail with attachment from
> the partnership queue on OTRS. Nothing happened (no mail was received).
>
> Do you guys observe the same issue (no forward when done with
> attachment) ?

No one answered this, so I'll reply with an empirical test.
I'm replying twice, once with and once without an attachment.
This reply does not have an attachment.


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
You have neglected the second part of my message- the one that deals
with indefinite blocks placed without benefit of Arbitration. Do you
have any comments to make about the latter?


from_name: David Boothroyd

body:
"Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> writes:
>
>Do we perhaps also need to create the subcategory [[Category:Living persons
>liable to sue]]?

Unfortunately in English law it is potentially actionable to call
someone litigious.
--
David Boothroyd - http://www.election.demon.co.uk
david at election.demon.co.uk (home)
dboothroyd at westminster.gov.uk (council)


body:
hi , so can i get my user talk page back so i can put my side of the story.

and is it still the case that my ban will be lifted on the 26th if there is
no consensus on banning me indefinately??

thanks saladin

>From: "Ryan Delaney" <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 15:58:59 -0400
>
>On 5/23/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your informative and conciliatory outline.  In the light
> > of this an indefinite block is a premature proposal.  Saladin1970's
> > response to this will be important.  If he shows any significant
> > tendencies toward understanding what is going on they should be
> > profusely rewarded.  The breach of specific Wikipedia rules can be
> > forgiven if the broad underlying are grasped.
>
>
>I feel this way as well. So far his behavior on the mailing list has been
>quite disappointing however. I'm not holding out much hope for the
>possibility of reform, but he deserves his fair shot anyway.
>
>Ryan
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
would you consider this useful jesse?

13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m population of
muslims and famous chinese muslims)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history

p.s here is the wikipedia policy on amaturism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Amateurs

"Many ignorant people who think they know stuff will riddle articles with
errors and serious omissions."

    In all honesty, Wikipedia has a fair bit of well-meaning, but
ill-informed and amateurish work. In fact, we welcome it ? an amateurish
article to be improved later is better than nothing. In any case, when new
hands (particularly, experts on the subjects in question) arrive and go to
work, the amateurish work is usually straightened out. Really egregious
errors are fixed quickly by the thousands of people who read Wikipedia every
day. In general, the worse the error, the faster it will be noticed and
fixed. As Linus' Law states, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."
The editor base of Wikipedia is large enough that errors are usually small.

>From: Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:20:42 -0700
>
>On May 23, 2006, at 2:00 PM, BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> > When you say "no useful edits," does that mean that you are "able to
> > provide evidence of your accusations?" It seems to be that Saladin1970
> > definitely has made useful contribution(s):
>
>I can't comment on the 2nd link you gave, but this one at least...
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> > title=Turkic_peoples&diff=53987242&oldid=53921254.
>This one is already addressed *directly* below, and links to a quite
>long, and apparently well-referenced article on the subject:
>[[Xiongnu]].  While I, personally can't comment on the good faith or
>lack of such in the edit, it was, in fact, not useful where it was put,
>and was redundant (as best as I can tell) in the article where it
>should have been put.
>
>Jesse Weinstein
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 23/05/06, David Boothroyd <david at election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >Do we perhaps also need to create the subcategory [[Category:Living persons
> >liable to sue]]?
>
> Unfortunately in English law it is potentially actionable to call
> someone litigious.

To be fair, in English law it's potentially actionable to sneeze, if
you pick the wrong moment.

(Past - now obsolete - court precedents have held that it is libellous
to say that a man was a Catholic and attended mass, or that he was
German, though more recent precedents have held that it is not de
facto libellous to state that he shared a bed with another man.
Imputing unchastity in a woman might still trip you up, though)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Theresa Knott

body:
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> > Sure, but this was bad for Phil.
>
> Yeah, that was my impression. I'd say WR is one up on this one.

No WR look like complete twats over this.

Theresa

Can't say
> that I'll lose any sleep over Snowspinner being grilled by the cops, though.
> Look at his behaviour to other editors suspected of wikicrimes.

Let's see he blocks them from editing a website?

Theresa

>
> Pete, bastion of truth and justice
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 2:48 PM, abu hamza wrote:
> would you consider this useful jesse?
>
> 13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m
> population of muslims and famous chinese muslims)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history

Er - that edit does not seem to have been made by the account
Saladin1970. I'm not sure what I am supposed to make of this, except
for further evidence of a lack of good edits. (if the only good edit
that can be pointed out was not made by the account in question,
then....)

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body: Sure.


body:
> > No WR look like complete twats over this.
>
> WR isn't as homongenous as all that. Some of them are wacko to begin with.

That's true.

> Nevertheless, Snowspinner got harassed by the fuzz and WR didn't.

That's also true, if the press picks up on this story though, who
knows. Phil could do very well out of this.

> Personally, I can take any amount of clever dick criticism coming over email
> or the web, but get a couple of policefolk sitting down at my kitchen table
> and hamfistedly investigating my life, and it's no longer fun.

Short lived though. Uncormfotable while they are there, certainly but
warm and fuzzy when you get the support of your univesity professors.

>
> > Can't say
> > > that I'll lose any sleep over Snowspinner being grilled by
> > the cops,
> > > though. Look at his behaviour to other editors suspected of
> > > wikicrimes.
> >
> > Let's see he blocks them from editing a website?
>
> That, too.

Has he ever accused them of being murderers to thier universities?

Theresa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Cydes indefinite blocks

body:
Hello,

please take a look at

[[WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem]]

Azate files a checkuser request, where he mostly complains
about comments from Mokotok and Light&Truth. Even before
the alleged "Sock-puppets" get checkuser tested, Cyde blocks
Regulerdem for "exhausting community patience" and the
other editors for being his "Sock-puppets".

Please take a look at Regulerdems contributions as you
will clearly see, that he didn't utter a single rude word
instead he is exceptionally friendly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rgulerdem

best regards
--
Raphael


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] prasad j - your answer

body:
> I added a section to the zionist page on the three oaths.
> It was reverted.
> My collegue, put it back,
> it was reverted,
> my collegue put it back,
> it was reverted

Is you and your collegue using the same wiki-account? That is, AFAIK,
a no-no. Maybe you can get your collegue to "testify" on the list? It
can't make your situation any worse and should prove the allegations
of sock puppetry wrong.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Phil Sandifer

body:
By Jimbo's request, Skyring has departed this mailing list.

Best,
Phil Sandifer
sandifer at english.ufl.edu      AIM: Snowspinner

You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a
boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

 >


body:
.
>
> I don't. The person who thinks there's no such thing as bad publicity hasn't
> been around long enough. IMHO the average reader will see Snowspinner as
> foolish to post such stuff on the interweb and the police just doing their
> job.

I doubt that.

>This is the way that news reports on police-investigated internet
> fiction go, because that's a better story then the other way round. Everyone
> likes to see an egghead brought down, especially in Florida.

Not in England they don't.  We take civil liberties surprisingly
seriously here. I strongly suspect America is the same. Anyway we'll
have to wait and see. Eitherway the folks at WP have been made to look
petty, vindicitive and stupid.

Theresa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
G'day Rob,

> There's been some discussion on a development mailing list regarding
> the namespace selector in contributions pages, which is expensive due
> to our schema arrangement.

D'oh.

> One of our database administrators has posed this question, which I
> thought I'd forward to this list, since it's full of users.

====
> From: Domas Mituzas <midom.lists at gmail.com>
> Date: 23-May-2006 11:28
> Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index missing?
> To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l at wikimedia.org>
<snip/>
> What is the point of per-namespace contribution feature on live site?
> What are the applications of it?
====

It's damn useful to be able to filter down contributions to a particular
namespace.  For example, if I know a user has repeatedly violated
copyrights, I can check all Image:-related edits without needing to wave
through edits to the other namespaces, to ensure that all his copyvios
are tracked down and destroyed.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
> I support the indefinite block of Saladin1970. He has made no useful
> edits, and has committed copyvios, violated NOR, violated the 3RR,
> and has shown a significantly biased editing pattern. This much is,
> as far as I can tell, undisputed by anyone except the blocked user
> himself.

When you say "no useful edits," does that mean that you are "able to
provide evidence of your accusations?" It seems to be that Saladin1970
definitely has made useful contribution(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=53825534&oldid=53796551

It's a shame it was reverted,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkic_peoples&diff=53987242&oldid=53921254.

And then there is also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spanish_Inquisition&diff=prev&oldid=53337338

Which may not in and of itself be useful, but certainly contain enough
raw data to turn it into something useful. So it is NOT undisputed
that Saladin1970 has made no useful contributions. You simply don't
treat editors that tries to be useful to the project in the way
Saladin1970 has been treated.

--
mvh Bj?rn


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Hello

Will we keep one Serbia and Montenogro chapter or will the current
chapter separate in two ?

Ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


body:
> > Not in England they don't.  We take civil liberties
> > surprisingly seriously here. I strongly suspect America is
> > the same. Anyway we'll have to wait and see. Eitherway the
> > folks at WP have been made to look petty, vindicitive and stupid.
>
> Glad to see such refreshing honesty from you.

LOL My dislexia strikes again. (That should read WR not WP)

Theresa


from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection

body:
I submit that this is a terrible standard for WIkipedia to aim for, and the day Wikipedia starts doing that is the day Wikipedia as we know it has died a horrible death. When the government of PRC censors content critical of them, they say those content were banned because they are "not in the public interest".

  IMO, none of the two criterias you mention are good criterias for inclusion in WIkipedia. Wikipedia does not report the Truth?, only the NPOV. As for public interest, let the public decide what is in their interest, wikipedia is not the appointed moral guardian of the society (and in case Jimbo received that appointment letter I hope he has burned it).

  Molu

    On Wed, 24 May 2006 13:40:28 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:

  >I submit that this is a good standard for Wikipedia to aim for (even if
>we don't need to). If something is not true *and* in the public
>interest to know, we should not be saying it about anyone, in particular
>living people. That's not a legal decision, it's an editorial (and, if
>you like, moral) one. We should be displaying more discretion than
>simply "oh, it's true, chuck it in". Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate
>collection of facts.

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

---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make  PC-to-phone calls as low as 1?/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
On 5/23/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Will we keep one Serbia and Montenogro chapter or will the current
> chapter separate in two ?

They're probably going to have to be called Wikimedia Serbia and
change the name accordingly. There are legal procedures to go through
before this is effective, so it might take a little time.

As far as I know, the chapters is composed of Serbians only at this time.

Best

Delphine
Chair Chapters Committee


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] my week ban - which is now an indefinate ban again

body:
On May 23, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Prasad J wrote:

> Would the blocking Administrator please put this issue on WP:ANI so
> that we can get some Community consensus?

Um, that's what the listserv is for.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Fwd: Sort order in Thai Wikipedia]

body:
Forwarding this to wikitech-l, since it's probably more relevant there.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Sort order in Thai Wikipedia
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:03:13 -0500
From: [LiM] Manop <manop-LYoGGuqGVYgAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>
Reply-To: manop-LYoGGuqGVYgAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org,
wikipedia-l-T31ubCBy5U6GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc

Hello,

I'm wondering where I can find how to fix the sort order in Thai Wikipedia.
The problem is that, in Thai language, words starting with a vowel alphabet
need to use the second alphabet (consonant alphabet) as the sort key but the
Mediawiki always use the first alphabets sorting by its unicode.

I searched some and found out that someone already asked this question in
bugzilla.wikimedia.org (http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=164)
(#32, Oct 05). And also the related one is already mentioned in unicode
collation algorithm for Thai/Lao (
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr10/  in #3.1.3 Rearrangement). And
also I found someone talking about LC_COLLATE in English WP for sorting
specific alphabet order (but I really don't know about this).

Thank you for any answer.

Regards,
Manop

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


body:
G'day geni,

> On 5/23/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> It's damn useful to be able to filter down contributions to a particular
>> namespace.  For example, if I know a user has repeatedly violated
>> copyrights, I can check all Image:-related edits without needing to wave
>> through edits to the other namespaces, to ensure that all his copyvios
>> are tracked down and destroyed.
>
> The upload log would probably help with that one.

Good point.  I had not considered that.

Okay ... suppose you have a good-hearted but bannibly misguided user
repeatedly replacing {{nosource}} with {{fairuse}} ... or removing
{{db|}} from abusive userboxen ... or creating exotic category
structures and throwing articles into disarray ... or ...

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


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-05-24

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

Running test Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled... FAILED!
Running test Language converter: output gets cut off unexpectedly (bug 5757)... FAILED!
Running test HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, closed tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!
Running test HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)... FAILED!

Passed 313 of 322 tests (97.2%) FAILED!


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] OTRS bug ?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Well that came through, try a nastier attachment like an exe or a zip.

Our mailing lists strip most attachments (some simpler text ones are allowed
through). If you're just testing forwarding please forward to your own address
rather than at the list.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060524/a6877d17/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 5/23/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed.  This should serve as a good object lesson to anybody who
> tries to bring up the whole "Wikipedia Review is a legitimate
> criticism site" business again.

I joined in about November last year, and it took me about ten minutes
to disprove that theory.

Of course I stayed around for a while because of the guilty pleasure
of baiting the trolls.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 5/23/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As someone who regularly polices RFP, I am pretty strict on what I
> semiprotect and what I don't.  But I must say, that rigor aside, I
> very much like the idea of semiprotecting living people's articles as
> a matter of course.  Accountability skyrockets when someone has to
> register for an account to edit.

Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days to
do it?

What proportion of Wikipedia is living people articles?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
On 5/24/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging
> that
> it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the
> defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there
> behind
> them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
>
> Admin actions are reversable anyway

To save others the trouble of pointing it out, there is always the risk of
losing "deleted" stuff in a server crash (they're apparently not backed up),
and apparently at least once in the past "deleted" stuff has been
deliberately purged to save space.

No idea of the validiity of these arguments.

Steve


from_name: Delirium

body:
David Gerard wrote:
> Can I propose it then?
>
> 1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
> software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it.
> 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
>

This rests on the assumption that living people are uniquely
problematic.  I disagree.  It is true that incorrect (especially
libelous) information about a living person generally will cause more
harm than the same about a dead person.  However, there are many
articles in which incorrect information will cause much more harm than
incorrect information in most of our living-person articles will (most
of the latter are obscure and rarely, if ever, actually read).

For example:
-- Articles on nations
-- Articles on ethnicities
-- Articles on religions
-- Articles on controversial topics in history
-- Medicine-related articles

Do you really think libel about some obscure living person is worse
than, say, incorrect information in [[suicide]], [[cocaine]], or
[[Basque country]], so much so that it's worth taking special measures
for the category of living people that aren't taken for any other
category of article?

-Mark


body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> I submit that this is a good standard for Wikipedia to aim for (even if
> we don't need to).  If something is not true *and* in the public
> interest to know, we should not be saying it about anyone, in particular
> living people.  That's not a legal decision, it's an editorial (and, if
> you like, moral) one.  We should be displaying more discretion than
> simply "oh, it's true, chuck it in".  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate
> collection of facts.
>

I'd agree, but only if you have a pretty broad view of "public interest"
(possibly broader than that in UK law; I'm not an expert on UK libel
law).  I do agree it doesn't make sense to publish all information, even
if true, about every random person in the world.  However, I also don't
think something should have to rise to a particularly high level to be
worth mentioning; facts of less consequence than those disclosed in,
say, the Pentagon Papers are useful to have in an encyclopedia.  In
general, we should provide to the public verifiable (and sourced) facts
about any subject they may potentially be looking for information on;
not act as a nanny deciding whether, in our subjective opinions, they
should know one fact but are better off not knowing another.

-Mark


from_name: abu hamza

body:
I have put the issues surrounding the ban on my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Saladin1970

I would ask administrators to review it.

any administrators who can suggest a way forward, then please let me know
thanks  saladin

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject: [WikiEN-l] Cydes indefinite blocks

body:
Ben McIlwain wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> please take a look at
>>
>> [[WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem]]
>>
>> Azate files a checkuser request, where he mostly complains
>> about comments from Mokotok and Light&Truth. Even before
>> the alleged "Sock-puppets" get checkuser tested, Cyde blocks
>> Regulerdem for "exhausting community patience" and the
>> other editors for being his "Sock-puppets".
>
> This is quite simply a lie.  I blocked him AFTER the checkuser evidence.
>  A simple examination of the logs will confirm this.
>

I still cannot see the checkuser evidence anywhere on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#Rgulerdem

Would you please tell me where I can find it.

--
Raphael


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
> Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >
> > Mmmm, but does requesting someone to take a photograph actually
> > give you
> > copyright over the resulting image? I don't think it does, without
> > explicit assignment.
> >
> If you were on holiday and asked a passing random person to use your
> camera
> to take a picture of you, I suspect that you would be quite surprised
> were they to attempt to assert copyright over the picture.
>
> Many people are in the habit of acquiring pictures in this manner : I
> don't
> suppose there can be more than a handful who would ever even
> contemplate
> this scenario as more than a mental exercise, and if there is a
> single one
> who would consider forcing said passer-by to sign something
> forfeiting copyright, they would rightly be judged a lunatic.

If this ever came up in court, I'm pretty sure the court would
decide that copyright had been transferred the moment the
passer-by handed your camera back, by mutual consent.  There
is no requirement that the transfer has to be in writing.
Everyone understands that "will you please use my camera to
take a photo of me?" includes the caveat "and give me the
copyright of it", so unless the passer-by replies "yes, but
I'm keeping the copyright", copyright has indeed been
transferred.  It's just like walking up to someone and handing
them $10; you don't have to say anything or write anything to
make them the legal owner of it.

(Disclaimer: actually I know nothing!)
Brendan.

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
Prasad J wrote:

>How is this related to Wikipedia?
>
Since you didn't quote anything back, I must interpret your question as
being recursive.  Since your question is about its own relation to
Wikipedia it must be about Wikipedia.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] for slimline and the reference to harold shipman

body:
abu hamza wrote:

>well lets get ther record straight.
>The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came
>along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first
>time).  I didn't add it.
>It was then removed repeatedly.
>the few references that are available (not usable in wikipedia) such as
>letters to newspapers on websites ( i have given the link here already)
>state he was jewish as his mother was a jewish asylum seeker.
>Whether it should be included on his page is debatable, because you would
>then have to go through all the pages where criminal and muslim are put
>together and ban the editor of that page indefinately.
>
>Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an
>indefinate ban???
>
>The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones
>obsession with taking it out.
>
Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important?

Ec


from_name: Phil Boswell

body:
Steve Bennett-8 wrote:
>
> Does interest in editing Wikipedia plummet when you have to wait 4 days to
> do it?
> Only if you're dead-set on editing stuff which has rightfully been
> semi-protected...

> What proportion of Wikipedia is living people articles?
>
Actually quite small, I would imagine, judging from the endless screeching
about "cruft" :-)

OTOH there is also an endless stream of "nn bio, delete" nominations at AFD
so there must be some sort of balance.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proposal%3A+limited+extension+of+semi-protection+policy-t1653424.html#a4537561
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Sarah

subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is
justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations)
his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]]
that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there
are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to
add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order
to make that ethnicity look bad.

We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the
African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the
first sentence as a "convicted felon,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&oldid=45070079
and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them
useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares
if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be
Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent
addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs
designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic
or Judaism fascist.

That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a
Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry
and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so
on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be
a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.

Sarah


body:
David Gerard-2 wrote:
>
> Jimbo wrote:
>>Be glad, if my proposal worries you, that I am not proposing that we
>>automatically semi-protect all living bios. :)
> Can I propose it then?
> 1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
> software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it.
> 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.
> ...at which point an astonishing number of articles on Pok?mon, Sexual
> Positions, Porn Stars and Large Japanese Cartoon Robots suddenly seem to
> be about living people and various admins have to run around with their
> mops removing them all...

> This is a [[SMOP]], of course.
>
It almost always is :-)
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Proposal%3A+limited+extension+of+semi-protection+policy-t1653424.html#a4537652
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Tony Sidaway

body:
On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, Snowspinner got harassed by the fuzz and WR didn't.

That is precisely *why* the Wikipedia Review trolls come out of this
looking very bad.


body:
On 5/24/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came
> along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first
> time).

(a) Can you show me diffs to its previous inclusion in the article?
(b) Can you please explain why you felt it was relevant, and not only
that, but so relevant that it had to be in the first sentence?

Sarah


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
On 5/24/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> On May 23, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Prasad J wrote:
>
> > Would the blocking Administrator please put this issue on WP:ANI so
> > that we can get some Community consensus?
>
> Um, that's what the listserv is for.
>

Could have fooled me...

Ryan


body:
On 5/24/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> here is an earlier example where it was already there
> cur) (last)  01:17, 13 May 2006 87.80.113.51
>
> the reason why i felt it was relevant , was because in a discussion
> elsewhere off the wikipedia site it was mentioned (and wikipedia sourced).
> The conversation surrounded the scarcity of any references to harold shipmas
> past. I went to check and it had been removed. I put it back in. I then
> researched the issue. In fact it was the very first time i had signed into
> wikipedia.
>
On May 13, an anon added to the intro that Shipman was Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=52931256&oldid=52768697
You re-added it on May 13 as your second edit and your first since
March. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53056969&oldid=53017343
Another anon added it on May 15.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53327520&oldid=53133043
You again on May 16, twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53470294&oldid=53396009
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53553735&oldid=53532466
You on May 17. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53651143&oldid=53591781
You on May 18, twice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53819990&oldid=53707575
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53826041&oldid=53825304

Then you were blocked for 3RR elsewhere. You included no sources. You
wrote in one edit summary that it had been mentioned during the Abu
Hamza trial, but you didn't point out that it was Abu Hamza himself
who had said it, and he hardly counts as reliable. You've still
produced no reliable source. You still haven't explained why you felt
it was relevant enough to include in the first sentence.

It looks to me as though it was mentioned on some anti-Semitic
website, and a bunch of anon IPs, and you with an account you'd used
only once before, decided to turn up and be bigoted and disruptive.

Sarah


from_name: Filip Maljkovic

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> Very idealistic Jimbo.
>>
>
> Well, remember, I have been there, and I have met Serbian and Croatian
> Wikipedians.  They are... like Wikipedians everywhere.  Friendly people,
> interested in sharing knowledge. :-)
And that's all there is. We're all interested in sharing knowledge, but
not the projects. People just don't wanna cooperate and you just can't
force them. I think ongoing flame/revert wars at English Wikipedia speak
for themselves.
Remember, being somewhere and living somewhere are two very different
things. :)
Filip


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


subject: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] correcting a big usability problem

body:
William Allen Simpson-2 wrote:
>
> Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Personally I've never found the double-click option at all intuitive
>> or useful.
> No, double click is *execute* not edit.
>
In this context, to "execute" might well be taken to mean "edit"...what else
would one think might be accomplished by "executing" a section or indeed a
whole page?

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A+-Foundation-l-+correcting+a+big+usability+problem-t1657530.html#a4539512
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers forum at Nabble.com.


body:
On 5/24/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
> This sort of
> incident, where Administrators (effectively) ban users without any
> formal Request for Arbitration is becoming  more prevalent by the day
> and seems to be in violation of Wikipedia principles.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BP#Bans

Community bans are becoming more common and are bound to do so, as the
community continues to grow at a rate that cannot be matched by the
Arbitration Committee's capacity to cope with every single problem
user.  Eventually (probably very soon) community bans will be more
common than arbitration-imposed bans.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)

body:
Bj?rn Lindqvist wrote:
>
> Then take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Constanzo Are
> the person who added information about this American born serial
> killers Cuban heritage going to be scolded in a similar way as
> Saladin1970 now? An indefinite ban for that editor maybe? Why is it ok
> to write that his mother was a Cuban immigrant, but it is not ok to
> write that Harold Shipman's mother was a Jewish immigrant?
>
Because that information is contained in a paragraph about his early life,
not in the lede...

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Saladin1970+%28new+thread%29-t1668512.html#a4540436
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Category:Living people can be added to an article by anyone; the
> software prevents anyone not an admin from removing it.
> 2. Being in that cat makes an article semi-protected.

Semi-protection works because it's applied only to a few articles.
Once you start mass-using it, gaming will become common. Don't go
there.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
On 5/23/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Or, as I would advocate, have one chapter for Serbia, Montenegro,
> Croatia, and Bosnia... if at all possible.

Having a chapter for each country can have advantages in organization
and perception. Split chapters do not necessarily mean split efforts.
The question is, how do chapters cooperate best on an ad hoc basis?
Setting up meta-organization(s) tied to regions would be one way, but
I'm inclined to think that would be too much bureaucracy and too
static. Simply using a wiki and mailing lists for cross-chapter
cooperation probably works best.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


subject: [WikiEN-l] Oddest form of wiki identity theft I've seen...

body:
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:
>
> It seems that [[User:Vizcarra]] borrowed the photo I made for [[Making a
> Face]], [[Image:MakingAFace.jpg]], cut out half of it and made [[Image:
> DavidVizcarra.jpg]], giving it the caption "My picture, taken by myself
> with
> the use of a webcam."
>
I have reverted, and left a note. The change was done in October 2005; the
original image, which suited the caption you quote, was uploaded in July
2005.

HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Oddest+form+of+wiki+identity+theft+I%27ve+seen...-t1674670.html#a4541036
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
>
> On 5/23/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Seed of story: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1116
> >
> > What happened next: http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52175.html
> > http://pulpdecameron.livejournal.com/52385.html
> >
> > Story at BoingBoing:
> > http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u_florida_cops_ask_f.html
> >
> > What's the proper gamer term for when you mount a fiendishly clever
> > attack on someone and get handed your arse, on a plate,
> with garnish?
>
> Sure, but this was bad for Phil.

Yeah, that was my impression. I'd say WR is one up on this one. Can't say
that I'll lose any sleep over Snowspinner being grilled by the cops, though.
Look at his behaviour to other editors suspected of wikicrimes.

Pete, bastion of truth and justice


body:
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:
>
> On 5/24/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have reverted, and left a note.
> Hey, that was my job! Now it looks like I've gone and ratted him out to
> the
> teachers...  No matter, I've explained and put things right (hopefully).
>
I didn't mean to chide, I merely thought I had better keep my note short and
to the point.

So long as you're OK, I'm OK with it.
--
Phil
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Oddest+form+of+wiki+identity+theft+I%27ve+seen...-t1674670.html#a4541325
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro

body:
Some random musings:

It seems to me that supporting the creation a single chapter for these
independent countries and cultures, solely on the basis of them having once been
part of a single state, might be considered offensive to the people involved.
No  one is proposing that Austria and Hungary merge their potential chapters,
nor is  anyone suggesting that the UK, Canada, and Australia set up a single
chapter,  though the cultural differences there may be even less distinct and
they still  share a single crown, language, etc.

If Yugoslavia was a fiction that the constituent peoples rejected, let's
respect that, rather than suggesting that they "join together" again, for the
purposes of Wikimedia. I am sure that differing legal and tax requirements in
each country would support such a distinction. As for bringing the peoples of
different countries involved in Wikimedia together, that would be the  role of
the Foundation umbrella. Right now, I think the Chapters Committee  is doing
an excellent job at that.

Danny


subject: [Foundation-l] Serbia and Montenegro


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/23/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll tell you when interest in editing Wikipedia really plummets:
> when its subject could sue you over potentially libelous content
> inserted by someone else.
>
That's been true throughout pretty much all of Wikipedia's history,
and yet the interest keeps on rising.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?

body:
On 5/23/06, Andre Engels <andreengels at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please not. I don't want to be an admin. I don't want to get into
> fights about admin policy again. When someone makes a mistake, I
> prefer being able to call admin abuse above getting into a
> blocking/deblocking war. It would be nice to have the rollback buttons
> again, but becoming an admin would be too high a price for that.

My view of admins as "trusted users" implies that adminship does not
automatically come with a responsibility to use it. If you don't want
to block because of the conflicts it may cause, you can still act like
a regular user -- while deleting spam when you see it.

The problem begins when people start arguing "User X hasn't done any
admin action on this project for months, he shouldn't be an admin".
That is a view of adminship as a "job" which I do not share. Adminship
should only indicate that you are a good faith contributor who can be
trusted to use certain software features responsibly. This seems to
work on en.wikinews, and on en.wp to a certain extent (RfA criteria
creep has gotten quite bad on en.wp).

I do not know if this is the case on nl: and if not, how difficult it
would be to reform it. Given how quickly people scream about "top
down" approaches to policy, my inclination is to believe that the best
way to fix broken admin policies in various language editions is
probably to come up with a completely new technical model of trust
that provides obvious advantages to the current one (e.g. higher rate
of vandalism clean-up), leading communities to adopt it.

Erik


subject: [Foundation-l] Term of service?


from_name: SCZenz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
My issue isn't with mistags by newpages patrollers; it's with misdeletions
by admins.  I think everyone should know that they can, and should, take the
time to review if something is speediable.  (Or, more importantly, whether
it's got the potential to be a good article or not.)

Although admin actions are reversible, this rarely happens with speedies
because they are quite difficult to review after deletion.  Is there some
way to sort the deletion logs to include only pages that had deletion
templates on them when they went?

SCZenz

On 5/23/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/21/06, SCZenz <sczenz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds
> > to
> > > read them and evaluate the claims they make.  Isn't that bad?
> >
> > There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day.  I
> > think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands
> > of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it
> > would be nice if there were no bad calls.
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> An Jimbo has said as well:
>
> "Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging
> that
> it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the
> defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there
> behind
> them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
>
> Admin actions are reversable anyway
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
well lets get ther record straight.
The harold shipman page already stated he was jewish, well before i came
along. I put it back in, after it was removed with no explanation (first
time).  I didn't add it.
It was then removed repeatedly.
the few references that are available (not usable in wikipedia) such as
letters to newspapers on websites ( i have given the link here already)
state he was jewish as his mother was a jewish asylum seeker.
Whether it should be included on his page is debatable, because you would
then have to go through all the pages where criminal and muslim are put
together and ban the editor of that page indefinately.

Thankfully there is NO WIKIPEDIA policy that states this is grounds for an
indefinate ban???

The issue here was not my obsession with putting it back in, but someones
obsession with taking it out.

>From: Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)
>Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 01:43:03 -0500
>
>Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is
>justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations)
>his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]]
>that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there
>are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to
>add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order
>to make that ethnicity look bad.
>
>We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the
>African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the
>first sentence as a "convicted felon,"
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&oldid=45070079
>and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them
>useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares
>if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be
>Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent
>addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs
>designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic
>or Judaism fascist.
>
>That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a
>Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry
>and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so
>on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be
>a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block.
>
>Sarah
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview


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

> On 5/23/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sure, but this was bad for Phil.
> >
> > Yeah, that was my impression. I'd say WR is one up on this one.
>
> No WR look like complete twats over this.

WR isn't as homongenous as all that. Some of them are wacko to begin with.

Nevertheless, Snowspinner got harassed by the fuzz and WR didn't. If you
judge real life by whoever thinks up the coolest reply after thinking about
it for a while, then you spend too much time in front of your computer.

Personally, I can take any amount of clever dick criticism coming over email
or the web, but get a couple of policefolk sitting down at my kitchen table
and hamfistedly investigating my life, and it's no longer fun.

> Can't say
> > that I'll lose any sleep over Snowspinner being grilled by
> the cops,
> > though. Look at his behaviour to other editors suspected of
> > wikicrimes.
>
> Let's see he blocks them from editing a website?

That, too.