body:
Help me out here - why are you sure that LT is the
same as 142? Is there any evidence at all, or do you
not need any?
Mark

--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling,
> Eloquence and Uninvited
> Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh
> when they read I am
> part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.
>
> That sure has peps ;-)
>
> Okay.
> Let's go on privately then.
>
> Is there any news of the AC on this point ?
>
>
> Mark Richards wrote:
> > You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is
> too
> > slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I
> can't go
> > along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT
> being
> > a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has
> > asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence
> that
> > any of their edits are problematic. You are acting
> > like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that.
> > Mark R
> >
> > --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Mark,
> >>
> >>
> >>There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a
> >>reincarnation of a
> >>previously banned user. That previous user was not
> >>banned for a funny
> >>name, neither for content reasons, but for
> >>behavioral reasons.
> >>Though it can't be proved, I think the
> reincarnation
> >>is of wide-clarity
> >>to most of those who know the previously banned
> >>user.
> >>
> >>Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if
> he
> >>was a reincarnation
> >>(that step sounds really funny to me :-)).
> >>Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been
> >>posted on the AC request.
> >>So, I think the claim saying that these two steps
> >>have not been followed
> >>is bogus.
> >>
> >>''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is
> a
> >>"reincarnation" of
> >>an existing banned user, the reincarnating account
> >>can likewise be
> >>blocked.''
> >>
> >>Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop
> to
> >>ban such a
> >>reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of
> >>action as well.
> >>
> >>I do not think the banning can be said unilateral
> as
> >>well, as several
> >>sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
> >>
> >>
> >>If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but
> >>honestly, I think
> >>evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing
> this.
> >>
> >>I hope you will trust me on this, because I say
> it,
> >>adding that I am not
> >>happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion
> >>than the community
> >>with regards to banning this user, but I also see
> >>that my opinion on the
> >>topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
> >>
> >>So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
> >>
> >>------
> >>
> >>Now, the question is (and that is a very good
> >>question) : should sysops
> >>take such decisions, or should they wait for the
> AC
> >>to decide for them ?
> >>
> >>As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
> for
> >>a group of sysops to
> >>act temporarily, before the AC does.
> >>
> >>Is it good ?
> >>*yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
> are
> >>getting upset to see
> >>reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
> >>"judgment" by the AC. It is
> >>no good that participants become angry. In real
> >>life, there is similar
> >>provision.... when someone is said to have done
> >>something deeply wrong
> >>and is considered a potential threat to the
> society,
> >>he may be put in
> >>jail before the judgment is made. He should be put
> >>in jail only if there
> >>is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
> >>damage to the society,
> >>while giving time to judge fairly.
> >>If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
> >>the wrongly-blocked
> >>person, and re-consider how we are looking for
> >>evidence for next cases.
> >>
> >>*yes, it is also good because power should be in
> the
> >>hand of people
> >>first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
> wiki
> >>way.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Is it bad ?
> >>*yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken
> >>**without enough evidence
> >>**without clear community support
> >>**Without respect for openness and diversity of
> >>opinion
> >>
> >>Should we not respect these three points, then,
> >>there would be a danger.
> >>
> >>I think the first point was amply provided in this
> >>case. If you are not
> >>convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
> >>
> >>The second point is perhaps a little less obvious.
> >>If you are not
> >>convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a
> >>policy supporting ban of
> >>reincarnation. You are not certain it is a
> >>reincarnation ? You are not
> >>sure the community is certain it is a
> reincarnation
> >>? Well, ask people
> >>what they think then.
> >>
> >>The third point is probably the more tricky one. I
> >>am not always certain
> >>we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion.
> >>The last political
> >>debates are not really convincing me we are
> >>respecting this very well
> >>all the time. But that is the toughest point, and
> I
> >>have no reason to
> >>think it is better handled by AC than by whole
> >>community. We all have
> >>our personal bias, and only the addition of our
> bias
> >>will make a
> >>balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to
> >>achieve balance.
> >>
> >>
> >>Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback,
> >>so they did not
> >>revert again the block. This was very nice of
> them.
> >>I think it is quite
> >>bad to enter a blocking reversion war.
> >>Now, please, consider the three points :
> >>* do you need more information to convince you
> that
> >>enough evidence was
> >>provided ?
> >>* do you need more information to convince you
> that
> >>the block is
> >>generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait
> >>for AC to deliver his
> >>judgment ?
> >>
> >>And
> >>* do you think a centralised committee decision
> >>making is the only way,
> >>or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act
> >>temporarily while
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ryan Wetherell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Personal attacks

body:
----- Original Message -----
From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:43:16 +0100
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Personal attacks

> Robert wrote:
>
> > Anthere,
> > [...]
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that addressing someone in the subject line
> of a posting that is meant to complain about them, is rude?
>
> To me it often feels like it's meant to publicly expose someone's flaws.
>
> Just a thought.
> Timwi
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

I think so too.  The subject line of an email can be a telltale heart.

Ryan
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


body:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus J. Daitch" <mdaitch26 at hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:15:12 -0400
To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Please stop sending me junk E-mails

> Dear Wikipedia,
>
> I would like to ask a favor. I'm not trying to be mean, but can you please
> stop wasting my space with your E-mails to me?
>
> Sincerely,
> Marcus J. Daitch
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Would you like to cancel your subscription or have stop the list stop sending every message?  If it's the latter, you can program Mailman to send you a daily digest on all emails sent thru the mailing list in one day.  That means you get 1 email from this mailing list per day.

Ryan
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mailinglist passwords

body:
"Fire" <ronny at kopfrechnung.de> schrieb:

> By the way: Could someone tell me why wikinl-l has as far as I remember
> 16 list admins?

The wikinl-l-owner at wikipedia.org address 'doubles up' as the address
that is given to people as a 'contact Wikipedia' address on nl:. Because
of this, all Dutch sysops (except maybe the last one or few) are list
admins, and the address is also used as a kind of mailing list for
sysop-specific discussion (in particular, giving opinions on new
candidate-sysops).

Andre Engels


body:
The only ones I believe that I can safely block are the IP vandals or obvious returning vandals, y'know the ones to stupid to create believeable sockpuppets?  (i.e., Rishartha666, RisharthaUpTheButt, etc.)

Ryan

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Richards <marich712000 at yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking without following policy

> Can someone please take a look at Request for review
> of admin actions and give me a reality check? It seems
> to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly
> blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys them.
> They are claiming that s/he is the same as a
> previously banned user, but refusing to follow the
> procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user and
> then presenting evidence, insisting on the right to
> ban the user.
> I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has not
> yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine the
> committee and the policy to allow this sort of
> behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim that
> admins are unacountable and out of control.
> I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run amock,
> but it is important to retain some procedure and not
> have admins simply banning users that annoy them.
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: Fire

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mailinglist passwords

body:
Hello,

I have considered that lot of people know the mmsitepass (main password)
  for our mailman mailinglists. I don't think it's a good idea that a
list admin can edit the configuration and other things on other ones.
Personaly, i don't considerate it'd be a good idea that nearly all the
listadmins from the different lists know the "main password".

I purpose to give each listadmin of a specific list the password only
for the list he is list admin on. At the same of course, I'd make a new
mmsitepass.
There wouldn't a big problem (for me) to write E-Mail's to all the list
admins telling them the "new" password for their list their admin on.

By the way: Could someone tell me why wikinl-l has as far as I remember
16 list admins?

Sincerly yours,
Ronny Raschkowan
[u:Fire]


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject:
Let's deputize admins and expand the size of the AC (was: Re:
	[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy)

body:
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to
> act temporarily, before the AC does.

Without comment on this particular block, I completely agree with your above
general statement. I would in fact like to deputize admins so that they have
more authority to do this sort of thing but would have to implement such blocks
in triads (three admins would be needed to issue a block; the ability for
single admins to block obvious vandals would not be changed).

> Is it good ?
> *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see
> reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is
> no good that participants become angry.

I agree - The AC is a panel of judges who have the authority to issue long term
bans. This is a large responsibility and contrary to what many might think, it
is not fun at all. Thus cases move slowly. We are not, nor have ever been a
police force and therefore cannot protect people from the actions of others.
Our job is to judge those people and issue remedies which we hope will be fair
to the accused and to the community. Admins are the ones who  implement those
rulings.

> In real life, there is similar
> provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong
> and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in
> jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there
> is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society,
> while giving time to judge fairly.

This concept in the U.S. at least is called 'probable cause'. It allows
policemen to detain suspects before trial and allows individual judges to
extend that through trial based on incomplete evidence. The goal is to balance
the rights of the accused with the right of the public to not be harmed by
somebody who the police or the arraignment judge reasonably thinks may do harm
if released. A full trial will determine guilt.

In fact I want the AC to change its arbitration policy a bit to allow for
probable cause blocks of users during a trial based on a simple quorum (4 votes
in favor). Such a user would only be able to edit his/her user and user talk
page, and the AC pages concerning him/her. But that only takes care of the
trial part. IMO, admins also need the ability to do this during day to day
operations (the pre-trial part). Either way we need to greatly increase the
size of the AC so that it can deal with the workload.

> If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked
> person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.

Not necessarily - if probable cause was in fact valid to begin with then the
user was not wrongly blocked. But just as there is a possibility for police
abuse, there is also the possibility of admin abuse. If that is the case, then
the admin may be in a trial of his/her own. However, we should assume good
faith of admins as much as possible - otherwise everybody will be too afraid of
using their sysop power to do what needs to be done for the good of the
community.

> *yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people
> first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.

I agree. The current set-up is rather top heavy with the AC having most of the
authority and most of the admins feeling as if their hands are tied. I would
like to spread some of the AC's authority around but would like to proceed with
caution.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Problem with server?

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Will people please stop checking experimental code into CVS?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Hello,

That's one is from me. My apologizes to everyone :-/

--
Ashar Voultoiz


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: DMA good, NFS bad

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> Ashar Voultoiz wrote:
>
>> As far as I understand, zwinger is the file server and offer files to
>> the other servers ?  Reading your messages, are you saying that until
>> now the server wasn't using DMA at all for disk access ?  :op
>
> Right, we've been yakking about that problem for a couple months in here.

That is a really good news ! Good job all :o)

--
Ashar Voultoiz


from_name: Timwi

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fixed term sysops.

body:
Rich Holton wrote:

> It's important to de-sysop (without prejudice) the
> inactive. Otherwise we're deceiving ourselves about
> how many sysops we have.

I agree with this, but I don't agree to having sysops re-voted-on and
re-elected every 6 months. It should be possible by software to
determine inactive sysops and de-sysop them without inconveniencing
active sysops so much.

> If indeed being a sysop is "no big deal" as it says on
> [[wikipedia:Administrators]]
> ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators]),
> then being voted out as one should also be "no big
> deal", right?

That page only says it to reduce the amount of hard feelings and
resulting flaming a little. In practice, however, it *is* a big deal in
the sense that sysop status is seen as an elevated status or a position
of authority, consciously or not. I'm sure many sysops also feel
slightly more powerful or influential than they did before they were
sysopped, even though few will admit it. De-sysopping for such a
frivolous reason is thus likely to cause hard feelings for the ex-sysop
in question.

> If we are short on good sysops, let's make sure that
> it is understood that being a sysop is a service to
> the community, not a power trip.

We are trying to, but I don't think that's really possible. We cannot
deny that sysops have additional privileges (that's the whole point).
This, almost by definition, triggers what I have outlined above.

Timwi


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information about what
would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a reincarnation of a
previously banned user?

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: anthere9 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:34:13 +0200
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy
>
> * do you need more information to convince you that enough evidence was
> provided ?


from_name: Bill Lalonde

subject: [WikiEN-l] Problems with DNS

body:
I'm not sure if this is the right forum to bring this up,
but I couldn't find a more appropriate one:

I am getting a "host not found" failure when my browser
tries to look up en.wikipedia.org. I can get to
mail.wikipedia.org. Is that likely to be a regional
problem?
I am coming through an ISP in Canada. TIA.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fixed term sysops.

body:
You may wish to read meta policy on the topic. It is a different
procedure to sysop and unsysop people.

ant

Mark Richards wrote:
> Is there any procedure for this, or guidlines?
> M.R.
>
>
>>Hm. Have a significant number of them turned out to
>>not be trustworthy
>>enough? If not, then there's no problem. If yes,
>>then I'm sure they can
>>still be de-sysopped, no?
>>
>>Timwi
>
>
>
> 			__________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Charles Matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Personal attacks

body:
> I think so too.  The subject line of an email can be a telltale heart.
>
> Ryan

Ryan - could you try to edit your replies for readability, and to avoid 'me
too' answers?  This is a high-traffic list, and it is better if discussion
is kept taut.  Thanks.

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following policy

body:
Mark,

There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a reincarnation of a
previously banned user. That previous user was not banned for a funny
name, neither for content reasons, but for behavioral reasons.
Though it can't be proved, I think the reincarnation is of wide-clarity
to most of those who know the previously banned user.

Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if he was a reincarnation
(that step sounds really funny to me :-)).
Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been posted on the AC request.
So, I think the claim saying that these two steps have not been followed
is bogus.

''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of
an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be
blocked.''

Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop to ban such a
reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of action as well.

I do not think the banning can be said unilateral as well, as several
sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.

If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but honestly, I think
evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing this.

I hope you will trust me on this, because I say it, adding that I am not
happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion than the community
with regards to banning this user, but I also see that my opinion on the
topic is a very seriously minor opinion.

So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)

------

Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should sysops
take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide for them ?

As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops to
act temporarily, before the AC does.

Is it good ?
*yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to see
reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC. It is
no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is similar
provision.... when someone is said to have done something deeply wrong
and is considered a potential threat to the society, he may be put in
jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in jail only if there
is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents damage to the society,
while giving time to judge fairly.
If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked
person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.

*yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people
first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.

Is it bad ?
*yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken
**without enough evidence
**without clear community support
**Without respect for openness and diversity of opinion

Should we not respect these three points, then, there would be a danger.

I think the first point was amply provided in this case. If you are not
convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).

The second point is perhaps a little less obvious. If you are not
convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a policy supporting ban of
reincarnation. You are not certain it is a reincarnation ? You are not
sure the community is certain it is a reincarnation ? Well, ask people
what they think then.

The third point is probably the more tricky one. I am not always certain
we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion. The last political
debates are not really convincing me we are respecting this very well
all the time. But that is the toughest point, and I have no reason to
think it is better handled by AC than by whole community. We all have
our personal bias, and only the addition of our bias will make a
balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to achieve balance.

Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback, so they did not
revert again the block. This was very nice of them. I think it is quite
bad to enter a blocking reversion war.
Now, please, consider the three points :
* do you need more information to convince you that enough evidence was
provided ?
* do you need more information to convince you that the block is
generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait for AC to deliver his
judgment ?

And
* do you think a centralised committee decision making is the only way,
or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act temporarily while
waiting for justice decision of AC ?

Anthere

Mark Richards wrote:
> Can someone please take a look at Request for review
> of admin actions and give me a reality check? It seems
> to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly
> blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys them.
> They are claiming that s/he is the same as a
> previously banned user, but refusing to follow the
> procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user and
> then presenting evidence, insisting on the right to
> ban the user.
> I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has not
> yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine the
> committee and the policy to allow this sort of
> behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim that
> admins are unacountable and out of control.
> I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run amock,
> but it is important to retain some procedure and not
> have admins simply banning users that annoy them.
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Mark Richards

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fixed term sysops.

body:
Sure - the power to ban simple vandals, users named
for identity deception, people abusing other users
etc. But a user whose username has a word in it that a
banned user also had, but has an innocuous and
generally productive edit history? LT is far from a
vandal, and has not engaged in any disruptive behavior
that I can see.
Mark

--- Fennec Foxen <fennec at gmail.com> wrote:
<cut> The point where this
> boundary becomes fuzzy
> is the cutting edge of Recent Changes, where it is
> clear that the
> community has decided that vandalism is bad and
> vandals should be
> blocked after being warned, but it's not entirely
> clear who is a
> vandal and what is vandalism (in some cases). Moving
> further away from
> this idealized little circle, we find the newly
> registered-for-trivial-vandalism username, simple
> trolls wanting
> trouble (naming themselves to confuse themselves
> with sysops, for
> example), and it continues on from there. Some of
> the actions taken in
> this area are not so much against policy as outside
> of policy, while
> some are clearly disallowed.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

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


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Cooperation

body:
LS,

In the nl:wiktionary (WikiWoordenboek) we are experimenting with the use of messages to indicate languages, wordtypes, genders and all sorts of other things that go with words. To indicate a language, we use the ISO 639 code.

Mr Suisui, who can be found on both the nl:- and the ja:wiktionary took an intrest and translated, together with some more people on ja:wiktionary, the templates into Japanese.

Because of this I was able to make an entry in ja:wiktionary for ?Nederlands? (you English call it Dutch :). I was also able to create the Japanese word for Nederlands and I added all translations from the nl:wiktonary there.

The one thing I cannot do is give meaning to the word in Japanese. And at present I cannot create the Japanese word in the nl:wiktionary due to technical reasons.

At the same time Timwi informed us of the existence of his site with the words for languages in other languages http://timwi.dyndns.org:8989/cgi-bin/a.cgi?r=s&l=ISO%20639 This is a real treasure trove. The only thing missing is an indication for capitalization and genders. But it has Armenian and Farsi and and :) .. !!

Timwi wants to discontinue his site and wants to incorporate it in the wiktionaries. Now the question: were will we enter all those words first?

The nl:wiktionary uses messages throughout so that makes it easy for migration to other wiktionaries.

The en:wiktionary has more English words for languages but, you can use the messages there..

A happy GerardM


subject:
Probable cuase (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking without following
	policy)

body:
In discussions of probable cause there is usually a
notion of weighing the rights of the acused against
the risk to society. Will someone please explain to me
what threatening behavior LT has shown that deserves
s/he being banned before any consideration can be
given?
Mark

--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
> for a group of sysops to
> > act temporarily, before the AC does.
>
> Without comment on this particular block, I
> completely agree with your above
> general statement. I would in fact like to deputize
> admins so that they have
> more authority to do this sort of thing but would
> have to implement such blocks
> in triads (three admins would be needed to issue a
> block; the ability for
> single admins to block obvious vandals would not be
> changed).
>
> > Is it good ?
> > *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
> are getting upset to see
> > reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
> "judgment" by the AC. It is
> > no good that participants become angry.
>
> I agree - The AC is a panel of judges who have the
> authority to issue long term
> bans. This is a large responsibility and contrary to
> what many might think, it
> is not fun at all. Thus cases move slowly. We are
> not, nor have ever been a
> police force and therefore cannot protect people
> from the actions of others.
> Our job is to judge those people and issue remedies
> which we hope will be fair
> to the accused and to the community. Admins are the
> ones who  implement those
> rulings.
>
> > In real life, there is similar
> > provision.... when someone is said to have done
> something deeply wrong
> > and is considered a potential threat to the
> society, he may be put in
> > jail before the judgment is made. He should be put
> in jail only if there
> > is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
> damage to the society,
> > while giving time to judge fairly.
>
> This concept in the U.S. at least is called
> 'probable cause'. It allows
> policemen to detain suspects before trial and allows
> individual judges to
> extend that through trial based on incomplete
> evidence. The goal is to balance
> the rights of the accused with the right of the
> public to not be harmed by
> somebody who the police or the arraignment judge
> reasonably thinks may do harm
> if released. A full trial will determine guilt.
>
> In fact I want the AC to change its arbitration
> policy a bit to allow for
> probable cause blocks of users during a trial based
> on a simple quorum (4 votes
> in favor). Such a user would only be able to edit
> his/her user and user talk
> page, and the AC pages concerning him/her. But that
> only takes care of the
> trial part. IMO, admins also need the ability to do
> this during day to day
> operations (the pre-trial part). Either way we need
> to greatly increase the
> size of the AC so that it can deal with the
> workload.
>
> > If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
> the wrongly-blocked
> > person, and re-consider how we are looking for
> evidence for next cases.
>
> Not necessarily - if probable cause was in fact
> valid to begin with then the
> user was not wrongly blocked. But just as there is a
> possibility for police
> abuse, there is also the possibility of admin abuse.
> If that is the case, then
> the admin may be in a trial of his/her own. However,
> we should assume good
> faith of admins as much as possible - otherwise
> everybody will be too afraid of
> using their sysop power to do what needs to be done
> for the good of the
> community.
>
> > *yes, it is also good because power should be in
> the hand of people
> > first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
> wiki way.
>
> I agree. The current set-up is rather top heavy with
> the AC having most of the
> authority and most of the admins feeling as if their
> hands are tied. I would
> like to spread some of the AC's authority around but
> would like to proceed with
> caution.
>
> -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________
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] Fixed term sysops.

body:
Ryan Wetherell wrote:

>I happen to agree with the fixed terms.  Pellegrini had some good reasons, and mine is: why now?  If this is a good idea, why wait until there are well over 200 sysops?  Constant elections = hectic + voter fatigue.
>
>
Fixed terms could be a reasonable idea.  A time out would allow some
people to become more reflective about their roles.

I don't see elections as the best way of dealing with this.  When I look
at the admin list, I have no idea who most of these people are.  I
looked at the contributions of a couple of unfamiliar ones, and found
that they are only casual participants.  I presume that they are good
people when they are here, but I simply would not have enough
information to serve as a basis for voting.

I guess that 245 is not yet well over 200. :-)

Ec


body:
Putting aside the fact that I find your criteria
outrageous, have you looked at LT's contributions?
What is the problem?
Mark

--- John Robinson <john at freeq.com> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> >I definitely want to see some evidence and also
> some information about what
> >would be evidence. How do we determine that someone
> is a reincarnation of a
> >previously banned user?
>
> It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:
>
> 1) They look like a duck. Check, derivative
> usernames (Entmoots of
> Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)
>
> 2) They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the
> same articles as
> the banned user did.
>
> 3) They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to
> the
> above-mentioned articles are virtually the same as
> those made by the
> banned user.
>
> Even with all three of these being the case, it is
> hypothetically
> possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation
> of the banned
> user. However I think it is overkill to go to their
> house, knock on
> their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?"
> Assuming that the
> banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes
> sense that a new
> account displaying the same behavior should also be
> banned.
>
> -Hephaestos>
_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Mailinglist passwords

body:
I think having a global password is really helpful. I have been now and
then helping users and blocked mails on fr, en, intl, wikipedia many
times, and one unique password help.

This said, there is also a unique password for the french list only, and
  some people only know this one.

Fire wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have considered that lot of people know the mmsitepass (main password)
>  for our mailman mailinglists. I don't think it's a good idea that a
> list admin can edit the configuration and other things on other ones.
> Personaly, i don't considerate it'd be a good idea that nearly all the
> listadmins from the different lists know the "main password".
>
> I purpose to give each listadmin of a specific list the password only
> for the list he is list admin on. At the same of course, I'd make a new
> mmsitepass.
> There wouldn't a big problem (for me) to write E-Mail's to all the list
> admins telling them the "new" password for their list their admin on.
>
> By the way: Could someone tell me why wikinl-l has as far as I remember
> 16 list admins?
>
> Sincerly yours,
> Ronny Raschkowan
> [u:Fire]


body:
Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling, Eloquence and Uninvited
Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh when they read I am
part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.

That sure has peps ;-)

Okay.
Let's go on privately then.

Is there any news of the AC on this point ?

Mark Richards wrote:
> You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is too
> slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I can't go
> along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT being
> a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has
> asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence that
> any of their edits are problematic. You are acting
> like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that.
> Mark R
>
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark,
>>
>>
>>There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a
>>reincarnation of a
>>previously banned user. That previous user was not
>>banned for a funny
>>name, neither for content reasons, but for
>>behavioral reasons.
>>Though it can't be proved, I think the reincarnation
>>is of wide-clarity
>>to most of those who know the previously banned
>>user.
>>
>>Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if he
>>was a reincarnation
>>(that step sounds really funny to me :-)).
>>Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been
>>posted on the AC request.
>>So, I think the claim saying that these two steps
>>have not been followed
>>is bogus.
>>
>>''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is a
>>"reincarnation" of
>>an existing banned user, the reincarnating account
>>can likewise be
>>blocked.''
>>
>>Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop to
>>ban such a
>>reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of
>>action as well.
>>
>>I do not think the banning can be said unilateral as
>>well, as several
>>sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
>>
>>
>>If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but
>>honestly, I think
>>evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing this.
>>
>>I hope you will trust me on this, because I say it,
>>adding that I am not
>>happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion
>>than the community
>>with regards to banning this user, but I also see
>>that my opinion on the
>>topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
>>
>>So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
>>
>>------
>>
>>Now, the question is (and that is a very good
>>question) : should sysops
>>take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC
>>to decide for them ?
>>
>>As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for
>>a group of sysops to
>>act temporarily, before the AC does.
>>
>>Is it good ?
>>*yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are
>>getting upset to see
>>reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
>>"judgment" by the AC. It is
>>no good that participants become angry. In real
>>life, there is similar
>>provision.... when someone is said to have done
>>something deeply wrong
>>and is considered a potential threat to the society,
>>he may be put in
>>jail before the judgment is made. He should be put
>>in jail only if there
>>is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
>>damage to the society,
>>while giving time to judge fairly.
>>If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
>>the wrongly-blocked
>>person, and re-consider how we are looking for
>>evidence for next cases.
>>
>>*yes, it is also good because power should be in the
>>hand of people
>>first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki
>>way.
>>
>>
>>
>>Is it bad ?
>>*yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken
>>**without enough evidence
>>**without clear community support
>>**Without respect for openness and diversity of
>>opinion
>>
>>Should we not respect these three points, then,
>>there would be a danger.
>>
>>I think the first point was amply provided in this
>>case. If you are not
>>convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
>>
>>The second point is perhaps a little less obvious.
>>If you are not
>>convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a
>>policy supporting ban of
>>reincarnation. You are not certain it is a
>>reincarnation ? You are not
>>sure the community is certain it is a reincarnation
>>? Well, ask people
>>what they think then.
>>
>>The third point is probably the more tricky one. I
>>am not always certain
>>we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion.
>>The last political
>>debates are not really convincing me we are
>>respecting this very well
>>all the time. But that is the toughest point, and I
>>have no reason to
>>think it is better handled by AC than by whole
>>community. We all have
>>our personal bias, and only the addition of our bias
>>will make a
>>balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to
>>achieve balance.
>>
>>
>>Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback,
>>so they did not
>>revert again the block. This was very nice of them.
>>I think it is quite
>>bad to enter a blocking reversion war.
>>Now, please, consider the three points :
>>* do you need more information to convince you that
>>enough evidence was
>>provided ?
>>* do you need more information to convince you that
>>the block is
>>generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait
>>for AC to deliver his
>>judgment ?
>>
>>And
>>* do you think a centralised committee decision
>>making is the only way,
>>or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act
>>temporarily while
>>waiting for justice decision of AC ?
>>
>>Anthere
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>>Can someone please take a look at Request for
>>
>>review
>>
>>>of admin actions and give me a reality check? It
>>
>>seems
>>
>>>to me that Hephaestos and Guanaco are repeatedly
>>>blocking user Leo Trollstoy because s/he annoys
>>
>>them.
>>
>>>They are claiming that s/he is the same as a
>>>previously banned user, but refusing to follow the
>>>procedure in 'reincarnations' of asking the user
>>
>>and
>>
>>>then presenting evidence, insisting on the right
>>
>>to
>>
>>>ban the user.
>>>I don't think the name is funny, but the AC has
>>
>>not
>>
>>>yet ruled on this issue, and it seems to undermine
>>
>>the
>>
>>>committee and the policy to allow this sort of
>>>behavior. It gives ammunition to those who claim
>>
>>that
>>
>>>admins are unacountable and out of control.
>>>I do not propose letting vandals and trolls run
>>
>>amock,
>>
>>>but it is important to retain some procedure and
>>
>>not
>>
>>>have admins simply banning users that annoy them.
>>>Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>__________________________________
>>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>>Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
>>>http://messenger.yahoo.com/
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
John Robinson wrote:

> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information
>> about what
>> would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a
>> reincarnation of a
>> previously banned user?
>
> It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:
>
> 1) They look like a duck. Check, derivative usernames (Entmoots of
> Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)
>
> 2) They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the same articles as
> the banned user did.
>
> 3) They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to the
> above-mentioned articles are virtually the same as those made by the
> banned user.
>
> Even with all three of these being the case, it is hypothetically
> possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation of the banned
> user. However I think it is overkill to go to their house, knock on
> their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?" Assuming that the
> banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes sense that a new
> account displaying the same behavior should also be banned.

These are not evidence.  They are merely grounds for suspicion, although
I agree that simply asking them if they are reincarnations of a banned
user can't be a very fruitful process.

Hard evidence likely involves the analysis of contribution logs.

We need a process to be somewhat more sophisticated than kangaroos
jumping on ducks.

Ec


from_name: John Robinson

body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>I definitely want to see some evidence and also some information about what
>would be evidence. How do we determine that someone is a reincarnation of a
>previously banned user?

It's pretty simple really, using the old saw:

1) They look like a duck. Check, derivative usernames (Entmoots of
Trolls, JRR Trollkien, Leo Trollstoy)

2) They walk like a duck. Check, editing mostly the same articles as
the banned user did.

3) They quack like a duck. Check, the edits made to the
above-mentioned articles are virtually the same as those made by the
banned user.

Even with all three of these being the case, it is hypothetically
possible that they are not, indeed, a reincarnation of the banned
user. However I think it is overkill to go to their house, knock on
their door and ask "Hey, are you [banned user]?" Assuming that the
banned user was banned for their behavior, it makes sense that a new
account displaying the same behavior should also be banned.

-Hephaestos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/626175bf/attachment.htm


from_name: Fennec Foxen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Please stop sending me junk E-mails

body:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:28:51 -0500, Ryan Wetherell
<bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:

> > I would like to ask a favor. I'm not trying to be mean, but can you please
> > stop wasting my space with your E-mails to me?
> Would you like to cancel your subscription or have stop the list stop sending every message?

Hmm. Maybe it's just a bit of scathing rhetoric on some of the recent
"junk" discussions. Fortunately, it seems to have calmed down somewhat
recently. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie....

body:
Rick Schwarz wrote:

>Although I am not new to Wikipedia I am new to this email list, Is
>there any specific rules that I need to follow or is the list open
>to all concerns and comments about the Wikipedia (English) website?
>because I have one that I would like to bring up.
>
>Rick (aka Misterrick)
>
>
In your case make sure that you identify yourself unambiguously.  There
is another Rick on the list with a reputation for strong opinions.

Knowing what's relevant to the list comes with experience. There's no
damage caused by the occasional error; you'll hear soon enough if it
belongs on another list.  Some may even be somewhat rude in letting you
know, but that's not worth worying about.   This list is essentially
limited to matters relating to the English Wikipedia; other lists are
available for other topics.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Fixed term sysops.

body:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:08:45 +0100, Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> We are trying to, but I don't think that's really possible. We cannot
> deny that sysops have additional privileges (that's the whole point).
> This, almost by definition, triggers what I have outlined above.

I disagree. Sysops don't have additional priveleges, but they have
additional powers.

They have the power to ban users, but they are not allowed to ban
users against policy. They have the power to delete articles- but
they're not allowed to delete articles against policy. They have the
rollback link- mmm, rollback! - but they could theoretically revert
the articles the old-fashioned way.
They can theoretically do database queries but I think that's still
turned off. =b

This distinction is a little more than semantics. The sysop, ideally,
does not do anything requiring general approval like deleting or
banning. They're there to implement community decisions, not to make
them.

In theory, anyway. In theory, practice is the same as the theory, but
in practice it is not. :) The point where this boundary becomes fuzzy
is the cutting edge of Recent Changes, where it is clear that the
community has decided that vandalism is bad and vandals should be
blocked after being warned, but it's not entirely clear who is a
vandal and what is vandalism (in some cases). Moving further away from
this idealized little circle, we find the newly
registered-for-trivial-vandalism username, simple trolls wanting
trouble (naming themselves to confuse themselves with sysops, for
example), and it continues on from there. Some of the actions taken in
this area are not so much against policy as outside of policy, while
some are clearly disallowed.


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Menu Translation

body:
> I'd like to translate the menu of the Klingon Wikipedia into Klingon as well. How do I do this? Can you provide some links on this? By the way, I'm also an Admin on the Klingon Wikipedia, so it should work...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MediaWiki_namespace has details
on the MediaWiki namespace (as it applies to En:) and some links (to
Meta); look for an equivalent page on your own local Wikipedia.

> Second question is: Is it possible to change the menu language when browsing a Wikipedia in another language? Because I think it *might* be easier to have an English menu, although only a Klingon menu would make it complete. Is there such a possibility?

I do not think such an option exists at this time, although you may be
able to get away with some craziness involving skins. May. I'm not too
sure. :)


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Mailinglist passwords

body:
After discussing with Fire online, I realise my comment was not clear :-)

It is probably best that all ml lists have different passwords, for
security reasons.
Increasing traffic and ***great*** amount of spam (I administrated the
fr list for more than a year, and the english one from time to time)
require that a list is administrated by several people at the same time.
For clean up.
That makes many people in the end.
So, having separating password is a good thing.

Now, having a global passwd is also best to have, but this one should be
given to a limited number of people.

So, of course, I support what you wrote Fire :-)

I am *very* glad that we have someone taking care of global mailing
lists issues now. Thanks for taking care of the job.

Incidently, I would love it if you could work on trying to reduce the
spam amount :-) We saw recently that when the lists are not cleaned
often, some enregistered user mails tends to get forgotten in the mass.

Fire wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have considered that lot of people know the mmsitepass (main password)
>  for our mailman mailinglists. I don't think it's a good idea that a
> list admin can edit the configuration and other things on other ones.
> Personaly, i don't considerate it'd be a good idea that nearly all the
> listadmins from the different lists know the "main password".
>
> I purpose to give each listadmin of a specific list the password only
> for the list he is list admin on. At the same of course, I'd make a new
> mmsitepass.
> There wouldn't a big problem (for me) to write E-Mail's to all the list
> admins telling them the "new" password for their list their admin on.
>
> By the way: Could someone tell me why wikinl-l has as far as I remember
> 16 list admins?
>
> Sincerly yours,
> Ronny Raschkowan
> [u:Fire]


body:
I have no opinion with regards to LT.

I know some people I trust, do not think JRR is 142.

Two cases

* if JRR is 142 : then the argument he should be banned for being a
reincarnation fits with the policy.

* if JRR is NOT 142 : then JRR activity is only meant to irritate people
in the community. That is a pure trolling issue. And this, deserve
**either banning
**or dropping the whole topic, stopping discussing it, as should be done
with any good troll.

I trust Heph (even if I know that he is a bit hot on the ban button
sometimes :-)), I know not Guanaco much (but I think he is totally
acting within the rules, so he must not feel the community does not
support him, he is acting well). And I also feel like you have a point.

I read your mail, but unfortunately must go for the day.
I suggest that we see what is the feedback of other people on this
issue. Certainly, we can find a common ground between all of you.

Ant

Mark Richards wrote:
> Help me out here - why are you sure that LT is the
> same as 142? Is there any evidence at all, or do you
> not need any?
> Mark
>
> --- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Errrr, I think Maveric, Angela, Tim Starling,
>>Eloquence and Uninvited
>>Company, to cite just a few, will have a good laugh
>>when they read I am
>>part of an angry mob trying to ban 142.
>>
>>That sure has peps ;-)
>>
>>Okay.
>>Let's go on privately then.
>>
>>Is there any news of the AC on this point ?
>>
>>
>>Mark Richards wrote:
>>
>>>You may feel that the policy is silly, the AC is
>>
>>too
>>
>>>slow, and that you don't need evidence, but I
>>
>>can't go
>>
>>>along with thet. I don't see any evidence of LT
>>
>>being
>>
>>>a banned user, no-one has provided any. No one has
>>>asked him/her, and no one has provided evidence
>>
>>that
>>
>>>any of their edits are problematic. You are acting
>>>like an angry mob, and I can't go along with that.
>>>Mark R
>>>
>>>--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is very wide acceptance that JRR is a
>>>>reincarnation of a
>>>>previously banned user. That previous user was not
>>>>banned for a funny
>>>>name, neither for content reasons, but for
>>>>behavioral reasons.
>>>>Though it can't be proved, I think the
>>>
>>reincarnation
>>
>>>>is of wide-clarity
>>>>to most of those who know the previously banned
>>>>user.
>>>>
>>>>Afaik, the question had been asked to the user if
>>>
>>he
>>
>>>>was a reincarnation
>>>>(that step sounds really funny to me :-)).
>>>>Evidence with regards to reincarnation has been
>>>>posted on the AC request.
>>>>So, I think the claim saying that these two steps
>>>>have not been followed
>>>>is bogus.
>>>>
>>>>''Where it is becomes clear that a user account is
>>>
>>a
>>
>>>>"reincarnation" of
>>>>an existing banned user, the reincarnating account
>>>>can likewise be
>>>>blocked.''
>>>>
>>>>Banning policy allow a sysop or a group of sysop
>>>
>>to
>>
>>>>ban such a
>>>>reincarnation. So, they are within their bounds of
>>>>action as well.
>>>>
>>>>I do not think the banning can be said unilateral
>>>
>>as
>>
>>>>well, as several
>>>>sysops have banned him, or supporting his ban.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you wish, we may discuss again of all this, but
>>>>honestly, I think
>>>>evidence is sufficient and policy is allowing
>>>
>>this.
>>
>>>>I hope you will trust me on this, because I say
>>>
>>it,
>>
>>>>adding that I am not
>>>>happy of this ban. I do not have the same opinion
>>>>than the community
>>>>with regards to banning this user, but I also see
>>>>that my opinion on the
>>>>topic is a very seriously minor opinion.
>>>>
>>>>So, I prefer to look at the big picture :-)
>>>>
>>>>------
>>>>
>>>>Now, the question is (and that is a very good
>>>>question) : should sysops
>>>>take such decisions, or should they wait for the
>>>
>>AC
>>
>>>>to decide for them ?
>>>>
>>>>As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
>>>
>>for
>>
>>>>a group of sysops to
>>>>act temporarily, before the AC does.
>>>>
>>>>Is it good ?
>>>>*yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
>>>
>>are
>>
>>>>getting upset to see
>>>>reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
>>>>"judgment" by the AC. It is
>>>>no good that participants become angry. In real
>>>>life, there is similar
>>>>provision.... when someone is said to have done
>>>>something deeply wrong
>>>>and is considered a potential threat to the
>>>
>>society,
>>
>>>>he may be put in
>>>>jail before the judgment is made. He should be put
>>>>in jail only if there
>>>>is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
>>>>damage to the society,
>>>>while giving time to judge fairly.
>>>>If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
>>>>the wrongly-blocked
>>>>person, and re-consider how we are looking for
>>>>evidence for next cases.
>>>>
>>>>*yes, it is also good because power should be in
>>>
>>the
>>
>>>>hand of people
>>>>first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
>>>
>>wiki
>>
>>>>way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Is it bad ?
>>>>*yes, it may be bad, if decisions are taken
>>>>**without enough evidence
>>>>**without clear community support
>>>>**Without respect for openness and diversity of
>>>>opinion
>>>>
>>>>Should we not respect these three points, then,
>>>>there would be a danger.
>>>>
>>>>I think the first point was amply provided in this
>>>>case. If you are not
>>>>convinced, ask Uninvited Company (sigh).
>>>>
>>>>The second point is perhaps a little less obvious.
>>>>If you are not
>>>>convinced, why not starting a poll ? There is a
>>>>policy supporting ban of
>>>>reincarnation. You are not certain it is a
>>>>reincarnation ? You are not
>>>>sure the community is certain it is a
>>>
>>reincarnation
>>
>>>>? Well, ask people
>>>>what they think then.
>>>>
>>>>The third point is probably the more tricky one. I
>>>>am not always certain
>>>>we are entirely fair toward diversity of opinion.
>>>>The last political
>>>>debates are not really convincing me we are
>>>>respecting this very well
>>>>all the time. But that is the toughest point, and
>>>
>>I
>>
>>>>have no reason to
>>>>think it is better handled by AC than by whole
>>>>community. We all have
>>>>our personal bias, and only the addition of our
>>>
>>bias
>>
>>>>will make a
>>>>balance. In this, I trust editors on the whole to
>>>>achieve balance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Heph and Guanaco agreed to wait for your feedback,
>>>>so they did not
>>>>revert again the block. This was very nice of
>>>
>>them.
>>
>>>>I think it is quite
>>>>bad to enter a blocking reversion war.
>>>>Now, please, consider the three points :
>>>>* do you need more information to convince you
>>>
>>that
>>
>>>>enough evidence was
>>>>provided ?
>>>>* do you need more information to convince you
>>>
>>that
>>
>>>>the block is
>>>>generally approved, as a temporary measure to wait
>>>>for AC to deliver his
>>>>judgment ?
>>>>
>>>>And
>>>>* do you think a centralised committee decision
>>>>making is the only way,
>>>>or do you think groups of trusted sysops may act
>>>>temporarily while
>>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: Nikola Smolenski

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: small template & furigana

body:
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:05, Alexandros Diamantidis wrote:
> * Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> [2004-06-09 04:04]:
> > Jens Frank wrote:
> > >Shouldn't UTF-8 provide the needed diacritic characters needed to
> > > compose these, without needing HTML tables?
>
> [...]
>
> > So it's really something more on the publication-layout level than on
> > the character level, which is why it'll probably never be in Unicode,
> > even as a combinator sort of thing.
>
> To be pedantic about it, there are three characters defined in Unicode
> for this:
>
> U+FFF9 INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR
> U+FFFA INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION SEPARATOR
> U+FFFB INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION TERMINATOR
>
> In systems that support them, <FFF9><kanji><FFFA><hiragana><FFFB> would
> mean the kanji with the hiragana as ruby annotation. In practice, I
> don't think this is implemented anywhere. It was defined more for
> internal use in systems that could use them, not as characters that
> could appear in plain text or entered by users.

Though I do think that tables should be inlined, perhaps even better solution
would be to add support for these characters to MediaWiki. Should it be done?


from_name: Jim Higson

subject:
[Wikitech-l] experimental whysiwyg/syntax highlighted editor for
	wikimedia

body:
Hi all.

I'm testing the ground for writing a java aplet based mini-editor for
mediawiki (and maybe other wikis, although the lack of a standard makes that
difficult).

What I have in mind is a relatively light applet - a more specialised version
of the generic text input, that creates well formatted wiki markup, by
allowing a syntax highlighted or whysiwyg view of the article.

This wouldn't require comunication with the server, other than uploading the
article, as happens now.

The program would be GPL, and as far as possible be designed to work with the
GNU classpath.

What do you think of this idea? My main aim is to make editing easier for
non-technical users.

Jim


from_name: Rick Schwarz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie....

body:
Although I am not new to Wikipedia I am new to this email list, Is
there any specific rules that I need to follow or is the list open
to all concerns and comments about the Wikipedia (English) website?
because I have one that I would like to bring up.

Rick (aka Misterrick)


from_name: Delirium

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

>On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:05, Alexandros Diamantidis wrote:
>
>
>>To be pedantic about it, there are three characters defined in Unicode
>>for this:
>>
>>U+FFF9 INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR
>>U+FFFA INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION SEPARATOR
>>U+FFFB INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION TERMINATOR
>>
>>In systems that support them, <FFF9><kanji><FFFA><hiragana><FFFB> would
>>mean the kanji with the hiragana as ruby annotation. In practice, I
>>don't think this is implemented anywhere. It was defined more for
>>internal use in systems that could use them, not as characters that
>>could appear in plain text or entered by users.
>>
>>
>
>Though I do think that tables should be inlined, perhaps even better solution
>would be to add support for these characters to MediaWiki. Should it be done?
>
>
Unicode support is done at the browser level, so support for these
characters would have to be added to IE and Mozilla in order for them to
display properly.  It *could* be done at the MediaWiki level,
translating these Unicode characters into an HTML table approximation,
but that would be a little bit strange.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie....

body:
Just jump in and if we don't like it we'll all jump on you.

Seriously, anything except discussions of individual articles that would be
better put on the article talk page.

Fred

> From: "Rick Schwarz" <misterrick at verizon.net>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 12:50:32 -0400
> To: <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie....
>
> Although I am not new to Wikipedia I am new to this email list, Is
> there any specific rules that I need to follow or is the list open
> to all concerns and comments about the Wikipedia (English) website?
> because I have one that I would like to bring up.
>
> Rick (aka Misterrick)
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Mark Pellegrini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie....

body:
In general, you can bring up pretty much anything you want that pertains to the english wikipedia. You should be aware, however, that we do not decide policy here - that kind of stuff is better done on wikipedia proper.

--Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/7afefe22/attachment.htm


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Don't look for trouble. (was Re: Blocking without
	following policy)

body:
I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether
someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the
whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user
needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits
they make, there is no need to speculate on whether
they are returning.
If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the
better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R

--- Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
> > Now, the question is (and that is a very good
> question) : should
> > sysops take such decisions, or should they wait
> for the AC to decide
> > for them ?
> >
> > As I said above, I think the policy leaves room
> for a group of sysops
> > to act temporarily, before the AC does.
> >
> > Is it good ?
> > *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants
> are getting upset to
> > see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before
> "judgment" by the AC.
> > It is no good that participants become angry. In
> real life, there is
> > similar provision.... when someone is said to have
> done something
> > deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat
> to the society, he
> > may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He
> should be put in
> > jail only if there is enough evidence naturally.
> But this prevents
> > damage to the society, while giving time to judge
> fairly.
> > If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to
> the wrongly-blocked
> > person, and re-consider how we are looking for
> evidence for next cases.
> >
> > *yes, it is also good because power should be in
> the hand of people
> > first. Those doing the daily work. This is the
> wiki way.
>
> I agree with this.  Perhaps if we had an AC filled
> with lots of paid
> employees or people with no other non-Wikipedia
> commitments it'd be
> better to have a dedicated investigative team to
> decide these things,
> but that seems pretty far-fetched.  I think reaching
> a consensus on
> whether the user is a reincarnation, (the wiki way,
> as you aptly
> described it) is a better approach.  I'm not sure if
> this should be
> formalized or left sort of informal, but the general
> guideline would be
> that if a pretty large majority seem to think it's a
> reincarnation, we
> should assume it is, while if there is widespread
> disagreement, then
> perhaps we can't assume it is.
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
Anthere wrote:

> Now, the question is (and that is a very good question) : should
> sysops take such decisions, or should they wait for the AC to decide
> for them ?
>
> As I said above, I think the policy leaves room for a group of sysops
> to act temporarily, before the AC does.
>
> Is it good ?
> *yes, because AC is acting slowly. Participants are getting upset to
> see reincarnations waiting for 2 months before "judgment" by the AC.
> It is no good that participants become angry. In real life, there is
> similar provision.... when someone is said to have done something
> deeply wrong and is considered a potential threat to the society, he
> may be put in jail before the judgment is made. He should be put in
> jail only if there is enough evidence naturally. But this prevents
> damage to the society, while giving time to judge fairly.
> If there is a mistake, we should deeply apology to the wrongly-blocked
> person, and re-consider how we are looking for evidence for next cases.
>
> *yes, it is also good because power should be in the hand of people
> first. Those doing the daily work. This is the wiki way.

I agree with this.  Perhaps if we had an AC filled with lots of paid
employees or people with no other non-Wikipedia commitments it'd be
better to have a dedicated investigative team to decide these things,
but that seems pretty far-fetched.  I think reaching a consensus on
whether the user is a reincarnation, (the wiki way, as you aptly
described it) is a better approach.  I'm not sure if this should be
formalized or left sort of informal, but the general guideline would be
that if a pretty large majority seem to think it's a reincarnation, we
should assume it is, while if there is widespread disagreement, then
perhaps we can't assume it is.

-Mark


from_name: libertarian

body:
Abe,

Your frustration is understandable. I myself have faced this sort of hounding from the gang of BCorr, Ed Poor, Angela, VV and others. They form a closed knit group and inadverently indulge in propaganda. Much of it may be due to their ignorance. Wikipedia is not a good encyclopedia. It is just like USENET and no better than USENET in terms of information and disinformation.

On the coup that overthrew Allende, it ***was backed by United States***, but there are several reasons that Americans refuse to have that information out there.

1) As you may have found out, most Americans are ignorant people and look up to their Government for verification. They just cannot believe that their Govt did not do something against liberty.

2) White Supremacists in America deny it.

3) They are mostly indoctrinated into thinking that they can only be victims and have never been the perpetrators of violence. Cut Ed Poor, VV and others some slack. Maybe their knowledge base is inferior and they do not know that USA backed the coup against Allende. Ignorance is an American trait.

4) They are indoctrinated into thinking that only they are victims of Muslim terrorists, tinpot military dictators and Communists while others cannot be victims. This is called subliminal racism, i.e., they are all racist but don't realize it. Their minds are conditioned by their environment.

A few months back, there was some Communist propaganda against Hindus in India. Apparently, Muslims in India are extremely peaceful people, but Hindus oppress them! Amazing claim because when you look at Hindus all over the world, you don't see them hijacking planes and slamming them into buildings or blowing themselves up. When I pointed out that the authors of the report were Communist and one of them was a well known Communist who contested elections on the Communist ticket, this gang kept vandalising it and removing that reference.

One Indian kid overawed by Communism who I think must barely be in college is their 'expert' on India (Most Indians who support Communists suffer from inferiority complex and want to impress Whites and think that getting appreciation from Whites is an achievement. They do this by trashing everything Indian and like the ignorant liberals in the US, they too think that they should call Islam a 'religion of peace' and claim that Hindus are the most violent people.
This kid's bewilderment at my knowledge of politics in the 60s and 70s may mean that he is just learning the ropes and it may not be inferiority complex on his part. He just couldn't get himself to believe that the well known judge was a Communist party candidate in elections.
These people were learning stuff from me while the "edit war" was going on, but later locked it in favor of those who learnt from me.)

I don't think Wikipedia has a future as an encyclopedia. The style may imitate an encyclopedia, but one must always verify facts elsewhere. Please tell others to cross-check with more reliable sources if they gleaned any information from Wikipedia. Like USENET, Wikipedia has its role - it may be used as a starting point which gives pointers to various sources.

Wiki admins can still redeem themselves and prove that they are not White Supremacists. All they have to do is allow the point about USA backing the coup against Allende to be put up along with other facts.

-libertarian

--- On Tue 06/08, Abe Sokolov < abesokolov at hotmail.com > wrote:From: Abe Sokolov [mailto: abesokolov at hotmail.com]To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.orgDate: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 03:43:24 +0000Subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor's abuse of admin powersI think that a number of users have been misunderstanding my posting. I was
not calling Ed Poor's activities on the mailing list an abuse of admin
powers. This was just an attempt by Ed Poor to poison the well against me so
that he could get his way on the Pinochet article, where he did abuse admin
powers.

His unprotection of the Pinochet article and minutes later his restoration
of the version favored by VeryVerily (but opposed by roughly 90% of the
users who've participated in the discussion on the talk page) were the
abuses to which I was referring.

-172/listinfo/wikien-l

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikitech-l] Database error on save...

body:
with message

Database error
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A database query syntax error has occurred. This could be because of an
illegal search query (see Searching Wikipedia), or it may indicate a bug
in the software. The last attempted database query was::

UPDATE cur SET cur_text = etc...

from within function "Article::updateArticle". MySQL returned error
"1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction".

-- Neil


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ed Poor's abuse of admin powers

body:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT), libertarian
<libertarian at myway.com> wrote:
>
> I myself have faced this sort of hounding from the gang of BCorr, Ed Poor, Angela, VV and others. They form a closed knit group and inadverently indulge in propaganda.

My, that is certainly a curious group to characterize as "close-knit".

IRC channel at 3:11ish EST sez:

<CimonAvaro>  I doubt Angela and VV have ever even discussed on any talkpages.
<CimonAvaro>  can't get more closeknit than that.


body:
John Robinson wrote:

>> I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether
>> someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the
>> whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user
>> needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits
>> they make, there is no need to speculate on whether
>> they are returning.
>> If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the
>> better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
>> - I think there is a word for that.
>> Mark R
>
>
> Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&diff=2878571&oldid=2754803
>
>
> I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this
> previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even
> more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three
> months later.

I just read through it.  It looks like an honest expression of views in
the Wikipedia namespace.  Nobody is being attacked.  What is there about
the post that "provokes conflict"?  Surely this is not an opinion that
would merit banning.

Ec


from_name: André Müller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Menu Translation

body:
I have looked through the help files but couldn?t find anything about my
issue:
I?d like to translate the menu of the Klingon Wikipedia into Klingon as
well. How do I do this? Can you provide some links on this? By the way,
I?m also an Admin on the Klingon Wikipedia, so it should work...
Second question is: Is it possible to change the menu language when
browsing a Wikipedia in another language? Because I think it *might* be
easier to have an English menu, although only a Klingon menu would make
it complete. Is there such a possibility?

- Andr?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20040612/7e0ec68b/attachment.htm


body:
I was talking primarily about Leo Trollstoy - I have
yet to see anything that merits banning.
Mark R

--- John Robinson <john at freeq.com> wrote:
> >I find the idea of a popularity contest to see
> whether
> >someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find
> the
> >whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user
> >needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the
> edits
> >they make, there is no need to speculate on whether
> >they are returning.
> >If they don't do anything worth banning, so much
> the
> >better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is
> necessary
> >- I think there is a word for that.
> >Mark R
>
> Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&diff=2878571&oldid=2754803
>
> I find it bizarre that you think it is someone
> besides this
> previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke
> conflict". Even
> more bizarre than the fact that this user is still
> posting three
> months later.>
_______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


from_name: N.T. Riche

subject: [WikiEN-l] In Defence of JRR Trollkien

body:
I have seen no proof that JRR is banned User:EofT, other than according to a few sysops that he has the same editing style of EofT. Now I have spoke to Trollkien on the irc channel and he told me in a private chat that he was not EofT. I have several reasons to believe Trollkien.

1) Trollkien never threatened another user which was both 24's and EofT's trademark.

2) Trollkien has made many meanful contibutions

3) Trollkien was never involved in edit wars, like EofT was with RK

4) It was thought that User:Telgar the troll slayer was JRR which was later proved to be false

If any of you have links that prove otherwise show me them. Thanks.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/f8dbba1d/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] In Defence of JRR Trollkien

body:
I have seen no proof that JRR is banned User:EofT, other than according to a few sysops that he has the same editing style of EofT. Now I have spoke to Trollkien on the irc channel and he told me in a private chat that he was not EofT. I have several reasons to believe Trollkien.

1) Trollkien never threatened another user which was both 24's and EofT's trademark.

2) Trollkien has made many meaningful contributions

3) Trollkien was never involved in edit wars, like EofT was with RK

4) It was thought that User:Telgar the troll slayer was JRR which was later proved to be false

If any of you have links that prove otherwise show me them. Thanks.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/0c6998a8/attachment.htm


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Red faction and the Legion of Trolls

body:
What the hell is up with this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plato/red_faction

Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea.

Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:

"Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead and deserves
the death penalty; not a job editing (I mean deleting) the ideas that will
change and save our world! God made a mistake when he made Jimbo!!"

are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote
them blocked from editing.

JRR's mention and link to [[meta:Regime change]] (a page mostly written by
banned user 142.177) along with many other 142-written meta pages elesewhere
(such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Troll ) indicates that
JRR and 142.177 are one in the same.

This type of crap should not be tolerated - and yet it is. I am fearful that
our open and trusting nature is making us a haven for trolls.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


body:
Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
What the hell is up with this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Plato/red_faction

Wikipedia breaking up into factions is a very, very bad idea.

Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:

"Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead and deserves
the death penalty; not a job editing (I mean deleting) the ideas that will
change and save our world! God made a mistake when he made Jimbo!!"

are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who wrote
them blocked from editing.

JRR's mention and link to [[meta:Regime change]] (a page mostly written by
banned user 142.177) along with many other 142-written meta pages elesewhere
(such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JRR_Trollkien/Troll ) indicates that
JRR and 142.177 are one in the same.

This type of crap should not be tolerated - and yet it is. I am fearful that
our open and trusting nature is making us a haven for trolls.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

 You really shouldn't worry about it. I allow anyone (pretty much) to edit my red faction page. Even though you might worry about the communist overtones, it is not a wiki-communist organization. It was created for those users who need wiki-love and they don't get it. Now I never knew that 142 wrote that page which provides a rather interesting insight into who Jrr is but it is still not enough proof to convince me.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/a10a0b0c/attachment.htm


body:
>I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether
>someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the
>whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user
>needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits
>they make, there is no need to speculate on whether
>they are returning.
>If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the
>better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
>- I think there is a word for that.
>Mark R

Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&diff=2878571&oldid=2754803

I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this
previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even
more bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three
months later.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/4fb147df/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Yes, A Reincarnation

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is
> The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which
> would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I
> believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia
> policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or
> am I going too far?

Disclaimer: I have recused myself from this case and am only speaking as a
Wikipedia editor.

I have also looked into the matter and also agree that JRR is the same as a
long line of hard-banned troll reincarnations that started with 142.177 and
probably even 24. In addition to what Fred has said, this user very often links
to and copies pages that 142.177 and 24 wrote on meta. If this user were not
142.177 or 24, then how could he have known where all the 142.177's meta pages
and Wikipedia articles were since 142.177 was a dynamic range and thus his
edits are not easily tracked?

The preponderance of evidence is obvious here and IMO it even very close to
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (looking at the server logs will determine
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt). So I also agree with Fred's conclusion:
that any admin may ban JRR and revert any edit he has made (especially when
that edit was to restore an edit previously made by 142.177, 24, EoT or Cave
Troll).

> I still think any user who has "troll" in their name should be summarily
> banned, after a request to change their name just in case a mistake has been
> made in choosing a name. However when this kind of edit is made the chance
> of that is vanishingly small.

I also agree with this and think it comes under our existing 'offensive user
name' policy. Trolls by there very nature are subversive and tend to tear down
community structures and goodwill. So any user name with 'troll' in it (unless
the user can prove it is part of their real name) is very offensive to me and I
hope to many other Wikipedians since it represents a force that could destroy
our community.

Our policies are meaningless if they are not enforced and undoing enforcement
work is counterproductive and IMO often harmful to the community. What we need
is to make sure that policy enforcement is not carried out by any single admin,
but at least in groups of three (this would not affect the ability of single
admins to unilaterally block vandals). Those admin actions would then be
subject to reversal/approval by a quorum of the AC and if a more permanent
solution is needed, by an AC trial.

But the AC should assume good faith in admin actions unless it is obvious that
the admin was not acting in good faith.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: irc: #mediawiki split

references:
<cafdkj$q8q$1@sea.gmane.org> <caff5q$sp4$2@sea.gmane.org>
	<cafptl$irb$1@sea.gmane.org>

body:
You know you've been on IRC too much when you read the subject line
and think that #mediawiki was affected by a Freenode netsplit. :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Newbie....

body:
In a recent message, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> said:
> In your case make sure that you identify yourself unambiguously.
> There is another Rick on the list with a reputation for strong
> opinions.

Thanks for the advice, I'll make sure I clearly identify myself.

Rick Schwarz (aka Misterrick)


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Yes, A Reincarnation

body:
I have finally looked at this and the evidence is clear. JRR Trollkien is
The Cave Troll is EntmootsofTrolls. There is no reasonable scenario which
would result in someone reposting that stuff and calling it a minor edit. I
believe, based on that evidence alone, any adminstrator may within Wikipedia
policy ban JRR Trollkien as a reincarnation and revert any edit he makes. Or
am I going too far?

I still think any user who has "troll" in their name should be summarily
banned, after a request to change their name just in case a mistake has been
made in choosing a name. However when this kind of edit is made the chance
of that is vanishingly small.

Fred

From: John Robinson <john at freeq.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:24:19 -0500
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Don't look for trouble. (was Re: Blocking without
following policy)

I find the idea of a popularity contest to see whether
someone is returning user bizarre. In fact, I find the
whole idea of returning users bizarre. If the user
needs to be banned, ban them on the basis of the edits
they make, there is no need to speculate on whether
they are returning.
If they don't do anything worth banning, so much the
better. Don't provoke conflict unless it is necessary
- I think there is a word for that.
Mark R

Here is JRR Trollkien's first edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Political_dispute&diff=
2878571&oldid=2754803

I find it bizarre that you think it is someone besides this
previously-banned user who is attempting to "provoke conflict". Even more
bizarre than the fact that this user is still posting three months later.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/53388191/attachment.htm


body:
Fennec Foxen wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:16:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I just read through it.  It looks like an honest expression of views in
>>the Wikipedia namespace.  Nobody is being attacked.  What is there about
>>the post that "provokes conflict"?  Surely this is not an opinion that
>>would merit banning.
>>
>>
>
>Without commenting on whether or not this is honest or bannable or
>anything like that... this looks like it belongs on Meta.
>
Perhaps so, but putting it on the wrong project is not a bannable
offence.  What the appropriate project should be is arguable either way.

>Now, regarding the "banned user", I believe standard practice (at
>least on certain hard-banned users - Michael... 142? if not everyone)
>is to revert everything they do on Wikipedia, whether or not it is
>good, valid, right, wrong, misleading, or enlightening.
>
Be that as it may you said before that it was his first post.  That's
inconsistent with his being a banned user.

>The implication in the preceding post seems to be that it's obvious
>via this page history that the user in question is in fact a user who
>is already hard-banned.
>
There's nothing obvious in it at all.  That post was slightly more than
11 days after the previous one.  That's a flimsy excuse for evidence.


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's coverage of 1973 Chilean coup

body:
> From: "libertarian" <libertarian at myway.com>
> On the coup that overthrew Allende, it ***was backed by United
> States***, but there are several reasons that Americans refuse to have
> that information out there.
...
> Wiki admins can still redeem themselves and prove that they are not
> White Supremacists. All they have to do is allow the point about USA
> backing the coup against Allende to be put up along with other facts.

Since I happen to be a U. S. citizen who believes that the USA almost
certainly did back the coup against Allende, and since I have been
utterly uninvolved in any articles about that subject, I decided to see
whether there really is a problem with Wikipedia's coverage of the
topic. I typed in "Allende," it redirected to "Salvador Allende," and
under "The coup" I read:

"In the aftermath of the coup, many Allende supporters began to allege
that the president's overthrow had been the result of an
US-orchestrated scheme. The CIA denies having actively supported the
coup and claims that it was merely informed of it. Classified documents
indicate that the CIA was at least supportive of a coup to overthrow
Allende, though not necessarily in favour of bringing Pinochet himself
to power."

The section on "Legacy and Debate" links to "Chilean coup of 1973."
That article contains a seven-paragraph-long section entitled "US role
in 1973 coup." It notes that "the CIA actively supported the military
junta after the overthrow of Allende." It says the CIA "contends it
'played no direct role in' the coup," where the word "contends"
distances the article from the CIA's denial.  It quotes Colin Powell as
saying "With respect to your earlier comments about Chile in the 1970s
and what happened with Mr. Allende, it is not a part of American
history that we're proud of" and says that "Chilean newspapers hailed
the news as the first time the U.S. government had conceded a role in
the affair." It does says "claims of [the CIA]'s direct involvement in
the actual coup are not supported by documentary evidence" but
immediately qualifies this with the phrase "although many documents
still remain classified."

It seems to me to be a very well-supported, well-written section.

Libertarian, why do you suggest that the admins are "not allowing the
point" to be made? It seems to me that the point _is_ being made. Do
you insist on some particular phraseology?

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2687 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040612/0c7d5b3c/attachment.bin


from_name: Timwi

body:
Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 June 2004 21:05, Alexandros Diamantidis wrote:
>
>>U+FFF9 INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR
>>U+FFFA INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION SEPARATOR
>>U+FFFB INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION TERMINATOR
>
> Though I do think that tables should be inlined, perhaps even better solution
> would be to add support for these characters to MediaWiki. Should it be done?

This is not something MediaWiki can do. Support for Unicode control
characters is up to the browsers.

Timwi


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.3.0beta3 released

body:
The installer now tries to enable error reporting and checks for some
problem conditions (low memory_limit and lack of PHP's
installed-by-default XML module). Hopefully this will solve some install
problems and make it easier to diagnose others.

Release notes:
https://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=245372

Download:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/wikipedia/mediawiki-1.3.0beta3.tar.gz?download

Report bugs at:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=34373&atid=411192

Play "Stump the Developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

== Changes since 1.3.0beta2 ==

Ongoing performance work:
* Reduced amount of loaded Special page code loaded

Installation:
* Enable error display to try to make it easier to diagnose problems
* Detect memory_limit and try to raise it
* Detect missing XML module and complain

Misc bits:
* Fix for Greek in Monobook skin [PHP bug workaround]
* Image password protection in whitelist read mode (?)
* Some incomplete PostgreSQL support is being worked on. (Won't be ready
for 1.3.0, but might be usable in a later 1.3.x release.)
* All localizations can now be used in UTF-8 encoding.
* Various stylesheet tweaks.
* And other stuff...

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040612/f550de2c/attachment.pgp>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: irc: #mediawiki split

body:
Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> Last week xirzon proposed to separate the chat traffic for the mediawiki
> software and the one for wikipedia servers. The idea was :
>
>  #mediawiki : mediawiki software development and support
>  #wikitech  : wikipedia specific issues and servers support

Support from my side :) (Is this a vote at all?)


from_name: Finlay McWalter

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: experimental whysiwyg/syntax highlighted editor
	for wikimedia

body:
Jim Higson wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> I'm testing the ground for writing a java aplet based mini-editor for
> mediawiki (and maybe other wikis, although the lack of a standard makes that
> difficult).
>
> What I have in mind is a relatively light applet - a more specialised version
> of the generic text input, that creates well formatted wiki markup, by
> allowing a syntax highlighted or whysiwyg view of the article.
>
> This wouldn't require comunication with the server, other than uploading the
> article, as happens now.
>
> The program would be GPL, and as far as possible be designed to work with the
> GNU classpath.
>
> What do you think of this idea? My main aim is to make editing easier for
> non-technical users.
>
> Jim

It's a noble idea, but doing it properly (where it could replace the
normal mode of editing on a mature wiki like wikipedia) is *hard*.

Doing basic wysiwyg stuff (bold, italic, links, paragraphs) is fairly
straightforward (particularly if classpath's implementation of swing's
rich text edit thingy is in good shape).  Byt wysiwyg editing of hard
stuff like floating images and tables essentially entails reimplementing
rather a lot of the browser's display code in java.  Even then,
everytime your conception of how things will look and the browser's
conception differ, you're no longer remotely wysiwyg. And then there's
stylesheets.  So I think a full-featured solution is essentially
impractical, and certainly not worthwhile.

What is practical, and I think is worthwhile, is using the browser's
rendering engine itself for wysiwyg editing (or, in the interim, wysiwyg
preview).  Implement the editor using DOM (which I fear means "in
javascript" too, in practice).  I think there's enough support in DOM2
to do everything necessary, and you can realistically hope to handle
advanced stuff like images, tables, etc.

I don't know how it will work on broken browsers like IE.
FIn

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
W.Finlay McWalter   [[User:Finlay McWalter]]   http://www.mcwalter.org
"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', You could be another Lincoln..."


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Red faction and the Legion of Trolls

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:
>>>"Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead [...]"
>>>are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who
>>>
>>>
>>wrote
>>
>>
>>>them blocked from editing.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, why didn't you delete it?
>>
>>
>
>Because doing so unilaterally would probably result in several people attacking
>me for it. The current climate seems to be hostile against admins enforcing our
>policies. I would like to change that.
>
>
If something is likely to be used as evidence of somebody's behaviour it
should stay.  Perhaps it should even be highlighted in a special
coloured box.

Ec


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] irc: #mediawiki split

body:
Hello,

Last week xirzon proposed to separate the chat traffic for the mediawiki
software and the one for wikipedia servers. The idea was :

  #mediawiki : mediawiki software development and support
  #wikitech  : wikipedia specific issues and servers support

I personally find its a good idea. Users asking for support in
#mediawiki often found their question flooded by wikipedia's servers
administrators :o)

We could also get a bot that post cvs commit to #mediawiki since the
traffic will be lowered (or maybe #mediawiki-cvs could feat this better).

--
Ashar Voultoiz


body:
--- Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Daniel Mayer wrote:
>
> > Also, comments from IndigoGenius like:
> > "Father of the Fifth World movement, thinks Jimbo is brain dead [...]"
> > are not at all acceptable and should be deleted on sight and the user who
> wrote
> > them blocked from editing.
>
> Well, why didn't you delete it?

Because doing so unilaterally would probably result in several people attacking
me for it. The current climate seems to be hostile against admins enforcing our
policies. I would like to change that.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/