body:
Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> Anthere:
>
>> If only because rules and habits are no more the same now that they
>> were 3 years ago. There is an expectation that the candidate sysop
>> knows the project quite well, know the people, know the rules..
>
> ...
>
>> I also think that if an editor away for 3 years just came back now...
>> he would neither know the rules, nor be known himself by current editors.
>
>
> I think it is completely fair to indicate on the list of administrators
> if an admin hasn't made edits for some months or even years. In fact,
> this is exactly what we're doing on
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators
>
> This helps users to know whom they can contact for help and expect an
> answer.
>
> However, revoking someone's status just because they *might* become
> active again without knowing the rules seems to violate the "Assume Good
> Faith" principle. If an admin pauses for 6 months and then goes back to
> performing admin operations, I expect them to make an effort to look at
> what's changed first. If they don't make such an effort themselves,
> again, it is not our duty to punish them, but to revert actions which
> have been made accidentally in violation of newly established rules, and
> to educate them.
>
> Adminship is about trust. If we trust a person, we should know that they
> will try to do the right thing, even under changed circumstances.
> Therefore, we shouldn't have to take someone's privileges away just to
> make sure they don't do anything bad -- because this could indicate to
> them that we no longer *trust* them. I don't want to send this kind of
> message to people like Mintguy, Vicky Rosenzweig, April, Salsa Shark,
> Optim, Mirwin, Maximus Rex, or Zoe.
>
> I believe this is especially true if an admin is still active on
> *Wikimedia*, but just not on the same project anymore.
>
> Erik

Maybe I need to remind why this rule was instaured on meta. There is an
history on it. Which lead me to propose this, while I would probably not
agree with it on a project such as fr.wikipedia.

There was a time where meta sysops were not elected at all. Anyone who
was sysop on one project somewhere, and asked to be sysop on meta, was
granted sysophood.

It is fine for english editors. Sysops are elected first and we know
they are trusted. This is not the case for some small languages, where
we give sysophood pretty easily, without any vote or just one support,
because the project is so small there is less than 5 people on it.

As a result, several very unknown editors were named sysops on small
languages, and became sysops on meta automatically. One of the big
problem of meta is its multilingualism, which makes vandal hunting
doubly difficult.

Enough editors (well, no one opposed) considered it problematic that
totally unknown and very little involved editors became sysops on meta,
as meta has its own community.

In this perspective, the reconfirmation and removal of status of editors
inactive on meta made sense, and ihmo still make sense.

As you say it yourself, adminship is about trust. But when totally
unknown editors, never elected, are sysops, there is no trust.

Ant


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Moldovan Wikipedia Proposal

body:
I have nothing to add, except:

Approximately 33% of Moldovans believe there is, in fact, a Moldovan
language. This is hundreds of thousands of people.

In my view, the NPOV is that "some people say a Moldovan language
exists, others say it doesn't", because this is actually the case. (I
personally believe that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language
with two different names).

My accusations of them being Romanian extremist nationalists are not
unsubstantiated. One person signs their messages as "Organizatia
Romana Unionista" (Romanian Unionist Organisation, unionist refers to
advocating the re-integration of Moldova into Romania).

Others have cited such reasons as the alleged ugliness of Cyrillic, or
that anybody who uses Cyrillic to write Moldovan must be a Stalinist,
and therefore should be ignored.

Danutz called me a "Japanese fag", as well. "Nationalist" is not an
insult, just a label trying to indicate bias. However, I perceive both
"stalinist" and "fag" as intentional insults.

So far, there have been a few actual people in Moldova who have visited:
1) Vertaler. He produced a great portion of the content that currently
exists at mo.wiki. He left contact information, but doesn't seem to
visit regularly anymore. He didn't make a statement about his position
on whether the Wiki should exist, but he contributed a lot to it, so
my guess is that he supports it. He demonstrated fluency by posting a
bit of content in the language.
2) Anonymous Moldovan user. He made some changes to the Moldovan on
several pages, in Cyrillic. He has a Moldovan IP, but the timestamps
on his edits indicate that he's probably not Vertaler or Dmitriid. He
demonstrated fluency by posting a bit of content in the language.
3) Dmitriid. He has expressed that the Wikipedia is "redundant", since
the articles say the same thing as the Romanian version (they are
written in a different alphabet, though, and there's probably about 3%
original content). Originally he expressed a belief that the Wikipedia
should be deleted, but about a day ago he revised his opinion to say
that a Cyrillic version might be nessecary. He demonstrated fluency by
posting a bit of content in the language. (in Latin script; however
other signs indicate that he can read Cyrillic)

There is also Landroni, who says he's a Moldovan man in France. He is
diametrically opposed to the existance of the Wikipedia, and has said
some pretty extreme stuff against it. However, he has not demonstrated
fluency on even the most basic level because everything he said was in
English.

The major Romanian participants (besides Ronline):
Danutz. Originally, it seemed he was OK with the existance of mo.wiki
in its present form. However, recently he began to oppose it,
including calling me names. He is a sysop at ro.wiki.
Duca. Originally, both myself and Danutz discussed with him why it was
essential that mo.wiki exist. He labelled me as Stalinist and Russian,
and asked why Danutz, a Romanian, was supporting a Stalinist. He also
accused me of being a KGB agent. He seems to have disappeared a couple
of days ago. He is not an established user on any Wikipedia.
Domnu Goie. Domnu Goie entered the situation only in the last few
days. His accusations are more alarming to me than Duca's. One of his
main beliefs is that a mainpage that says "Moldovan Wikipedia" is
extremely POV (and "stalinist propaganda"), and that to be "neutral"
it must say "Moldovan (Romanian) Wikipedia". He has variously accused
me of being a Russian, a Stalinist, a KGB agent... he is not, to my
knowledge, an established user on any Wikipedia.
Organizatia Romana Unionista. Only made a couple of posts.
Vasile. I have no idea about this user.

Mark

On 22/06/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi to all,
>
> This is Ronline from the Romanian Wikipedia. We have
> currently (in the past week especially) had quite a
> lot of controversy about the Moldovan Wikipedia at
> http://mo.wikipedia.org.
>
> The reason I'm raising the issue here is to gauge the
> response of the wider community towards my proposal
> and also what's happening over at mo:
>
> Mo.wikipedia.org was founded a while ago, but until
> about  this year, it basically had no content and
> simply contained a redirect link to the Romanian
> Wikipedia, since Moldovan is identical to Romanian,
> renamed for political reasons (I won't go into the
> whole story now, you can see
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language).
>
> Anyway, so a few months ago, a user called Vertaler
> came and added some Cyrillic content to the Moldovan
> Wikipedia. Cyrillic is a script used by a minority of
> Moldovans. Node_ue (Mark Williamson) supported that
> and said that he wishes to convert mo.wikipedia.org
> into a Cyrillic-Moldovan Wikipedia, with all Latin
> content being placed at ro.wikipedia.org in order to
> avoid duplication.
>
> After negotation with Node, I have come forward with a
> proposal that he has agreed with, which seeks to
> establish mo.wikipedia.org as a biscriptal
> Latin/Cyrillic Wikipedia in interface, and a
> biscriptal portal, but with Cyrillic content hosted on
> mo.wikipedia in order to avoid duplication with
> ro.wiki.
>
> The entire proposal is at
> http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere,
> in English and Romanian.
>
> Now, the reason I've come here is because some users
> from the Romanian Wikipedia do not agree with keeping
> a Moldovan Wikipedia for Cyrillic content, because
> they believe that a Moldovan language doesn't exist
> (most linguists agree with this) and that since
> Wikipedia is neutral, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia in
> a language renamed for political reasons like
> Moldovan. Also, since Cyrillic is no longer the
> official script in Moldova (it used to be during
> Communist times), there is no place for it as mo.wiki.
> Other users agree to Cyrillic content, but not under
> the "Moldovan language" name.
>
> The controversy, which can be viewed at
> http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Паӂина
> принчипалэ,
> has been exacerbated by the fact that there has been
> mutual distrust between Node on one hand, and a series
> of Romanian users, on the other. Node has blamed the
> Romanian users for being "nationalist" and "radical"
> and "anti-Moldovan", this being the reason why they
> don't support a Moldovan Wikipedia. The Romanian users
> have labelled Node a "Stalinist" and claim that he is
> not listening to them even though they are in the
> majority.
>
> Danutz, a Romanian user, pointed out that it is unfair
> that Node is the only user which supports the Moldovan
> Wikipedia, when he does not even speak
> Moldovan/Romanian very well (it seems he has some
> Moldovan roots, though) and has placed himself as
> sysop undemocratically (without any community
> consensus - note, though, that at that time the
> Romanian visitors weren't yet aware of the mo.wiki).
> They therefore feel that an abuse of power is taking
> place, especially since Node is saying that the
> Romanian users shouldn't be able to have a say because
> they aren't Moldovan (in which case, the Romanian
> users claim that Node also doesn't have a right
> because he can "barely" speak Romanian/Moldovan).
>
> Now, personally, I have taken a very neutral stance
> and compelled both sides to argue more rationally and
> stop the criticism. I also am entirely committed to
> hearing both sides out and acting in a professional
> manner.
>
> We have made some headway recently, and I have struck
> an agreement with Node over my proposal, which he
> seems to support. Some of the Romanian users, however,
> still do not agree with all parts of the proposal,
> some of them asking for a separate subdomain for a
> Moldovan-Cyrillic wiki. What do people say to that? I
> would personally agree to that, meaning a mo.wiki
> which is simply a portal, and a mo-cyr.wikipedia.org
> which hosts only Cyrillic content.
>
> I have presented my case here in order to gauge public
> response. I have also opened a consultation period
> with the community to allow for any complaints to the
> proposal, at
> http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere.
> I'd just like to hear some opinions of people which
> aren't involved in this case so we can get more
> neutral, unaffiliated viewpoints.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ronline
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


list: wikien-l

from_name: Anthere

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than
 "no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
Dan Grey a ?crit:
> Annual 're-affirmation' would be a nightmare on WP - there's, what,
> 400+ admins? That means we'd need to do _more_ than one of these
> _every day_.
>
> This - all of this discussion in fact - still looks like a solution
> hunting *desperately* for a problem.
>
>
> Dan

Hummm.

Right.

So to summarize.

It all started with Alphax claiming "it takes the intervention of a
steward (which I've always thought of as being comparable to a Herculean
effort) for someone to have admin priveleges removed".

I think this is not an Herculean effort at all. You can reach us any
time on meta or on irc. Sorry for abusing your time. I was not "hunting"
for a problem, but trying to clarify a false perception.

ant


body:
I feel I should also add something about my being a sysop.

My actions as a sysop (which I have been for about 3 days following an
emergency request):
1) protecting both main pages. The NPOV notices on them were added by
IP users, and I saw them as vandalism. In addition, one of these pages
had only 1 sentence on it, so labelling it as POV is a bit extreme. It
was also my view that NPOV notices belong on content pages, not the
mainpage which should be kept clear to avoid confusion to new users.
In addition, _the POV notice itself_ said "There is no such thing as a
moldovan language. The fact that Romanian can and may be written in
another alphabet does not make it a language other the..." which is
obviously not NPOV.
2) making translations to the interface.
3) deleting a couple of pages. They were:
3a) "Hincesti" (title actually in Cyrillic). Contents: "super puper
stadt- acolo verishoara mea traieshte, olea cebotaru"
3b) Kazahstan. Empty, title in Latin alphabet.
3c) Gesch?ftspartnern. Contents: "Siehe auch: MO, Gedanken, Schmiede,
?bertragung, Bilder, Psychose, Hypnose". ie, it was in German.
3d) Template:POV. Contents: "content was: '{{Message_box|id
=NPOV|backgroundcolor =AntiqueWhite|image =Stop_hand.png|heading =The
neutrality of this arti..." (referred to template:message_box, which
had a very POV message about the Moldovan speech, and also was used
only on the main pages).
3e) Template:Messagebox. Contents: "There is no such thing as a
moldovan language. The fact that Romanian can and may be written in
another alphabet does not make it a language other the..."
(irreparably POV)

Unlike the Stalinist I am accused of being, I have put Latin alphabet
FIRST in all interface translations, and have banned nobody, and have
not protected anything except the mainpage.

Although I'm not at all happy with all of the people who are accusing
me of being a Stalinist, and at Danutz for calling me a "Japanese
fag", I have not blocked any of them, and do not plan to.

Mark

On 22/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have nothing to add, except:
>
> Approximately 33% of Moldovans believe there is, in fact, a Moldovan
> language. This is hundreds of thousands of people.
>
> In my view, the NPOV is that "some people say a Moldovan language
> exists, others say it doesn't", because this is actually the case. (I
> personally believe that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language
> with two different names).
>
> My accusations of them being Romanian extremist nationalists are not
> unsubstantiated. One person signs their messages as "Organizatia
> Romana Unionista" (Romanian Unionist Organisation, unionist refers to
> advocating the re-integration of Moldova into Romania).
>
> Others have cited such reasons as the alleged ugliness of Cyrillic, or
> that anybody who uses Cyrillic to write Moldovan must be a Stalinist,
> and therefore should be ignored.
>
> Danutz called me a "Japanese fag", as well. "Nationalist" is not an
> insult, just a label trying to indicate bias. However, I perceive both
> "stalinist" and "fag" as intentional insults.
>
> So far, there have been a few actual people in Moldova who have visited:
> 1) Vertaler. He produced a great portion of the content that currently
> exists at mo.wiki. He left contact information, but doesn't seem to
> visit regularly anymore. He didn't make a statement about his position
> on whether the Wiki should exist, but he contributed a lot to it, so
> my guess is that he supports it. He demonstrated fluency by posting a
> bit of content in the language.
> 2) Anonymous Moldovan user. He made some changes to the Moldovan on
> several pages, in Cyrillic. He has a Moldovan IP, but the timestamps
> on his edits indicate that he's probably not Vertaler or Dmitriid. He
> demonstrated fluency by posting a bit of content in the language.
> 3) Dmitriid. He has expressed that the Wikipedia is "redundant", since
> the articles say the same thing as the Romanian version (they are
> written in a different alphabet, though, and there's probably about 3%
> original content). Originally he expressed a belief that the Wikipedia
> should be deleted, but about a day ago he revised his opinion to say
> that a Cyrillic version might be nessecary. He demonstrated fluency by
> posting a bit of content in the language. (in Latin script; however
> other signs indicate that he can read Cyrillic)
>
> There is also Landroni, who says he's a Moldovan man in France. He is
> diametrically opposed to the existance of the Wikipedia, and has said
> some pretty extreme stuff against it. However, he has not demonstrated
> fluency on even the most basic level because everything he said was in
> English.
>
> The major Romanian participants (besides Ronline):
> Danutz. Originally, it seemed he was OK with the existance of mo.wiki
> in its present form. However, recently he began to oppose it,
> including calling me names. He is a sysop at ro.wiki.
> Duca. Originally, both myself and Danutz discussed with him why it was
> essential that mo.wiki exist. He labelled me as Stalinist and Russian,
> and asked why Danutz, a Romanian, was supporting a Stalinist. He also
> accused me of being a KGB agent. He seems to have disappeared a couple
> of days ago. He is not an established user on any Wikipedia.
> Domnu Goie. Domnu Goie entered the situation only in the last few
> days. His accusations are more alarming to me than Duca's. One of his
> main beliefs is that a mainpage that says "Moldovan Wikipedia" is
> extremely POV (and "stalinist propaganda"), and that to be "neutral"
> it must say "Moldovan (Romanian) Wikipedia". He has variously accused
> me of being a Russian, a Stalinist, a KGB agent... he is not, to my
> knowledge, an established user on any Wikipedia.
> Organizatia Romana Unionista. Only made a couple of posts.
> Vasile. I have no idea about this user.
>
> Mark
>
> On 22/06/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > This is Ronline from the Romanian Wikipedia. We have
> > currently (in the past week especially) had quite a
> > lot of controversy about the Moldovan Wikipedia at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org.
> >
> > The reason I'm raising the issue here is to gauge the
> > response of the wider community towards my proposal
> > and also what's happening over at mo:
> >
> > Mo.wikipedia.org was founded a while ago, but until
> > about  this year, it basically had no content and
> > simply contained a redirect link to the Romanian
> > Wikipedia, since Moldovan is identical to Romanian,
> > renamed for political reasons (I won't go into the
> > whole story now, you can see
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language).
> >
> > Anyway, so a few months ago, a user called Vertaler
> > came and added some Cyrillic content to the Moldovan
> > Wikipedia. Cyrillic is a script used by a minority of
> > Moldovans. Node_ue (Mark Williamson) supported that
> > and said that he wishes to convert mo.wikipedia.org
> > into a Cyrillic-Moldovan Wikipedia, with all Latin
> > content being placed at ro.wikipedia.org in order to
> > avoid duplication.
> >
> > After negotation with Node, I have come forward with a
> > proposal that he has agreed with, which seeks to
> > establish mo.wikipedia.org as a biscriptal
> > Latin/Cyrillic Wikipedia in interface, and a
> > biscriptal portal, but with Cyrillic content hosted on
> > mo.wikipedia in order to avoid duplication with
> > ro.wiki.
> >
> > The entire proposal is at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere,
> > in English and Romanian.
> >
> > Now, the reason I've come here is because some users
> > from the Romanian Wikipedia do not agree with keeping
> > a Moldovan Wikipedia for Cyrillic content, because
> > they believe that a Moldovan language doesn't exist
> > (most linguists agree with this) and that since
> > Wikipedia is neutral, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia in
> > a language renamed for political reasons like
> > Moldovan. Also, since Cyrillic is no longer the
> > official script in Moldova (it used to be during
> > Communist times), there is no place for it as mo.wiki.
> > Other users agree to Cyrillic content, but not under
> > the "Moldovan language" name.
> >
> > The controversy, which can be viewed at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Паӂина
> > принчипалэ,
> > has been exacerbated by the fact that there has been
> > mutual distrust between Node on one hand, and a series
> > of Romanian users, on the other. Node has blamed the
> > Romanian users for being "nationalist" and "radical"
> > and "anti-Moldovan", this being the reason why they
> > don't support a Moldovan Wikipedia. The Romanian users
> > have labelled Node a "Stalinist" and claim that he is
> > not listening to them even though they are in the
> > majority.
> >
> > Danutz, a Romanian user, pointed out that it is unfair
> > that Node is the only user which supports the Moldovan
> > Wikipedia, when he does not even speak
> > Moldovan/Romanian very well (it seems he has some
> > Moldovan roots, though) and has placed himself as
> > sysop undemocratically (without any community
> > consensus - note, though, that at that time the
> > Romanian visitors weren't yet aware of the mo.wiki).
> > They therefore feel that an abuse of power is taking
> > place, especially since Node is saying that the
> > Romanian users shouldn't be able to have a say because
> > they aren't Moldovan (in which case, the Romanian
> > users claim that Node also doesn't have a right
> > because he can "barely" speak Romanian/Moldovan).
> >
> > Now, personally, I have taken a very neutral stance
> > and compelled both sides to argue more rationally and
> > stop the criticism. I also am entirely committed to
> > hearing both sides out and acting in a professional
> > manner.
> >
> > We have made some headway recently, and I have struck
> > an agreement with Node over my proposal, which he
> > seems to support. Some of the Romanian users, however,
> > still do not agree with all parts of the proposal,
> > some of them asking for a separate subdomain for a
> > Moldovan-Cyrillic wiki. What do people say to that? I
> > would personally agree to that, meaning a mo.wiki
> > which is simply a portal, and a mo-cyr.wikipedia.org
> > which hosts only Cyrillic content.
> >
> > I have presented my case here in order to gauge public
> > response. I have also opened a consultation period
> > with the community to allow for any complaints to the
> > proposal, at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere.
> > I'd just like to hear some opinions of people which
> > aren't involved in this case so we can get more
> > neutral, unaffiliated viewpoints.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ronline
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Sports
> > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Newpages and rc patrollers needed

body:
Nothing like a elaxing time on RC patrol. suddenly all the
wikipolitics just fade away and it's just you and a bunch of vandels
who never seem to learn.

--
geni


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 22/06/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> David Carson (DavidCarson at perception.com.au) [050622 10:18]:
>
> > > You'll gain a deep and personal insight into what makes someone into an
> > > axewielding deletionist. ("HITLER? IF HE'S SO DAMN NOTABLE HE CAN WRITE
> > > HIS OWN ARTICLE! DELETE!")
>
> > '''Delete''', vanity, non-notable German bureaucrat. --~~~~
>
> *Only made corporal? Who cares? Monorchism isn't encyclopedic in itsel
> either. Delete - ~~~~

Merge and redirect to [[List of minor Chaplin characters]]?

> BTW, in the job ad, I lied about the cookies.

Heh.

Newpages is an... education. I spent some time on there last week; one
or two pages worth provided a couple of dozen speedy deletions (most
of which someone else caught first), a fight on WP:TFD (complete with
vote-editing, wild accusations of vandalism, et al), a requested
undelete, a set of vandalism to be traced, one article ending up being
written from scratch, and an interesting study of the politics of
Andorra for a couple of hours.

It's that sort of thing that made me the man I am today.

(Namely, one very far behind on his deadlines.)

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


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: you do not have to be positive

body:
Gerard saw fit to send these comments privately.  In the spirit if
wiki-openness I thought it best to reply publicly.  There is nothing in
my views about his proposals that cannot be discussed in the open.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Ray,
> I would like to know what you hope to achieve with the rubbishing you
> are doing of the Ultimate Wiktionary.

Since when are honest comments "rubbishing"

> It has a huge potential and the only way I can categorise your
> "contributions" is as a FUD treatment. I would really like you to use
> arguments. I would really like to know what you hope to achieve this
> way. The way you make me feel is that I am some shady car dealer that
> is waiting for this 1000th carsale that will make him his bonus.

You said it. :-)   I can't see how my comments could be anything but
arguments in the sense that you apparently mean.

> Lucky for me I know better. I do appreciate what Erik is doing, we
> both realise that our reputation will suffer when we do not come up
> with some goods. I am sure that the initial UW will not have all the
> trimmings.

Nothing to debate there.

> That does not take away from the basic fact that the UW will have a
> better usability than any of the Wiktionaries ever will. It will,
> because the functionality is built with synergy and community in the
> forefront of what it is about and it will because it is meant to host
> lexicological content.

This is pure speculation.  I leave myself open to that possibility, but
I'll keep on with what I'm doing until there's something to judge.
Certainly I'm not going to fall in line with your hyperbolic confidence
about the future of UW without seeing it.  I can easily see the value of
a project that ties the different Wiktionaries together, but I cannot be
so credulous as to believe that it will be so great as to inspire
everyone to abandon what they are doing to work with your project.

> The argument about communities of Mark Williamson is silly, the
> wikimedia community does evolve and, the community that is growing
> around the Ultimate Wiktionary will be different from any of the
> Wikimedia communities.

Since you have mentioned Mark, it is only fitting that I should forward
a copy of these comments directly to him.  I have in the past objected
to some of his points of view, but such comments have always been to him
rather than around him.  If you think that he is being silly tell him
about it, not me.

> Many new people will make it their own, people who have no background
> in Wikipedia, people that do not think a Wiki is the best thing there is.

So there's more to your project than the Wiki community!  You have in
the past made it clear that you would like the GFDL replaced.  If, just
for example, someone were contemplating a fork compliance with that
licence could be an embarassment.

> People who are very much aware of what language technology is. People
> with a solid reputation outside the Wikimedia world.

Am I supposed to be impressed by these statements?  Or is there a hidden
agenda?  A company that funds educational research in the Netherlands
does so in a completely different environment than in most countries
given that Holland has by far the greatest proportion of privatization
of schools in the world.

> I hope that you will become part of the UW crowd. It is as always your
> choise...

Of course it's my choice, and I will certainly be willing to look at UW
objectively ... when it is released to the public.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Per-article blocking (was: RickK leaving)

references:
<E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC280217F7F9@sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
	<d9abjf$49d$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20050622004233.GC7309@thingy.apana.org.au>

body:
On 22/06/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Tim Starling (t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:
>
> > Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related
> > features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually
> > well-supported.
>
> It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial.
>
> Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.

There's really not much to object to about it; you're not giving
admins a more powerful tool, you're giving them a more nuanced one. It
allows blockings for vandalism ("we don't trust you to edit wiki at
all") to be differentiated from blockings related to a specific
article ("we think you should go cool off somewhere else"), and as
such is less likely to cause someone to react angrily to a block.

It also removes a lot of the tensions you get from page protection -
I've seen, as I recall, one massive fight because a protected page was
briefly unprotected so someone could (gasp!) re-format the list of
references, which was clearly a massive misuse of admin powers,
condoning of vandalism, what have you - because in many cases the page
wouldn't be protected generally, but the two or three warring editors
blocked from editing it. It'd remain otherwise open - though
presumably closely watched with an eye to blocking/protection for
"unrelated" edits.

On the other hand, once you have this in place, a general block
becomes a much more significant thing - there's your negative social
effect. A short "article block" is one thing, but to block them from
editing *anywhere*! Massive abuse of power! Disproportionate response!
&c. So that's an effect; whether it's positive or negative is
arguable.

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


body:
On 6/22/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> > What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a
> > particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo
> > articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel
> > the need for a dramatic exit.
>
> Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related
> features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually
> well-supported.
>
> -- Tim Starling

It would be hand If you want a shared ip to stop doing something.

--
geni


from_name: El C

subject: [WikiEN-l] Rick

body:
I feel sad, despirited and demoralized to see that you have left, Rick.

I won't expend anymore words.

All the best to you.

Yours,
El_C


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

body:
Fred Bauder (fredbaud at ctelco.net) [050621 23:45]:

> My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era
> notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.

That's a bit US POV-centric. It's certainly not true outside the US.

- d.


body:
>  The main issue with that group of pages is just
> their _format_, specifically the large-scale use of transclusion to put
> copies of articles into multiple other articles and the use of subpages.

Transclusion of article text is a VERY bad thing. It's basically a way to
put a handle into lots of articles to change them without it showing on
recent changes. I really don't see why wikiprojects think they can vote to
pull shit like this, and why those templates shouldn't just be subst: and
then promptly deleted.

- d.


body:
<fake drama>*sob*... I also have something to admit...</fake drama>

Another off-list comment to me from Gerard, in which he tells me I'm
stupid, although other than that it's unreMarkable:

Mark,
When you reply on a mailing list and you have not read it all properly,
an answer like "should it not be in the Ultimate Wiktionary" is stupid.
The UW is being developped as we speak and as a concequence it does not
have any content. The remark is stupid for another reason, our projects
do not claim to have all the content that could exist. Nothing Ultimate
about that either, it will have the content that we want in a hundred
years time.. not in our lifetime :)
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 22/06/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Gerard saw fit to send these comments privately.  In the spirit if
> wiki-openness I thought it best to reply publicly.  There is nothing in
> my views about his proposals that cannot be discussed in the open.
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> > Ray,
> > I would like to know what you hope to achieve with the rubbishing you
> > are doing of the Ultimate Wiktionary.
>
> Since when are honest comments "rubbishing"

Why, since they disagreed with Mr Meijssen, of course!

> > It has a huge potential and the only way I can categorise your
> > "contributions" is as a FUD treatment. I would really like you to use
> > arguments. I would really like to know what you hope to achieve this
> > way. The way you make me feel is that I am some shady car dealer that
> > is waiting for this 1000th carsale that will make him his bonus.
>
> You said it. :-)   I can't see how my comments could be anything but
> arguments in the sense that you apparently mean.

Well, this is how it feels to me (what Gerard said about a sales
commission). It's almost like you're a missionary, and UW is the
gospel you're preaching -- you act like you think you're saving people
from the fiery depths of Wiktionary Hell or something.

And all who disagree are stupid, or they're just not being
constructive. Isn't this what oppressive regimes have always said?
Disagreeing with the government will only cause strife, so it's
counterproductive and should be silenced??

> > Lucky for me I know better. I do appreciate what Erik is doing, we
> > both realise that our reputation will suffer when we do not come up
> > with some goods. I am sure that the initial UW will not have all the
> > trimmings.
>
> Nothing to debate there.
>
> > That does not take away from the basic fact that the UW will have a
> > better usability than any of the Wiktionaries ever will. It will,
> > because the functionality is built with synergy and community in the
> > forefront of what it is about and it will because it is meant to host
> > lexicological content.
>
> This is pure speculation.  I leave myself open to that possibility, but
> I'll keep on with what I'm doing until there's something to judge.
> Certainly I'm not going to fall in line with your hyperbolic confidence
> about the future of UW without seeing it.  I can easily see the value of
> a project that ties the different Wiktionaries together, but I cannot be
> so credulous as to believe that it will be so great as to inspire
> everyone to abandon what they are doing to work with your project.

I agree with you here. Until we can see UW, why shouldn't we be
pessimistic and skeptical?

> > The argument about communities of Mark Williamson is silly, the
> > wikimedia community does evolve and, the community that is growing
> > around the Ultimate Wiktionary will be different from any of the
> > Wikimedia communities.
>
> Since you have mentioned Mark, it is only fitting that I should forward
> a copy of these comments directly to him.  I have in the past objected
> to some of his points of view, but such comments have always been to him
> rather than around him.  If you think that he is being silly tell him
> about it, not me.

This is true. If you have something you want to say about me, say it
_to_ me please. This goes for everyone. Many people seem to talk about
me behind my back (I've heard this from others, that they get off-list
e-mails or other private communications about me). This is underhanded
and shady. You know who you are. And, in some cases, I may well have
been shown your comments by the person in whom you confided.

> > Many new people will make it their own, people who have no background
> > in Wikipedia, people that do not think a Wiki is the best thing there is.
>
> So there's more to your project than the Wiki community!  You have in
> the past made it clear that you would like the GFDL replaced.  If, just
> for example, someone were contemplating a fork compliance with that
> licence could be an embarassment.

It has sounded to me for a while like UW is more of a fork than an
addition to an existing project.

> > People who are very much aware of what language technology is. People
> > with a solid reputation outside the Wikimedia world.
>
> Am I supposed to be impressed by these statements?  Or is there a hidden
> agenda?  A company that funds educational research in the Netherlands
> does so in a completely different environment than in most countries
> given that Holland has by far the greatest proportion of privatization
> of schools in the world.
>
> > I hope that you will become part of the UW crowd. It is as always your
> > choise...
>
> Of course it's my choice, and I will certainly be willing to look at UW
> objectively ... when it is released to the public.

"I hope that you will become part of the UW crowd. It is as always
your choice..." sounds to me like something from a movie, "I hope
you'll elect to join The System. It is, as always, your choice.
Bwahahahaha!", or a cult "I hope you'll elect to join the Church of
Cultism. It is, as always, your choice. Bwahahahahaha!"

Mark

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Rebecca

subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
> Anyway, I suspect that the current "problems" aren't really particularly
> worse than they used to be back in the "golden age". I've been here
> almost since the beginning and there have always been these sorts of
> acrimonious arguments about who's being mean to whom. Personally, I
> suspect there have been worse periods in Wikipedia's past; I don't have
> any statistics or anything but just anecdotally I don't think I'm seeing
> as much bad behavior lately as I can recall in some previous episodes. I
> credit the ArbCom's actions for much of that, again just based on
> personal opinion.

Oh no, let me rephrase. I don't think there was necessarily a "golden
age" when we didn't have problems with antisocial users - we've always
had that. I think the last few months have generally been the best
period we've had, as we finally got rid of the obvious ones (i.e.
Lir). Lately, though, this list seems to be taken up with a growing
number of people who seem to take care not to break any bannable
rules, but whose contributions to Wikipedia seem to consist entirely
of trying to persecute admins (or hanging out on VFD). It's like the
Red Faction all over again - except considerably more subtle.

-- ambi


from_name: michaelturley at myway.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: problem with power structure?

body:
michaelturley at myway.com (michaelturley at myway.com) [050622 05:17]:
>
>> But I do believe that there is a lack of real accountability to the very highest standards and ideals that this project claims to be founded on.
>
>
>The Arbitration Committee does exist and looks into admin abuse. So this
>statement is trivially factually incorrect. But I assume you wrote it
>sincerely, so I presume you mean you aren't seeing enough admins penalised for
>your liking. What concrete examples do you have (not generalities) that you
>consider makes mechanisms for more admin penalties an urgent need?
>
>
>- d.

There's a difference between abuse and ideals.  For example, civility at all times is one of the highest standards and ideals.  "Don't abuse" is the rule.  Be civil is the ideal.

Yet when incivility comes up, such as calling someone a jerk, we got a "circle the wagons and defend the tribe" response from many members, including some that repeated the insult, mildly amplifying it into a judgement.  Or the extraordinary tolerance of very aggessive newbie biting in the recent Willswikihelp incident.  But I '''really''' don't want to talk about specific cases, because they're in the past.  They're minor.  I'd rather let them go.

Maybe "admin penalty" is too strong, or even the wrong concept.

Instead, I'd rather see some genuine disapproval in the admin community when someone "falls off the wagon" into incivility, regardless of who the incivility is directed to or what prompted it.  If that requires a two or a ten minute, or even a ten or 24 hour involuntary block to express 'just strongly enough' that the administrator learns from it, then so be it.  Start tiny, even at the "so small as to be nothing other than symbolic" level, and gradually rise from there.  I think you'd be surprised at how effective symbolic gestures can be to an offended person.

I'd rather see admins set an example, voluntarily requesting their own sanction for their own transgressions of civility.  A 'penance for forgiveness' principle, perhaps.  (Not that other users couldn't make the same requests, too.)  Maybe "admin penance" is the term I'm flailing around for.

Why all this fuss?  I'd like to see a higher standard for admins, to ensure that they are always trying to set a better example for others rather than escalating hostilities.  Right now, people forget occasionally, and the reaction has been "well, they're a good person all the rest of the time..."  That's not consistent with the principle of "in service to others" that an admin should strive for.

The Arbitration Committee cannot and should not enforce higher standards of civility and kindness.  I think it will take a few good admins voluntarily setting a higher standard as example, and peer pressure from there.

One subscriber to this list seems to want to kick out troublesome editors with a size twelve army boot.  I'd rather push them in the direction we want them to go with a feather.  It would require a thousand times more patience, but I think the end result would be better.

Sure, there will still be trolls and vandals.  But if they truly feel that the ones blocking them are held to a higher standard, more will convert to productive users.  Or not become trolls and vandals in the first place.

Think of some of the editor/trolls that persistently stick around, goading admins, perhaps even trying to trap admins in rule violations.  If these people thought that the admins were already being held to a higher standard, how many do you think would still "have it in for" admins?  If there was a community of higher standards, how many fewer do you think would see adminship as belonging to a "selfish power clique"?  How many fewer would "fight the power" if "the power" was a group of people gently pressuring each other toward saintly behavior?

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I see room for improvement, and relatively easy paths to get there.

Michael Turley
User:Unfocused

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


from_name: Jack Lynch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Really need mediator

references:
<477C2A7D4CCE994B8CF296DA69A31D3D39BC3F@server.publiceye.local>
	<fb7fdd9c05062112407e3303d5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050621234409.GX7309@thingy.apana.org.au>

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Spade/To_do_list_1

Thats what I have collected so far. Its a useful example for
interested parties, as well as a groundwork for potential mediators.

Jack (Sam Spade)

On 6/22/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic at gmail.com) [050622 05:41]:
>
> > Drop by [[WP:MC]] if you want to  see list of current mediators or go
> > to [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]] for and give a quick summary to draw
> > some attention of other people interested in mediating disputes.
>
>
> They did that ...
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] *shakes head*

body:
> Ah, I see. I don't have a clear enough intuitive grasp of the frequency
> to agree or disagree, but that does seem plausible to me; Wikipedia's
> developing immune system has been forcing troublemakers to evolve into
> new forms. I guess I'm just lucky I haven't run afoul of the new breed
> much. :)

Hang around the 3RR reporting page some time. Edit warriours have
largely adapted to deal with that now. more advance forms of technical
vandalism tend not to do so well since for the most part they are delt
with quickly by developers.

--
geni


from_name: Svante Welin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Contact with Chinese wikipedians

body:
I would be grateful if any more experienced Chinese Wikipedia users,
or Chinese administrators, could contact me on this e-mail adress. I
am writing an article on Wikipedia for a Swedish magazine, and would
like to do a short interview over e-mail with a Chinese wikipedian
about how using Wikipedia in the PRC is.

If anyone has any contact information to Chinese wikipedians, that
would be great too.

Thanks!
Svante Welin
Sweden


subject: [Wikipedia-l] 4 new Wikipedias have just been created

body:
Hi all,

I would like to announce that 4 new Wikipedias have just been created
by Tim Starling (thanks!)

They are:
http://pam.wikipedia.org/ Kapampangan Wikipedia
http://ceb.wikipedia.org/ Cebuano Wikipedia
http://sco.wikipedia.org/ Scots Wikipedia
http://fiu-vro.wikipedia.org/ V?ro Wikipedia

I also hope that in the near future we may add additional Philippines
languages to our repertoire (many have millions of speakers, for
example Illocano, Bicolano, Hilgaynon, Samaran, Pangasinan...)

Cheers
Mark


body:
I await the East Frisian, Northern Frisian, etc... Wikipedias

:)

Mark

On 22/06/05, Wouter Steenbeek <musiqolog at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I would like to announce that 4 new Wikipedias have just been created
> >by Tim Starling (thanks!)
> >
> >They are:
> >http://pam.wikipedia.org/ Kapampangan Wikipedia
> >http://ceb.wikipedia.org/ Cebuano Wikipedia
> >http://sco.wikipedia.org/ Scots Wikipedia
> >http://fiu-vro.wikipedia.org/ V?ro Wikipedia
> >
> >I also hope that in the near future we may add additional Philippines
> >languages to our repertoire (many have millions of speakers, for
> >example Illocano, Bicolano, Hilgaynon, Samaran, Pangasinan...)
> >
> THANK GOD! FINALLY IT PROCEEDED! Man, this is encouraging! I'll drink one on
> this happy event tonight!
>
> Wouter
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Nooit ongewenste berichten ontvangen: gebruik MSN Messenger
> http://messenger.msn.nl/
>
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than
	"no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status
> should be no big deal as well.  Perhaps being desysopped should be
> automatic for everybody afte maybe a year.  There could then be a three
> month waiting period before being readmitted.  Three months of enforced
> humility might be good for some people.  Since this would apply to ALL
> admins there could be no claim of descrimination.

Oh, come off it, Ec. You treat sysop status like it's being elected
President of the United States. It is a mop and a broom that
occasionally proves to be somewhat useful. It isn't a source of power
or any such thing. It is just that taking that mop and broom away
without a damn good reason - in effect, punishing people, is not
helpful, as in a volunteer project, punishing people without good
reason will make them leave. Or alternatively, having privileges that
in many cases are never used controversially taken away for three
months for no apparent reason ("enforced humility" counts as no
apparent reason in my book) would likely have the same effect.
Seriously, guys. Why not stop trying to fight the power, and go write
an encyclopedia?


body:
On 6/22/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If only because rules and habits are no more the same now that they were
> 3 years ago. There is an expectation that the candidate sysop knows the
> project quite well, know the people, know the rules... and I believe
> this is also why there is this requirement of number of edits which the
> english wikipedia insist so much upon. I do not say it is good or not
> good, I just observe it.

Have we ever had someone return from hiatus and not know the rules -
or have serious problems because of changes made while they're away?
I've never seen such a case.

> I also think that if an editor away for 3 years just came back now... he
> would neither know the rules, nor be known himself by current editors.

If this becomes an issue, deal with it. As it has never happened
before, I'm a bit cynical.

> Trust can be gained, or lost. But if it is lost, I see no point in
> pretending it is still there. It means work for the community to "check"
> each action of a non-trusted sysop.

And where's the evidence that this is the case? We've had three sysops
desysopped, and even then, I don't recall anyone having to
specifically check each of their actions. There's a big difference
between angering a small, but vocal bunch of people who hang around
VFD and RFA all the time, and having serious issues that actually need
action. In the eventuality that that does happen, this is what we have
the arbitration committee for.

-- ambi


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
> P.S. Long term, I cannot see how Wikipedia will avoid descending into
> anarchy. And unfortunately, I can see more of the current editors and
> admins choosing to leave (yes there are plenty more who will take
> over, but it's a bad way to do things).

People have been predicting this for years and it has not happened yet. Heck, I
thought so as well when we jumped from 800 edits a day to 3000 within months of
me starting in 2002.  Whenever we get bigger, we adapt. If and when things get
too bad, then for the sake of the encyclopedia we will need to start locking
things down. I do not think we will be at that stage for some time and may even
be able to adapt indefinitely.

-- mav

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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Moldovan Wikipedia Proposal

body:
Hi Anthere,

Unfortunately, there isn't really a mo.wiki "community".

It's more like, a group of two or three core individuals working on
the project, and another 2 or 3 "mo.wiki hagglers" -- people who keep
complaining on talkpages that the Wikipedia should be deleted.

Incidentally, the "hagglers" also believe that "there is no such thing
as a Moldovan language", and until recently they were all editing
anonymously. None of them has any edits to content pages.

The current problem is, what rights should go to what users? If we let
the "hagglers" vote, they will possibly nominate one of themselves,
vote him in, and then sabotage the Wikipedia using  their newfound
sysop privelages.

If we let the "core" vote only, then we run the risk of being "undemocratic".

Also, according to Ronline's proposal, I will remain a sysop
"temporarily" to translate the interface, whether or not I am voted
in.

Mark

On 22/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hiya.
>
> I have no personal opinion to give as of now regarding the current
> conflict (I seem to remember I had to make a couple of comments
> regarding this topic several months ago);
>
> However, you raise a side, but important point.
>
> You wrote
>
>  > Danutz, a Romanian user, pointed out that it is unfair
>  > that Node is the only user which supports the Moldovan
>  > Wikipedia, when he does not even speak
>  > Moldovan/Romanian very well (it seems he has some
>  > Moldovan roots, though) and has placed himself as
>  > sysop undemocratically (without any community
>  > consensus - note, though, that at that time the
>  > Romanian visitors weren't yet aware of the mo.wiki).
>  > They therefore feel that an abuse of power is taking
>  > place, especially since Node is saying that the
>  > Romanian users shouldn't be able to have a say because
>  > they aren't Moldovan (in which case, the Romanian
>  > users claim that Node also doesn't have a right
>  > because he can "barely" speak Romanian/Moldovan).
>
> Unless I am proven wrong, it is very likely Node asked to be sysop on
> this project when there were no editors (to do precisely what he
> mentionned, interface, main page protection....).
>
> It is a habit amongst stewards to give sysophood very liberally on small
> wikis, as editors who are unique, or only a couple... can't expect to be
> elected "democratically". However, there is also a provision saying that
> if necessary, someone apppointed sysop before there is a community, has
> to be confirmed sysop later if the then build community does wish to
> start elections.
>
> I guess we are in this kind of configuration.
>
> I consequently invite you to organise elections for sysophood and mo.
> According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions,
> there is no current page for admins. Could you add one and invite
> editors to candidate then vote ?
>
> Naturally, from the moment you start these elections, Node will be
> considered a temporary sysop and will need to be supported by current
> community in order to keep a status which was given to him before there
> was one.
>
> I hope he will stay one as I do not think he did anything wrong... but
> that way, things will be clearer :-)
>
> What do you think ?
>
> Ant
>
> Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) a ?crit:
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > This is Ronline from the Romanian Wikipedia. We have
> > currently (in the past week especially) had quite a
> > lot of controversy about the Moldovan Wikipedia at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org.
> >
> > The reason I'm raising the issue here is to gauge the
> > response of the wider community towards my proposal
> > and also what's happening over at mo:
> >
> > Mo.wikipedia.org was founded a while ago, but until
> > about  this year, it basically had no content and
> > simply contained a redirect link to the Romanian
> > Wikipedia, since Moldovan is identical to Romanian,
> > renamed for political reasons (I won't go into the
> > whole story now, you can see
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language).
> >
> > Anyway, so a few months ago, a user called Vertaler
> > came and added some Cyrillic content to the Moldovan
> > Wikipedia. Cyrillic is a script used by a minority of
> > Moldovans. Node_ue (Mark Williamson) supported that
> > and said that he wishes to convert mo.wikipedia.org
> > into a Cyrillic-Moldovan Wikipedia, with all Latin
> > content being placed at ro.wikipedia.org in order to
> > avoid duplication.
> >
> > After negotation with Node, I have come forward with a
> > proposal that he has agreed with, which seeks to
> > establish mo.wikipedia.org as a biscriptal
> > Latin/Cyrillic Wikipedia in interface, and a
> > biscriptal portal, but with Cyrillic content hosted on
> > mo.wikipedia in order to avoid duplication with
> > ro.wiki.
> >
> > The entire proposal is at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere,
> > in English and Romanian.
> >
> > Now, the reason I've come here is because some users
> > from the Romanian Wikipedia do not agree with keeping
> > a Moldovan Wikipedia for Cyrillic content, because
> > they believe that a Moldovan language doesn't exist
> > (most linguists agree with this) and that since
> > Wikipedia is neutral, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia in
> > a language renamed for political reasons like
> > Moldovan. Also, since Cyrillic is no longer the
> > official script in Moldova (it used to be during
> > Communist times), there is no place for it as mo.wiki.
> > Other users agree to Cyrillic content, but not under
> > the "Moldovan language" name.
> >
> > The controversy, which can be viewed at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Паӂина
> > принчипалэ,
> > has been exacerbated by the fact that there has been
> > mutual distrust between Node on one hand, and a series
> > of Romanian users, on the other. Node has blamed the
> > Romanian users for being "nationalist" and "radical"
> > and "anti-Moldovan", this being the reason why they
> > don't support a Moldovan Wikipedia. The Romanian users
> > have labelled Node a "Stalinist" and claim that he is
> > not listening to them even though they are in the
> > majority.
> >
> > Danutz, a Romanian user, pointed out that it is unfair
> > that Node is the only user which supports the Moldovan
> > Wikipedia, when he does not even speak
> > Moldovan/Romanian very well (it seems he has some
> > Moldovan roots, though) and has placed himself as
> > sysop undemocratically (without any community
> > consensus - note, though, that at that time the
> > Romanian visitors weren't yet aware of the mo.wiki).
> > They therefore feel that an abuse of power is taking
> > place, especially since Node is saying that the
> > Romanian users shouldn't be able to have a say because
> > they aren't Moldovan (in which case, the Romanian
> > users claim that Node also doesn't have a right
> > because he can "barely" speak Romanian/Moldovan).
> >
> > Now, personally, I have taken a very neutral stance
> > and compelled both sides to argue more rationally and
> > stop the criticism. I also am entirely committed to
> > hearing both sides out and acting in a professional
> > manner.
> >
> > We have made some headway recently, and I have struck
> > an agreement with Node over my proposal, which he
> > seems to support. Some of the Romanian users, however,
> > still do not agree with all parts of the proposal,
> > some of them asking for a separate subdomain for a
> > Moldovan-Cyrillic wiki. What do people say to that? I
> > would personally agree to that, meaning a mo.wiki
> > which is simply a portal, and a mo-cyr.wikipedia.org
> > which hosts only Cyrillic content.
> >
> > I have presented my case here in order to gauge public
> > response. I have also opened a consultation period
> > with the community to allow for any complaints to the
> > proposal, at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere.
> > I'd just like to hear some opinions of people which
> > aren't involved in this case so we can get more
> > neutral, unaffiliated viewpoints.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ronline
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Sports
> > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] [Fwd: [Wiki-research-l] WSJ on Wikipedia]

body:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] WSJ on Wikipedia
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:55:21 +0800
From: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com>
Reply-To: Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com>
To: wiki-research-l at wikimedia.org

FYI, this week Wall Street Journal (perhaps Asia only) had one of the
more useful stories on Wikipedia, which has some comments from
academics/expets on WP articles. In general, very good opinions of
Wikipedia. My comments are probably the harshest. :)

-User:Fuzheado

---

June 17, 2005
PERSONAL JOURNAL
---
Your Life -- Loose Wire:
Trusting an Internet Encyclopedia
----
By Jeremy Wagstaff

The Asian Wall Street Journal via Dow Jones

[...]

  I've found Wikipedia to be pretty good on the few subjects I know a little
about. But you aren't interested in what I think. So I polled some
people who
might have something to say: random academics from diverse disciplines
in North
America, Australia and the United Kingdom. I asked them to look up five
to 10
subjects in their field and offer their impressions. Here's what they said:

  -- Claudia Eberlein, a theoretical physicist at the U.K.'s University of
Sussex, checked entries relating to quantum and laser science: "I must
say I am
impressed! Not everything was 100% accurate, but it was close enough for a
general knowledge encyclopedia, and in places it was much more detailed
than I
would possibly have expected."

  -- William J. Jackson, an expert in Hinduism at Indiana University-Purdue
University at Indianapolis, says he was "pleasantly surprised at how
accurate
the information is -- not because I assumed Wikipedia would get things
wrong,
but because often sources from the West often seem put together by
people who
haven't studied the other culture in depth."

  -- Ray Trygstad, Director of Information Technology at the Illinois
Institute
of Technology, focused on several areas of interest: Internet & Web,
Information
Security and Navy/Naval Aviation. He was impressed with accuracy and
balance,
but felt that some entries were thin or nonexistent: "The information
security
article was an outstanding introduction to the field and very well
balanced . .
.  The helicopter article was very complete and very accurate although there
were some additional areas that could be discussed."

  -- Komninos Zervos, a lecturer in CyberStudies at Australia's Griffith
University, looked up digital poetry (poetry that in some way uses the
computer)
and found it "a good starting point to a new and developing field of new
media/cyber/digital/web poetry" although he found it "still very patchy
mentioning types of digital poetry."

  -- Charles Chapman, manager of digital marketing at Massachusetts' Babson
College and an occasional tweaker of entries covering emerging technologies
found entries on his subject matter 95% accurate. "I can't say 100% because
there was missing information, rather than incorrect information, on
some of the
topics I researched. I was happy to find most everything correct."

  -- Chris Ewels, a nanotechnology expert at the University of Paris, was
lukewarm on entries on nanotechnology ("started well, then lumpy") and
transmission electron microscopy ("it's a good, very introductory
description,
but is missing many of the important features of this type of
microscopy"), but
was impressed by density functional theory ("would give this 100% on all
fronts
-- very accurate, detailed, well written"). Overall, Mr. Ewels said he was
impressed by how far Wikipedia has come since he last checked: "(I) must
admit I
didn't realize to what depth information was available," he said.

  I would take those responses as a general thumbs up. If the experts
can't pick
big holes in Wikipedia, I'd say the rest of us can use it. This doesn't
mean, of
course, that we should use the information in it without confirming it
elsewhere. As Andrew Lih, director of technology at Hong Kong University's
Journalism and Media Studies Centre and a long-time contributor to
Wikipedia,
puts it: "It's a good starting point for things; it isn't a good
authority."

  Why is something so easy to tamper with so good? This is easily answered:
Guardians of the site constantly monitor the updated information by
viewing a
real-time feed of changes and can quickly spot a vandal or heavily biased
contributor and undo the damage, or refer the case to others. Vandalism
usually
stays there for only a few minutes, or even less.

  Indeed, comparing it with an existing encyclopedia may be missing the
point of
Wikipedia. It isn't written by individual contributors -- who, like everyone
else, may be fallible -- but by a vast network of people of varying
expertise
whose contributions are open to challenge and review by anyone else. In
other
words, it isn't about what qualifications you have. It's about what you
contribute. If your contribution is good enough, well-sourced enough and
balanced enough to survive the challenges of others, then it's probably
pretty
good stuff. There's always room for improvement, but then any print
editor who
has had to issue a correction would acknowledge that.

  Wikipedia, for what it is, is an impressive monument to collective
scholarship
and curiosity.

  ---

  Send comments to jeremy.wagstaff at awsj.com
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l at Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


list: foundation-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Licenses

body:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I do ask the board: When the Ultimate Wiktionary is life, do we allow
> all and any use of our data and do we allow at least other Open or Free
> organisations to use the content of the UW in their applications without
> restrictions ?

I am very sorry, but I do not understand the question.  I support that
people should be able to freely use our data, but as per specific
questions, I don't quite get what you are asking.

--Jimbo


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Licenses


list: wiktionary-l

subject: [Wiktionary-l] Re: Licenses


from_name: Kelly Martin

body:
On 6/22/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> After a lot of digging (I went through RickK's talk page in the end -
> glad it was undeleted!) I've found #en.wikipedia.vandalism, which is
> Cool Cat's vandal-detector bot in its own channel on Freenode.
>
> r3m0t's thing is probably Humanbot, which is inactive at the moment (I
> only realised after install Greasemonkey and then the script - d'oh!)

No, r3m0t is betaing a greasemonkey based tool that will preload
recent changes for you to look at and approve or disapprove in various
ways.  I tested it the other day; it wasn't bad but it's really
designed for nonadmins (it can mark stuff as speedy but it won't do
the actual deletes and it doesn't use one-click rollback).

I've got an idea for implementing CDVF as a server application (in
Tomcat) to much the same effect.

Kelly


body:
On 22/06/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Williamson a ?crit:
> > Hi Anthere,
> >
> > Unfortunately, there isn't really a mo.wiki "community".
> >
> > It's more like, a group of two or three core individuals working on
> > the project, and another 2 or 3 "mo.wiki hagglers" -- people who keep
> > complaining on talkpages that the Wikipedia should be deleted.
> >
> > Incidentally, the "hagglers" also believe that "there is no such thing
> > as a Moldovan language", and until recently they were all editing
> > anonymously. None of them has any edits to content pages.
> >
> > The current problem is, what rights should go to what users? If we let
> > the "hagglers" vote, they will possibly nominate one of themselves,
> > vote him in, and then sabotage the Wikipedia using  their newfound
> > sysop privelages.
>
> Well, I am not sure what "haggler" mean, but I guess this is not a
> gentle term :-)

Now that I think about it again, I meant a sort of combination of
"haggler" (somebody who aggressively argues to try to reach an
agreement, often related to the price of merchandise), and "heckler",
meaning "to challenge aggressively" in a sense, to sort of jab and
harass and embarass...

Neither of them is exactly an "unkind" word, though.

> I'd say only those with an account can vote. And a rule such as at least
> 1 month and a certain number of real articles can make the trick.
>
> However, I must confess, as one external to your conflict, this sounds
> like "all those agreeing with me are good editors, all others are hagglers".

This isn't really the case. Danutz aims for deletion of mo.wiki, yet
he has been registered for a long time, and has edited content pages a
few times. Ronline strives for neutrality in his own ideas; he has
been registered for a while, and has contributed some content in
Cyrillic even though he didn't learn it in school (for him, it is a
fun activity).

Vertaler has been registered for a while, and edited content pages a
lot. His position is not entirely clear, but he hasn't been active for
a long time now.

Other than this, I can't think of any "core" users. So, the variances
in opinion among the "core" users are extreme, Danutz is inclined to
vote against me in any circumstance.

> > If we let the "core" vote only, then we run the risk of being "undemocratic".
> >
> > Also, according to Ronline's proposal, I will remain a sysop
> > "temporarily" to translate the interface, whether or not I am voted
> > in.
> >
> > Mark
>
> This strikes me as reasonably democratic solution ;-)
>
> Hmmm, a question... does the issue of whether to use Cyrillic as an
> influence in any way in the translation of the interface ?

I don't think so. Currently, the plan is to use both Cyrillic and
Latin in the interface, ie with a separate translation for each
script.

My changes to the interface didn't seem at all controversial.

Mark


from_name: thomas-edison at ziplip.com

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much
	more	than	"no big deal" and that's poisonous

body:
> in effect, punishing people, is not helpful, as in a volunteer
> project, punishing people without good reason will make them
> leave.

Hey, I'm being punished without good reason! Most people would just leave. But... you're not gonna get rid of me that easily. :-)

Let's just say, I'm not done rocking the boat. :-)

? 2005, Pioneer-12


body:
Actually, it appears that Domnu Goie is the same user as "Organizatia
Romana Unionista".

So this "majority" is really just a couple of users who shout and make
their voices loud so that they can _seem_ like a lot more people?

And what does it say about Domnu Goie that his first edit was to a
talkpage and said "This is supposed to be of some intelectual value
but instead the Moldovan Encyclopedia serves Stalinist interests in
Chishinau and Tiraspol. Having a Moldovan encyclopedia would suggest
that it is a sepparete language from Romanian which we cannot accept.
Cu respect, Organizatia Romana Unionista".

In fact, I would not be surprised if Domnu Goie and Duca are also the
same user, since Domnu showed up at around the same time Duca
disappeared.

So that leaves it at, given that I'm right:

Want mo.wiki to be deleted, or whatever: Domnu/Duca/ORU (in fact,
conditional on whether the Wikipedia calls itself the "Moldovan
Wikipedia" or "Moldovan (Romanian) Wikipedia"!), Landroni, Danutz(?)
Unclear, or in between: Ronline, Dmitriid, Vertaler, Anon. Moldovan User
For keeping the status quo, with the exception of changing Interwikis:
Node, possibly OldakQuill.

Dmitriid's ideas seem to hinge on the importance that Cyrillic is
secondary, rather than that it needs to be stated explicitly that the
language is the same (which is the case with Domnu), and he supports
moving it out to mo-cyr.wikipedia, leaving mo: as a portal only.

Mark

On 22/06/05, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have nothing to add, except:
>
> Approximately 33% of Moldovans believe there is, in fact, a Moldovan
> language. This is hundreds of thousands of people.
>
> In my view, the NPOV is that "some people say a Moldovan language
> exists, others say it doesn't", because this is actually the case. (I
> personally believe that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language
> with two different names).
>
> My accusations of them being Romanian extremist nationalists are not
> unsubstantiated. One person signs their messages as "Organizatia
> Romana Unionista" (Romanian Unionist Organisation, unionist refers to
> advocating the re-integration of Moldova into Romania).
>
> Others have cited such reasons as the alleged ugliness of Cyrillic, or
> that anybody who uses Cyrillic to write Moldovan must be a Stalinist,
> and therefore should be ignored.
>
> Danutz called me a "Japanese fag", as well. "Nationalist" is not an
> insult, just a label trying to indicate bias. However, I perceive both
> "stalinist" and "fag" as intentional insults.
>
> So far, there have been a few actual people in Moldova who have visited:
> 1) Vertaler. He produced a great portion of the content that currently
> exists at mo.wiki. He left contact information, but doesn't seem to
> visit regularly anymore. He didn't make a statement about his position
> on whether the Wiki should exist, but he contributed a lot to it, so
> my guess is that he supports it. He demonstrated fluency by posting a
> bit of content in the language.
> 2) Anonymous Moldovan user. He made some changes to the Moldovan on
> several pages, in Cyrillic. He has a Moldovan IP, but the timestamps
> on his edits indicate that he's probably not Vertaler or Dmitriid. He
> demonstrated fluency by posting a bit of content in the language.
> 3) Dmitriid. He has expressed that the Wikipedia is "redundant", since
> the articles say the same thing as the Romanian version (they are
> written in a different alphabet, though, and there's probably about 3%
> original content). Originally he expressed a belief that the Wikipedia
> should be deleted, but about a day ago he revised his opinion to say
> that a Cyrillic version might be nessecary. He demonstrated fluency by
> posting a bit of content in the language. (in Latin script; however
> other signs indicate that he can read Cyrillic)
>
> There is also Landroni, who says he's a Moldovan man in France. He is
> diametrically opposed to the existance of the Wikipedia, and has said
> some pretty extreme stuff against it. However, he has not demonstrated
> fluency on even the most basic level because everything he said was in
> English.
>
> The major Romanian participants (besides Ronline):
> Danutz. Originally, it seemed he was OK with the existance of mo.wiki
> in its present form. However, recently he began to oppose it,
> including calling me names. He is a sysop at ro.wiki.
> Duca. Originally, both myself and Danutz discussed with him why it was
> essential that mo.wiki exist. He labelled me as Stalinist and Russian,
> and asked why Danutz, a Romanian, was supporting a Stalinist. He also
> accused me of being a KGB agent. He seems to have disappeared a couple
> of days ago. He is not an established user on any Wikipedia.
> Domnu Goie. Domnu Goie entered the situation only in the last few
> days. His accusations are more alarming to me than Duca's. One of his
> main beliefs is that a mainpage that says "Moldovan Wikipedia" is
> extremely POV (and "stalinist propaganda"), and that to be "neutral"
> it must say "Moldovan (Romanian) Wikipedia". He has variously accused
> me of being a Russian, a Stalinist, a KGB agent... he is not, to my
> knowledge, an established user on any Wikipedia.
> Organizatia Romana Unionista. Only made a couple of posts.
> Vasile. I have no idea about this user.
>
> Mark
>
> On 22/06/05, Wikipedia Romania (Ronline) <rowikipedia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > This is Ronline from the Romanian Wikipedia. We have
> > currently (in the past week especially) had quite a
> > lot of controversy about the Moldovan Wikipedia at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org.
> >
> > The reason I'm raising the issue here is to gauge the
> > response of the wider community towards my proposal
> > and also what's happening over at mo:
> >
> > Mo.wikipedia.org was founded a while ago, but until
> > about  this year, it basically had no content and
> > simply contained a redirect link to the Romanian
> > Wikipedia, since Moldovan is identical to Romanian,
> > renamed for political reasons (I won't go into the
> > whole story now, you can see
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldovan_language).
> >
> > Anyway, so a few months ago, a user called Vertaler
> > came and added some Cyrillic content to the Moldovan
> > Wikipedia. Cyrillic is a script used by a minority of
> > Moldovans. Node_ue (Mark Williamson) supported that
> > and said that he wishes to convert mo.wikipedia.org
> > into a Cyrillic-Moldovan Wikipedia, with all Latin
> > content being placed at ro.wikipedia.org in order to
> > avoid duplication.
> >
> > After negotation with Node, I have come forward with a
> > proposal that he has agreed with, which seeks to
> > establish mo.wikipedia.org as a biscriptal
> > Latin/Cyrillic Wikipedia in interface, and a
> > biscriptal portal, but with Cyrillic content hosted on
> > mo.wikipedia in order to avoid duplication with
> > ro.wiki.
> >
> > The entire proposal is at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere,
> > in English and Romanian.
> >
> > Now, the reason I've come here is because some users
> > from the Romanian Wikipedia do not agree with keeping
> > a Moldovan Wikipedia for Cyrillic content, because
> > they believe that a Moldovan language doesn't exist
> > (most linguists agree with this) and that since
> > Wikipedia is neutral, it shouldn't have a Wikipedia in
> > a language renamed for political reasons like
> > Moldovan. Also, since Cyrillic is no longer the
> > official script in Moldova (it used to be during
> > Communist times), there is no place for it as mo.wiki.
> > Other users agree to Cyrillic content, but not under
> > the "Moldovan language" name.
> >
> > The controversy, which can be viewed at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Паӂина
> > принчипалэ,
> > has been exacerbated by the fact that there has been
> > mutual distrust between Node on one hand, and a series
> > of Romanian users, on the other. Node has blamed the
> > Romanian users for being "nationalist" and "radical"
> > and "anti-Moldovan", this being the reason why they
> > don't support a Moldovan Wikipedia. The Romanian users
> > have labelled Node a "Stalinist" and claim that he is
> > not listening to them even though they are in the
> > majority.
> >
> > Danutz, a Romanian user, pointed out that it is unfair
> > that Node is the only user which supports the Moldovan
> > Wikipedia, when he does not even speak
> > Moldovan/Romanian very well (it seems he has some
> > Moldovan roots, though) and has placed himself as
> > sysop undemocratically (without any community
> > consensus - note, though, that at that time the
> > Romanian visitors weren't yet aware of the mo.wiki).
> > They therefore feel that an abuse of power is taking
> > place, especially since Node is saying that the
> > Romanian users shouldn't be able to have a say because
> > they aren't Moldovan (in which case, the Romanian
> > users claim that Node also doesn't have a right
> > because he can "barely" speak Romanian/Moldovan).
> >
> > Now, personally, I have taken a very neutral stance
> > and compelled both sides to argue more rationally and
> > stop the criticism. I also am entirely committed to
> > hearing both sides out and acting in a professional
> > manner.
> >
> > We have made some headway recently, and I have struck
> > an agreement with Node over my proposal, which he
> > seems to support. Some of the Romanian users, however,
> > still do not agree with all parts of the proposal,
> > some of them asking for a separate subdomain for a
> > Moldovan-Cyrillic wiki. What do people say to that? I
> > would personally agree to that, meaning a mo.wiki
> > which is simply a portal, and a mo-cyr.wikipedia.org
> > which hosts only Cyrillic content.
> >
> > I have presented my case here in order to gauge public
> > response. I have also opened a consultation period
> > with the community to allow for any complaints to the
> > proposal, at
> > http://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ronline/Propunere.
> > I'd just like to hear some opinions of people which
> > aren't involved in this case so we can get more
> > neutral, unaffiliated viewpoints.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ronline
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Sports
> > Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> > http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
>
> --
> SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
> QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
> POSSIT MATERIARI
> ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
>

--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] I will be leaving the project

body:
On 6/22/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/21/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
> > CoolCat made the important claim of being the copyright owner, yet
> > refused to supply critical pieces of data to support that claim.
>
> So what do you expect someone to provide to substantiate a claim of
> original authorship?  A copyright regiserted with the copyright
> office? ... right.

No, nothing that fancy. A real name would be a good start.

-User:Fuzheado


from_name: Dan Grey

body:
I think Tim's idea would be an excellent feature. IMO, the pros
greatly outweigh the cons.

We could at least trial it.

Dan


from_name: Skyring

body:
On 6/22/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> Annual 're-affirmation' would be a nightmare on WP - there's, what,
> 400+ admins? That means we'd need to do _more_ than one of these
> _every day_.
>
> This - all of this discussion in fact - still looks like a solution
> hunting *desperately* for a problem.

I thought the subject line summarised it well.

--
Peter in Canberra


body:
On 6/22/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Tim Starling (t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:
>
> > Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related
> > features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually
> > well-supported.
>
> It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial.
> Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.

Making 3RR blocks more fine grained could avoid lots of bad blood.

Some possible side effects:
- Shunting "angst" to other related articles, though probably not significant
- Management interface for the access control list for (# of articles)
x (# of users)
- An article level block would probably be less stigmatized, so
possibility of more blocks happening

-User:Fuzheado


body:
Jon (thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk) [050622 04:49]:

> In summary - the English and Welsh national curriculum requires children to be taught what BCE/CE means. The QCA continues and will continue to use BC/AD notation, which remains the form of notation used throughout the QCA's syllabuses. Wherever there have been attempts by a small number of teachers acting on their own initiative to require BCE/CE notation in UK, they have normally been met by an angry response.

Yep. As I said, the push for BCE/CE is essentially US POV-centric.

- d.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Wikitech-l] alpha2 bug

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> While doing some minor updates to the validation feature, I noticed that
>> in a freshly checked-out MediaWiki alpha2, I can not save any edits as a
>> logged-in user, I always get the preview instead.
>
>
> Can you confirm that PHP sessions are set up and working correctly?

Sessions do *not* work, for some reason; I didn't notice because I chose
"stay logged in". Anyway, I'm using a standard Window$ installation;
this shouldn't happen.

Magnus


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Re: problem with power structure?  "Not I",
	said the fly.

body:
michaelturley at myway.com (michaelturley at myway.com) [050622 05:17]:

> But I do believe that there is a lack of real accountability to the very highest standards and ideals that this project claims to be founded on.

The Arbitration Committee does exist and looks into admin abuse. So this
statement is trivially factually incorrect. But I assume you wrote it
sincerely, so I presume you mean you aren't seeing enough admins penalised for
your liking. What concrete examples do you have (not generalities) that you
consider makes mechanisms for more admin penalties an urgent need?

- d.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Really need mediator

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic at gmail.com) [050622 05:41]:

> Drop by [[WP:MC]] if you want to  see list of current mediators or go
> to [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal]] for and give a quick summary to draw
> some attention of other people interested in mediating disputes.

They did that ...

- d.


from_name: Poor, Edmund W

body:
I have created the following page to collect all the comments and
positions relating to Tim's proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Per-article_blocking

Please review, to ensure that I have quoted you correctly.

Uncle Ed


subject: [WikiEN-l] Policy proposal on dealing with disputes over names

body:
Chris Owen (ronthewarhero at yahoo.co.uk) [050622 09:14]:

> We seem to have a lot of nationalist edit wars over
> placenames. I'm sure not many people will have
> forgotten the Gdansk/Danzig fiasco. A similar row is
> currently going on at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonian_Slavs
> (Greeks and ex-Yugoslavs fighting over names, yet
> again; they're actively trolling for votes on
> Wikipedia and offline as well).

That's wonderful. If we have smoking-gun evidence of this, it should be
added to the page to note the utter invalidity of the poll.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisO/Naming_disputes
> * The most common use in English of a name takes
> precedence;
> * If the common name conflicts with the official name,
> use the common name ''except'' for conflicting
> scientific and dialect names;
> * If neither the common name nor the official name is
> prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof)
> that the subject uses to describe itself or
> themselves.
> Objective criteria that should be considered are:
> * Is the name in common usage in English?
> * Is it the official current name of the subject
> (official in terms of being used in a legal context,
> e.g. a constitution?)
> * Is it the name used by the subject to describe
> itself or themselves?
> * If an historic name is mentioned in the article, is
> it in an accurate context?
> Subjective criteria that should not be used are:
> * Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
> * Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
> * Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or
> moral rights?
> * Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

OH YES PLEASE. I think the above cut through the problem obviously and
elegantly.

> Of course, there's more to it than that - notably that
> really intractable disputes should be resolved by a
> neutral committee of administrators (not the ArbCom,
> which shouldn't waste its time on low-level disputes
> of this sort). The alternative is to put such
> questions to votes that will just end up being pissing
> contests between rival POV-pushers, which is what
> we're doing at the moment.

What they need is just someone with even a faint sense of proportion
looking at them, and that's what the AC is chosen for (even if sometimes
it's like the sausage factory on the inside). I don't think deciding per
these criteria would unduly load us at present. It certainly beats cases
warring over the proper number angels to set dancing on the head of a pin
as per policy.

- d.


body:
Position vacant: WIKI ANGEL OF DEATH. Low pay, fantastic opportunities,
lots of cookies *.  Requires: immaculate judgement, sharp scythe, efficient
attitude. Automatically pissing off querulous idiots advantageous. Apply at
Special:Recentchanges or Special:Newpages.

With RickK taking (what is hopefully just) a rest, we need admins manning
the pumps.People think of me as an ardent inclusionist, but I don't think
anyone can call themselves an "ardent inclusionist" after doing Newpages
patrol. About 20-40%, depending on time of day, will be immediately
speedyable. Really, about 20-40%. You'll gain a deep and personal insight
into what makes someone into an axewielding deletionist. ("HITLER? IF HE'S
SO DAMN NOTABLE HE CAN WRITE HIS OWN ARTICLE! DELETE!")

Anyway, we need patrollers. Please get on Special:Newpages and
Special:Recentchanges and do your bit to hold the tide back.

(r3m0t is beta-testing some very nice tools for making RC patrol a lot
easier, and Newpages would easily be handled in the same sort of way. If
you have Firefox with Greasemonkey, have a word with him on IRC. CoolCat
also has some nice tools working with IRC, as does CryptoDerk. Have a
look.)

- d.


from_name: David Carson

body:
Heya,

> You'll gain a deep and personal insight into what makes someone into
an
> axewielding deletionist. ("HITLER? IF HE'S SO DAMN NOTABLE HE CAN
WRITE
> HIS OWN ARTICLE! DELETE!")

'''Delete''', vanity, non-notable German bureaucrat. --~~~~

Cheers!
David...

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Perception. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Perception accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.


body:
David Carson (DavidCarson at perception.com.au) [050622 10:18]:

> > You'll gain a deep and personal insight into what makes someone into an
> > axewielding deletionist. ("HITLER? IF HE'S SO DAMN NOTABLE HE CAN WRITE
> > HIS OWN ARTICLE! DELETE!")

> '''Delete''', vanity, non-notable German bureaucrat. --~~~~

*Only made corporal? Who cares? Monorchism isn't encyclopedic in itsel
either. Delete - ~~~~

BTW, in the job ad, I lied about the cookies.

- d.


body:
On 6/22/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> Position vacant: WIKI ANGEL OF DEATH. Low pay, fantastic opportunities,
> lots of cookies *.  Requires: immaculate judgement, sharp scythe, efficient
> attitude. Automatically pissing off querulous idiots advantageous. Apply at
> Special:Recentchanges or Special:Newpages.

I took a look at NewPages yesterday. But every time I'm bored I spice
up my life with RecentChanges, and there's always something I can
stick my nose into.

Half the time it's a vandal of some sort and it's fun to sit on their
IP address and check out what else they've been doing.

OK. I have a weird idea of fun.

--
Peter in Canberra


from_name: Tim Starling

body:
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
> What about reviving the idea of blocking a user from editing a
> particular article? If someone blocked me from editing one of the gitmo
> articles for a couple of days, I'd "get the message" and I wouldn't feel
> the need for a dramatic exit.

Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related
features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually
well-supported.

-- Tim Starling


body:
Tim Starling (t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au) [050622 10:39]:

> Are there any objections to this? I'm accustomed to all blocking-related
> features being controversial, but this one seems to be unusually
> well-supported.

It would certainly make 3RR blocks much less controversial.

Mind you, I'm now trying to think of possible social side effects.

- d.


from_name: Zoney

body:
On 6/22/05, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Jon (thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk) [050622 04:49]:
>
> > In summary - the English and Welsh national curriculum requires children to be taught what BCE/CE means. The QCA continues and will continue to use BC/AD notation, which remains the form of notation used throughout the QCA's syllabuses. Wherever there have been attempts by a small number of teachers acting on their own initiative to require BCE/CE notation in UK, they have normally been met by an angry response.
>
>
> Yep. As I said, the push for BCE/CE is essentially US POV-centric.
>
>
> - d.
>
>

Most importantly, the whole BCE/CE thing is a POV lobby. It's nonsense
to suggest that changing a very common phrase in the English language,
hitherto used near-universally, is "neutral".

Now Wikipedia with NPOV policy certainly has to avoid siding with
different POVs - but surely to use BCE/CE notation at all is indeed
siding with a POV. Does every POV have to be accommodated on *some*
articles in order to have NPOV?

Surely sticking to BC/AD, as has been used for centuries and centuries
in the English language (almost certainly the vast majority using it
without religious or political intent), is the most sensible option?

Wikipedia's ridiculous pandering to all the extremist POVs is not a
good way to ensure NPOV in my opinion, and seriously dints its
credability.

I suspect many have no idea how absurd it appears to a non-USian to
see BCE/CE spreading across Wikipedia (and judging by the biases most
prevalent among Wikipedians - it seems likely to continue to increase
and be used in what is at the least, a disproportionate amount of
articles).

HAH! NPOV? Wikipedia merely reflects the biases of its editors, both
the majority and the minorities who push strongly for their POV.

Zoney

P.S. Long term, I cannot see how Wikipedia will avoid descending into
anarchy. And unfortunately, I can see more of the current editors and
admins choosing to leave (yes there are plenty more who will take
over, but it's a bad way to do things).

I hope I'm proved wrong though - the content Wikipedia has collated to
date is impressive in size, and a fine body of articles are very good
quality too.

Sl?n go f?ill.
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...


from_name: Fastfission

body:
I am sure this is what they are doing, but:

Wouldn't it be easy to detect when article sizes or content fluctuated
wildly and mark that as worth checking into? Wouldn't it also be easy
to check for new articles created without any Wikilinks? That would
probably flag a good heap of the random vandalism right off the bat
(dedicated vandals would of course be more subtle, but that's not a
new thing). A little red flag for profanities would also probably work
as well. This seems like something which could be easily hardwired
into MediaWiki -- if condition X, add a list to this edit to
Special:Checkup or something like that. But I don't know much about
that, and know the developers are few, so it is just a thought, and
one they have probably already had.

FF

On 6/22/05, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/22/05, Dan Grey <dangrey at gmail.com> wrote:
> > After a lot of digging (I went through RickK's talk page in the end -
> > glad it was undeleted!) I've found #en.wikipedia.vandalism, which is
> > Cool Cat's vandal-detector bot in its own channel on Freenode.
> >
> > r3m0t's thing is probably Humanbot, which is inactive at the moment (I
> > only realised after install Greasemonkey and then the script - d'oh!)
>
> No, r3m0t is betaing a greasemonkey based tool that will preload
> recent changes for you to look at and approve or disapprove in various
> ways.  I tested it the other day; it wasn't bad but it's really
> designed for nonadmins (it can mark stuff as speedy but it won't do
> the actual deletes and it doesn't use one-click rollback).
>
> I've got an idea for implementing CDVF as a server application (in
> Tomcat) to much the same effect.
>
> Kelly
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>