body:
Anthere wrote in part:

>Since we are on legal matters,

Since we are on legal matters, I'm also posting to <wikilegal-l>.

>Mav claims I am illegally removing the credit for text
>I did not write myself.

>I answered that I mentionned in the comment box that I
>was not the original author, hence not doing anything
>illegal and definitly not stealing anyone else job.

>Mav answers : Wrong. Read the author credit areas of
>the GNU Free Documentation License.

>So my question is : if none of us has the right to
>attribute to himself the credit of something written
>by someone else, what happen to all the major amount
>of text that is regularly clipped from one article,
>and moved to another page by someone who is not the
>original author of the text ? How does the licence
>handle that ? If the moved text contains legal issues,
>who is said liable, the lost original author, or the
>one who took the responsability of the move and who is
>consequently the owner of the edit?

>And is commenting in the comment box that we are not
>the original author of the edit not enough to insure
>legal rights of authorship are respected ? What are we
>supposed to do when moving someone else work ? Is
>commenting enough ? Or not ? Should we leave a message
>in the talk page ?

I always figured that one should comment in the edit comment box
"(taken from [[old page title]])"; although this doesn't list authors,
nevertheless it tells people where (on the same site) to look them up.
Then we claim, for legal purposes, that this is the "accepted practice"
for citing authors in Wikimedia projects: to refer to an old page title
where people can go to look up edit history and discover the authors.

>* or we admit that we are together building an
>encyclopedia, that ownership is secondary in our
>building process, and that what is important is the
>content, not the author. I would very much prefer that
>option :-)

But how to build that into the legal technicalities?
The problem is that we really don't have any options there.
We chose the GNU FDL a long time ago and are now at its mercy.
Whether it's good or bad, it's viral, and we're stuck with it.
(Which reminds me, has RMS shown any further interest in a Lesser FDL
and in allowing FDL works to be relicensed under a Lesser FDL?
This was to facilitate integration with other free copyleft licences,
like Creative Commons BY-SA, if nobody remembers.)

-- Toby


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikipedia-l] External pictures

body:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 06:15, Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> I fully agree the deactivation of external pictures for articles, but
> it was
> very useful especially for talk pages to show a picture and discuss
> it. The
> fact only local pictures can be rendering stimulate people to copy non
> encyclopaedic pictures on the servers. This is a problem for me.
>
> If you don't reactivate external pictures, please give the reason.

Well, I'll just point out that you can _link_ to a picture just fine.
People can click the link and look at it, so I don't think it really
harms _discussion_.

On the other hand, we do end up with people uploading pictures of their
cats/buddies/etc to stick on their user pages, which clutters things
up. On the other other hand, many people don't have (or don't know how
to use) a web-accessible space where they can upload pictures and then
link to them, and they'd likely continue using the wiki's upload space
for this stuff.

Enabling external pictures pose the slight privacy risk of exposing
people to 'web bugs' so an external site can track which IP addresses
have visited a certain page, though perhaps this is minor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031126/ce7ddd8c/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] External pictures

body:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 06:15, Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
> I fully agree the deactivation of external pictures for articles, but
> it was
> very useful especially for talk pages to show a picture and discuss
> it. The
> fact only local pictures can be rendering stimulate people to copy non
> encyclopaedic pictures on the servers. This is a problem for me.
>
> If you don't reactivate external pictures, please give the reason.

Well, I'll just point out that you can _link_ to a picture just fine.
People can click the link and look at it, so I don't think it really
harms _discussion_.

On the other hand, we do end up with people uploading pictures of their
cats/buddies/etc to stick on their user pages, which clutters things
up. On the other other hand, many people don't have (or don't know how
to use) a web-accessible space where they can upload pictures and then
link to them, and they'd likely continue using the wiki's upload space
for this stuff.

Enabling external pictures pose the slight privacy risk of exposing
people to 'web bugs' so an external site can track which IP addresses
have visited a certain page, though perhaps this is minor.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031126/ce7ddd8c/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] possible link rendering bug?

body:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:48:20AM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:

> Might it be an option to every month or every few months re-create the links
> and blinks tables from the cur table, so that all database inconsistencies
> of this kind get resolved?

It is the wrong approach. There must not be any inconsistencies of any kind.
The bugs should be fixed instead, as Brion mentioned. The current bug in
action going to be fixed, the consistency check going to run after that,
once, and we keep our eyes open for any new inconsistencies which may be a
sign of a next bug to fix.

grin


subject: [Wikitech-l] en: stats broken (to Brion)

body:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 12:49, Erik Zachte wrote:
> So the cause must be that splitting and joining the > 2GB dump did not
> happen transparently and the stitch between first and second half did
> not match the regexp.

Download failure, it only got ~580MB. I'll run it again.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031126/a5471161/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Peter Gervai wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:48:20AM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
>
> > Might it be an option to every month or every few months re-create the links
> > and blinks tables from the cur table, so that all database inconsistencies
> > of this kind get resolved?
>
> It is the wrong approach. There must not be any inconsistencies of any kind.
> The bugs should be fixed instead, as Brion mentioned. The current bug in
> action going to be fixed, the consistency check going to run after that,
> once, and we keep our eyes open for any new inconsistencies which may be a
> sign of a next bug to fix.

Of course the bugs should get fixed, but that does not change the pages
where the bug occurred before that time. Nor does it do any good for other
cases where similar bugs have occurred. If there's a leak in the hull, we
should try to find and fill the leak, but the water that has come in already
should be hosed out too.

Andre Engels


from_name: Alex T.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] since we are on legal matters ...

body:
Response to the legal issues in this thread posted here:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000066.html

For information on this Wikilegal-l discussion list:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l

Alex756


list: wikien-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
Martin Harper wrote:

>>We should trust users to remove pages from VfD
>>
>that should *obviously* not be deleted
>
>We already do this. However, we only do this where there is consensus, or the
>expectation of consensus, that the page should obviously not be deleted. Basically,
>you can remove a page from VfD whenever you are confident that nobody will object
>to your removal.
>
This is sophistry in support of a reverse onus..  The onus must remain
on those who want the article deleted.  This attempts to shift that onus
on those who want the reference removed from the VfD.  The attitude of
the deletionists toward what should be deleted is a lot more severe than
mine, and I simply don't trust them.

Ec


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Yay for production testing

body:
>>>>> "BV" == Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

    BV> Errr, that's what I shoulda said. This broke quinlan's emacs
    BV> editing-helper tool which does a direct login submission. I
    BV> did give him the workaround, though.

OK, yeah. Quickest workaround would of course be to just load another
page and get a session cookie.

I've reworked the cookie checking to do a redirect check after login
or account creation. If the redirect check fails -- still no cookie --
then it goes back to the login page with an error. If the redirect
check succeeds, it just shows the appropriate login success page.

I also added a little login prompt that says that you should have
cookies enabled. It seems like a good idea and should cut down on
people seeing these errors in the first place.

I tried the new function with these scenarios:

  * Log in, existing user, cookies enabled
  * Log in, existing user, cookies disabled
  * Log in, existing user, cookies disabled but turned on on login page
  * GET login, existing user, cookies enabled
  * GET login, existing user, cookies disabled
  * New account, cookies enabled
  * New account, cookies disabled
  * New account, cookies disabled but turned on on login page

This isn't really a righteous patch. I made the mistake of installing
a PHP mode for Emacs, and it mucked around with the formatting, so
there's a number of bogus diff lines. I'm too lazy to figure out how
to customize this *%^$#! mode to get it to format correctly; hopefully
whoever applies the patch can do that.

Hopefully this clears some things up.

~ESP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wikipedia.cvs20031126.with-post-cookie-check.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 6970 bytes
Desc: Patch to do cookie check with redirects
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031126/8026e146/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
tc wrote:
>For a very long time I've advocated making it
>explicit that the only authorship credit we
>should require downstream is "Wikipedia
>contributors" to avoid any bothersome
>bullying or complaints such as what
>Maverick is engaging in right now.

What? I just mentioned as a small part of my argument
that deleting an article and then posting /exactly/
the same text under a different user name and /not/
stating who wrote that text is a violation of the
author requirement of the GNU FDL and thus opens us to
potential litigation from the person who is not being
credited. This person has already stated that he hates
"Jimbo and his friends" and has called for "Wikipeida
regime change in 2004." So how am I being a bully by
pointing out something that could be used by such a
person as a basis to harm Wikipedia?

>But I'll try to believe that his actions
>are merited by his good-intentioned but
>unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on
>behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of
>censoring anything written by 142.

It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has
already been hard banned so everything he writes is in
violation of that ban and should be removed from the
top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the
ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that
the activity that the user was banned for is at worst
OK and at best not something we try to stop.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Andrew Lih

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
> From: The Cunctator
> > From: Delirium
> > What's wrong with just leaving it on the page for 5 days and letting
> > it get removed if it's the case that there's little to no support
for
> > deletion?
>
> What's wrong with putting up every page that should obviously
> be deleted on the Votes for Deletion page for 5 days?

At the risk of being a jerk, and bringing some levity into this, but
isn't this a "slippery slope" argument? :)

-Fuzheado


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: [Mediawiki-l] Gimme something to do

body:
>>>>> "BV" == Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> writes:

    BV> Another thing that would be nice would be proper locking
    BV> and/or use of transactional BEGIN/COMMIT wrappers and handling
    BV> of errors with rollbacks where multiple SQL statements are
    BV> required to perform a read/write operation.

So, I've been looking this over, and I'm just realizing that it's over
my head for now. I'm gonna have to defer on it, and try to patch some
less ubiquitous bugs instead.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


body:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 01:03:15PM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Peter Gervai wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 10:48:20AM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
> >
> > > Might it be an option to every month or every few months re-create the links
> > > and blinks tables from the cur table, so that all database inconsistencies
> > > of this kind get resolved?
> >
> > It is the wrong approach. There must not be any inconsistencies of any kind.
> > The bugs should be fixed instead, as Brion mentioned. The current bug in
> > action going to be fixed, the consistency check going to run after that,
> > once, and we keep our eyes open for any new inconsistencies which may be a
> > sign of a next bug to fix.
>
> Of course the bugs should get fixed, but that does not change the pages
> where the bug occurred before that time. Nor does it do any good for other
> cases where similar bugs have occurred. If there's a leak in the hull, we
> should try to find and fill the leak, but the water that has come in already
> should be hosed out too.

Sorry to repeat myself, but as I said: the water should be hosed out now,
but we should not start hosing every month no matter what. We hose now, get
it done, and keep eyeing the hull.


body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>tc wrote:
>
>>But I'll try to believe that his actions
>>are merited by his good-intentioned but
>>unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on
>>behalf of 142 and not based on a goal of
>>censoring anything written by 142.
>>
>It is not a matter of me censoring anything. He has
>already been hard banned so everything he writes is in
>violation of that ban and should be removed from the
>top edits of articles. Not doing so invalidates the
>ban and implicitly gives permission to everyone that
>the activity that the user was banned for is at worst
>OK and at best not something we try to stop.
>
The issue of whether 142 should be banned is not being questioned.  The
debate is about three articles on Meta that Anth?re considers worth
keeping and improving based on their contents.  Mav has said himself
that 142 has made more contributions to Meta than anyone else, so we're
talking about only 3 articles out of a large number.  Let's not take
this will to purge the project of anything related to 142 to the point
of being monomaniacal.  I'm confident that if given enough time Anth?re
will be able to edit the article so that it no longer resembles what 142
wrote.  Give her a little room to work.

The argument of protecting 142's copyrights is laughable.  He is after
all still an anonymous user. Anonymity does not override a person's
copyrights, but it makes proving them that much more difficult.  Can he,
as whatever legal person claims those copyrights, prove that he is the
same person that we know under a numercial synonym.  Furthermore, if and
when he gets to the point of issuing a take-down order (with which we
would be most willing to comply) the article(s) in question may no
longer resemble what he put there in the first place.

Ec


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
> From: Erik Moeller
>
> Cunc-
> > All right, Votes for Deletion is broken. There's something
seriously,
> > deliriously wrong when [[Gene Ray]] is listed on Votes for Deletion.
>
> Pages can only be deleted in consensus, so I doubt there's a real risk
> that articles like [[Gene Ray]] or [[Realdoll]] will be deleted.
> I'm not completely opposed to delisting a page, but it's a matter of
good
> judgment. If one or several regulars have voted for deletion, or if a
> newbie has done so and given a long explanation why he feels that way,
you
> should honor these opinions and let the process do its magic.
>
> On the other hand, if it's just some newbies who haven't read our
policies
> feeling offended by a certain article and voting to delete, you might
> unlist the page right away, but it would be nice to leave a message on
> their talk page and explain why you did it.

The current situation is such that if I unlisted a page right away for
any reason, Wikipedians such as Fuzheado and Angela would strenuously
object and consider my action an egregious breach of protocol.

I strongly believe that just in the same way we formally state that we
trust people to immediately delete utter nonsense, we need to formally
state that we trust people to immediately take acceptable content off of
the Votes for Deletion page.

This will apply to two situations, primarily: the first being the one
you mentioned ("some newbies who haven't read our policies feeling
offended by a certain article and voting to delete") and the other being
when an article has changed due to its listing on Votes for Deletion.
Once something has gone from possibly irredeemable gunk to an evidently
valid entry it should be delisted from Votes for Deletion.


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Mav and policy

body:
> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com>

> Anthere wrote:
> >I encourage editors to consider the three
> >articles I have been restoring. These
> >three have any right to be on meta. The
> >content of these is uncontroversial.
>
> Article quality is irrelevant because they should
> not
> have been created to begin with. However, if you had
> created them independent of any action by 142.177
> then
> the existence of the articles would be fine. Since
> all
> you did was copy /exactly/ what 142.177 wrote Cimon
> Avaro has blanked them. If somebody wants to create
> their own unique content about those subjects, then
> do
> so. But re-creating the exact text by a hard banned
> user is subverting that ban.

This morning, I added one line (it was a *personal*
addition, not in the original article by the banned
user) to the consumerium article. That line was
blanked by Cimon nonetheless. That means, whatever *I*
add to the article, it is considered bad and blanked
and reverted. Even if *I* Anthere, wrote that line.

> >It could be edited by anyone, and I am
> >ready to put any effort necessary in
> >those to modify them, as I indicated to Mav,
>
> They are a clean slate now. Go ahead. However we
> should not do this too often since it allows 142.177
> to direct our attention to certain topics. Thus also
> subverting the ban.

I put MY line back. That line alone looks very stupid.

Look by yourself
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerium

If it is reverted *again*, how do you plan proving
that articles touched by banned users are freely
editable ?

As I said this morning, where is the sense of editing
these now "black" articles if what we add, us, good
and honest editors is reverted without consideration ?

> >provided that they are not deleted again,
> >even when I recreate them under my name.
>
> The text in these particular articles is minimal.
> However if you did that for larger ones then you
> would
> be in violation of the GNU FDL (since you would deny
> 142.177 credit).

I noted with interest that in your reply on my other
mail, you said that
* when you mentionned in the comment box (upon my
pressing request), that the agronomy article was
authored by me and not by Robert or you, this is ok
with the GNU license
* but when I mention in the comment box (upon no one
request) that I am not the author, but avoid
mentionning the original author (whose name is
available in the deletion history) for ***your***
sake, this is illegal ?

> >I do not feel ready to put some work on articles
> >that are being deleted immediately after. I fear
> >that instant deletion of these articles as now
> >practiced, under any editors name, even trusted
> >ones, is likely to slow down discussion and
> >evolution of meta.
>
> No it won't. It will just take control of meta's
> content away from 142.177 (who is, BTW, meta's
> number
> one 'contributor') and give it to the wider
> community.

Yes, it will. Even my poor edition was removed, and I
dare not even put the external link to the project.

> >It is not a good idea that any topic touched
> >by a banned user, becomes de facto a topic
> >which must not be mentionned any more.
>
> What? I already explained on your talk page that
> this
> is not the case. There is nothing stopping you from
> writing on topics that a banned user 'touches'! Just
> don't recreate the banned users exact (or even
> substantial) edits and try hard not to be prompted
> to
> edit a subject just because the banned user brought
> it
> to your attention. This denies the banned user
> influence over our content and the direction of
> discussion.

I am all ready to wait one full month before editing
any of these articles; Problem is that after one
month, the article is long gone.
If proper articles are not deleted, I will gladly
respect a certain time before editing them if that
suits you.

> >I entirely recognise and accept the decision
> >over the banning of 142.
>
> Then why are you recreating his edits!

Because to my opinion, banning does not imply blind
deletion.

....
Besides that
> is
> /not/ what you have been doing: you have been
> reverting the deletion of the text that 142.177 has
> written and you have also been responding to his
> posts. That is very different than just happening to
> write in the same areas. Your involvement is direct
> and with the banned user.

In the past three days, Cimon has been consistantly
reverting edits by 142. This is ok by me. Everyone is
free to look or not to look at them. I do not see a
problem there.
Among the edits Cimon reverted, two were written on
Netesq talk page

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3ANetesq

Netesq reverted these two edits back and engaged in
discussion with 142.

Discussion, much more than my poor line asking that
142 be nicer with you.

But this is just further staking the deck on *me* : I
communicated (1 line !) with a banned user. I am said
involved, while obviously no one else is.

Seriously Mav !

...

> >If this goes to this, preventing regular users to
> >edit topics because of their smell, where is
> >Wikipedia going ?
>
> I think I have already proven that this is a weak
> argument, if not a strawman.

what about my line on consumerium ?

Okay, just kidding. You are right of course :-)

> >The rules should not be decided by Mav,
>
> Since when have I been deciding the rules in this
> regard? I was acting on a decision authorized by
> Jimbo
> and in response to a request by another user to
> immediately delete the articles in question. You
> were
> acting on your own authority. So who is making up
> the
> rules?

Right now ? You. Clearly. When two people are trying
to discuss together, and one is requesting unsysoping
of the other one, and accusing her of about every bad
action he can figure out (such as her acting in
illegality as regards gfdl), that is *intentionally*
trying to remove any legitimacy in her participating
to setting the rules

Leaving you alone.

Btw, we two are not the only sysops on meta. I did not
notice the other sysops were jumping on the delete
button each time they saw 142.

Even more, others have been deleting some 142 edits,
to restore them under their names, in order to remove
unnice comments to you.

See
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Banned_user

So, I ask again, why the attack on *me* ? Am I so
scary ?? Why ???

>>Perhaps you have not read this email:
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-March/009407.html

Given that you paste it in every mail, it would be
hard to miss it :-)

>....

>>Just like the english main page, not editable
>>by most users. Just like the wikimedia guide,
>>just you editing it, and calling other attempts
>>forks.

>What? Please stop the personal attacks and lies. In
>addition to myself these other users have also edited
>the user's guide: Patrick, Brion, Nanobug, Hashar,
>Kat, Mintguy, Archivist, and MyRedDice. And that is
>just from the first several pages of the guide! I
have
>not taken issue with their edits. What I do take
issue
>with is the creation of a competing MediaWiki
>documentation project instead of simply adding to the
>current one. However I think the person doing this
and
>I have reached an understanding.

Yes ? I am glad to hear that. Indeed, the
understanding  must have been clear :
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Documentation&diff=0&oldid=21682

So, yours is the old manual. Hum...

And of course, no one *ever* complained about the fact
you basically own the english main page ? Apologies, I
must have been inventing this fact :-)

>>Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job,
>>and you have been hurt by that user, and
>>that 142 is indeed banned;

>Then why are you aiding and abetting him in the
>subversion of the ban?

Mav. I am not *aiding* him.
It would be nice that you stop placing people in a
black and white state : the ones who pity you and
inforce the banning, versus the ones who don't care
and help the banned users.

There are other alternatives. For example, I already
told you I was sorry for you, and really can feel the
unhappiness this whole story is causing to you.
However, one can feel sorry, recognise the ban, but
not follow your technique to inforce a ban.

There is not ONE technique to enforce a ban. There are
a collection of options to help exclude someone from a
community.

Perhaps everyone just naturally accept there is a ban.
But not everyone choose to follow the same techniques
as regards this ban.

On en, users have chosen different paths. Some choose
to delete immediately, without even taking into
consideration other people edited the page afterwards
sometimes

Other users just close the eyes and pretend they have
seen nothing

Other users actively seek to save the good articles,
usually by kidnapping them, keeping them aside for a
while, and then recreating them under other author
names, with some refactoring.

These three techniques are tolerated on en.

Curiously, you chose to attack me, and request my
unsysoping because I was following one of the
alternative techniques, that others are following as
well.

When I suggest that we talk about this, you completely
evade the issue, and refuse to answer to me, limiting
yourself to appeal to authority and to repeat that the
only way is immediate deletion, and claiming it is the
only technique practiced, while obviously it is not.

Then you ask for unsysoping me, me alone, for doing
things that others are doing as well.

Sadly, you are just attacking the one that appears the
feablest.

>>what I have troubles accepting is that you
>>decide the way we should enforce the ban,
>>you remove my comments on talk pages, you
>>delete articles I created under my name,
>>assuming if need there is their authorship,
>>and finally, that you try to break the only
>>opposition to your decisions on meta by
>>calling for unsysoping people.

>Perhaps you have not read my first email:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-November/013113.html

>Where in that email have I called for de-sysoping
>anyone?

You are assuming that I said you wrote that in the
email, but it is not; it was on my talk page on meta

this is where you mention that you are going to
strongly advocate me being unsysoped
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Anthere&diff=21642&oldid=21641

And this is where you confirm that you did ask for my
unsysoping
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Anthere&diff=0&oldid=21651

>I did consider doing that but then I realized
>that it really wasn't an abuse of sysop power that
you
>were doing, but a basic disregard for policy.

I am sure glad you changed your mind.

I precisely question the "disregard for policy". No
policy was ever written on the matter on meta.

So, everyone assume it is the english policy, which I
regret, as every wikipedia is also setting up personal
policy, which might be different from the en one.
There is no reason why meta should endorse the en one.

However, even if meta is basically currently following
en policy (which is perhaps fine for the moment), I
repeat that some en users are also restoring some
articles, just as I did, so why should I be attacked
on doing what other people also think is proper ?

>recreated your edits (a one line response to 142.177)
>and removed just what 142.177 wrote. Yet you reverted
>that.

No, two times, you removed my comments from the page.
Two times you removed comments that were never done by
142.
The first line was certainly not a response, that was
gently asking 142 to be nicer to you. My poor attempt
to cool things down didnot deserve censorship.
The second paragraph that you censored, was something
I wrote several days ago. It had nothing to do with
the current issue. You removed it blindly anyway.

>>So Mav, there is a point there. I explained
>>in length on meta why I was restoring these
>>three articles.

>And I explained in length why I deleted them and
>reverted 142.177's edits.

So ?
So we discuss, and when we do not agree, you ask for
desysoping ?

>>I also remind you that other users on en are
>>also doing this, and that it has suggested
>>that in case this is done, the articles should
>>be recreated under another person name.

>Again that is subverting the ban and is a violation
of
>the GNU FDL. Just because others are doing it too
does
>not make it right.

I do not believe it is a violation of the GNU FDL.
This is nicely made up to suit the situation. "making
it right" is a personal opinion. And that does not
justify  jumping on Anthere, just because you think
you can jump on me, while it would perhaps less
confortable to jump on others (I hope I am not
claiming to be fat here, though I am far from skinny
either)

>>In any place, there should be balance. The
>>fact you delete them is fine with me; the
>>fact you refuse to accept that other people
>>have different opinions on how meta should
>>work is just plain not wiki.

...

>It is also highly insulting and in fact disgusting
>that you are helping a person who stated that my
>murder would be justified because I am being a
censor.

Stop the appeal for pity on simplification of the
issue, Mav, you are taking it far too personally.
Really.

I have a question btw.

Your disagreement with 142 is from ... I do not
remember...perhaps a year ago (say). At that time, you
were naturally and quite understandebly shaken.

After a few months, you decided that though the ban
was still in place, you would tolerate 142 edits,
provided that he behaved. That is...somehow, even if
you could not forget, not really forgive, there was a
good step in the direction of forgiveness though, and
I told you how happy that made me. I was real glad you
were going over that stress.

Later, there was the attack on RK. Not on you again;
just on RK. And following this attack on RK, you
decided to enforce the ban again.
It appears that the attack on RK made all the sourness
of your case go up again. And that because of the
attack on another person, you are all angry and shaken
again on your own case. Why did not you call the
police then, when you were attacked, rather than now ?

......

>From 142.177:
"There are very few things you will regret more in
your life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong,
racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to
realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back
in, so, you deserve what you get."

Yes, this is very unnice.
It is very unlike you who are very open.

>On top of this he also used my real name in a very
>slanderous and false statement and if believed by my
>employer could get me fired. That diff has since been
>deleted from the database thanks to Brion.

Shall I dare to say ?
I also abandonned any attempt to contact professionals
to talk about Gaia matters as I had thought of doing
at some point. Too afraid of them seeing what was in
the discussion page. Too afraid of them being said
nasty things, that would have covered Wikipedia image
with opprobe. And that is why, even if one day I give
my real name, I will not change my contribution from
my pseudo to my real name. I also can't really figure
my own boss finding some of the emails adressed to me
and widely available on the net.

This is irrelevant to the current personal matter, but
just to refocus things on other personal matters :-)

>Do I deserve that Anthere? By subverting the ban you
>are implicitly saying that what 142.177 wrote above
is
>OK since in effect you are directly opposing the ban
>as if it did not have merit. In fact I'm going to
>inform the cops about 142.177 (I've never read all
his
>threats in quick order before - it creeps me out).

No, you do not deserve these comments.
No, what he said is not ok, and I do not support it.

I really hope we can work a way out of this Mav.

What about, if one finds an article ok (**only** in
this case of course), to blank it, perhaps even to
orphan it, to put it aside for a while, perhaps to
move it in a user space, and perhaps to recreate it by
any means you might think acceptable later, with
modifications ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


body:
> From: Toby Bartels
> But how to build that into the legal technicalities?
> The problem is that we really don't have any options there.
> We chose the GNU FDL a long time ago and are now at its mercy.
> Whether it's good or bad, it's viral, and we're stuck with it.
> (Which reminds me, has RMS shown any further interest in a Lesser FDL
> and in allowing FDL works to be relicensed under a Lesser FDL?
> This was to facilitate integration with other free copyleft licences,
> like Creative Commons BY-SA, if nobody remembers.)

The reality is that we do have options. We are free to reasonably
interpret ambiguities in the GNU FDL to suit our purposes as long as we
preserve the intent. But that doesn't even necessarily apply to this
situation.

One main thing to remember is that the authorship constraints on
documents only apply to derivative works, not original works. Wikipedia
is not a derivative work of itself; we can choose what our rules for
attribution are without constraint by the GFDL.

For a very long time I've advocated making it explicit that the only
authorship credit we should require downstream is "Wikipedia
contributors" to avoid any bothersome bullying or complaints such as
what Maverick is engaging in right now.

But I'll try to believe that his actions are merited by his
good-intentioned but unnecessary efforts to follow the GFDL on behalf of
142 and not based on a goal of censoring anything written by 142.

In other words, I sincerely hope Mav isn't trying to use his
interpretations of the law as a stick to bludgeon Anthere's attempt to
disseminate what she believes is valid knowledge, because I find that
tactic, used in the past by the Church of Scientology, Disney, and Bill
O'Reilly to stifle critics, repulsive.

--tc


body:
> Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>
> This is an interesting question.
>
> If i remember correctly, GFDL requires to give at least the 5 major
> contributors. But how we determine that for Wikipedia?
> Does this notion even has a meaning?

No, you do not remember correctly. The GFDL requires derivative works to
give at least the 5 major contributors, unless the creators of the
original work release that obligation.

The GFDL makes no requirements on authorship attribution to the original
work.

> I agree on Anthere's point of view that we should all give up
> 'ownership' of articles, and simply work together.

It would behoove us (and potential authors of derivative works) if we
did explicitly state that we release people from the 5-author
obligation.


subject: [Wikilegal-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] since we are on legal matters ...

body:
Grumble...another mailing list...grumble

>This is a very good point. I have brought it up
>before. Really, if you move text from one page (or
>from one language version to another) as part of the
>move you should analyze the text and determine who
the >five major contributors are and list them in the
>summary box. How to determine who the five major
>contributors are?  Should it be via the amount of
text >each
>contributes? Or the number of ideas?  How to count
>ideas?
>Perhaps an alternative is to state where the page
>comes from that way someone should be able to work
>back and find out who made the contribution.
>...
>Alex756

AieAieAie, I think, reading comments by Alex, Martin,
Ec...that it would be best that we just abandon this
notion of authorship.

It would still be a good idea to always indicate the
origin of a content moved from another place in the
comment box.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


body:
Anthere wrote:

>Grumble...another mailing list...grumble
>
Absolutely!!!  Attrition is inevitable.

>>This is a very good point. I have brought it up
>>before. Really, if you move text from one page (or
>>
>>from one language version to another) as part of the
>
>>move you should analyze the text and determine who
>>
>the >five major contributors are and list them in the
>
>>summary box. How to determine who the five major
>>contributors are?  Should it be via the amount of
>>
>text >each
>
>>contributes? Or the number of ideas?  How to count
>>ideas?
>>Perhaps an alternative is to state where the page
>>comes from that way someone should be able to work
>>back and find out who made the contribution.
>>...
>>Alex756
>>
Applying any of these criteria,  except for the five most recent
contributors, can be the type of time-consuming process that people tend
to avoid.

>AieAieAie, I think, reading comments by Alex, Martin,
>Ec...that it would be best that we just abandon this
>notion of authorship.
>
>It would still be a good idea to always indicate the
>origin of a content moved from another place in the
>comment box.
>
Comment boxes just appeared one day without much discussion about how to
use them in contrast to the article's talk page.  I've just ignored the
feature.

Ec

>


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Patch for Bug #845036:	'Hide minor edits' application
	too broad

body:
Here's a patch for the overbroad HME bug. I took out the checks for
the user preferences on hide minor edits on the Related Changes and
User Contributions pages. I also re-enabled the hide/show minor edits
link on Related Changes and Recent Changes; it seems to have been lost
accidentally.

Another side-effect is that the User Contributions page now also has a
show/hide minor edits link, for parallelism. The code was checking for
the param, so I figured it should probably be present and do
something. B-) The contributions are also flagged as minor if
applicable.

Yes, another overbroad patch. I just didn't think it was valuable
without the extra stuff.

~ESP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wikipedia.cvs20031126.with-narrow-hide-minor.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 8929 bytes
Desc: Patch for bug #845036
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031126/808ed560/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Attrition war

body:
Anthere wrote:

>>Grumble...another mailing list...grumble

>Absolutely!!!  Attrition is inevitable.

I succeeded to avoid it for at least one month, that
is not so bad.

But *they* got me. Terrible.

>>This is a very good point. I have brought it up
>>before. Really, if you move text from one page (or
>>
>>from one language version to another) as part of the
>
>>move you should analyze the text and determine who
>>
>the >five major contributors are and list them in the
>
>>summary box. How to determine who the five major
>>contributors are?  Should it be via the amount of
>>
>text >each
>
>>contributes? Or the number of ideas?  How to count
>>ideas?
>>Perhaps an alternative is to state where the page
>>comes from that way someone should be able to work
>>back and find out who made the contribution.
>>...
>>Alex756
>>

>Applying any of these criteria,  except for the five
>most recent
>contributors, can be the type of time-consuming
>process that people tend
>to avoid.

Agreed

>>AieAieAie, I think, reading comments by Alex,
Martin,
>>Ec...that it would be best that we just abandon this
>>notion of authorship.
>>
>>It would still be a good idea to always indicate the
>>origin of a content moved from another place in the
>>comment box.
>>
>Comment boxes just appeared one day without much
>discussion about how to
>use them in contrast to the article's talk page.
I've >just ignored the
>feature.

Tu me parles d'un temps, que les moins de 20 ans, ne
peuvent pas connai-tre. tididadidadaaaa,
tidadidadadaaaa

Ok, I usually forget that feature as well. I thought
it was part of the initial package. When did you
arrive Ec ?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


subject: [Wikipedia-l] meta policy

body:
Anthere wrote:
>This morning, I added one line (it was a
>*personal* addition, not in the original
>article by the banned user) to the
>consumerium article. That line was
>blanked by Cimon nonetheless. That means,
>whatever *I* add to the article, it is
>considered bad and blanked and reverted.
>Even if *I* Anthere, wrote that line.

Funny the text that Cimon blanked is /exactly/ the
same as the text that 142.177 submitted.

Original by 142.177:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Undelete&target=Consumerium&timestamp=20031124021336

Cimon's blanking:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Consumerium&diff=21685&oldid=21669

The only difference is one small line added by you at
the end. I could see how Cimon could have missed that.
I just noticed it myself - otherwise I would have
saved your line.

But that line was not in the version I deleted:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Undelete&target=Consumerium&timestamp=20031126063705

>....
>As I said this morning, where is the sense of
>editing these now "black" articles if what we
>add, us, good and honest editors is reverted
>without consideration ?

No - you should not be reverted without consideration.
However I seriously doubt you would have edited these
articles /at all/ if 142.177 had not created them
first.

>I noted with interest that in your reply
>on my other mail, you said that
* when you mentionned in the comment box
>(upon my pressing request), that the
>agronomy article was authored by me and
>not by Robert or you, this is ok with
>the GNU license

Yes it is since I named the original author, you.

>* but when I mention in the comment box
>(upon no one request) that I am not the
>author, but avoid mentionning the original
>author (whose name is available in the
>deletion history) for ***your*** sake,
>this is illegal ?

Huh? If the text is by 142.177 it should be credited
to that IP. The deletion history /cannot/ be read by
anybody but Admins. Thus it is useless for author
credit. However, whether or not we should host that
text is a different matter.

>Because to my opinion, banning does not
>imply blind deletion.

That is a valid opinion.

>Netesq reverted these two edits back and
>engaged in discussion with 142.
>
>Discussion, much more than my poor line
>asking that 142 be nicer with you.
>
>But this is just further staking the deck
>on *me* : I communicated (1 line !) with a
>banned user. I am said involved, while
>obviously no one else is.

User talk pages brings up touchy issues. In those
cases my rule of thumb is to revert the edit but not
to re-revert if the user resurrects the banned user's
edit. I don't like it but as I said user pages are a
bit more of a special case.

>Mav. I am not *aiding* him. It would
>be nice that you stop placing people
>in a black and white state : the ones
>who pity you and inforce the banning,
>versus the ones who don't care and
>help the banned users.
>....

I don't need your pity or anyone's else's. Americans
at least don't think that being pitied is a good
thing. It is in fact a bit insulting to say that you
pity someone.

>There is not ONE technique to enforce
>a ban. There are a collection of options
>to help exclude someone from a community.

Re-creating the exact article text the banned user
wrote, as you did, is not one of those techniques. It
is a violation of the ban order (and has other
problems which I already explained).

>Curiously, you chose to attack me, and
>request my unsysoping because I was
>following one of the alternative techniques,
>that others are following as well.

Again -- STOP PRETENDING THAT I REQUESTED TO DE-SYSOP
YOU!!! I did no such thing (stating that I was going
to do so on your talk page is NOT a request for
de-sysoping, but a warning that I planned to. I
changed my mind for reasons already stated, however).

>I precisely question the "disregard for policy".
>No policy was ever written on the matter on meta.

Again Jimbo said he was banned /everywhere/. However
you seem to be talking about techniques and I am
talking about the ban itself. I think we have not been
communicating. In fact I am open to discussions on
hard ban techniques. This is the first time I recall
you talking about techniques though. So you can
understand my frustration at seeing you re-create the
exact article I deleted. It looked to me like you were
thumbing your nose to the ban.

>...
>However, even if meta is basically currently
>following en policy (which is perhaps fine
>for the moment), I repeat that some en users
>are also restoring some articles, just as I
>did, so why should I be attacked on doing
>what other people also think is proper ?

Sorry, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia so I
can't argue with everybody who does things I don't
like. You just happened to be the person to set me off
when I had some time to respond. This seems to happen
more with you than with other people -- sorry about
that. That just reflects the fact that our
personalities clash.

I like you and greatly respect you but sometimes you
really irritate me - moreso than your actions probably
justify sometimes.

>It appears that the attack on RK made all
>the sourness of your case go up again. And
>that because of the attack on another person,
>you are all angry and shaken again on your
>own case. Why did not you call the police
>then, when you were attacked, rather than now ?

Slow boiling. It took reading all his threats together
to prompt me to do so. I am also a very forgiving
person and didn't want to make trouble for him hoping
that he would just go away. Well he hasn't gone away
and is still doing the same things which got him
banned in the first place. There is only so much a
person can take.

>What about, if one finds an article ok
>(**only** in this case of course), to
>blank it, perhaps even to orphan it, to
>put it aside for a while, perhaps to
>move it in a user space, and perhaps to
>recreate it by any means you might think
>acceptable later, with modifications ?

Yes, we can discuss this since it deals with hard ban
techniques and not whether or not the ban applies to
meta (which of course it does). Let's do so on the RfD
talk page.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore.  Unprotecting a page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it to your point, comes to mind.  Marking contentious changes as minor also comes to mind.  The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop authority taken away.  OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a nonsense article.  Where is the reciprocity?

RickK

The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
On 11/26/03 5:06 PM, "Martin Harper"
wrote:

>> All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.
>
> And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?

If by "the code" you mean the "code of behavior", then yes. This is a
situation where the solution is not primarily technological, but social.

Of course, as Lessig discussed, it's a fallacy to believe that the two kinds
of code (legal and machine) are wholly distinct.

Fortunately, most of the necessary tools necessary for solving the bad entry
problem have now been developed: stub indicators, the "restore deleted
edits" option, the deletion log (though that needs to have a more friendly
interface).

Now the problem is primarily behavioral, which can be fixed through "legal"
code.

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031126/5e26125e/attachment.htm


from_name: Nicolas Weeger

body:
This is an interesting question.

If i remember correctly, GFDL requires to give at least the 5 major
contributors. But how we determine that for Wikipedia?
Does this notion even has a meaning?

I agree on Anthere's point of view that we should all give up
'ownership' of articles, and simply work together.

Nicolas 'Ryo'
(as myself, not fr: embassador)


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Anthere is subverting the 142.177 hard ban

body:
Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> writes:

> But re-creating the exact text by a hard banned
> user is subverting that ban.

And that's a good thing.  Never assume there is only black and white.
"Banning" will not help to make this world a better place.

--
                                                         |      ,__o
                                                         |    _-\_<,
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |   (*)/'(*)


body:
On 11/26/03 8:00 PM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Anthere wrote:
>
>> Grumble...another mailing list...grumble
>>
> Absolutely!!!  Attrition is inevitable.
>
I've advocated against the use of mailing lists from day one.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] "Delete based solely on dislike of Easter Bradford
	stubs" (Was Votes for Deletion)

body:
On 11/26/03 5:51 PM, "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote the following on the pile of pointlessness we playfully
> refer
> to as "wikien-l":
>
>> Martin wrote the following on [[Dcide]]:
>> Delete based solely on dislike of Easter Bradford stubs.
>
>> Is he being facetious, or is this what is counting as a reasonable
>> argument at VfD nowadays?
>
> I don't think he reads this mailing list. Perhaps you could discuss the matter
> with him on his user talk page?
>
> Now, are you wasting everyone's time, or is this what is counting as an issue
> for
> the mailing lists nowadays?
>
Yes, I do beat my children after dinner.


subject:
[Wikilegal-l] [Wikipedia-l] GFDL, History, and Combining
	Documents (was "since we are on the subject")

body:
On 11/26/03 5:31 PM, "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered
> under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination,
> you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original
> documents,
> forming one section Entitled "History";'.

That is not true. Wikipedia is the Document, not the individual entries.

> Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we
> combine the
> history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?

We don't do this because it is NOT covered by section 5.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
On 11/26/03 5:06 PM, "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:

>> All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.
>
> And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?

If by "the code" you mean the "code of behavior", then yes. This is a
situation where the solution is not primarily technological, but social.

Of course, as Lessig discussed, it's a fallacy to believe that the two kinds
of code (legal and machine) are wholly distinct.

Fortunately, most of the necessary tools necessary for solving the bad entry
problem have now been developed: stub indicators, the "restore deleted
edits" option, the deletion log (though that needs to have a more friendly
interface).

Now the problem is primarily behavioral, which can be fixed through "legal"
code.


from_name: John Robinson

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator

body:
After having today discovered [[User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk]] I have a
couple of questions:

1) Why was this person made an admin in the first place?
2) Why does this user remain an admin after abusing that privilege in
an edit war?

These questions are not rhetorical.

- Hephaestos


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
On 11/26/03 4:50 PM, "Angela" <sloog77 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> The Cunctator wrote:
>> we need to formally state that we trust
>> people to immediately take acceptable content
>> off of the Votes for Deletion page.
>
> I don't object to that idea, but is removing things
> from VfD really that important?

Yes.

> If someone has
> mistakenly listed something, then perhaps seeing the
> comments that people make regarding why the page
> should be kept will teach them something. Pages which
> are listed wrongly are can serve some role in
> developing ideas about what is regarded as suitable.

That is true, but those examples should not remain on the VfD page.


subject: [WikiEN-l] The Cunctator

body:
On 11/26/03 9:20 PM, "John Robinson" <john at freeq.com> wrote:

> After having today discovered [[User:The Cunctator/Bias Talk]] I have a
> couple of questions:
>
> 1) Why was this person made an admin in the first place?
> 2) Why does this user remain an admin after abusing that privilege in
> an edit war?
>
> These questions are not rhetorical.
>
Ah, but the second one *is* leading.


from_name: Peter Bartlett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of The Cunctator

>The current situation is such that if I unlisted a page right away for
any reason, Wikipedians such as Fuzheado and Angela would strenuously
object and
>consider my action an egregious breach of protocol.

>I strongly believe that just in the same way we formally state that we
trust people to immediately delete utter nonsense, we need to formally
state that
>we trust people to immediately take acceptable content off of the Votes
for Deletion page.

Just to give a flavour of current practice he is a short exchange I had
on Talk:VfD this week

As per current policy it's ok to remove pages from VfD before 7 days if
they're obviously fixed isn't it? Pete 00:20, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
:Yes. For some value of "obvious". Martin 00:21, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
::As long as you can justify it when someone objects and asks you to
explain. Probably if someone objects, they should just relist it though.
Angela 00:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have removed plenty of fixed or non-broken articles from VfD over the
months, and never been pulled up on it. If you are getting pulled up on
it, its because the articles _are_ contentious and need to be debated.
Perhaps you are being too bold?

Pete/Pcb21


from_name: Erik Zachte

body:
The stats for en: were not refreshed for a few weeks, now they are, but
a new problem appeared.

Brion,

According to the log file, the script parsed the 'old' database dump
file exactly up to the middle, then continued happily to do something
else.
So the cause must be that splitting and joining the > 2GB dump did not
happen transparently and the stitch between first and second half did
not match the regexp.

Secondly the webalizer stats for wiki comparisons have not been
collected since November 12, it seems that the wget procedure is on
strike.

Cheers, Erik Zachte

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031126/64221e36/attachment.html>


from_name: Angela

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
>The current situation is such that if I
>unlisted a page right away for any reason,
>Wikipedians such as Fuzheado and Angela
>would strenuously object and consider my
>action an egregious breach of protocol.

I have never objected to anything you have removed
from VfD. However, if you delisted a page when there
were still strong feelings that the page ought to be
deleted, then I may feel inclined to relist it in
order to prevent people feeling their views were being
ignored.

The Cunctator wrote:
>we need to formally state that we trust
>people to immediately take acceptable content
>off of the Votes for Deletion page.

I don't object to that idea, but is removing things
from VfD really that important? If someone has
mistakenly listed something, then perhaps seeing the
comments that people make regarding why the page
should be kept will teach them something. Pages which
are listed wrongly are can serve some role in
developing ideas about what is regarded as suitable.

Angela.

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
> All right, Votes for Deletion is broken.

And has been for some time. Are you volunteering to write the code to fix it?

> We should trust users to remove pages from VfD
that should *obviously* not be deleted

We already do this. However, we only do this where there is consensus, or the
expectation of consensus, that the page should obviously not be deleted. Basically,
you can remove a page from VfD whenever you are confident that nobody will object
to your removal.

Where you've removed a page because the issue has been resolved by a redirect,
move it to ''redirects for deletion'' as a quick check that the resulting redirect is not
going to cause any problems.

When unlisting a page, move the conversation to the talk page of the article in
question, or to the user who listed it. I think all this stuff is already written down in our
deletion policy, by the way, so that's always good reading. Thrilling stuff it is, too.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Project Sourceberg

body:
At
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lists_of_postal_and_zip_codes_of_the_world/Delete,
Fonzy made the suggestion to move the page to
Wikisource and for nearly two months, no-one objected
to that.

That would appear to me to be a strong sign of
consensus that the decision had been accepted, rather
than a sign of anything inconclusive, and I fully
support Patrick's decision to action Fonzy's
suggestion.

Following the movement of the material elsewhere,
Martin redirected the page to ZIP code. The article
was never removed from Wikipedia and I have
temporarily reverted the redirect so the issue can be
re-discussed at
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lists_of_postal_and_zip_codes_of_the_world/Delete.

Angela.

 --- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote: >
Angela wrote:
>
> >Ec wrote
> >
> >>>Already somebody has moved in a number of lists
> that
> >>>
> >properly belong on Wikipedia
> >
> >It was decided at Wikipedia that raw data such as
> >lists of postcodes were not encyclopedic, which is
> why
> >they moved from Wikipedia to ps.wikipedia in the
> first
> >place.
> >
> "It was decided" - passive verb - by whom?
>
> The debate at Talk:Lists of postal and zip codes of
> the world/Delete
>
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lists_of_postal_and_zip_codes_of_the_world/Delete>
>
> . seems inconclusive, so there wasn't much of a
> decision there.  The
> move to ps seems to have come as a convenient
> afterthought that really
> didn't get much discussion.  It should be sent back
> to Wikipedia where
> all the linkages can be established.
>
> Ec
>
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk


subject:
[Wikilegal-l] [Wikipedia-l] GFDL, History,
	and Combining Documents (was "since we are on the subject")

body:
Hi all.

When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered
under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination,
you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents,
forming one section Entitled "History";'.

Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we combine the
history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?

The only alternative would be to claim that in fact we don't need to keep a history at
all, except for text imported from third parties (like Nupedia). This would have to be
based on a fairly liberal interpretation of "if you do not want your text to be edited
mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it here".

Now, the possible requirement to keep history causes us serious problems. For
example:

* If a third party makes a derivative work, do they need to copy the complete
Wikipedia site locally?
* If a third party makes a verbatim copy, do they need to copy the page history?
* Can we delete an article if its contents have been merged elsewhere?
* Can we move pages that have been previously referenced in a "from [[X]]" page?
* Where page histories get inadvertantly screwed up, do we need to delete the
entire article and start again?
* If I print out several copies of a Wikipedia article, do I need to print out several
copies of the page history to go along with them?
Is our "printable version" hence illegal?
* If a vandal writes misleading text in an edit summary - eg "I am the principal
author of this article", is this a problem?
* Do we need to mention the publisher (Wikimedia foundation now, Bomis
previously) in every line in the history?
* Do we need to keep page history URLs stable? If so, how can we move articles,
given that the move destroys the history?

As a result, I feel that we should seek to interpret the text "if you do not want your
text to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it here" so as to
void our requirement to keep a full history, if this is at all legally possible. However,
we should publicise this move well, and if any current or former contributor objects
then we should immediately strip Wikipedia of their contributions.

The costs of making a full and accurate history available are significant, and I would
say unreasonable for a wiki-based system. I am aware that people have interpreted
the current submission text in ways that release us from our obligation to keep a full
history, and I think we should look for ways to make that interpretation official.

-Martin "IANAL" Harper


body:
The Cunctator wrote the following on the pile of pointlessness we playfully refer
to as "wikien-l":

> Martin wrote the following on [[Dcide]]:
> 	Delete based solely on dislike of Easter Bradford stubs.

> Is he being facetious, or is this what is counting as a reasonable
> argument at VfD nowadays?

I don't think he reads this mailing list. Perhaps you could discuss the matter
with him on his user talk page?

Now, are you wasting everyone's time, or is this what is counting as an issue for
the mailing lists nowadays?

-Xanthia (for Martin)


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] External pictures

body:
Hi all,

Can you please reactivate external pictures for "user", "talk" and "meta"
namespaces?

I fully agree the deactivation of external pictures for articles, but it was
very useful especially for talk pages to show a picture and discuss it. The
fact only local pictures can be rendering stimulate people to copy non
encyclopaedic pictures on the servers. This is a problem for me.

If you don't reactivate external pictures, please give the reason.

Aoineko


subject: [Wikitech-l] External pictures


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Attrition

body:
Anthere wrote:

>Anthere wrote:
>
>>>Grumble...another mailing list...grumble
>>>
>>Absolutely!!!  Attrition is inevitable.
>>
>I succeeded to avoid it for at least one month, that
>is not so bad.
>
>But *they* got me. Terrible.
>
Yeah.  Some comments seem to beg for a response!

>Tu me parles d'un temps, que les moins de 20 ans, ne
>peuvent pas connai-tre. tididadidadaaaa,
>tidadidadadaaaa
>
>>"Quand au hasard des jours
>>Je m'en vais faire un tour
>>A mon ancienne adresse
>>Je ne reconnais plus"
>>
J'ai pass? quelques mois ? habiter ? la Place Blanche.  (La Place
Blanche est assez proche ? Montmartre.)  Quand plusieurs ann?es plus
tard j'ai visit? le mus?e Van Gogh ? Amsterdam j'ai reconnu l'endroit
sur un de ses toiles.  Quelques semaines plus tard nous nous sommes
rendu ? Paris et ? la Place Blanche.  Une fois l? sur le point exacte
j'ai remarqu? que c'?tait pr?cis?ment l? o? Van Gogh aurait du se placer
pour peindre son toile, et qu'un immeuble ? l'autre bord de la Place
?tait toujours le m?me.  Mais pour une personne qui n'avait jamais v?cu
l?, ce n'?tait pas l?.

>Ok, I usually forget that feature as well. I thought
>it was part of the initial package. When did you
>arrive Ec ?
>
In February 2002.  Does it show that much?

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
Rick wrote:

> We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore.  Unprotecting a
> page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it
> to your point, comes to mind.  Marking contentious changes as minor
> also comes to mind.  The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is
> a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop
> authority taken away.  OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose
> my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a
> nonsense article.  Where is the reciprocity?
>
Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must
recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] meta policy

body:
>>As I said this morning, where is the sense of
>>editing these now "black" articles if what we
>>add, us, good and honest editors is reverted
>>without consideration ?
>No - you should not be reverted without consideration.
>However I seriously doubt you would have edited these
>articles /at all/ if 142.177 had not created them
>first.

I think this is incorrect. We are many contributors on wikipedia Mav. You can't know all of them. As things are, I know not really Metaweb. So, I would not have edited it, but I am doubly interested by the links and description.

I have been following Consumerium for quite a while now, 3 or 4 months. I think you would gracefully admit that the goal of this project fits quite well with some of the topics which interest me. Such as again all the GMO matters.
But also local food http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_food
or ecoregion http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecoregion
or perhaps biopiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopiracy
or ecotourism http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism
 or precautionary principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle (would someone improve that low quality article ?)

All these, I believe, somehow related to that project. As for disinfopedia, I do not think I ever wrote anything in it (though I might have on a few iraki related topics), but I sure regularly read it and referenced to it many times on some french mailing lists or private discussions I had. I think it is valuable.

I think both consumerium and disinfopedia are very important to be mentionned in meta. Why not limit ourselves to the encyclopedia space ? Easy. These two projects have a pecularity that goes beyond what is encyclopedic. And this pecularity does not belong to the encyclopedic article.
They are both a justification and a "faire valoir" (my, what is the english word for this ?)

I mean :
1) they strongly rely on the existence of the encyclopedia, since they use it widely as a reference. Without Wikipedia, it is likely these projects would not be viable really. Or much tougher to build. They do not need to include everything themselves, they can use us as a source, and may focus on what is important to them => disinformation and consumerism. They are specialists sources. They directly benefit from Wikipedia growth.

2) at the same time, they augment the quality, the interest, the traffic and the growth of Wikipedia. They directly link to us (not pick up the information to use it freely) hence bringing us new readers and new contributors. As specialists projects, they increase the value of our work. They refer to us. Wikipedia directly benefits from their existence as well.

In ecology, that is called a symbiosis :-)

I do not have the proper words to explain this perhaps, but this is important. It is important to increase the visibility of such projects. And I cannot figure putting this in the encyclopedia article itself.

Now, if I put this, without even an introduction explaining what the project is, or without the external link to the projects (which is the currently banned content), it is just bullshit.

>>I noted with interest that in your reply
>>on my other mail, you said that * when you mentionned in the comment box
>>(upon my pressing request), that the
>>agronomy article was authored by me and
>>not by Robert or you, this is ok with
>>the GNU license Yes it is since I named the original author, you.
>>* but when I mention in the comment box
>>(upon no one request) that I am not the
>>author, but avoid mentionning the original
>>author (whose name is available in the
>>deletion history) for ***your*** sake,
>>this is illegal ?

>Huh? If the text is by 142.177 it should be credited to that IP. The deletion >history /cannot/ be read by anybody but Admins. Thus it is useless for author credit. >However, whether or not we should host that text is a different matter.

I did not mention the ip on purpose, to avoid giving authorship to a banned user.
This is a legal matter anyway (for the legal list). Either we need attributions, or we do not.

>>Netesq reverted these two edits back and
>>engaged in discussion with 142.
>>Discussion, much more than my poor line
>>asking that 142 be nicer with you.
>>But this is just further staking the deck
>>on *me* : I communicated (1 line !) with a
>>banned user. I am said involved, while
>>obviously no one else is.

>User talk pages brings up touchy issues. In those cases my rule of thumb is to revert >the edit but not to re-revert if the user resurrects the banned user's edit. I don't like it but >as I said user pages are a bit more of a special case.

Agreed. So let's apply the same principles about discussion to all of us.

>>Mav. I am not *aiding* him. It would
>>be nice that you stop placing people
>>in a black and white state : the ones
>>who pity you and inforce the banning,
>>versus the ones who don't care and
>>help the banned users.

>.... I don't need your pity or anyone's else's. Americans at least don't think that being >pitied is a good thing. It is in fact a bit insulting to say that you pity someone.

Ah ? Really ? I apology then.
I wonder if you read pity in the sense I used it (or rather if I used it in the sense you read it)
I looked in my dictionnary, and it seems it may have different meanings
either commiseration mixed with scorn
or compassion
I meant pity/compassion. Compassion is not really an emotion, it is "suffering with". It is an attitude that make us tend to be sensible to another one suffering. It is different from identification, where we put ourselves in the other person shoes. I see you are suffering, but I have no idea how I would react to such comments made to me. It is also different from empathy, because empathy is when one is able to understand what the other one is feeling "from the inside". It is tough to understand what the other one is feeling inside. But you can also understand but not feel concerned.

I had a thought the other day. I was reflecting once again on how it could be acceptable that someone call another one a nazi without much reaction. Someone said to me, not a very long time ago, that for american people, though it was an insult, it is not a very bad insult. From this exchange, I concluded that it appear calling someone a nazi is a much ruder insult for a french than for an american.
If so, perhaps a french person should be able to measure the weight of the insult, depending on who said it; and perhaps the insult in the mouth of an american is more acceptable than in the mouth of a french then.
But also perhaps when a american call a french a nazi, should he be aware that the insult is much more offensive to the one receiving it than it would have been to the american person.

Consequently, not only do identical words do not carry the same meaning, but when they do, they do not even carry the same emotional weight.

I will drop the use of the word "pity". I feel compassion. Even if you do not need it.

>>Curiously, you chose to attack me, and
>>request my unsysoping because I was
>>following one of the alternative techniques,
>>that others are following as well.

>Again -- STOP PRETENDING THAT I REQUESTED TO DE-SYSOP YOU!!! I did no >such thing (stating that I was going to do so on your talk page is NOT a request for de->sysoping, but a warning that I planned to. I changed my mind for reasons already >stated, however).

A conversation where
person A : I am gonna request a de sysoping
:person B : you may do that
::person C : done

Sound like you did it. I appear to have misunderstood that. But I understand that you were upset, and reconsidered calmly. That is ok. Let's forgive and forget about that, would you ?

>>I precisely question the "disregard for policy".
>>No policy was ever written on the matter on meta

>However you seem to be talking about techniques and I am talking about the ban itself. >I think we have not been communicating. In fact I am open to discussions on hard ban >techniques. This is the first time I recall you talking about techniques though.

Hum...
When I look backward, I have the feeling I have done basically nothing but considering blocking and banning options in the past weeks.

If you look at the comments on the ban and block page on en, I have wrote quite a good bunch of comments there in the past 2 months or so. Since then, I dropped participation in en meta matters, as it is too heavy for me to follow conventions that appear to change too often; conventions that you are expected to know and respect to the latest point. At one point, I was really willing to participate in that policy, but it was eating too much time, and it is frustrating because I do not edit policies myself as these require to be crystal clear. After a while, discussing things, and seeing that it has little, if no impact gets bothersome.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3ABans_and_blocks

On fr, I think I am the main contributor of all the pages dealing with vandalism. I have begun setting a ban and block page some time ago, but I feel the topic has to cool down first before we can seriously work on it.
I have spent the past two months, as many contributors on fr, trying to figure out what to do with Papotages, first in my case initially trying to integrate him, second to have him soft ban rather than hard banned.
Mercifully for the community sake, Papotages finally switched to full gear vandalism, allowing all contributors to agree a hard ban was a must (though we disagreed on the means to inforce that ban for a little while). I have personnaly spent a lot of time bugging Tim Starling, to have technical support in inforcing the ban.
Before I switched to full inforcing activity (I perhaps blocked 50 Papotages ip adresses and deleted or reverted perhaps a hundred of pages in two weeks), I tried to pick up all information I could around. Even going to MeatBall to try to gain some understanding, interpretation on what was going on and what we could do.

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FrenchWikipedia

I also invite you to check french mailing list history to see whether I have been discussing banning and blocking options, and how they could be inforced in august, september, october, november, and in particular what I felt of displaying real names of vandals in public, what I felt of contacting isp as a technical way to block a vandal (as Tim said, I finally gave my blessing to this, poor me). I also tried to see how Jimbo could be involved in the whole hard banning process on our pedia, as an ultimate resort, a neutral third party insurring some standards are respected.

In truth, what else than spending hours on block and bans matters have I been doing recently ?

Far too much is the big truth. I am here to improve the amount of knowledge made available, and to improve access to the information. Not here to block and ban people all the time. Not here to delete other people work. Not here to spent all my time fighting with the ones I disagree with on minor topics. Not here to see the articles that I have not the time to write myself, be deleted just because of their author.

When it comes to the point we spent most of our available time doing this, then something is badly wrong.

>So you can understand my frustration at seeing you re-create the exact article I >deleted. It looked to me like you were thumbing your nose to the ban.

Please, receive my apologies

>>... >However, even if meta is basically currently
>>following en policy (which is perhaps fine
>>for the moment), I repeat that some en users
>>are also restoring some articles, just as I
>>did, so why should I be attacked on doing
>>what other people also think is proper ?

>Sorry, but I do have a life outside of Wikipedia so I can't argue with everybody who does >things I don't like. You just happened to be the person to set me off when I had some >time to respond. This seems to happen more with you than with other people -- sorry >about that. That just reflects the fact that our personalities clash.

You noticed as well ? :-)
We might reflect on that both of us.

>I like you and greatly respect you but sometimes you really irritate me - moreso than >your actions probably justify sometimes.

Nod. I feel the same.

>>It appears that the attack on RK made all
>>the sourness of your case go up again. And
>>that because of the attack on another person,
>>you are all angry and shaken again on your
>>own case. Why did not you call the police
>>then, when you were attacked, rather than now ?

>Slow boiling. It took reading all his threats together to prompt me to do so. I am also a >very forgiving person and didn't want to make trouble for him hoping that he would just >go away. Well he hasn't gone away and is still doing the same things which got him >banned in the first place. There is only so much a person can take.

Understood

>>What about, if one finds an article ok
>>(**only** in this case of course), to
>>blank it, perhaps even to orphan it, to
>>put it aside for a while, perhaps to
>>move it in a user space, and perhaps to
>>recreate it by any means you might think
>>acceptable later, with modifications ?

>Yes, we can discuss this since it deals with hard ban techniques and not whether or >not the ban applies to meta (which of course it does). Let's do so on the RfD talk page. >-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

That suits me. I thank you. I am sure we will find a satisfying agreement. I will see that later in the week on meta. Lots of work planned for the next two days for me.

Please, would you accept my apologies to have been tough on you ?

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20031127/1258acee/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
Andrew Lih wrote:

>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must
>>recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
>>
>
>RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator
>did with his edits.  Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly
>"equally guilty" opponents.
>
Refer to the same articles.  If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking
them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the first
place.

Ec
.


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Bans

body:
Robert Graham Merkel wrote:

>Hmmm.  As I understood it, a ban was just that, a ban.   No wiggle room.
>Doesn't that imply that any contributions from a banned individual
>should be deleted  on the spot, and not reinstated?
>
Not as a logical consequence.  Any rule to that effect would be a
separate rule.  I prefer to look at ideas based on their inherent merit.
 Judging those ideas solely on the basis of who produced them is an ad
hominem argument.

It's only natural that knowing the author of certain comments will
affect the degree of care with which we scrutinize a contribution.  Once
we have made that decision, the contents alone should influence our
edits.   Without some degree of flexibility our universe begins to
resemble too closely something out of "Fahrenheit 451"

>If people want to argue that a particular user should be unbanned,
>that's another issue.
>
That issue is not being disputed.

Ec


subject: [Wikipedia-l] External pictures

body:
> Well, I'll just point out that you can _link_ to a picture just fine.
> People can click the link and look at it, so I don't think it really
> harms _discussion_.

I can't imagine the logo contest discussion we had on the French Wikipedia
without the possibility to show pictures on discuss pages (unless copying
all files on server).

> On the other hand, we do end up with people uploading pictures of their
> cats/buddies/etc to stick on their user pages, which clutters things
> up. On the other other hand, many people don't have (or don't know how
> to use) a web-accessible space where they can upload pictures and then
> link to them, and they'd likely continue using the wiki's upload space
> for this stuff.

So what to do?

If copying non encyclopedic pictures on the server is not a problem we
effectively don't need to be able to show external pictures on
talk/user/meta pages. In fact, I suppose it is not really difficult to only
add to a static version (ex: DVD) only files linked in articles.

> Enabling external pictures pose the slight privacy risk of exposing
> people to 'web bugs' so an external site can track which IP addresses
> have visited a certain page, though perhaps this is minor.

Good point. Personally I don't care to be tracked, but if you think it's
important, I agree.

> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Thank to your answer.


from_name: Tim Starling

subject: [Wikitech-l] Block log

body:
The block log isn't working on en, it just gives empty strings for target
usernames.

-- Tim Starling

_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Patch for Bug #827757: Wikitext not escaped in log
	entry descriptions

body:
On Nov 27, 2003, at 11:20, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> Attached is a patch to escape the descriptions in log entries. It's
> pretty much self-contained, and I think qualifies as a Righteous
> Patch. B-)

Unfortunately this breaks the links in the upload and protection logs,
where we do want live wikitext.

It may be better to move the wfEscapeWikiText() out to the function
that decides what to put in the deletion log; as the upload log uses a
wiki version for inside the log and a plaintext version for the comment
field, the deletion log should be able to make the same distinction of
what it wants where.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031127/a344471d/attachment.pgp>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
Please elaborate in what manner I have been "guilty of such misdeeds".  Pleae explain what Angela and Hephaestos have done to be guilty of such misdeeds.

RickK

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
Rick wrote:

> We have some codes, which you seem willing to ignore. Unprotecting a
> page that you are involved in an edit war in, and then re-editing it
> to your point, comes to mind. Marking contentious changes as minor
> also comes to mind. The second is merely bad Wikiquette, the first is
> a sysop violation, and could result in your having your sysop
> authority taken away. OliverP, among others, has demanded that I lose
> my sysop authority for deleting what I, in my innocence, thought was a
> nonsense article. Where is the reciprocity?
>
Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must
recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.

Ec

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031127/462a071f/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
"Likely"?  So, in other words, you're talking out of your hat, because you have no evidence to support your contention.

RickK

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:

>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers, must
>>recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such misdeeds.
>>
>
>RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where Cunctator
>did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly
>"equally guilty" opponents.
>
Refer to the same articles. If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking
them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the first
place.

Ec
.

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

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20031127/2a1697f4/attachment.htm


from_name: Andre Engels

subject:
[Wikilegal-l] [Wikipedia-l] GFDL, History, and Combining Documents
	(was "since we are on the subject")

body:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Martin Harper wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> When a Wikipedian moves content from one article to another, this is covered
> under section 5: COMBINING DOCUMENTS. This requires that 'In the combination,
> you must combine any sections Entitled "History" in the various original documents,
> forming one section Entitled "History";'.
>
> Clearly we don't do this. However, we might to be able to claim that we combine the
> history "by reference" if we state "from [[X]]". Dubious?

It depends on what is considered history. The GNU/FDL was written for works
with clear revisions, following each other. One would not note every single
small change in the history, but only when a new version is actually published
(and not always even then). This would naturally sweep many minor edits under
the rug - rather than noting every spelling correction in the history, one
would only put down a new entry in the history if one had made so many changes
that the document should really be considered a new version.

Maybe we could use a philosophy like that for Wikipedia too - Wikipedia pages
are working documents. We freely put them out on the Internet under the
GNU/FDL license in that state, but they are not 'versions' for the sake of
the GNU/FDL. That way, Wikipedia itself needs not be bothered with the
History section at all (unless we include other GNU/FDL material), and people
who copy from us, can start a history file with "Wikipedia contributors,
Wikipedia, <date>", add their own information, and also be done with it.

Andre Engels


body:
On Nov 27, 2003, at 11:54, Brion Vibber wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2003, at 11:20, Evan Prodromou wrote:
>> Attached is a patch to escape the descriptions in log entries. It's
>> pretty much self-contained, and I think qualifies as a Righteous
>> Patch. B-)
>
> Unfortunately this breaks the links in the upload and protection logs,
> where we do want live wikitext.

...but we only want it in the action, not the comment, so it seems
sufficient to escape the comment. Modified patch attached.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logpage-escaping-mark-ii.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 883 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031127/329bf5e0/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031127/329bf5e0/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
I suppose I should not have used the word "likely".  It was just too
polite. :-)

Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having been
blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have
difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P

Ec

Rick wrote:

> "Likely"?  So, in other words, you're talking out of your hat, because
> you have no evidence to support your contention.
>
>
>
> RickK
>
> Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>     Andrew Lih wrote:
>
>     >>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>     >>Surely, whoever alleges that Cunc was abusing his sysop powers,
>     must
>     >>recognize that Cunc's opponents were equally guilty of such
>     misdeeds.
>     >>
>     >
>     >RickK and Maximus Rex have clearly listed what, when and where
>     Cunctator
>     >did with his edits. Perhaps you could do the same for the supposedly
>     >"equally guilty" opponents.
>     >
>     Refer to the same articles. If Cunc abused sysop powers by unblocking
>     them, someone had likely abused Sysop powers by blocking it in the
>     first
>     place.
>
>     Ec
>


from_name: Matthew Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Votes for Deletion

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Cunc could not possibly have unblocked something without it having
been
> blocked, but I'm sorry I keep forgetting that some people have
> difficulties accepting logical conclusions as evidence :-P

My problem with this is you are suggesting that the two actions are
equivalent.

When an article has been protected, it's normally because there's been
an edit war on that article.  This is normal procedure, and what seems
to have been done here.

The normal Wikipedia convention / etiquette is that then all parties to
the edit war should calm the hell down and discuss things more
rationally instead of continuing the war.  It seems to be generally be
accepted protocol that at that point, none of the participants should
edit the article until an uninvolved third party decides that sensible
discourse has prevailed and unblocks the page.  One of the participants
in an edit war using their sysop powers to ignore article protection has
generally been considered bad form indeed.  This is what The Cunctator
has been accused of.

Certainly, others may have behaved badly -- but I don't see any signs of
anyone else doing something considered 'abuse of sysop privileges',
which is generally considered more serious than engaging in an edit war.

If you're going to allege that others have also abused their privileges,
be specific.

-Morven


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Patch for Bug #827757: Wikitext not escaped in log
 entry descriptions

body:
Attached is a patch to escape the descriptions in log entries. It's
pretty much self-contained, and I think qualifies as a Righteous
Patch. B-)

~ESP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wikipedia.cvs20031127.with-log-page-text-escaped.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1371 bytes
Desc: Patch for Bug #827757
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20031127/eb1bc92f/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------

--
Evan Prodromou <evan at wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


from_name: Jose Quesada

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Wikipedia full dump (English) broken link?

body:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:35:18 -0800, Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:

Thanks,I'll do that. Sorry, my mistake.

Cheers,
-Jose

> Hello, it would be best to send this request to
> wikitech-l at wikipedia.org, the technical
> mailing list, because the people there can really help you.
>
> Jose Quesada wrote:
>
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> I contact you as "Benevolent Dictator" of wikipedia.
>> Here at CU we work with corpora of text to train models that
>> 'understand'
>> language (see, e.g., LSA.colorado.edu). We wanted to use Wikipedia to
>> create a copyright-free corpus of text that anyone in the scientific
>> community could use. To do that we downloaded the DB dumps a while ago
>> ( about 2 billion words), but due to a computer problem, we lost them.
>>
>> I have noticed  that the link to the full english database (2280MB):
>> http://download.wikipedia.org/archives/en/20031125_old_table.sql.bz2
>>
>> doesn't work anymore; it returns a Forbidden error, says that
>> you don't have permission to access
>> /archives/en/20031125_old_table.sql.bz2 on this server
>>
>> Could you please grant us access to the file?
>>
>> Thanks a lot in advance,
>> -Jose
>>
>> PS: I exchanged e-mails with Larry Sanger a while ago. He seemed a
>> really
>> nice person to me
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jose Quesada, PhD.
>>
>> quesadaj at psych.colorado.edu             Research associate
>> http://lsa.colorado.edu/~quesadaj       Institute of Cognitive Science
>> 					University of Colorado (Boulder)
>>
>> Muenzinger psychology building          Phone:303 492 1522
>> office D447A						Fax:  303 492 7177
>> Campus Box 344
>> University of Colorado at Boulder
>> Boulder, CO 80309-0344
>>

--

Jose Quesada, PhD.

quesadaj at psych.colorado.edu             Research associate
http://lsa.colorado.edu/~quesadaj       Institute of Cognitive Science
					University of Colorado (Boulder)
Muenzinger psychology building          Phone:303 492 1522
office D447A						Fax:  303 492 7177
Campus Box 344
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309-0344


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wikipedia full dump (English) broken link?

body:
Hi,

Here at CU we work with corpora of text to train models that 'understand'
language (see, e.g., LSA.colorado.edu). We wanted to use Wikipedia to
create a copyright-free corpus of text that anyone in the scientific
community could use. To do that we downloaded the DB dumps a while ago
( about 2 billion words), but due to a computer problem, we lost them.

I have noticed  that the link to the full english database (2280MB):
http://download.wikipedia.org/archives/en/20031125_old_table.sql.bz2

doesn't work anymore; it returns a Forbidden error, says that
you don't have permission to access
/archives/en/20031125_old_table.sql.bz2 on this server

Could you please grant us access to the file?

Thanks a lot in advance,
-Jose

--
Jose Quesada, PhD.

quesadaj at psych.colorado.edu             Research associate
http://lsa.colorado.edu/~quesadaj       Institute of Cognitive Science
					University of Colorado (Boulder)

Muenzinger psychology building          Phone:303 492 1522
office D447A						Fax:  303 492 7177
Campus Box 344
University of Colorado at Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309-0344