subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Urgent: to Arbitrators

body:
I will have a look in case some messages are on hold Ed :-)

Poor, Edmund W a ?crit:
> Martin (MyRedDice) wrote:
>
>
>>Dear fellow arbitrators [CC'd to wikien-l for transparency] . . .
>
>
> Please don't cc to wikien-l or the software will automatically hold your
> post. I won't be around the next three days to "Approve" it.
>
> I think you'd better:
>
> A. Send one copy to wikien-l; or
> B. Send a copy to multiple recipients on your committee; or
> C. Both, i.e., two SEPARATE e-mails
>
> Note that option (C) is unnecessary, if committee members read the
> mailing list.
>
> I'm going off-line now, so if you disregard this advice you're going to
> get "hold" messages till Tuesday, and you don't want THAT! Not at this
> crucial time!!
>
> Urgently,
>
> Ed Poor
> Wikien-l Admin


list: wikipedia-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds

body:
Second what Carl said. Also, surely other booksellers have affiliate programs
as well? Or do Amazon make you sign that you shall only have an affilite
relationship with them?

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


list: wikien-l

from_name: Shawn McNaughton

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
Hi

what is Drag queen Luc D'Arcy contact or email address. I like to contact her.

thanks

Shawn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040117/4f80a153/attachment.htm


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Tomasz Wegrzanowski

subject:
[Wikitech-l] automated TeX-like dashes (-- for –
	and --- for — )?

body:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 05:13:15PM -0500, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
> Just a suggestion, it would be great if it were easier to do proper dash
> typography. I find TeX's -/--/--- convention for hyphen/en-dash/em-dash
> to be fairly intuitive.
>
> Right now, if you do — in the text, it makes things much less
> readable and is confusing for newbies.  The need for these glyphs is so
> common that wiki support seems worthwhile.

Sure, sure, just research the subject "which browsers is it going to break".


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Mediation, arbitration

body:
sannse a ?crit:
> Jimbo wrote (in part):
>
>
>>There are a few people (Anthere, TufKat, others?) who I neglected to
>>include in my first list, but it is past the start of the year, and we
>>have a few outstanding controversies that need to be addressed.
>
>
> Do you mean they weren't on the list but /are/ on one of the committees?  Or
> are they not yet appointed?

Let's see.
I looked in my mail archives.
Jimbo suggested candidates to write to him on the 3rd of october 2003.

I answered him I was interested on the 3rd of october of the same year,
but was not very clear in my answer I suppose.

I was interested in practicing mediation, essentially if the conflict
involved an non english;
I think the issue goes much further than just the english wikipedia,
since there is no arbitrator on international wikipedias, and that at
least on fr, mediation is quite limited.
I am interested in studying the process essentially.

TufKat asked just after Jimbo asked if someone was forgotten. Lir a
little bit later.

Later in december, Jimbo said he was ok with us being part of the list.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Urgent: to Arbitrators, I must say...

body:
I must say...

It is always a good thing to have a "little ant" with you Ed.

Less than 1 hour after I added my self to the admin list, I already have
to liberate two mails (with the NAZI word in it).

Good thing I dropped the french one...

Poor, Edmund W a ?crit:
> Martin (MyRedDice) wrote:
>
>
>>Dear fellow arbitrators [CC'd to wikien-l for transparency] . . .
>
>
> Please don't cc to wikien-l or the software will automatically hold your
> post. I won't be around the next three days to "Approve" it.
>
> I think you'd better:
>
> A. Send one copy to wikien-l; or
> B. Send a copy to multiple recipients on your committee; or
> C. Both, i.e., two SEPARATE e-mails
>
> Note that option (C) is unnecessary, if committee members read the
> mailing list.
>
> I'm going off-line now, so if you disregard this advice you're going to
> get "hold" messages till Tuesday, and you don't want THAT! Not at this
> crucial time!!
>
> Urgently,
>
> Ed Poor
> Wikien-l Admin


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
>>On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote
>>something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist"
>>should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I
>>am inclined to agree with him.

Since my remark indicated above has now been quoted several time,
I thought I might explain it.  I don't -really- think that
"terrorism", or any other word, should be banned.  Rather, I was
making a comment on the usage of the word in Wikipedia: in my
opinion it is misused so much that we would be better off without
any uses at all.  However, of course the problem should be tackled
by education and not by legislation.

Let me suggest a golden rule that might be applied to many issues
in addition to this one:
  Golden Rule: Tell the reader what the facts are;
  don't tell the reader what to think about them.
According to this criterion, some usages of "terrorism" are just
fine: "The US State Department added Microsoft Corporation to its
list of terrorist organizations".  Some usages are NOT fine:
"A Microsoft terrorist blew himself up at the 2007 Apple
Convention, killing 27 innocent Mac-heads".  The reason I don't
like this usage of "terrorist" is that all the information in the
sentence is still there if the word is removed.  Actually the
word was used to sneak the writer's opinion into the sentence.
We should just present the facts and allow the reader to form
the opinions.

Other uses of "terrorism" in Wikipedia just make me cringe.
"Many people regard this to be terrorism" is about my least
favorite. In my view the majority of similar sentences in
Wikipedia were put there by people who wanted to insert their
own opinions.  They knew they couldn't write "It is terrorism"
or "I think it is terrorism" so they wrote "Many people regard..."
instead.  Of course if a key aspect of the topic of the article
is public opinion that would be a different situation (but then
I'd hope to see some actual opinion poll data or something).

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
zero 0000 wrote:
>Other uses of "terrorism" in Wikipedia just make me cringe.
>"Many people regard this to be terrorism" is about my least
>favorite.

If that is true that many people think that then we *report* it.

>In my view the majority of similar sentences in
>Wikipedia were put there by people who wanted
>to insert their own opinions.

Where? Not for Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. In those cases "widely regarded as
terrorist" is factually correct, not just an opinion of the writers.

>Of course if a key aspect of the topic of the article
>is public opinion that would be a different situation

No, the key topic of the article is the subject of that article and different
people will have different views on what that subject is or a part of. For a
great many people Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and al-Qaeda is a terrorist
organization. So we report that!

>(but then I'd hope to see some actual opinion poll data or something).

Oh please. Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be backed up
with polls.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Carl Witty

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds

body:
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 18:22, Christopher Mahan wrote:
> On Amazon,
>
> I think the issue is with their one-ckick patent, which is seen by
> many people, as a patent, to being counter-productive to the interest
> of the internet and computer innovation as a whole.
>
> This view is held by enough geek/hacker/tech people that associating
> with amazon in a money-maker (which would benefit Amazon more than
> the W) would be considered be a "Bad Thing".

We already have Amazon in the "Book sources" list; as long as we do
nothing to to make the Amazon entries more prominent in that list, the
only effect of becoming an Amazon affiliate should be to take money from
Amazon and give it to Wikipedia.  As somebody who doesn't like Amazon
(because of the one-click patent), and who does like Wikipedia, I think
this is a "Good Thing" :-)

I would be less happy if the "Book sources" list did change.  If it
mentioned "We have affiliate programs with the following bookstores:
..." (including Amazon), that probably would give Amazon more money.
That could be fixed by also saying "... but you shouldn't buy books from
Amazon because of the one-click patent"; but that's a POV statement that
doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia.  A carefully NPOV essay ("Many
people feel that Amazon's one-click patent is bad for innovation, and
advocate a boycott of Amazon; other people...") would fix that problem,
but this essay just doesn't belong on the Book sources page.

Carl Witty


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Characterizations of Behavior

body:
Any characterization of behavior is subject to the criticism that it could
be replaced with a description of the phenomenon. We use these forms as a
shorthand for such descriptions. "Sneak attack", for example, can serve in
place of a long description explaining how a plan to declare war at 6 AM and
attack at 7 failed because of a delay in decoding.

The words "patriotic", "brave", "noble" and "democratic" come to mind in
this context. These are words which express point of view. They don't need
to be banned, just used consciously.

Fred

> From: zero 0000 <nought_0000 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:28:11 -0800 (PST)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism
>
>>> On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote
>>> something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist"
>>> should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I
>>> am inclined to agree with him.
>
> Since my remark indicated above has now been quoted several time,
> I thought I might explain it.  I don't -really- think that
> "terrorism", or any other word, should be banned.  Rather, I was
> making a comment on the usage of the word in Wikipedia: in my
> opinion it is misused so much that we would be better off without
> any uses at all.  However, of course the problem should be tackled
> by education and not by legislation.
>
> Let me suggest a golden rule that might be applied to many issues
> in addition to this one:
> Golden Rule: Tell the reader what the facts are;
> don't tell the reader what to think about them.
> According to this criterion, some usages of "terrorism" are just
> fine: "The US State Department added Microsoft Corporation to its
> list of terrorist organizations".  Some usages are NOT fine:
> "A Microsoft terrorist blew himself up at the 2007 Apple
> Convention, killing 27 innocent Mac-heads".  The reason I don't
> like this usage of "terrorist" is that all the information in the
> sentence is still there if the word is removed.  Actually the
> word was used to sneak the writer's opinion into the sentence.
> We should just present the facts and allow the reader to form
> the opinions.
>
> Other uses of "terrorism" in Wikipedia just make me cringe.
> "Many people regard this to be terrorism" is about my least
> favorite. In my view the majority of similar sentences in
> Wikipedia were put there by people who wanted to insert their
> own opinions.  They knew they couldn't write "It is terrorism"
> or "I think it is terrorism" so they wrote "Many people regard..."
> instead.  Of course if a key aspect of the topic of the article
> is public opinion that would be a different situation (but then
> I'd hope to see some actual opinion poll data or something).
>
> Zero.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Karl Eichwalder

subject:
[Wikitech-l] automated TeX-like dashes (-- for – and ---
	for — )?

in_reply_to:
<bu9nls$810$1@sea.gmane.org> (Steven G. Johnson's message of
	"Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:13:15 -0500")

body:
"Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj at alum.mit.edu> writes:

> Just a suggestion, it would be great if it were easier to do proper dash
> typography. I find TeX's -/--/--- convention for hyphen/en-dash/em-dash
> to be fairly intuitive.

I used to thought the same, but finally I came to the conclusion: no
more ascii art, please.  Either use proper proper UTF-8 characters or
SGML/XML entities (or better proper SGML or XML).

If you didn't already know, I don't like the new table markup at all -
it makes me shy away.

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


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: watchlist idea

in_reply_to:
<opr1tfkop9os6ot2@news.gmane.org> (Peter Gervai's message of
	"Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:59:02 +0100")

references:
<opr1s9fvkkos6ot2@news.gmane.org>
	<93C299E2-4746-11D8-8DB6-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<opr1tfkop9os6ot2@news.gmane.org>

body:
"Peter Gervai" <grin at grin.hu> writes:

> Well, you can usually only gain speed by using more space for auxilary
> tables. I do not believe in that hardware upgrade is the solution for
> lack of design. :-]

I've the feeling you are not wrong.

For the moment, my idea is: the user should be allowed to fetch his
list once a day.  If that's still to expensive simplify the layout or
contents of the watchlist - don't generate diff and version links (I am
able to do the diff locally).  Or prepare user watch lists once a day
and let the user download this daily list.  Without watchlists working
on the project isn't that much fun...

And switch to PostgreSQL.  PostgreSQL obeys the SQL standard much
better and thus it is more likely to attract SQL developers

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


from_name: Bjorn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Sep 11

body:
> "September 11 attack" - 33,700
> "September 11 terrorist attack" - 13,900
>
> In Google News,
> "September 11 attack" - 71
> "September 11 terrorist attack" - 10

So both names suck since they don't give hundred thousands
hits. Better name needed. Think, think, think.

BL


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: watchlist idea

references:
<opr1s9fvkkos6ot2@news.gmane.org>
	<93C299E2-4746-11D8-8DB6-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<opr1tfkop9os6ot2@news.gmane.org> <shzncn9ohi.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>
	<E12D33EE-48B2-11D8-95EB-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>

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

> What's been hacked in for now is that a fetched watchlist will be
> cached for an hour, so someone clicking the button over and over won't
> load things down. The limits can be adjusted here and there if
> necessary.

That's great, thanks a lot!

> Unless someone would like to lend the benefit of their experience in
> getting the code set up and actually demonstrate something, it's just
> not going to happen; code doesn't write itself.

I just learnt the basics about PostgreSQL, though.   Studying the
weekly dump was not enough for understanding the database structure (of
course); all you can see at the first glance that some special MySQL
data types are in use.

I guess first I'll have to browse the Meta wiki - I hate web browsing ;)

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


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [Wikitech-l] function fixTableTags renamed

body:
Hello,

I renamed the function fixTableTags in OutputPage.php
to fixTagAttributes. The function removeHTMLtags used
the same code to check for legal and illegal attributes
and since I wanted to change it, I didn't want to maintain
it in two places.

The changes are in version 1.74 of OutputPage.php

Regards,

	JeLuF


from_name: tarquin

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

>"Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj at alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>
>
>>Just a suggestion, it would be great if it were easier to do proper dash
>>typography. I find TeX's -/--/--- convention for hyphen/en-dash/em-dash
>>to be fairly intuitive.
>>
>>
>
>I used to thought the same, but finally I came to the conclusion: no
>more ascii art, please.
>
>

on Unreal Wiki we parse " -- " into —
I don't think it counts as ASCII art.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Stats: Perl expert advice needed on
	decompression code for SQL dump

body:
On Jan 17, 2004, at 03:06, Peter Gervai wrote:
>> inflate() returns Z_STREAM_END when it gets to the end, not Z_OK. If
>> you get Z_OK, you have to ask it to run more data, or something...?
>> Not
>> entirely sure how to handle that.
>
> See attachment.<c2.pl>

That's definitely cleaner code, thanks!

However it fails on old-59.raw and old-60.raw; both of these are short
files but seem to end with Z_OK rather than Z_STREAM_END...

PHP's gzinflate() works without complaint on both, and the results look
correct.

Here's the uncompressed text:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alsace&action=edit&oldid=59
http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Alsace&action=edit&oldid=60

The compressed test set is here:
http://leuksman.com/misc/raw.zip

-- 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/20040117/fc35bb10/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Re: watchlist idea

references:
<opr1s9fvkkos6ot2@news.gmane.org>
	<93C299E2-4746-11D8-8DB6-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>
	<opr1tfkop9os6ot2@news.gmane.org>
	<shzncn9ohi.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>
	<E12D33EE-48B2-11D8-95EB-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>

body:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:03:32 -0800, Brion Vibber
<brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Jan 16, 2004, at 20:40, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
>> For the moment, my idea is: the user should be allowed to fetch his
>> list once a day.
>
> What's been hacked in for now is that a fetched watchlist will be
> cached for an hour, so someone clicking the button over and over won't
> load things down. The limits can be adjusted here and there if
> necessary.

I hope it does have a note somewhere telling that. (not that I would use
watchlist more
often than 2-3 hours).

>> And switch to PostgreSQL.  PostgreSQL obeys the SQL standard much
>> better and thus it is more likely to attract SQL developers
>
> I'd like to assume this statement is backed up with a plan to adapt
> MediaWiki to work with PostgreSQL and demonstrate superior performance
> with benchmarks. We're all in favor of choice here and would like
> MediaWiki to be more generalized, but PostgreSQL advocacy here has a
> history of being a lot of bluster followed by no action.
>
> Unless someone would like to lend the benefit of their experience in
> getting the code set up and actually demonstrate something, it's just
> not going to happen; code doesn't write itself.

Yep. That's the reason I kept my big mouth shut. :)
I'm using Psql and tried mySQL a few times, and I was not impressed by
its feature set, but mySQL was definitely faster on _read_.
The main difference I believe (and it is backed by tests of more potent
beings than me) it when a database is being used in heavily loaded
read/write mode, due to the better locking features of pgsql.
Since I am not familiar with php (to put it nicely the "i hate php" phrase)
I cannot tell how complex would it be to change from mysql to pgsql, but
as I heard php is pretty general about SQL handling, so it might not be
that complex.

Only thing I'm pretty sure in is that it won't be Brion who would do that.
He uses mySQL, he KNOWS the beast, I see no reason to force pgSQL down
his throat. :) Anyone with php+psql experience could step in and check:
maybe it is a trivial change. (afaik mysql's sql syntax is getting close
to the standards, so it should be simple).

If anyone want to use my (sort of) psql experience (without php experience)
then feel free to ask. I do not have much time to code, though. (another
euphemism; I do not have time to code at all.)

Brion, if you can tell me SQL commands which should be timed under psql I
can try to convert the en: database to psql and do some tests, like check
timing of commands, etc. Naturally I do not have such a huge beast machine
like you do, but still, maybe helps.

Peter


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

>Other uses of "terrorism" in Wikipedia just make me cringe.
>"Many people regard this to be terrorism" is about my least
>favorite. In my view the majority of similar sentences in
>Wikipedia were put there by people who wanted to insert their
>own opinions.  They knew they couldn't write "It is terrorism"
>or "I think it is terrorism" so they wrote "Many people regard..."
>instead.  Of course if a key aspect of the topic of the article
>is public opinion that would be a different situation (but then
>I'd hope to see some actual opinion poll data or something).
>
>
The exception I take to this is cases where it *is* very widely
considered terrorism.  For example, Osama bin Laden is nearly
universally considered a terrorist in the West, and is labeled as such
by most governments in the world (including most Arab governments).  I'm
not sure there are any polls asking "Do you think bin Laden is a
terrorist?", because in the West at least this is sort of like asking
"Do you think killing an innocent person without cause is murder?"  But
if we were to fail to mention this fact, it would make it very confusing
for the reader who wasn't already familiar with events (say, a reader
100 years from now) who might wonder why this "Islamic militant" is
somehow connected to a "War on Terrorism".

I'm not sure what the best way to phrase it is, but to be complete,
[[Osama bin Laden]] does need to mention somewhere that he's considered
an arch-terrorist of sorts by a large segment of the world's population,
and an even larger proportion of the world's governments.

-Mark


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Re: Stats: Perl expert advice needed on decompression
	code for SQL dump

body:
> inflate() returns Z_STREAM_END when it gets to the end, not Z_OK. If
> you get Z_OK, you have to ask it to run more data, or something...? Not
> entirely sure how to handle that.

See attachment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: c2.pl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 781 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20040117/0cd58fd5/attachment.obj>


subject: [WikiEN-l] mediation

body:
Dear all

I hope I did not overstep because I was bold. I had
time last night :-)

I edited/created the articles having the do with
mediation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation

Here is how I perceive things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee
*list all the current mediators, and give means to
contact them (among user talk page, email, irc, icq,
phone...)
*explanation of what a mediator is (duties and rights
to respect within that role) and how it differs from
an arbitrator
* how the commitee works as an entity : private
mailing list, report from a mediator to the others,
advices given within the group, external counsellor
(alex756)
*how to be a mediator yourself
*requests to be appointed
*mention of availability among the current mediators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation
*short point list of the most important points about
mediation
- what is and what is not mediation
- which type of conflicts it may handle
- rights and duties of those asking mediation
(confidentiality?)
- how and when to request mediation
- the basic of the procedure
- what will happen if that fails?
(I expect all this to remain short and very explicit)
*current cases in mediation and state of each case
*pending requests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3Amediation
A fairly detailed page on what mediation is or should
be
With
*description of what mediation is "in the real world"
*application to wikipedia case

Currently, the first part comes mostly from our
article on mediation, and from what was previously
written on the matter in several places
The second part (if I remember well) mostly from Jussy
work on meta

I think this article should mostly be seen as a
ressource for the mediators (for any mediator,
including those out of the commitee)
* ideas for how to face the possibly very heated
editors at the beginning of the process, and cool down
things
* suggestions for various steps (I believe each case
is particular, but a bit of structure is often
beneficial)
* perhaps some links to ressources about fallacies ?
* previous cases ?
* external links with ressources about mediation ?
* ?

-------

I would like to mention two points I think are
important

References :
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation_oversight_procedure

Jussi suggested on meta the use of a silent observer,
whom role would be to monitor the mediation session.

I disagree with this as a requirement (I however think
it is potentially useful, and potentially a learning
tool as well). But it complicates a process which
should stay fluid. By default, it does not trust the
process and the people involved. And finally, at any
point in the process, any one is free (and big enough)
to say there is a problem, and mediation can't proceed
properly in the given situation.
I think this idea should be discussed more in any
cases.

The second point is about the type of conflict which
could be fixed.
Jussi, you wrote " The main purpose of Wikipedia
mediation framework is to provide a means to resolve
disputes over articles when the standard consensus
editing model is not working."

Well?.In the two years  on Wikipedia, I have seen
enough to say many disputes are not only content
(article) dispute, disagreements over the title of the
article, an image to insert here rather than there,
the undeletion of a page, a consensus over a rule, the
label of a picture, the insertion over an opinion,
whatever.

We all have our bad days, when we are a bit stubborn,
jump on the first motive to flame someone, or answer
to the first provocation, misunderstand a statement.

If we care about the community, or if we care about
the other editor, chance is we get over the conflict
alone. More or less easily. But sometimes not.
Sometimes the group has to come to help; sometimes we
need someone to come help us regain our wits.

Sometimes these conflicts will escalate pretty badly,
with screams to unsysop people, or ban them, threats,
community name calling, to the point not only the
people directly involved, but the whole community will
suffer of it.

It might express itself upon articles. Or not. The
articles themselves are sometimes the origin of a
conflict, sometimes they are just the reflect, the
mirror of an inner conflict between 2 people, or a
core disagreement between an editor and the community.

When 2 people flame themselves, every couple of weeks,
or spread the flame all over wikipedia, chance is the
conflict to solve is not just over an article.

Fixing the article dispute will fix the article, but
will not uncover the root of the personal conflict.
But it will certainly provide a lot of work to the
mediator weeks after weeks.
Most conflicts are people conflicts.

These cases, conflict over content, or conflict
between personnalities, or conflicts over core
principles, need to be fixed. Not article only.
Because all impact on community health, discourage
people to participate, to collaborate.
It is not good that a personal conflict is confused
with a conflict over content. When someone comes to
discuss a conflict between persons, and he is answered
over article content issues, it is just *missing the
point*. Badly.

Human capital is essential. Without the people, there
is no community building. Without community, there is
no project building. Without project, there is no
encyclopedia.

In short (do I ever succeed to do that ?), mediation
can make wonders over article conflicts. But it should
help conflicts user/user and user/community as well.
And if it does not help, that will be for the
arbitration team to cut things short. Ie, to ban the
one not respecting the core principles. Or to ban the
asocial.

--------

Just my opinions?I hope some will comment on the
relevant pages :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


from_name: Gabriel Wicke

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: merging watchlists

body:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:50:33 -0700, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> This may be an old idea, or not. But the thought of modularizing did bring
> a thought to mind that is related to how Ebay does things...
>
> What if the articles in a certain alphabetic range were stored on one
> server, and those in another alphabetic range stored on another? A third
> server stands in front doing nothing more than redirecting traffic to the
> other servers. It might make statistics and such a bit more of a headache,
> but it would certainly assist in reducing the bandwidth requirements of
> the server.

Google does the same, i guess any really big DB application has to.

> Whether such an implementation would be simplistic or terribly difficult
> requires a greater understanding of the underlying architecture than I
> have.

There would be a need to write logic to merge the separate result sets.

The temporary DB server is a very small machine with something like 1Gb
ram. Geoffrey (with 4Gb) was fast before it went down, a second server is
ordered that can do reads in the new setup. I'd also expect the DB to be
the weakest spot in the new setup, but at a completely different level.
The number of DB connections should drop by 50% or so (even more with
memcached), the amount of ram will be sufficient to hold most of the DB in
ram, with the option to top it up to 16Gb on each machine.
--
Gabriel Wicke


subject: [WikiEN-l] sept. 11 ("terrorist") attacks vote

body:
To gauge Wikipedian opinion on the issue, since the various discussions
are getting incredibly lengthy and hard to summarize, [[User:Arno]] has
set up a vote on [[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks]] regarding whether
the article should be there or at [[September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks]].  Those of you expressing opinions in this discussion might
wish to vote.

(For my part, I've changed my mind to agree with the "don't use
'terrorist' in the title" faction, since "September 11 attacks" seems to
be a phrase in fairly widespread use.)

-Mark


from_name: Peter Jaros

subject: [WikiEN-l] (no subject)

body:
On Jan 17, 2004, at 12:02 AM, Shawn McNaughton wrote:

> Hi
> ?
> what is Drag queen Luc D'Arcy?contact or email address. I like to
> contact her.
> ?
> thanks
> ?
> Shawn

Shawn doesn't seem to be subscribed to this list (at least according to
the roster, otherwise: Hi, Shawn!).  Do we have an "official policy" on
how to deal with such requests, such as a boilerplate response to
modify as necessary?  I'd send something, but I don't know if I'd be
the first.

Peter

---
Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The
Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity.
		--Harry Shearer, Le Show


subject: [Wikipedia-l] An Open Letter to Wikipedia by Rex Mundy

body:
On Jan 16, 2004, at 12:20 PM, Nikos-Optim wrote:

> http://www.brianism.org/wikipedia.htm
>
> (dated 20 January 2004!)
>
> for the background, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brianism

Why are you bringing this to the list?  Not meant rudely, I just don't
understand what's failing on-site, mostly because I haven't been
following it.

Peter

---
Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The
Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity.
		--Harry Shearer, Le Show


from_name: Agon S. Buchholz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: watchlist idea

references:
<opr1s9fvkkos6ot2@news.gmane.org>	<93C299E2-4746-11D8-8DB6-000A95DAA284@pobox.com>	<opr1tfkop9os6ot2@news.gmane.org>
	<shzncn9ohi.fsf@tux.gnu.franken.de>

body:
Karl Eichwalder wrote:

> And switch to PostgreSQL.  PostgreSQL obeys the SQL standard much
> better and thus it is more likely to attract SQL developers.

This is a pretty useless discussion. MySQL has the much larger user
base, especially when it comes to database-backed websites. Besides of
this, MySQL is generally faster, except for applications optimized for
the richer feature set of pgsql, and pgsql needs this ugly VACUUM
command from time to time, if I remember correctly. Usually, pgsql is
much slower on INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE commands, but faster on SELECT
and JOIN. See http://www.mysql.com/information/benchmarks-old.html (and
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbmssql.html for some background
information).

Don't get me wrong, I like PostgreSQL and I would like to see some
database abstraction layer in MediaWiki and the possibility to plug-in
other database backends like Interbase or Firebird for more academical
reasons, but I don't see that it would currently *help* us.

However, nobody is hindered to contribute some kind of database
abstraction to the CVS ;)

Regards, -asb


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on
other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he
is not abating with said attacks.

I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox

I have not looked through all of the disputes this user has had with others,
but in the ones that I have looked at he has made no less than 12 personal
attacks. Some of them quite vicious ("Hello, RK. Have you always suffered
from mental illness and perceptual problems?"). At another time he has made
an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from
New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?". Anyway, this is
all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service
to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall
this policy be enforced?

As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally RK, but
numerous others as well.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Saturday 17 January 2004 03:07 pm, Sascha Noyes wrote:
> As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally RK, but
> numerous others as well.

"personally attacked RK" that should read

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Ashar Voultoiz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: gmane posting policy

body:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:45:46 +0100, Gabriel Wicke wrote:

> Currently it's not possible to post to the mailinglists through
> Gmane without subscribing via mail as well. Gmane requires you to confirm
> your existence on the first post and runs effective spam filters. On most
> mailing lists gmane posting is possible, there are no problems with spam.
>
> My proposal is to lift the posting restriction for Gmane.

Hello,

I do post through gmane. I am registered in the mailing list and configured
them to NOT send me any email :)

--
Ashar Voultoiz
http://fr.wikipedia.org/Utilisateur:Hashar
do not send mail to listme at listme.dsbl.org


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: gmane posting policy

body:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:24:33 +0100, Ashar Voultoiz wrote:

> I do post through gmane. I am registered in the mailing list and
> configured them to NOT send me any email :)

I did the same, seems to be the quickest solution.
--
Gabriel Wicke


from_name: Erik Zachte

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Stats: Perl expert advice needed on decompression code
	for SQL dump

body:
Thanks Brion & Peter,

Brion:

> And the real hard one to figure out: PHP's gzdeflate(),
> gzinflate() set the window size to -MAX_WSIZE which
> disables the checksum. Unless you pass the same
> parameter to inflateInit(), the perl-side functions
> will expect those extra bytes and fail without explanation.

I might have searched for this for eons. I never sought of looking up
PHP spec, since I have never touched PHP.

-------------
Peter: your version dies on file 59, no more data is read,
and should not be:

Changing
	while(read(FH,$in,4096)) {
to
	while($bytesread=read(FH,$in,4096)) {
reveals the first chunk read was well below 4096 in these occasions.

-------------

Z_OK vs Z_STREAM_END

From
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/Compress/Compress-Zlib-1.03.readme

=>
Normally the inflate method consumes I<all> of the input buffer
before returning. The exception to this is when inflate detects
the end of the stream (Z_STREAM_END). In this case the input
buffer >need not< be completely consumed. To allow processing of
file formats that embed a deflation stream (e.g. zip, gzip),
the inflate method now sets the buffer parameter to be what
remains after inflation.

When the return status is Z_STREAM_END, it will be what remains
of the buffer (if any) after deflation. When the status is Z_OK
it will be an empty string.
<=

I found that the input buffer was empty after each inflate().
So both return values are more or less equal in this case.
I also found some code eamples that treat them alike.

So I think this problem is resolved.

Thanks again.

Erik Zachte


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: (no subject)

body:
Still, what should we do?  Perhaps this one is ignorable, but there
have been legitimate but misdirected requests for knowledge in the
past.

Peter

---
Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The
Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity.
		--Harry Shearer, Le Show

On Jan 17, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Anthere wrote:

> that was a liberated message.
>
> Peter Jaros a ?crit:
>> On Jan 17, 2004, at 12:02 AM, Shawn McNaughton wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>  what is Drag queen Luc D'Arcy contact or email address. I like to
>>> contact her.
>>>  thanks
>>>  Shawn
>> Shawn doesn't seem to be subscribed to this list (at least according
>> to the roster, otherwise: Hi, Shawn!).  Do we have an "official
>> policy" on how to deal with such requests, such as a boilerplate
>> response to modify as necessary?  I'd send something, but I don't
>> know if I'd be the first.
>> Peter


from_name: Christopher Mahan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
--- Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net> wrote:

> There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If
> certain laws of
> a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on
> the other
> hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract
> dispute),
> then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the
> problem
> with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute
> between him and
> me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked.
> Rather, he is in
> violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal
> attacks. I
> therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a
> witness
> for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the
> current
> framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on
> this matter.

I agree. I think we need a Wikipedia Prosecutor's office, where an
elected prosecutor would hire deputies and go out and investigate the
matter. Then, they would be the ones bringing the accused to the
mediation/arbitration.
If the accused does not wish to face the arbitration/mediation, he
will be considered a fujitive, and all rights and proviledges of a
law abiding citizens of the W will be revoked and the user
permanently banned, until such time as either the Prosecutor ends the
search or the accused submits anew to the arbitration/mediation.

I suggest an interesting punishment for petty offenders: community
service on the W. Edit theses 400 articles to match them to this
format, and you can come back full-fledged.

=====
Christopher Mahan
chris_mahan at yahoo.com
818.943.1850 cell
http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:

>Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
>repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on
>other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he
>is not abating with said attacks.
>
>
Given the current state of things, it seems we have two choices here:
1) Quickly get some working provisional policies for the mediation and
arbitration committee in place to deal with this issue
2) Appeal to Jimbo to handle this case, subject to input from everyone
(as usual), since our dispute-resolution processes are still not put
together

I'd personally prefer #1, so if the mediation committee wants to try to
sort out the mess, or at least determine whether it is a mess of the
sort-out-able kind, feel free. =]

-Mark


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009686.html

I responded:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-January/000239.html

Please respond on the legal list since this is very obviously a legal issue.

WikiLegal-l sign-up page:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>The words "patriotic", "brave", "noble" and "democratic" come to mind in
>this context. These are words which express point of view. They don't need
>to be banned, just used consciously.
>
Exactly. "banning" is too harsh. "use with care" is what I would say.


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia funds

body:
Christopher Mahan wrote:

>
> On Amazon,
>
> I think the issue is with their one-ckick patent, which is seen by
> many people, as a patent, to being counter-productive to the interest
> of the internet and computer innovation as a whole.
>
> This view is held by enough geek/hacker/tech people that associating
> with amazon in a money-maker (which would benefit Amazon more than
> the W) would be considered be a "Bad Thing".
>
>
>
> =====
> Christopher Mahan
> chris_mahan at yahoo.com
> 818.943.1850 cell
> http://www.christophermahan.com/
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Rob Hooft

subject: [Wikitech-l] Mediawiki namespace collisions?

body:
On the nl: wikipedia we are discussing the introduction of some custom
{{msg:xxx}} templates. During that discussion it occured to me that this
may be another namespace with two goals: internal messages for the
mediawiki software, plus templates for in the wikitext. If we make a new
message MediaWiki:weg on nl:, or MediaWiki:abc, who tells me that this
will not conflict with a future built-in message? Do we need two
separate namespaces for these features?

Regards,

Rob Hooft
--
Rob W.W. Hooft  ||  rob at hooft.net  ||  http://www.hooft.net/people/rob/


subject: [Wikitech-l] Subpages for Wikipedia namespace

body:
Could somebody enable subpages for the Wikipedia namespace on at least the
English Wikipedia? Some discussion-type pages like [[Wikipedia:Conflicts
between users]] would really benefit from that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:

> Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
> repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on
> other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he
> is not abating with said attacks.
>
> I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on
> http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
>
I've taken a look at these, & while MNH's behavor is not exemplary, I don't
see any smoking gun that justifies banning.

Two of the people MNH has exchanged barbs with -- RK & Adam -- haven't
been models of restraint themselves, making a few attacks on MNH themselves.
His response to Teresa Knox does appear unjustified, though, & I would like
better proof that he was the person acting from those IP addresses.

[snip]

> (...) At another time he has made
> an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from
> New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?".

I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having
read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses
people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic
descriptioin.

> all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service
> to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall
> this policy be enforced?
>
> As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally [attacked]
> RK, but numerous others as well.
>
I've seen a fair number of people called "kooks", "zanies", etc. here on
Wikipedia, & I was unaware that was not approved behavior. (After reading
Sacha's article, I followed the link to find a forum on Meta from a few
months ago about this very matter, which I somehow missed.) If a contributor
to Wiki can get banned for certain behavior, then these terms should be
made clear somewhere on Wiki, & not merely discussed on Yet Another Meta
Page.

Geoff

Geoff


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Saturday 17 January 2004 06:31 pm, Delirium wrote:
> Sascha Noyes wrote:
> >Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
> >repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on
> >other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that
> > he is not abating with said attacks.
>
> Given the current state of things, it seems we have two choices here:
> 1) Quickly get some working provisional policies for the mediation and
> arbitration committee in place to deal with this issue
> 2) Appeal to Jimbo to handle this case, subject to input from everyone
> (as usual), since our dispute-resolution processes are still not put
> together
>
> I'd personally prefer #1, so if the mediation committee wants to try to
> sort out the mess, or at least determine whether it is a mess of the
> sort-out-able kind, feel free. =]

My thoughts on this: I'm not hellbent on a ban or anything, but MNH has been
reminded time and again of our policy of not making personal attacks.
Obviously to no avail.

Also, I'm not quite sure whether the framework of mediation/arbitration is the
correct one. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy to the legal system of
most "western" countries:

There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain laws of
a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the other
hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute),
then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem
with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him and
me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is in
violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I
therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness
for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current
framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this matter.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: (no subject)

body:
that was a liberated message.

Peter Jaros a ?crit:
> On Jan 17, 2004, at 12:02 AM, Shawn McNaughton wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> what is Drag queen Luc D'Arcy contact or email address. I like to
>> contact her.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Shawn
>
>
> Shawn doesn't seem to be subscribed to this list (at least according to
> the roster, otherwise: Hi, Shawn!).  Do we have an "official policy" on
> how to deal with such requests, such as a boilerplate response to modify
> as necessary?  I'd send something, but I don't know if I'd be the first.
>
> Peter
>
> ---
> Funding for this program comes from Borders without Doctors: The
> Bookstore Chain That Sounds Like a Charity.
>         --Harry Shearer, Le Sho
> w


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Proposal to link [[Wikipedia:Submission Standards]] from
	every edit window

body:
I propose that we link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Submission_Standards from every edit
window starting on Wednesday 21 January unless there are major outstanding
problems with that page at that time. Visit that talk page to discuss this
issue.

Two of the biggest pros, IMO, is that it gives our mediation and arbitration
processes legal force and it also designates the Wikimedia Foundation as
"your non-exclusive agent for copyright compliance".

BTW, Alex, our de-facto pro-bono lawyer, wrote the submission standards. But
I'm sure he would be the first to say that they do not constitute a legal
opinion.

This line would be added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

By clicking "save page" you agree to [Wikipedia:Submission Standards] and
affirm that you submission does not violate those terms.

Since Copyrightwarning does not parse wiki, [Wikipedia:Submission Standards]
would actually be Wikipedia:Submission
Standards

An example of how this would work is already on Meta:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Meta:Sandbox&action=edit

This was done by editing:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject:
[Wikilegal-l] Civil/Criminal law on Wikipedia (was: [WikiEN-l]
	Request for a ban)

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
>I level those same complaints against MNH (except for "ramblings", which I
>don't believe to be sufficient to warrant such action). Now that Jimbo (very
>understandably) doesn't want to be the person that enforces wikipedia rules
>and policies anymore, who will?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution

We are working out the procedures right now.

--mav


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:
>The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of
>wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]]
>(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that
>page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to
>[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
>(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

Well you have convinced me that MNH has violated our policy on this issue, but
until we have [[Wikipedia:Submission Standards]] linked from every edit
window I don't think we can ban anybody until after we know for sure that
they are aware of our policies (even then we should always give people a
couple chances to reform their behavior). I suggest to the list then, that
MNH be made aware of the policy and asked not to violate it again.

Then come back to the list if/when he has continued this behavior. At that
point we may decide to start a mediation/arbitration proceeding.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>Sascha Noyes wrote:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009686.html
>
>I responded:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2004-January/000239.html
>
>Please respond on the legal list since this is very obviously a legal issue.
>
>WikiLegal-l sign-up page:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l
>
>
I don't think this is a legal issue.  If I understand him correctly, he
was making an analogy between the sort of process followed in civil and
criminal trials.  Obviously, this is an internal administrative matter,
akin to a private school keeping a child in from recess, not either a
civil or a criminal trial (and thus not a legal matter).  I think
Sascha's point, unless I misunderstand him, was that we ought in this
case to use a model more closely analogous to a criminal trial, where
there is a prosecutor for the public interest (in this case Wikipedians'
interest), rather than one analogous to a civil trial, where two people
(two users) are set up in opposition to each other.

-Mark


body:
On Saturday 17 January 2004 08:34 pm, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Sascha Noyes wrote on WikiEN-l:
> >There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial.
>
> Yeah so? Everything we do here is covered under contract/civil law, thus
> mediation and arbitration is perfectly fine. If somebody breaks our rules,
> they break the contract we have with them. We cannot imprison anybody, nor
> levy fines - all we can do is consider our contract with a certain person
> broken, and not allow them further access to editing our website.
>
> Criminal law does not apply unless they break a real law (such as libel or
> giving a serious  threat of physical harm). Then we call the cops and let
> the real criminal justice system take over.
>
> >If certain laws of a society are broken, then the state will
> >prosecute a case.
>
> But we are not a society, we are a community of people who hang out at a
> website with a particular goal in mind.

> >It is not primarily a dispute between him and me. Or for that matter
> >all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is in violation of
> >one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks.
>
> Rules and policies are not laws. No reason to set-up sham/mock courts and
> confuse the whole distinction.

I did not equate the legal system with wikipedia processes, I merely suggested
it as an analogy for better understanding how wikipedia conflict resolution
processes might look. This seems to have failed, but that is OK. Wikilegal is
the wrong forum for this, as I used the legal system as an *analogy* (so I am
cross-posting this message to wiki-en).

That said, let's get back to the issue. MNH has repeatedly made personal
attacks in direct contravention of wikipedia policy. From [[wikipedia:No
personal attacks]], the first sentence is "No personal attacks on the
Wikipedia, period." and "Unlike the other rules, which are community
conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this one may also be
implemented in extreme cases as policy". My question is: Is MNH such an
extreme case? I submit that it is, as documented on
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox

If the body that is to decide whether or not his personal attacks are extreme
wants more proof, then I shall supply that. But I also suggest that the above
documented personal attacks are indeed sufficiently extreme (in volume and in
tone). Other people have suggested that somehow MNH's personal attacks are
actually tolerable because he "just" made them against persons such as Adam
Carr and RK. I think that this is faulty logic, it doesn't matter who you
make personal attacks against. I shall quote from the policy again: "No
personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period."

I had a look at earlier bans, and found this ([[User:Khranus/ban]]): "In
response to Kosebamse's complaint about "ramblings, contempt, insults,
hostility", etc. -- the owner of this website user:Jimbo Wales, asks that you
contact him via e-mail."

I level those same complaints against MNH (except for "ramblings", which I
don't believe to be sufficient to warrant such action). Now that Jimbo (very
understandably) doesn't want to be the person that enforces wikipedia rules
and policies anymore, who will?

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
> > Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
> > repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks
> > on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds
> > that he is not abating with said attacks.
> >
> > I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this
> > user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
>
> I've taken a look at these, & while MNH's behavor is not exemplary, I don't
> see any smoking gun that justifies banning.
>
> Two of the people MNH has exchanged barbs with -- RK & Adam -- haven't
> been models of restraint themselves, making a few attacks on MNH
> themselves. His response to Teresa Knox does appear unjustified, though, &
> I would like better proof that he was the person acting from those IP
> addresses.

[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) states: "No
personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period." and "Unlike the other rules,
which are community conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this
one may also be implemented in extreme cases as policy, i.e. grounds for
banning that go beyond our traditional "sheer vandalism" threshold."

The question is not whether he argued with users that have not been "models of
restraint", but rather whether his personal attacks were sufficiently extreme
to warrant a banning. I submit, with documentation of no less than 11
instances, that his behaviour has been sufficiently extreme, and a proper
refutation of this should be made for each instance of his use of personal
attacks.

>
> [snip]
>
> > (...) At another time he has made
> > an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi
> > from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?".
>
> I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having
> read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses
> people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic
> descriptioin.

I agree with you that RK has at times behaved extremely badly on wikipedia,
but that is not at issue here. I have stated that I believe that MNH's
statement that he is a german Nazi from NY who is extremely proud of his
heritage is indeed an implicit threat to RK:

RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies
firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he
lives close to RK.

It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:

1.Why mention that on his talk page then?
2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people wanted
you [RK] banned many months ago"

This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would
suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation, and
therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.

>
> > all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip
> > service to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit
> > threats), or shall this policy be enforced?
> >
> > As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally
> > [attacked] RK, but numerous others as well.
>
> I've seen a fair number of people called "kooks", "zanies", etc. here on
> Wikipedia, & I was unaware that was not approved behavior. (After reading
> Sacha's article, I followed the link to find a forum on Meta from a few
> months ago about this very matter, which I somehow missed.) If a
> contributor to Wiki can get banned for certain behavior, then these terms
> should be made clear somewhere on Wiki, & not merely discussed on Yet
> Another Meta Page.

The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of
wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]]
(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that
page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to
[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks), which I have
quoted above.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
> I've taken a look at these, & while MNH's behavor is not exemplary, I don't
> see any smoking gun that justifies banning.
>
> Two of the people MNH has exchanged barbs with -- RK & Adam -- haven't
> been models of restraint themselves, making a few attacks on MNH
> themselves. His response to Teresa Knox does appear unjustified, though, &
> I would like better proof that he was the person acting from those IP
> addresses.

I would like it as well. It is obvious to me personally that the person from
those IP addresses is indeed MNH, as he seemlessly edits those articles
([[Alternative medicine]]) with MNH, and is only interrested in those pages.
Also, 12.77.5.190
( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=12.77.5.190)
gave in his _very first_ edit summary: "Hello, RK. Have you always suffered
from mental illness and perceptual problems?" This could hardly be a new
contributor.

Of course the easiest way to get proof would be for a devel to check MNH's IP
when editing around that time. I'm not sure what wikipedia's privacy policy
is in regards to revealing IP addresses of contributors.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Charles Podles

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Sascha Noyes wrote:

>>(snip) It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY

RK says on his user page that he lives in New York, so I think it's safe
to assume that Mr. Nutty H knew that, and therefore knew what
identifying himself as a German Nazi from New York would mean.

--Charles Podles (en:user:Mirv)


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
zero 0000 wrote:

>>>On the Talk page of [[King David Hotel bombing]] Zero wrote
>>>something awhile back to the effect that the word "terrorist"
>>>should be banned from every article except [[Terrorism]]. I
>>>am inclined to agree with him.
>>>
>Since my remark indicated above has now been quoted several time,
>I thought I might explain it.  I don't -really- think that
>"terrorism", or any other word, should be banned.  Rather, I was
>making a comment on the usage of the word in Wikipedia: in my
>opinion it is misused so much that we would be better off without
>any uses at all.  However, of course the problem should be tackled
>by education and not by legislation.
>
I agree.  "Terrorism", however, is not the only word in this class,
 Using them perpetrates misunderstanding.

>Let me suggest a golden rule that might be applied to many issues
>in addition to this one:
>  Golden Rule: Tell the reader what the facts are;
>  don't tell the reader what to think about them.
>According to this criterion, some usages of "terrorism" are just
>fine: "The US State Department added Microsoft Corporation to its
>list of terrorist organizations".  Some usages are NOT fine:
>"A Microsoft terrorist blew himself up at the 2007 Apple
>Convention, killing 27 innocent Mac-heads".  The reason I don't
>like this usage of "terrorist" is that all the information in the
>sentence is still there if the word is removed.  Actually the
>word was used to sneak the writer's opinion into the sentence.
>We should just present the facts and allow the reader to form
>the opinions.
>
This is a good approach.

>Other uses of "terrorism" in Wikipedia just make me cringe.
>"Many people regard this to be terrorism" is about my least
>favorite. In my view the majority of similar sentences in
>Wikipedia were put there by people who wanted to insert their
>own opinions.  They knew they couldn't write "It is terrorism"
>or "I think it is terrorism" so they wrote "Many people regard..."
>instead.  Of course if a key aspect of the topic of the article
>is public opinion that would be a different situation (but then
>I'd hope to see some actual opinion poll data or something).
>
"Many people regard ..." carries a strong POV wallop  It applies the
logical fallacy that if a significant majority consider something to be
true, then it must in fact be true.  A statement founded on public
opinion should be subject to verification just as much as anything else.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Sunday 18 January 2004 12:56 am, Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Sascha Noyes wrote:
> >The policy on personal attacks is not at all obscure. On the front page of
> >wikipedia is a link to [[Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines]]
> >(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines). On that
> >page, under the header "Specific guidelines to consider" is a link to
> >[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
> >(http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks
>
> Well you have convinced me that MNH has violated our policy on this issue,
> but until we have [[Wikipedia:Submission Standards]] linked from every edit
> window I don't think we can ban anybody until after we know for sure that
> they are aware of our policies (even then we should always give people a
> couple chances to reform their behavior). I suggest to the list then, that
> MNH be made aware of the policy and asked not to violate it again.
>
> Then come back to the list if/when he has continued this behavior. At that
> point we may decide to start a mediation/arbitration proceeding.

OK, I see the expedience and wisdom in not seeking a ban until the procedures
are formalised.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>"Many people regard ..." carries a strong POV wallop  It applies the
>logical fallacy that if a significant majority consider something to be
>true, then it must in fact be true.

No it doesn't. If something is true, then it is true. If in fact a great many
people say and think a certain way, then the statement needs to be made.

>A statement founded on public
>opinion should be subject to verification just as much as anything else.

Sorry, but polls do not exist for everything. Some things are just plain
common sense because they are views so widely held. For example, the
statement that OBL is a terrorist or that Al-Queda is a terrorist
organization.

Of course more info is needed! Refining that we could say that they are both
widely regarded as terrorist in the West and by nearly all national
governments in the Arab world. That is attributing a POV to its adherents. It
is also in line with NPOV.

Taking that out would be expressing the minority POV that they are not
terrorist.

Oh and some things are so widely held that there is no real need to be
wishy-washy about it. For example that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist acts.
However, as I stated on that talk page the word 'terrorist' should be taken
out of that title for other reasons (not common as shorter title and not
needed for disambiguation).

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] mediation mailing list

body:
Sannse wrote:
>I think we really need that mailing list - it's very difficult to follow
>developments and discusions at the moment.

I was thinking of several. A mediation-l that all mediators would be
subscribed to (not sure if this should be a members only, private list), and
a series of mediation-# lists that each would be used for a specific
mediation. These would definitely be private and members only. They would
also not have a publicly available archive. All list members of these
numbered lists would be automatically un-subscribed after the mediation is
over. The list would then be used for the next mediation.

>How do we set this up?  I have absolutely no experience of such things.

I think the Jason is the only person who can set up new lists. Brion might
also be able, but I don't know for sure.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


from_name: zero 0000

subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >"Many people regard ..." carries a strong POV wallop  It applies the
>
> >logical fallacy that if a significant majority consider something to
> be
> >true, then it must in fact be true.
>
> No it doesn't. If something is true, then it is true. If in fact a
> great many
> people say and think a certain way, then the statement needs to be
> made.

It isn't the truth of it that I am questioning.  I am questioning
that the "statement needs to be made".  Consider whether you would
like to see the statement "Some people consider that his teeth
are crooked" in (say) the article on George Bush even if the
truth of that statement could be positively established.
I guess that you would take it out, which (if I'm right) shows
that the mere truth of a statement is not really your criterion
for including it.  You must have an additional reason.  Not
referring specificially to yourself, I suggest that the main
reason that people include statements like "Some people believe
that X is a terrorist" is that they WANT to attach that label to
that person and not because they have a disinterested intention
to report a fact.  They should instead devote more effort to
reporting hard data about X ("X has been responsible for many
attacks on civilians, including ... and ..."), then readers who
like labels like "terrorism" will have no trouble attaching them.
I think this shows respect for the intelligence of the reader.

Zero.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Terrorism

body:
Zeno wrote:
>They should instead devote more effort to
>reporting hard data about X ("X has been responsible for many
>attacks on civilians, including ... and ..."), then readers who
>like labels like "terrorism" will have no trouble attaching them.
>I think this shows respect for the intelligence of the reader.

No problem with having more info. But the info that a very large number of
people think that person X is a terrorist is /highly/ relevant to have in an
article about that person. This is oftentimes a distinguishing characteristic
that can and should be in the lead section of the article. Not doing so is to
discount this very important piece of information. This in my opinion is
whitewashing and censorship.

The quip about George Bush and crooked teeth isn't very relevant to an article
on him. Meaning his crooked teeth is not even a minor reason why he is famous
and it may even be completely fine to leave that out of the article
alltogether. On the other hand the fact that a great many people regard OBL
to be a terrorist is one of the big reasons why he is famous. Thus a
prominant statement indicating that information is needed in the lead section
of an article about him.

Then we go into detail.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] mediation mailing list

body:
Erik wrote:
>A phpBB board is already set up and can be used as soon as our
>servers are in better shape.

That sounds like a great idea, but we need something now, not in the
Neverneverland of when the servers are in better shape. ;) The server
situation has been almost constantly bad since early summer 2003. This in
spite of near super-human efforts by Brion, Jason and co.

-- mav


subject: [Wikipedia-l] allpages for wikipedia namespace


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Fixing "many people regard..."

body:
At least in the case of contemporary, political matters:

If it is really true that "many people" in the contemporary mainstream
believe something, it should not be hard to find a well-known public
figure, or political columnist, or major-newspaper editorial writer,
who expresses that belief.

For example, "some people regard the situation in Iraq as a guerrilla
war" can be replaced with "Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said that forces
in Iraq were 'conducting what I would describe as a classical
guerrilla-type campaign against us.'"

The big problem with attributing a view to "some people" or "many
people" is that it is an unverifiable source. (It's sometimes suggested
that opinion polls be cited, but suitable poll results are generally
hard to find. Polling organizations sell their services; you can't just
go online and access the full results of every Harris/Interactive poll
that's ever been conducted, search for relevant results, and snip out
fair-use extracts).

Ideally the person cited should have more stature or neutrality than,
Al Franken or Ann Coulter. But even the use of a Franken or Coulter
IMHO fixes the problem. It establishes several things, fairly
objectively. 1) the point of view is being expressed really in the
contemporary mainstream (not just held by single-taxers or
hollow-earthers).  2) The accuracy of the quotation/citation can be
checked. 3) The reader either already has, or can easily form, an
opinion about the source's point of view and reliability.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate:
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:

> On Saturday 17 January 2004 10:19 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
> > > Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
> > > repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks
> > > on other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds
> > > that he is not abating with said attacks.
> > >
> > > I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this
> > > user on http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox
> >
[snip]
> >
> > > (...) At another time he has made
> > > an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi
> > > from New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?".
> >
> > I'm not clear how identifying one's home location is a threat. And having
> > read quite a few emails on this mailling list from RK where he accuses
> > people of being a Nazi for disagreeing with him, I read this as a sardonic
> > description.
>
> I agree with you that RK has at times behaved extremely badly on wikipedia,
> but that is not at issue here. I have stated that I believe that MNH's
> statement that he is a german Nazi from NY who is extremely proud of his
> heritage is indeed an implicit threat to RK:
>
> RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY implies
> firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and secondly that he
> lives close to RK.

I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH
calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can
describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my
last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone
he disagrees with "a Nazi"; another possible meaning would be the "Soup Nazi"
from the Seinberg sitcom, who is not clearly anti-semitic, merely despotic
in how he runs his restaurant.

IIRC my high school years, I had one or two teachers describe themselves
semi-humorously as "a Nazi", meaning they tolerated no dissent.

One other point I shuld have mentioned was that when I looked at for the
quote in question, I could not find it. Did someone delete it? If so, was
it MNH? And if it was him, did he do it because he regretted his choice
of words -- or because he wanted to hide his indiscression?
>
> It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:
>
> 1.Why mention that on his talk page then?
> 2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people wanted
> you [RK] banned many months ago"
>
> This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would
> suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation, and
> therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.
>
Or it could be that MNH has either been reading the archive of the maillist,
or lurking here. If so he, would not be the only one. I find it surprising
that about the same time there was a thread here whether or not the September
11 attacks should be labelled "terrorist" or not, Wik arbitrarily decided to
remove that word from all of relevant articles.

This matter is far less obvious than you think, Sascha. And I would hope
that the principle of Wikilove means that any request for banning requires
at least a preponderance of evidence.

Geoff


from_name: sannse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
 Sascha said in part:

> Also, I'm not quite sure whether the framework of mediation/arbitration is
the
> correct one. Allow me to demonstrate by way of analogy to the legal system
of
> most "western" countries:
>
> There is a difference between a criminal and a civil trial. If certain
laws of
> a society are broken, then the state will prosecute a case. If, on the
other
> hand there is some squabble between two parties (eg. a contract dispute),
> then one party will seek to prosecute the other. I submit that the problem
> with MNH is of the former kind. It is not primarily a dispute between him
and
> me. Or for that matter all the other people he has attacked. Rather, he is
in
> violation of one of wikipedia's important rules: no personal attacks. I
> therefore think that I should not be the prosecution, but rather a witness
> for the prosecution. I'm not sure how this would work with the current
> framework. But I'd be most interrested in everyone's opinion on this
matter.

This analogy does /not/ work for mediation.  IMO a better analogy would be
of marriage guidance counselling.  The idea is not to decide who is wrong,
or to make judgements between "complainants" and "problem users" but to help
those in disagreement to find mutually satisfactory solutions.  If it comes
down to a situation where there can't be an agreement then sadly it's time
to decide whether divorce is necessary.

This situation is one where Anthere's comments about mediation between
personalities rather than mediating only on specific article disputes
applies.  I'm still thinking about that - I think she is right in that
problems are more often about personal differences than really about article
text and so on, but am not sure how mediation can effectively help.
Especially when we have such limited means - if we could all get together
physically (especially with a few pints ;) then maybe we could make a
difference in personal conflicts, but with the limited means we have I'm not
sure how effective we will be.  (that doesn't mean we shouldn't try of
course)

Regards,

sannse


subject: [WikiEN-l] mediation mailing list

body:
I think we really need that mailing list - it's very difficult to follow
developments and discusions at the moment.

How do we set this up?  I have absolutely no experience of such things.

Regards,

sannse


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New edit modus

body:
SUX

> From: Till Westermayer <till at tillwe.de>
> Organization: till we *)
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Date: 18 Jan 2004 19:19:00 +0100
> To: <wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] New edit modus
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
>
> Hi wikipedia-l,
>
> the server is extremly slow at the moment, so I move this from the
> village pump to here. Eloquence wants to implement a default edit mode
> using click-buttons for formating. This doesn't work with a number of
> browsers. With some, it just doesn't do anything (browser that don't
> support JavaScript). With other browsers which support JavaScript but
> not the right kind, it does funny things (as inserting the formating
> tags not at the cursors place, but at the end of the edited text). One
> of this browsers is Netscape 7.1, and if I understand the discussion at
> the village pump correclty, Mozilla won't work correctly, too. Still,
> Eloquence wants to make this fancy editing mode the default mode --
> which would led to an seemingly unusable wikipedia editing for a number
> of browsers. I must admit that I don't like the introduction of fancy
> editing at all, but if we introduce it, it either should work with *all*
> browsers currently used, or it should be off by default.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Till
>
> __ .
> / / / /                            ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
> . .
> . mailto:till at tillwe.de . www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
> . Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
> . . . . .
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] mediation mailing list

body:
mav wrote:

> Sannse wrote:
> >I think we really need that mailing list - it's very difficult to follow
> >developments and discusions at the moment.
>
> I was thinking of several. A mediation-l that all mediators would be
> subscribed to (not sure if this should be a members only, private list),
and
> a series of mediation-# lists that each would be used for a specific
> mediation. These would definitely be private and members only. They would
> also not have a publicly available archive. All list members of these
> numbered lists would be automatically un-subscribed after the mediation is
> over. The list would then be used for the next mediation.

That sounds good to me.  I think that the mediation-l (and the
arbitration-l) should probably be private, to allow mediators to discuss
cases between themselves and ask for advice without breaking
confidentiality.  But I can see that this might be considered as overly
secretive and elitist (if that's the word)- so I'm open to argument.

> >How do we set this up?  I have absolutely no experience of such things.
>
> I think the Jason is the only person who can set up new lists. Brion might
> also be able, but I don't know for sure.

What's the best way to contact them to ask for a list to be started?
Perhaps we could start with a private list - to be opened up if that is the
consensus?

Regards,

sannse


from_name: Peter Gervai

body:
Aloha.

Is it possible to have allpages for wikipedia namespace?

Clearly not urgent, but... sometimes I just cannot remember ALL names of the
pages we've created.

Peter


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Subpages for Wikipedia namespace

body:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Could somebody enable subpages for the Wikipedia namespace on at least the
> English Wikipedia? Some discussion-type pages like [[Wikipedia:Conflicts
> between users]] would really benefit from that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users

Discussion should really be taking place on Talk pages. This has irked
me for a long time; the Village Pump should really be on a Talk page, too.

Timwi


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] mediation mailing list

body:
Daniel-
> Sannse wrote:
>> I think we really need that mailing list - it's very difficult to follow
>> developments and discusions at the moment.

> I was thinking of several.

A phpBB board is already set up and can be used as soon as our servers are
in better shape.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: Oliver Brown

subject: [Wikipedia-l] server speeds are killing me

body:
I am ever so patient, but the longer these access delays continue, the
greater the potential is of losing users. It doesn't happen on purpose,
but people begin to fill their time with other things, and then slowly
lose the wikipedia bug. I am a devoted participant here, but wikipedia
is falling out of my daily routine simply because I cannot access the
darn thing. I can't even browse it for fun!

Terribly frustrated,
Oliver


from_name: Tucci

body:
--- "Daniel P.B.Smith" <dpbsmith at world.std.com> wrote:
> At least in the case of contemporary, political
> matters:

>
> For example, "some people regard the situation in
> Iraq as a guerrilla
> war" can be replaced with "Army Gen. John P. Abizaid
> said that forces
> in Iraq were 'conducting what I would describe as a
> classical
> guerrilla-type campaign against us.'"

I agree with the idea but also want to point out that
we must be careful not to imply that Abizaid is the
only person that feels this way.  Ultimately, each
situation is slightly different and must be handled
differently, but "some people" or "many people" is too
vague -- being too specific can also be a problem.

TUF-KAT

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


body:
Fred Bauder wrote:

>Any characterization of behavior is subject to the criticism that it could
>be replaced with a description of the phenomenon. We use these forms as a
>shorthand for such descriptions. "Sneak attack", for example, can serve in
>place of a long description explaining how a plan to declare war at 6 AM and
>attack at 7 failed because of a delay in decoding.
>
>The words "patriotic", "brave", "noble" and "democratic" come to mind in
>this context. These are words which express point of view. They don't need
>to be banned, just used consciously.
>
What's important about your comments is that they show that the same
kind of problem can arise when the word in question has positive overtones.

Ec


from_name: Optim

subject: [Wikipedia-l] New edit modus

body:
"only" 5% ?

so 5% of users have no importance for you ?

you don't care about them ?

--Optim

> 1) They're not silly.
> 2) This only affects about 5% of users.
> 3) It only affects large pages and only happens
> when the cursor isn't
> within visible range of the end.
> 4) You make a prediction that users will not
> notice what has happened.
> This prediction can only be properly tested
> through actual use.
>
> It's trivial to disable the toolbar in
> non-Moz/IE. The code for doing that
> is already there. I just don't intend to do it
> unless it's absolutely
> necessary.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
Charles Podles wrote:

> Sascha Noyes wrote:
>
>>> (snip) It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY
>>
> RK says on his user page that he lives in New York, so I think it's
> safe to assume that Mr. Nutty H knew that, and therefore knew what
> identifying himself as a German Nazi from New York would mean.

If you are going to complain about somebody's personal attacks then
using personal attacks yourself, like calling him "Mr. Nutty H.",
negates the credibility of your accusations.

Ec


from_name: Martin Harper

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
> I think we need a Wikipedia Prosecutor's office

If Sascha considers that Mr. N-H's attacks are disruptive to her Wikipedia
experience, then she is entitled to take that problem, personally or in a group of like-
minded citizens, to mediation and/or arbitration. Even if the attacks were not made
against her, she may still feel that they are unpleasant to witness.

If someone breaks Wikipedia's rules, but nobody minds enough to request mediation
or arbitration, then nothing will happen. I rather feel this is a feature, not a bug.

> an elected prosecutor would hire deputies and go out and investigate the matter

Past experience suggests that were someone is being obnoxious, there will be no
shortage of Wikipedians willing to supply evidence of such obnoxiousness.
Mediators are of course free to do additional investigation if it allows them to reach a
mutually acceptable end to the conflict. Arbitrators are likewise free to do additional
investigation if it is necessary to come to the right judgement.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Greek Wikipedia: Software Patents

body:
For Your Information:

Based on this:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-August/011479.html

I removed the "Wikipedia is against Software
Patents in Europe" notice from the Greek
Wikipedia (el.wikipedia.org) Main Page. The
notice also had a link to a website.

--Optim.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus


from_name: Sascha Noyes

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
On Sunday 18 January 2004 01:09 pm, Geoff Burling wrote:
> > RK is a jew who lives in NY. MNH stating that he is a Nazi from NY
> > implies firstly that he is ideologically motivated to kill RK, and
> > secondly that he lives close to RK.
>
> I think you are making a logical fallicy here. You assume that because MNH
> calls himself a Nazi, therefore he wants to kill RK. As I argued, one can
> describe oneself -- or another person -- a Nazi for many reasons. In my
> last email, I suggested it was in response to RK's habit of calling anyone
> he disagrees with "a Nazi"; another possible meaning would be the "Soup
> Nazi" from the Seinberg sitcom, who is not clearly anti-semitic, merely
> despotic in how he runs his restaurant.
>
> IIRC my high school years, I had one or two teachers describe themselves
> semi-humorously as "a Nazi", meaning they tolerated no dissent.

Answered below

>
> One other point I shuld have mentioned was that when I looked at for the
> quote in question, I could not find it. Did someone delete it? If so, was
> it MNH? And if it was him, did he do it because he regretted his choice
> of words -- or because he wanted to hide his indiscression?

If wikipedia weren't so slow I'd check again, but I am fairly sure that the
comment was deleted by RK because he found it to be hostile. I would have
done so as well.

>
> > It might be assumed that MNH did not know that RK lived in NY, but:
> >
> > 1.Why mention that on his talk page then?
> > 2.With that same post, MNH said something to the effect that "people
> > wanted you [RK] banned many months ago"
> >
> > This means that he is not as new as his November 2003 signup date would
> > suggest, and that he obviously knows a bit about the whole RK situation,
> > and therefor also perhaps that RK lives in NY.
>
> Or it could be that MNH has either been reading the archive of the
> maillist, or lurking here. If so he, would not be the only one. I find it
> surprising that about the same time there was a thread here whether or not
> the September 11 attacks should be labelled "terrorist" or not, Wik
> arbitrarily decided to remove that word from all of relevant articles.

Your criticisms of my interpretation of his statement are all valid. However,
what you have failed to dispel (in my mind), is the possibility that it was
meant as a threat. Implicit threats function not by being overt threats, but
rather by having the property that they can be interpreted as a threat. I
concede that one has to also employ a measure of likelihood. Your suggestion
that this statement was meant as an attack on RK for calling others Nazis has
in my mind lowered the possibility that it was meant as a threat. But I am
still of the opinion that it is a possibility.

I don't think that your charge that my interpretation is a logical fallacy is
correct. But I concede that this was due to my poor wording of the matter. I
did not mean to suggest that his statement is *only* interpretable as a
threat. Merely that it is a possible interpretation. In the interpretation
that I submit as a possibility, the term "Nazi" is taken in its original
meaning. A meaning that is accompanied by the ideological baggage that the
only sollution to the "Judenproblem" is the extermination of all Jews.

I know of the common usage of the word Nazi to humerously or combatively refer
to someone who displays certain behaviour characteristic of 'proper' Nazis.
And I agree with you that MNH could be using it in that sense. However, it is
characteristically employed in conjunction with other attributes: eg.
"soup-nazi", "feminazi", etc. This was not the case here.

>
> This matter is far less obvious than you think, Sascha. And I would hope
> that the principle of Wikilove means that any request for banning requires
> at least a preponderance of evidence.

My case is founded first and foremost on his personal attacks. Whether or not
the "Nazi from NY" statement is seen as an implicit threat does not at all
affect the validity of my request for a ban. I do regard his "Nazi from NY"
as an implicit threat, but as with all implicit threats, it is a matter of
interpretation. I don't think that it can be argued, however, that this
remark was not hostile and not combative.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: New edit modus

references:
<9162vpVObzB@westermayer-74391.user.cis.dfn.de>
	<915uqzZxpVB@erik_moeller> <400AD96C.8070505@yahoo.com>

body:
On Sunday 18 January 2004 02:07 pm, Anthere wrote:
> Erik Moeller a ?crit:
> > No, you didn't understand it correctly. Please refrain from further
> > whining until the feature is actually activated.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
>
> As long as we can ask that the feature be dis-activated later on if it
> prevent us from editing...
>

It won't prevent anyone from editing. As I understand it, one can either use
the toolbar or just continue marking the text up "by hand" as is currently
the practice. I personally prefer marking stuff up "by hand". I would request
that the there be an on/off switch in the user preferences for this toolbar,
as for me personally it just wastes screen real-estate.

I do not care much whether the toolbar is on or off by default.

Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc


from_name: Toby Bartels

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sep 11

body:
Maveric149 (Daniel Mayer) wrote in part:

>Viajero wrote:

>>I am opposed (along with several others) to the inclusion of this
>>phrase. I believe it uses weaselspeak to insert a moral judgement
>>on the subject.

>I thought that the phrase at OBL was "in the West he is widely regarded as a
>[[terrorism | terrorist]]". This is factually correct and taking it out is
>censorship and advocating for a certain POV. That will not be tolerated.

What does that mean, "That will not be tolerated."?
>From here, it sounds like you are dictating to Viajero
what the content of Wikipedia articles is going to be.
But I know that you know that you cannot do this
(anymore than he can dictate the content to you),
so it's not clear to me what you meant.

-- Toby


subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Single-sign-on

body:
Walter Vermeir wrote in part:

>I have a idea to solve this problem.

>When i make edit on my home-wikipedia only the short username is
>visible. In the recent changes you only see a edit by user "walter". The
>extended username is hidden on your home Wikipedia.
>When i go to the English Wikipedia I am still using the same account
>"walter_(NL)" but when I make a edit the full username is visible,
>"walter_(NL)".

A lot of people won't like this since they don't have a single "home" wiki.
However, it should be useful in a lot of cases -- I know that /I/ want
all messages to me to appear on my user talk page on the English Wikipedia,
and if I could get a link to that user page by signing "~~~~" anywhere ...
that would be great!

It probably won't solve everything (is Anth?re's home [[en:]] or [[fr:]]?
is mav's home [[w:en:]] or [[wikibooks:]]?), but it may help some of us.
(Although I have no /conflicts/ -- I've signed up on every wiki. ^_^)

-- Toby


from_name: Rick

subject: [WikiEN-l] Request for a ban

body:
He also likes to list EVERY person with whom he has edit disagreements on [[Conflicts between users]].

RickK

Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net> wrote:
Hi. I'm not happy that it had to come to this. Mr-Natural-health has
repeatedly been warned numerous times about not making personal attacks on
other wikipedians. I am requesting a ban for this user on the grounds that he
is not abating with said attacks.

I have documented clear violations of basic wikipedia policies by this user on
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snoyes/sandbox

I have not looked through all of the disputes this user has had with others,
but in the ones that I have looked at he has made no less than 12 personal
attacks. Some of them quite vicious ("Hello, RK. Have you always suffered
from mental illness and perceptual problems?"). At another time he has made
an implicit threat to RK on his talk page by stating "The German Nazi from
New York. I am proud of my German heritage, how about you?". Anyway, this is
all documented at the above url. My question: are we only paying lip service
to the policy of not making personal attacks (and implicit threats), or shall
this policy be enforced?

As an endnote, it must be stated that MNH has not just personally RK, but
numerous others as well.

Best,
Sascha Noyes

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040118/951f1ee9/attachment.htm