body:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Take a look at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo
> ;
> the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over
> possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for
> CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most
> certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original
> forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
> you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
> not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> >
> >> As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page,
> >> removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus
> >> arguing with people there.
> >>
> >> As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
> >> ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of
> >> administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
> >>
> >> RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
> >> committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on
> >> several levels.  He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use
> >> inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info
> >> claiming it's unsourced.  There was a two-sided abusive edit war going
> >> on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been
> >> warned against that.
> >>
> >> It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
> >> to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and
> >> collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or
> >> appropriate.  If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page
> >> while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool
> >> down.
> >>
> >> Bad day.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

If this sort of evidence is not posted in the ANI discussion, user talk
page, or in the block message, it's a little hard for other admins to figure
out that there are other evasion claims outstanding...

Note that the time-of-day of edits by (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14 ) are
completely outside hours of the day when RunedChozo has typically edited
before, and predate his being blocked by a day.  A reasonable suspicion
could be made based on targets and content, but you might want to checkuser
this first and extend a block for evasion later...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:45:29 -0600 (CST), "Jeff Raymond"
<jeff.raymond at internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:

>Case in point - something people disagree with gets twisted into an
>entirely separate perception.  On this issue, Guettarda misrepresented me
>from the start and continues to do so, and the myth persists.  Even if I
>was wrong - and later consensus on the page decided that long term
>relevance didn't exist and I dropped it - this is what defines me for him.
> I have to deal with that, and that's fine.

This is indeed a problem.  It is quite possible to have a legitimate
difference of opinion while still respecting each other, but in some
cases false inferences (and in other cases legitimate ones) can be
drawn.  I'm not going to be drawn on which applies here, since I don't
actually recall the incident.  There are some legitimate differences
which are also legitimate bases for opposing an RFA, others which I
don't think are, and position on the inclusionism spectrum is one of
those, in my view.  I perhaps subscribe more to the "no big deal"
philosophy than some, though.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Completely unreasonable block and behavior by
	admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
> you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
> not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
>

Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a
conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why Runed
may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.

I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for
Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin
	friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:35:06 -0600, "Michael Smith"
<runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:

>Nobody has yet even bothered to deal with this. Instead, Itaqallah got an
>admin friend of his to lock the article page, got another member of his
>Muslim Guild to block me, and then I come in today and ANOTHER of his lying
>friends has falsely accused me of sockpuppeting while I was gone and they've
>jacked the illegal block all the way to five days now.

Ah, so they *have* dealt with this.  Good.

Just for future reference, hysterical accusations of "rouge admin
abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted.  Next time try posting
something much less strident.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Theo Clarke

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
This hitherto silent minority of one supports the ArbCom decision
including the acknowledgement of the excellence of much of Mondo's
contribution.

Theo

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:38:11 -0600, "Brian Haws" <brian at bhaws.com> said:
> If in fact there is a silent majority that agrees with this decision
> there's no sign of it (though it may be there),
> I think they could do us a favor by making them selves known.


from_name: Guettarda

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO and the
	ArbComm)

body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and
> making
> > > all
> > > > > > sorts
> > > > > > of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to
> > exlore
> > > > > that
> > > > > > option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations
> policy,
> > > I'm
> > > > > not
> > > > > > too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to
> a
> > > > > certain
> > > > > > amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody
> > solves
> > > > > more
> > > > > > problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally
> willing
> > to
> > > > > > tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will,
> > > > > > -Luna
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > MONGO: I lost count.
> > > > > Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't
> ban
> > > > this
> > > > > user I'm leaving."
> > > > > FloNight: at least 2 instances.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of
> my
> > > > head.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in
> > > > discussions,
> > > > other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad
> > > thing.  No,
> > > > let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible
> > idea.
> > >
> > >
> > > We've already stretched the definition of "personal attack" so far
> that
> > > I'm
> > > opposed to that being a valid reason to "punish" someone.
> > >
> > > I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a
> common
> > > and
> > > > fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off
> > > > steam.  It's
> > > > not hurting us to let people do it.  It may be irritating you, but
> > > that's
> > > > not by itself a reason to take official action over it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They should be desysopped for violating [[WP:POINT]] after the second
> or
> > > third occasion anyways, because it IS highly disruptive.
> > >
> > > Parker
> >
> >
> > Don't be ridiculous.  Saying "I will not stay here if PersonX is allowed
> > to
> > return to editing" isn't "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point".  Why
> > should
> > anyone tolerate the unblocking of a particularly vicious troll who has
> > been
> > harrassing them?  Trolls should not be tolerated.  If someone unblocks a
> > troll who has stalked and harrassed a valuable editor, the victim of the
> > harrassment shouldn't be punished.
> >
> > Trolls and stalkers are disruptive.  People pointing out that the
> > community
> > is not doing enough to protect them against trolls and stalkers are
> > notdisruptive.
>
>
> When there is a serious ongoing discussion and people have a serious
> difference of opinion with you, and other respected editors are saying
> that
> the person should not be banned, then YES this IS serious disruption.
>
> Parker.

a. You are mischaracterising at least some of those situations to which you
refer
b. Victim-blaming isn't ok
c. While being a good editor isn't a get out of jail free card (e.g., Wik),
we cut good editors a lot more slack (e.g., SPUI) than we would someone who
isn't here primarily to contribute to the project of building an
encyclopaedia.
d. We don't de-sysop for "disruption".
e. Trolls deserve no protection.  Stalkers are worse.  If people stopped
defending their actions, we would have less of a problem of good editors
being driven away by trolls.
f. (Note to self: you really really really need to learn how to recognise
trolling and not reply to it)


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's not necessarily crazy to think that there may have been things
> covered up about 9/11; at the very least, evidence of screwups on the
> part of those whose job it was to try and catch people like this.
> Such a broadly worded question is different than specific conspiracy
> theories.
>

That's a fair criticism, the question was vague enough that it could be
interpreted as "I think the government didn't completely level with us" or
as "I think they're really hiding something seriously false", and it's never
been adequately resolved as to what the spectrum really looks like.

The point was, that large parts of the population of the city of New York at
least fell into the low end of that range at the time.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Concerned Wikipedian

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Mr Wales,

I am hereby writing to you to express my displeasure and discontent at
"your" Arbitration Committee's decision to desysop MONGO, one of the most
dedicated and resilient users Wikipedia has ever seen.

MONGO has had to put up with every kind of harassment you could think of; by
definition of [[WP:HA]], a number of users that have forced him into his
mental decline should have been blocked and/or banned ages ago.

So, I officially protest this decision, and wish you to evaluate it. Given
your ability to veto any decision made by the AC, I hereby request that if
you agree with my sentiment, you use this to stop Wikipedia from losing yet
another prolific administrator and user to the abyss of trolls and vandals -
RickK springs to mind as another.

Last time I checked, MONGO wasn't the only administrator who could, on
occasion, skirt the guidelines of civility. I could name 15 or so who do it
worse than he does, and yet it is him who takes the fall.

MONGO stood up for NPOV, something you yourself should extremely proud of -
Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia without servants like MONGO who try to keep
unverified rubbish out, in accordance with "What Wikipedia is not", as well
as "Neutral Point of View". Further, your relentless push of making
Wikipedia fully verified through "Verifiability" and "Reliable Sources",
which I commend you for emphasising, was one of MONGO's ideals, and
something he sought to try and create under your direction.

There is no denying that MONGO may have overstepped his mark once or twice;
I would be a fool to say so. What I will say, however, is your ArbCom has
previously found that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with [the
role] ? administrators are not expected to be perfect". I believe that,
given the crap, for want of a better word, that MONGO has had to deal with
in his fight to uphold your, and Wikipedia's, values, he should be given
leeway in this precedent.

You yourself said that "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a
solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that
I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the
whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely,
and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves
Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last
safety valve for our values". I feel that it is your turn to stand up and be
counted, Jimmy, to stand up for our values. Wikipedians are not perfect;
administrators are not perfect, by the same token; nor should administrators
be expected to be unflappable in the face of persistent, ridiculous trolling
and harassment that MONGO has had to.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man; will you be the man, or will the hour slip
you by? I hope you can see the devastation that this would cause Wikipedia
should you decide that the Arbitration Committee, which is becoming more and
more dissented by members of the community as segregated, has somehow got
this one right.

The question you must ask yourself, in the spirit of IAR: If this decision
will be detrimental to improving or maintaining Wikipedia more than the
opposite decision will be, ignore it. You made this official policy on
August 19, 2006 stating "IAR is policy, always has been". I feel that this
is as good a time as any to apply its' principle.

-- Concerned Wikipedian


from_name: Jim Schuler

body:
On 12/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Whatever you say, dick.
>
> I'm not Muslim. Point of fact is that I'm not anything. I don't think God
> exists, and even if he does, I don't think he gives a flying fuck about
> the
> world as it is now.
>
> Itaqallah, on the other hand, is a member of the POV-pushing group called
> the Muslim Guild, and I caught him blatantly lying in his edit summaries
> while he was chain reverting people on that page. But you don't seem to
> care
> about that at all.
>
> So I get it: Lying on wikipedia is A-OK as long as you're a muslim, but
> pointing out that a muslim is blatantly lying while also edit warring is
> "incivil." Your policies are so much bullshit.
>
> <snip>

Well, that little outburst will most certainly help make your case and get
the help you need (on Wikipedia, anyway).

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The more recent edits from the IP, however, come about six hours after
> RunedChozo's block. It's been posted to WP:ANI; forgive me for
> neglecting to add that at 1:40am on a weeknight...
>

The IP edited in two sessions; one 6 hrs after Runed's block, one about 20
hrs before.  It makes sense if he might have thought he was about to get
blocked, to start using an IP.  But it did predate the block.

I entirely understand about forgetting to add it with the late-night
editing, but it did confuse me...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: M Roget

body:
On 12/12/06, *George Herbert* george.herbert at gmail.com
<wikien-l%40Wikipedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Admins%20who%20pretend%20to%20quit%20%28was%20Re%3A%20MONGO%20and%20the%0A%09ArbComm%29&In-Reply-To=46d9b7490612121324x44948df2h1aaaa3d5d96b4e28%40mail.gmail.com>:
 *
*
>Having WP policy be that we punish people for what they say in discussions,
>other than threats and personal attacks and the like, is a bad thing.  No,
>let me restate that more emphatically - it's a horrible, terrible idea.

>I agree with Luna; while not always necessarily desirable, it's a common and
>fairly normal human response to extreme frustration to let off steam.  It's
>not hurting us to let people do it.  It may be irritating you, but that's
>not by itself a reason to take official action over it.

It's not punishment though but housekeeping and assuming good faith by
assuming that someone actually means what they say.

If an admin account becomes inactive then it is desysopped as amatter
of course. The difference here is we would be taking people at their
word so if they say "I quit" their account's
admin permissions are removed as a matter of course. If they change
their mind and want to come back to wikipedia and
regain admin status they can go through an RFA.

If someone doesn't really mean it when they say "I quit" they
shouldn't say it and if what they're really doing is going on a
wikibreak then they should say "I'm going on a wikibreak".

Michel


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:11:56 -0600, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been
> >heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia?
>
> ... are amply justified by the aggressive tones in which he made his
> statement.  Ever heard the old adage that you catch more flies with
> honey than with vinegar?  It never hurts to ask politely.
>

That works both ways. You learn in any customer service class you ever might
take that no matter what someone says to you, it does you absolutely no good
to do the same back.

You and other admins here have been nothing but dismissive and insulting,
especially in refusing to acknowledge the very valid complaints raised.

You've given a lot of vinegar, and you're not entitled to do so.

Parker


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/12/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > [[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] is a significant indication of the
> > problem.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with that page?
> > >
> >
> > No idea I haven't read it isn't relvivant to my point. My point out
> > there is that there are CTs produceing a large amount of citable
> > material. Most the the active oponents (such as the author of "screw
> > loose change") who are the ones who acutaly write down the point by
> > point debunkings tend not to produce the same amount of citable
> > material.
>
>
> For any reasonable individual, it only takes one good thorough debunking
> to
> show what kooks these nuts are.
>
> The fact that 5 tinfoil hats, even 5 tinfoil hats with cheap university
> degrees and too little psychological evaluation, spend all day writing
> about
> this still doesn't mean we should give them any credence.

No credence, perhaps, but space on Wikipedia? Sure.


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
I would, if I could be assured that my actions wouldn't result in trolling
to the levels that MONGO and others have had to endure. I'd be happy to, but
I'd rather contribute more to the encyclopaedia, rather than be driven away
like other users have.

On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned
> Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish
> like
> this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind
> "Concerned Wikipedian".
>
> On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> >
> > I would be much more inclined to intervene if you were willing to put
> > your reputation on the line and make the defense publicly, rather than
> > under a pseudonym and throwaway email address.
> >
> > Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
> > > Mr Wales,
> > >
> > > I am hereby writing to you to express my displeasure and discontent at
> > > "your" Arbitration Committee's decision to desysop MONGO, one of the
> > most
> > > dedicated and resilient users Wikipedia has ever seen.
> > >
> > > MONGO has had to put up with every kind of harassment you could think
> > of; by
> > > definition of [[WP:HA]], a number of users that have forced him into
> his
> > > mental decline should have been blocked and/or banned ages ago.
> > >
> > > So, I officially protest this decision, and wish you to evaluate it.
> > Given
> > > your ability to veto any decision made by the AC, I hereby request
> that
> > if
> > > you agree with my sentiment, you use this to stop Wikipedia from
> losing
> > yet
> > > another prolific administrator and user to the abyss of trolls and
> > vandals -
> > > RickK springs to mind as another.
> > >
> > > Last time I checked, MONGO wasn't the only administrator who could, on
> > > occasion, skirt the guidelines of civility. I could name 15 or so who
> do
> > it
> > > worse than he does, and yet it is him who takes the fall.
> > >
> > > MONGO stood up for NPOV, something you yourself should extremely proud
> > of -
> > > Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia without servants like MONGO who try to
> > keep
> > > unverified rubbish out, in accordance with "What Wikipedia is not", as
> > well
> > > as "Neutral Point of View". Further, your relentless push of making
> > > Wikipedia fully verified through "Verifiability" and "Reliable
> Sources",
> > > which I commend you for emphasising, was one of MONGO's ideals, and
> > > something he sought to try and create under your direction.
> > >
> > > There is no denying that MONGO may have overstepped his mark once or
> > twice;
> > > I would be a fool to say so. What I will say, however, is your ArbCom
> > has
> > > previously found that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible
> with
> > [the
> > > role] ? administrators are not expected to be perfect". I believe
> that,
> > > given the crap, for want of a better word, that MONGO has had to deal
> > with
> > > in his fight to uphold your, and Wikipedia's, values, he should be
> given
> > > leeway in this precedent.
> > >
> > > You yourself said that "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a
> > > solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the
> exception
> > that
> > > I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve
> > the
> > > whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as
> > unlikely,
> > > and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves
> > > Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one
> > last
> > > safety valve for our values". I feel that it is your turn to stand up
> > and be
> > > counted, Jimmy, to stand up for our values. Wikipedians are not
> perfect;
> > > administrators are not perfect, by the same token; nor should
> > administrators
> > > be expected to be unflappable in the face of persistent, ridiculous
> > trolling
> > > and harassment that MONGO has had to.
> > >
> > > Cometh the hour, cometh the man; will you be the man, or will the hour
> > slip
> > > you by? I hope you can see the devastation that this would cause
> > Wikipedia
> > > should you decide that the Arbitration Committee, which is becoming
> more
> > and
> > > more dissented by members of the community as segregated, has somehow
> > got
> > > this one right.
> > >
> > > The question you must ask yourself, in the spirit of IAR: If this
> > decision
> > > will be detrimental to improving or maintaining Wikipedia more than
> the
> > > opposite decision will be, ignore it. You made this official policy on
> > > August 19, 2006 stating "IAR is policy, always has been". I feel that
> > this
> > > is as good a time as any to apply its' principle.
> > >
> > > -- Concerned Wikipedian
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned
> Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish like
> this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind
> "Concerned Wikipedian".
>
> On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> I would be much more inclined to intervene if you were willing to put
>> your reputation on the line and make the defense publicly, rather than
>> under a pseudonym and throwaway email address.
>>

I'm curious about two things here:

1. Where's the arbcom decision?
2. Why was your email in GB2312?

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061212/067ad2ff/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thus, anonymity is no excuse for not heeding a
> > person's concerns -- in fact, in the real world, some of the best tips
> > received by law enforcement, tax administration, SEC violations, etc.,
> are
> > anonymous.  As KC noted earlier, it is the content that matters not the
> > source, and in this case the content is valid.
>
> When someone anonymously reports a crime, they are reporting a
> verifiable fact (if the appropriate authorities cannot verify it, they
> won't do anything about it). The Concerned Wikipedian's email did not
> contain facts, it contained opinions (any facts stated were already
> known to anyone following the case). Therefore, it is not comparable
> to an anonymous tip off.

True, it was a bit light on details...nonetheless, the point regarding
anonymity remains.  Thus, rather than berate him for wishing to be
anonymous, tell him he needs to provide details in order to move forward.

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
1. At 5/0, it's a foregone conclusion.
2. I have no idea...

Further, the response that this email got in #wikipedia further enhances my
response:

<1> Ohman, drama on wikien-l
<2> :3 what kind of drama?
<1> Arbcom style.
<2> ooh
<1> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-December/058214.html
<3> Luna-San: haha, I just got that
<4> Arbcom drama's the best kind

On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm curious about two things here:
>
> 1. Where's the arbcom decision?
> 2. Why was your email in GB2312?
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


list: foundation-l

from_name: Brad Patrick

subject: [Foundation-l] Accounting software for multi-currency

body:
WMF keeps its books in Quickbooks.  Quickbooks does not handle multiple
currencies.  It was suggested to me that Microsoft Money, which does
handle multiple currencies very well, could be used to track our non-USD
transactions and create journal entries for our regular books.  I nearly
threw up thinking about that as a solution.

To those in non-US places, what systems do you use which have
multi-currency?  Please email me offline if you like.  I am not
particularly interested in the FLOSS debate in this instance.  I care
about what absolutely works.

-Brad


list: wikimedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Interesting word choices there.

On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not asking them to reveal their name, am I? Just their Wiki handle. It
> may just be me (although I suspect many, many more people do too), but
> anyone under a name "Concerned Wikipedian" doesn't earn any points in my
> book. Especially relevant, given we're talking about privacy (I wouldn't
> put
> it past WikiReview idiots to be using such handles).
>
> On-topic, though, I see no reason not to go through with it. I cannot
> believe people are using the mailing list to appeal to Jimbo to lighten a
> sentence on an admin - being handled by the ARBCOM - for something which
> is
> obviously de-sysop-able for. Others haven't gotten that consideration, so
> why start now? The ArbCom are technically independent from Jimbo, and I
> don't see why he should intervene.
>
> On 12/12/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> >
> > NSLE: I suggest you reconsider your position with this in mind - your
> > name is almost certainly not NSLE or Chacor. I know my r/w name is not
> > KillerChihuahua. The majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia
> > administrators do not contribute under their real names, and for good
> > reason. The same logic which makes using a "handle" on Wikipedia in
> > general a Good Idea also applies here. MONGO has been the target of
> > massive trolling and harassment. It shows good sense to try to insulate
> > oneself from becoming a target of the same people, and the Concerned
> > Wikipedian is doing precisely that. I fail to see how that makes his or
> > her concern any less valid. How precisely are you defining this as
> > "trolling"? I see no trolling, and would appreciate it if you would
> > share your logic with me and the others on this list, as apparently I
> > have missed something.
> >
> > NSLE (Wikipedia) wrote:
> > > Hear, hear. Good decision. Seriously, the second I saw "Concerned
> > > Wikipedian" as the person I knew that this would be something trollish
> > like
> > > this. Seriously now, make the plea openly instead of hiding behind
> > > "Concerned Wikipedian".
> > >
> > > On 12/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I would be much more inclined to intervene if you were willing to put
> > >> your reputation on the line and make the defense publicly, rather
> than
> > >> under a pseudonym and throwaway email address.
> > >>
> > >> Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Mr Wales,
> > >>>
> > >>> I am hereby writing to you to express my displeasure and discontent
> at
> > >>> "your" Arbitration Committee's decision to desysop MONGO, one of the
> > >>>
> > >> most
> > >>
> > >>> dedicated and resilient users Wikipedia has ever seen.
> > >>>
> > >>> MONGO has had to put up with every kind of harassment you could
> think
> > >>>
> > >> of; by
> > >>
> > >>> definition of [[WP:HA]], a number of users that have forced him into
> > his
> > >>> mental decline should have been blocked and/or banned ages ago.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, I officially protest this decision, and wish you to evaluate it.
> > >>>
> > >> Given
> > >>
> > >>> your ability to veto any decision made by the AC, I hereby request
> > that
> > >>>
> > >> if
> > >>
> > >>> you agree with my sentiment, you use this to stop Wikipedia from
> > losing
> > >>>
> > >> yet
> > >>
> > >>> another prolific administrator and user to the abyss of trolls and
> > >>>
> > >> vandals -
> > >>
> > >>> RickK springs to mind as another.
> > >>>
> > >>> Last time I checked, MONGO wasn't the only administrator who could,
> on
> > >>> occasion, skirt the guidelines of civility. I could name 15 or so
> who
> > do
> > >>>
> > >> it
> > >>
> > >>> worse than he does, and yet it is him who takes the fall.
> > >>>
> > >>> MONGO stood up for NPOV, something you yourself should extremely
> proud
> > >>>
> > >> of -
> > >>
> > >>> Wikipedia wouldn't be Wikipedia without servants like MONGO who try
> to
> > >>>
> > >> keep
> > >>
> > >>> unverified rubbish out, in accordance with "What Wikipedia is not",
> as
> > >>>
> > >> well
> > >>
> > >>> as "Neutral Point of View". Further, your relentless push of making
> > >>> Wikipedia fully verified through "Verifiability" and "Reliable
> > Sources",
> > >>> which I commend you for emphasising, was one of MONGO's ideals, and
> > >>> something he sought to try and create under your direction.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no denying that MONGO may have overstepped his mark once or
> > >>>
> > >> twice;
> > >>
> > >>> I would be a fool to say so. What I will say, however, is your
> ArbCom
> > >>>
> > >> has
> > >>
> > >>> previously found that "occasional mistakes are entirely compatible
> > with
> > >>>
> > >> [the
> > >>
> > >>> role] ? administrators are not expected to be perfect". I believe
> > that,
> > >>> given the crap, for want of a better word, that MONGO has had to
> deal
> > >>>
> > >> with
> > >>
> > >>> in his fight to uphold your, and Wikipedia's, values, he should be
> > given
> > >>> leeway in this precedent.
> > >>>
> > >>> You yourself said that "The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a
> > >>> solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the
> > exception
> > >>>
> > >> that
> > >>
> > >>> I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to
> dissolve
> > >>>
> > >> the
> > >>
> > >>> whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as
> > >>>
> > >> unlikely,
> > >>
> > >>> and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves
> > >>> Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is
> one
> > >>>
> > >> last
> > >>
> > >>> safety valve for our values". I feel that it is your turn to stand
> up
> > >>>
> > >> and be
> > >>
> > >>> counted, Jimmy, to stand up for our values. Wikipedians are not
> > perfect;
> > >>> administrators are not perfect, by the same token; nor should
> > >>>
> > >> administrators
> > >>
> > >>> be expected to be unflappable in the face of persistent, ridiculous
> > >>>
> > >> trolling
> > >>
> > >>> and harassment that MONGO has had to.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cometh the hour, cometh the man; will you be the man, or will the
> hour
> > >>>
> > >> slip
> > >>
> > >>> you by? I hope you can see the devastation that this would cause
> > >>>
> > >> Wikipedia
> > >>
> > >>> should you decide that the Arbitration Committee, which is becoming
> > more
> > >>>
> > >> and
> > >>
> > >>> more dissented by members of the community as segregated, has
> somehow
> > >>>
> > >> got
> > >>
> > >>> this one right.
> > >>>
> > >>> The question you must ask yourself, in the spirit of IAR: If this
> > >>>
> > >> decision
> > >>
> > >>> will be detrimental to improving or maintaining Wikipedia more than
> > the
> > >>> opposite decision will be, ignore it. You made this official policy
> on
> > >>> August 19, 2006 stating "IAR is policy, always has been". I feel
> that
> > >>>
> > >> this
> > >>
> > >>> is as good a time as any to apply its' principle.
> > >>>
> > >>> -- Concerned Wikipedian
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:30:14 -0800, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >By preliminary looks through page
> >histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit
> warring,
> >with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the
> only
> >one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less
> >appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
>
> I got the same result, but I don't see the block log as evidence of a
> cabal, I regard William pretty highly, for example.
>
> This has all the appearances of someone bringing their battles to
> Wikipedia.
>
> Guy (JzG)

This has all the appearances of a new(er) editor getting piled on by people
who have axes to grind and are already on Wikipedia, you mean I'm sure.

I did a quick count. When they said "five blocks", first they double-counted
William who had undone his own after accidentally applying an infinite block
(I applaud him for having the good sense to catch his own mistake, too).

Then after looking at the blocks, I found the following:

#1 - block by Aecis, related to a good-faith page move related to commentary
left on WP:ANI about a page needing to be moved.
#2 - First 3RR,  not uncommon for new users. Block by William for
"infinite".
#2.5 - William resets this to a proper 24 hours; Shouldn't really even count
this as a "new" block since it's William fixing his own mistake.
#3 - Future Perfect at Sunrise - friend of Itaqallah and at his request -
blocks RunedChozo for a massive 72 hours. 3RR not even violated.
#4 - William blocks for 3RR: 72 hours yet again. RunedChozo contests,
claiming he didn't actually break the line, and is yelled at for "gaming the
system." If we have 3RR, fine, but now they're just hounding this user, not
to mention slapping on out-of-process ridiculously long blocks compared to
what policy states.

And then the rest on the block list currently, a massive amount of resets
and extensions by Tariqabjotu, which will undoubtedly be counted as numbers
6, 7,8, etc... next time they want to use this as a bludgeon against this
user.

So not only was it not what FayssalF/Svest claimed it to be, the blocks
weren't unreasonable or even something I'd consider evidence of a problem
user as such.

William I normally have respect for, but he's participated in a piling-on
and harassment of a user at this point, sad to say.

That those he is opposite to aren't being blocked more, after viewing page
histories, is solely due to the fact that there's a guild of people who are
taking turns. It appears RunedChozo's accusation of meatpuppetry and
organized edit warring on the part of the Muslim Guild editors is valid.

But that's my take. You can go with the "admins can do no wrong" philosophy
if you want; I think this user was being deliberately hounded, I think they
were deliberately mischaracterizing the situation make him look worse than
he is, and I think that's wrong.

The fact that it's Future Perfect - the one who slapped on a 72 hour block
when 3rr wasn't even violated - once again who showed up, at Itaqallah's
request, to lock down the page and yell at RunedChozo smacks of an admin
using his powers to do favors for his buddies. I'm not so sure the
description of him as a "tool" is terribly out of line at that point.

Parker


body:
<snip>

> Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been looking
> into
> things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to evidence
> supporting the allegation of block evasion:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
>
> If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me.

They don't to me.

70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on
> RunedChozo, as it references
> the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same
> sorts
> of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and insults
> coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo. Looks
> like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?

Highly unlikely.

JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon user
> who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a
> checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the same
> person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.

That looks like a more reasonable assumption.

Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's
> submitting a checkuser request.
>
> -Luna

If he's vindicated, someone owes him a serious apology and block shortening.

Parker


body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
> > > you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
> > > not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
> > >
> >
> > Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a
> > conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why
> Runed
> > may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
> >
> > I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for
> > Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
> >
> > I think that it is a generally tendentious and unhelpful thing to do.
>
> In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another editor
> on
> an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is
> definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest, especially
> when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim
> admin
> sides with the Muslim editor.
>
> Parker
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

s/Muslim/White/
s/Muslim/Male/
...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> No, no active editing regarding the matter. However, I have seen no
> reliable evidence supporting the conspiracy theories.
>
> Fred
>

There isn't however there are professors supporting it and other than
popular mechanics most of the debunkings don't get published.

--
geni


references:
<2ea0be9d0612121257l4efe6fd9o957f85020a285a73@mail.gmail.com>
	<9g6un21p4k91qcup9fsrrs5qtaju9chto4@4ax.com>
	<353e9f360612121314n59b67d8fk76d2b6a04cc684f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<1adf38660612121322u6ce13dcev33d52cc17cf35246@mail.gmail.com>
	<l0aun25i0fnu7domhsdhjvdnfcdsord8ju@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490612121413m38e64d2dqd5c64869622aabda@mail.gmail.com>
	<56cun2la6lp5qr4j2ijv2123kcjv2tpnuv@4ax.com>

body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:13:13 -0600, "Parker Peters"
> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"A bit of slack" is one thing, the utter disregard for even the remote
> >possibility that admins are in the wrong that I've seen?
>
> Now let me guess: you got blocked and nobody would believe that it was
> all a terrible conspiracy against you?

No, been blocked once for 3rr, freely admitted I messed up.

Statements like yours absolutely demand dismissal.

Statements like yours do too. Or you can quit being dismissive and start
acting in better faith and discussing things reasonably.

  I cannot think of
> a single admin who is dismissive of the possibility that admins are
> ever in the wrong,

Try a mirror.

I have however seen many cases where every admin
> who has ventured an opinion has agreed that a specific admin was in
> the right.  Neither of these indicates a problem.

The frequency of occurrence puts the lie to your handwaving and pointless
statement.

Parker


references:
<2ea0be9d0612121257l4efe6fd9o957f85020a285a73@mail.gmail.com>
	<9g6un21p4k91qcup9fsrrs5qtaju9chto4@4ax.com>
	<353e9f360612121314n59b67d8fk76d2b6a04cc684f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<1adf38660612121322u6ce13dcev33d52cc17cf35246@mail.gmail.com>
	<l0aun25i0fnu7domhsdhjvdnfcdsord8ju@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490612121413m38e64d2dqd5c64869622aabda@mail.gmail.com>
	<eb771dff0612121454w3a69cc75l26cab809dd68abc7@mail.gmail.com>
	<j4dun25sucu5itkl6b0og3f903suoibfhq@4ax.com>

body:
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:54:22 -0500, "Jim Schuler" <jim62sch at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The illogical preaching logic?  Oh, the irony.
>
> Yup.  Since the mods won't do it, I'm putting the troll in the
> killfile.  First time for this list!
>
> Guy (JzG)
>

Yes, because apparently anyone who disagrees with YOU is automatically a
"troll." Would that we could all have such godlike omniscience like you, as
to never be wrong again.

Parker


body:
On 12/12/06, Jim Schuler <jim62sch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been
> looking
> > > into
> > > things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to
> > evidence
> > > supporting the allegation of block evasion:
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
> > >
> > > If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me.
> >
> >
> > They don't to me.
> >
> > 70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on
> > > RunedChozo, as it references
> > > the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same
> > > sorts
> > > of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and
> > insults
> > > coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo.
> Looks
> > > like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?
> >
> >
> > Highly unlikely.
> >
> > JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon
> > user
> > > who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a
> > > checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the
> same
> > > person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.
> >
> >
> > That looks like a more reasonable assumption.
> >
> > Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's
> > > submitting a checkuser request.
> > >
> > > -Luna
> >
> >
> > If he's vindicated, someone owes him a serious apology and block
> > shortening.
> >
> > Parker
>
>
>
> And if he's not?  To whom does he owe an apology?
>
> If he's not, I'd support a month block.

But the chances of that, at my present estimation, are somewhere on the
order of the chances of the sun spontaneously exploding tomorrow.

If THAT happens, I'll owe you 20 bucks, but it won't matter because we'll
all be dead.

Parker


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
Concerned Wikipedian wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious about two things here:
>>
>> 1. Where's the arbcom decision?
>>
> 1. At 5/0, it's a foregone conclusion.

I said /where/, not /what/.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20061212/3764761a/attachment.pgp


body:
On 12/12/06, M Roget <mroget at gmail.com> wrote:
> Frankly, it looks like his "resignation" was a stunt to try to rally support
> against the ArbComm decision to desysop him.

This is a massive failure to assume good faith, and see [[Law of
excluded middle]].

One can be concerned about the issues which Arbcom is voting on
desysopping over, and not want MONGO to leave the project, or agree
that desysopping is the only or even most appropriate solution.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


list: wikitech-l

from_name: David Grogan

subject: [Wikitech-l] how to have extension users create mysql tables

body:
Hi,

I've created an extension that needs two supporting mysql tables.
Where do I instruct users to put the .sql file such that these tables
are created?  Do I have to tell them to run the .sql file through a
mysql client manually?

Apologies if I've missed this somewhere.

Dave


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed_decision#MONGO_is_desysopped

Jimmy, that offer I sent to you via private email is open.

On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I said /where/, not /what/.
>
>


from_name: Steve Block

subject: [WikiEN-l] "Fair use" images of living people

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> What if instead of the photos we have there now, we had a template
> {{fair use wanted}}.

Sounds brilliant.  Jimmy, any chance you could talk this issue up in any
press you do or the foundation release, or would this draw attention to
our fair use images and lead to possible legal problems? Also, Jimmy, do
you have any thoughts on the legality of using caricatures in articles?
  Some people have concerns they may constitute defamation.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.16/582 - Release Date: 11/12/06


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > That many people thinking there's something conspiratorial going on
> > terrifies me, for one, but it is a real issue...
>
> It really is a pity they didn't ask for details, even try to
> categorise it. There's the germ of a really interesting oral history
> project there, come to think of it; wonder if anyone's doing that?
> "Memories of 9/11" won't be in short supply, but contemporary theories
> might...

Like many interesting possible sociological questions, this one is
apparently remaining unanswered.  A followup poll to find out the
details and characterize the "official story distrust" and so on would
be an excellent project, which as far as I know nobody took on...

I'm sure someone out there in academia has studied the sociology of
populace's belief in conspiracy theories, but it's not a topic I've
found or studied personally.

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Marc Riddell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Categories (was: Hello)

body:
Excellent point & strategy! Thanks.

Marc

> From: "The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:11:36 -0500
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories (was: Hello)
>
> The important thing is to campaign for what you want --
> an easy way to list all of the people who have committed suicide, say
>
> rather than for a particular implementation.
>
> On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Steve, for making (painful) sense out of this issue for me. I
>> started school with a typewriter and finished post-grad with pretty much
>> the
>> same. The only computer on campus was the size of my dorm.
>>
>> I'll continue to campaign for changes; although as technochallenged as I
>> am,
>> my arguments will need to remain philosophical.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>> From: Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com>
>>> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:26:57 -0500
>>> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Categories (was: Hello)
>>>
>>> I wrote:
>>>> My own take on the question is that Categories in their current
>>>> form are an imprecise mechanism, and that people should not try
>>>> to use them for precise tasks, or waste too much time arguing
>>>> about particular attempted more-precise usages.
>>>
>>> By which I mean, the argument usually boils down to trying to
>>> decide precisely whether category membership is supposed to
>>> denote an "is-a", "has-a" or "is-related-to" relationship.
>>> But that can't be answered, so the arguments can never really be
>>> resolved, and people have to fall back to using categories not
>>> to implement rigid OO-like inheritable hierarchies, but rather,
>>> looser collections where the only semantic attached to category
>>> membership is "is-kinda-related-to".  Some categories and the
>>> editors who maintain them will reach some kind of loose,
>>> relatively informal consensus that they're categories which
>>> embody a web of loose relationships (e.g. "Topics relating to
>>> Paris"), and some will similarly reach some kind of loose,
>>> relatively informal consensus that they're categories which
>>> embody a tighter taxonomy (e.g. "Counties in California").
>>>
>>> Now, despite what I said about the problem not being solveable
>>> without additional and potentially more-complicated technical
>>> mechanisms which aren't likely to happen soon, it seems to me
>>> that one loose, relatively informal, "soft" solution to the part
>>> of the problem would be to try to reflect a category's semantic
>>> in its name, e.g. "Category:Counties in California" and
>>> "Category:Arrondissements in Paris" and "Category:Topics relating
>>> to Paris", rather than just "Category:California" and
>>> "Category:Paris".  And we're probably doing a lot of that today.
>>> But there are still (and will always be) lots of problems when
>>> categories contain other categories, and we'll always be
>>> wondering whether category membership is or isn't or should or
>>> shouldn't be transitive, and it's these larger-scale questions
>>> which we can't (under the current architecture) ever fully
>>> satisfactorily resolve.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Dan Li

subject: [Wikitech-l] text/x-wiki vs. firefox

body:
On 12/12/06, Dan Jacobson <jidanni at jidanni.org> wrote:
> OK, never mind. I now use WWWOFFLE's
> CensorHeader
> {
>  <http://*/*?*action=raw>Content-Type=text/plain; charset=utf-8
> }

Or you could just tack on &ctype=text/css...

Regards,
  - Dan Li


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] new Google Earth tie-in (!!)

body:
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/11/06, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Absolutely.  But how often are they checking for new data?  Every
> > database dump?  How soon after one does the new data propogate?
>
> They are doing batch updates from dumps. .. I can find out exactly
> what their update schedule looks like.

Well, that answers an OTRS complaint I spotted last night about
vandalism in one of the enGoogled articles! Any idea how often they're
likely to update?

(On the plus side, vandalism like this shouldn't be too much of a
problem - our geotemplated articles are likely to have a smidgen more
competent attention than the average)

> In the meantime, we should do some work making our georeferencing more
> consistent. They capture many of the ways which we geocode, but not
> all of them. As someone who has tried to do stuff with out geodata
> previously, I can sympathize with the challenges Google has faced in
> this project.

Good luck...

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


body:
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters"
> >>> <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
> >>>
> >> It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning
> >> rather than outright censorship.
> >
> >
> > You should try to avoid labelling people.
> >
>
> Sorry. I'll rephrase that:
>
> It's much more credible when arguments from throwaway email accounts are
> defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship.
>

I'm actually of the opinion that Parker Peters, whoever they *were* on WP,
has established an identified pseudonym here and should not be treated now
as a throwaway or anon user.

I still don't much agree with him, but he's not a random throwaway troll
here...

--
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com


body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ehh. If someone's *constantly* leaving and coming back and making all
> > sorts
> > of drama over this sort of thing, I might be more inclined to exlore
> that
> > option. But in terms of an indefinite fits-all-situations policy, I'm
> not
> > too fond of the idea. I figure good contributors are entitled to a
> certain
> > amount of drama and temper tantrum, now and then.
> >
> > Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
> more
> > problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to
> > tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
> >
> > Just my ramblings on the matter. Dissect at will,
> > -Luna
> >
>
> MONGO: I lost count.
> Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this
> user I'm leaving."
> FloNight: at least 2 instances.
>
> I'm sure I could hunt down others, those are just off the top of my head.
>
> Parker

Happens in the real world too, it's just a part of life.  People get
frustrated, they threaten to leave, they calm down and on it goes.  I know
that some people like to think Wikipedia is some parallel universe where the
laws of reality are suspended and a Utopian ideal is supreme, but
Wikipedians are flesh and blood real people whose flesh and blood
emotions penetrate the brane separating Wikiworld from the real world.

In other words, "it's life and life only".

Oh, and one more point: admins are volunteers, what's with the "abdicat[ing]
their responsibilities" bs?

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.

Since when did arbcom set precedent?

Leaving, .. no problem. Using threats of leaving to manipulate and
otherwise spread ill will.. very uncool.

I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits'
simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate
way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring
out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about
resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.


references:
<2ea0be9d0612121257l4efe6fd9o957f85020a285a73@mail.gmail.com>
	<9g6un21p4k91qcup9fsrrs5qtaju9chto4@4ax.com>
	<353e9f360612121314n59b67d8fk76d2b6a04cc684f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<1adf38660612121322u6ce13dcev33d52cc17cf35246@mail.gmail.com>
	<l0aun25i0fnu7domhsdhjvdnfcdsord8ju@4ax.com>
	<46d9b7490612121413m38e64d2dqd5c64869622aabda@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:22:16 -0800, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Well, maybe "entitled" is a poor word choice. But if somebody solves
> more
> > >problems than they cause, in the long run, I'm personally willing to
> > >tolerate breakdowns and depressions.
> >
> > Exactly that.  You serve your dues, you earn a bit of slack.
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
> >
>
> "A bit of slack" is one thing, the utter disregard for even the remote
> possibility that admins are in the wrong that I've seen? Sorry, your logic
> is flawed. Please retake Logic 101.
>
> Parker

The illogical preaching logic?  Oh, the irony.

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


body:
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers
> while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
>
> Since when did arbcom set precedent?
>
> Leaving, .. no problem. Using threats of leaving to manipulate and
> otherwise spread ill will.. very uncool.
>
> I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits'
> simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate
> way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring
> out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about
> resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.

Yes, Wikipedia as the brave new world, automated, automatic, automatons
all.  Please.  (Where's my soma?)

--
> Jim
> http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


from_name: Aerik

subject: [Wikitech-l]Wikitech-l Digest, Vol 41,	Issue 24 (Category Intersections again)

body:
I wrote earlier:
> Okay, well, so that we have some quantified data and can think make a firm
> decision one way or the other about the suitability of a MyISAM table for
> category intersections, I'll take a random sample of edits (of some
> statistically significant size - doesn't take much) and see how many involve
> a category change and report back.

So I took a sample of 50 randomly selected edits (looked at every nth edit on
recentchanges) and looked at the diff for that edit to see how many had category
changes.  In 50 edits, 3 of them had category changes.  This is 6% of edits
changing categories.  The number of categories changed per edit doesn't matter,
as the row in the proposed table is per page, so there is only one update
operation per edit (to the proposed table) regardless of the number of
categories changed in that edit.

In a much less scientific sample, I looked at recentchanges to see how many
edits we're having per hour.  From
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesDatabaseEdits.htm I come up with an average
of 83 per minute, from June, but I'm sure it's gone up -  taking a quick look at
recentchanges, I see about 300 in the past minute.  Even at 300/minute, that's
5/second, and it's unlikely that more than one of those would write to the
fulltext indexed MyISAM categoryintersections table in that one second.

So, I think this is a pretty good solution.  I think, if we're concerned about a
MyISAM table crashing, perhaps it makes send to have the data in it be redundant
(store the categories in the text table as well), so rebuilding it becomes a
more straightforward operation of copying selected rows to the innoDB table.

Thoughts?

Aerik


body:
On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits'
> > simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate
> > way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring
> > out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about
> > resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.
>
> Define 'quits'. I can't, or don't want to. It certainly has no status as a concept.

Be reasonable, someone who says "I quit" and deletes their userpage,
and then returns should qualify as someone whos engaging in overly
dramatic and manipulative behavior. Don't call it 'quitting' if it
bugs you, since it isn't...


body:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page,
> removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus
> arguing with people there.

That appears to be the case.

Further, no unblock request refusal appears removed save one, and that one
appears to be the result of the servers misprocessing an edit conflict;see
his talk page in the "To Rosicrucian" section.

And that one unblock request refusal was made by Tariqabjotu, who's the
admin who blocked him in the first place. No matter if Tariq had good
intentions or not, that's a definite no-no!

As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
> ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of
> administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.

Precisely.

RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
> committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on
> several levels.  He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use
> inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info
> claiming it's unsourced.  There was a two-sided abusive edit war going
> on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been
> warned against that.

But that's unfortunately not how Wikipedia has worked, that I've ever seen.
It's always one side getting swatted and the other side being held
blameless.

It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
> to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and
> collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or
> appropriate.  If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page
> while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool
> down.
>
> Bad day.

Indeed, very bad day. And what makes it worse is the sheer number of
problems I documented a few emails back, where I doublechecked
FayssalF/Svest's claim that RunedChozo had "five blocks in one month" and it
didn't look nearly as bad as he was making it out to be when he was using
the block log as a bludgeon.

There are plenty of conflicts of interest here, and there's plenty of
evidence that it is a collective effort to beat up on one user rather than a
real problem user.

Parker


body:
Given your obvious conflict of interest, I'm not interested in any quibbling
on your part.

"Former member" is just as bad in this case. Or perhaps worse, since it
shows you're trying to hide a conflict of interest.

It is my considered opinion, having looked through the edit histories of the
pages involved and your contributions, that you, Future Perfect, Itaqallah,
and others who have piled on have not behaved in good faith through this.

Slapping a denial into an unblock request, when you are the blocking admin,
is something you should NEVER do. I don't care if you think it's justified,
you just opened up a massive conflict of interest, and that shows that you
were being vindictive.

Parker

On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Take a look at
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo
> ;
> the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over
> possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for
> CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most
> certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original
> forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
> you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
> not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
>
> -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
>
> George Herbert wrote:
> >
> >> As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page,
> >> removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus
> >> arguing with people there.
> >>
> >> As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
> >> ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of
> >> administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
> >>
> >> RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
> >> committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on
> >> several levels.  He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use
> >> inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info
> >> claiming it's unsourced.  There was a two-sided abusive edit war going
> >> on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been
> >> warned against that.
> >>
> >> It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
> >> to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and
> >> collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or
> >> appropriate.  If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page
> >> while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool
> >> down.
> >>
> >> Bad day.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: James Hare

body:
Or people who don't realize the power of addiction.

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:00:17 -0500, "Gregory Maxwell"
> <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Be reasonable, someone who says "I quit" and deletes their userpage,
> >and then returns should qualify as someone whos engaging in overly
> >dramatic and manipulative behavior
>
> Nah.  They qualify as someone who is seriously unhappy.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been looking
> > into
> > things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to
> evidence
> > supporting the allegation of block evasion:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
> >
> > If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me.
>
>
> They don't to me.
>
> 70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on
> > RunedChozo, as it references
> > the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same
> > sorts
> > of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and
> insults
> > coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo. Looks
> > like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?
>
>
> Highly unlikely.
>
> JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon
> user
> > who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a
> > checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the same
> > person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.
>
>
> That looks like a more reasonable assumption.
>
> Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's
> > submitting a checkuser request.
> >
> > -Luna
>
>
> If he's vindicated, someone owes him a serious apology and block
> shortening.
>
> Parker

And if he's not?  To whom does he owe an apology?

--
Jim
http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
It is beginning to dawn on me (perhaps the sun rises later here) that there
is/would be a great difference between categorizing biographical articles v.
non-biographical ones. The biographical would require much less complex
layers. Any thoughts on this?

Marc

> From: <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:17:05 +0000
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hello
>
> Puppy wrote
>
>> It seems to me a good point
>> has been made - if you want all suicides, then having to traverse all
>> subcats is tedious, to say the least.
>
> I have occasionally wanted this feature: flatten out all subcategories of
> something into a list. I hope we see it.
>
> That does not mean that I want [[Category:Mathematics]] to consist of 15000
> pages. How would that help anyone? I have actually done work, on
> [[Category:Set theory]] (where I was thanked) and [[Category:Fluid dynamics]]
> (perhaps unnoticed) on getting useful subcategories; which then can sit inside
> two or more higher-level categories. This all adds to the convenience of the
> user. It is quite a good idea, in many cases, to consider splitting categories
> which have gone 'over the page'.
>
> Charles
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Sam Korn

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
On 12/12/06, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't understand how it would defeat the purpose of subcats. My goal is to
> be able to retrieve lists of persons with like characteristics. Unless a
> person is included in a subcategory, they will not be included in that list.
> A person who dies from lung cancer, also belongs in the larger list of
> persons who died from cancer.

The suggestion is that some kind of tool -- as yet, I believe
unwritten -- could generate a list of all members of a category and
its subcategories.  I imagine this would suit your purpose.

--
Sam


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On 12/12/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> One side conspiracy
> theorists, one side pretty much the official line. If you're on the
> not-hoax side, then it's exceptionally rare for you to quibble with
> the "official story" - or, if you do, you contextualise it as part of
> a historical discussion, "hey, this new document suggests we've had X
> wrong all along" and not as Something Smells Fishy Here, "hey, this
> new document exposes the official coverup of Y". Details don't
> desperately matter; indeed, hoax proponents with greatly differing
> reasons behind their beliefs seem to coexist happily.

Conspiracy theories are a cottage industry--there's always a market for it.
That's why it's disappointing not to see more support from ArbCom for
Principal (4) "Reliable sources".  WP:ATTFAQ finally has something about
"obsolete sources" -- hallaluja.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_regarded_as_unreliable.3F

nobs


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO and the
 ArbComm)

body:
M Roget wrote:
> Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to
> protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to take a
> wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any admin
> who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their responsibilities.
>
I used to be a manager; if I knew a valued employee was under some kind
of overwhelming personal or professional stress, and they said "I quit",
I'd say "go home and chill out, let's talk about it in a few days". Just
as for companies, WP has a significant investment in experienced people,
and it's foolish to throw it away on a whim. As they say in the
military, everybody breaks under torture, and we've been way too
tolerant of sadistic nutcases who will stop at nothing to get their way.

Stan


from_name: Anthony

body:
GNUCash and SQL-Ledger both support multiple currencies.

[rant about Quickbooks removed]

Anthony

On 12/12/06, Brad Patrick <bpatrick at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> WMF keeps its books in Quickbooks.  Quickbooks does not handle multiple
> currencies.  It was suggested to me that Microsoft Money, which does
> handle multiple currencies very well, could be used to track our non-USD
> transactions and create journal entries for our regular books.  I nearly
> threw up thinking about that as a solution.
>
> To those in non-US places, what systems do you use which have
> multi-currency?  Please email me offline if you like.  I am not
> particularly interested in the FLOSS debate in this instance.  I care
> about what absolutely works.
>
> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:24:39 -0500, Rob <gamaliel8 at gmail.com> wrote:

>many in Mongo's
>corner are just as bad if not worse than the 9/11 truth crowd, and so
>it looks more like a troll gang fight than a bunch of trolls attacking
>a bunch of saintly editors.

I don't think either side comes out of these wars smelling of roses.

It is true, though, that Wikipedia is now almost certainly the single
most attractive venue for pushers of lunatic theories, and the amount
of this crap is only going to increase.  Look at the months we spent
arguing on whether Steve Jones could be called a conspiracy theorist.
Sometimes there is no sanity clause...

This is not an "ArbCom is broken" kind of thing, I suspect that ArbCom
have not enjoyed desysopping MONGO any more than he has enjoyed being
the Aunt Sally for every fuckwit in Christendom these last six months,
but *something* is broken, and it's most likely the internal support
and balance mechanism for admins.

I was running for ArbCom, but Cryptic pointed out that I am going down
this path myself - I think "deals poorly with trolls" was his comment
- and he's absolutely right, so I withdrew.  Anyone *can* deal with
trolls, but doing that, and little else, albeit by one's own choice,
for months at a time, and then having it intrude on one's private life
as happened to MONGO - that is not a good place to be.  The MONGO
situation should never have got to this point.  Never.  The only
problem is, the Truthers and other such lowlifes thrive on drama and
the oxygen of publicity.  It is almost impossible to quietly get rid
of them because they won't go quietly, and as soon as our backs are
turned they are back because they need us every bit as much as we
don't need them.  They are malicious and vile, and one cannot blame
anybody who chooses to give them a wide berth.  Having decided to do
so, we need to decide how we are going to help the brave few who
defend the breach.

It seems to me that a fairly small proportion of admins do the lion's
share of the work defending the project against lunatic fringes.  That
work can be utterly destructive to the individual's ability to
maintain perspective.  I wish I had some idea how to fix it.  We are
well set up for dealing with cluelessness and brainless vandalism, but
we are much less sure I think of how to deal with determined,
well-organised and intelligent groups determined to use the project
for their own ends.  And when they are also both malicious and
resourceful, we have a real problem.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Sarah

body:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/12/06, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > MONGO: I lost count.
> > Slimvirgin: at least 3 instances, one of which was "if you don't ban this
> > user I'm leaving."
> > FloNight: at least 2 instances.

I left once for about a week, and I believe FloNight left once too.
Please get your facts straight.


from_name: Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: Completely unreasonable block and behavior by
 admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute

body:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo;
the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over
possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for
CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most
certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original
forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
not even a member of the Muslim Guild.

-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

George Herbert wrote:
>
>> As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page,
>> removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus
>> arguing with people there.
>>
>> As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
>> ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of
>> administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
>>
>> RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
>> committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on
>> several levels.  He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use
>> inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info
>> claiming it's unsourced.  There was a two-sided abusive edit war going
>> on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been
>> warned against that.
>>
>> It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
>> to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and
>> collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or
>> appropriate.  If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page
>> while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool
>> down.
>>
>> Bad day.
>>
>>
>>


body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:38 -0600, "Michael Smith"
<runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:

>Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you
>can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the
>lying.

Redux: "it's all about *me*".

How am I supposed to know that Michael Smith is a Muslim?  And why
should I care?  I am a Christian; both are Faiths of the Book.  I
didn't even notice that JoshuaZ was Jewish (how obtuse does that make
me?).

Now try reading for comprehension: hysterical accusations of "rouge
admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted.  Next time try
posting something much less strident.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?

>Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are
>always right at all costs" NSLE.
>
>Power-mad much?
>
>Parker
>
>On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Seriously now, stop trolling and go back to your playroom.
>>
>> On 13/12/06, Michael Smith <runedchozo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming
>> you
>> > can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing
>> > the
>> > lying.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:42:00 -0600, "Parker Peters"
<onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:

>Your attitude is the same dismissive bullshit that caused me to leave
>Wikipedia

Fantastic!  Hopefully it has had other, similarly positive results.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
I have reviewed Radiant!'s analysis of the findings.  It independently
corroborates much of Durin's analysis posted to the talkpage of /Proposed
Decision today.  I have also posted my own thoughts to the talkpage of
the /Proposed Decision.

Newyorkbrad

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> Interested parties may wish to read this summary of the findings of
> fact:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_statements/Questions_for_Radiant&diff=93930771&oldid=93928459
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Parker Peters

body:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from
> > you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm
> > not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
> >
>
> Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a
> conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why Runed
> may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
>
> I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for
> Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
>
> I think that it is a generally tendentious and unhelpful thing to do.

In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another editor on
an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is
definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest, especially
when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim admin
sides with the Muslim editor.

Parker


body:
And once again, the "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll" attitude
rears its ugly head.

sigh.

Parker

On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:43:02 -0600, "Parker Peters"
> > <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know why this "Parker Peters" is not on mod by now?
> >
>
> It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning
> rather than outright censorship.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:57 PM, M Roget wrote:

> Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to
> protest this or that is automatically desysopped? It's one thing to
> take a
> wikibreak or to leave because of real life time commitments but any
> admin
> who quits in order to make a point has abdicated their
> responsibilities.
> There seems to be a trend of admins announcing their departure only
> to come
> back in a few days after dozens of people have posted supportive
> statements
> on their talk page. Call me cynical but this looks like manipulative
> trolling to me and automatic desysopping would create a
> disincentive. If
> someone really intends to leave they won't care about being
> desysopped -
> they'll even request that it be done but if somone is just
> pretending to
> leave an automatic desysopping will make them think twice.
>
> Michel

I don't like this. First, because I would have been desyopped,
second, because very upsetting things happen in the normal course of
events and having been worked over once, they would under that policy
be worked over twice. The people who get upset are often our very
best. How could you not get upset at some of the nonsense?

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Dec 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, geni wrote:

> Wikipedia has never herd of [[popular publishing]] so I'm not sure
> what you are talking about.

Time, People, New York Times, CBS News, etc.

Fred


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:07:30 -0500, Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com>
wrote:

>And yet you and the other Arbcom members found MONGO calling their
>nonsense "nonsense" uncivil. Um, right. Complete bollocks being pushed
>by a bunch of conspiracy theorists with no reliable sources cannot be
>called "nonsense". Heaven forfend.

Quite.  I'd say a lot of it passed the duck test.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
The more recent edits from the IP, however, come about six hours after
RunedChozo's block. It's been posted to WP:ANI; forgive me for
neglecting to add that at 1:40am on a weeknight...

George Herbert wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- <tariqabjotu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If this sort of evidence is not posted in the ANI discussion, user talk
> page, or in the block message, it's a little hard for other admins to figure
> out that there are other evasion claims outstanding...
>
> Note that the time-of-day of edits by (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14 ) are
> completely outside hours of the day when RunedChozo has typically edited
> before, and predate his being blocked by a day.  A reasonable suspicion
> could be made based on targets and content, but you might want to checkuser
> this first and extend a block for evasion later...
>
>
>


body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/12/06, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Just
>> as for companies, WP has a significant investment in experienced people,
>> and it's foolish to throw it away on a whim.
>>
>
> Who suggested banning people for qutting?
>
Not me - how do you get "banning" out of what I wrote?
>
>> As they say in the
>> military, everybody breaks under torture, and we've been way too
>> tolerant of sadistic nutcases who will stop at nothing to get their way.
>>
>
> We can improve this by reducing our tolerance, but part of that is
> reducing our tolerance for the complete cycle of drama and hate. It's
> harder to be hard line on our trolls when our 'best' are constantly
> operating at the edge and acting like children.
>
True enough. Very much a chicken-and-egg thing. The good part is that
trolls are completely useless, so you're not losing anything by just
getting rid of them.

Stan


subject: [WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

references:
<457E4A5C.1060904@wikia.com>	<5cosn2he24nt57ntjdorgog081p8pjsbph@4ax.com>	<A3D73CA7-306E-4C3A-B200-0DB3E3A10DA2@waterwiki.info>	<mqftn2lcfma5bm1dg7tjjnkg2gmbocjo8h@4ax.com>	<35C63923-9D4B-45B7-86E2-6D8B609F939D@waterwiki.info>	<f80608430612120812h2848f5c6g6f767d4ea6143bea@mail.gmail.com>
	<8448DB0E-94EF-41C4-A955-3E4929BC9872@waterwiki.info>
	<457EFDF2.5030905@KillerChihuahua.com>
	<BFED0585-0D94-43FA-B5BB-5E22A12B5104@waterwiki.info>

body:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0700, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

>The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it.
>The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.

Why?  Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
Seriously. The 9/11 truthers are right up there on the grassy knoll
with the "Elvis was abducted by aliens" crowd.  Like all classic
conspiracy theories it demands that we believe several implausible
hypotheses while simultaneously dismissing the perfectly rational but
prosaic alternatives.

This is not in any way inconsistent with assuming that their delusions
are held in good faith; a person who tells us in all seriousness that
Elvis was abducted by aliens should be told *really nicely* that we're
not having any of it.

Nor does it mean we can't document it.  There is no shortage of
sources.

But it does mean that we should not devote megabytes of server space
to detailing all the ludicrous details of their ludicrous delusions,
and we should not allow the aggressively deluded to impact on the calm
functioning of the project.  But that's precisely what happened here,
and keeps happening.

I am in debate with Ian Tresman on the Talk page of Wolf effect.  He
is a rational person with a minority view, that we can handle.  We do
not seem to be able to handle orchestrated campaigns in support of
lunatic fringe views without it being incredibly destructive to the
community.  Or maybe we are really good at this, so we only notice the
failures, but I don't see that.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Eugene van der Pijll

subject: [WikiEN-l] Hello

body:
Parker Peters schreef:
> No, articles should belong to whichever categories they reasonably fit into.
>
> If an article fits into Mythology, and Greek Mythology, and Pre-Homeric
> Greek Mythology, and Athenian Mythology all at once, then it should be in
> ALL of those categories, because each is a different search.

And, presumably, in [[Category:Legends]], [[Category:Religion]],
[[Category:Traditions]] (the supercat's of Mythology); in
[[Category:Folklore]], [[Category:Culture]], and
[[Category:Anthropology]] (the super-supercat's of Mythology); as well
as in [[Category:Ancient Greece]], [[Category:Ancient Greek culture]],
[[Category:Pre-Homeric culture]] and [[Category:Athenian culture]]; not
forgetting [[Category:Literature]], [[Category:Ancient Greek
literature]], [[Category:Athenian Literature]] and
[[Category:Pre-Homeric literature]].

> Yes, Mythology
> might encompass all of Greek Mythology, but So What? Someone looking for
> various mythological figures might grab Mythology first, and we're well
> served by having them do so and have an easier time migrating to the more
> specific area from there.

[[Category:Mythology]] will have many thousands of articles
([[Category:Mythology by culture]] has 73 subcategories!). I don't
think anyone is well served with such a category.

Eugene


subject:
[WikiEN-l] (offlist) Re: Admins who pretend to quit (was Re: MONGO
	and the ArbComm)

body:
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:

> I don't like this. First, because I would have been desyopped,
> second, because very upsetting things happen in the normal course of
> events and having been worked over once, they would under that policy
> be worked over twice. The people who get upset are often our very
> best. How could you not get upset at some of the nonsense?
>
Well said, Fred.

Sarah


list: wikipedia-l

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Abuse on mo.wiki

body:
I don't think I asked who respects Yann's decision or not. The edits should be reverted, because de decision was to block that Wikipedia. What, if he is a steward does he have a right of decision bigger than me for example? He should have started a discussion because is a delicate subject not all act by himself.

  Danutz

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Poco spazio e tanto spam? Yahoo! Mail ti protegge dallo spam e ti da tanto spazio gratuito per i tuoi file e i messaggi
http://mail.yahoo.it


from_name: M Roget

body:
*Jim Schuler* jim62sch at gmail.com
<wikien-l%40Wikipedia.org?Subject=%5BWikiEN-l%5D%20Admins%20who%20pretend%20to%20quit%20%28was%20Re%3A%20MONGO%20and%20the%0A%09ArbComm%29&In-Reply-To=46d9b7490612121324x44948df2h1aaaa3d5d96b4e28%40mail.gmail.com>
wrote:

>Happens in the real world too, it's just a part of life.  People get
>frustrated, they threaten to leave, they calm down and on it goes.  I know
>that some people like to think Wikipedia is some parallel universe where
the
>laws of reality are suspended and a Utopian ideal is supreme, but
>Wikipedians are flesh and blood real people whose flesh and blood
>emotions penetrate the brane separating Wikiworld from the real world.

In the real world if someone quit their job, emptied out their desk and then
came back after 3 days saying they'd changed their mind it would be up to
the boss to decide whether or not they can come back. If a boss said "sorry,
you resigned and I accepted your resignation" there's not an employment
tribunal in the world that would force the boss to rehire the employee.

Mongo quit, fine, that's his right, but if he changes his mind after 3 days
he should not expect to get his Admin status back. He's losing it anyway
because of ArbComm so the point's moot but if that wasn't the case it should
be up to the community whether he gets his admin status back after giving it
up by quitting.

Frankly, it looks like his "resignation" was a stunt to try to rally support
against the ArbComm decision to desysop him. That is disruptive but its the
sort of disruption that would be curtailed by a "you quit, you're
desysopped" rule.

And again, there's nothing here that would punish someone for taking a
wikibreak as long as they didn't claim that they were quitting when they
really were just taking a break.

Michel