from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-03-05

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Basic section headings... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Handling of sections up to level 6 and beyond... FAILED!
Running test Resolving duplicate section names... FAILED!
Running test Template with sections, __NOTOC__... FAILED!
Running test Link inside a section heading... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Parser hook: static parser hook inside a comment... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 266 of 288 tests (92.36%) FAILED!


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
Oh, I didnt' consider the editing of my page attacking. It was the "if
you put it back to the way you want you're going to get into trouble"
that i considered attacking.

On 3/4/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder when the action of editing a wikipage became considered attacking
>
> On 3/5/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of silly...
> >
> > I got attacked for
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&oldid=38072376
> >
> > And freakofnature's page looks like
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture
> >
> > ??
> >
> > ObSheesh: Sheesh.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


list: textbook-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject: [Textbook-l] Who would be the right contact?

body:
Hi Robert,

thank you for the information. I'll contact these people as soon as I am
back in Italy.

Of course I understand that there are no real project leaders, but
normally there is a group of people that knows more about a certain
project and they can more easily create the right contacts than for
example I could do - or they can help directly by telling what is needed
and how things are supposed to be done.

I will also have a look at the German wikiversity as soon as possible.

Thanks again!

Best, Sabine

>>
>>
>>I hope you understand that there is no "project leader" like Jimbo
>>specifically for Wikiversity.  There are a few people I could strongly
>>suggest that are leading organizers for Wikiversity.
>>
>>Most notably:
>>
>>
.....

___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > Speaking of silly...
> >
> > I got attacked for
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&oldid=38072376
> >
>
> "This user is a non-member of the Retarded Fascism Unit."
>
> > And freakofnature's page looks like
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture
> >
>
> "This administrator knows how to spell his fucking words."
> "This user is a Judeofascist."
> "This user is an anarcho-capitalist, which some feel is unwiki-like, but
> he does not give a fuck about them."
> &c..
>
> > ??
> >
> > ObSheesh: Sheesh.
> >
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Hocevar/burninhell
>
> PLEASE, when you edit Wikipedia, leave your POVs at the door...
>
I think the idea is that articles are supposed to be neutral. It's
silly to expect Wikipedians not to have a point of view.

I think it's appropriate to Wikipedians to express their opinions
about the governance and rules of Wikipedia on their userpage.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
On 3/5/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> Except for cases where we're replacing "fair use" images, why should we
> remove perfectly good photographs? Um, ok, and also for cases where a
> photograph is likely to offend... hrm, some religions believe that any
> depiction of /anything/ is idolatory, so maybe we should just remove all
> images "so as not to offend"?
>
> Alright, now I'm thoroughly confused. Why do you want to replace
> photographs with drawings? Should we also replace all our current sound
> files with vocal interpretations of them?

I was talking about "fair use" images.


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
On 3/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been trying to get my head around why we even have a rule about
> what an acceptable source is. It seems to me that this is how things
> should work.
>
> A WP article must only exist if its subject has been referred to in a
> reputable source (notability, mostly). This source should, but need
> not, be cited.
> Information in WP articles must be verifiable. This means either:
> - the information is directly verifiable (eg, you could figure out
> who to ring up to find whether a train timetable was accurate)
> - or, the information has been published by a secondary source. The
> source must be either reputable or cited. Ie, if the information has
> been published in a peer reviewed journal, then not having cited that
> source is not a major problem (someone else can find it later).
> Similarly, quoting a weblog is ok, as long as the source is given,
> since readers can evaluate its reputability for themselves
>
> Is this a reasonable ruleset?

Absolutely not.  Weblogs are not reliable sources for anything except a
discussion of  the weblog itself, *unless* they are the weblog of a
well-known an reputable individual.  And we only use reputable sources;
otherwise we will be faced with people inserting all sorts of ranting and
nonsense that would fail our NOR requirements, not to mention our Reliable
sources requirements.

We are Wikipedia editors, and that implies some care for ensuring the
accuracy and reliability of article contents.

Jay.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: M. D. C.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
Do these meet your definition of abuse as well, or are you just singling me
out for trollish purposes?

* 22:04, February 21, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Letsvandalizerandomarticles
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 02:51, February 20, 2006, HappyCamper (Talk) blocked Lets_have_sex
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (inappropriate username)
* 10:22, February 16, 2006, Doc glasgow (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_wikipedia_with_FireFox_pe (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(just uin case)
* 22:02, February 13, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked OMG_Lets_rape_Shanel
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (unb)
* 22:31, February 11, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked I_now_have_seven_mullets
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (vandalism)
* 05:51, February 11, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets take turns raping
Jennifer Lopez (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 23:13, February 10, 2006, Anonymous editor (Talk) blocked I love Shanel,
marry me and lets have ch (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 23:13, February 10, 2006, Titoxd (Talk) blocked
I_love_Shanel,_marry_me_and_lets_have_ch (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
({{usernameblock}})
* 23:13, February 10, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked I love Shanel, marry me and
lets have ch (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:43, February 9, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets rape and kill Shanel!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 20:46, February 7, 2006, Anonymous editor (Talk) blocked
Lets_fuck_baby_cows (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user)
* 20:46, February 7, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked Lets_fuck_baby_cows
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (unb)
* 20:45, February 7, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets fuck baby cows
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 20:45, February 7, 2006, Anonymous editor (Talk) blocked
Lets_have_a_rape_random_women_party! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
* 20:44, February 7, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
Lets_have_a_rape_random_women_party! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (unb)
* 20:44, February 7, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets have a rape random
women party! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 20:30, February 7, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
LETS_DESTROY_WIKIPEDIA_WITH_VANDALISM! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (umb)
* 21:42, February 6, 2006, Sango123 (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_FireFox_and_Shanel_userpa (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
* 21:42, February 6, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_FireFox_and_Shanel_userpa (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
* 21:42, February 6, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise FireFox and
Shanel userpa (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:35, February 6, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets rape Janet! (contribs)
(infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:30, February 6, 2006, Sceptre (Talk) blocked Letsvandaliserandompages
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user)
* 23:52, February 4, 2006, Titoxd (Talk) blocked
Lets_take_turns_raping_Shanel_mom! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
({{usernameblock}})
* 23:52, February 4, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets take turns raping
Shanel mom! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 19:19, February 4, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise wikipedia
with FireFox pe (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 19:17, February 4, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise wikipedia
today! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 19:16, February 4, 2006, Doc glasgow (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_wikipedia_today! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
* 19:16, February 4, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_wikipedia_today! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 19:16, February 4, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_wikipedia_today! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 01:53, February 3, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Letsblockwillyonwheels
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 23:44, February 2, 2006, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked
Lets_add_penises_to_the_FA! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
* 23:44, February 2, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise Shanel
userpage with peni (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 23:42, February 2, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise the FA with
penises! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 23:41, February 2, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Lets_add_more_penises_to_the_FA! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 23:38, February 2, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets add penises to the FA!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:26, February 2, 2006, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise
the Adriaen Cornelissen v (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
({{UsernameBlock}})
* 00:23, February 2, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise the Adriaen
Cornelissen v (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 20:56, January 31, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_todays_featured_article! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (no)
* 20:53, January 31, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise todays
featured article! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 20:50, January 31, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets linkspam and vandalise
wikipedia! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 20:50, January 31, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Lets_linkspam_and_vandalise_wikipedia! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (no)
* 01:47, January 31, 2006, Titoxd (Talk) blocked Lets_fuck_random_animals
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{usernameblock}})
* 01:46, January 31, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets fuck random animals
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 06:58, January 29, 2006, Homeontherange (Talk) blocked
Lets_murder_baby_animals (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (offensive user
name)
* 06:55, January 29, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets murder baby animals
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{UsernameBlock}})
* 03:37, January 29, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets add random copyvios 2!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 01:16, January 29, 2006, Flcelloguy (Talk) blocked
Lets_add_random_copyvios! (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Inappropriate
username)
* 22:10, January 27, 2006, Karada (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_random_articles (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username...)
* 22:10, January 27, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_random_articles (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (no, let's
not)
* 22:10, January 27, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_random_articles (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (usn)
* 22:10, January 27, 2006, Doc glasgow (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_random_articles (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (wo)
* 22:10, January 27, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise random
articles (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:49, January 27, 2006, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked
Lets_have_sex_with_baby_ducks (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
* 23:00, January 25, 2006, Pgk (Talk) blocked
I_love_you_Shanel,_lets_have_sex (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
({{usernameblock}})
* 02:55, January 25, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise user pages.
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:22, January 19, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Lets_rape_Shanel_and_JoanneB (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 21:22, January 19, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets rape Shanel and JoanneB
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:16, January 19, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets rape Shanel (contribs)
(infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:15, January 19, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets add copyvios (contribs)
(infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:14, January 19, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked Lets_add_copyvios
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 04:51, January 14, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets fuck and rape admins
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 04:49, January 14, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets fuck baby amarillos
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 04:48, January 14, 2006, Bunchofgrapes (Talk) blocked Lets fuck baby
cattle (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (offensive user name)
* 04:48, January 14, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets fuck baby cattle
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:05, January 13, 2006, Titoxd (Talk) blocked Lets_rape_admins.
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{usernameblock}})
* 23:59, January 12, 2006, Zscout370 (Talk) blocked Lets_rape_admins.
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{usernameblock}})
* 12:34, January 3, 2006, Longhair (Talk) blocked Lets_Create_Hoaxes!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Username block)
* 12:34, January 3, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets Create Hoaxes!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 14:59, December 28, 2005, Theresa knott (Talk) blocked
Danielle's_has_God-fearing_CROS!_Lets_dr (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(WoW)
* 14:58, December 28, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Danielle's has God-fearing
CROS! Lets dr (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 01:15, December 1, 2005, Karmafist (Talk) blocked Lets Go Yankees
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (per user request)
* 18:17, November 30, 2005, Dmcdevit (Talk) blocked Lets_Go_Yankees
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (abusive sockpuppet of EdieSegoura, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kim_Bruning&curid=506365&diff=29678048&oldid=29649994)
* 01:15, November 16, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise the George
W. Bush page f (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 01:15, November 16, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise the George
W. Bush page f (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 01:14, November 16, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise for no
reason (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 01:14, November 16, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise for no
reason (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 22:25, November 11, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked LittleTSmall (contribs)
(infinite) (Unblock) (sockpuppet used abusively)
* 22:05, November 6, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets fuck Titoxd's mom
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 22:02, November 6, 2005, Titoxd (Talk) blocked Lets_vandalise_user_pages
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Mexican Gs sockpuppet)
* 22:02, November 6, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise user pages
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 22:00, November 6, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise Aranda56 user
page (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 22:18, November 5, 2005, Voice of All (Talk) blocked Lets play Attack
Wikipedia Violently (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (vandal account)
* 22:17, November 5, 2005, Acetic Acid (Talk) blocked
Lets_play_Attack_Wikipedia_Violently (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user)
* 22:17, November 5, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets play Attack Wikipedia
Violently (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 03:40, November 4, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets Vandalise User Pages
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:55, November 3, 2005, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked
Lets_all_vandalise_Wikipedia_together (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (DIE)
* 00:55, November 3, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets all vandalise Wikipedia
together (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:48, November 3, 2005, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_WIkipedia_again_:)_on_Whe (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(DIE)
* 00:47, November 3, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise WIkipedia
again :) on Whe (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:46, November 3, 2005, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_WIkipedia_again_:) (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Fuck off
and die)
* 00:45, November 3, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Lets vandalise WIkipedia
again :) (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 00:41, November 3, 2005, Hall Monitor (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_WIkipedia_:) (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (self
explanitory)
* 00:39, November 3, 2005, DragonflySixtyseven (Talk) blocked
Lets_vandalise_WIkipedia_:) (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Fuck off)
* 06:11, November 1, 2005, Brian0918 (Talk) blocked
LETS_VANDALISE_AGAIN_JAJAJAJJAJA (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (jaja)
* 06:09, November 1, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked LETS VANDALISE AGAIN
JAJAJAJJAJA (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 06:04, November 1, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked LETS VANDALISE JAJAJAJJAJA
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 02:48, August 27, 2005, Bratsche (Talk) blocked Lets_Destroy_Christianity!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (inappropriate username; please see WP:NPA)
* 03:18, July 12, 2005, Antandrus (Talk) blocked Lets Go To The Bar
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (vandal account)
* 03:29, March 5, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's Get High And Edit
Wikipedia (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (please contact an administrator
for verification purposes, as described on this page)
* 08:53, March 2, 2006, Freakofnurture (Talk) blocked
Let's_Get_High_And_Edit_Wikipedia (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(stoner...)
* 21:19, February 4, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's have sex in the city
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{UsernameBlock}})
* 21:19, February 4, 2006, Sceptre (Talk) blocked Let's_have_sex_in_the_city
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user)
* 21:19, February 4, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked Let's_have_sex_in_the_city
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (username)
* 19:09, February 4, 2006, Francs2000 (Talk) blocked
Shanel,_let's_marry_and_have_children (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(user...)
* 19:06, February 4, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Shanel, let's marry and have
children (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 19:06, February 4, 2006, Shanel (Talk) blocked
Shanel,_let's_marry_and_have_children (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (no)
* 19:06, February 4, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
Shanel,_let's_marry_and_have_children (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(username)
* 18:19, January 28, 2006, FireFox (Talk) blocked
Let's_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_t (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(username)
* 21:37, January 20, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's fuck and rape Shanel
and JoanneB (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 21:30, January 20, 2006, Dbiv (Talk) blocked
Let's_play_the_fuck_the_female_admins_ga (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock)
(user...)
* 21:30, January 20, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's play the fuck the
female admins ga (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 02:28, January 20, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's all just forget our
differences an (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 03:56, January 16, 2006, Zscout370 (Talk) blocked Let's_worship_Satan
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{usernameblock}})
* 03:47, January 16, 2006, Rdsmith4 (Talk) blocked Let's_worship_Satan
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) ({{UsernameBlock}})
* 04:53, January 14, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's have gay sex
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 22:20, January 5, 2006, Curps (Talk) blocked Wheeeeeeeee!!! Let's all
vandalise Wikip (contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (user...)
* 04:11, December 12, 2005, Pathoschild (Talk) blocked Let's_Celebrate!
(contribs) (infinite) (Unblock) (Communist vandal)
* 03:54, December 12, 2005, Curps (Talk) blocked Let's Celebrate! (contribs)
(infinite) (Unblock) (user...)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
On 3/5/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
>
> jayjg wrote:
>
> >Not only would Jonathan's idea not have helped in this case, but the fact
> >that Jonathan was blocked several times for 3RR violations, then tried to
> >re-write 3RR so he wouldn't be blocked in the future, and now is trying
> to
> >get Wikipedia adjusted somehow so that future 3RR violations will be
> >extremely difficult to track, is not "poisoining the discussion", but
> rather
> >entirely relevant.
> >
> >Jay.
> >
> Jayjg, all you have done since I met you is to accuse me also. Please,
> do me the diginity of an actual argument with facts. If you want to
> point out how terrible of a person that I am, take the honorable time to
> do a proper anecdotal presentation.

I'm not pointing out "how terrible a person" you are, I'm pointing out that
you decided to adjust the 3RR policy after you kept getting blocked for it,
and admitted as much on the Talk: page of the policy in question: [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AThree-revert_rule&diff=40574178&oldid=40548470
]

I was blocked. I believe I was blocked unfairly. However, I read the 3RR
> page and other pages that asured me that the blocks are not punitive. As
> you see by this Jayjg reply, such replies do not purely reflect a "not
> punitive" attitude.
>
> Blocks are a preventative measure only. They shouldn't be used to
> discredit someone. It's to easy for any admin to block a user. The ease
> should not be taken advantage of to reflect on the personality.
> Especially, when blocks are given out blindly just to stop an edit war.
> It by no means has any justification as to actually who caused the edit
> war.

Given that you were blocked more than once violating 3RR on the same
article, continued to insist that your reverts were not reverts, then tried
to change the policy to stop yourself from getting blocked in the future,
and even now continue to insist that it was someone else who "caused the
edit war", it's quite obvious that the blocks were needed to stop further
3RR violations, and were in no way "punitive".

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
On 3/4/06, Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> As an aside, Dzonatas has been agitating for watering down the [[WP:3RR]]
> policy lately, so perhaps that will shed some light on this latest proposal.
>
> k

I guess this is the best argument in favour of Jonathan's idea so far.
If Jonathan had been able to post anonymously you wouldn't have been
able to try and poison the discussion by bringing up his character.
Same thing applies to Wikipedia proper - contributions should be
evaluated by what they are, not by who wrote them.

--
mvh Bj?rn


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Who policies images on Commons? (speaking of fair
 use...)

body:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
> On 3/3/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>
>> Can we just implement single sign in and start to move towards this?
>>
>
> If the image has been deleted by consensus from English Wikipedia,
> maybe getting a developer to put it into the bad images file will stop
> the commons image working (depends how the thing is implemented, and
> I'm not about to dive into a load of ugly PHP code right now so I'll
> leave that up to others).
>
Why so complicated? Just block it with a local image, like a red X or
similar. However, in most cases it's probably smarter just to list it on
the Commons deletion pages like Alphax suggested elsewhere in this
thread. When in doubt, I'd say http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:DEL
is nearly always an appropriate venue. Just tagging and hoping it will
disappear like on en does not work on Commons at the moment, I'm afraid.

grm_wnr


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
On 3/4/06, Jonathan <dzonatas at dzonux.net> wrote:
> Consider that the open content is pretty liberal, are we just peacefully
> editing or peacefully tinkering? That same article has this to say about
> it: "Media can also lure us into thinking we are creating by design when
> in fact we are just tinkering. Consider the difficulty of transforming
> clay-a perfectly malleable and responsive substance into anything
> aesthetically satisfying. Perfect "debugability," or malleability, does
> not make up for lack of an internal image and shaping skills.
> Unfortunately, computers lend themselves to such "clay pushing"; they
> tempt users to try to debug constructions into existence by trial and
> error."

This is a nice analogy. I'm not sure what it has to do with this
issue, but I like it anyway :)

>
> I don't see how anonymity can actually ruin distinguished efforts,
> peaceful editing, or lack of teamwork if the anonymity is not to
> completely keep people anonymous. One can always sign there user name to
> an entry and reveal who they are. Given there are options to reveal who
> made the change, it's not kept a secret. Just the identity of who made
> the change is not obvious to the casual reader, which includes editors
> that haven't edited the article for a day.

It seems to me like going into a functioning business and telling
everyone to don disguises and continue working.

IMHO, this whole idea is a bit misguided by some ideal that every edit
should be considered independently of who made it. Which would imply
that reputations and past history are no indicators of future
performance. Which is demonstrably false...

It's not like we run around reverting edits by problem editors without
reading them. But if a trusted editor, and a known vandal each made
the same edit - say, changing the population of a city without citing
a source - then we should treat the two cases very differently.
Treating them the same is denying ourselves valuable information.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
On 3/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of silly...
>
> I got attacked for
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&oldid=38072376
>
> And freakofnature's page looks like
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture

Well at least he's not going around deleting userboxes...

(trying to find a bright side...)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] The new verifiability policy

body:
I've been trying to get my head around why we even have a rule about
what an acceptable source is. It seems to me that this is how things
should work.

A WP article must only exist if its subject has been referred to in a
reputable source (notability, mostly). This source should, but need
not, be cited.
Information in WP articles must be verifiable. This means either:
 - the information is directly verifiable (eg, you could figure out
who to ring up to find whether a train timetable was accurate)
 - or, the information has been published by a secondary source. The
source must be either reputable or cited. Ie, if the information has
been published in a peer reviewed journal, then not having cited that
source is not a major problem (someone else can find it later).
Similarly, quoting a weblog is ok, as long as the source is given,
since readers can evaluate its reputability for themselves

Is this a reasonable ruleset? At the moment we seem to have nonsense
rules flying around like every piece of information added must be
cited to a reputable source, which is neither common practice, nor
practical, nor desirable.

If this ruleset is ok, then developing guidelines flows naturally. If
you think information breaks one of the rules, you can remove it. If
you think it has never been published anywhere reputable (and a
disreputable source is not provided), then remove it to the talk page.

Note that I'm setting the bar quite low here - obviously it is
desirable that we cite sources. But we need to be strict about exactly
what should never be in Wikipedia.

Steve

On 3/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/4/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> > I wrote:
> > > Those interested in verifiability, and in particular whether
> > > "insufficiently verified" information can be rightfully removed,
> > > might be interested in a controversy bubbling over at the
> > > [[Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] page.  That page contains information
> > > critical of Merkey which was derived from the [[Linux Kernel
> > > Mailing List]]...
> >
> > Never mind; the issue is a bit more subtle than I appreciated at
> > first.  It's not that unflattering things were said about Merkey
> > on the mailing list.  It's that Merkey *did* unflattering things
> > on the mailing list, things that have been amply documented
> > elsewhere.  (I remember reading about them at the time.)
>
> See [[Wikipedia:Verifiability/Proposed revision]] for one that boils
> things down.
>
> I think it's a good idea for the question of "what's an acceptable
> source" to be distinct to the rule of verifiability. The latter is
> central to Wikipedia; the former is a much more contentious and fuzzy
> issue.
>
> People need to understand that primary sources are always acceptable.
> E.g. if you're referring to a mailing list archive to discuss the
> mailing list archive, or (for example) the text of someone's post to a
> mailing list, that's totally fine and what historians and journalists
> of computer history do all the time.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
On 3/5/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder when the action of editing a wikipage became considered attacking

No, he got attacked good and proper, see the list archives for details
(search on "retarded" and "fascism" perhaps...)

Steve


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking for inappropriate usernames

body:
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> On the talk page for Wikipedia:Username, there was a straw poll on
> whether sysops should be able to make snap decisions when policy is
> clearly breached. It has achieved anything but consensus (roughly 55%
> in favour).
>
> So what is going on? Why do we keep seeing messages on this list about
> people being blocked without warning for having mildly provocative
> usernames?
>
>
You are addressing two issues simultaneously which I think risks confusing
the discussion. I'll try to break them apart here.

First, whether admins should make judgments when it seems that a username
clearly violates policy. This is going to happen regardless of the result of
any vote. The next time I see someone create the username "Linuxbeak ON
WHEELS! ! !", "Jimbo Whales Is Communism", etc, I am going to indef block,
not sit around waiting for dicussion. The same goes with "GEORGE BUSH IS A
WHORE" and so on.
Most username blocks I've seen are of this variety: new accounts with
blantantly inappropriate or vandalistic usernames where discussion is
obviously a waste of time. It's very easy to get skewed results when you use
loaded terminology like "snap judgment" to describe cases like these. But
the results you get aren't going to change what the admins on the front
lines are doing to protect against vandals.

Second, there is the question of what constitutes an inappropriate
username.  I don't see any need to use the mailing list to set up binding
precendent in this matter. There is no way to make a comprehensive
definition of "inappropriate" and each case should be dealt with
individually.

Ryan


list: commons-l

from_name: Jean-Christophe Chazalette

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: Copyright and trademark: notice on the Commons

body:
FYI, the non confidential part of the message I've just sent on juriwiki-l.
Cheers,
villy ~~ JC

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean-Christophe Chazalette <aurevilly at gmail.com>
Date: 5 mars 2006 07:44
Subject: Copyright and trademark: notice on the Commons
To: juriwiki-l at wikimedia.org

I've writtent a short notice on Commons Village Pump at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Trademark_and_copyright
 . To try to stop the permament fight on the RfD page where people are
mixing up copyright and trademark issues. (...)

JC  ~~ villy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060305/b26b2521/attachment.htm


body:
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Indefinitely block an IP address because the user thought "Linuxbeak
> ON WHEELS!!!" would be a funny username? That seems a trifle over the
> top, no?

It's not over the top, because it's not a funny username and 100% of the
time such a username is created, it's a sleeper account for Willy on Wheels.
Given the number of sleeper accounts he has created in the past, is is just
not feasible to investigate each one individually.

> Most username blocks I've seen are of this variety: new accounts with
> > blantantly inappropriate or vandalistic usernames where discussion is
> > obviously a waste of time. It's very easy to get skewed results when you
> use
>
> It depends what you're discussing. Renaming "Jimbo Wales Is Communism"
> to "Newuser499" or even "JWIC" seems fair and reasonable. Blocking the
> user's IP for the next millennium doesn't.

Well, nobody is blocking the IP except the autoblocker. If you think the
autoblocker is a problem, then it would probably be more productive to take
that up with the devs. The point is that no one uses "is Communism" in their
username unless they are the Communism vandal, who is banned from the
English Wikipedia. Admins have been blocking these usernames on sight for
quite some time and we've never heard a peep about it out of anyone, because
the vandals just create more socks rather than provide the mailing list with
baseless complains. They are vandals, after all.

> As I have no experience fighting vandals who register new accounts,
> I'm prepared to believe that the vast majority of these problematic
> usernames really are nasty vandals. But just theoretically it seems
> unnecessarily heavy handed.

I can see how it looks that way. I can't think of anything to say except
that it really isn't, and that your appraisal of the situation might change
when you have become more familiar.

No, there's not much problem there - there are good examples on the
> policy. What I'm concerned about is that the policy says that the
> treatment for such cases is renaming the user - not blocking. And
> actual practice is apparently completely different.
>

Are you concerned that the behavior is inappropriate, or do you think the
policy should reflect what people actually do? Put another way, which do you
think should be changed: the behavior, or the policy?

Ryan


from_name: charles matthews

subject: [WikiEN-l] Sources

body:
"Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote

> The reliability of the source is relatively less important. The only
> real problem occurs when the "source" is, in fact, another entity
> like Wikipedia--one in which the identity and credentials of the
> contributor are not easy to assess.

Or an average nineteenth century historian.

The 'line of questioning' that just emphasises sources is always going to be
rather limited.  One can easily write an article that is accurately sourced
and fails NPOV; or may have to write an article that uses biased sources and
yet attempts NPOV.  It may actually be harder in the former case to bring an
article in conformity with NPOV.

But I think 'reliability of sources' will be an ongoing issue.  Particularly
as blogs develop.

Charles


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] School IP blocked

body:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 16:29:27 -0600, you wrote:

>See http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550 I think that's quite
>relevant to the situation

Indeed. But in the mean time I believe some people have been known to
work constructively with the admins on site to work around these
problems.  I am not ready to start playing these games yet, so posted
it here.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Jonathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
jayjg wrote:

>I'm not pointing out "how terrible a person" you are, I'm pointing out that
>you decided to adjust the 3RR policy after you kept getting blocked for it,
>and admitted as much on the Talk: page of the policy in question: [
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AThree-revert_rule&diff=40574178&oldid=40548470
>]
>
>
>
Perhaps, you really don't realize how your words look like from this
side. It appears you really do not intend to try to understand this
situation. Your words look like you accuse me.

I just wrote a long reply and erased it. Why? Because it wasn't about
how well I could defend myself against you, which I tried. The point is
that I should not even have to be in this position to defend myself. I
didn't come to Wikipedia to get randomly stung by a block out of nowhere
and then ridiculed from there on. Do you understand this? Perhaps you
just really don't know what its like for someone that is newer to
Wikipedia then you are. I been around for a year on Wikipedia, so I
don't claim to be that new. However, a fresh look a these documents
should mean a lot, but with the impression you gave me you don't seem to
care.

The fact that I did get block makes me a perfect person to understand
the situation of events of the block. Someone that has never been
blocked before does not actually know when they will get blocked. Who is
to really say if an edit is an improvement or a 3RR type revert? My
experience shows that an admin that blocks does it more by blind
judgment. Given the best possible assumption of good-faith -- blind
judgment -- there is always room to consider the blocks as misapplied. I
was aggravated by the blocks, but I did not go file a RfC or other case
to destroy the admin that blocked me.

Did you personally intervene in these situations? Do you personally
intervene in any 3RR report? Those are all excellent candidates where
people actually need someone else to step in and help the editors work
together. Do you want the image of Wikipedia to be -- "WE DON'T HELP --
WE JUST BLOCK YOU FOR TRYING -- AND, WE MOCK YOU AFTER YOUR FIRST BLOCK"????

Any 3RR report should have an admin intervene before there is a block.
If there is clearly no vandalism and the editors persistently edit
war... protect the page. Look at the history of the 3RR, that is how it
started. Now, the block is taken as the first step. It was the wrong
step -- go back to a preference of intervention over the trigger-happy
block.  People want to leave Wikipedia because of attitudes like yours
that accuse them of things. Oh my god, they are just trying to edit.
It's open content. And, they get blindsided. Harsh. These few admins
demonstrate good adminship for the rest when they don't even try to
intervene -- they just block. People want to leave Wikipedia because
these blocks say -- "we don't have time to help you -- go away."

Anyways, what did I admit to? That WMC blocked me. That another admin
gave me advice, which I inserted verbatim into the 3RR page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree-revert_rule&diff=39100705&oldid=38327664

And, later you reverted it with absolutely no attempt to try to improve
it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule&diff=next&oldid=40335924

>Given that you were blocked more than once violating 3RR on the same
>article,
>
I was blocked from the same article by the same person who reported me
twice. Given that it was not on different articles by different
individudals -- that says something. Also, I've edited articles often up
until the first block, which was about more than 3/4 of a year without
problems of a block. There were controversies, but these controversies
got solved on our own. Somehow, the one article I did get blocked on
carries a different attitude for what a revert is about. Perhaps, on the
other articles, we sincerely tried to improve each others edits and we
made lots of active edits throughout the day. Of course, we did not
always agree, but little by little we found where we did agree. The one
article I did get blocked on provided no room for agreement -- it was
only one way or the highway.

>continued to insist that your reverts were not reverts,
>
Here is where you tried to "clarify" that reverts were not about being
"identical":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARevert&diff=40616195&oldid=39971333
That was after the events of where I was blocked. It may have helped if
that was in there before. It's pretty slimy to say "it's perfectly
clear" after the fact. Obviously, what everybody thinks what constitutes
a "revert" is not the same across the board. It is not about me saying
that my reverts are not those kind of reverts, but it is about me saying
that my reverts or edits should not have counted as 3RR-type reverts.
Further, if they did, it is about me saying "where is the admin
intervention to help us understand that we are in a edit-war and help us
work together."

Two active or aggressive editors could look like they are in a
revert-war, but that could be entirely not the case at all. The 3RR page
doesn't care what intentions two editors have or of their style to edit
the pages. That is a problem with the 3RR page -- not the editors.

>then tried
>to change the policy to stop yourself from getting blocked in the future,
>
>
If I really wanted to be that stupid, I could submit a viral patch to
Mediawiki to enable a backdoor to any block. Even yet, I still know
other technological ways to get around a block right now with no patch.
I'm not that stupid about the technology in use. I just don't take
advantage of such bugs -- or features.

I've showed a professor at a college how I installed a simple program
that totally took over Windows with all it's security features up. I
don't go around and exploit that fact. These are things developers keep
sacred, and you just have to trust us.

You have badly mistaken my intentions. I only wanted to help the
situation by my experience -- sort of "debug" the situation. You believe
it needs no help. You forget that it is open content, which implores for
help.

>and even now continue to insist that it was someone else who "caused the
>edit war", it's quite obvious that the blocks were needed to stop further
>3RR violations,
>
You did not even try to intervene. If there was no active vandalism,
there is no need to block. I run my own mediawiki and know that I never
had to block spam to stop it. I just had to get clever on how to detect
it and prevent it. Some of it was by a technological change, and some of
it was by methods that you also have access to change. I know for a fact
that blocks are not needed.

As for who caused the edit-war, go look at the quality of edits. Go see
who tried to incorporate the other editors' versions. Then, tell me who
made identical reverts each and every time with absolutely no attempt to
improve the other's edits. Then, tell me who got reported and blocked.
And, you think this is right that I got blocked even though I did make
regular edits like everybody else to try to improve the article? And,
you think it is right that every edit of mine was "undone," but I got
blamed that I "undid" the other editors contribution even though I
incorporated changes? Hello!

Obviously, the description of what to do when such a situation happens
was not clear.

>and were in no way "punitive".
>
However, you posted a reply here like you tracked me down and pointed
out my history of being blocked. What you have done is certainly not a
"preventative" action. What you and a few others have done to me is to
mistreat me. You treated me like I am stupid and a public threat to
damage Wikipedia, and such actions to notify others about me by your
opinion is punitive if not libel.

I don't look for pity because I know it is honorable not to insinuate. I
simply want to be treated with dignity. If I am wrong, let it be
humility. Unfortunately, there has been a lack dignity and humility.

Jonathan


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Stupid bomb redux

body:
Yeah. Wot he said.

Thanks for making me waste some more time on Uncyclopedia, David.

There's some amazingly funny stuff there, but somehow a lot of it seems to
have been written by unsmiling blind mullets.

Pete, Marslike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown
> Sent: Sunday, 5 March 2006 08:23
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Stupid bomb redux
>
> *Snicker*.
>
> -Matt
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Bacchante Maenad

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
>You aren't trying to imply that these silly widgets make people look
>silly, are you?  Golly, gosh.

You aren't try to put (silly) words in my (silly) mouth, are you?  You must
be trying to be silly.

>Registering an account is incredibly easy.  What's to stop you
>registering a new one, with a different username?

I do appreciate that you are trying to re-welcome a potential wikipedian
with loaded questions and rhetorical questions, and that you're telling me
that I need to be a better person.


body:
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I can see how it looks that way. I can't think of anything to say except
> > that it really isn't, and that your appraisal of the situation might
> change
> > when you have become more familiar.
>
> Some background text in the policy perhaps?

Really, I don't think there is any need for policy justification of dealing
with vandals. People have been dealing with them in this way for a long time
and there has never been a problem with it. I have to suggest that you
consider whether the apparent need for policy justification of blocking
inappropriate usernames is a solution to a problem that actually exists, or
whether it is its own problem. The perjorative term in this case is "process
fetishism".

To put it simply, I view this as a common-sense situation. We don't need
rules when common sense does the job just fine.

> Are you concerned that the behavior is inappropriate, or do you think the
> > policy should reflect what people actually do? Put another way, which do
> you
> > think should be changed: the behavior, or the policy?
>
> At first I was concerned that the behaviour was inappropriate, now it
> seems that the behaviour is quite reasonable, so the policy should be
> updated. Evidently the "community complains, warning, wait, rename"
> sequence is completely skipped in these rare cases. But we should be
> specific: Any inflammatory username should not be dealt with like that
> - there are probably good faith editors who didn't know that
> "AbortionJihad" would cause such a problem.

[[User:AbortionJihad] is different from [[User:Linuxbeak On Wheels]] in that
it is a troll account, rather than a vandal. My rule of thumb for
identifying trolling is that if someone says or does something that could
have no value except to troll, then it should be treated as trolling.
Creating a username like AbortionJihad, by this definition, fits the bill
for trolling behavior.

Now, you can't know for certain what is going on in someone's head, but
there comes a point where you have to say that some kinds of behavior just
aren't allowed, regardless of intent. It's conceivable that the person
merely thought that AbortionJihad would be a hilarious username. But the
probability is so low that I can't view it as worth my time as an editor and
admin to investigate.

But as with all other admin actions, it should be viewed as open to review
by other admins, and in the event of disagreement, we have discussion to
resolve the dispute. The vast majority of the time, there is no need for
review. For the few times that there will be a dispute, I have faith that
all of our admins are rational and well-meaning people who, although they
may get a litte hot tempered from time to time, will come to amicable
agreement eventually so we can move on to solving the next problem.

There's no need to involve policy in this anywhere. Policy makes people
think that they only have to follow the rulebook, rather than use their
common sense and talk things out. The rulebook is good for some things, but
it's not good here. We need to have more trust in ourselves and each other
to do the right thing when the time comes, I think.

Ryan


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> In a perfect world, we could have perfect anonymity in this matter
> (actually, we wouldn't /need/ anonymity), but the world is far from
> perfect. I'm not going to buy into the "this proposal amounts to
> trolling" argument, except to say this: removing usernames from
> contributions would be a troll's paradise.
>
And probably a violation of the GFDL as far as I can tell. I'm proud of
my edits (well, 99.99% of them :), I _want_ my edits to be attributed to
me. If Wikipedia were to start hiding them I would be nonplussed.

Besides which I can't really see any reason why this change would be
useful in the first place. If a person wants anonymity they can just
pick a random username and log in with that. The IP records are gone
after a few weeks, I'm told. As long as they don't engage in
sock-puppetry I don't see a problem.


from_name: Drini drini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
I wonder when the action of editing a wikipage became considered attacking

On 3/5/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking of silly...
>
> I got attacked for
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&oldid=38072376
>
> And freakofnature's page looks like
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture
>
> ??
>
> ObSheesh: Sheesh.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
Hi all,
  The situation on blocking people for bad usernames seems extremely
confused at the moment. According to the official policy
(WP:USERNAME), this should not happen:

--
    If enough people complain about your user name (through talk pages
or the mailing lists or Meta-Wikipedia), the bureaucrats will change
it. Neither complaints nor name changes should be arbitrary, but user
names that are offensive to a significant number of people will be
changed, not without notice, but without appeal.

    Co-operative contributors should normally just be made aware of
our policy via a post on their talk page. Voluntary changes (via
Wikipedia:Changing username) are preferred: users from other countries
and/or age groups may make mistakes about choosing names -- immediate
blocking or listing on RfC could scare off new users acting in good
faith.

    Where a change must be forced, we first discuss it. This can take
place on either (A) the user's talk page, (B) a subpage of the user's
talk page, or (C) a sub page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It
should be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment in the appropriate
section. The user should also be made aware of the discussion.
--

However the policy claims that username changing is currently
disabled, so all of that is moot. Arguably, if you can't change a bad
username, then blocking might be permissible? But in any case,
[[WP:CHU]] makes no mention of it being disabled.

On the talk page for Wikipedia:Username, there was a straw poll on
whether sysops should be able to make snap decisions when policy is
clearly breached. It has achieved anything but consensus (roughly 55%
in favour).

So what is going on? Why do we keep seeing messages on this list about
people being blocked without warning for having mildly provocative
usernames?

Steve


from_name: Daniel P. B. Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 32, Issue 43

body:
> From: "charles matthews" <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>
> "Daniel P. B. Smith" wrote
>
>> The reliability of the source is relatively less important. The only
>> real problem occurs when the "source" is, in fact, another entity
>> like Wikipedia--one in which the identity and credentials of the
>> contributor are not easy to assess.
>
> Or an average nineteenth century historian.

Not at all.

I take your remark to mean that you regard "an average nineteenth
century historian" as an unreliable source. Fine. That doesn't make
it an inappropriate source.

If you see something in Wikipedia and it's not sourced, you don't
know what to think. If you see something in Wikipedia and it's
sourced to someone you recognize as an average nineteenth century
historian, you do know what to think and can give it the amount of
credence you consider appropriate.

There is an enormous difference between an unsourced statement and
one that is sourced to, say, the National Review. Or The Progressive.
Or, for that matter, the National Enquirer.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>It seems to me like going into a functioning business and telling
>everyone to don disguises and continue working.
>
>
Not quite what I really meant to do. I did present the idea as if it had
such thrust because it could have been a simple step based on a need.
Now, it does not seem like a step.

>Treating them the same is denying ourselves valuable information.
>
True, which is why I don't think this idea would stay effective -- at
least under the design of Mediawiki 1.5.

It appears there is a substantial interest to the idea, and there may be
a way to implement a subset in the future. I want to be able to
guarantee a way to match the interest that was created, but that would
be foolish of me. Even to create this as an user preference may even
give a false security for quality. When it is a choice between
convenience and quality, we can freely choose either one. When it is a
choice between quality and valuable information, the evidence of
valuable information is higher quality.

Jonathan


from_name: XaosFluX

body:
This policy may need some review, but as an admin I've {{usernameblock}}'ed
on sight new accounts such as "Another wiki cheese-ology vandal".  Users
declaring their intenet to vandalize the project in their username should be
clear enough.  The same goes with known patterns of users needing to create
accunts for future page move vandalism (e.g. "Wikipedia is Communinsm on
WH33LZ!").  The RFC process can be slow and does always have an actionable
resolution to it.

xaosflux

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bennett" <stevage at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Blocking for inappropriate usernames

> On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Really, I don't think there is any need for policy justification of
>> dealing
>> with vandals. People have been dealing with them in this way for a long
>> time
>> and there has never been a problem with it. I have to suggest that you
>> consider whether the apparent need for policy justification of blocking
>> inappropriate usernames is a solution to a problem that actually exists,
>> or
>> whether it is its own problem. The perjorative term in this case is
>> "process
>> fetishism".
>
> As it stands, a vandal could legitimately claim that process wasn't
> followed. Sure, they wouldn't necessarily get far - but wouldn't it be
> better to actually document standard practice?
>
>> To put it simply, I view this as a common-sense situation. We don't need
>> rules when common sense does the job just fine.
>
>>Well, I wasn't actually proposing creating new rules - simply
> documenting existing ones.
>> There's no need to involve policy in this anywhere. Policy makes people
>> think that they only have to follow the rulebook, rather than use their
>> common sense and talk things out. The rulebook is good for some things,
>> but
>> it's not good here. We need to have more trust in ourselves and each
>> other
>> to do the right thing when the time comes, I think.
>
> Speaking as a pleb, policy also serves to reassure people that admins
> do follow some kind of rulebook, rather than simply making it up as
> they go along. I'm not sure that admins regularly blocking people for
> an undocumented reason is a good thing. However, as it is not a
> disastrous thing, either, I'll let it go.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> 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 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> First, whether admins should make judgments when it seems that a username
> clearly violates policy. This is going to happen regardless of the result of
> any vote. The next time I see someone create the username "Linuxbeak ON
> WHEELS! ! !", "Jimbo Whales Is Communism", etc, I am going to indef block,
> not sit around waiting for dicussion. The same goes with "GEORGE BUSH IS A
> WHORE" and so on.

Indefinitely block an IP address because the user thought "Linuxbeak
ON WHEELS!!!" would be a funny username? That seems a trifle over the
top, no? I'm not an admin, but such a user seems far from being beyond
redemption, and he hasn't even done anything wrong yet! Bizarre that
we agreed that it was wrong to block users who announce an intent to
insert pro-pedophilia POV into articles, but we would indefinitely
block a user who simply chooses a cheeky username.

> Most username blocks I've seen are of this variety: new accounts with
> blantantly inappropriate or vandalistic usernames where discussion is
> obviously a waste of time. It's very easy to get skewed results when you use

It depends what you're discussing. Renaming "Jimbo Wales Is Communism"
to "Newuser499" or even "JWIC" seems fair and reasonable. Blocking the
user's IP for the next millennium doesn't.

> loaded terminology like "snap judgment" to describe cases like these. But
> the results you get aren't going to change what the admins on the front
> lines are doing to protect against vandals.

As I have no experience fighting vandals who register new accounts,
I'm prepared to believe that the vast majority of these problematic
usernames really are nasty vandals. But just theoretically it seems
unnecessarily heavy handed.

> Second, there is the question of what constitutes an inappropriate
> username.  I don't see any need to use the mailing list to set up binding
> precendent in this matter. There is no way to make a comprehensive
> definition of "inappropriate" and each case should be dealt with
> individually.

No, there's not much problem there - there are good examples on the
policy. What I'm concerned about is that the policy says that the
treatment for such cases is renaming the user - not blocking. And
actual practice is apparently completely different.

Steve


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:

> Indefinitely block an IP address because the user thought "Linuxbeak
> ON WHEELS!!!" would be a funny username? That seems a trifle over the

No, it's just the username that's blocked indefinitely. The IP might be hit
with an autoblock, but us otherwise perfectly able to edit 24 hours after.

When was the username policy last edited? I can't remember a single thing
you cited in that first post of this thread.

Anyway, there are names that should never see the light of day and it would
indeed be a  waste of time to rename those only to have them be blocked
again when they start
editing/vandalizing.

Mgm


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] For Alexa buffs only

body:
It seems to me that both were just following the traffic of the internet:

While not as much and with the line translated upwards, Microsoft seems to
have the same shape:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&y=p&url=en.wikipedia.org#top

As does CNN, but below Wikipedia:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&y=p&url=en.wikipedia.org#top

On 3/5/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> On Alexa.org, try the Traffic rankings, comparing WP with the BBC site
> bbc.co.uk, and looking at the Page Views tab: like
>
>
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=bbc.co.uk&y=p&url=en.wikipedia.org#top
> .
>
> Then since Christmas WP and the Beeb are almost spookily tracking each
> other; and not just in the weekday/weekend fluctuations.
>
> Any idea of what this might mean?  The numbers could be broken; or the
> demographics match amazingly over the population from which these things
> are
> calculated.
>
> It could mean that WP became a household word in December; in that target
> group.
>
> One to watch.
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


from_name: Michael Snow

body:
XaosFluX wrote:

> This policy may need some review, but as an admin I've
> {{usernameblock}}'ed on sight new accounts such as "Another wiki
> cheese-ology vandal".  Users declaring their intenet to vandalize the
> project in their username should be clear enough.

I don't see any problem with it when the intent is that obvious. There
was some controversy a while back about user names that announced
themselves to be "trolls", since that may suggest a variety of things
and even if people can agree that you're talking about an [[internet
troll]], they may not agree on what behavior is implied and whether it
warrants blocking. However, as I'm quite certain that nobody from a
Germanic tribe of Late Antiquity will be editing Wikipedia, anyone
announcing themselves as a vandal can and should be blocked.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:36 PM, The Cunctator wrote:

> I think the idea is that articles are supposed to be neutral. It's
> silly to expect Wikipedians not to have a point of view.
>
> I think it's appropriate to Wikipedians to express their opinions
> about the governance and rules of Wikipedia on their userpage.

It's appropriate for Wikipedians to express their opinions about the
governance and rules of Wikipedia on their userpage. It's
inappropriate for them to do so in an infantile fashion. That applies
to you and to Freakofnurture.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] Magic word for talk page?

body:
?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason wrote:
> On 3/5/06, Ilmari Karonen <nospam at vyznev.net> wrote:
>> If you don't mind me asking, what's the objection?
>
> The objection is that this variable presumes that there will be one
> talk page per each main namespace page, which does not hold true in
> the new namespace system which'll be merged into HEAD shortly. Hence
> adding this would introduce compatability problems later.

Well, it would allow you to _define_ multiple namespaces that have the same
parent namespace but as far as I know they wouldn't work right as "talk"
namespaces at all.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060305/5af10cf8/attachment.pgp>


from_name: guru brahma

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Verifiability - Case Study II (charles matthews) and
	Google test

body:
  The message below has set me thinking about an article I had nominated for deletion sometime back, [[Taran Adarsh]]. He is a film critic, widely loved and hated in the online community and his reviews are picked up and amplified by several blogs. He gets 35,000 hits on google but none of the first 100 hits has anything except his name - some of them have opinions about him but none of them have any biographical data. The afd closed as no consensus to delete, because people say that the no. of hits implies notability. Even if that is taken as a measure of notability, the article does not contain anything related to the biographical data of the person as no such information appears to be available easily and the person remains non-verifiable. Any thoughts on how to deal with such issues??

  regards,
  Gurubrahma

  Message: 4
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:16:09 -0000
From: "charles matthews"
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability - Case Study II
To: "Wikien list"
Message-ID: <000301c63f63$e6340980$99ac0656 at NorthParade>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original

This is about [[Mark Steyn]]. There are two types of major issue with this
page.

(I) Scope for scepticism. As it now says immediately after the lead, there
is actually a dearth of personal details on Steyn. No date nor birth nor
place of birth; no educational details, beyond the fact that he supposedly
left school at 16. How do we even know he's really Canadian? This is one
for SlimVirgin then; given no reasonable way to check, do we need to see his
passport? :Plenty of Google hits for "Mark Steyn, a Canadian". I'm not
going to worry about this, and sourcing it; are the fanatics for
verification, though?

As for the rest of Steyn's life, it is about his media jobs and association
with Conrad Black and Hollinger, which is all fairly straightforward.

(II) Issues around NPOV. This is where the real meat is. Quoting directly
from Steyn's columns is easy, but on its own is not enough for a WP article
about a figure who revels in controversy. Just about every whisper of
criticism of Steyn on the page has been subject to close attention from fans
of his, who tend to cut first and ask for sources afterwards. There have
been also some insertions by critics which were not well sourced.

Breaking it down by topics:

(a) USA and Europe. There is not much left of this, just the one quote from
[[Peter Preston]] towards the end, sourced from The Observer. There used to
be more about Steyn on Europe's attitudes to armed forces post-WWII. It was
cut a while ago and not replaced.

(b) Steyn's long-standing claims that Bin Laden is quite obviously dead.
This is mentioned in the terms that Private Eye satirises him for that.
Someone on the Talk page said that he had dropped this, which dates from
2002 or so; no source provided, and I showed him still at it in 2004. He's
clearly not going to retract, so how long can we claim that he continues to
think Bin Laden is dead? Strictly, we can't. I don't think we really need
to reference issues of Private Eye in which he is mocked for this, but
perhaps others disagree.

(c) Allegations of Islamophobia. There are three typical areas about this,
and the material on the page appears to revolve. The points are

- claims that Steyn reported as factual some wild rumours about Muslims in
New York shortly post-9/11, and supporting critical column by Johann Hari,
with web reference on the latter (we have had some edit-warring on whether
direct, sourced critical quotes from Hari should be on the page)
- Steyn's use of ancient anti-Islamic quotes from Winston Churchill
(seemingly from Churchill's impressions of fighting in the Sudan pre-1900)
- aggressive comparisons by Steyn of Anglospheric and Islamic cultures, in
sweeping terms.

These can all be properly sourced, so really this should be respectable NPOV
coverage and allowed to stand without mauling around. I expect more
drive-by edits, though.

(d) 'Commitment to Democracy questioned'. This is the active area, with a
paragraph cut out recently by User:Mitchberg (discussion on Talk page).

It was alleged in an earlier edit, that 'critics of Steyn' have questioned
his commitment to democracy; because relative to Bush-Kerry, Steyn had said
Kerry was foolish to have said that Bush should have propped up Aristide in
Haiti. The quote from Steyn was provided, and says just that. It was a bit
selective of that column, which has to be read in full to see what Steyn was
arguing (Martha Stewart was innocent, so state power needs opposition from
'civil society' to be legitimate).

The debate itself is for politics buffs (so, we have to say Hamas and Fatah
is more about democracy, than Aristide and the downtrodden Haitians?). The
verifiability issue is like this, though: to claim that 'critics of Steyn'
alleged something we should source those critics. What are the criteria?
Well, random bloggers are not really up to the current standards. We don't
need to doubt that people do criticise Steyn this way; but undoubtedly we
get a better article by being specific about this, and giving at least one
respectable example of such a critic.

That's why the para on this is not back on the page. Since Steyn is such a
vocal pro-US-Republican writer, it is certainly a shame that the one quote
on the page that refers directly to US domestic politics has gone. Could
the bit about 'critics of Steyn' be just omitted? Yes, but then it reads
oddly, and there really does need to be a more developed discussion about
what Steyn's views are (he gets called a neocon, but this is not properly
entered into).

There are secondary points, and what User:Mitchberg says on the Talk relates
to those. He's (I assume male and) a self-confessed newbie, so he makes one
mistake, in that he tries to refute the criticism of Steyn. That's not a
reason for cutting out criticism (in the way that the lack of a proper
source actually is). He also doesn't really take the point that the quote
is selective. He goes on to say that he has interviewed Steyn, and knows
from that that Steyn is committed to democracy. To do him justice, he isn't
putting that wrongly as an argument; but he is also apparently not seeing
that if he has an interview, and has published it, that would constitute a
proper source for the article.

This discussion is a bit stalled right now. I don't really want to spend
for ever researching the critics of Steyn, and there is the rhetorical point
about whether 'commitment to liberty' now trumps 'commitment to democracy'
for American conservatives (with the implications for 'civil society' as a
prerequisite). This is interesting stuff, but needs first-rate sources. So
there is the verifiability issue in practice, again, of What Is An
Acceptable Source?

Charles

---------------------------------
 Jiyo cricket on Yahoo! India cricket
Yahoo! Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.


from_name: Nick Jenkins

subject: [Wikitech-l] Magic word for talk page?

body:
Hi All,

On http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words it lists all the
various MediaWiki magic words.

I'm looking for something that can be used to give the talk page for
the current page.

For example, in:
* The main namespace (namespace 0), it would return "Talk:{{PAGENAME}}".
* In the talk namespace ({{ns:1}}), it would return
"Talk:{{PAGENAME}}" (since the talk page for a talk page is the talk
page itself).
* In the User namespace ({{ns:2}}), it would return "User_talk:{{PAGENAME}}".
* In the User talk namespace ({{ns:3}}), it would return
"User_talk:{{PAGENAME}}" (since the talk page for a user talk page is
the user talk page itself).
* And so forth...

Does anyone know of a way of doing this? If not, can I maybe suggest a
new magic word along these lines, such as "{{TALKPAGE}}", which would
do this?

All the best,
Nick.


from_name: Steve Bennett

body:
On 3/5/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, it's just the username that's blocked indefinitely. The IP might be hit
> with an autoblock, but us otherwise perfectly able to edit 24 hours after.

Ok, now I'm getting confused. When you say the *username* is blocked
indefinitely, you mean that the user account can no longer edit, but
the IP that created it can? Or do you mean that henceforth no one can
create an account with that username? (I suppose the first implies the
second anyway...)

I also wasn't familiar with autoblocking. Interesting...haven't had
time to think about the repercussions of that yet.

> When was the username policy last edited? I can't remember a single thing
> you cited in that first post of this thread.

At a quick glance, that paragraph seems to be at least a couple of months old.

> Anyway, there are names that should never see the light of day and it would
> indeed be a  waste of time to rename those only to have them be blocked
> again when they start
> editing/vandalizing.

I gather from this post and the next, that the problem is "serial
username creators", such that any "xxx on wheels" is the same user. I
hadn't realised that history when I complained about blocking users on
sight for certain user names. The policy could definitely be updated
to take that into account though (especially as it seems to be common
practice?)

Steve


body:
On 3/5/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not over the top, because it's not a funny username and 100% of the
> time such a username is created, it's a sleeper account for Willy on Wheels.
> Given the number of sleeper accounts he has created in the past, is is just
> not feasible to investigate each one individually.

Yes, I didn't realise this history. It would seem appropriate to
include a comment like "When a username is part of an established
pattern of usernames by a particular vandal, admins may block first,
and ask questions later." or something.

> Well, nobody is blocking the IP except the autoblocker. If you think the
> autoblocker is a problem, then it would probably be more productive to take
> that up with the devs. The point is that no one uses "is Communism" in their

No opinion yet.

> I can see how it looks that way. I can't think of anything to say except
> that it really isn't, and that your appraisal of the situation might change
> when you have become more familiar.

Some background text in the policy perhaps?

> Are you concerned that the behavior is inappropriate, or do you think the
> policy should reflect what people actually do? Put another way, which do you
> think should be changed: the behavior, or the policy?

At first I was concerned that the behaviour was inappropriate, now it
seems that the behaviour is quite reasonable, so the policy should be
updated. Evidently the "community complains, warning, wait, rename"
sequence is completely skipped in these rare cases. But we should be
specific: Any inflammatory username should not be dealt with like that
- there are probably good faith editors who didn't know that
"AbortionJihad" would cause such a problem.

Right?

Steve


body:
On 3/5/06, guru brahma <wikibra at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>   The message below has set me thinking about an article I had nominated for deletion sometime back, [[Taran Adarsh]]. He is a film critic, widely loved and hated in the online community and his reviews are picked up and amplified by several blogs. He gets 35,000 hits on google but none of the first 100 hits has anything except his name - some of them have opinions about him but none of them have any biographical data. The afd closed as no consensus to delete, because people say that the no. of hits implies notability. Even if that is taken as a measure of notability, the article does not contain anything related to the biographical data of the person as no such information appears to be available easily and the person remains non-verifiable. Any thoughts on how to deal with such issues??

Perhaps, like with Brian Peppers, the biographical information is not
relevant to the article? If his reviews are widely disseminated, is
discussion of the reviews and opinions of the person enough? We don't
have a lot of biographical details on Shakespeare, or probably lots of
other famous historical figures, but that's not a problem, if their
contributions are well known and notable.

Steve


from_name: Jtkiefer

subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbitrary Block

body:
silaslynch at aol.com wrote:
> My username, user:Please Don't Block, has been banned from editing on wikipedia either for having an inappropriate username or for "vandalism." I encourage any administrator to look into my editing history (which includes numerous excellent edits), I have vandalized no one's page. I left a comment at someone's userpage that offended another user, and therefore I was blocked. However, leaving unpleasant comments is not banned according to wikipedia policy. My username is additionally not offensive. I demand to have the block removed immediately or some explanation as to why I am blocked.
>
> Please Don't Block
>
I'm actually glad that even though I've stopped editing I still watch
this list so I saw this, I actually got a good laugh out of the message
he left on my talk page and I find it funny that someone who leaves
messages like that on people's talk page is the one telling me to get a
life :)

-Jtkiefer


from_name: STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
--- Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:36 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > I think the idea is that articles are supposed to
> be neutral. It's
> > silly to expect Wikipedians not to have a point of
> view.
> >
> > I think it's appropriate to Wikipedians to express
> their opinions
> > about the governance and rules of Wikipedia on
> their userpage.
>
> It's appropriate for Wikipedians to express their
> opinions about the
> governance and rules of Wikipedia on their userpage.
> It's
> inappropriate for them to do so in an infantile
> fashion. That applies
> to you and to Freakofnurture.

Is it what you say official? If it is, then I would
like to see this policy. Or perhaps you are Jimbo's
right hand and have the authority to say what is, and
what is not, appropriate. I think that the most
appropriate thing for people to do, is to mind their
own business when something is not harming anyone. And
if Jimbo is Libertarian, as someone suggested in the
past, then he should start acting like one.

Anittas.

>
> --
> Philip L. Welch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
On Mar 5, 2006, at 4:27 PM, STEFAN CLAUDIU TIULEA wrote:

> --- Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
>> It's appropriate for Wikipedians to express their
>> opinions about the
>> governance and rules of Wikipedia on their userpage.
>> It's
>> inappropriate for them to do so in an infantile
>> fashion. That applies
>> to you and to Freakofnurture.
>
> Is it what you say official?

No. It is, however, my opinion, which makes it correct in every
meaningful sense.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Verifiability and Africa

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> On 3/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Bennett wrote:
>>
>>>On 3/3/06, Zoney <zoney.ie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll point out that I think it's most sensible to rely only on verified
>>>>information, but Wikipedia has not in the past seriously implemented such
>>>>theoretical ideals. If people are going to start doing so, do it across the
>>>>board please. I don't doubt the encyclopaedia would be a vast amount smaller
>>>>and less broad if only verified information is left in it! Wikipedia has not
>>>>succeeded at even beginning to conform to its ideals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You're confusing "verified" and "verifiable". All Wikipedia requires
>>>is that information actually has been published or is otherwise
>>>verifiable. We don't do fact checking, per se.
>>>
>>
>>Can anyone answer me why we *don't* do fact checking? Given that we're
>>so big on asking for sources/references (which we're clearly not, yet),
>>who is actually checking them? Or isn't anyone?
>>
>>Does anyone know of a WikiProject which goes through articles and checks
>>that the references actually say what people are claiming they say? If
>>there's not one, who will start it? I for one would be interested in
>>doing some of this stuff; I have access to at least two good libraries
>>(University & State) and could easily spare an hour a week to do this
>>kind of stuff.
>
>
> Go forth!
>

It's a daunting task if there's no co-ordination and no place to say "I
have fact-checked revision XYZ of article Foobahbaz".

> I think the fact-checking phase of Wikipedia in bulk is yet to come --
> right now we're in the "add the sources" phase.
>
> Somewhat similar to the images projects -- first we uploaded images
> willy-nilly, now we're adding copyright information, then we'll start
> filtering/replacing. I'm waiting for the project to replace
> photographic images with high-quality original drawings by
> Wikipedians.
>

Except for cases where we're replacing "fair use" images, why should we
remove perfectly good photographs? Um, ok, and also for cases where a
photograph is likely to offend... hrm, some religions believe that any
depiction of /anything/ is idolatory, so maybe we should just remove all
images "so as not to offend"?

Alright, now I'm thoroughly confused. Why do you want to replace
photographs with drawings? Should we also replace all our current sound
files with vocal interpretations of them?

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060305/9fce29e8/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] It's dead, Jim!

body:
:'(

On 3/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> The site is experiencing technical difficulties, apparently.  Seems to
> be titsup.com.
> 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
>

--
~Ilya N.
http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/5/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> And probably a violation of the GFDL as far as I can tell. I'm proud of
>>> my edits (well, 99.99% of them :), I _want_ my edits to be attributed to
>>> me. If Wikipedia were to start hiding them I would be nonplussed.
>>>
>> You raise an interesting question which has occurred to me before.
>> There are topics I would consider editing on, but I don't really want
>> them to come up in my list of contributions. Yet I feel like I should
>> retain my copyright on those contributions...I can't think of any
>> solution though.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> Sockpupet accounts. Unless you legaly have to assert your copyright
> you don't have to admit haveing made them.
>
>
Or just do what I did and make 50,000+ edits, most of them on articles
found by clicking "random article." In amongst all that rubbish, who in
their right mind is going to dig around enough to find out that I edited
[[Human animal roleplay (BDSM)]] back on February 22 2004
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_animal_roleplay_%28BDSM%29&diff=3798021&oldid=2488949>?
Nobody's that anal, so my shameful secret is safe for all eternity. The
perfect crime! Hahaha!


subject: [WikiEN-l] Escaping the GDFL -- can it be done?

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 3/3/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Speaking of people objecting to our current licensing, check out
>>[[Talk:Bruce Perens]]. Apparantly he objects to us having an article on
>>him, because he has issues with the license we are using... oh, and
>>apparantly we're neither a Free Software project *or* an Open Source
>>project. Hrm.
>>
>
> I assume you're implying that the paragraph signed "Bruce" (who I now
> find out is User:Bruce Perens) is supposed to be Bruce Perens?  Is
> there any evidence that's actually the case?

"I learn in email that it is indeed Perens. ? ciphergoth 19:03, August
21, 2005 (UTC)"

If you want you can contact him at his debian.org address to confirm
that he made these statements. Or you can ask me to, I'm not fussed
either way.

>  Because a comment like
> "because of the flaws in the license - it is unlawful to host the
> wikipedia on a computer running any contemporary operating system"
> seems to be pretty far out there.
>
> Doing a quick Google search, I find
> http://madpenguin.org/cms/?m=show&id=4921 and
> http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=457
> ("Wikipedia is an example of a non software incarnation of Open
> Source."), which makes me even more skeptical that this person is
> indeed Bruce Perens.
>

Well, you never know. Again, I can contact him to confirm and elaborate
on this if you want...

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060305/3c34dd0f/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
BJ?rn Lindqvist wrote:
> Of course, no way in hell that Wikipedia will do away with the user
> account concept. It is just to deeply rooted. But thinking about it
> can give you some insight on flaws in how Wikipedia currently
> operates. For example, did you know that in some universities
> professors are not able to see the students names on exams and papers
> handed in? Why do you think that is and do you think Wikipedia users
> are in general better than university professors?
>
When marking exams, it is of paramount importance to be fair to the
student who wrote the exam. The quality of the _student_ is the
important thing. When compiling an encyclopedia, on the other hand, it
is of paramount importance to ensure that the _encyclopedia_ is of good
quality. I don't think you can directly compare the two since the goals
are so different.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
Jonathan wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Daily_premier__anonymity
>
> I'm sure if this feature described here ever gets implemented that this
> section title won't be used for it. The idea sparked above with the
> suggestions to divert or prevent edit wars and the users' desire to stay
> anonymous.
> * When you see any entry for a change made, the user's name or IP
> address is not shown in that entry. After you make an edit to the page
> that was changed, you then get to see who edited it in the entry, but
> that view is only available for a day from your last change.
>
> This would encourage people to focus on quality of content rather than
> who made the content. The would also apply for administrators. Only
> stewards and bureaucrats can see who made the change at anytime.
>
<snip>
>
> As you see, there is no significance to who made the changes in the
> above views. This does not prevent somebody that reverts vandalism to
> track down who made the vandalism, as, once the vandalism is reverted
> the users name is then seen as we common know. Anything further
> vandalism by that user can be tracked down as usual.
>
> Of course, if anybody signs their name, who made the entry is always
> revealed. If we want a feature to doublecheck if the tildes were used to
> sign (in case somebody forges a name), an extra flag on the change
> entries could be made to denote that.
>
> Some worry that I don't spend enough time in article space, but I also
> am a developer of a wiki.
>
> Can I get some feedback for this kind of policy that is really more
> technological?
>

Recent changes patrol.

Suppose I see someone make a change to an article. If a username I
recognise as being a "good user", I won't bother to check it. If it's a
username I haven't seen before, or is redlinked, I'll probably check it.
If it's an IP, I'm very likely to check it.

Removing usernames from contributions means that RC patrol becomes
insanely harder. It also means that it's impossible to later go and say
"User 127.0.0.1 vandalised articles X, Y and Z", because the username is
removed from the contributions.

In a perfect world, we could have perfect anonymity in this matter
(actually, we wouldn't /need/ anonymity), but the world is far from
perfect. I'm not going to buy into the "this proposal amounts to
trolling" argument, except to say this: removing usernames from
contributions would be a troll's paradise.

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060305/a790f080/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocked for no good reason

body:
Bacchante Maenad wrote:
> username : Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia
> IP : 69.60.118.148
> Reason given "stoner..." by
> "*Freakofnurture<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture>
> "*
>
> My name isn't "Let's Get High And Vandalize Wikipedia".  "Freakofnurture" is
> about as dubious a name as mine is.  I was going to edit anonymously, but
> decided to create a login, as the website suggests.  I was blocked before I
> got a chance to do anything.  What I had intended to do was add a link to
> 420 Cannabis Culture to the Cannabis article somewhere, probably the See
> Also.  Ok, so maybe I wanted to do my edit at 4:20 AM, but you know it is
> isn't a crime to get high in many places.  This seems an awful lot like
> prejudice.
>

Since you have absolutely no aversion to revealing your real name (or
something that resembles one) on a very public mailing list, I suggest
you request a change of account name at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHU>.

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060305/1b118fdb/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin Power Abuse

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> Speaking of silly...
>
> I got attacked for
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:The_Cunctator&oldid=38072376
>

"This user is a non-member of the Retarded Fascism Unit."

> And freakofnature's page looks like
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Freakofnurture
>

"This administrator knows how to spell his fucking words."
"This user is a Judeofascist."
"This user is an anarcho-capitalist, which some feel is unwiki-like, but
he does not give a fuck about them."
&c..

> ??
>
> ObSheesh: Sheesh.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Hocevar/burninhell

PLEASE, when you edit Wikipedia, leave your POVs at the door...

--
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: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060305/de8764a5/attachment.pgp


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Article surveys, revisited

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Guy Chapman aka JzG stated for the record:

> Sounds familiar.  For reasons now lost in the mists of time I have
> "donkey punch" on my watchlist; it never ceases to amaze me how so
> little can be said in so many words by so many editors.  For all that,
> it remains a "supposed sex move" which has never been documented by
> any reliable source as having been used.
> Guy (JzG)

If the very existence of the subject of an article is unverifiable, can
the entire article be removed by any editor as unsourced?

- --
 Sean Barrett     | If catapults are outlawed, only
 sean at epoptic.org | outlaws will have catapults.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEC5N8MAt1wyd9d+URAjBLAJ9B1DHBHSw5NTgguq0wK/DkL66H7gCfcyiv
ApvF4sisRLAEE6x3TVadHKg=
=/xPT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Daily premier anonymity

body:
geni wrote:
> On 3/6/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Nobody's that anal,
>>
>
> It appears we may deal with different groups of wikipedians.
>
You can safely assume that any post of mine that ends with maniacal
laughter is meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek. :)


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Magic word for talk page?

body:
I've added {{TALKPAGENAME}} and {{TALKPAGENAMEE}} variables which will
be available when someone next synchronises the site with the code.

[Note: On talk pages, the variable will simply print out the current page name.]

Rob Church

On 05/03/06, Nick Jenkins <nickpj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> On http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words it lists all the
> various MediaWiki magic words.
>
> I'm looking for something that can be used to give the talk page for
> the current page.
>
> For example, in:
> * The main namespace (namespace 0), it would return "Talk:{{PAGENAME}}".
> * In the talk namespace ({{ns:1}}), it would return
> "Talk:{{PAGENAME}}" (since the talk page for a talk page is the talk
> page itself).
> * In the User namespace ({{ns:2}}), it would return "User_talk:{{PAGENAME}}".
> * In the User talk namespace ({{ns:3}}), it would return
> "User_talk:{{PAGENAME}}" (since the talk page for a user talk page is
> the user talk page itself).
> * And so forth...
>
> Does anyone know of a way of doing this? If not, can I maybe suggest a
> new magic word along these lines, such as "{{TALKPAGE}}", which would
> do this?
>
> All the best,
> Nick.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>