body:
On 2/3/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
>
> >What most of the people on this thread fail to recognize is that
> >creating anti-vandalism paramilitaries *encourages* vandalism.
> >
> That's just a ludicrous point of view - the vast majority of vandals
> I deal with neither know nor care about WP internal process. If they
> did, they would be able to introduce vandalism in much more subtle
> ways, for instance by stacking vandalistic edits behind legitimate
> changes by a sockpuppet, mixing vandalism in with a good edit, using
> plausible sounding edit summaries, etc. Instead, they tend to add
> the first thing that comes to mind, usually scatological.
>
> I get my data about vandals' habits from twice-daily reviews of a
> 19,000 item watchlist; where do you get your data from?
>
The lessons of history.

Okay, since you've got the data--not in terms of numbers, but in terms
of energy and resources, where is the most effort placed? Is it on the
random one-time scatological scribblers? Or the ones who come back
repeatedly? And fight the system?


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: The Cunctator

body:
How?

On 2/3/06, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> use-it-or-lose-it?
>
> That would really mess over us authors.
>
> :-(
>
> -Cberlet
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org on behalf of Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Fri 2/3/2006 8:51 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia
>
>
>
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair
> >use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter
> >all that much in my daily life.
> >
> >But making it more clear when the answer is "No."  That'd be
> >tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of
> >conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
> >
> Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision.
> If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work
> in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


from_name: Tony Sidaway

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was
> part of the policymaking process?

It was my impression that it already was!

>This is what Proposed Deletions is
> doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum
> about improving our deletion processes.

qv.

However I don't see the temporary undeletion thing as a policy matter,
rather one of persuading administrators not to delete articles while
their deletion is being challenged, in good faith, on DRV.

It's all about assuming good faith, of which alas there is not much in
our deletion and undeletion processes.


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Security against vandalism vs. other concerns

body:
>>> [But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not
>>> intending
>>> to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions.
>>> I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something
>>> like
>>> Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't
>>> inherent in the system.]
>>
>> Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards
>> to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
>>
> It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Oh, I agree that it's a necessary trade-off, but it's still what it is.

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


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Here's an interesting one

body:
On 2/3/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >
> > Is it just me, or would things go a lot better if experimentation was
> > part of the policymaking process?
>
> It was my impression that it already was!
>
> >This is what Proposed Deletions is
> > doing and it seems like a far better idea than arguing ad infinitum
> > about improving our deletion processes.
>
> qv.
>
> However I don't see the temporary undeletion thing as a policy matter,
> rather one of persuading administrators not to delete articles while
> their deletion is being challenged, in good faith, on DRV.
>
> It's all about assuming good faith, of which alas there is not much in
> our deletion and undeletion processes.

Assuming good faith does not mean assuming the user is doing the right thing.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
> The best way to deal with this in my opinion is to always
> have the reference for the statistics handy. That way you can
> always revert and say, "Sorry, that's not what the reference
> says. Provide a new one if you want, but the numbers have to
> match up." Personally, I'm less concerned that the figures
> are "right" and more concerned that they match our cited
> reference for them, because if they are wrong in the latter
> case it isn't our fault.

For what it's worth, I do lots of things on Wikipedia, but fact checking
is very rarely one of them. Whether the population of City Fooboo is
3,458,345 or 3,458,365 isn't my thing. Yet I agree that the figure
really ought to match a cited source. Given that I don't care to go and
find out the real figure (every time I've attempted to do something
similar I end up with three different figures), I find myself in a bit
of a quandary. Especially when there actually isn't a cited source...

{citeneeded} is a start, but I'd really like to somehow flag the user's
edit for subsequent checking. In the same way that people look for the
presence of logged-in users' edits as a sign that the article has
undergone very basic checking, I would like to explicitly disclaim such
a suggestion.

In short: I would *really* like more advanced meta data on diffs. Both
to be able to provide more information on edits as I make them, with
flags etc, and to be able to comment on *other* people's edits. Even a
simple "disputed" flag would be better than nothing. But even better,
have two flags: "disputed" and "fact check required", and allow any user
to set them. But only allow admins or the user who set them to unset
them.

Steve


from_name: Jay Converse

body:
>
> > Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia
> better;
> > I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps of
> > recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying to
> make
> > us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide to
> stop
> > doing RC patrol?
>
> Quite possibly.
>

I'd love to know what you mean by this.  Are you implying that the CVU's RC
patrollers are somehow inferior to other ones?  Is there something
inherently wrong that corrupts every CVU member that makes them unfit for
any job relating to vandals or administrative duties?

This statement may be completely false, but I kind of feel like some of the
people bitching and moaning about the CVU haven't done a bit of
vandalfighting in months, and somehow feel that because we're doing a job
that they aren't, that we're a threat to their supremacy at... whatever.
I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just feel like the CVU is getting
blasted not by other RC patrollers, or by users who've been slighted by them
(of which I know none of), but by people who have nothing to do with the
area of Wikipedia that the CVU deals with.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/3/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> More (and automatic) admins, I say.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

This is the easiest, fastest, most efficient, least work-intensive method...

of dismantling Wikipedia from the inside out.

I'd say a good portion of our vandals are kids who have nothing better to
do.  This is the same kind of kid who, from experience with forums, and
various other free forms of online entertainment, will perform the bare
minimum of actual work necessary to get whatever power, MP3, level they
want.

If you tell people they need to browse 6 months and get 1000 edits and they
will be automatically admin'd, you will see people adding content to
articles one word at a time, making meaningless edits to pages over and over
again, and doing that until they hit 1001, then sit around until 6 months
have passed up.  Then they'll go nuts using their admin powers in incredibly
new and damaging ways.

Automatic adminship is NOT the way to go.  Absolutely not.  To be honest, I
don't think we need to be admitting admins at the rate that we are.  Hell,
RfA pretty much is an automatic approval process at this point anyway, and
I've seen infrequent complaints that some admins getting through aren't
quite stable.  Just imagine what would happen if we put adminship in the
hands of, essentially, everyone.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-04

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

Running test Definition list with wikilink containing colon... FAILED!
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 Broken link... FAILED!
Running test Link to namespaces... FAILED!
Running test Piped link to namespace... FAILED!
Running test Link containing % (not as a hex sequence)... FAILED!
Running test Link containing % as a single hex sequence interpreted to char... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: internal link to RFC (bug 479)... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Nonexistant template... 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 Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test Disabled subpages... 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 Image link to nonexistent file (bug 1850 - good)... FAILED!
Running test :Image link to nonexistent file (bug 1850 - bad)... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 247 of 281 tests (87.9%) FAILED!


from_name: Dorożyński Janusz

subject: [Wikitech-l] Re: Dumps status

body:
| -----Original Message-----
| From: ... Brion Vibber
| Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:03 AM
/
| FlaBot wrote:
| > Thanks a lot fr all your work !!!

But what about md5 stamps - I don't see any now :-))

R., Janusz 'Ency' Dorozynski


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Alfredo Carpineti

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Europanto

body:
I would like to start a Wikipedia in a language called Europanto. I
attached the Wiki article that explain it better than I can. Looking
foward for hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Alfredo Carpineti


body:
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >> Calling yourselves the "Counter Terrorism Unit" doesn't do a good
> >> job of that.
> >
> > I really rather doubt that the vast majority of vandals have that
> > level of awareness of the internal operation of wikipedia
>
> Anyone who does have that level of awareness about Wikipedia's
> internal operations and yet continues to vandalize us is not someone
> we're going to make friends with anyway until they realize that
> they're in the wrong and that we have every right to oppose vandalism.

Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not,
primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing
the worldview of insiders.

I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of
the Wikipedia community and I never will.


body:
On 2/3/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia
> > better;
> > > I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps of
> > > recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying to
> > make
> > > us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide to
> > stop
> > > doing RC patrol?
> >
> > Quite possibly.
> >
>
> I'd love to know what you mean by this.  Are you implying that the CVU's RC
> patrollers are somehow inferior to other ones?  Is there something
> inherently wrong that corrupts every CVU member that makes them unfit for
> any job relating to vandals or administrative duties?
>
> This statement may be completely false, but I kind of feel like some of the
> people bitching and moaning about the CVU haven't done a bit of
> vandalfighting in months, and somehow feel that because we're doing a job
> that they aren't, that we're a threat to their supremacy at... whatever.
> I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just feel like the CVU is getting
> blasted not by other RC patrollers, or by users who've been slighted by them
> (of which I know none of), but by people who have nothing to do with the
> area of Wikipedia that the CVU deals with.

Wow, never realized I could imply so much with so few words.

You're rather touchy.

I'm not making any particular statements about the activities or
actions of the members of the paramilitary-named Counter Vandalism
Unit.

Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the
right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.


body:
On 2/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe there's a good reason, eh?
> >
>
> Doubtful someone would have said what it was by now.
>
> > MfD? WTF? Sheesh. Miscellany for Deletion. What a mess.
> >
>
> Compared to the event that triggered it's creation. Not really.

Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.

> > Quite possibly.
>
> I'm on the helpdesk mailing list. We get a lot of emails complaining
> that page x y or z has been vandalised. I'd rather that number didn't
> increase. These days we have to consider the  reader as well as the
> editor. Strangely we recive few complaints about the actions of the
> CVU.

Why is that strange?

> > Good.
> >
> > Now, if you're able to not take this personally, I would suggest that
> > you try to understand what my criticism is. Working to discourage bad
> > edits needs to be done in a way that creates as little antagonism and
> > "us against them" mentality.
>
> Feel free to do this. Lead by example.

I have, often.


body:
On 2/3/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > More (and automatic) admins, I say.
>
> This is the easiest, fastest, most efficient, least work-intensive method...
>
> of dismantling Wikipedia from the inside out.
>
> I'd say a good portion of our vandals are kids who have nothing better to
> do.  This is the same kind of kid who, from experience with forums, and
> various other free forms of online entertainment, will perform the bare
> minimum of actual work necessary to get whatever power, MP3, level they
> want.
>
> If you tell people they need to browse 6 months and get 1000 edits and they
> will be automatically admin'd, you will see people adding content to
> articles one word at a time, making meaningless edits to pages over and over
> again, and doing that until they hit 1001, then sit around until 6 months
> have passed up.  Then they'll go nuts using their admin powers in incredibly
> new and damaging ways.

Wow, you have not only a minimum faith in the good nature of your
fellow man, a lot of faith in their lack of anything better to do.

> Automatic adminship is NOT the way to go.  Absolutely not.  To be honest, I
> don't think we need to be admitting admins at the rate that we are.  Hell,
> RfA pretty much is an automatic approval process at this point anyway, and
> I've seen infrequent complaints that some admins getting through aren't
> quite stable.  Just imagine what would happen if we put adminship in the
> hands of, essentially, everyone.

Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
admin really ain't that amazing.


body:
On 2/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't consider it that precious. There's a lot of time in the world.
> > No individual participant, in the greater scheme of things, is
> > particularly crucial to the project.
> >
>
> WP:CVU is however rather more than one person
>
> > Volunteers' enjoyment, however -- that's precious.
> >
>
> So how about you stop trying to spoil the CVU's.

It's spoiling mine. And how exactly are the members of the CVU getting
their enjoyment? Is it by playing out paramilitary fantasies of
protecting the precious Wikipedia from hordes of barbarians? Because
that's what the name implies.

> > And to that end we do need to continue to find ways to happily manage
> > the project.
> >
> > More (and automatic) admins, I say.
>
> hang aroung 3 mounths edit at a reasonable rate with a reasonable
> spread and adminship pretty much is automatic.

When I say "automatic" I mean "automatic", not "pretty much automatic".


body:
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not,
> > primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing
> > the worldview of insiders.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of
> > the Wikipedia community and I never will.
>
> the above would only make sense if there was a single wikipedia
> community. This is manifestly not the case.

Huh?


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia
> > > better;
> > > > I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps
> of
> > > > recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying
> to
> > > make
> > > > us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide
> to
> > > stop
> > > > doing RC patrol?
> > >
> > > Quite possibly.
> > >
> >
> > I'd love to know what you mean by this.  Are you implying that the CVU's
> RC
> > patrollers are somehow inferior to other ones?  Is there something
> > inherently wrong that corrupts every CVU member that makes them unfit
> for
> > any job relating to vandals or administrative duties?
> >
> > This statement may be completely false, but I kind of feel like some of
> the
> > people bitching and moaning about the CVU haven't done a bit of
> > vandalfighting in months, and somehow feel that because we're doing a
> job
> > that they aren't, that we're a threat to their supremacy at... whatever.
> > I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just feel like the CVU is
> getting
> > blasted not by other RC patrollers, or by users who've been slighted by
> them
> > (of which I know none of), but by people who have nothing to do with the
> > area of Wikipedia that the CVU deals with.
>
> Wow, never realized I could imply so much with so few words.
>
> You're rather touchy.
>
> I'm not making any particular statements about the activities or
> actions of the members of the paramilitary-named Counter Vandalism
> Unit.
>
> Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the
> right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.
>
>
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was saying it was you who had
implied that; that was more of a generalized rant and rave about in general
how I feel about all this.

And I'm not a fan of the invite-only status either; I forget whose decision
it was, but it was unilateral and makes everything a lot more cumbersome
than it needs to be.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/3/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > More (and automatic) admins, I say.
> >
> > This is the easiest, fastest, most efficient, least work-intensive
> method...
> >
> > of dismantling Wikipedia from the inside out.
> >
> > I'd say a good portion of our vandals are kids who have nothing better
> to
> > do.  This is the same kind of kid who, from experience with forums, and
> > various other free forms of online entertainment, will perform the bare
> > minimum of actual work necessary to get whatever power, MP3, level they
> > want.
> >
> > If you tell people they need to browse 6 months and get 1000 edits and
> they
> > will be automatically admin'd, you will see people adding content to
> > articles one word at a time, making meaningless edits to pages over and
> over
> > again, and doing that until they hit 1001, then sit around until 6
> months
> > have passed up.  Then they'll go nuts using their admin powers in
> incredibly
> > new and damaging ways.
>
> Wow, you have not only a minimum faith in the good nature of your
> fellow man, a lot of faith in their lack of anything better to do.
>
> > Automatic adminship is NOT the way to go.  Absolutely not.  To be
> honest, I
> > don't think we need to be admitting admins at the rate that we
> are.  Hell,
> > RfA pretty much is an automatic approval process at this point anyway,
> and
> > I've seen infrequent complaints that some admins getting through aren't
> > quite stable.  Just imagine what would happen if we put adminship in the
> > hands of, essentially, everyone.
>
> Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
> admin really ain't that amazing.
>
>
Except for the simple fact that they can delete images, which cannot be
restored.  All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy Wikipedia's
images, unless they're stopped in time.

And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin once he's there.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
> >
> Some things are better left alone.

If you're not going to explain, please don't mention it obliquely.

>
> > Why is that strange?
>
> Well it isn't consistent with your claims is it.

Ack, you've stripped the context here. Other people have posted in
this thread complaining that every so often people complain about the
CVU. I'm evidently not the first.

> > I have, often.
>
>
> As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent with
> RC patrol or simular.
>
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
quo.


body:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
> > admin really ain't that amazing.
> >
> >
> Except for the simple fact that they can delete images, which cannot be
> restored.  All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy Wikipedia's
> images, unless they're stopped in time.

That's true now, isn't it?

> And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin once he's there.

That's because becoming an admin isn't automatic.


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
> > >
> > Some things are better left alone.
>
> If you're not going to explain, please don't mention it obliquely.
>
> >
> > > Why is that strange?
> >
> > Well it isn't consistent with your claims is it.
>
> Ack, you've stripped the context here. Other people have posted in
> this thread complaining that every so often people complain about the
> CVU. I'm evidently not the first.
>
> > > I have, often.
> >
> >
> > As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent with
> > RC patrol or simular.
> >

> Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
> Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
> about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
> quo.
>
>
Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence.  I highly doubt
vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume and
strategies of vandals today.  This is part of the problem, I think.  The
method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with
resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >And how exactly are the members of the CVU getting
> > their enjoyment? Is it by playing out paramilitary fantasies of
> > protecting the precious Wikipedia from hordes of barbarians? Because
> > that's what the name implies.
> >
> Perhaps. It seems to be a fairly common desire on the internet. On
> wikipedia the desire appears to have been channeled into something
> useful.

I'm sorry, but for what I would hope are obvious reasons I think we
should discourage people from playing out their paramilitary fantasies
at Wikipedia.

In fact, there should be a strong social opprobrium associated with
such behavior.
> >
> > When I say "automatic" I mean "automatic", not "pretty much automatic".
>
> So?

I think that getting adminship should be an automatic process.


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
> > > admin really ain't that amazing.
> > >
> > >
> > Except for the simple fact that they can delete images, which cannot be
> > restored.  All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy
> Wikipedia's
> > images, unless they're stopped in time.
>
> That's true now, isn't it?
>
> > And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin once he's there.
>
> That's because becoming an admin isn't automatic.
>

You're completely avoiding both my points.  If you give everyone a gun, all
it takes is one person to fire a shot for the whole town to erupt in a blaze
of gunfire.  If you give trustworthy people, a small portion of them, guns,
then those people become a symbol of trust and honesty to everyone else.
Obviously guns are a bit of an extreme comparison...

Also, by using circular logic on the second point, you're ignoring the fact
that it seems to be generally thought that the current de-adminship process,
which relies on admins not coming in hundreds at a time, is already broken,
and you want to flood it even further.  You're saying that by adding more
people to be looked over, the already bogged-down system will magically fix
itself?

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I have, often.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent with
> > > RC patrol or simular.
> > >
>
> > Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
> > Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
> > about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
> > quo.
> >
> Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence.  I highly doubt
> vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume and
> strategies of vandals today.  This is part of the problem, I think.  The
> method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with
> resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"

What are you saying "Nope!" to?

I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals
changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting
them.

Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter
Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm
not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, but for what I would hope are obvious reasons I think we
> should discourage people from playing out their paramilitary fantasies
> at Wikipedia.
>
>
You keep calling the CVU a paramilitary.  What, other than the name, implies
it's a military body?  There are no directors, no ranking members, no
nothing.  Just because it has a fancy name does not make it a military
fantasyland.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
> > > > admin really ain't that amazing.
> > > Except for the simple fact that they can delete images, which cannot be
> > > restored.  All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy
> > Wikipedia's
> > > images, unless they're stopped in time.
> > That's true now, isn't it?
> > > And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin once he's there.
> > That's because becoming an admin isn't automatic.
> >
> You're completely avoiding both my points.  If you give everyone a gun, all
> it takes is one person to fire a shot for the whole town to erupt in a blaze
> of gunfire.  If you give trustworthy people, a small portion of them, guns,
> then those people become a symbol of trust and honesty to everyone else.
> Obviously guns are a bit of an extreme comparison...

I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
entertaining, though.

[Not to get into it, but: I'm not a huge fan of a small portion of
"trustworthy" people wielding guns. Somehow a lot of people seem to
get killed by guns in the US nonetheless.]

> Also, by using circular logic on the second point, you're ignoring the fact
> that it seems to be generally thought that the current de-adminship process,
> which relies on admins not coming in hundreds at a time, is already broken,
> and you want to flood it even further.  You're saying that by adding more
> people to be looked over, the already bogged-down system will magically fix
> itself?

No, I'm saying that the current system sucks, and that it should be
replaced by an "easily given, easily taken away" philosophy.


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I have, often.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent
> with
> > > > RC patrol or simular.
> > > >
> >
> > > Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
> > > Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
> > > about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
> > > quo.
> > >
> > Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence.  I highly doubt
> > vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume
> and
> > strategies of vandals today.  This is part of the problem, I think.  The
> > method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with
> > resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
>
> What are you saying "Nope!" to?
>
> I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals
> changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting
> them.
>
> Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter
> Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm
> not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.

I'll try to make this clear.

geni:
> > > As far as I can tell none of your edits **************this
year****************

you:
> > Nope! Try 2001-2002.

2001-2002 is not this year, nor is it the past 365 days.

The behavior of vandals and of vandalfighters is going to and probably
always will consistently change over time.  What you're saying is that we
should stop trying anything new, therefore the vandals won't think of any
way to get around us because it's no longer a challenge.  This is just
inviting unstoppable vandalism, unstoppable because we can't evolve to fight
it.  To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more
Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in
making viruses.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being
> an
> > > > > admin really ain't that amazing.
> > > > Except for the simple fact that they can delete images, which cannot
> be
> > > > restored.  All it takes is one bad apple to completely destroy
> > > Wikipedia's
> > > > images, unless they're stopped in time.
> > > That's true now, isn't it?
> > > > And we all know how hard it is to remove an admin once he's there.
> > > That's because becoming an admin isn't automatic.
> > >
> > You're completely avoiding both my points.  If you give everyone a gun,
> all
> > it takes is one person to fire a shot for the whole town to erupt in a
> blaze
> > of gunfire.  If you give trustworthy people, a small portion of them,
> guns,
> > then those people become a symbol of trust and honesty to everyone else.
> > Obviously guns are a bit of an extreme comparison...
>
> I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> entertaining, though.
>
> [Not to get into it, but: I'm not a huge fan of a small portion of
> "trustworthy" people wielding guns. Somehow a lot of people seem to
> get killed by guns in the US nonetheless.]
>
> > Also, by using circular logic on the second point, you're ignoring the
> fact
> > that it seems to be generally thought that the current de-adminship
> process,
> > which relies on admins not coming in hundreds at a time, is already
> broken,
> > and you want to flood it even further.  You're saying that by adding
> more
> > people to be looked over, the already bogged-down system will magically
> fix
> > itself?
>
> No, I'm saying that the current system sucks, and that it should be
> replaced by an "easily given, easily taken away" philosophy.
>

I understand that.  And I'm saying that the easier it is to get, the more
prone it is to abuse.  Also, again, I do realize guns are an extreme
example.  It's 1 AM, I can't think of poetic metaphors this time of night.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Flame retardant

body:
On 2/4/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Could geni, The Cunctator, and Jay Converse please take a 24-hour break
> from the mailing list, and *go edit Wikipedia*?
>
> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

Let me be the first to apologize for getting out of hand and not letting the
subject drop.  I'll gladly duck out.

--
Jay Converse
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.


from_name: - Essjay -

subject: [WikiEN-l] Baseless Criticism of the CVU

body:
Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the
right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.

Apparently you haven't done your research: Invite-only was recinded within
48 hours of implementation.

And I'm not a fan of the invite-only status either; I forget whose decision
it was, but it was unilateral and makes everything a lot more cumbersome
than it needs to be.

It was my decision, the decision of the channel owner. Freenode policy says:
Channels on freenode are owned and operated by the groups which register
them. I registered it, I own it. It does not belong to the CVU, or to
Wikipedia, it belongs to me, and I set the policy for the channel. If you
register your own channel, you'll be able to set whatever policies you like
for it.

The reason the channel is no longer open to unconfirmed users is to prevent
the discussions in the channel (discussions about current vandalism to
Wikipedia, about how vandals are able to vandalize the site, information
that is practically a bootcamp for would-be vandals) from being used against
Wikipedia. Established Wikipedia users are still welcome in the channel, and
no user with an established Wikipedia account has been denied access to the
channel. Any user who is denied is welcome to appeal the denial directly to
me; the how-to page makes that quite clear.

As for unilateral, wrong. The decision was mine to make, and I was not
required to consult with anyone, but I did consult with the
high-access-level long-term users of the channel, and we agreed on how to
proceed. As for cumbersome, anyone who finds taking 10 seconds to write "My
IRC nick is XYZ. ~~~~" too cumbersome to bear is welcome to use
#wikipedia-en-vandalism2, where the same bot reports can be found, without
the chatter.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just one disgruntled user looking for
something to criticize. It has been one thing after another; when one
baseless criticism is deflated, another takes its place. Allow me to deflate
the most recent one: How I run my channel is quite frankly none of your
business. If you're so worried about it, feel free to take the bot source
(which is freely published) and start your own channel. Now, I'm sure you
have a new baseless criticism to hurl, please, be my guest.

Essjay

--
Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


body:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I have, often.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent
> > with
> > > > > RC patrol or simular.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
> > > > Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
> > > > about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
> > > > quo.
> > > >
> > > Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence.  I highly doubt
> > > vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume
> > and
> > > strategies of vandals today.  This is part of the problem, I think.  The
> > > method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with
> > > resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
> >
> > What are you saying "Nope!" to?
> >
> > I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals
> > changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting
> > them.
> >
> > Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter
> > Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm
> > not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.
>
>
> I'll try to make this clear.
>
> geni:
> > > > As far as I can tell none of your edits **************this
> year****************
>
> you:
> > > Nope! Try 2001-2002.
>
> 2001-2002 is not this year, nor is it the past 365 days.

When I wrote "Nope!" I was agreeing with geni's assessment that none
of my edits this year were similar to RC Patrol, not disagreeing.

I apologize for not being clear.

I am cognizant of how the calendar works.

> The behavior of vandals and of vandalfighters is going to and probably
> always will consistently change over time.  What you're saying is that we
> should stop trying anything new, therefore the vandals won't think of any
> way to get around us because it's no longer a challenge.  This is just
> inviting unstoppable vandalism, unstoppable because we can't evolve to fight
> it.  To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more
> Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in
> making viruses.

Although I enjoy your extended metaphors, I never said people should
stop trying anything new. You're defending against attacks I'm not
making.

[But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending
to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions.
I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like
Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't
inherent in the system.]


body:
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope! Try 2001-2002.
>
> Things have changed. You experence at that point in time is irrelevant.

How have they changed?

> > There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
>
> Jimbo's judgment when it comes to choseing arbcom members may be
> somewhat in question.

You're telling me! Jimbo's a little soft in the head sometimes.

> > Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
> > about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
> > quo.
>
> Do you know what the status quo is?

I'm trying to find out. How would you describe it?


body:
All I can say about the text below is that if one is to quote multiple
people, it would be nice to indicate who said what.

And I'm not sure what essjay's getting upset about, but pranayama might help.

On 2/4/06, - Essjay - <essjaywiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the
> right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.
>
> Apparently you haven't done your research: Invite-only was recinded within
> 48 hours of implementation.
>
> And I'm not a fan of the invite-only status either; I forget whose decision
> it was, but it was unilateral and makes everything a lot more cumbersome
> than it needs to be.
>
>
> It was my decision, the decision of the channel owner. Freenode policy says:
> Channels on freenode are owned and operated by the groups which register
> them. I registered it, I own it. It does not belong to the CVU, or to
> Wikipedia, it belongs to me, and I set the policy for the channel. If you
> register your own channel, you'll be able to set whatever policies you like
> for it.
>
> The reason the channel is no longer open to unconfirmed users is to prevent
> the discussions in the channel (discussions about current vandalism to
> Wikipedia, about how vandals are able to vandalize the site, information
> that is practically a bootcamp for would-be vandals) from being used against
> Wikipedia. Established Wikipedia users are still welcome in the channel, and
> no user with an established Wikipedia account has been denied access to the
> channel. Any user who is denied is welcome to appeal the denial directly to
> me; the how-to page makes that quite clear.
>
> As for unilateral, wrong. The decision was mine to make, and I was not
> required to consult with anyone, but I did consult with the
> high-access-level long-term users of the channel, and we agreed on how to
> proceed. As for cumbersome, anyone who finds taking 10 seconds to write "My
> IRC nick is XYZ. ~~~~" too cumbersome to bear is welcome to use
> #wikipedia-en-vandalism2, where the same bot reports can be found, without
> the chatter.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, this is just one disgruntled user looking for
> something to criticize. It has been one thing after another; when one
> baseless criticism is deflated, another takes its place. Allow me to deflate
> the most recent one: How I run my channel is quite frankly none of your
> business. If you're so worried about it, feel free to take the bot source
> (which is freely published) and start your own channel. Now, I'm sure you
> have a new baseless criticism to hurl, please, be my guest.
>
> Essjay
>
>
>
> --
> Essjay
> -----
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
> Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
> http://www.wikipedia.org/
> _______________________________________________
> 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 2/4/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >> To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more
> >> Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose
> >> interest in
> >> making viruses.
> >
> > Although I enjoy your extended metaphors, I never said people should
> > stop trying anything new. You're defending against attacks I'm not
> > making.
> >
> > [But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending
> > to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions.
> > I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like
> > Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't
> > inherent in the system.]
>
> Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards
> to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
>
It's not a bug, it's a feature!

...

Seriously.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Clarify

body:
The formatting in my last message was lost in transmission; I responded to
two quotes from two different individuals (which I intended to be
italicized). I'll have to be more careful with gmail in the future.

Essjay
-----
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/


body:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, but for what I would hope are obvious reasons I think we
> > should discourage people from playing out their paramilitary fantasies
> > at Wikipedia.
> >
> >
> You keep calling the CVU a paramilitary.  What, other than the name, implies
> it's a military body?  There are no directors, no ranking members, no
> nothing.  Just because it has a fancy name does not make it a military
> fantasyland.
>
All this time I've only been complaining about the name. Well, and
essjay's defensiveness worries me a little, but then, I have taken a
strident tone here.

In the above, although you cropped it out, I was responding to Geni's
position that if playing out paramilitary fantasies on Wikipedia is
part of the attraction of CVU, then that's okay.

I don't think that's okay.

Here-- let me start over in a nice tone:

"Although I don't know how the people who are labeling themselves the
Counter Vandalism Unit do their work, I trust that they are working
only out of a desire to improve Wikipedia. However, I do take issue
with the chosen name for the project, which has unfortunate
paramilitary overtones. I hope people will consider a more value
neutral name for the project."


body:
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> > extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> > holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> > entertaining, though.
> >
>
> How long a database lock do you view as acceptable?

I'm not sure what you're talking about -- you're going to have to help me here..


body:
On 2/4/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >>> [But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not
> >>> intending
> >>> to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions.
> >>> I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something
> >>> like
> >>> Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't
> >>> inherent in the system.]
> >>
> >> Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards
> >> to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
> >>
> > It's not a bug, it's a feature!
>
> Oh, I agree that it's a necessary trade-off, but it's still what it is.
>
Eh. I guess I don't see it as a security flaw. We should definitely
continue to try to think about how to improve the system in as
invisible ways as possible.

For example, one change that would be effectively invisible but would
discourage vandalism would be to require summaries for all non-minor
edits, which should happen anyway.

That's just one idea off the top of my head. More complex and
ingenious methods, I'm sure, could be thought of.

I do think that it should be considered a community norm for everyone
to do some kind of policing of incoming edits; I can think of any
number of mechanisms for enforcing that norm.


from_name: Neil Harris

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Europanto

body:
Alfredo Carpineti wrote:
> I would like to start a Wikipedia in a language called Europanto. I
> attached the Wiki article that explain it better than I can. Looking
> foward for hearing from you.
>
> Yours faithfully
>
> Alfredo Carpineti
>
> From Wikipedia.org:
>
> Europanto is a constructed language, a linguistic jest with a
> hodge-podge vocabulary from many European languages.
[snip]
> The single outstanding feature of Europanto is that there are no fixed
> rules -- merely a set of suggestions. This means that anybody can
> start to speak Europanto immediately, on the other hand it is the
> speaker's responsibility to draw on an assumed common vocabulary and
> grammar between himself and the audience, to make himself understood.
> Effectively, Europanto as it is used, tends to have a grammar much
> like English, with words borrowed from various languages and adapted
> to be easily understood.
[snip]

Since it appears to be possible to generate Europanto by word-by-word
translation of English into European languages chosen at random on a
word-by-word basis, I'd imagine that it would not be too difficult to
generate a Europanto Wikipedia programmatically, using the English
Wikipedia as source material, and perhaps Wiktionary as the
word-for-word translation dictionary. Throw in link grammars for
fair-to-reasonable part-of-speech tagging...

Und voila! Esta Vikipedio Europantoi - L'encyclop?die fria e gratuita,
mit 950,000 artikelen!

I leave the details to whoever sets this as an assignment to their
computer science class.

-- Neil (IHNJ, IJLS "und voila!") Harris


from_name: Delphine Ménard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Speaking of movies...

body:
On 2/2/06, Guillaume Paumier <guillom.pom at gmail.com> wrote:
> *squashes the clock radio*

Radio squashed. Comes 6.00 am round the clock and yet again:

"I got you babe".

;-)

Delphine
(who very much feels like Bill Murray these days. May I better in the
process...)
--
~notafish


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia

body:
On 2/4/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair
> >use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter
> >all that much in my daily life.
> >
> >But making it more clear when the answer is "No."  That'd be
> >tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of
> >conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
> >
> Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision.
> If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work
> in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
>
> Ec

Getty would slightly object as would AP.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe there's a good reason, eh?
>

Doubtful someone would have said what it was by now.

> MfD? WTF? Sheesh. Miscellany for Deletion. What a mess.
>

Compared to the event that triggered it's creation. Not really.

> Quite possibly.

I'm on the helpdesk mailing list. We get a lot of emails complaining
that page x y or z has been vandalised. I'd rather that number didn't
increase. These days we have to consider the  reader as well as the
editor. Strangely we recive few complaints about the actions of the
CVU.

> Good.
>
> Now, if you're able to not take this personally, I would suggest that
> you try to understand what my criticism is. Working to discourage bad
> edits needs to be done in a way that creates as little antagonism and
> "us against them" mentality.

Feel free to do this. Lead by example.

>
> Calling yourselves the "Counter Terrorism Unit" doesn't do a good job of that.

I really rather doubt that the vast majority of vandles have that
level of awareness of the internal operation of wikipedia

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't consider it that precious. There's a lot of time in the world.
> No individual participant, in the greater scheme of things, is
> particularly crucial to the project.
>

WP:CVU is however rather more than one person

> Volunteers' enjoyment, however -- that's precious.
>

So how about you stop trying to spoil the CVU's.

> And to that end we do need to continue to find ways to happily manage
> the project.
>
> More (and automatic) admins, I say.

hang aroung 3 mounths edit at a reasonable rate with a reasonable
spread and adminship pretty much is automatic.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, Chip Berlet <c.berlet at publiceye.org> wrote:
> use-it-or-lose-it?
>
> That would really mess over us authors.
>
> :-(
>
> -Cberlet

Nah just publish at least one copy of the book per decade. Do your
standard print run but hold ten copies back and that's the next 100
years dorted out. It's the compainies with huge media archives that
would run into problems.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not,
> primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing
> the worldview of insiders.
>
> I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of
> the Wikipedia community and I never will.

the above would only make sense if there was a single wikipedia
community. This is manifestly not the case.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
>

Some things are better left alone.

> Why is that strange?

Well it isn't consitant with your claims is it.

> I have, often.

As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistant with
RC patrol or simular.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, you have not only a minimum faith in the good nature of your
> fellow man, a lot of faith in their lack of anything better to do.

Yes haveing a large watchlist does that to you.

> Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
> admin really ain't that amazing.

Off the top of my head I can think of a few ways to cause quite a
significant database lock the useing admin powers

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not,
> > > primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing
> > > the worldview of insiders.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of
> > > the Wikipedia community and I never will.
> >
> > the above would only make sense if there was a single wikipedia
> > community. This is manifestly not the case.
>
> Huh?

Yuo can only effect the world view if there is a broadly simular
shared on in the first place. Wikipedia hasn't had a single community
for quite a while.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/3/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't consider it that precious. There's a lot of time in the world.
> > > No individual participant, in the greater scheme of things, is
> > > particularly crucial to the project.
> > >
> >
> > WP:CVU is however rather more than one person
> >
> > > Volunteers' enjoyment, however -- that's precious.
> > >
> >
> > So how about you stop trying to spoil the CVU's.
>
> It's spoiling mine.

Really? Ignore them then. Remeber you are only one person.

>And how exactly are the members of the CVU getting
> their enjoyment? Is it by playing out paramilitary fantasies of
> protecting the precious Wikipedia from hordes of barbarians? Because
> that's what the name implies.
>

Perhaps. It seems to be a fairly common desire on the internet. On
wikipedia the desire appears to have been channeled into something
useful.

>
> When I say "automatic" I mean "automatic", not "pretty much automatic".

So?

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ack, you've stripped the context here. Other people have posted in
> this thread complaining that every so often people complain about the
> CVU. I'm evidently not the first.

Every so often people complain about wikipedia what of it? I have
never seen a complaint about CVU on the helpdesk. I wake up to quite a
few complaints about vandalism each morning.

> Nope! Try 2001-2002.

Things have changed. You experence at that point in time is irrelivant.

> There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.

Jimbo's judgment when it comes to choseing arbcom members may be
somewhat in question.

> Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
> about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
> quo.

Do you know what the status quo is?

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >And how exactly are the members of the CVU getting
> > > their enjoyment? Is it by playing out paramilitary fantasies of
> > > protecting the precious Wikipedia from hordes of barbarians? Because
> > > that's what the name implies.
> > >
> > Perhaps. It seems to be a fairly common desire on the internet. On
> > wikipedia the desire appears to have been channeled into something
> > useful.
>
> I'm sorry, but for what I would hope are obvious reasons I think we
> should discourage people from playing out their paramilitary fantasies
> at Wikipedia.
>
> In fact, there should be a strong social opprobrium associated with
> such behavior.

I don't care what fantasies people play out as long as they are productive.

> > >
> > > When I say "automatic" I mean "automatic", not "pretty much automatic".
> >
> > So?
>
> I think that getting adminship should be an automatic process.

I think there is a benfit in keeping the number of admins who are
likely to cause problems to a minium.

--
geni


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> entertaining, though.
>

How long a database lock do you view as acceptable?
--
geni


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: nl problem

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

Ray Saintonge stated for the record:
> Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
>
>> You think I am exaggerating - for starters try checking out the
>> article on race and IQ, to me it looks like a gathering point for
>> white supremists - but hey, who am I to question that?  Add a graph,
>> quote the odd looney tune scientist, and presto, you have an idiotic
>> article that absolutely crashes through the POV barrier.  It laughably
>> suggests that as a matter of course, the average monolingual, barely
>> literate, uncultured Homer Simpson has on average a 50% greater IQ
>> than the average sub-saharan African - let's get real people! NPOV
>> indeed.
>>
> Does it mentions that the only (?) regularly featured African-American
> on the Simpsons happens to be Springfield's doctor.  Clearly one of the
> better educated members in that town.
>
> Ec

I'll refrain from pointing out that Homer Simpson isn't white, he's
yellow -- oops, maybe I won't.  But I will point out that one of the
guys who works with Homer at the nuclear power plant -- either Carl or
Lenny -- is not yellow, but brown.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | Save the whales! Trade them for valuable prizes.
 sean at epoptic.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD5L2+MAt1wyd9d+URAldKAJ0dduIzRegu6n7o030/W941BLuRyACeMjRf
MF8aZO2dixdZKlmBpHRzS1g=
=A3bK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Nick Boalch

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> More (and automatic) admins, I say.

Adminship should be no big deal, but it should be a bigger deal than that.

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Europanto

body:
Neil Harris wrote:

> Since it appears to be possible to generate Europanto by word-by-word
> translation of English into European languages chosen at random on a
> word-by-word basis, I'd imagine that it would not be too difficult to
> generate a Europanto Wikipedia programmatically, using the English
> Wikipedia as source material, and perhaps Wiktionary as the
> word-for-word translation dictionary. Throw in link grammars for
> fair-to-reasonable part-of-speech tagging...
>
> Und voila! Esta Vikipedio Europantoi - L'encyclop?die fria e gratuita,
> mit 950,000 artikelen!

Curiously, my brain processes that as "The fried encyclopedia". So I
guess it's a decent enough joke. As a Wikipedia language, though, it
ranks up there with Klingon.

--Michael Snow


body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision.
>>If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work
>>in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
>>
>>
>Wasn't copyright originally intended to be blanket 25 years, regardless
>of how alive or otherwise the author was?
>
>
Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was
originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right
of renewal for an additional 14.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Matt Brown

body:
On 2/4/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was
> originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right
> of renewal for an additional 14.

I always think it's a shame the renewal requirement was dropped in
copyright law.  It ensured that stuff that nobody cared about enough
anymore fell into the public domain quicker.  I guess it did make
things a lot more complicated, though.

-Matt


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: nl problem

body:
Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:

>You think I am exaggerating - for starters try checking out the article on race and IQ, to me it looks like a gathering point for white supremists - but hey, who am I to question that?  Add a graph, quote the odd looney tune scientist, and presto, you have an idiotic article that absolutely crashes through the POV barrier.  It laughably suggests that as a matter of course, the average monolingual, barely literate, uncultured Homer Simpson has on average a 50% greater IQ than the average sub-saharan African - let's get real people! NPOV indeed.
>
Does it mentions that the only (?) regularly featured African-American
on the Simpsons happens to be Springfield's doctor.  Clearly one of the
better educated members in that town.

Ec


from_name: sannse

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

> All this time I've only been complaining about the name. Well, and
> essjay's defensiveness worries me a little, but then, I have taken a
> strident tone here.
>

I think you didn't make it at all clear that the name alone was the
issue, at least not until about three mails ago.

Until then, it seemed that it was the whole concept you were against.

Which makes Essjay's "defensiveness" rather more understandable

--sannse


from_name: Chris Jenkinson

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the
> right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.

Your rather interesting method of improving Wikipedia notwithstanding,
have a look at these two links:
  -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Off-wiki_policy_discussion_considered_essential
  --> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/038101.html

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> All I can say about the text below is that if one is to quote multiple
> people, it would be nice to indicate who said what.
>
> And I'm not sure what essjay's getting upset about, but pranayama might help.

Essjay is quoting no one - that is all his own writing.

And I think he's probably upset since you are attacking an organisation
he has played a major role in administrating.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
> Essjay is quoting no one - that is all his own writing.

Ignore the above, on reading through again I see that it does indeed
have two quotes. My apologies.

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: Tom "TK" Kuegler

subject: [Wikitech-l] E-Mail Capabilities

body:
Hello:

I have been running wikimedia for a little while.  But I have had a problem
getting the email components of the system to work.  None of the email
notifications work for users and emails are never sent from the system. And
in the preferences a user gets : Error sending mail: mail() has been
disabled for security reasons

I have the settings set to "true" in the localsettings.php, but that does
not seem to be helping. Is there something I am missing?

Thanks,

TK


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
Personally, the resources provided by the conter-vandalism unit have helped
me greatly in fighting vandals. Frequently I've found an isolated incident
of vandalism that was part of a wider problem, but wouldn't have known about
it had it not been for the IRC channel or documentation provided by the CVU.

Generally, in cases like this, I find that it's the people who don't use the
resources who declare them to be useless. An interesting irony. As for the
title, I think you may be taking it a bit too seriously. I thought the title
was funny.

*Seriously, just relax, and get back to improving the encyclopedia, rather
than railing against people who choose to improve the encyclopedia in a way
different from how you do it.*

Ryan

On 2/4/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And how exactly are the members of the CVU getting
> > their enjoyment? Is it by playing out paramilitary fantasies of
> > protecting the precious Wikipedia from hordes of barbarians? Because
> > that's what the name implies.
>
> This exactly spells out my problems with the CVU.  Vandals (often no
> more than people testing) are treated as The Enemy, yes, almost as
> terrorists.  Actually, they are potential recruits.
>
> Yes, I know I said I'd made my last post...
>
> --
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> 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 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>More memebers of the generaly public who don't want to edit reading so more
complaints when we take more than 10 seconds to revert vandalism

This is the big one. Many people who opposed semi-protection of [[George W.
Bush]] weren't facing up to the reality that every time an anonymous vandal
inserts information about the President's penis size, a whole heck of a lot
of people could wind up reading the vandalism before it is reverted just 60
seconds later. I don't have the satistics at my fingertips, but I'd like to
know just what they were.

Ryan


subject: [Wikitech-l] E-Mail Capabilities

body:
Thanks, Rob....  I can fix that php issue.

TK

-----Original Message-----
From: wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikitech-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob Church
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 12:32 PM
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] E-Mail Capabilities

"mail() has been disabled for security reasons"

PHP's built-in commands to send email are switched off. You won't be
able to send mail using that method.

Rob Church

On 04/02/06, Tom TK Kuegler <tk at wasabiventures.com> wrote:
> Hello:
>
>
>
> I have been running wikimedia for a little while.  But I have had a
problem
> getting the email components of the system to work.  None of the email
> notifications work for users and emails are never sent from the system.
And
> in the preferences a user gets : Error sending mail: mail() has been
> disabled for security reasons
>
>
>
> I have the settings set to "true" in the localsettings.php, but that does
> not seem to be helping. Is there something I am missing?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> TK
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


from_name: Joseph Reagle

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 2 New Drafts: Wikipedia Leadership and History

body:
Comments on these drafts are most welcome!

http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/career/phd/f05?showcomments=yes

    * Wikipedia's Heritage: Vision, Pragmatics, and Happenstance -
       moving on from my earlier consideration of print publishers in
       Four Short Stories about the Reference Work, I consider recent
       digital encycopedic works:

     This essay explores development of globally available digital
     reference works from their first imaginings to contemporary cases.
     My hope in undertaking such a project is to identify technical and
     social aspects of digital reference work production that can
     contribute to an understanding of a prominent contemporary
     exemplar, the Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia. Why did it
     take over 50 years for the vision of "[w]holly new forms of
     encyclopedias" (Bush 1945: 8 to be realized? The answer,
     presented in this essay, was that it required an alignment of a
     coherent goal, technical practicality, and serendipity: vision,
     pragmatics, and happenstance. ...

 * Do as I do: leadership in the Wikipedia

     In this paper I consider how notions of leadership operate in
     collaborative on-line cultures. In particular, I consider the
     seemingly paradoxical, or perhaps merely playful, juxtaposition of
     informal tyrant-like titles (e.g., "Benevolent Dictator") in
     otherwise seemingly egalitarian voluntary content production
     communities such as the Wikipedia. To accomplish this, I first
     introduce the Wikipedia as an open content community and review
     existing literature on the role of leadership in such communities.
     I then relate ethnographic and archival data on how leadership is
     understood, performed, and discussed in the Wikipedia community. I
     conclude by integrating concepts from existing literature and my
     own findings into a theory of leadership and note other communities
     and leaders against which this theory could be tested. ...

--
Regards,          http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle     E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E


from_name: Jon Savian

subject: [Wikitech-l] How do i hide users from User List?

body:
Hello

How do i go about hiding users on the User List page?  Since the
mediawiki documentation says not to delete suers from the database, i
figure hiding them on the webpage is the next best thing.  Even
removing the User List page from the special pages would work too.

how can i do this?


from_name: Dave

subject: [WikiEN-l] Should we be declaring war on vandals?

body:
Wikipedia hasn't declared war on vandals! If you look at the tempaltes
almost all of the level 1 warnings sound more like welcome messages!!!!

"Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting
vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?"
-Hence the Counter *Vandalisim *Unit.

There are many vandals who have became productive members of the wikipedia
community.
Who is declaring war on vandals??

Flying Canuck


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Europanto

body:
Or cold encyclopedia :\

On 2/4/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Neil Harris wrote:
>
> > Since it appears to be possible to generate Europanto by word-by-word
> > translation of English into European languages chosen at random on a
> > word-by-word basis, I'd imagine that it would not be too difficult to
> > generate a Europanto Wikipedia programmatically, using the English
> > Wikipedia as source material, and perhaps Wiktionary as the
> > word-for-word translation dictionary. Throw in link grammars for
> > fair-to-reasonable part-of-speech tagging...
> >
> > Und voila! Esta Vikipedio Europantoi - L'encyclop?die fria e gratuita,
> > mit 950,000 artikelen!
>
> Curiously, my brain processes that as "The fried encyclopedia". So I
> guess it's a decent enough joke. As a Wikipedia language, though, it
> ranks up there with Klingon.
>
> --Michael Snow
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-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: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Database locking

body:
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> > > > extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> > > > holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> > > > entertaining, though.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How long a database lock do you view as acceptable?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're talking about -- you're going to have to help me here..
>
> It is fairly trivial for an admin to trigger a database lock. Depending
> on what they do exactly it could be quite a long one.

Can you explain what you mean by "database lock"? Or point me to a
reference? I'm happy to RTFM.


body:
On 2/4/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > On 2/3/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On 2/3/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>More (and automatic) admins, I say.
> >>This is the easiest, fastest, most efficient, least work-intensive method...
> >>of dismantling Wikipedia from the inside out.
> >>
> >>I'd say a good portion of our vandals are kids who have nothing better to
> >>do.  This is the same kind of kid who, from experience with forums, and
> >>various other free forms of online entertainment, will perform the bare
> >>minimum of actual work necessary to get whatever power, MP3, level they
> >>want.
> >>
> >>If you tell people they need to browse 6 months and get 1000 edits and they
> >>will be automatically admin'd, you will see people adding content to
> >>articles one word at a time, making meaningless edits to pages over and over
> >>again, and doing that until they hit 1001, then sit around until 6 months
> >>have passed up.  Then they'll go nuts using their admin powers in incredibly
> >>new and damaging ways.
> >
> >
> > Wow, you have not only a minimum faith in the good nature of your
> > fellow man, a lot of faith in their lack of anything better to do.
> >
>
> You'd be surprised how much time some people have on their hands, and
> how completely and utterly nuts some people are.

Actually, I wouldn't. Believe me, I know kooky. Most people aren't.

> >>Automatic adminship is NOT the way to go.  Absolutely not.  To be honest, I
> >>don't think we need to be admitting admins at the rate that we are.  Hell,
> >>RfA pretty much is an automatic approval process at this point anyway, and
> >>I've seen infrequent complaints that some admins getting through aren't
> >>quite stable.  Just imagine what would happen if we put adminship in the
> >>hands of, essentially, everyone.
> >
> >
> > Oh, lordy! The unwashed masses! Quick, defend the citadel. Being an
> > admin really ain't that amazing.
> >
> Isn't it? There are already quite a few admins who block users with the
> minimum of warnings, using obscure block messages, don't have an email
> address set, and won't respond to what other users are saying.
>
> Now please, stop being disingenious and get back to whatever it is on
> Wikipedia that you're good at.

Hey, now. Maybe I haven't been completely polite but I haven't been
rude to you. I'm not being disingenuous -- I quite honestly think
Wikipedia would be better off if the process for becoming an admin was
not managed by people. Or at least managed by people a lot less. The
process for becoming an admin (or rather, getting admin-type powers)
should be a lot more streamlined and automatic.

I'm good at pretty much everything, by the way. Well, my French sucks.
But it once wasn't that bad... and, okay, my tennis swing needs work,
and you wouldn't want me performing open-heart surgery. But I make a
mean quiche!


from_name: Heinz

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: A school teacher's wiki-like classroom experiment

body:
David Gerard schrieb:
> This is excellent:
>
>     http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-02-02/goods_next.php
>
> It may also be a good experiment to suggest to teachers in general if
> they're trying to explain Wikipedia.
>
>
very funny.
teachers begin to explain to pupils how to use wikipedia for doing their
homework with wikipedia. ;-)

heinz


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 2/3/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'd like to see the US make fair
> >use more restrictive - although frankly it probably wouldn't matter
> >all that much in my daily life.
> >
> >But making it more clear when the answer is "No."  That'd be
> >tremendously helpful to Wikipedia, in that it'd resolve a lot of
> >conflict, and I really don't see how it'd hurt anything.
> >
> Another interesting possibility would be a use-it-or-lose-it provision.
> If there has been no properly authorized publication of a copright work
> in the last 10 years, any reprinting is fair use.
>
> Ec
>
At the very least a liberal application of adverse possession and
prescriptive easements to copyright would be nice.  After all, if
"intellectual property" really is "property", one should have to
actively defend the property in order to keep it.

Anthony


from_name: wiki at marcusbuck.org

subject: [Wikitech-l] Captcha on nds.wikipedia.org

body:
Moin,

Could somebody with the right for it please deactivate the Captcha at the new
users registration page on nds.wikipedia.org like it is deactivated on other
wikipedias? There is everyday activity on the wiki and we can handle good with
the incoming spam and vandalism. There is no need for this kind of barrier.
Thanks

Slomox
Marcus Buck


body:
Should any of us declare war on vandals?

Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if
shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is,
would rather have their edits last, influencing others?

Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting
vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?

Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith?

Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea.


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: OFFLIST Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia

body:
Test

Fred

On Feb 4, 2006, at 4:09 PM, sannse wrote:

> You've probably had several people say this but ... please can you
> correct your computer's clock?  Your mail is coming through as from
> 1997.
>
> Thanks,
>
> sannse
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Jtkiefer

body:
The Cunctator wrote:
> Should any of us declare war on vandals?
>
> Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if
> shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is,
> would rather have their edits last, influencing others?
>
> Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting
> vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?
>
> Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith?
>
> Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea.
>
Jimbo Wales declaring a war on vandals would be in my opinion as useful
as George W. Bush (idiot!!!) declaring a war on terror, it means
absolutely nothing and the distinction between vandals and vandalism is
an extremely blurry line.

-Jtkiefer


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> And how exactly are the members of the CVU getting
> their enjoyment? Is it by playing out paramilitary fantasies of
> protecting the precious Wikipedia from hordes of barbarians? Because
> that's what the name implies.

This exactly spells out my problems with the CVU.  Vandals (often no
more than people testing) are treated as The Enemy, yes, almost as
terrorists.  Actually, they are potential recruits.

Yes, I know I said I'd made my last post...

--
Sam


from_name: Caroline Ford

body:
I think they should be de-sysopped - they've put the project at massive
risk..

-----Original Message-----
From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax (Wikipedia
email)
Sent: 03 February 2006 03:52
To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Password security

Walter Vermeir wrote:
> Andrew Gray <shimgray at ...> writes:
>
>>It strikes me that announcing in advance "Hey, guys, a number of
>>accounts INCLUDING n SYSOPS have blank passwords and can easily be
>>taken over..", then not fixing it for a while, is a recipe for
>>disaster. It's not that hard to generate a list of users with admin
>>privileges, and presumably neither is it impossible to write a short
>>script to try 800 logins...
>
>
> But there can not be many sysop or higher accounts with no password (I
hope).
>
> Using no password, especially when you are sysop is highly
> irresponsible and those users should be de-sysoped.
>
> When there are no accounts left that are anything else then normal
> users then blank password could be enabled again for 2 weeks or so to
> give those users the time to pick a password.
>
> How can users who have no access anymore to there account regain access
Brion?
>
> Make a bugzilla ticket?
>

There are certainly sysops on en: who don't have email addresses entered
- should /they/ be desysopped?

There are certainly plenty of people who haven't entered email addresses,
and complain "I've lost my password, can you reset it for me"
- but how can we be sure that they are the owner of the account, if they
never entered an email address?

One solution, possibly not the best, is to force people to enter an email
address, and send an "activation token" to that address. At present email is
the only way people have of recovering passwords; we need to either give
them another way, or make email part of the signup process.

--
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


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Password security

body:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
> Using no password, especially when you are sysop is highly irresponsible and
> those users should be de-sysoped.

I thought adminship was no big deal... ;)

Chris

--
Chris Jenkinson
chris at starglade.org

"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra


from_name: SJ

subject: [Wikipedia-l] RIP: Prince Roy of Sealand

body:
On 2/4/06, Tjipke de Vries <tdevries at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Hi SJ,
>
> you wrote:
> > Jan. 31, three days ago, marked the passing of someone whose life and
> > work have managed to touch many on this list -- Paddy Roy Bates, known
> > in refined circles as Prince Roy of Sealand.
>
> Can you tell me what your source is? I did add this information to the Paddy
> Roy Bates-article on Wikipedia-NL but now I get comments that the
> information is false.

Mmmm, caught trusting Wikipedia (and someone who got his information
from the en:wp article).  Embarrassing...    I'll update this thread
if I can verify it properly.  Until then, assume it is suspicious
information.

SJ


from_name: Nick Boalch

body:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> It's the *kind* of recognition that troubles me. The Counter Vandalism
>> Unit is a clear take-off of the Counter Terrorism Unit. Not the kind
>> of analogy I like to see.
>
> *'''Delete''', Americentric. Alternatively '''rename''' to
> "Wikipedia:Home Guard"...

Are you comparing Essjay to Captain Mainwaring? :-)

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Should we be declaring war on vandals?

body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
>> I could, but if I did that I would mess up the listings in GMail
>> which I use
>> myself.
>> I can't make everyone happy at the same time.
>> I'll try quoting part of the messages I reply to instead, which
>> hopefully
>> makes as much people happy as possible.
>
> Why does it mess up the listing in Gmail? If that's the case, Gmail is
> broken.

Of course it's broken, it's only in beta. Doesn't mean we should ban it,
though. Otherwise, by a similar logic, perhaps the Wikimedia Foundation
should optimize all of its sites for Internet Explorer.

--Michael Snow


body:
On 2/4/06, Chris Jenkinson <chris at starglade.org> wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > Should any of us declare war on vandals?
> >
> > Aren't most vandals people who are just being juvenile, and likely if
> > shown how much fun being a productive contributor to Wikipedia is,
> > would rather have their edits last, influencing others?
> >
> > Shouldn't we distinguish between fighting vandalism and fighting
> > vandals? It's not personal -- it's business. Right?
> >
> > Isn't declaring war a gross violation of assuming good faith?
> >
> > Please tell me why "declaring war" on vandals is a good idea.
>
> Who's been declaring war on vandals?
>
[[User:Cool Cat]].


subject: [WikiEN-l] Discussions for Adminship

body:
Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DFA and comment on it. I
guess people didn't like us suspending RFA before discussing, so we made a
different page, where you can tie up the whole thing in discussion until the
cows come home. Please inform me of any obvious contradictions in the pages.

--
~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: STUPID Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: US Congress Staff Editing Wikipedia

body:
That's why we're wikipedians I suppose :D

On 2/4/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Sorry for that folks - don'tcyah hate it when you press that send, and
> then instantly realise you mucked up.
>
> --sannse
>
> sannse wrote:
> > You've probably had several people say this but ... please can you
> > correct your computer's clock?  Your mail is coming through as from
> 1997.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > sannse
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] E-Mail Capabilities

body:
"mail() has been disabled for security reasons"

PHP's built-in commands to send email are switched off. You won't be
able to send mail using that method.

Rob Church

On 04/02/06, Tom TK Kuegler <tk at wasabiventures.com> wrote:
> Hello:
>
>
>
> I have been running wikimedia for a little while.  But I have had a problem
> getting the email components of the system to work.  None of the email
> notifications work for users and emails are never sent from the system. And
> in the preferences a user gets : Error sending mail: mail() has been
> disabled for security reasons
>
>
>
> I have the settings set to "true" in the localsettings.php, but that does
> not seem to be helping. Is there something I am missing?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> TK
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nope! Try 2001-2002.
> >
> > Things have changed. You experence at that point in time is irrelevant.
>
> How have they changed?
>

Spambots and other vandle bots are more common. Page move vandlism.
Shear quantity of vandalism. More memebers of the generaly public who
don't want to edit reading so more complaints when we take more than
10 seconds to revert vandalism

> I'm trying to find out. How would you describe it?

No one can be told what the status quo is they have to experence it
for themselves.

--
geni


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 04/02/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Less than that, or slightly more depending on how you look at it. It was
> > originally 14 years from the time of publication, with a one-time right
> > of renewal for an additional 14.
>
> I always think it's a shame the renewal requirement was dropped in
> copyright law.  It ensured that stuff that nobody cared about enough
> anymore fell into the public domain quicker.  I guess it did make
> things a lot more complicated, though.

It did, however, mean that even stuff which people did care about
slipped through the net, often through no fault of the copyright
owner.

You may remember, back in summer 2004, a popular flash cartoon which
parodied "This Land Is Your Land". The copyright owners demanded it be
pulled, on the grounds that it was first copyrighted in 1956 and
renewed in 1984. The legal wrangling which ensued then ran across a
copy of it from 1945 (it was first written in 1940) with a copyright
notice on the end... meaning that the copyright actually expired in
1973, and wasn't renewed. Ooops.

(Personally, I'm happy it's in the public domain - it's what the
author probably wanted! - but it does serve as a good example...)

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


body:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> > > extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> > > holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> > > entertaining, though.
> > >
> >
> > How long a database lock do you view as acceptable?
>
> I'm not sure what you're talking about -- you're going to have to help me here..

It is fairly tivial for an admin to trigger a database lock. Depending
on what they do exactly it could be quite a long one.

--
geni


from_name: Gerben van der Stouwe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Europanto

body:
2006/2/4, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net>:
>
> Curiously, my brain processes that as "The fried encyclopedia". So I
> guess it's a decent enough joke.
>As a Wikipedia language, though, it
> ranks up there with Klingon.
>
> --Michael Snow

Maybe something for april fools this year? Just a thought.

--
Gerben van der Stouwe
g.vanderstouwe at gmail.com


from_name: John Lee

body:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:

> The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> All I can say about the text below is that if one is to quote multiple
>> people, it would be nice to indicate who said what.
>>
>> And I'm not sure what essjay's getting upset about, but pranayama
>> might help.
>
>
> Essjay is quoting no one - that is all his own writing.
>
> And I think he's probably upset since you are attacking an
> organisation he has played a major role in administrating.
>
> Chris
>
I don't know where to start, so I suppose this is the best place. I
don't have a real problem with the CVU -- if people want a shiny badge
to stick on their userpage, it's not like we can stop them short of
causing much anguish. I don't see a real point to it, however. I fight
vandalism just as effectively without being a CVU member. I don't see
the point in joining. Unless there's *real* organisation -- doling out
of edits to check and/or revert, for instance -- it doesn't serve much
purpose. Fighting vandalism is rather solitary, and you don't need a
hierarchy or list of members to write a script that lists potential
vandalism edits. I think the main problem is that some people see the
CVU as a bunch of jackbooted thugs (probably not even close to being
true; it might have the same amount of truth as the accusation that AfD
is populated with insane deletionists) and/or being an organisation that
right now doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. If it were forcibly
disbanded today, we could still use the bots and IRC channels to find
vandalism edits.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])


list: foundation-l

from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] communications committee

body:
--- Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:
> Working tools:
> * an internal press wiki (enotif enabled) and a mailing list will be
> used to coordinate the work of the communications committee. The mailing
> list and the wiki will be open to all people doing PR on an
> international or project level.
> * the press queues in otrs
> * the press release distribution and archive software on wikimedia.de

A separate list I can understand (I plan to have one for finance). But why is there a need for a
separate Wiki? We already have InternalWiki whose editors must be approved of by the board not
only to edit but to even view pages. Do we now not trust all board members, officers and the board
members of chapters? If so, then we are in serious trouble.

A separate wiki for press and PR is a very bad idea since other parts of the organization will
also need to periodically be involved in press/PR issues. At the very least they need to be
informed of what is going on so they don't get blindsided. Other times their input will be needed.
All that can and should be done in one centralized place, InternalWiki.

Anything uber secret should only be handled by the board and they already have their own wiki.

-- mav

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


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] communications committee