from_name: Molu

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 182

body:
See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing when done with malicious intent is called vandalism.

  Molu

    On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:59:11 +0100 Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>What's the reliable source for any particular detail from any
>particular article being considered by reputable authorities as
>constituting a spoiler?

>Guy (JzG)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:

>> A genuine newbie would respond, "WTF?"
>>
>> Pete, wondering if there is a jargon dictionary somewhere
>
> Heh, that's true. "No, of course I'm not a sock puppet, I'm a real
> editor!"
>
> *bzzt*
>
> "Fire!"

 From now on, I'm editing Wikipedia with socks on my hands.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:

>> Having an up-to-date comprehensive encyclopedia using
>> volunteer labor is a very big task :)
>
> No argument there, and Wikipedia is a stunning achievement by
> anybody's
> standards. However I was thinking that the sort of people who are
> capable of
> ensuring that legal articles are accurate, uptodate and dependent are
> usually busy and highly paid. Asking senior lawyers to work on a
> legalopedia
> in their time off is a step up from asking Star Trek fans to
> compile lists
> of trivia.

Yeah, and the same for asking knowledgeable computer scientists,
mathemeticans, or philosophers to contribute. Then again, many
lawyers work pro bono giving actual legal advice and representation?
certainly editing Wikipedia is easier than this.

> Compiling useful legal articles and then keeping them up to date isn't
> something your average editor can do. How do we check credentials, for
> example?

Non-lawyers can still cite lawyers, if lawyers write and publish
these sorts of resources (law school textbooks perhaps?).

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

body:
Hello,

  I think we need some mechanism to impress it upon admins that it is not okay under any circumstances to block users you have been involved in a dispute with. It's currently treated as something optional by some admins. Usually the blocks they make are justified, but surely posting to AN/I is a better idea? IMO, This needs to be a non-negotiable directive, DO NOT BLOCK A USER YOU ARE ENGAGED IN A DISPUTE WITH, no matter how obviously the block is needed. This will save a lot of rants and hurt feelings.

  Molu

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Mark Williamson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Request for a new Wikipedia in the Chavacano
	Language

body:
Do you speak this language?

Mark

On 19/05/06, Weekeejames <jam at croftj.net> wrote:
> This is a request to start a new Wikipedia in the
> Chavacano Language.
>
> cbk-zam.wikipedia.org
>
> Currently, there is no standard language code
> for Chavacano in the ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2
> language codes.
>
> The ISO 639-3 lists the language code for Chavacano as cbk
> but since Chavacano has some dialects/varieties,
> this request is for the Zamboange?o dialect
> which has the largest number of this Philippine Creole Spanish
> speakers in the Philippines, being the main language
> of Zamboanga City, Philippines.
>
> Hence, I am requesting the language code to be used for the
> Chavacano de Zamboanga Wikipedia as cbk-zam
>
> Please help us in the creation of this Philippine Creole
> Spanish Wikipedia. Thank you very much.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
Refije dirije lanm? yo paske nou posede pw?p bato.


list: foundation-l

from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject: [Foundation-l] Design for wikipedia's front page (and corporate)

body:
Ben Yates schrieb:
> The licencing debate seems irrelevant for the moment.  I'm sure
> designers willing to do pro-bono work would also be willing to licence
> that work under the GFDL (or under standard copyright).  It honestly
> doesn't seem like a very important issue right now considering the
> number of improvements that could potentially be made if we were to
> set the issue aside for now.

It's not as irrelevant as one may think. I was playing with the idea of
a design contest for the german wikipedia among pro's for quite some
time. One of the problems which arose there with our free licenses is
the possibility of modification. If you're a good designer, creating a
good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

> For example: has wikimedia/wikipedia ever been formally tested for
> usability, to see (in hard data) how the interface could be improved?

OpenUsability made two usability tests for the German Wikipedia, you can
find the test results (in english) on:
http://openusability.org/projects/wikipedia/

Lots of issues apply to wikipedia and mediawiki in general.

greetings,
elian


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a block.

Agreed that it justifies a block, but an indefinite block? For his second
block EVER?

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
> made.
>
> Mgm

 Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't simple
vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community banned.

Ryan


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
>
> On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia is not your desk at work.  You are not allowed to post
> > copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia.  On the other
> hand, you are
> > allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude.  (But please don't
> tell us when
> > you do.)
>
> Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing
> Wikipedia in the nude? ;)

That's fine. Female editors might find themselves the target of harassment
from the anti-userbox brigade.

--
Pete, requesting spoiler warnings as well


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
This rule is not that clear cut. A quarrelsome user cannot by picking
petty quarrels thus insulate themselves from administrative action.
The dispute must have been substantial and the block is good in any
event. Treating it as a "non-negotiable directive" is inappropriate.
It is more an action which can get you into trouble and possibly lead
to loss of administrative status in egregious and repeated cases.

Fred

On May 19, 2006, at 4:49 AM, Molu wrote:

> Hello,
>
>   I think we need some mechanism to impress it upon admins that it
> is not okay under any circumstances to block users you have been
> involved in a dispute with. It's currently treated as something
> optional by some admins. Usually the blocks they make are
> justified, but surely posting to AN/I is a better idea? IMO, This
> needs to be a non-negotiable directive, DO NOT BLOCK A USER YOU ARE
> ENGAGED IN A DISPUTE WITH, no matter how obviously the block is
> needed. This will save a lot of rants and hurt feelings.
>
>   Molu
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and
> 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on
> > whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense
> > presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
>
> I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak)
> looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my
> logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review
> entry
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg>
> that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and
> said it should be deleted.

Please note that I never said it shouldn't be deleted, merely that
fair use applies regardless of whether or not the copyright holder
objects.

Also note that lawyers tend to take the safe route on these types of
things - especially when the benefit of taking chances with the law is
negligible.

Anthony


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>   Silly question - are "artists' impressions" (pictures attempting to
> illustrate a subject in the absence of definitive information) allowed in
> Wikipedia? There are topics where we will never have a free image. Could we
> envisage letting editors draw an image, stating clearly that it's simply an
> "artist's impression"? Would it violate WP:OR?

It's tricky. I had the discussion a while ago on [[Katie Holmes]],
where I added this free content drawing from Flickr:
http://flickr.com/photos/mricon/2081064/in/set-52272/

Someone later replaced it with a fair use photo. We did argue a bit
about WP:NOR, but it also turned out that the drawing was actually
traced from a famous photograph of Holmes, rendering the free content
argument null.

In another case on de.wikipedia.org, a user created many fairly
abstract drawings of celebrities and added them to articles. These are
now all removed. There may have been copyright reasons for that, but
they also looked a bit weird and out of place.

>From these anecdotes I would conclude that we have to be very clear
that the picture is an original work and not a directly derivative
one, especially not from a single work. In addition, there has to be
general consensus that the picture accurately and neutrally depicts
whatever it is meant to depict. Insofar as it is possible to cite
sources, they should be cited.

As for WP:NOR, you could make the argument about any original creation
by Wikipedians. We do not. What matters more, especially in the case
of living people, is that the original creations are generally
considered to be good, encyclopedic and useful.

Erik


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
 admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan)

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

Mark Gallagher stated for the record:

> G'day Peter,
>
>>At risk of involving myself in this matter, I have to ask what the
>>difference between rouge and rogue is. Is this simply the difference
>>between an Australian and another spelling. Because I think its
>>perfectly sensible to have a sentence that says "its great being a
>>rogue admin", but I dont see how rouge, which is in my view a colour
>>of makeup, relates to this sentence.
>
>
> Heh!  It's a long-standing Wikipedia in-joke.
>
> Basically:
> * A rouge admin is a good admin who is hated by trolls and
>    ne'er-do-wells.  Being "rouge" is a Good Thing, although there are
>    policy wonks who tell us it's better to treat trolls and
>    ne'er-do-wells according to process, no matter what, and that
>    rougeness is therefore not to be encouraged.

"Rouge" is a mockery of the typical troll's inability to spell.  Right
up there with "teh interweb," et alia.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A thunder of jets in an open sky,
 sean at epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!"
                  | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb,
                  | And once again you know it's time....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEbdYbMAt1wyd9d+URAiOgAJ9hpwKGf18GMqmvCg4QQtZaA0O6MwCfWMnn
3Rch4//sCHPjcz63m9nRsgI=
=npCe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


body:
On 5/19/06, ?ukasz Garczewski <tor at oak.pl> wrote:
> No, the design should NOT be GFDL, CC-whatever or under any other free
> license. The webpage design is an integral part of the sites' visual
> identity, just as much as the project logos (if not more).

Let me quote from MonoBook's CSS definition:

** MediaWiki 'monobook' style sheet for CSS2-capable browsers.
** Copyright Gabriel Wicke - http://wikidev.net/
** License: GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
**
** Loosely based on
http://www.positioniseverything.net/ordered-floats.html by Big John
** and the Plone 2.0 styles, see http://plone.org/ (Alexander Limi,Joe
Geldart & Tom Croucher,
** Michael Zeltner and Geir B?kholt)
** All you guys rock :)

In other words, our own current design is a free content creation that
was only possible because of the free content work of others. Free
design is very much a part of the free content and free culture
movement, and Wikimedia is at the very center of that movement.

Has using a free content design that is derived from free content
designs harmed us in an identifiable and provable way? Your argument
is: "We are a top 20 website, so we should start acting like one". My
argument is: "We are a top 20 website because we _haven't_ acted like
one."

Sharing is good. Making the logos proprietary is one way of ensuring a
consistent identity. And you know what's one of the best arguments
against it? That people will start arguing that now that you've made
one part of your site proprietary, you should do the same for others.
That slope is very slippery.

I would strongly argue that any redesign that does not affect the
logos should be done under free content conditions.

Erik


from_name: Keith Old

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
	admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan)

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/18/06, Rob Church <robchur at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why the fuck aren't these idiots on moderation?
>
>
> List policy is to allow people to have their 5 minute rant. When it
> becomes
> a 10 minute rant, we step in.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

The 10 minutes must just about be up.

Regards

Keith Old


body:
On 5/18/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:
> If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
> need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
> though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
> they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.
>
That brings up another question I had.  If the designer creates the
layout for free, would it be a work for hire, with the copyright owned
by the Foundation, or would the designer retain all control over it?
Reading over the public discussions by the designers on this matter it
seems like they're not going to be willing to do the work for nothing,
even if they do it for zero monetary compensation.

Also, would any of this change if the design was paid for?  Even if
the Foundation doesn't want to spend money on something like designing
the website, perhaps because it's questionable whether website design
is the most effective way to spend money achieving its goals, it would
always be possible to set up a separate fund from separate donations
to pay for it.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Ali.jpg

body:
On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
> > On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> >>Point me to the original public domain image.  I'll crop it and remove
> >>the antenna sticking out of his head, and release my copyright on the
> >>modification to the public domain.
> > Looking at Google, this seems to be the original:
> > http://www.house.gov/clay/images/photo016.jpg
> >
> Thanks ... done.
>
Cool, thanks.  I would have hate to have seen Wikipedia's copyright
policy require the replacement of a free image with a non-free one!

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:

> The one I'd like to hear answered myself is whether the desires of the
> copyright holder have any bearing on whether an image can be fairly used
> - I ran into this issue on
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Orly.jpg>, wherein an image
> that (as far as I can tell) meets fair use criteria for the context in
> which it was being used was deleted because the copyright holder
> apparently complained about it.

It's a matter of cost/benefit. Is the inclusion of this picture worth
defending in court because of its encyclopedic value? In the case of
illustrating the "O RLY?" Internet phenomenon, I think it is not. In
fact, one could argue that anything that contributes to
existinguishing all knowledge that such a thing has ever existed is a
valuable service to humanity (j/k).

While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful
that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not
become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where,
and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or
DRV are good places to start in most cases.

Ultimately, it is the Wikimedia Foundation that has to carry the risk
of losing a lawsuit.  However, we should also not forget that this is
not just a for-profit corporation, but a non-profit organization
funded primarily through small scale donations, so the opinion of the
community should have considerable weight.

An example of a fair use photo which I consider worth defending in
court is the one at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Phuc_Phan_Thi

Erik


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/19/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was using a touch of irony to point out that divisive and
> inflammatory are not clear to all people. I agree that applying a
> category about your personal abilities is not divisive when someone
> labels themself with it. However I still can't see how labelling
> oneself as a member of an organisation is necessarily divisive and
> inflammatory, as opposed to stating an undefined level of interest in
> said organisation.

Member of Hamas? Hmm...

Seriously though, to me stating any kind of political affiliation or
ideology has a touch of "up yours" to it. This may have to do with the
people I have actually met who would do such a thing. But I have trouble
explaining why. For a start, I would not find a great big "This user is a
republican!" or "This user supports the Front National!" userbox a great
invitation to start a conversation with that user. It's like saying "Here
are my political leanings, and you're going to hear all about them".

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Adminship is...no big deal?

body:
On 5/19/06, jahiegel <jahiegel at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Contra the proposition that "adminship is no big deal" (with which I, of
> course, agree), an article in the June issue of [[Milwaukee Magazine]]
> evaluates the history of our [[Milwaukee, Wisconsin]] article, referencing
> discussions on the talk page and offering the assessment of a Milwaukee
> historian that the article is altogether accurate at the moment.  The
> article mentions an editor who has contributed a good bit to the article and
> notes that, in view of his many edits, he has been "awarded the presitgious
> title of ''site administrator''" (the new issue doesn't show up on the
> website [http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/] for a while, but I'll post a
> link when it's up).  I'm certain that the admin in question, for whom they
> don't provide a user name, didn't choose the appellative "prestigious", but
> it gives me hope that my decision to take a break from university studies,
> in part to edit WP, was the right one; sure, my resum? won't have a degree,
> but someday it might have "site [sic] administrator".
>

It is prestigious, but mostly to the WP community. You can probably write
"Editor of Wikipedia" on your CV and get away with it most of the time...

Steve


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
	information

body:
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need to have a
> basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If
> everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team, you have to
> set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a
> basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia
> could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both cases, and
> when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.

Has the minimum officially been met yet? Are we now being more
discriminating?

Steve


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Hi,
my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself banned.

i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons

1) 3RR rule
2) No useful edits
3) Copyright violoations
4) attacks on talk pages

They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons, they
really have no substance.

1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address and
editor
the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at work.

2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the
spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section, background
info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and zionism
page, and turkic.

3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced to a
website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their
copyright. So there was NO copy right violation

4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could be
said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.

Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at best are
minor violations that would carry warnings.

however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to block
rule".

my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses . Including
the person that banned me jayjg.  These posts included
a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind
orthodox jews who oppose political zionism.  This was reverted many times by
jayjg amongst others

also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the enemy of
the jews by alan hart",
who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well researched
'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.

Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason for my
ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user who
has a different view of zionism.

for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted by
me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned indefinately
thanks saladin

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

body:
As far as I know, WMC, Stifle, and Ps2 don't have mental disabilities.
You're going to get yourself a longer block if you say that us admins are
retarded.

--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
On 5/19/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In another case on de.wikipedia.org, a user created many fairly
> abstract drawings of celebrities and added them to articles. These are
> now all removed. There may have been copyright reasons for that, but
> they also looked a bit weird and out of place.

Somewhat like this image?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo_%28slang%29

>From these anecdotes I would conclude that we have to be very clear
> that the picture is an original work and not a directly derivative
> one, especially not from a single work. In addition, there has to be
> general consensus that the picture accurately and neutrally depicts
> whatever it is meant to depict. Insofar as it is possible to cite
> sources, they should be cited.

It's funny just how true the witticism "Stealing from one is plagiarism,
from many is research" is. :)

Would we have any guidelines about how "sympathetic" to be to the subject?
Is it ok to leave pimples out? What expression should they have? What if
there are two choices of image for the lead?

Well, I suppose these battles exist anyway.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> The one I'd like to hear answered myself is whether the desires of the
> copyright holder have any bearing on whether an image can be fairly used

If that was the case, certain forms of parody could not really exist.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for
citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted the
citations an put the references in their place

and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is not a
good source other than that it was  "propoganda", which is subjective.. The
talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page
referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as
'propoganda'.

And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something another
time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not indefinate.

I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean
being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely
harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance.

Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one of
the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look.

thanks saladin1970

>From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:08:41 +0200
>
>I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a block.
>Edits like
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640#The_three_talmudic_Oathsare
>clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed
>template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a website
>with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference
>turned into a disputed tag.
>
>In
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767
>you
>also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com
>
>Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and in
>response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove sources
>to get it in.
>
>Your contributions show the following edits:
>  10:41, 18 May 2006
>(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
>(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640>)
>Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page. the
>references provide all the information given)
>10:06, 18 May 2006
>(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
>(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53835919>)
>Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page - the
>three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good reason
>it stays)
>06:41, 18 May 2006
>(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
>(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53819450>)
>Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (added three oaths section,)
>19:26, 17 May 2006
>(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
>(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767>)
>Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (removed pov further reading
>and added a factual reference)
>
>That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the
>same
>username, your IP has nothing to do with that.
>Mgm
>
>
>On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself
>banned.
> >
> > i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons
> >
> > 1) 3RR rule
> > 2) No useful edits
> > 3) Copyright violoations
> > 4) attacks on talk pages
> >
> > They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons,
> > they
> > really have no substance.
> >
> > 1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address and
> > editor
> > the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at
> > work.
> >
> > 2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the
> > spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section, background
> > info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and zionism
> > page, and turkic.
> >
> > 3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced to
>a
> > website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their
> > copyright. So there was NO copy right violation
> >
> > 4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could be
> > said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.
> >
> > Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at best
> > are
> > minor violations that would carry warnings.
> >
> > however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to
>block
> > rule".
> >
> > my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses .
>Including
> > the person that banned me jayjg.  These posts included
> > a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind
> > orthodox jews who oppose political zionism.  This was reverted many
>times
> > by
> > jayjg amongst others
> >
> > also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the enemy
>of
> > the jews by alan hart",
> > who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well researched
> > 'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.
> >
> > Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason for
>my
> > ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user
>who
> > has a different view of zionism.
> >
> > for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted
>by
> > me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned
> > indefinately
> > thanks saladin
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN
>Messenger
> > 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/18/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Apparently labelling yourself is divisive and inflammatory, taking the
> > most general definition of divisive (aka. categorising) and saying
> > that because you disagree with atheism this person is deliberately
> > trying to inflame you or some other person. On the other hand, when
>
>
> That's too general. "Wikipedians who can't spell" is not a divisive category
> if applied to oneself.
>
> Steve

I was using a touch of irony to point out that divisive and
inflammatory are not clear to all people. I agree that applying a
category about your personal abilities is not divisive when someone
labels themself with it. However I still can't see how labelling
oneself as a member of an organisation is necessarily divisive and
inflammatory, as opposed to stating an undefined level of interest in
said organisation.

Peter


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 1:24 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:

> Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms
> became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag
> onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have
> decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them.  What can we practically
> do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given
> how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.
>
> Perhaps we need a new tag for claims which should be moved within n
> days unless cited, with its own category for maintenancy. But that
> might further increase the use of tagging as opposed to talk pages.

Curtailing the use of {{fact}} on dubious statements that are
unsourced or poorly sourced is what we are discussing. [[WP:LIVING]]
as recently updated by SlimVirgin, UninvitedCompany and others,
although not policy, cover this subject quite unambiguously:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality
references ? particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced
or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be
removed immediately from both the article and the talk page."

Maybe it is time to consider upgrading [[WP:LIVING]] to policy status.

-- Jossi


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, it was an OTRS action. Close enough.
>

No it isn't.

> I can't reveal the exact details, but "fair use" most definately did
> *not* apply. The image was a copyvio.

All fair use images are copyvios. That is irrelivant. the question is
how good is the fair use case. In this case the answer is pretty good
(remeber the author of the photo probably can't market the photo with
the O RLY? on it because he is unlikely to own the copyright to that
particular derivative work) thus the image has zero comercial value to
anyone .

The large O RLY? printed acrosss the image makes it pretty much
useless for it's original perpose in any case.

The way we are using it is informative.

I'm not totaly convinved by the original amount and substantiality
claim but it would be trivial to reduce the image size to improve that
one.

In short if you think that fair use claim is weak then the number of
legit fair use claims on wikipedia could probably be counted on the
fingers of one head.

--
geni


body:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it
> makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation
> needed}}, please do not do that!  Please just remove the statement and
> ask a question on the talk page.

Agree with this. Is it added to the relevant policy pages?

Here is an example from an article I deleted:
> "The most recent disaster that <name omitted> claims his organization
> has responded to is the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, although there is no
> convincing evidence that he or any of his team has been there.[citation
> needed]"
>
> That is really really really awful.

It's also just stupid, bad writing. "Nobel peace prize winner Jim Smith said
all people should donate money to charities. Ironically, Smith has never
given money to the [insert name of charity picked at random here."

IMHO this kind of writing breaches NPOV and almost NOR - we start to make
claims about the person by connecting unrelated facts together. We should
never attempt to expose hypocrisy in our subjects - if it exists, we should
find reliable sources that have already done that. This was the problem with
[[Safe Speed]] - editors had tried to debunk claims made by the group,
whereas what they should have been doing was citing others who had debunked
them, not just general research that apparently contradicts their claims.

Selective juxtaposition of facts to imply something is definitely out. You
either say it and cite a source, or you don't say it at all.

Steve


body:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> Right, although there are other categories where this can be important:
>
> 1. Existing companies and other organizations (an extension of the
> living persons, since these are groups of living persons)
>
> 2. Information which might have some significant safety implications

This is getting interesting. Do we leave it up to common sense, or do we
encode this list somewhere? Would legal information qualify? Medicine? What
about information which could influence voters in an election?

Steve


from_name: Molu

body:
Corollery to Loom91's First Law ([[WP:RAUL]]) states "Whatever must pass for the Truth on WIkipedia is necessarily determined by consensus". As for obviousness and common sense, Wikipedia's article on [[Ball]] begins with "A ball is a round or spherical object that is used most often in sports and games." Should that be removed because it's obvious (much more obvious than Plot Summaries containing spoilers, which is not particularly obvious)? An encyclopedia necessarily repeats the obvious for the sake of completeness.

  Moreover, there are supposed to be two separate Plot sections in an article on a novel ([[WIkipedia:WIkiProject NOvels]]) one of which is spoiler while the other is not. Expecting the reader to make the call is unfair and totally unnecessary. Any editor is bound to abide by consensus even when he/she disagrees with, otherwise consensus becomes meaningless. I'm sure no one will approve if I suddenly go about recreating userboxes deleted under T1. I again appeal to the editors who disagree with spoiler notices to give us a list of articles form which they have removed spoiler notices as a token of their good faith.

  Molu

  On Fri, 19 May 2006 20:22:49 +1000 "Peter Mackay" wrote:

>Consensus can be an ass. If the section is headed "Plot summary", then if >it
>*didn't* contain details about the plot, it should be called something else.
>Why do we need a spoiler warning in such a case? It's like picking up a
>packet of peanuts and seeing a warning notice: "Caution, may contain >nuts."

>I'm not against spoiler notices where appropriate, but surely common sense
>should come into where they are needed and where they are not!

>Pete, wondering if King Kong gets the girl

---------------------------------
Sneak preview the  all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.


body:
On 5/19/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> At risk of involving myself in this matter, I have to ask what the
> difference between rouge and rogue is. Is this simply the difference
> between an Australian and another spelling. Because I think its
> perfectly sensible to have a sentence that says "its great being a
> rogue admin", but I dont see how rouge, which is in my view a colour
> of makeup, relates to this sentence.
>
> Peter

Tradition or a very long running joke.

--
geni


from_name: Steve Summit

body:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> Heh!  It's a long-standing Wikipedia in-joke.
> * A rouge admin is a good admin who is hated by trolls and
>    ne'er-do-wells...

Presumably the tradition arose when some early ne'er-do-well,
who was a poor speller to boot, accused his adversary of being
a "rouge admin", and the joke stuck.


body:
On 5/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it
> makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as {{citation
> needed}}, please do not do that!  Please just remove the statement and
> ask a question on the talk page.

Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms
became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag
onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have
decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them.  What can we practically
do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given
how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.

Perhaps we need a new tag for claims which should be moved within n
days unless cited, with its own category for maintenancy. But that
might further increase the use of tagging as opposed to talk pages.

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Reduce confusion by following policy

body:
There seems to be too high an emphasis on streamlining policy by
cutting corners. I am attempting to reduce this through my new essay.

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

Please leave comments about it and feel free to improve it.

Peter


body:
I do not cite policy without reading it. Guy has the personal opinion that spoilers are not good, and he disrupts the normal functioning of Wikipedia to make this point, even when consensus is clearly against him.

  Molu

  P.S. I don't know what makes a top-posting or what doesn't. I don't know many different ways of sending emails.

    On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:46:50 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:

>G'day Molu,
>[Gah! Top-posting again! It's not that hard to send an email, man!]
>> See [[WP:POINT]]. You are delibarately disrupting a reader's
>> experience of WIkipedia by removing spoiler notices when the
>> consensus is clearly for keeping them. This sort of thing when done
>> with malicious intent is called vandalism.

>That has nothing to do with WP:POINT. I suggest that you, and everyone
>else who repeatedly cites it without actually knowing what it means,
>actually *read* the damn page instead of simply falling in love with the
>name.

>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse

---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
> Mark Gallagher wrote:
> > Heh!  It's a long-standing Wikipedia in-joke.
> > * A rouge admin is a good admin who is hated by trolls and
> >    ne'er-do-wells...
>
> Presumably the tradition arose when some early ne'er-do-well,
> who was a poor speller to boot, accused his adversary of being
> a "rouge admin", and the joke stuck.

Actually, it's because *most* complaints spell it "rouge admin".

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Cormac Lawler

subject: [Foundation-l] Wiki Activism (Project Proposal)

body:
On 5/19/06, Nicholas Barry <hss2t at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello! - my name is Nicholas Barry. I am "willing to take responsibility" for this project, but I don't feel that this description/proposal is ready to go on the actual Proposals for new projects page (so it's on the Talk page). I'm new at the project proposals game, so I would really appreciate help, advice, or constructive criticism. Actually, even hateful, unconstructive criticism could help let me know where I go wrong (ha ha).
>  The Idea:
>  WikiActivism is a project for past and present social movements such as the Civil Rights movement, Animal Rights movement, and the blooming Immigrant Rights movement. The meat and potatoes of the project will be a page for each separate movement. The majority of pages (great in number, though less important than the main page for each movement) will list evidence used by or against each movement, organizations associated with each movement, and other such items. (Most links on each page will probably go to Wikipedia for explanation of various terms and issues.)
>  How is this different than the existing pages on Wikipedia?
>
>    It will be more in-depth than the Wikipedia articles. This will include:
>       Evidence and statistics cited for or against movements
>       Organizations associated with movements
>       Detailed mapping of the inter-relations between movements
>       A deeper consideration of the issues of the movement
>
>    There will be sections devoted to the ongoing activity of each movement (almost like melding Wikipedia with Wikinews for these movements).
>    Each movement will have a page or pages describing practical actions that potential movement members or supporters can take to further the movement
>  Issues, Concerns, Objections and Questions:
>  Many of the concepts and ideas on the pages have explanations on Wikipedia, and would be unnecessary (and maybe against copyright) to copy over content from the 'pedia to this project. Is it considered bad form for many of the links on a particular project to actually lead off to other projects? Or is that considered necessary? I notice that Wikibooks has a lot of that, so I guess it's okay.
>  It is possible that this project will not fall under the WikiMedia Foundation charter, which is to spread information. This project is meant to spread information, but is also meant to have practical information on how to contribute to various movements. Is that okay? Please opine.
>  - Nicholas Barry
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Hi Nicholas,

thanks for your detailed project breakdown here - it's an interesting
subject. However, I don't personally think that it would be the kind
of thing which would be started as a separate Wikimedia sister project
(or, at least, not in the immediately foreseeable future). Instead, it
might be an idea to look into starting it at another wiki hosting site
such as wikia <http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia> (used to be called
Wikicities) or seedwiki <http://www.seedwiki.com/>. You could quickly
start whatever you wanted to do without waiting for it to be started
under the umbrella of the Wikimedia Foundation - some proposals have
been in existence for about three years now!

However, there is obviously a lot you could do in Wikipedia itself -
through categorisation, creating navigational templates (to show your
"inter-mapping"), and then, of course, writing subarticles, like
"Criticisms of [activist movement x]" etc. There might also be the
possibility of using Wikisource as a repository of your "evidence"
pages (providing it is free content). However, if you wanted to
specify exactly how to contribute to such movements etc., it would
probably be outside Wikipedia's policy of NPOV.

On linking in Wikipedia, it is certainly better to keep links as
internal Wikimedia links (ie to link between Wikipedia and
Wikisource), but obviously external links are fine too, providing they
aren't done extensively or intrusively. External links within the
article are generally to the source of that information, and then the
rest are at the bottom of the page for further reference - which could
include your WikiActivism project, if you set it up separately.

I hope this helps in some way.

Cheers,

Cormac (Cormaggio)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, MuscleNerd <mnerd at musclenerd.com> wrote:
> I have apparently been accused of being a sock puppet by "Cyde".  I
> believe he took this action because I have been voting against his
> TFD recommendations.  And I don't think that's fair at all.

I don't think Cyde should have blocked you, given that he is the
person who made the TFD requests which you disputed. However, please
do understand that creating accounts apparently solely for the purpose
of voting is generally frowned upon. I can also understand the
suspicion of sock puppetry given that the issue you commented on,
userboxes, is one which is dominated by a lot of trolling and noise,
and is generally a highly Wikipedia-internal affair.

I am more inclined to believe that you are acting in good faith now
that you have shared your identity. Where does your interest in
commenting on this issue come from? Do you intend to contribute to
Wikipedia beyond sharing your opinion on this issue?

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> > I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
> > made.
>
>  Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't simple
> vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community banned.

Repeated, persistent copyright violations *is* grounds for an indefinite block.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
On 5/19/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am one of the more liberal australians around, and as such I take a
> nonchalant view on most political issues... (liberal has a bit of a
> different meaning down under). But I do understand what you mean about

Well, I'm from Melbourne, and I think you must be using a third meaning of
liberal! Apparently it's not Liberal as in Johnny, not liberal as in US
"left-wing"...maybe "liberal" as in "liberally butter the cake tin"? :)

Steve


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is not a
> good source other than that it was  "propoganda", which is subjective.. The
> talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page
> referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as
> 'propoganda'.

If you wish to quote the Talmud, surely you can find a better web page
to use than http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com.


from_name: Domas Mituzas

body:
Hi!

> If you're a good designer, creating a
> good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant
> admin
> later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

Isn't it what whole Wikipedia is all about?
We build content that can be used (and modified) by anyone.
We build platform that can be used (and modified) by anyone.

But no, wait, we have to fight our visual identity to extremes!

Sooner or later we'll end up as content processor rather than a
website, then all these visual identities will be worth 0.00$.

Cheers,
Domas


from_name: Delirium

body:
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
> One of the problems which arose there with our free licenses is
> the possibility of modification. If you're a good designer, creating a
> good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
> later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?
>

This sounds a lot like the arguments against Wikipedia in
general---surely if you're a good researcher, perhaps a professor in
archaeology, creating a good article on your area of expertise for
Wikipedia --- do you really want any archaeology-ignorant editor later
fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?

I'd say it's worked out pretty well so far. ;-)

-Mark


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a block.
Edits like
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640#The_three_talmudic_Oathsare
clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed
template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a website
with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference
turned into a disputed tag.

In
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767 you
also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com

Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and in
response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove sources
to get it in.

Your contributions show the following edits:
 10:41, 18 May 2006
(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640>)
Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page. the
references provide all the information given)
10:06, 18 May 2006
(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53835919>)
Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page - the
three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good reason
it stays)
06:41, 18 May 2006
(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53819450>)
Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (added three oaths section,)
19:26, 17 May 2006
(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
(diff<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767>)
Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (removed pov further reading
and added a factual reference)

That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the same
username, your IP has nothing to do with that.
Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself banned.
>
> i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons
>
> 1) 3RR rule
> 2) No useful edits
> 3) Copyright violoations
> 4) attacks on talk pages
>
> They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons,
> they
> really have no substance.
>
> 1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address and
> editor
> the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at
> work.
>
> 2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the
> spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section, background
> info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and zionism
> page, and turkic.
>
> 3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced to a
> website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their
> copyright. So there was NO copy right violation
>
> 4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could be
> said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.
>
> Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at best
> are
> minor violations that would carry warnings.
>
> however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to block
> rule".
>
> my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses . Including
> the person that banned me jayjg.  These posts included
> a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind
> orthodox jews who oppose political zionism.  This was reverted many times
> by
> jayjg amongst others
>
> also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the enemy of
> the jews by alan hart",
> who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well researched
> 'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.
>
> Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason for my
> ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user who
> has a different view of zionism.
>
> for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted by
> me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned
> indefinately
> thanks saladin
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
> 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Well, votes on such issues by new users are generally discounted in the
final tally because of the very issue of possible sockpuppetry and the fact
that new users don't always know the background of said issue nor the
appropriate policies and guidelines, but I think blocking him for it is
unneccesary.

You seem to be voting because you think Cyde is on a crusade. As soon as you
start voting based on someone's actions instead of the merits of the article
or template in question, it's time to step away from the keyboard.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, Eric McDonald <eric at daveanderic.com> wrote:
>
> Please forgive me if this isn't the appropriate forum for this, but I
> don't mind talking about this publicly.  Again, this in reference to
> my user name Mnerd and IP 69.231.169.88
>
>
> Cyde believes I must be a sock puppet because I have edited only the
> templates for deletion pages.  Here is his accusation, and my response:
>
> Denied. I refuse to believe you are a new, distinct user, when all of
> your edits at templates for deletion. ? May. 19, '06 [06:58] <freak|
> talk>
>
> Well, I guess you are perfectly free to not believe what you choose.
>
> I FREELY admit that all of my edits are on templates for deletion. I
> said as much in my User talk page. I registered SPECIFICALLY because
> I don't like your crusade. That certainly does NOT mean that I am a
> sock puppet. It means I was motivated enough by what you are doing to
> register tonight.
>
> The fact that you believe I must be a sock puppet because I disagree
> with you, and joined specifically to add a voice against your
> actions, speaks volumes. Mnerd 07:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
>
> By the way, I don't see "edits only templates for deletion" as a
> reason to suspect sock puppetry. Please do point me to a page if I am
> wrong. Certainly you need something a little stronger than that?
> Mnerd 07:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
>
>
>
>
> On May 18, 2006, at 11:36 PM, MuscleNerd wrote:
>
> > I have apparently been accused of being a sock puppet by "Cyde".  I
> > believe he took this action because I have been voting against his
> > TFD recommendations.  And I don't think that's fair at all.
> >
> > I would appreciate if someone could unblock me.  Or at least email
> > me so I can help "clear my name" after this unjust accusation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Perhaps a little too long, yes.
I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
made.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a
> block.
>
>
> Agreed that it justifies a block, but an indefinite block? For his second
> block EVER?
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
>From my reading of [[WP:USER]], it seems to me that a subpage in the
user namespace which expresses opinions about Wikipedia or admin
behavior, or one which is the beginning of an attempt to organize
users towards one goal or another (a pre-born Wikiproject), should be
totally legal, irregardless of whether other users think the idea is a
good one or whether or not it "takes up resources".

And yet, at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]], there have been a
number of cases lately where things are nominated for just this
reason. People seem to vote without any consideration other than
whether they think the subpage is "a good idea" or a "waste of
resources" (of course, the MFD votes often taken up almost exactly the
same amount of database space as the pages in question, but let's not
let logic get involved here).

There are two things I think we should do here. One is to try and
hammer out if all user subpages must be "useful to the encyclopedia"
(as many claim they must, when they are on the chopping block), and,
if so, ADD THAT to the user page guidelines. If we DO want to go down
that path, we should come up with some clear cut guidelines for what
counts as "useful". Must it be useful for writing articles? For
organizing research? For telling others about yourself? Does something
which facilitates the community count as "useful", even if it does not
directly apply to article writing?

For example, I have a page on my subpages which is a list of all free
images I have drawn for Wikipedia. It serves no direct purpose except
maybe for me to feel good about my accomplishments, and to encourage
others to feel good about them too. Does that make it "useful"? Maybe.
Since I'm not getting paid monetarily for my contributions (which take
hours to create, mind you), a little ego stroking is a good way to
make sure that I (and others) keep working at it. So in that sense,
the page is very "useful": it guarantees that I will keep coming back
and spending my valuable time on this project. (I of course do not
mean this to refer only or even directly to "me", but mean it as "the
hypothetical editor".)

But where do we draw the line? Is a page which criticizes the
implementation of Wikipedia policy "useful"? Is a page which
criticizes the policy outright "useful"? What if it makes blanket
statements about the actions of "admins"? Does that go too far? Where
does "useful criticism and disagreement" end and "personal attacks"
begin?

I of course do not expect there are simple answers to these questions,
but I've been really quite disturbed over the last week by the way
some people have been voting to delete (or even speedying) pages in
the userspace which in my mind were not a problem at all. (On
speedying: I think if a reasonable number of people do NOT think a
page is an "attack page", it should not be speedied under the "no
attack pages" CSD. I am happy to "trust admin judgment" but in
ambiguous cases, if we trusted the judgment of all admins, we'd end up
with endless wheel-warring.) The reasons given were poor, in my mind,
and people were labeling criticisms (however misguided or incorrect)
as "attacks", criticized one page for creating "factionalism" (because
it was trying to organize people to support a policy change, which
would inevitably create some disagreement), and voting down pages
because there was "no need for them" and they weren't "useful to the
encyclopedia."

This dismays me. Not because I think my user subpages, of which there
are a few, are ever going to be on the chopping block. It dismays me
because reaching into what others perceive to be "their territory" --
and yes, I know that nobody "owns" any pages on WP, that WP is not a
webhost, etc., but it cannot be denied that people feel a little
proprietary about their userspace, and that this is not entirely
discouraged -- is a rather presumptuous thing to do, and I think
should only be done in cases where it is CLEARLY warranted. I think
the "bad blood" created by nominating someone's stillborn Wikiproject
for deletion is completely unnecessary -- if it is not "doing
anything", then just ignore it! Perhaps this makes me a little more
old-fashioned "if it ain't your business, don't mess with it", but I
find it really hard to stomach when a group of people can vote down
someone's user pages, often for reasons which have NOTHING to do with
any of our user page guidelines.

Personally, I don't care if people want to write little half-baked
essays relating to Wikipedia policies on the subpages. If someone
wanted to write a little essay about why free content is dumb, let
them do it. Who cares? It's not going to change the world, it's not
going to sink the project (and if it did sink the project, then that
indicates far bigger problems than one little essay). We don't have
any "right to free speech" on Wikipedia, but I don't think people are
out of line to expect that they have the ability to criticize things
they don't like, as long as they don't cross over that fuzzy line to
being "attack" (I think accusations of "attacks" should be reserved
only for those things which are *clearly* personal attacks, and not
just personal criticisms).

I think our user page policy needs an overhaul, and I think we need to
have better guidelines for the deletion of pages out of the user
space, because I think it is a place where feelings of others can get
pointlessly trampled on. Who cares about feelings? I do. Not because
I'm a bleeding-heart sort of person -- because I believe that
Wikipedia runs on good will. People will only contribute well when
they feel wanted and appreciated. The people who are happy to
contribute even when they feel they are not wanted are, for the large
part, pretty problematic (most POV-pushers know they aren't wanted,
for example, but have decided it is their "crusade").

By all means -- edit the article namespace ruthlessly. Delete like
crazy, if there is reason to. But I think we need to be a little more
careful with the user namespace, and develop some explicit guidelines
which say as much.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Image:Ali.jpg

body:
The only need for the "source" in this case is to verify that it was a
US Gov image (it was not obvious from the photo itself). That is, it
is required here just to guarantee that it is a free image.

FF

On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> > Anthony DiPierro stated for the record:
> > > On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> > >>Point me to the original public domain image.  I'll crop it and remove
> > >>the antenna sticking out of his head, and release my copyright on the
> > >>modification to the public domain.
> > > Looking at Google, this seems to be the original:
> > > http://www.house.gov/clay/images/photo016.jpg
> > >
> > Thanks ... done.
> >
> Cool, thanks.  I would have hate to have seen Wikipedia's copyright
> policy require the replacement of a free image with a non-free one!
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body: Wow.  Very nice.  Totally agree with everything you said.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
> > While I respect Brad's opinion very much, we need to be very careful
> > that "because I've spoken to Wikimedia's lawyer about it" does not
> > become equivalent to "end of discussion". The only question is where,
> > and with whom, such discussion should take place. I think wikien-l or
> > DRV are good places to start in most cases.
>
> This is the situation I'm getting concerned about here. I don't really
> care about the specific image or its subject myself, I stumbled into
> this completely by chance, but I am a little disturbed by how much
> careful and detailed work went into justifying its inclusion only to be
> trumped with completely unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and
> "the Foundation lawyer doesn't like it" assertions. How am I supposed to
> know what's valid fair use under these circumstances?

I think the lack of transparency -- which is likely for legal reasons
-- is an unpleasant aspect of the legal end of these sorts of
decisions. In the end, the question is not "is it fair use under US
law" but "is it worth our invoking the fair use clause in the face of
an unhappy owner." I think most lawyers are going to go with "no" in
almost every case, because 99% of a lawyer's job is to keep you out of
court in the first place.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this. I think though that we should
fully articulate that our "fair use policy" is *not* just about being
within the law, but about avoiding court in the first place. It does
this *by means of the law* (if we comply with the law, then the
copyright holder will probably NOT risk sueing us), but at the same
time this approach makes it clear that there are non-legal aspects
(i.e. an angry copyright holder) which would dictate policy actions.
It also would dictate a very conservative approach to "fair use" --
one which would guarantee all of our "fair uses" are so far within the
law that even thinking of a lawsuit would be pointless. But I
understand that a lot of people feel differently on this.

(Though, you have to admit, O RLY? v. Wikimedia Foundation would be a
really funny case citation.)

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
I've unblocked for the time being and recommended he edit some other
articles to show he has the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I've asked
him to let other people handle Cyde and the TFD's. His votes can be
discounted if needed. No need to block.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Eric McDonald wrote:
> <snip>
> > I FREELY admit that all of my edits are on templates for deletion. I
> > said as much in my User talk page. I registered SPECIFICALLY because
> > I don't like your crusade. That certainly does NOT mean that I am a
> > sock puppet. It means I was motivated enough by what you are doing to
> > register tonight.
> >
>
> You have registered for the purpose of making your opinion about the
> deletion of some templates heard. Do you intend to actually contribute
> to Wikipedia, or just use it as a webhost? Please keep
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT in mind.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
You did delete citations, I linked the edits in which you did. And I also
linked the edit in which you replaced a perfectly fine source with your
link. The 3RR violation is because you keep adding the same link when
several people have asked you not to. In such cases, you should engage in
discussion, not revert back.

I've asked Jaiyg to comment on the copyvio thing.

Mgm

On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for
> citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted
> the
> citations an put the references in their place
>
> and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is not
> a
> good source other than that it was  "propoganda", which is subjective..
> The
> talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page
> referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as
> 'propoganda'.
>
> And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something
> another
> time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not
> indefinate.
>
> I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean
> being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely
> harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance.
>
> Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one of
> the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look.
>
> thanks saladin1970
>
>
>
>
> >From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
> >Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:08:41 +0200
> >
> >I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a
> block.
> >Edits like
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640#The_three_talmudic_Oathsare
> >clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed
> >template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a website
> >with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference
> >turned into a disputed tag.
> >
> >In
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767
> >you
> >also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com
> >
> >Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and in
> >response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove
> sources
> >to get it in.
> >
> >Your contributions show the following edits:
> >  10:41, 18 May 2006
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> >(diff<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640
> >)
> >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page. the
> >references provide all the information given)
> >10:06, 18 May 2006
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> >(diff<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53835919
> >)
> >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page - the
> >three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good
> reason
> >it stays)
> >06:41, 18 May 2006
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> >(diff<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53819450
> >)
> >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (added three oaths
> section,)
> >19:26, 17 May 2006
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> >(diff<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767
> >)
> >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (removed pov further
> reading
> >and added a factual reference)
> >
> >That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the
> >same
> >username, your IP has nothing to do with that.
> >Mgm
> >
> >
> >On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself
> >banned.
> > >
> > > i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons
> > >
> > > 1) 3RR rule
> > > 2) No useful edits
> > > 3) Copyright violoations
> > > 4) attacks on talk pages
> > >
> > > They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons,
> > > they
> > > really have no substance.
> > >
> > > 1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address
> and
> > > editor
> > > the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at
> > > work.
> > >
> > > 2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the
> > > spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section,
> background
> > > info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and
> zionism
> > > page, and turkic.
> > >
> > > 3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced
> to
> >a
> > > website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their
> > > copyright. So there was NO copy right violation
> > >
> > > 4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could
> be
> > > said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.
> > >
> > > Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at
> best
> > > are
> > > minor violations that would carry warnings.
> > >
> > > however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to
> >block
> > > rule".
> > >
> > > my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses .
> >Including
> > > the person that banned me jayjg.  These posts included
> > > a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind
> > > orthodox jews who oppose political zionism.  This was reverted many
> >times
> > > by
> > > jayjg amongst others
> > >
> > > also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the
> enemy
> >of
> > > the jews by alan hart",
> > > who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well
> researched
> > > 'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.
> > >
> > > Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason
> for
> >my
> > > ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user
> >who
> > > has a different view of zionism.
> > >
> > > for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted
> >by
> > > me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned
> > > indefinately
> > > thanks saladin
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN
> >Messenger
> > > 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
> 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > > IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on
> > > whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense
> > > presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
> > >
> > > I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
> >
> > I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak)
> > looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my
> > logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review
> > entry
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg>
> > that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and
> > said it should be deleted.
>
> Please note that I never said it shouldn't be deleted, merely that
> fair use applies regardless of whether or not the copyright holder
> objects.
>
> Also note that lawyers tend to take the safe route on these types of
> things - especially when the benefit of taking chances with the law is
> negligible.
>

Yes, but fair use is a defense, not a right. And our policy can only
hope to make sure we would have a good defense. But in reality, we
don't really want to fight at all -- we've got better things to spend
our donations on, and the lack of one image will not sink an
encyclopedia (whereas a lawsuit could).

So yes -- you are right on the law, assuming of course that we ended
up in court AND won AND the judge agreed with our fair use assertions.
But our fair use policy is really trying to be a few rungs above that
on the causality chain.

I tried to write up something on this at one point, at
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use/Preemptive_fair_use]]. It's woefully
out of date now, perhaps for the better (policy has changed a lot
since August 2005). But I still think it is a generally good way for
thinking about the policy in this case.

FF


from_name: Justin Cormack

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 19 May 2006, at 06:25, Bryan Derksen wrote:

> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>> IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on
>> whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense
>> presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
>
> I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak)
> looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my
> logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review
> entry
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
> title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg>
> that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the
> situation and
> said it should be deleted. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find
> either a
> link to the Foundation lawyer's comments or the original copyright
> holder's complaint anywhere, so it still leaves me completely in the
> dark as to why this logic is apparently wrong in this case.

If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win
or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We
are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend
our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.

Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all
be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.

Justinc


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
On 5/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> >From my reading of [[WP:USER]], it seems to me that a subpage in the
> user namespace which expresses opinions about Wikipedia or admin
> behavior, or one which is the beginning of an attempt to organize
> users towards one goal or another (a pre-born Wikiproject), should be
> totally legal, irregardless of whether other users think the idea is a
> good one or whether or not it "takes up resources".

Conversely, if the nascent WikiProject would be quickly deleted once
moved into Wikipedia: -- in other words, if its goals are not among
those for which WikiProjects are intended -- then there's no reason to
prolong its existence.  This is particularly true for projects that
are nothing more than anti-Wikipedia rants with a signup sheet.

> Personally, I don't care if people want to write little half-baked
> essays relating to Wikipedia policies on the subpages. If someone
> wanted to write a little essay about why free content is dumb, let
> them do it. Who cares? It's not going to change the world, it's not
> going to sink the project (and if it did sink the project, then that
> indicates far bigger problems than one little essay). We don't have
> any "right to free speech" on Wikipedia, but I don't think people are
> out of line to expect that they have the ability to criticize things
> they don't like, as long as they don't cross over that fuzzy line to
> being "attack" (I think accusations of "attacks" should be reserved
> only for those things which are *clearly* personal attacks, and not
> just personal criticisms).

I recall a (fairly recent?) ArbCom decision mentioning something about
userpages that "bring the project into disrepute"; is there any reason
not to extend this criterion to user subpages?  The denizens of
WikiTruth and Wikipedia Review and their ilk already have the entire
rest of the Internet to spout their garbage; there's utterly no reason
to legitimize it and help spread it by hosting it (however
inconspicuously) on a top-20 site.

--
Kirill Lokshin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all
> be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
>
> Justinc

Company logos
Certian historic images
Movie screenshot.

--
geni


from_name: Puppy

body:
> From: Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] hooray, hooray, the lunatics have taken over!
(snip)
>
> b) A userbox created for pure vandalism (that is, it's nonsense, created
>     by a vandal, to facilitate filling the main article space --- that's
>     where we used to write articles --- with nonsense) was speedied as
>     "pure vandalism" (because that's what it is), then taken to DRV
>     because "OMG!  Cyde deleted a userbox!  Get him!"
>
> Is it a full moon now, or is Wikipedia just getting stupider?
>
>
Not a full moon (http://stardate.org/nightsky/moon/) and Cyde + any uBox
activity = complete hysteria, this has been clear for some time. We
should probably add that information somewhere to the guidelines, or
possibly a cat:mathematics article.
-KillerChihuahua


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
It's an interesting question raised here - we refuse to accept votes from
anonymous people, so it shouldn't be surprising that people register
specifically to vote. However, sock puppets obviously have the same
behaviour.

Perhaps the right approach in a suspected sock puppet case is to temporarily
disregard their vote, and leave a message like "You're acting like a sock
puppet. Can you demonstrate otherwise?" on their talk page.

Steve

On 5/19/06, Eric McDonald <eric at daveanderic.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Erik,
>
> Thanks for believing me.  It is a bit distressing to be accused of
> being something you aren't (a sock puppet) and being banned on
> something as "little" as voicing my opinion about the TFD controversy.
>
> I do appreciate your words and those of the other admins here who
> believe me.  My big mistake was contributing anonymously until the
> night it really mattered :)
>
> On May 19, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > On 5/19/06, MuscleNerd <mnerd at musclenerd.com> wrote:
> >> I have apparently been accused of being a sock puppet by "Cyde".  I
> >> believe he took this action because I have been voting against his
> >> TFD recommendations.  And I don't think that's fair at all.
> >
> > I don't think Cyde should have blocked you, given that he is the
> > person who made the TFD requests which you disputed. However, please
> > do understand that creating accounts apparently solely for the purpose
> > of voting is generally frowned upon. I can also understand the
> > suspicion of sock puppetry given that the issue you commented on,
> > userboxes, is one which is dominated by a lot of trolling and noise,
> > and is generally a highly Wikipedia-internal affair.
> >
> > I am more inclined to believe that you are acting in good faith now
> > that you have shared your identity. Where does your interest in
> > commenting on this issue come from? Do you intend to contribute to
> > Wikipedia beyond sharing your opinion on this issue?
> >
> > Erik
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 19 May 2006, at 11:54, geni wrote:

> On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It
>> will all
>> be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
>>
>> Justinc
>
> Company logos
> Certian historic images
> Movie screenshot.

company logos are fairly harmless, except where they are being used as
decoration, when we can get rid of them.

I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones
which have articles. Although we should make more effort to license
them.

See no reason for movie screenshots in general.

We need an action plan: for example all pictures of living people that
are not free should be deleted immediately, so we can start getting
free ones. We should remove album, book, magazine and game covers,
they are not necessary. And we should nuke all the pokemon, star wars,
Simpsons and other similar pics.

Justinc


from_name: Ben McIlwain

subject: [WikiEN-l] hooray, hooray, the lunatics have taken over!

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

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> b) A userbox created for pure vandalism (that is, it's nonsense, created
>     by a vandal, to facilitate filling the main article space --- that's
>     where we used to write articles --- with nonsense) was speedied as
>     "pure vandalism" (because that's what it is), then taken to DRV
>     because "OMG!  Cyde deleted a userbox!  Get him!"

For what's it worth we indef-blocked the guy who created it as well as
the guy who brought it to DRVU :-D

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEbe0UvCEYTv+mBWcRAq6nAJ9Z/lq3jylOPpYVBCIj56aKQ8qHtACgoiOf
lY7a2Zuk35JKi+UvMmE1pb0=
=Bow2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> A genuine newbie would respond, "WTF?"
>
> Pete, wondering if there is a jargon dictionary somewhere

Heh, that's true. "No, of course I'm not a sock puppet, I'm a real editor!"

*bzzt*

"Fire!"

Steve


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

Mark Gallagher wrote:
> I agree with you both ...
>
> Sometimes "blocking in a dispute" occurs when there's no dispute in
> progress.  Suppose that User A repeatedly inserts a copyvio image into
> an article.  Admin B, after giving appropriate warnings, deletes the
> image and blocks the user.  User A then says "but Admin B was edit
> warring over the inclusion of the copyvio image!  It's a dispute!  He's
> not allowed to block!"
>
> It even works if Admin C gets involved, at B's request (on ANI, or IRC,
> or a talkpage, or whatever).  Then User A says "Admin B asked C to get
> involved!  It's a conspiracy!"  No matter what, there was no dispute,
> and User A is being a dick, and we shouldn't pander to him by saying
> "you're right, that *was* a legitimate dispute".  Further, Admin B
> shouldn't be prevented from blocking a disruptive user simply because
> some smartarse decides to pick a fight and impugn her impartiality and
> ability to do her job.

I had a recent RFC over this actually.  A user (who shall remain
unnamed) was repeatedly removing or altering the image on the
Jyllands-Posten article (for over a month) to the point where it was
simple vandalism and it was pissing everyone off.  So I blocked him for
a week.

Then he turns around and says my block was invalid because I was
previously in a dispute with him, and he dredges up an old diff.  And
then another admin comes forward in support of the block, and he comes
up with another diff where that admin reverted his vandalism to the
article.  This happened two more times with two more different admins
stepping forward in favor of the block and he was like, "You can't,
content dispute, content dispute!"

It's ridiculous.  When a bunch of admins are coming forward saying you
did the wrong thing, you should shut up and accept it, not dredge up
various incidences when you were possibly in a dispute with that admin.

Luckily the block stood.  Despite this rules-lawyering, it was clear
that nobody was buying the argument that you can't block someone for
very questionable edits if you happened to have interacted with them in
the past.

- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")

~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEbe4JvCEYTv+mBWcRAlLtAKCbJNXI2MuUXn//gx29h3vll59ZPACgngFs
2iThiKadAnH2KyQp5u7aM/8=
=jaFt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> In general, lots of bullet points, but no sources. Little to no academic
> journals cited to analyse how the concepts fit together. On specific
> technologies or products the articles are usually pretty helpful. But for
> trying to understand general concepts like enterprise resource
> planning...Wikipedia will not (currently) even get you off the ground.
>
> (I would change my original statement to refer to information systems or
> software engineering rather than just computer science)
>
> Steve

People tend to write about their hobies rather than the stuff they
have more formal expertise in. I tend to write about canals rather
than chemisty for example.

--
geni


from_name: Ray Saintonge

body:
arnomane at gmx.de wrote:

>Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:
>
>
>>If you're a good designer, creating a
>>good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
>>later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?
>>
>>
>Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some people
>consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of the
>given Monobook design.
>
If a professional develops a main page design he or she needs to accept
that that contribution may be edited mercilessly from the moment it is
in place. There is no basis for presuming that all alterations will be
destruction.

>Destruction is what a broad majority considers destruction and this can differ
>from community to community (For example I really dislike most of the
>namespace colors used in various Wikipedias but that's probably my personal
>taste only...).
>
I don't dispute that some people have very poor fashion sense in their
choice of colours.  Some are so lacking in contrast as to be impossible
to read, but ultimately it's up to the people involved there to make
their own decisions.

>But as you have pointed it out usability is important and so I think we can
>find a good commons sense for some kind of "corporate design" with only minor
>local tweaks if we favour usability over fancy design.
>
Again each project should be completely free to adopt your "corporate
design" or not.  Having this multiplicity of designs maintains the
dynamism of the the Wikimedia projects.  Some will suck.  Others will
introduce new design ideas that can be adopted by the other projects.
Most will follow a sensible middle ground.  When you mandate a single
professional design for all projects the results become static and stale.

>>If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
>>need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
>>though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
>>they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.
>>
>>
>Well there is the requirement that you have to credit the author(s). In case
>someone else did modify a design you can force people by license (let us say
>GFDL) to say that this is a modified design so that the original author does
>not get blamed because some local ignorant admin did enforce his personal
>taste (although my own experience says that only in small communities you can
>act as dictator, in larger communities you need very good points so that
>other admins don't revert you).
>
Most of our GFDL pages are already modified, so this would be no
different.  Credit for the professional designer's modifications will be
there in the page's history just like anyone else's modifications before
and after.

>So if a majority of a community is dumb and likes a stupid change, well I'd
>say they don't deserve anything better... And even in that case the original
>author has nothing to do with it.
>
It's premature to suggest that the changes supported by the community
will be stupid.  The professionals have not yet submitted their
proposals, so we have not yet had the opportunity to determine the
extent they will be stupid.

>So I am sure there will be projects that will destroy any given design that
>makes sense but these projects have to live with the problem that they are
>very probably not professional and thus probably not relevant. And a project
>that is irrelevant won't be noticed or just ignored over time (and if people
>from that project notice this loose of interest they will hopefully consider
>it and change their current style)...
>
This last paragraph perfectly exemplifies the kind of professional
arrogance that I have railed about since at least the year 40 BWP.  It
perfectly represents the head-up-one's ass attitude maintained by
professionals overwhelmed with their own sense of importance.  As
someone has already affirmed Wikipedia did not get where it is by
allowing itself to be guided by professionals.  Perhaps this universe
where things that are "not professional and thus probably not relevant"
would better be described as one where being professional is
irrelevant.  Except for an unusually easy ride that has been given to
lawyers, all professionals who have participated in building Wikipedia
have had to accept that they must work with non-professionals.  I see no
reason to make an exception for webpage designers.

What keeps me involved is the acceptance of a series of underlying
principles, not the least of which were outlined in Jimbo's "Free the
... " speech.  I am very pleased to speak out when anyone would attempt
to subvert those principles in the name of order and consistency.

I recently had the pleasure of hearing a presentation by Dean Fink based
on his recent book, "Leadership for Mortals".  The emphasis was on
leadership in education in the 21st century, but the principles involved
can apply as easily in other fields of practice.  Professionals are
characterized by having an agenda, or at least a vested interest in the
ways of the past.  Real learning brings more than that into play, and
perhaps some day I can rant about that at greater length.  The memorable
point that he made about Noah's Ark was "Remember the Ark was built by
amateurs, the Titanic by professionals."

Ec