from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] blatant state-sponsored copyright violations (by
	Baide Baiku of the PRC)

body:
On 5/30/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did you read this thread? Baidu is traded on NASDAQ.
>
To be more specific, [[American Depositary Receipt]]s of Baidu are
traded on NASDAQ.  Not sure how much of a difference that makes with
regard to the current discussion, but there probably is one.


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Arne Klempert

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed. (was Wikimedia main office)

body:
On 5/31/06, Walter van Kalken <walter at vankalken.net> wrote:
> Geez very Americancentric. what happened to: Stockholm, Copenhagen,
> Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Wien,
> Geneve, Zurich, Milan, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Delhi, Bangkok,
> Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Jakarta, Sidney,
> Johannesburg, Capetown, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Cassablanca, Tel
> Aviv, Dubai, Kuwait, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Caracas, Buenos Aires,
> Lima and last but not least Paramaribo? (sorry if I forgot any city
> these are out of the top of my head)
>
> All of these are transport hubs with flights all over the world with
> multinational headquarters and ngo organization offices and headquarters
> etc. The last time I checked the world didn't revolve around the US.

There will be a Wikimedia office in Frankfurt (opening in October) -
not the headquarter of the Wikimedia Foundation, but the office of
Wikimedia Deutschland. And I hope that in a few years we will have
offices in some of the other cities you mentioned as well. We should
really go that way, instead of fighting about the best place for the
one and only international headquarter ...

-- Arne (akl)


list: wikimedia-l


list: wikien-l

from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin-driven death of Wikipedia: a diatribe

body:
On 5/31/06, Molu <loom91 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting.
>
>  Molu

Top-posting is replying to the email above the quoted text. See your
text up there --^, if I had been top-posting, it would have been down
there --v.  Hope this helps.
--LV


from_name: Rob

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
	personal attack

body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> The practice of blocking editors for unilaterally changing
> the cartoon display is a violation to [[WP:NBD]], which goes on saying:
>
> <WP:NBD>
> In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to
> listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually
> acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the
> rule, and where they do exist they are *not binding*.
> </WP:NBD>
>
> Blocking editors a minute after they removed the cartoons
> without any warning won't ever make that possible.

Removing the image against consensus is not "listen[ing] carefully to
each other's arguments" or "try[ing] to find mutually acceptable
solutions".  NBD does not allow you to ignore consensus and directly
says that: "That does not mean you should ignore a consensual
decision". It's just saying consensus may change over time.


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Berto

body:
Thanks, it did it :)
B?rto
----- Original Message -----
From: "Petr Kadlec" <petr.kadlec at gmail.com>
To: <wikipedia-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] How to edit the bookshop list?

> Hi!
>
> > I do not get any edit link on the special page. The only access I seem
to
> > get is about the title (from system messages), which I already
translated.
> > But I do not see the list anywhere.
>
> I have created an example list at
> http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Andoa_trov%C3%A9_dij_l%C3%ACber
> -- take a look at the example (You can check the result by clicking at
> the example ISBN I have put to
> http://pms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox) and edit it as you
> wish.
>
> HTH,
> -- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>


from_name: Scott Stevenson

subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations

body:
Resid Gulerdem,

As a permanently blocked user you are not in the correct position to
be discussing policy. This is particularly true when you continue to
utilize sockpuppets [[User:TheLightning]] to be edit disruptively (re:
[[Fethullah G?len]] earlier today ).
For interested parties please see Resid Gulerdem's Check User results:

[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem]]

and corresponding block log:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem

Due to your continued disruptive editing, you should at minimum step
away from the project for a year and then come back to discuss policy.

Thank you,
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]

On 5/31/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The comments were very useful in general. The most
> important ones among them are the ones addressing
> possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
> for it was one of them.
>
> I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and
> had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I
> decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked
> indefinitely (how do you think I know the
> 'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
> chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
> hope that the points raised below contribute to the
> efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion...
>
> I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
> Further explanations are given [in the square
> brackets].
>
> Best,
>
> Resid
>
> --------------------
> [[WP:OURS]]
> --------------------
>
> [[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
> ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
> between sysops and users.
>
> [This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
> RelationS) as well.]
>
> 1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
>
> 'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
> encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
> well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
> (e.g.
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
>
> [I think content disputes and the disputes around a
> controversial issue are very important to address. If
> the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
> would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
> disputes.]
>
> [It is easier to write an article on a purely
> technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
> etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
> problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
> admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
> and privileges then does not constitute a base for
> neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
> way- rather make them a target for
> accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
> only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
> realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
> reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
> of the controversial issues.]
>
> [I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
> started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
> properly.]
>
> 2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
>
> Based on the area of specialization and interest,
> experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
> experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
> work on the controversial articles categorized
> as being related to their area of specialization and
> can make recommendations on particular points. If
> necessary, the study groups may also supervise
> controversial articles until the dispute is
> resolved.
>
> [Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
> form some study groups based on the area of
> specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
> etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
> the opinion of the related study groups. The group may
> vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a
> decision. It does not have to be a final decision
> though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR,
> edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may
> result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and
> admins who feel obligated to force the rules
> consciously.]
>
> 3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
>
> Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
> admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
> The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
> to have a mentor. Users can change their
> mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
> by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
> mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
> accounts will be managed as before.
>
> [This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
> will provide a dynamics measure of their success. This
> dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
> periodically. There is almost no accountability of
> admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
> to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
> added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
> importance.]
>
> 4. '''Limited block policy'''
>
> A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
> the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
> posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
> unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
> Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
>
> Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
> an admin.
>
> [Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
> about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
> agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
> be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
> of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
> of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
> rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
> surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
> the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
> unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
> toe.]
>
> [And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
> should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
> after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
> bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.]
>
> ------------------------
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:

> Please show me the policy which states, that a change against
> a 3 month old poll result should result in an immediate block.

If the same vandalism is happening over and over again after three
months, blocking on sight seems like a reasonable course of action.


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] Moving the "test Wikipedias"

body:
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Brion Vibber wrote:

> I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
> keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
> today and start moving things over.

+2


from_name: Anthere

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Wikimedia's board is obviously way too small.
>
> Anthony

Seconded.
What I think could be a good "measure" is that all committees should
have at least one board member sitting on it (as a rule of thumb).

Current situation of committees

Audit committee : Michael and Jimbo are on it (perhaps Tim as well,
memory hole here). The committee has successfully selected an audit firm
and the audit is ongoing.

Board expansion committee : Jimbo, Angela and Anthere are on it.
Currently a bit stalling...

Chapters committee : no board member on it. Delphine handles it pretty
well :-) A cool committee

Communications committee : Angela on it. Seems to be pretty active
committee. Regular reports provided.

Executive committee : inactive committee. Should be replaced by a CEO

Events committee : no board member on it. Was started from what I heard.

Financial committee : Michael on it. Hummm, not really (yet ?) a committee

Insurance committee : jeeee, so inactive that I do not even remember who
is on it... (personal note : what is going on here ?)

Technical committee : no board member on it. But Michael (and I as a
pompom girl) follow what is going on.

Special projects committee : Anthere on it. Ongoing committee with needs
for more experts

Trademarks committee : no board member on it. Should be transformed in a
legal committee (or a new committee be created).

 From a quick glance, I'd say we have a couple of major holes.

In particular a legal hole. A board member from legal background is
required.

I recently suggested to Mav to propose the creation of a fundraising
committee (I presume Mav resolution is pending), which seems to neither
really fit with comcom, nor with financial com, nor with technical com,
though the three committees would be involved as well.

The special projects committee is also supposed to take care of business
development and grants. Additional expertise on these matters to add on
the board would possibly be quite neat as well.

Maybe a big shot related to the technical side of things might be cool
on the board as well, if only to help us make more deal with big firms
on technical issues.

ant


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
On 5/31/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> wrote:
> > To name just one example: Nairobi would be a capable host city.
>
> Except that to be non-profit in the US, you have to have an office in the US....
>
> Kelly

There are plenty of companies which will provide registered agent
service with a physical address for your registered office.  I'm not
aware of any further requirements for a non-profit, but there very
well might be some, especially for a non-profit the size of Wikimedia.

Anthony


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Gavin Chait wrote:
>>>Gavin : "Project management may not be about content generation alone.
>>>It is also about budgets, settling disputes and being responsible and
>>>answerable to the organisation at large."
>
>
>>Here I don't know if you are right or wrong in your understanding of
>>Gavin's sentence. My take is that his "disputes settling" applies to
>>the disputes *the organisation* could be thrown into, not to an edit
>>war in Wikipedia.
>
>
> Here I can clarify.  What a project does is irrelevant in terms of the
> system as long as it meets the general objectives of the organisation.  The
> project manager alone is responsible for what happens there.  If a dispute
> looks as if it will involve the organisation then it is the duty of the
> project manager to bring that to the organisation's attention.  If it is
> merely an edit war or copyright or local dispute then it is part of their
> daily problem and not the Foundation's.
>
> If you think of it in terms of regular charitable foundations:  they
> research and select projects to fund, projects are championed by outsiders
> or are initiated by the foundation, they offer advice and know-how (where
> possible), they monitor the activities of their funded projects, and they
> dive in if things go wrong (if they choose to).  If a project gets caught
> doing something illegal (or even just awkward) they can intervene, isolate,
> amputate, ... or risk looking foolish.
>
> In Wiki Foundation's case, you have overlap.  You are directly involved in
> terms of infrastructure, methodology and physical involvement.
>
> Delphine writes:  "I believe that *not using* is harder than *not having*"
>
> Creating a firewall between the foundation and its supported projects
> implies *not using* and that will be very hard.  Legally, what happens if
> you host and have the capacity to intervene?

If you host and are liable, you need to be able to *use*. You may not be
liable and have no ability to correct what you are liable for. If you
can not intervene, you should not liable. Period.

(understand me well. By "intervening", I do not mean "desysoping" an
admin, because he is blocking editors out of process; By "intervening",
I mean "removing" permanently content which may get us straight to
court. The first is threatening a local organisation, the second might
cause the closure of the whole project. If the Foundation may be sued
for hosting an illegal project, then it is the Foundation entire right
to stop hosting this project. If another organisation wants to take the
risk of hosting illegal content removed from our sites, then it is up to
these organisations.

> This means you need to structure the Foundation in such a way that you can't
> intervene without the approval of a project leader (for instance, you create
> / nominate a head of Wikipedia who has absolute power).  Reporting and
> accountability become even more important in such a distributed hierarchy.

At some point in history, Wikipedia (at least the english version) had
such a project leader : Larry Sanger, who was Jimbo's employee. It
lasted for the full first year of Wikipedia. It certainly was necessary
at the beginning, but it would have been a disaster to proceed with a head.
Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a
project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves
independently of the Foundation,  only respecting the general goal of
the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality
essentially). The rest of the organisation (the internal organisation)
is pretty much left to each project and may be sometimes pretty
different based on the culture and size of each project.  I think this
is precisely what explains in great part the success of Wikipedia. The
rules are very few and basically easy for most reasonable person to
understand and accept.
Add hierarchy and complex organisational rules, and you will make most
editors feel like in prison. Most editors stay here because it is fun,
they are not bugged by a boss and they feel they can themselves impact
the rules and the direction of the project.

I feel that over time, what you suggest is however being created. There
is no "official head" of a project, but for many project, a group of
trusted editors constitute a sort of a head.

> And that comes back to what I suggested at the beginning.  A loose
> collection of independent organisations / projects (and forgive me for using
> terminology that may not be appropriate) that are accountable to a central
> Foundation.
>
> Before you start hiring office space it is essential to know what will be
> done there.  And before a lot of the ideas presented in this mailing list
> get lost, perhaps it is a good idea to create a closed wiki to build the
> organisation structure, tasks, methodology, conflict resolution, job
> descriptions ... and a constitution.

Ahum. Just for reference, we do have closed wikis.
I know of at least three.
The internal wiki is restricted to board members and some board members
of local chapters
The spc wiki is restricted to members of the special project committees
The board wiki is restricted to WMF board members plus Brad.

> The Economist states boldly on every contents page:  first published in 1843
> to take part in "a severe contest between intelligence, which presses
> forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."
>
> We could do worse than start from there.  Once you have everything, then you'll
> know where your office should be, how big it needs to be, and what will be
> done there.

Given the current size of the office, it could be hosted in my village ;-)


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Death Phoenix

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
On 5/31/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Death Phoenix wrote:
> >It would be interesting if one of our admins works for a place that is
> edgy
> >about these sorts of things. Someone calling to inquire about this admin
> >would be in for a rude surprise. Something like, say, calling a police
> >station asking for information about a police officer ss not a good idea.
> >
> One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and
> such aware of their WP activities as much as possible. WP's
> visibility and reputation is now such that it's generally a positive
> thing to be seen as an important person in WP, and should a nasty
> person call, it helps the callee to recognize it as stalking
> rather than anything legitimate. Be proud of your work for
> Wikipedia, and let everybody know about it.
>

Oh, yes it is. In fact, my Wikipedia activities have actually been a
positive thing because we've got a couple of interdepartmental Wikis, and
I'm a bureaucrat on one of them.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Template:spoiler

body:
On 5/30/06, Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> On May 29, 2006, at 9:46 AM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > Hmm, now the trick is how to get that to
> > pop up automatically whenever I go to Wikipedia.
> Use Greecemonkey (google it); it's a extension to Firefox that allows
> arbitrary javascript to be automatically run on arbitrary pages.  Very
> nice thing.
>
I intentionally didn't install this because of security issues, but
from what I've read these seem to have been addressed.  Still a rather
scary extension from its description, but as I read a little more
about what it does maybe I'll be comfortable enough to install it.

Thanks for the info.

Anthony


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Are phone books reliable sources?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Huh????  What's nasty about it?
>>
>>
>I really take exception to the phrase "straw man".
>
I suppose you're entitled to draw your own inferences from [[Straw
man]].  Nastiness is in the eye of the beholder.

>>Why should it seem nasty to point out
>>an apparent error in logic?  There was absolutely nothing personal in that.
>>
>>It did strike me that your example was designed to show exactly the
>>opposite of what you now claim.  This would certainly seem the effect of
>>citing that there are so many Ngs in the Melbourne phone book.
>>
>>
>Original request:
>
>
>>I would be interested to see how a phonebook would be used as a source.
>>
>>
>My reply:
>
>
>>The surname "Ng" is one of the most common in Melbourne, spanning 47
>>pages of the 2006 phone book...
>>
>>
>What "I now claim":
>
>
>>I was asked for an example of a phone book being a reliable source for a claim.
>>
>>
>???
>
Whether something is a source for a claim probably requires that a claim
be there in the first place, and it would then seem that your claim is
nothing more than "There are a lot of Ngs  in Melbourne."  The long
listing in the directory proves this; therefore, the phone book is useful.

The other possible interpretation is that there are so many Ngs in the
phone book that it becomes useless for finding anybody.

Ec


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no
 personal attack

body:
Hi Netscott,

I've already expected you here, since you enjoy discord so much.

Scott Stevenson wrote:
> [[User:Raphael1]] (Raphael Wegmann) has literally been droning on
> about this issue for MONTHS. He is extremely singleminded about this
> to the point of making his issue with the displaying of the
> Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons very disruptive.

I am not the one, who has been unwilling to compromise for month.

> It is very much a pity to see Raphael1 (Wegmann) bring his disruptive
> tendencies here to the mail list.
> The following bit of his last letter is extremely demonstrative of his
> one sidedness here.
> </snip>
>> Take a look yourself:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/148.81.117.224
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.173.27.37
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.135.119.144
>
>> A single contribution can't be much of editwarring, can it?
>> At least you definitely can't violate the 3RR by it.
> What Raphael1 (Wegmann) fails to mention is that one of these IPs is a
> confirmed open proxy and the other two were part of image blanking
> barrages by IP hopping vandals.

Well, you fail to mention, that User:148.81.117.224 has fist been
blocked for "removed Muhammad images" before the expiry time has
been prolonged for being an open proxy. And you fail to mention why
you believe, that the other two were part of "image blanking barrages
by IP hopping vandals".

> Raphael1 has had no qualms taking matters into his hands in terms of
> altering the display characteristics of the cartoons on the
> [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] article repeatedly
> himself and has been repeatedly blocked for it (thankfully):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Raphael1

Yes, I've been blocked myself once for moving the cartoons behind
a link twice in five days.

> Raphael1's latest disruption (for which he's been  EXTREMELY correctly
> blocked for a week over) was the creation of a list entitled
> "Persecutors of Muslims" that listed every single admin who ever
> blocked so much as an IP address of those who vandalistically removed
> the images (which he subsequently spammed messages providing links to
> a group of select editors -without ever even informing the admins
> listed on his user page-):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive103#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week

No, the list was not entitled "Persecutors of Muslims", its name
has been "Persecution of Muslims". I am sorry, that I have
to repeat myself: I have never claimed, that any administrator
is a persecutor of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]],
that I consider the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.

Furthermore the list has been far from complete, when you already
informed the admins of this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NSLE&diff=prev&oldid=54541431
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curps&diff=prev&oldid=54541783
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoe&diff=prev&oldid=54541989
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aecis&diff=prev&oldid=54542123
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde&diff=prev&oldid=54562138

> Raphael1's actions have inspired copy-cat editor who've gone so far as
> to impersonate him in efforts to remove the images (never with any
> attempt at consensus). See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raphael101

It's hardly my fault, that anyone is impersonating myself,
but I'd like to mention, that [[User:Raphael101]] was apperantly
a sock-puppet of [[User:Vkasdg]], who has been on my list as well,
since (s)he has been indefinitely blocked for removing the
cartoons three times. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive36#User:Vkasdg

Besides [[User:Vkasdg]] actually attempted to convince others
of accepting a compromise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display&diff=prev&oldid=45492105

> The way Raphael1 is going, much like the extremely disruptive editor
> that he recently tried to defend, Resid Gulerdem (see the Admins
> causing death of Wikipedia letter thread) and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem
> he'll probably be permanently blocked before too long as well.
> Please move on and be less disruptive and help make Wikipedia even
> better so that those familiar with your neverending "discussion" won't
> first think of the expression "don't feed the trolls" the moment your
> name pops into their heads.

Even though you repeat your "disruption" accusation five times in your
EMail, I'm still not convinced of being disruptive. By contrast I
consider the blocking of editors for having a different POV very
disruptive.

--
Raphael


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia

body:
Ben Yates wrote:
>> Trolls complain about ArbCom being 'corrupt' because, rightly if they're
>> trolls, they don't get the results they want from it.
>
> That strikes me as a dangerous line of thought -- "Trolls, by
> definition, are always wrong.  And the people who disagree with us
> must be trolls, because trolls are who we're fighting.  Therefore
> anyone who disagrees with us is wrong."  I'm not saying you've taken
> it to that extreme; more, I'm objecting to widening use of words like
> "troll" (and "meatpuppet") -- they make it too easy to class all
> opposing arguments as nonsense and all opposing people as not worth
> the time of day.
>
>

Well said.

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 569 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060531/ed7df9e7/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Domas Mituzas

subject: [Wikitech-l] autoloading classes

body:
Hi,

I have a small patch (2k lines) at http://p.defau.lt/?
Jnc0Y1AY0hc0SNOhmFtzSw

that eliminates most of require_once() calls and uses require() in
__autoload() handler.
Generally it makes things faster, as less require_once means less stat
(), as well as that might be more APC-friendly.

As well as some refactoring was needed, I could introduce lots of bugs.
And break extensions of course.

As included source is executed at function scope, rather than file
scope, various other issues could arise - like missing global
declarations, etc.

So, please send your comments ;-)

Domas


body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/30/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>If among all those Ngs
>>there is only one Egg Foo Ng it might still be useful there.
>>
>>
>I don't see how.  Just because there is only Egg Foo Ng in the phone
>book still doesn't mean that there is only one Egg Foo Ng in the area
>served by that phone book.  I just don't see how such information can
>be useful, especially considering how easy it is to put false
>information into a phone book (in my experience there is generally no
>verification of the names at all).
>
People can indeed put false information into phone books, and into many
other publications.  Most don't.  Assume good faith is as important for
reading phone books as for reading Wikipedia edits.  It also happens
that widows leave the phone listing in their husband's name long after
his death.  The average person wants the phone book information to be
correct.  That's how people find him.  The value of a phone book when
used as a sole source of information is limited, but it can be very
helpful when used in conjunction with other references.  It is poor
research to prejudicially dismiss any source.

>>And we
>>haven't even mentioned the usefulness of the yellow pages in
>>establishing the existence of a business over a time frame.
>>
>>
>It's even easier to put false information into the yellow pages section.
>
So?  That doesn't mean that every entry has false information.

Ec


from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test

body:
When i first read it, the 'Hello' mail i thought it was from the script. Of
course, if it had retained the attachment it'd been more supicious. The test
was clearly fake.

The old tricky faked From: field. You can check at its header:

Original-Received: from pobox.com (unknown [85.104.219.99])
 by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F30417E5EF

You can see it identifies as pobox.com but it's not pobox.com!
host name :  pobox.com
address   :  207.106.133.28

address   :  85.104.219.99
host name :  dsl85-104-56163.ttnet.net.tr

So it seems from a dialup. The ip belongs to TurkTelekom | Turk Telekom
ADSL-alcatel.
It was probably automatically originated by a virus. It seems like a
W32/lovgate
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32lovgatez.html

BTW, Brion. How do you sent that email without getting the mailist
signature?


body:
The fact that Raphae1 (Wegmann) spammed an almost exclusive list of
Muslims about his "Persecution of Muslims" list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipidian&diff=prev&oldid=54372695
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BhaiSaab&diff=prev&oldid=54372702
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arno&diff=prev&oldid=54372712
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgulerdem&diff=prev&oldid=54372720
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=prev&oldid=54372736
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeremygbyrne&diff=prev&oldid=54374434
Without ever informing the actual admins on his list of his having
created it, make the "hit list" comparison particularly accurate.
After this "hit list" was deleted, rather than accept the deciscion to
do so (which other than himself and User:Striver no one rejected) he
continued on strongly trying to resurrect it (without ever having
acknowledged that his initial actions were wrong). This is "bad".
Raphael Wegmann, I honestly believe that you could be a positive
influence on Wikipedia (particularly with regard to editing on
computer/internet related topics as I've noticed you do on occassion).
Your droning on is really beating on a dead horse over this and if you
continue to conduct yourself as you have been and do not follow the
advice of your fellow contributors as far as trying to form a
consensus for your actions then it is safe to say that the likelyhood
for your eventually becoming permanently blocked is very good.
Sincerely,
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]

On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a
> list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed)
> consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate
> request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider
> the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist
> points of view.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
> > Making a list of people who took an action you disagree with
> > shouldn't be
> > grounds for blocking, though.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [Wikitech-l] test

body:
Info: This was a virus sent whose attachment was stripped, as
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.technical/23947.
Not a real Brion mail.


from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Article vs. EditPage functionality

body:
Is there any plan in the future to move more of the functionality from
the EditPage class to Article? It seems like a lot of the
functionality that's currently in EditPage (at least in the 1.4
version) such as checking if the page is protected, checking the time
stamp of the article, etc should be moved into the Article class so
that other new classes that modify articles don't have to duplicate
code or meddle with the EditPage class to save an article.

Thanks,
Travis


from_name: Chad Perrin

subject: [Wikitech-l] Test

body:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 04:48:09PM +0200, Platonides wrote:
> When i first read it, the 'Hello' mail i thought it was from the script. Of
> course, if it had retained the attachment it'd been more supicious. The test
> was clearly fake.

This is one of those times that I'm happiest to be using a text-only
MUA, too.

--
Chad Perrin [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The measure on a man's real character is what he would do
if he knew he would never be found out." - Thomas McCauley


from_name: Walter van Kalken

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:

>On 5/28/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Proximity for whom and to whom?  We are an online organization with a
>>global perspective.  We depend on online communications.  Wherever the
>>headquarters happens to be will involve travel by some people if they
>>want to meet in person.  If all you're trying to do is improve meetup
>>opportunities for the select few you just end up promoting the idea that
>>Wikimedia is a much less broadly based organization than it really is.
>>
>>
>
>There's a limit to how much you can schmooze people online.  Large
>donations and grants are going to require face time.  Might as well
>position yourself to make arranging that easier, which means you want
>to be near a transportation hub.  This means places like New York, DC,
>Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles.  Hubs have more flights per day to more
>destinations, which usually means your total travel time is lower
>because your options are broader and you are less likely to have to
>use a connecting flight.
>
>
Geez very Americancentric. what happened to: Stockholm, Copenhagen,
Amsterdam, Brussels, Berlin, Frankfurt, Warsaw, Moscow, Prague, Wien,
Geneve, Zurich, Milan, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Istanbul, Delhi, Bangkok,
Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Peking, Tokyo, Jakarta, Sidney,
Johannesburg, Capetown, Nairobi, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Cassablanca, Tel
Aviv, Dubai, Kuwait, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo, Caracas, Buenos Aires,
Lima and last but not least Paramaribo? (sorry if I forgot any city
these are out of the top of my head)

All of these are transport hubs with flights all over the world with
multinational headquarters and ngo organization offices and headquarters
etc. The last time I checked the world didn't revolve around the US.

Waerth/Walter


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> Even though you repeat your "disruption" accusation five times in your
>> EMail, I'm still not convinced of being disruptive. By contrast I
>> consider the blocking of editors for having a different POV very
>> disruptive.
>
> Listen, Raphael. I don't really know anything about you. To my
> knowledge, I have never edited the cartoon controversy page. I have
> however followed it a tiny bit. All I know is that there is a strong
> community consensus to include the images in the article. Not behind a
> link, not "below the fold", so to speak.

Yes, there have been polls in early February in which a strong
supermajority made that decision.

> I think that this article is a controversial one makes it all the more
> important to treat vandalism as disruption.  Vandalism in this case
> meaning removing the images.  I know you probably won't listen to me,
> and I imagine you have been told this before, but I feel the need to
> speak *my* mind about it.

Yes, I am listening to you, but you fail to explain, why you consider
the removal of a religious insult vandalism. I've already explained
many times, why the (re)moval of the cartoons is *not* a deliberate
attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead, altering
the display characteristics of the cartoons would indeed increase
the quality of the article, because it would invite editors who feel
insulted by the cartoons to add valuable information regarding their
side on this controversy.

I'd like to add beforehand, that changes even if they'd be opposed
by *everyone else*, do not constitute vandalism according to
[[WP:VANDAL]].

> Removing the image is considered vandalism. On a high-edit article
> like this, vandalism is considered by many more disruptive than on
> other articles. If you would like to try and sway the community, you
> should be using the talk page to try and gain consensus. Removing the
> image without discussion leads nowhere.  Continued removal amounts to
> disruption.  Editors may be blocked for disruption.

Firstly I have never been lazy to sway the community on the talk page
and secondly I haven't moved the cartoons behind a link since April 29.

> It is not a matter of blocking someone for their POV.  It is a matter
> of blocking them for their actions.  We have many great Muslim editors
> who disagree with the inclusion of the images, yet don't remove them.
> Why?

Because they know, that they'll be blocked for it.

> Because they know doing so is vandalism and repeated removal is
> disruption.  They understand that until consensus shows that they
> should be removed, that they should stay.

Is that because Wikipedia is a democracy nowadays?

> I know I am repeating myself here, but I think it needs to be
> repeated.  I encourage you, Raphael, to keep working to change the
> community's consensus.  However, do so without being a vandal or a
> disruption.  Remain civil.  Compromise.  Thank you for your time, my
> friend.

Thank you for your mail.

Please read the start of this thread again. I have not been blocked
for vandalism or disruption. I have been blocked for allegedly
personally attacking other editors, though the whole "evidence"
is the title of an article I've created in my userspace called
"Persecution of Muslims".

--
Raphael


body:
Hi Fred!

How comes that you consider them to be Islamists?
It is not political at all, if you disagree
to an insult on your personal belief.

Why don't you first consider the question of how
to deal with users who compile a list, which
"could have been the basis for a legitimate
request for reconsideration of the decision",
or whether it is correct to censor such a list?

--
Raphael

Fred Bauder wrote:
> Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a
> list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed)
> consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate
> request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider
> the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist
> points of view.
>
> Fred
>
> On May 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
>
>> Making a list of people who took an action you disagree with
>> shouldn't be
>> grounds for blocking, though.
>


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
 a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice

body:
Stephen Bain wrote:

>On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal
>>details.  It may even be legally required.
>>
>>
>Mark was just explaining that his article was mocked on AfD, and that
>was why he sent the notice - while a bit silly, he had a legitimate
>grievance. Do you really feel that this sort of response is necessary?
>It would seem to me like kicking him while he's down.
>
I don't condone the mockery any more than you do.

DMCA notifications, however, are the beginning of a legal process.  I
don't at all equate legal steps to some kind of personal "kicking him
while he's down."

Thus far, either the DMCA notifications have been rare or the people
whose work has been subject to such notices have not been properly
informed of such orders as required by law.   Assuming good faith
implies assuming the former.

In the absence of balanced protocols to deal with the problem, there is
a lot in these notices that need an opportunity to be tested in the courts.

Ec


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>> Good question. This was described as a "hit list". It certainly was a
>> list of people who were carrying out a legitimate (if wrong-headed)
>> consensus. I suppose it could have been the basis for a legitimate
>> request for reconsideration of the decision. We do need to consider
>> the question of how we deal with users who have strong Islamist
>> points of view.
>
> Why should "users who have strong Islamist points of view" be treated
> any differently than anyone else?

That's a very good question indeed. Currently they *are* treated
differently, because they get blocked even if they follow the rules.
You want an evidence? Please ask Zoe to restore the list I've compiled.

--
Raphael


from_name: Gavin Chait

subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed

body:
Accountability is created by the tension that exists between groups that
watch each other.  Having a set of committees reporting to a single board is
simply a pyramid.

A director (CEO, whatever you wish to call the position) and their team is
one locus of control.  A board is another.  The board's task is to offer
guidance, select individuals to perform specific tasks, remove
non-performers from office and so on.  But the actual running of the
organisation is left to the director and team.

Reconstituting Anthere's list of committees into a set of line functions
overseen by a director would look as follows:

* Finance and internal audit - task is to ensure bookkeeping, and audit, as
well as assist auditors appointed by board; insurance can be pasted in here
as well.
* Chapters - I'm assuming this has some oversight of the projects?
* Communications and Public Relations - press releases, events, promotions,
as well as watching media for outside coverage, etc.
* Information technology and technical development - server maintenance and
development
* Special projects - should this simply be part of an enlarged Chapters
role?
* Legal - specialist required in international law, trademarks, etc.
* Fundraising - works closely with communications and PR
* HR and admin - if you are going to have an office, you need to ensure it
gets cleaned, stocked with coffee / tea, salaries paid on time, contracts
drawn up ... that sort of thing
* Director / CEO - the boss, and reports directly to the board

These are all simply technical roles - there is no assumption that they
would be a single person, or a group, simply tasks that may need to be
performed.  The board gets standardised feedback and has the right to
intervene to fire the director or any of the other role-players.  The board
does not run the operation, it simply has oversight and ultimate control.
The director knows that they report to the board.

Board's normally do not require a massive time commitment and so they can be
stocked with celebrities who are able to open doors (and consequently make
the fundraising task a lot easier).

Typically, any organisation has the following core requirements:
* financial control
* marketing
* strategic planning
* operational support (includes: IT, legal, HR and so on)

You could, depending on the work-load, bundle many of these tasks together:
* finance, internal audit, admin, hr
* IT, technical development
* chapters, special projects
* communications, PR, fundraising
* legal
* director

So then you need six people in your head office.  Your board could be as
large as you like (remembering that the bigger your board, the harder it is
to get everyone to get together at the same time, or agree on anything).
The overall strategy - it goes without saying - can be the responsibility of
the board.  Implementation belongs to the director.

Anthere again:
"Generally, I believe the projects will not accept *anyone* as head of a
project, with absolute power. The projects organise themselves
independently of the Foundation,  only respecting the general goal of
the project and a couple of core rules (licence, wikilove and neutrality
essentially)."

I don't suggest anything like absolute power (editorial control, that sort
of thing) but it is useful to have a person in charge who keeps track of
what is going on.  They act as champion for the project.  If you really want
to create a Chinese wall between the Foundation and its projects then you
have to have someone at any particular project that the Foundation can talk
to.  Someone has to guarantee the core rules will be applied.

It's no good simply cutting a perfectly good project loose when it crosses
the line.  Someone, tasked with championing the project, should have the job
of keeping the project inside those lines ... as gently as possible.  Only
when they completely loose the ability to control those guidelines should a
project be cut.


subject: [Foundation-l] Where we are headed


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Case inconsistency

body:
Hi all,
  Others must have noticed this - is this a recognised issue?
Basically: Given some article whose title is in title case (eg, Lyon
Metro), you can type the lower case version in the go/search box, and
still get there. However, if you link to [[lyon metro]] in an article,
it will show up as a red link.

This has the effect that it's actually difficult to create the article
*other* than going through the redlink - if you try and type in the
name, you get silently redirected.

Would it be wrong to be redirected towards the other cased version
instead of having a redlink?

Steve


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject:
[Wikitech-l] User-specified JavaScript execution Vuln with two
 specific extensions

body:
Nick Jenkins wrote:
> There is a mouseover user-specified JavaScript execution vulnerability
> affecting MediaWiki 1.6.6 when running with two specific extensions.

Specifically this is with the experimental <sort> extension. Nobody should be
using that one just yet, as it's still under development.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20060531/7fe1e043/attachment.pgp>


from_name: George Herbert

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism
	userbox

body:
On 5/31/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:

> But.  On the other hand:
>
> If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no
> difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a
> Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive
> to make a point.  And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness,
> disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems
> with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.
>

There's a difference between "they're the same" and "we should treat them
the same".

This kerfuffle is not about anything related to comparative religious
studies or social aspects of Christianity and Satanism. It's about
consensus-less WP policy being applied starting with the tiny relatively
defenseless minority.

If the action would likely result in Tony's being desysopped if applied to
say the Christian userbox, then perhaps he shouldn't do it to the Satanist
or Zorostrian or other fringe religions, either.  Either the policy is ok,
in which case a blanket application can be imposed, or it isn't, in which
case "getting away with it" by starting with the tiny despised minority
religions is blatantly offensive to me.

I kicked up the ANI not because I object to T2; I object to a point of view,
selective application of T2.  If it were applied globally to the religious
userboxes, I wouldn't have objected at all.

-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Stephen Bain

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Aww, so cute,
	a banned user is trying to take us down with a DMCA notice

body:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>
> In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal
> details.  It may even be legally required.

Mark was just explaining that his article was mocked on AfD, and that
was why he sent the notice - while a bit silly, he had a legitimate
grievance. Do you really feel that this sort of response is necessary?
It would seem to me like kicking him while he's down.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: Mark Gallagher

body:
Molu,

> On Tue, 30 May 2006 17:45:04 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. Admins make calls all the time that are recognised by the
>>  community as necessary, but still make one unpopular with certain
>>  subsections nonetheless. RfAs are extraordinarily easy to stack,
>> as opposers count for more than supporters and the wider community
>> does not generally take an interest in them. Requests for adminship
>> tend to involve only a very small subset of the community, who,
>> fortunately, are usually considered sane (editcountitis
>> notwithstanding); requests for confirmation will have all the
>> problems of RfA, with the added drawback of being inhabited by
>> trolls and idiots who are too concerned with advancing their own
>> agendas to bother learning what admins do and why.
>
> Why are you bringing vote stacking into this? That's a completely
> different issue. This is not about vote stacking.

Surprisingly, it is.  Vote stacking is the difference between the
theoretical brilliance that re-confirmation RfAs claim and the practical
awfulness they cause.

>> I am not the only person who has noticed that, in your brief time
>> on this list, you have rarely posted anything that could not be
>> considered "nonsense". I would like to suggest you spend more time
>> on Wikipedia, attempting to learn what we're about and how we work,
>> before you try to instruct the Wikipedia Grannies in advanced
>> egg-sucking procedures. The views of someone ignorant of Wikipedia
>> procedures can be useful, at times; fresh eyes, etc., but at others
>> it's damned annoying to see someone who doesn't know what he's
>> talking about attempt to lecture us. Please, give it a rest, and
>> fill your head instead of this list.
>
> Thank you for your kind suggestions. You'll have to excuse me as I
> ignore them.

Well, fair enough, considering the way I phrased them.

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


body:
Molu,

> An interesting and insightful essay (one I may have read before), but
> why did you quote my message above it? I don't see how your message
> has anything to do with anything I said, unless that last sentence is
> directed at me?

I suspect your message was the inspiration for the essay; it was an
example of how sometimes admins can become opposed or unpopular through
no fault of their own, and how this can have consequences for them
either on Wikipedia or in real life.

As for why he quoted it *above* his message, it's because he knows how
to send emails.  *Please* stop top-posting.

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


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll do my best at explaining how I see the situation.  The WP
> community has the goal of creating an encyclopedia.  As an
> encyclopedia, it is our job to accurately describe and explain certain
> issues.  In order to determine the best way to explain or describe an
> issue, we use consensus (i.e. supermajority... not democracy).  In
> this particular instance, the community decided that the best way to
> explain or describe the issue is to show the actual images being
> discussed. Images are an essential part of WP, as they say, a picture
> says a thousand words (probably more). Therefore for a particular
> topic, images can be very useful, no?  So since the community has
> decided that the images improve our ability to explain or describe the
> topic, the removal of the images reduces our ability to explain or
> describe the topic, thus being detrimental to the encyclopedia.

There's a flaw in your last sentence: Even if the "community"
(I'd say the majority) decides that the images improve our ability
to explain or describe the topic, the removal of the images does
not necessarily reduce our ability to explain or describe the topic.
Stating so would mean, that the majority is always right. Sometimes
(especially if an issue concerns a minority) the majority can be
wrong. Wikipedia would be worse than a democracy, if the views
of a majority is the only criteria for content decisions, as it
would result in an Ochlocracy. To protect minorities every system
has fundamental rules, which cannot be overruled by any majority
(at least the majority would have to change those rules first).
Wikipedia has those too:
WP:NPA, WP:Etiquette, WP:BP, WP:NOT, WP:Profanity, ...

> We understand people may be offended. We would be heartless to not
> "get it" on this point. But should we remove every image anyone finds
> offensive? This is a serious question, not just a hypothetical.
> <Modified Godwin's alert> If an image of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is
> offensive to Jews, should we remove it?

It is not necessary to ask the all or none question: Every controversial
image can be considered on a case by case basis, as it is already:
I.e. the [[human feces]] article doesn't have an image of human feces,
the [[Goatse.cx]] image has been removed, the image of [[Bah?'u'll?h]]
has been moved below the fold (though I'd rather remove that),...
And there are more options than just showing an image or removing it.
An image can be lowered, replaced with a link to it or a warning
template can be added. Reg. the image of Ahmadinejad: I don't think,
that it is the look of Ahmadinejad, which is so offensive to Jews.

> Including the image does not "disinvite" editors who may feel offended
> to voice their opinion on the matter (You seem to be doing a great
> job). There is always the talk page (which I thank you for using),
> mailing list (Again, thanks), etc.

In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors
who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because
no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a
binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in
a block.

--
Raphael


from_name: Resid Gulerdem

body:
After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations - below) the link to the updated
version of another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
under my old user page is deleted for ''the good of
Wikipedia''. I thought I should provide the ones who
would like to see that proposal with the correct link.
Earlier version can be found at
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as 'rejected'
but the truth is, I could never find an opportunity to
put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the
updated version below this message for the sake of
completeness and for your convenience.
   Best,
   RG

>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Message-ID:
<20060531115320.74085.qmail at web52711.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>The comments were very useful in general. The most
>important ones among them are the ones addressing
>possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
>for it was one of them.
>
>I was thinking on this problem for quite some time
>and had already some ideas about the solution in
>mind. I decided to post them here. I am a user who
>blocked indefinitely (how do you think I know the
>'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
>chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
>hope that the points raised below contribute to the
>efforts towards a solution. Just a quick
>suggestion...
>
>I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
>Further explanations are given [in the square
>brackets].
>
>Best,
>
>Resid
>
>--------------------
>[[WP:OURS]]
>--------------------
>
>[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
>ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
>between sysops and users.
>
>[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
>RelationS) as well.]
>
>1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
>
>'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
>encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
>well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
>(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
>
>[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
>controversial issue are very important to address. If
>the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
>would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
>disputes.]
>
>[It is easier to write an article on a purely
>technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
>etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
>problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
>admins are also part of the disputes. Their
>experience and privileges then does not constitute a
>base for neutralization of the article but -let me
>put it this way- rather make them a target for
>accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
>only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
>realize that there is no stronger factor to polish
>the reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
>of the controversial issues.]
>
>[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
>started. I could not have a chance to put it to a
>vote properly.]
>
>2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
>
>Based on the area of specialization and interest,
>experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
>experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
>work on the controversial articles categorized
>as being related to their area of specialization and
>can make recommendations on particular points. If
>necessary, the study groups may also supervise
>controversial articles until the dispute is
>resolved.
>
>[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
>form some study groups based on the area of
>specialization of the users, say 'history of
>science', etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
>the opinion of the related study groups. The group
>may vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up
>with a decision. It does not have to be a final
>decision though, as usual. Many violations such as
>3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way
>which may result in a more friendly atmosphere
>between users and admins who feel obligated to force
>the rules consciously.]
>
>3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
>
>Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
>admin mentor when s/he create an account in
>Wikipedia. The users blocked by more than 3 admins
>are required to have a mentor. Users can change their
>mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
>by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
>mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and
>these accounts will be managed as before.
>
>[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
>will provide a dynamics measure of their success.
>This dynamic approach might be better than
>reelecting them periodically. There is almost no
>accountability of admins in a practical way. They
>should be accountable to the community. A periodic
>reaffirmation can be added to this too, if someone
>thinks is of paramount importance.]
>
>4. '''Limited block policy'''
>
>A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
>the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
>posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
>unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
>Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
>
>Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not
>by an admin.
>
>[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
>about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
>agreement on a block based on the rules. It should
>not be hard to convince an admin about the
>applicability of a specific policy. This approach
>put the discussion of the validity of a block onto
>the admins involved rather than to an admin-user
>dialogue which, not surprisingly, results in a
>block. This part also gives the flexibility to the
>admins who think a block is unnecessary but do not
>want to step on another admin's toe.]
>
>[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
>should be able to ask for an unblock,
>unconditionally, after this policy gets approval, if
>it does. That may bring some reconciliations and
>peace to the project.]
>
>------------------------
>

------------------------
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
------------------------

{{Proposed|[[WP:ETH]]}}
{{Policy in a nutshell|Be wise and
responsible...}}
{{Policylist}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps kwrite.png|80px|left]]

'''Wikiethics''' (Wikipedia editorial standards and
ethics) include the principles of [[ethical]]
standards related to editing articles on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the
existence of ethical standards that reflects the
common heritage of human [[literacy]] in both the
editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself.
This document aims to outline their parameters and
scope. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently,
their place in the whole picture and their relation to
the Wiki ethics and standards are the main issues to
be addressed.

== Editorial Guidelines ==

It is helpful to have a productive editorial
discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes
arise. The following sections provide important
guidelines for editing an article.

=== Article-based classifications ===

Owing to the diversity of backgrounds that the editors
come from, the interpretation of terms like
'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', 'minority',
'acceptability' etc. should always be decided on an
article by article basis, and by following
[[WP:CON|consensus]] based on the judgement of the
contributing editors in that particular article.
Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible
to agree on the definitions of these particular terms
based on cultures, religions, life styles, etc. As a
quantitative measure to 'majority', 'supermajority'
and 'consensus', by [[Wiktionary:majority|majority]]
more than 50% of the contributing editors is meant, by
supermajority more than 75%, and the term
[[Wiktionary:consensus|consensus]] refer to 'no
significant disapproval'.

=== Collective consciousness ===

Collective consciousness can be explained as [[common
sense]] and a common understanding between the
contributing editors. This does not strictly exclude
ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With
Wikipedia policies in mind, consensus among the
contributing editors should determine what is
'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular
discussion.

=== The culture of compromise ===

[[Empathy]] and [[sincerity]] towards '[[the other]]'
during the discussion of articles by editors or third
parties is a powerful tool for [[compromise]].

=== Conflict resolution ===

It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by
taking all possible options available into the
consideration.

=== Images ===

If a picture is causing concerns in an article,
choosing visual or verbal descriptions based on the
judgment of the contributing editors might be helpful.
Changing the image with a more encyclopedic one,
lowering the picture in the article, providing a link
instead, or posting a warning template are other
options can be considered.

=== Polls ===

A [['straw poll']] on a particular argument or on part
of an article can be started at any time to see where
the community stands on that particular issue. It is
reasonable to think that an [['approval poll']],
however, needs to be started upon the completion of
the proposals based on a consensus.

=== Discussion pages ===

Editors are encouraged to seek whatever process is
most likely to result in consensus and build a better
encyclopedia using the existing guidelines. For
efficiency of the discussions on an article one
''might'' chose to copy the part from the article onto
the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he
thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her
suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get
more input from the other editors and consequently may
lead to a better article.

=== Anonymity ===

The editor's [[anonymity]] does not exempt them from a
responsibility to their personal ethics.

==Editorial standards==

High editorial standards would add to the reputation
of Wikipedia. Wikipedia recognizes the standards which
are shaped for centuries and currently practised in
the mainstream media, for example,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Harm_limitation_principle
Harm limitation principle], and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decency_and_acceptability
Taste, decency and acceptability] listed in
[[Journalism ethics and standards]].
[[Ethic_of_reciprocity|Golden Rule]] ("not to inflict
harm") can be taken to be another example. Some of the
important editorial standards in Wikipedia are
discussed below.

=== Objectivity ===

A Wiki article should reflect judgment based on
observable phenomena, physical reality, and should be
uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Absence of [[bias]] and lack of emotional involvement
are necessary. Separation between news, opinions, and
advertisements is also equally important. Competing
points of view need to be balanced and fairly
characterized in the articles.

=== Privacy ===

As Wikipedia becomes more popular and readership
increases, the potential impact of published material,
whether positive or negative, also magnifies.
Therefore, [[journalism ethics and standards]] become
relevant and editors are encouraged to consider when
editing wikipedia. Editors should also consider
notable individuals' rights to [[privacy]] and strive
to [[Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation
principle|limit unnecessary harm or discomfort]] to
them. These factors should be balanced against the
[[public interest]] in reporting information about
them. This might occasionally lead to an [[ethical
dilemma]], and requires greater effort on the part of
editors to discuss and deliberate when making
editorial decisions.

=== Responsibility ===

When making editorial decisions, each editor should
make some personal consideration of sensitivity
towards private individuals, children and juveniles,
victims of crime, and people who are currently
suffering grief and tragedy.

=== Public accountability ===

Wikipedia has an obligation towards it's readers. It
is not in Wikipedia editors' interest to act
irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is
contrary to public interest and in a fashion that
violates the trust of our donors and the public.
Upholding the public's trust is easier than re-gaining
it.

=== Censorship ===

[[Censorship]] in any form is not acceptable. 'No
censorship' means information/descriptions/expressions
should be included into or excluded from an article
for editorial reasons or ethical concerns only based
on the editorial consensus. Based on their judgment
concerning verifiability of information, information
content, and encyclopedic nature of the article,
Wikipedia editors can include or exclude some
information, expressions, and visual or verbal
descriptions into or from an article. A description
can be considered inappropriate for one article but it
might be appropriate for another. The article-based
classification gives that flexibility in
decision-making to the editors.

=== Offense ===

It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or
people who are using Wiki as a source of information.
It is generally possible to find a different version
of the same description which might be found less
offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing
the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can
help in that direction. Keeping the informative
materials stated objectively in the article is
necessary as a means to this end. No offense policy
restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values
or people, [[culture]]s, [[life style]]s, etc. It is
always good to be considerate regarding the concerns
raised by 'minorities' of particular discussions or
articles.

=== Pornography ===

[[Pornography]] can be described as visual or verbal
descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause
sexual excitement and should generally be avoided in
Wiki articles. The decision of what is appropriate and
what is pornographic is discussed on an article by
article basis to form a consensus.

=== Violence ===

Editors should be sensitive in portraying
[[violence]], that is aggression or rough unwarranted
force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on
another being, in Wikipedia articles. They should also
be sensitive about the rights of victims who are
subject to violence and also the possibility, if any,
that these portrayals may incite someone to harm
others.

=== Racism ===

[[Racism]] can be defined as the notion that people of
one race or creed are superior to another. In
Wikipedia articles, expressions that unnecessarily
portray prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of
people of a certain race or creed are to be avoided.
The expressions that intended to be divisive over
nationality, race, colour or creed and also that
glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial hatred,
strife, and violence cannot be considered as
encyclopedic.

=== Propaganda ===

Wiki articles must not be written from the perspective
of supporting any political, social, or religious
movements. Editors should be careful about the
information uploaded by an organization or a
government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is
also advisable to be more conscious regarding
deceptive or distorted information that is
systematically spread.

=== Bias ===

Editors should be careful in regard to reflecting
their religious or spiritual beliefs as well as
ideology into the composition of the articles. It is
advised that the possibility of causing animosity
between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies
should be carefully examined and avoided.

=== Sexism ===

[[Sexism]] can be defined as discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards someone based on their gender
identification. Expressions that unnecessarily promote
sexism in articles are not encyclopedic.

=== Language ===

Language used is often as important as the context.
[[Slang]] words, [[rudeness]], [[sarcasm]] are not
useful in articles and should be avoided.

== Policies relevant to ethics on Wikipedia ==

=== Policies ===

# [[Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions]]: Wikipedia
strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia.
Decisions which are made about articles or policies
should not be regarded as binding. That does not mean
you should ignore a consensual decision; it means that
everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later
date.
# [[Wikipedia:Civility]]: Being rude, insensitive or
petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working
well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and
be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.
Mediation is available if needed.
# [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]: The license Wikipedia uses
grants free access to our content in the same sense as
open source software is licensed freely.
# [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]: Do not stop other editors
from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking
good-faith edits to different articles, repeated
personal attacks or posting personal information.
# [[WP:IUP]]: Be very careful when uploading
copyrighted images, fully describe the images' sources
and copyright details on their description pages, and
try to make images as useful and reusable as possible.
# [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: It is Wikipedia policy to
delete libelous revisions from the page history. If
you believe you have been defamed, please contact the
help desk.
# [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: All Wikipedia
articles must be written from a neutral point of
view, representing views fairly and without bias.
This includes reader-facing templates, categories and
portals.
# [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: Articles may not
contain any unpublished theories, data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis
or synthesis of published data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas.
# [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]: There is no
excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do
not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and
maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
# [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is first and foremost an
online [[encyclopedia]], and ''as a means to that
end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community|an online
community]]. Please avoid the temptation to use
Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as
something it is not.
# [[WP:OFFICE]]: The Wikimedia Foundation receives an
increasingly large number of phone calls and emails
from people who are upset about various uploads on the
site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often
they are not. However, in most cases, even with the
invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which
can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to
soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the
long run.
# [[WP:OWN]]: You agreed to allow others to modify
your work here. So let them.
# [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]: Do not
[[Wikipedia:Revert|revert]] any single page ''in whole
or in part'' more than three times in 24 hours. (Or
else an Administrator may [[Wikipedia:Blocking
policy|suspend your account]].)
# [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]: Vandalism is any addition,
deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate
attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
Vandalism is determined by the judgment of the
Wikipedia administrators.
# [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: Information on
Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
theories, and arguments may only be included in
articles if they have already been published by
[[WP:RS|reliable and reputable sources]]. Articles
should [[WP:CITE|cite these sources]] whenever
possible. Any un-sourced material may be challenged
and removed.

=== Guidelines ===

# [[Wikipedia:Accountability]]: As an informal
guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should
log in before making drastic changes to existing
articles.
# [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]: To assume good
faith is a fundamental principle on any Wiki project,
including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it
follows that we assume that most people who work on
the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
# [[WP:ATK]]: A Wikipedia article written for the sole
purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
# [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]: Wikipedia works by building
consensus. This is done through polite discussion and
negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
regarding proper application of policies and
guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and
the Request for comment process are designed to assist
consensus-building when normal talk page communication
fails.
# [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]: [[Wikipedia]] must strive
for a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] in general and in regards
to [[criticism]] of article's topics.
# [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]: Divisiveness on
Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community
is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and
reason for existing because Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia and dividing Wikipedia contributors up
into seperated camps hinders rather than helps the
process of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]]: Wikipedia is a
communal effort. To make it work, contributors must
think from a community perspective as well as a
personal one.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't_panic]]: It's easy to get caught
up in an emotionally fired up argument over something
that is so important that it must be fixed
immediately. Moral outrage over an issue is a common
source of panic. Before removing the offending text,
perform a sanity check to see if any actual policies
are being violated.
# [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]: Wikipedia's contributors
come from many different countries and cultures. We
have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds,
sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect
is the key to collaborating effectively in building an
encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: Neutral Point Of View.
An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that
has been written without showing a stand on the issue
at hand. This is especially important for the
encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in
which very often there is an abundance of differing
views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral
representation, the differing points of view are
presented as such, not as facts.
# [[WP:POINT]]: State your point on Wikipedia. Do not
attempt to make an example out of anyone/anything to
prove the point.
# [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: Words and images that would
be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by
typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only
if their omission would cause the article to be less
informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally
suitable alternatives are available. Including
information about offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is
not.
# [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]: If you can provide
useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but
bear in mind that edits for which no reliable
references are provided may be deleted by any editor.
# [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]: Sign
all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help
others understand the conversation.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: When writing on
a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of
communication are counterproductive, while others help
make progress smoother. This guideline is designed to
help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.
# [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]: Vanity information
is considered to be any information that was placed in
any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent
conflict of interest, meaning any material that
presents the appearance of being intended to in any
way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or
one of the close family members or associates of the
author.

== See also ==

# [[Journalism ethics and standards]]

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] The admin problem

body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:

>You know, policy and process used to be relaxed because Wikipedia was a
>wholly new thing and no one had any idea how to make it work yet. We could
>only figure out what works through experience. But as time passed, and as
>experience repeated itself, we learned from it and the patterns inherent in
>it. There was quite a lot of naive innocence in the old days, but it
>couldn't last forever. What was once an amorphous mass is slowly taking
>shape and solidifying. As time passes it will inevitably solidify further.
>Corrections and adaptations will be made in an endless process, as it is
>with all evolving things, whether they are animals or city-states.
>
The fact is that people learn best by doing and making mistakes.  A kid
learning about computers doesn't start by reading a stack of manuals.
He pokes at different keys to see what happens.  Often nothing happens;
occasionally the computer crashes, but he learns from that experience
If the computer crashes the "punishment" comes directly from the act itself.

When impose a lot of rules we deny them that experience which was so
important to our development.  The process increasingly takes on the
appearance of something inflexible that resembles the parents and
teachers against whom they most rebelled.

>But the bottom line is that we've learned that some things just don't work,
>and so we have rules against them to help other people not make the same
>mistakes we did when we figured out that those things don't work. When I
>first came to Wikipedia I was an acrimonious editor who wrote a lot of hero
>worship about people he likee. Since then I've learned a better way, and we
>have rules about personal attacks, civility, and against original research
>so that other people won't make the same mistakes I did. These rules may not
>be broken because we know that they create a negative editing evironment.
>There are many other examples like this where rules and process have
>developed over time and experience, not drawn up arbitrarily out of thin air
>as some people seem to think they have been.
>
We learned that some things don't work; the newcomers didn't.  Depriving
them of the opportunities to make mistakes is not "helping" them.

I treat ideas like civility and NPOV as prionciples rather than rules.

Ec


body:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors
>> who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because
>> no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a
>> binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in
>> a block.
>
>>From the page in question:
> <!--
>
>   NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls
> were conducted on the talk pages of this article and in February 2006
> the super majority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to
> keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and
> with no added warning template or text. Thus based upon this,
> unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or
> resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be
> considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may
> result in a block of your account and/or IP address.
<snip/>
> -->
>
> Is this not ample enough warning?  Seems fairly clearly laid out to me.

Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy,
instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:

Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus
that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that
earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.

--
Raphael


from_name: Lars Aronsson

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] blatant state-sponsored copyright violations (by
 Baide Baiku of the PRC)

body:
Andrew Gray wrote:

> We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even

This could be the case if the PRC were to put all its muscle
behind it, but it's not necessarily so.  Their encyclopedia is
apparently a small part of this Internet company, which is a small
part of something bigger, in several steps.  We don't mind their
making their own encyclopedia, only the GFDL violation.  Perhaps
this violation was just a mistake by some middle manager, and not
this decade's strategic policy of the whole communist party.

Make a map of their power hierarchy and figure out whose decision
we're fighting, and how we can turn that person's boss into our
friend.  Make it easy for them to prune this dead branch from
their organization tree.  This may involve their NASDAQ status,
their U.S. trading partners, etc.

What does Baide Baiku write about copyright, WIPO and such things?
Do they explain concepts like licensing and copyright violations?

--
  Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se


body:
On 5/31/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:

> To the outside world (and to me) it thus appears that the Wikipedia
> project is providing all users with a facility to label themselves
> according to beliefs, and by implication, encouragement to do so.
> This is especially problematic with disreputable religions and
> pseudoreligions (I apologise if this offends American sensibilities
> attuned to First Amendment absolutism) such as Satanism, Scientology
> and the like.

Please provide a citation for Satanism being disreputable.

Disliked, sure.  Disreputable implies that they're actively harmful to
people.  Even in the relative core of satanism in the US, San Francisco,
where LaVey founded it and all,  their neighbors mostly don't notice them.
They're among the least offensive San Francisco freaks.

Also, exactly how do you justify Zoroastrianism being disreputable?

-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com


from_name: Conrad Dunkerson

body:
* Jesse W wrote:

> I just want to note that I agree with this.  We do have a problem with
> sometimes inflaming "problem users" rather than educating them into
> good contributors or deflating and wearing them out until they leave.
> Is this primarily due to the growth of the site?  In my opinion, yes.

Absolutely. It is easier to remain patient when dealing with a handful of
'less than perfect' users than it is when dealing with hundreds... but
that's an explanation rather than an excuse. As the job gets more
difficult the need to keep a cool head becomes all the more important.

> What can we do about this without making our problems (this and/or
> others) worse?  I don't know.  Conrad, do you have any suggestions?  In
> any case, I do appreciate you bringing this up, it is good that we are
> (once again) having this discussion.  This *is* the sort of "good
> response to critics" that we hope to practice.

Ultimately I think the answer is to maintain standards of civility / no
personal attacks / consensus building / et cetera NO MATTER WHAT. Far too
many admins sometimes act as if civility only applies to 'good' users or
'users who agree with me'. HOW do we change that? Bring it up when people
start disregarding civility (a quick glance at AN/I of late should give
you an idea what prompted me to comment NOW) and look for ways to nudge
the culture. I really DO think that 'admin re-affirmation' could work in
some form (e.g. requires X signatories to open, cannot be called for
sooner than Y months after adminship/last re-affirmation, need roughly Z%
approval to remain admin, et cetera) and plan to make a self-test of it
once I've been an admin long enough to have built up a respectable sized
collection of people who hate me. :]


from_name: Scott Stevenson

body:
Raphael1,
Seeing as you are the only editor who truly is pushing for a change
regarding the display of the cartoons, the lines you are citing in
WP:NBD do not apply. Where is this supposed change in consensus?
I realize now how hypocritical you are and how much of an equivocator
you are. You have yourself in these threads said that you'd be fine if
the cartoons were on display in the "Islamophobia" article. Your
equivocation is utterly illogical and borderline asinine. If you can
not see this then there truly is no hope for you and it will not be
long before you truly will have "exhausted the community's patience".
How can you reconcile this difference? I can only imagine that you'd
agree with displaying the cartoons on that articel for informational
purposes. Why can you not get it through your mind that the same logic
applies on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article,
that they are displayed there as they are for informational purposes?
The display of the cartoons there is not a moral affront by Wikipedia.

Here's a quick lesson in logic about why Wikipedia doesn't insult
muslims by displaying the cartoons:

Let's say that I were to tell Vkasdg that you were a complete idiot
who wasted his time (and others) by constantly droning on about the
display of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on Wikpedia. So then Vkasdg
goes and tells Rgulerdem that I said you were an idiot (even mimicing
exactly the way that I said it). Rgulerdem subsequently comes to you
and mimics what I said when explaining that he'd heard that I called
you an idiot. Has Rgulerdem insulted you? Clearly not. This same logic
applies to Wikipedia does it not?

-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]

</snip>
> Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy,
> instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:
>
> Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus
> that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that
> earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.
>
> --
> Raphael


from_name: Jean-Baptiste Soufron

body:
I don't think it would be wise for the foundation to take any action
that would not be correctly backed up by a chinese law firm
explaining us what we can do, and what we cannot do. As much from a
legal point of view, than from a PR or a political one.

Jean-Baptiste Soufron

Le 31 mai 06 ? 20:15, Lars Aronsson a ?crit :

> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> We can't fight China; it'd waste our time and they wouldn't even
>
> This could be the case if the PRC were to put all its muscle
> behind it, but it's not necessarily so.  Their encyclopedia is
> apparently a small part of this Internet company, which is a small
> part of something bigger, in several steps.  We don't mind their
> making their own encyclopedia, only the GFDL violation.  Perhaps
> this violation was just a mistake by some middle manager, and not
> this decade's strategic policy of the whole communist party.
>
> Make a map of their power hierarchy and figure out whose decision
> we're fighting, and how we can turn that person's boss into our
> friend.  Make it easy for them to prune this dead branch from
> their organization tree.  This may involve their NASDAQ status,
> their U.S. trading partners, etc.
>
> What does Baide Baiku write about copyright, WIPO and such things?
> Do they explain concepts like licensing and copyright violations?
>
>
> --
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office

body:
Kelly Martin wrote:
> On 5/25/06, Erik Zachte <erikzachte at infodisiac.com> wrote:
>
>> To name just one example: Nairobi would be a capable host city.
>>
>
> Except that to be non-profit in the US, you have to have an office in the US....
>
> Kelly
Hoi,
But in order to be a non-profit in the US, you do not have to represent
the whole world from the US.
Thanks,
   GerardM


subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia main office


from_name: Raphael Wegmann

body:
Matt Brown wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann <raphael at psi.co.at> wrote:
>> Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy,
>> instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:
>>
>> Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus
>> that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that
>> earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.
>
> It doesn't contradict WP:NBD; in fact, it tells you exactly where to
> go if you feel consensus may have changed. It simply says: get your
> consensus first, change the page second.
>

The practice of blocking editors for unilaterally changing
the cartoon display is a violation to [[WP:NBD]], which goes on saying:

<WP:NBD>
In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to
listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually
acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the
rule, and where they do exist they are *not binding*.
</WP:NBD>

Blocking editors a minute after they removed the cartoons
without any warning won't ever make that possible.

--
Raphael


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

body:
Brion Vibber schrieb:
> I'd like to create a separate wiki for these "test Wikipedia" pages so we can
> keep Meta clean more easily. If there's no objection I'll set this up later
> today and start moving things over.

You're my hero :-)

--elian


from_name: Steve Summit

subject:
[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the
	satanism	userbox

body:
MacGyverMagic wrote:
> Either cut all religious userboxes or keep them all, don't start getting
> selective. The box is just as useful as a "I am a Christian"-box. Disrepute
> due to beliefs is only an issue if said editors consistently misbehave.
>
> People worry too much over userboxes.

On the one hand, I agree, the ongoing train wreck that is the
userbox "war" is silly and unnecessary.  On the one hand, I
agree, all "I am a whatever-tian" boxes should either stand
together or fall together.  Personally, I don't care if you
proclaim yourself to be a Christian or a Satanist or a Democrat
or a Republican or a vegetarian or a Martian or a pedophile or a
Nazi; the only thing that matters to me is whether you can edit
encyclopedia articles intelligently, cooperatively, and
productively.

But.  On the other hand:

If you honestly believe, in this society, that there is no
difference between saying "I am a Christian" and "I am a
Satanist", you are either being wilfully ignorant, or disruptive
to make a point.  And it's exactly this sort of wilfulness,
disruption, and point-making that gives rise to big problems
with those seemingly silly, unimportant userboxes.


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] General Eisenhower

body:
On 5/31/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally I do not see what the deal about having official titles in
> > user names is. If I were american I may take offense to someone
> > putting those down. Personally I think it would not be confusing at
> > all to have Prime Minister Howard as a user name, although I do not
> > see the point in it as it is obviously not him contributing, he had a
> > country to run. John Howard on the other hand would only be allowable
> > if it were the persons actual name (and it is a common name in
> > australia).
>
> I don't think it's all that obvious. Do you know, without looking,
> whether "rmstallman" is really Richard Stallman? Would you expect
> user:Howard Stern to be really be him?
>
> Ultimately, famous names *are* disruptive, because some people will be
> duped, and others will waste time checking.
>
> Steve

Is General Eisenhower aka, Dwight Eisenhower, still alive? Would it be
logical for someone to mistake this user with the famous american?
Famous live people may be disruptive, but how famous is famous?

Peter Ansell

Peter Ansell


from_name: jf_wikipedia at mac.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Lovely.

body:
On May 31, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:

> What we are dealing with is psychological warfare. To be taken
> seriously, to be responded to calmly. The point is to induce panic.
> The best response is to stay calm, respond in appropriate forums and
> support those who are attacked.

I do not understand how with these types of behaviors, it is so hard
to extend the policy of [[WP:NPA]], as can be observed in
[[Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks]].

Most people in WP, are not aware of harassment of this kind, and that
it *is* happening.

-- Jossi