body:
--- andrea loquenzi <andrealoquenzi at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am a young journalist/historian from Rome and I am in the process of
> applying for my journalists' lisence here in Italy.  This requires me to
> have published a certain number of articles in accredited media outlets in
> order to earn my lisence.  Can a contribution to either Wikipedia or Wkinews
> count as such?  If so, this outlet would be very useful for me as I develop
> as a journalist.  I have much to contribute on the subject of The Middle
> East and other historical discourse.  I can also translate texts from
> Italian to English and vice-versa.

Neither Wikipedia nor Wikinews are accredited at anything.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks

body:
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

> I think we are making progress here.  If we grant that a registration
> system isn't the *right* measure to deal with the typical
> trouble-maker, we can instead focus on what *is* the right measure?

 From my position on the relative sidelines (I've never had direct
dealings with ArbCom nor do I follow its activities much beyond what
gets discussed on this list), the problem(s) are not with the technology
or the policies, but are solely with ArbCom, and I see five
possibilities as to what they are:

1) ArbCom is toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.

	I don't think this is the case. If it is, it needs to be fixed quickly.

2) ArbCom thinks it's toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.

	If this is the case, I think *YOU* (Jimbo) can and should fix it by
making it clear to them they're not.

3) ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.

	I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think it could
be worked through simply by biting the bullet and coming down hard and
fast on a few exceptional problem cases, making Wikipedians get used to
the fact that "due process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it
harder to ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when
Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did everything
you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator presiding over a
medium-sized project is markedly different from a pseudo-democratic body
presiding over one of the largest "open source" projects in the world
with one of the lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people
have grasped that.)

4) ArbCom is woefully understaffed.

	I think staffing levels are a factor regardless of the truth of any of
these other points. From the sound of things, the recent elections have
helped. Depending on how the next few weeks and months go, I think
serious consideration should be given to expanding ArbCom further.

5) ArbCom is "lazy".

	For one reason or another, some arbitrators apparently aren't active.
I'd rather not see anyone forcibly removed, but I'd certainly urge any
inactive arbitrators to resign so that others with more time may take
their place.

In relation to the last two possibilities, I've had a thought. Some
people are clearly afraid of making a long-term commitment to ArbCom,
but might not be adverse to short-term stints. I'm thinking perhaps a
monthly list of volunteers that ArbCom could select from to form
temporary committees to review a particular case and recommend action
with ArbCom making the final call. How well this would work in practice
I can't say.


from_name: Geoff Burling

subject: [WikiEN-l] The Word Cabal

body:
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 slimvirgin at gmail.com wrote:

> And a happy New Year to you too, Geoff.  :-)
>
Oh yeah, it is New Year's Eve. I had forgotten.

Since I'm expecting my first born this coming year, at the age of
47, I can't help but expect it will be a happy new year for me --
& my family. Well, maybe not for my oldest cat Muffy, who will once
again find competition for attention. ;-)

Geoff


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Sabine Cretella

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Templat for link to wikipedia from an external
	wiki-installation

body:
Hi, I am creating a local portal based on wikimedia wiki. Now in
wiktionary we use a template to link the page automatically to wikipedia:

=== ''Vedi anche'' ===
Per informazioni aggiuntive su {{PAGENAME}} vedi
[[w:{{PAGENAME}}|Wikipedia]]

I tried to transfor this for my portal, but strange things come out

=== ''Vedi anche'' ===
Per informazioni aggiuntive su {{PAGENAME}} vedi
[http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/{{PAGENAME}} Wikipedia]

(Link to the template:
http://wesolveitnet.com/maiori/index.php?title=Template:-wikipedia-it-)

You can see an example here:
http://wesolveitnet.com/maiori/index.php?title=Roberto_Rossellini

It seems as if Roberto is seen as the link where to go and Rossellini is
shown together with "Wikipedia" as the link to klick on.

How should this link be built in order to have it work correctly?

And I'd also like to use this mail to wish you a happy 2005
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Felice_Anno_Nuovo%21

Ciao, Sabine

--
Sabine Cretella
s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
Phone: +39-340-1809828
Skype: callto://sabinecretella

Meetingplace for translators
www.wesolveitnet.com


list: wikitech-l

subject:
[Wikitech-l] Templat for link to wikipedia from an external
	wiki-installation


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
We have 11 arbitrators, the new ones are quite active. We are ok for a bit.
Regarding reviewing a case, if anyone wants to do it on the talk page of the
proposed decision, please go ahead. If we like it we will just put it in the
proposed decision and vote on it. No permission needed.

Fred

> From: Nicholas Knight <nknight at runawaynet.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:02:12 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks
>
> In relation to the last two possibilities, I've had a thought. Some
> people are clearly afraid of making a long-term commitment to ArbCom,
> but might not be adverse to short-term stints. I'm thinking perhaps a
> monthly list of volunteers that ArbCom could select from to form
> temporary committees to review a particular case and recommend action
> with ArbCom making the final call. How well this would work in practice
> I can't say.


from_name: Jim Cecropia

body:
Hello Andrea,

As others have already said, you would need to ask whatever authority issues journalism licenses in Italy what is and is not acceptable. I would doubt Wikipedia would be, since Wikipedia editors are self-selected.

The idea of a "journalists' license" is quite foreign to the U.S. experience, so I have no idea what your licensing people are looking for: simple examples of your writing? that your articles are published?

If you submit articles to U.S. media, I would suggest you look for subjects and/or "spins" that would give the U.S. reader an idea of a particularly Italian or European viewpoint on the subject matter, or tell news of Italian culture or politics that an American might find interesting or informative. The U.S. has ample writers about the Middle East, both homegrown and imported, and your writing would have to reveal something new and interesting (factual, or comparative perspective, not simply a Eurocentric polemic) to be likely to be picked up by U.S. media. Europe (though some countries moreso than Italy) has a much different perspective on the Middle East than the U.S. and a U.S. reader might like to know what the differences are and why they exist. I would think such an article would have to address Europe's different history in regard to the Middle East and relationship to Arab peoples, as well as Europe's history with Jews.

Consider submitting articles to The New York Times and Washington Post as op-eds. No pay, but the article are not self-selected and the media are prestigious.

Hope this helps,

Cecropia

----- Original Message -----
From: "andrea loquenzi" <andrealoquenzi at hotmail.com>
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] inquiry from an Italian journalist
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 18:20:24 +0000

>
> I am a young journalist/historian from Rome and I am in the process
> of applying for my journalists' lisence here in Italy.  This
> requires me to have published a certain number of articles in
> accredited media outlets in order to earn my lisence.  Can a
> contribution to either Wikipedia or Wkinews count as such?  If so,
> this outlet would be very useful for me as I develop as a
> journalist.  I have much to contribute on the subject of The Middle
> East and other historical discourse.  I can also translate texts
> from Italian to English and vice-versa.
>
> Thank you for your response-- any information you can provide
> regarding my inquiry would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Andrea Loquenzi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Personalizza MSN Messenger con sfondi e fotografie!
> http://www.ilovemessenger.msn.it/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm


from_name: John Lee

body:
Excellent. Now go start an edit war.

John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])

Stacey Greenstein wrote:

>Hee! Ok. You're in!
>
>
>On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:53:26 +1100, Robin Shannon
><robin.shannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>HAPPY NEW YEAR!
>>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0500, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Is there any way I can become a part of the cabal?  Is there a sign-up form
>>>or something? Apparently I'm already part of a worldwide domination
>>>conspiracy/cabal, but it doesn't feel like enough.
>>>
>>>
>>==Cabal application form==
>>
>>Username: [[User:The bellman]]
>>
>>Real name: Robin Shannon
>>
>>Previous experience in world domination: Grand Poohbah of the
>>freemasons (1999-2001),
>>Supreme leader of the scientoligists (2000-2003), the REAL pope (2004- ).
>>
>>Reason you want to dominate the world: current world rulers are either
>>too geeky (bill gates) too stupid (GWB) or too victorian (QEII). I
>>think i would be a more rounded sort of person, thus more sutible for
>>the job.
>>
>>I the undersigned do solemly swear to follow the 8 rules of the wikimedia cabal.
>>
>># You do not talk about THE CABAL.
>>
>># You DO NOT talk about THE CABAL.
>>
>># If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the edit war is over.
>>
>># Only two guys to an eidt war.
>>
>># One edit war at a time.
>>
>># No shirts, no shoes.
>>
>># Arbitration will go on as long as it has to.
>>
>># If this is your first night in THE CABAL, you HAVE to edit
>>
>>~~~~.
>>
>>


from_name: Mark Williamson

body:
But then wouldn't these local pages start to become biased? There
would undoubtedly be many more Canadian editors at the Canada article
than Americans, not in small part because of the redirect.

I really think there should be some way to integrate national news
into the mainpage so it remains edited by all...

Mark

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 05:30:09 +0100, James R. Johnson
<modean52 at comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that we balkanize or limit to only locally relevant
> news...I'm just fine with the idea of en.wikinews.uk being a redirect to the
> English wikinews site, though that'd be a bit redundant.  That's the good
> thing about wiki as a whole is that it gets over the local bias (the
> European bias, American bias, etc.) with so many contributors.
>
> James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces at Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jens Ropers
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:53 AM
> To: wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] start a new Wikipedia / Wikinews
>
> On 31 Dec 2004, at 02:14, James R. Johnson wrote:
>
> > That's a good idea there...en.wikinews.uk or en.wikinews.usa sound
> > good.
>
> '''Oppose.'''
> Beware of balkanization.
> The above proposal would lead to a situation where people would not
> only just read about the so-called "locally relevant" issues that
> interest them, but it would probably very soon also lead to the
> respective wikis mostly containing the locally predominant POV -- which
> may be sharply at odds with the rest of the world. There are enough
> global media franchises whose "localized" products sell well enough due
> to added local slant and preselection. Our mission, I dare to believe,
> is to transcend these things and reach for higher goals.
>
> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>      www.ropersonline.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

body:
Why not? Will it suddenly become 'uncool' to be a Wikipedian once the
word enters public usage?

Mark

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:41:10 -0800 (PST), Rich Holton
<rich_holton at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> > I played around a little bit there today. "Wiki" was considered a new
> > word.
> > "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedian" are being considered, but the
> > definitions are
> > lifted from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia articles without
> > credit.
> >
> This concerns me. Anyone else? Not the lack of credit per se, but the
> idea that these "words" are being considered as neologisms. Wikipedia
> is our trade mark, and perhaps we should also claim "Wikipedian". We
> don't want these to fall into general use.
>
> -Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:user:Rholton)
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: Setting up a Wikipedia in _______ (what ever
	language)

body:
"One china, one language" (with the exception of minority ethnicities'
languages) does seem to be true, and "one Wikipedia" seems to
partially follow. While I'm sure it's not an actual consideration of
the powers that be, I think there certainly is a link between the
sociolinguistic attitudes of some parties involved and official
linguistic policy in the PRC (Taiwan, OTOH, is moving gradually to a
more pluralistic view for Hakka and Minnan), which seems to be slowly
swallowing up linguistic policy in Hongkong (sometime in the next 50
years, I'd not be surprised if any special status Cantonese has now is
dropped by the PRC to promote national unity).

However, I think it's important to note again that this almost
certainly has nothing to do with official considerations, though I do
think there's a perpetuated fallacy of "trust any Chinese person" on
this and related issues (ie, in the original considerations for the
sc/tc issue, respected personalities were asked what they thought of
the question, but not one of them used tc primarily; people like
Shizhao and Jiaqing Bao seem to be trusted more because they know
"Chinese" even though neither claims a knowledge of Cantonese).

Overall though, I think that bias is mostly not present in such
considerations because people are very careful to evaluate different
opinions and sources.

Mark

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:38:14 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
<jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > The problem is political. One China, One language, One Wikipedia, and so on.
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with it, actually.
>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


body:
Apparently, it needs proof that the written form is a separate
language, which is (apparently) impossible to provide. (this
conclusion is based on private discussions)

Mark

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 01:16:53 +1100, David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales (jwales at wikia.com) [050101 00:39]:
> > Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > > The problem is political. One China, One language, One Wikipedia, and so on.
>
> > I don't think this has anything to do with it, actually.
>
>
> It's got speakers, it's got an orthography, it's a different language with
> a code, it's got active newspapers and book publishing in that orthography,
> and it's got someone requesting it so they can start work on it. What else
> does it need to go forward?
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>


from_name: Robin Shannon

body:
HAPPY NEW YEAR!

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:20:12 -0500, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any way I can become a part of the cabal?  Is there a sign-up form
> or something? Apparently I'm already part of a worldwide domination
> conspiracy/cabal, but it doesn't feel like enough.

==Cabal application form==

Username: [[User:The bellman]]

Real name: Robin Shannon

Previous experience in world domination: Grand Poohbah of the
freemasons (1999-2001),
Supreme leader of the scientoligists (2000-2003), the REAL pope (2004- ).

Reason you want to dominate the world: current world rulers are either
too geeky (bill gates) too stupid (GWB) or too victorian (QEII). I
think i would be a more rounded sort of person, thus more sutible for
the job.

I the undersigned do solemly swear to follow the 8 rules of the wikimedia cabal.

# You do not talk about THE CABAL.

# You DO NOT talk about THE CABAL.

# If someone says "stop" or goes limp, taps out the edit war is over.

# Only two guys to an eidt war.

# One edit war at a time.

# No shirts, no shoes.

# Arbitration will go on as long as it has to.

# If this is your first night in THE CABAL, you HAVE to edit

~~~~.

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade at jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/


subject: [Wikipedia-l] The fall of thefreedictionary? and other Alexa topics

body:
A few months ago, I wrote on my user page  about how
thefreedictionary.com was set to overtake wikipedia.org as the
most-visited (according to Alexa) of the sites providing
Wikipedia-created content.

(Go to
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=medium&y=r&url=http://www.wikipedia.org#top

and then type thefreedictionary.com into the compare box to see how
close they came to overtaking us at the end of October, when I wrote my
note).

GOOD NEWS: Over the last two months, thefreedictionary.com has lost
massive amounts of ground to us.

I suspect a lot of this is to do with Google. Thefreedictionary.com
really worked the Google algorithm well for a long time, returning way
ahead of Wikipedia and mirrors time after time in searches. I suspect
that the algorithm has changed to Wikipedia's advantage - we are picking
up more readers than ever - this should make sure we continue to pick up
contributors, thus improving the resource even more quickly.

Pete/Pcb21

PS. Wikipedia.org is now listed in the top 100 English language websites
by Alexa - a newish entry at number 98. (Yes this is a bit of a swizz,
because only 61% of page views are on wikipedia.org are of English
pages, but hey it is cool anyway!)

http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=lang&lang=en


from_name: Daniel Mayer

body:
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> We have 11 arbitrators, the new ones are quite active. We are ok for a bit.
> Regarding reviewing a case, if anyone wants to do it on the talk page of the
> proposed decision, please go ahead. If we like it we will just put it in the
> proposed decision and vote on it. No permission needed.

Yes - help formulating proposed principles, findings of fact, remedies and
enforcement would help expedite the whole process since that is the major
bottleneck (getting other ArbCom members to vote on things is much easier).
That part of the process does not need official ArbCom members - only voting
does.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


subject: [WikiEN-l] abuse of administrator priviledges by AndyL

body:
--- actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> 2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one
> instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a
> situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than
> judge an "edit war" he was a participant in.

Speaking of which, a general requests for admin action page may be useful in
such cases. It would work the same as (and perhaps replace) the requests for
page protection page. Or we could have separate pages for different actions
(page history move, quick deletions, page protections and blocks such as the
one you mention).

-- mav

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


from_name: Walter Vermeir

subject: [Wikitech-l] blocked  expires 02:47, 25 Dec 2004

body:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Ipblocklist

The auto unblock does not seem to work. The stay blocked.
--
[[w:nl:gebruiker:walter]]


from_name: Rich Holton

body:
--- Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:

> Why not? Will it suddenly become 'uncool' to be a Wikipedian once the
> word enters public usage?
>

It's a question of trade mark protection. Kleenex is a trademark, but
now people often use it to refer to any facial tissue. Same thing for
Xerox (Can I make a xerox of that?), and several others I can't think
of at the moment. If we don't take steps to protect our trademark, then
we can lose it.

We are not a wikipedia. We are _the Wikipedia_.

I would love for the name Wikipedia to be on everyone's tongue. But
only as a brand name, _the_ Wikipedia, referring to one specific (set
of) on-line encyclopedia(s). Not as a generic term for any
encyclopedia-type on-line resource using wiki software.

If what Collins is doing does not jeopardize our trademark, great! But
we need to watch to make sure.

-Rich Holton (en.wikipedia:User:Rholton)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250


from_name: Daniel P.B.Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How to join the cabal

body:
Just answer these questions:

a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary
yellow?

b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields without
any menthol?

c) Are there bombs in Gilead?


from_name: Stewart Pederson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx

body:
Dear Wikipedia Folks,

I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
 Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
process has completed.

Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
that help the article.

I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
assuming that all keep votes were done by me.

Thank you,

Stewart Pederson


from_name: David Gerard

body:
JAY JG (jayjg at hotmail.com) [050101 07:21]:

> I'm still disturbed with the recent case of a dedicated and extremely
> abusive troll/POV pusher who created a dozen sockpuppets and edited using
> them with near impunity on Wikipedia for months.  His ArbCom case is still
> slowly dragging its way through the process, not even a temporary
> injunction yet.

The ArbCom case is being pushed at the moment (in our first 6 1/2 hours,
the new arbitrators have been hacking away at the backlog ... why am I
still up, and why am I online?).

The socks are blocked and so is the user (for glaring sock abuse for
policy-violating purposes and because we're still sorting out the mess).
Which isn't an entirely elegant solution providing a way forward, but does
stop the abusiveness for the moment.

I'd really like to see a decent wording for 'No personal attacks, block
after warning' that would be objective enough to make it through a vote,
like the last one didn't.

- d.


from_name: Bryan Derksen

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Hunting for my first edit,
	is there a Wikimuseum of ancient  data?

body:
I have been asked on several occasions what my first edit on Wikipedia was,
and I admit to a certain curiousity myself. The problem is that I really
don't remember it; I believe I first came to Wikipedia back in the
UseModWiki days and IIRC the old edit histories from that era weren't
imported into the current database when the transition was made to PHP wiki
due to format incompatibilities. I've looked through
http://download.wikimedia.org/ and didn't see any obvious links for getting
anything that old, is there anyplace where I might find it?

Alternately, I recall that in the UseModWiki days I had a "userpage" at
[[Bryan Derksen]] (or possibly [[BryanDerksen]]) that I deleted as soon as
there was support for the User: subspace in the new software. It may have
some clues in it, but stuff that's been deleted for a long time appears to
be no longer undeleteable by mere admins such as myself. Is there a
database with ancient deletes in them kicking around somewhere? This would
be handy for an unrelated reason too, there're some old RfC pages I
participated in once upon a time that have been similarly deleted that I
wouldn't mind having copies of for future reference.


from_name: Peter Gervai

subject: [Wikipedia-l] spam find link disappeared?

body:
there was a menu in my sysop options which searched all wikipedias for a
specific ip, which made it possible - but still pretty tiresome - to find
the spam of certain individuals and spambots across several wikipedias and
fix it even after months of harm.

now it seems this option's gone. is it a new local setting, or there's a
hidden reason behind it? now I can only do what I used to do: revert on my
home wikipedia and pray for others to spot it (which they sometimes do, most
often not).

would be nice to have it again, maybe even with smarter functionality.

(actual jerk was
http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speci%C3%A1lis:Contributions&target=222.94.39.60
)

[[:en:user:grin]]


from_name: Charles Fulton

body:
Mav:

Actually, such a place already exists and is functioning in such a
manner: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

In fact, Andy requested a block for a 3rr violation earlier today.

-Charles

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:40:30 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
<maveric149 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> > 2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one
> > instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a
> > situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than
> > judge an "edit war" he was a participant in.
>
> Speaking of which, a general requests for admin action page may be useful in
> such cases. It would work the same as (and perhaps replace) the requests for
> page protection page. Or we could have separate pages for different actions
> (page history move, quick deletions, page protections and blocks such as the
> one you mention).
>
> -- mav
>
> __________________________________________________
> 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
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: JAY JG

body:
David Gerard said
>
>The socks are blocked and so is the user (for glaring sock abuse for
>policy-violating purposes and because we're still sorting out the mess).
>Which isn't an entirely elegant solution providing a way forward, but does
>stop the abusiveness for the moment.

The thing I find most frightening is that if the user had been just slightly
smarter in the way he had done things, he would have succeeded, his 13 man
sockpuppet army would have edited (and reverted) with impunity, and there
would have been no "technical evidence" against him.  I think it's likely he
will still attempt this.  If he doesn't others might.

>I'd really like to see a decent wording for 'No personal attacks, block
>after warning' that would be objective enough to make it through a vote,
>like the last one didn't.

Me too.  I know of at least one good editor, who added high quality
technical (and non-political) material, but was not up to the rough and
tumble of edit wars and insults, who left permanently as a result of the
abusive atmosphere.

Jay.


from_name: James R. Johnson

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Map of Indian Ocean region

body:
Hello all,

            Happy New Year!  And on another topic, does anyone have a blank
map without names of the Indian Ocean Region?  I'd like to put one up on
[[ang]] in Anglo-Saxon.

Thanks,

James


from_name: Zigger

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Templat for link to wikipedia from
	an external wiki-installation

body:
Use PAGENAMEE instead of PAGENAME to fix characters such as the space.

Per informazioni aggiuntive su PAGENAMEE vedi
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Page_name

-- Zigger

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:05:05 +0100, Sabine Cretella wrote:
> ...
> Per informazioni aggiuntive su {{PAGENAME}} vedi
> [[w:{{PAGENAME}}|Wikipedia]]
> ...
> You can see an example here:
> http://wesolveitnet.com/maiori/index.php?title=Roberto_Rossellini
>
> It seems as if Roberto is seen as the link where to go and Rossellini is
> shown together with "Wikipedia" as the link to klick on.
> ...

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 11:05:05 +0100, Sabine Cretella
<sabine_cretella at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Hi, I am creating a local portal based on wikimedia wiki. Now in
> wiktionary we use a template to link the page automatically to wikipedia:
>
> === ''Vedi anche'' ===
> Per informazioni aggiuntive su {{PAGENAME}} vedi
> [[w:{{PAGENAME}}|Wikipedia]]
>
> I tried to transfor this for my portal, but strange things come out
>
> === ''Vedi anche'' ===
> Per informazioni aggiuntive su {{PAGENAME}} vedi
> [http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/{{PAGENAME}} Wikipedia]
>
> (Link to the template:
> http://wesolveitnet.com/maiori/index.php?title=Template:-wikipedia-it-)
>
> You can see an example here:
> http://wesolveitnet.com/maiori/index.php?title=Roberto_Rossellini
>
> It seems as if Roberto is seen as the link where to go and Rossellini is
> shown together with "Wikipedia" as the link to klick on.
>
> How should this link be built in order to have it work correctly?
>
> And I'd also like to use this mail to wish you a happy 2005
> http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Felice_Anno_Nuovo%21
>
> Ciao, Sabine
>
> --
> Sabine Cretella
> s.cretella at wordsandmore.it
> Phone: +39-340-1809828
> Skype: callto://sabinecretella
>
> Meetingplace for translators
> www.wesolveitnet.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


from_name: John Collison

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How to join the cabal

body:
> Just answer these questions:
>
> a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary
> yellow?
>
> b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields
> without any menthol?
>
> c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
>
I've a better question. If you get it right, you can join.

Q: Is there a cabal?

++++++++++++++
Answers:
If you answered no, you get to join the cabal.
++++++++++++++

John


from_name: actionforum at comcast.net

body:
AndyL has just blocked me (Silverback), alleging that I violated the 3 revert rule on the page "communism".   He abused the administrator priviledges for two reasons:

1) I was making substantantive changes in response to his fabricated objections, not merely reverting, he was being obtuse and failing to see obvious points.

2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than judge an "edit war" he was a participant in.

          -- thanx for your attention,
                                      Silverback


body:
Dear Wikipedia Folks,

I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
 Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
process has completed.

Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
have been editing, and "Neutrality" is convinced its fake, it would seem
that this clearly is the case.  If you don't like the research, vote to
 delete it.  If you like it, vote to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting
to bring in other sources that help the article.

I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
assuming that all keep votes were done by me.

Thank you,

Stewart Pederson


list: foundation-l

from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
Wikipedia and Wikimedia were once created to start an encyclopedia.
Now we have more, we have wikis for dictionaries, books, source
material, citations, multimedia files, biological species, victims of
9/11... Why?

The positive way to say it would be to state that we are extending our
reach. But is that the case? Looking at the history, I have the
feeling they are all weak compromises between deletionists and
inclusionists. Some wanted to delete dictionary definitions, others
wanted to keep them. No agreement. So we make a special wiki for that,
and both can be happy. They are not deleted, and they are not kept in
Wikipedia. Some want to delete source files, others don't. Another
Wiki. Some want to include how-tos and such, others don't. Another
Wiki. Some want to include all 9/11 victims, others don't. And indeed.

Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
we find a compromise. From another point of view, it just shows that
we cannot make any real decisions. I guess it's the wiki way. We are
good at making compromises, we are totally incapable at making
decisions.

What am I saying here? I don't really know. But I do want to have said
it. Do your advantage with it, or throw it away. Whatever.

Andre Engels


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


from_name: John Lee

body:
Yes, it is a known bug. Until it is fixed, admins will have to unblock
users manually.

John Lee
([[en:User:Johnleemk]])

Walter Vermeir wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Ipblocklist
>
>
> The auto unblock does not seem to work. The stay blocked.


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Either the implementation of autoblock or the
	documentation is faulty

body:
The "User is blocked" page that gets returned when I try to edit, states that reading of pages is allowed. yet each time I read,  or even when I just access the blocked list, the time at which my block expires as shown by the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist

page pushes out the 24 hour expiration, so it is not OK to read, even the blocklist page the the documentation refers one to.

               -- Silverback


body:
Do you know what user or IP that was in reference to?  It probably isn't mine, because he didn't wait for someone else to implement the block, he put it in himself.  Perhaps he is thinking of leaving wikipedia and is just burning bridges behind him.

Can someone please free me from this insidious and incorrectly implemented ban.

         -- thanx,
                Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> Mav:
>
> Actually, such a place already exists and is functioning in such a
> manner: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
>
> In fact, Andy requested a block for a 3rr violation earlier today.
>
> -Charles
>
>
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:40:30 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer
> wrote:
> > --- actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
> > > 2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one
> > > instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a
> > > situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than
> > > judge an "edit war" he was a participant in.
> >
> > Speaking of which, a general requests for admin action page may be useful in
> > such cases. It would work the same as (and perhaps replace) the requests for
> > page protection page. Or we could have separate pages for different actions
> > (page history move, quick deletions, page protections and blocks such as the
> > one you mention).
> >
> > -- mav
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
I just accessed the archives for this list, does anyone know it autoblock increments the time for this also?  The address is mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/...

     -- thanx,
            Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> The "User is blocked" page that gets returned when I try to edit, states that
> reading of pages is allowed. yet each time I read, or even when I just access
> the blocked list, the time at which my block expires as shown by the
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
>
> page pushes out the 24 hour expiration, so it is not OK to read, even the
> blocklist page the the documentation refers one to.
>
> -- Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
The "Effects of being blocked" section of the

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

page, states that "users can still see all Wikipedia pages",   Which might be interpreted as looking at pages is OK.  Further down in that section however,
it states:

 "There is an internal autoblock expiry time variable, which is set to 24 hours, meaning that when a username is blocked indefinitely, their IP will be automatically unblocked 24 hours after they last accessed a page."

This refers just to the "access" of a page, for an indefinite block.  Now was I blocked "indefinitely" rather than "The duration of the block depends on the expiry time that was entered at the time of the block"?

         -- thanx,
                   Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> I just accessed the archives for this list, does anyone know it autoblock
> increments the time for this also? The address is
> mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/...
>
> -- thanx,
> Silverback
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > The "User is blocked" page that gets returned when I try to edit, states that
> > reading of pages is allowed. yet each time I read, or even when I just access
> > the blocked list, the time at which my block expires as shown by the
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
> >
> > page pushes out the 24 hour expiration, so it is not OK to read, even the
> > blocklist page the the documentation refers one to.
> >
> > -- Silverback
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
Reverse the block in accordance with policy please ( was Re:
	[WikiEN-l] abuse of administrator priviledges by AndyL

body:
The when not to block section of the blocking policy page states that "blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute" are not allowed.  Furthermore AndyL stated in his block message: "adding other material in addition to your reverts doesn\'t stop an edit from being a revert".

This is not documented anywhere and is obviously a judgement call.  I did not use the revert mechanism (going to history and selecting an older page), and I made substantial and responsive changes to the page, while AndyL, used the revert mechanism (apparently).

Since I was blocked in violation of this policy, please use the provided mechanism to unblock me, that documents this as a legitmate reason..

             -- thanx,
                     Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> AndyL has just blocked me (Silverback), alleging that I violated the 3 revert
> rule on the page "communism". He abused the administrator priviledges for two
> reasons:
>
> 1) I was making substantantive changes in response to his fabricated objections,
> not merely reverting, he was being obtuse and failing to see obvious points.
>
> 2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one
> instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a
> situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than judge an
> "edit war" he was a participant in.
>
> -- thanx for your attention,
> Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Abe,
	I've gone to the "No Orginal Research" talk page and a
	search reveals no reference to Deng

body:
I also tried the archive pages.  Can you be more specific?  Also,
can you reverse this abusive block?

           -- thanx,
                 Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> The when not to block section of the blocking policy page states that "blocks to
> gain advantage in a content dispute" are not allowed. Furthermore AndyL stated
> in his block message: "adding other material in addition to your reverts
> doesn\'t stop an edit from being a revert".
>
> This is not documented anywhere and is obviously a judgement call. I did not
> use the revert mechanism (going to history and selecting an older page), and I
> made substantial and responsive changes to the page, while AndyL, used the
> revert mechanism (apparently).
>
> Since I was blocked in violation of this policy, please use the provided
> mechanism to unblock me, that documents this as a legitmate reason..
>
> -- thanx,
> Silverback
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > AndyL has just blocked me (Silverback), alleging that I violated the 3 revert
> > rule on the page "communism". He abused the administrator priviledges for two
> > reasons:
> >
> > 1) I was making substantantive changes in response to his fabricated
> objections,
> > not merely reverting, he was being obtuse and failing to see obvious points.
> >
> > 2) If these were somehow, technically reverts on my part, he was the one
> > instigating them, it is abusive for him to be the one to block me in such a
> > situation, he should have to call in another administrator, rather than judge
> an
> > "edit war" he was a participant in.
> >
> > -- thanx for your attention,
> > Silverback
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales

body:
Nicholas Knight wrote:
> 2) ArbCom thinks it's toothless to deal rapidly with clear abuses.
>
> 	If this is the case, I think *YOU* (Jimbo) can and should fix it by
> making it clear to them they're not.

I think we're good at this point.  The ArbCom is empowered to deal rapidly
with clear abuses, and I think they know it.

> 3) ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.

> 	I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think
> 	it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and
> 	coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem
> 	cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due
> 	process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to
> 	ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when
> 	Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did
> 	everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator
> 	presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different
> 	from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the
> 	largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the
> 	lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have
> 	grasped that.)

I think this is basically accurate.  I do recommend, though, that the
"coming down hard and fast" be really limited to a few exceptional
problem cases, as opposed to being random.

> 4) ArbCom is woefully understaffed.
>
> 	I think staffing levels are a factor regardless of the truth of any
> 	of these other points. From the sound of things, the recent elections have
> helped. Depending on how the next few weeks and months go, I think
> serious consideration should be given to expanding ArbCom further.

Yes.  I think we should keep an eye on it and increase the size as
needed.

I liked your idea of some form of temporary volunteer help for the
ArbCom as well, although I hate to see more and more people bogged
down with this stuff.  Perhaps it is better to just streamline the
process to a degree.

--Jimbo

--
"La n?fle est un fruit." - first words of 50,000th article on fr.wikipedia.org


body:
JAY JG wrote:
> Me too.  I know of at least one good editor, who added high quality
> technical (and non-political) material, but was not up to the rough and
> tumble of edit wars and insults, who left permanently as a result of the
> abusive atmosphere.

I think this is the critical point.

This is why I say that I fully support the central concept (as I
understand it at least) of what 172 has been saying, even though I
disagreed with the technical proposal that he made.

--Jimbo


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Abe,
	I've gone to the "No Orginal Research" talk page and a search reveals
	no reference to Deng

body:
Thanx, I guess, if you truly made an independent assessment.  AndyL is still guilty of abuse of course.   Where is the blocked list archives?  I like to check for other abusive behavior on his part, the page does not have a discussion or a history.
                                    -- thanx, Martin

-------------- Original message --------------

> actionforum at comcast.net (actionforum at comcast.net) [050102 13:31]:
>
> > I also tried the archive pages. Can you be more specific? Also,
> > can you reverse this abusive block?
>
>
> I looked at the history, removed AndyL's block, then put one on myself
> expiring at the same time. The new block is not from an involved admin.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
Andre Engels wrote:
> Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
> we find a compromise. From another point of view, it just shows that
> we cannot make any real decisions. I guess it's the wiki way. We are
> good at making compromises, we are totally incapable at making
> decisions.

I'm not so sure, but of course this is something for us all to keep in
mind.  Certainly, wiktionary is now maturing into something that it
could never have been without being separate from wikipedia, and so
having a separate reference work makes complete sense there.

For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
and we should do something about it.

--Jimbo


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Arbitrators: please note that 172 violated his 1 revert
	pledge

body:
In researching the criteria for blocking and its abuse, I noticed that 172 has an issue before arbitrarion.   A point that seemed to count in his favor was his taking of the one revert pledge.    Note that he was one of the reverters making alleging that my post was original research, evidently common sense application of the meaning of words is not allowed.  He just reverted my contribution again, his second in a few hours.

Integrity should require the votes on that issue to be reversed, since his pledge was meaningless.

Hopefully, we can work together to make wikipedia open and accountable.

                    -- thanx,
                               Silverback


from_name: Nicholas Knight

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: How to join the cabal

body:
John Collison wrote:
>
>> Just answer these questions:
>>
>> a) Do green flamingoes sing Schubert when the sky is a bright canary
>> yellow?
>>
>> b) Could you lend me six, no eight, filter-tipped Chesterfields
>> without any menthol?
>>
>> c) Are there bombs in Gilead?
>>
> I've a better question. If you get it right, you can join.
>
>
> Q: Is there a cabal?

Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.

> ++++++++++++++
> Answers:
> If you answered no, you get to join the cabal.
> ++++++++++++++

Darn.


subject:
RETRACTION Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitrators: please note that 172 violated
	his 1 revert pledge

body:
Apologies,

Upon review, his previous revert was more than 24 hours earlier.  I don't know what the time frame of his pledge was, but perhaps this was outside it.
           -- Silverback

-------------- Original message --------------

> In researching the criteria for blocking and its abuse, I noticed that 172 has
> an issue before arbitrarion. A point that seemed to count in his favor was his
> taking of the one revert pledge. Note that he was one of the reverters making
> alleging that my post was original research, evidently common sense application
> of the meaning of words is not allowed. He just reverted my contribution again,
> his second in a few hours.
>
> Integrity should require the votes on that issue to be reversed, since his
> pledge was meaningless.
>
> Hopefully, we can work together to make wikipedia open and accountable.
>
> -- thanx,
> Silverback
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks

body:
Nicholas Knight (nknight at runawaynet.com) [050102 04:02]:

: [various ideas on the arbcom]

Please give us a chance to get up to speed :-) We're already working on
progressing a few cases, have just close one and are close to closing on
others.

(That quite a few of the arbcom are IRC users is helping a lot in quick
discussion of things, though we are taking care to put stuff ont he arbcom
mailing list so that IRC isn't a requirement.)

- d.


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
The faster (and harder) you go the easier it is to make serious mistakes
(and do real damage to the community). Things just aren't always what they
seem at first impression.

Fred

> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:07:30 -0800
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Registration system and blocks
>
>> 3) ArbCom is afraid of backlash for dealing rapidly with clear abuses.
>
>> I feel like this may be the most likely problem. I also think
>> it could be worked through simply by biting the bullet and
>> coming down hard and fast on a few exceptional problem
>> cases, making Wikipedians get used to the fact that "due
>> process" doesn't mean "any process that makes it harder to
>> ban someone". (I think this is an artifact of a time when
>> Wikipedia was much smaller you held sole power to ban and did
>> everything you could to avoid it. A benevolent dictator
>> presiding over a medium-sized project is markedly different
>> from a pseudo-democratic body presiding over one of the
>> largest "open source" projects in the world with one of the
>> lowest barriers to entry. I don't think enough people have
>> grasped that.)
>
> I think this is basically accurate.  I do recommend, though, that the
> "coming down hard and fast" be really limited to a few exceptional
> problem cases, as opposed to being random.


body:
What I note about this is that you do not tell us the name of the article or
any details about it or what was considered objectionable about it. So your
complaint kind of ends up in the air. It upsets but it offers no way to
easily look at it and determine what's going on.

Although one could research it by looking at your user contributions I
suppose. But why not just tell us?

Fred

> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:31:55 -0900
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
>
> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
>
> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
> Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
> process has completed.
>
> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
> have been editing, and "Neutrality" is convinced its fake, it would seem
> that this clearly is the case.  If you don't like the research, vote to
> delete it.  If you like it, vote to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting
> to bring in other sources that help the article.
>
> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Stewart Pederson
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] I still did not break the 3 revert rule

body:
David,

That was cute of you to remove the involved admin objection, but you still can't make the case that I broke the three revert rule.  Based on discussions on the administrations notice board, I am even more convinced that AndyL abused his adminstrator power, and that you did not review the changes in good faith and make an independent judgement. My changes were not minor spelling or capitalization changes, but were significant attempts to address objections.  AndyL reverts were made without comment on the Talk page or even suggestions to go there, with the specifics of his objections.  Even AndyL, when he is a disinterested observer, takes a more generous position.   Consider his comment here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=8457225#Accusation_of_breaking_the_revert_rule_against_Sam_Spade

You or a more objective administrator should review and reverse this abusive ban.

          -- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------

> actionforum at comcast.net (actionforum at comcast.net) [050102 13:31]:
>
> > I also tried the archive pages. Can you be more specific? Also,
> > can you reverse this abusive block?
>
>
> I looked at the history, removed AndyL's block, then put one on myself
> expiring at the same time. The new block is not from an involved admin.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx

body:
Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
seriously as others.

A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two
different keeps) both worked on the article.  This is true because
there were TWO of us working on the article.  I'm being permanently
banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments
by friends of mine that are a bit silly?  Isn't that a bit extreme?

You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.

Stewart Pederson

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith
<dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
> > From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
> >
> > Dear Wikipedia Folks,
> >
> > I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
> > information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
> > democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
> > for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
> >  Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
> > use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
> > it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
> > presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
> > does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
> > remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
> > process has completed.
> >
> > Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
> > in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
> > have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
> > you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
> > to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
> > that help the article.
> >
> > I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
> > reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
> > assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Stewart Pederson
>
> Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
> article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
> mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
> VfD discussion is at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
>
> The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
> royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
> the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
> royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
> Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
>
> Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
> contributor responded with a single citation:
>
> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
>
> The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
> associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
> Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
> being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
> twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
> permitting, in Spring 2005."
>
> As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
> currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
> until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
> eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
> all recognizably similar in style.
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
>
> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
>
> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
>  Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
> process has completed.
>
> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
> have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
> you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
> to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
> that help the article.
>
> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Stewart Pederson

Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
VfD discussion is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .

The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."

Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
contributor responded with a single citation:

Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.

The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
permitting, in Spring 2005."

As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
all recognizably similar in style.

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net


body:
Fred.

Rice in Tibet?  Yes, as a matter of fact.

"The main food crops that grow in Tibet are barley, wheat, maize,
mustard, millet, sorghum, buckwheat, and rice."  Source:
http://www.atc.org.au/whatcanido/geography.html

Stew Pederson

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 08:23:02 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Some interesting facts in it too. Rice in Tibet? Don't think so.
>
> Fred
>
> > From: "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:41:47 +1100
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
> >
> > Fred, the article is [[Yopu]]. It has one source, and external link to a
> > website that is currently giving me an error.
> >
> > TBSDY
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
Some interesting facts in it too. Rice in Tibet? Don't think so.

Fred

> From: "csherlock at ljh.com.au" <csherlock at ljh.com.au>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:41:47 +1100
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
>
> Fred, the article is [[Yopu]]. It has one source, and external link to a
> website that is currently giving me an error.
>
> TBSDY


from_name: Elisabeth Bauer

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Hunting for my first edit,	is there a Wikimuseum
	of ancient  data?

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:

> I've looked through
> http://download.wikimedia.org/ and didn't see any obvious links for
> getting anything that old, is there anyplace where I might find it?

You can watch some old pages through the wayback machine of the internet
archive: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wikipedia.org

Brion recently set up a wiki with an old database dump of the english
wikipedia but it was corrupted. We talked in berlin about trying it
again. A wikimuseum of this sort would be great.

greetings,
elian


body:
The reason given is this:

Reason "Creation of hoax article, use of sockpuppets on VfD, kmeeps
uploading slef-made images to go along with hoax article. Wipes talk
page of warnings. Warned several times.".
Your IP address is 68.116.108.65. Please include this address in any
queries you make.

I didn't receive any warnings, just people voting to delete the
article because they believed it was a hoax.  I know the article
sounded fantastic, but its based on real research.  In retrospect, I
should have had everything organized before beginning to post the
article.

There were two of us working on the article, one on copy and myself on
the media/images.  What was wrong with me creating a picture for the
page also?  It was just a digital representation of the man during the
era.  Obviously, no photographs exist from the 13th century.  The
other comments are not "sockpuppets" of me, but actual other people
(most of whom I know) that added their comments on it.  Another part
was wiping the talk page of warnings?  After I answered a question
left on my talk page, (which was a question, not a warning), I would
remove the question so I wouldn't try answering it again.  Does
wikipedia have a policy about not editing your own talk page?

As for the ban, here is what it says on my talk page:

"I've gone ahead and deleted it. Oh, and consider yourself permanently
blocked. I laughed, and even had a bit of an edit myself, but at the
end of the day we don't really want you around. Cya! - Ta bu shi da yu
16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

I can understand wikipedia's desire to only have well documented and
published research.  I didn't have everything organized to go forward
with this article, but I will have a few more (verifiable)
publications for the future.

Thanks for your consideration,

Stew Pederson

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:09:25 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Creating a bogus article IS a serious offense. I doubt your ban is
> permanent. Could you quote the message you receive when you try to log in so
> we can check on what was done and the reason given?
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> > <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
> >
> > Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
> > think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
> > several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
> > and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
> > seriously as others.
> >
> > A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two
> > different keeps) both worked on the article.  This is true because
> > there were TWO of us working on the article.  I'm being permanently
> > banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments
> > by friends of mine that are a bit silly?  Isn't that a bit extreme?
> >
> > You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
> > But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.
> >
> > Stewart Pederson
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith
> > <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
> >>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> >>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
> >>>
> >>> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
> >>>
> >>> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
> >>> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
> >>> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
> >>> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
> >>> Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
> >>> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
> >>> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
> >>> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
> >>> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
> >>> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
> >>> process has completed.
> >>>
> >>> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
> >>> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
> >>> have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
> >>> you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
> >>> to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
> >>> that help the article.
> >>>
> >>> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
> >>> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
> >>> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you,
> >>>
> >>> Stewart Pederson
> >>
> >> Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
> >> article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
> >> mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
> >> VfD discussion is at
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
> >>
> >> The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
> >> royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
> >> the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
> >> royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
> >> Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
> >>
> >> Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
> >> contributor responded with a single citation:
> >>
> >> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
> >> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
> >> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
> >>
> >> The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
> >> associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
> >> Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
> >> being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
> >> twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
> >> permitting, in Spring 2005."
> >>
> >> As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
> >> currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
> >> until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
> >> eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
> >> all recognizably similar in style.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Magosányi Árpád

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
A levelez?m azt hiszi, hogy Andre Engels a k?vetkez?eket ?rta:
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia were once created to start an encyclopedia.
> Now we have more, we have wikis for dictionaries, books, source
> material, citations, multimedia files, biological species, victims of
> 9/11... Why?
>
> The positive way to say it would be to state that we are extending our
> reach. But is that the case? Looking at the history, I have the
> feeling they are all weak compromises between deletionists and
> inclusionists. Some wanted to delete dictionary definitions, others
> wanted to keep them. No agreement. So we make a special wiki for that,
> and both can be happy.

I was thinking about the same. This is what I am thinking about it:

Each Wiki page can be viewed as describing a knowledge scheme. The
additions I have seen so far are of two types:

* "Structural" schemes, describing some kind of structure of other
schemes.

* "Informational" schemes, describing some information.

Examples of structural schemes are the species and the contents of
wiktionary. These both structure other schemes which are normally
entries of wikipedia.

Examples of informational schemes are source material, citations,
multimedia files.

The structural schemes cannot describe the structures they want
to describe because disconnectedness. It is clearly shown in
wictionary: you can find multiple instances of the same word
across multiple language dictionaries (I mean you can find
words in each language in each language dictionary), and
these words are described independently of wikipedia,
which means much more inferior descriptions, in most cases
no description at all.

And what about informational schemes? We have a different place
for pictures. And we do have very nice, artistic graphics there.
But I would guess that there are much more graphics in wikipedia
as illustrations. Furthermore, content in common is also structured
according to some schemes: author, topic, type, etc.

One more thing to consider: the actual source of content is just
a technical detail.

Conclusion:

Wikimedia's approach to describe structures of schemes effectively
and aligned with human ways of thought needs further work.
So far only technical details have been considered, but the key
is the presentation approach.

Proposal:

There should be some well-established rules which widely acted upon.
The number of rules should be low, and they have to reflect sure
knowledge about human ways of thought. Some which might need
consideration:

* One concept should be described in only one place

* Relations of concept should be easily described. Every kind of
relations. (See wordnet for a very important experiment with this
in a very strict area: linguistics.)

* There might be separate wikis for separate approaches to gathering
 information, but at the end of the day knowledge should be presented in
 a coherent manner.

Now you can call me inclusionist if you want to miss the point.

--
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forr?sb?l


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


from_name: Stewart Pederson

body:
Yes, I understand that I put an article up that didn't have enough
evidence to back any of it up.  I for sure won't do that again.  I did
not, however, use "sockpuppets."

Thanks Fred,

Stew Pederson

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:51:46 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> Do you understand what you did wrong and promise to never do it again?
>
> Fred
>
> > From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> > <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:23:15 -0900
> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
> >
> > The reason given is this:
> >
> > Reason "Creation of hoax article, use of sockpuppets on VfD, kmeeps
> > uploading slef-made images to go along with hoax article. Wipes talk
> > page of warnings. Warned several times.".
> > Your IP address is 68.116.108.65. Please include this address in any
> > queries you make.
> >
> > I didn't receive any warnings, just people voting to delete the
> > article because they believed it was a hoax.  I know the article
> > sounded fantastic, but its based on real research.  In retrospect, I
> > should have had everything organized before beginning to post the
> > article.
> >
> > There were two of us working on the article, one on copy and myself on
> > the media/images.  What was wrong with me creating a picture for the
> > page also?  It was just a digital representation of the man during the
> > era.  Obviously, no photographs exist from the 13th century.  The
> > other comments are not "sockpuppets" of me, but actual other people
> > (most of whom I know) that added their comments on it.  Another part
> > was wiping the talk page of warnings?  After I answered a question
> > left on my talk page, (which was a question, not a warning), I would
> > remove the question so I wouldn't try answering it again.  Does
> > wikipedia have a policy about not editing your own talk page?
> >
> > As for the ban, here is what it says on my talk page:
> >
> > "I've gone ahead and deleted it. Oh, and consider yourself permanently
> > blocked. I laughed, and even had a bit of an edit myself, but at the
> > end of the day we don't really want you around. Cya! - Ta bu shi da yu
> > 16:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)"
> >
> > I can understand wikipedia's desire to only have well documented and
> > published research.  I didn't have everything organized to go forward
> > with this article, but I will have a few more (verifiable)
> > publications for the future.
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration,
> >
> > Stew Pederson
> >
> > On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:09:25 -0700, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >> Creating a bogus article IS a serious offense. I doubt your ban is
> >> permanent. Could you quote the message you receive when you try to log in so
> >> we can check on what was done and the reason given?
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> >>> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> >>> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> >>> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900
> >>> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
> >>>
> >>> Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
> >>> think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
> >>> several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
> >>> and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
> >>> seriously as others.
> >>>
> >>> A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two
> >>> different keeps) both worked on the article.  This is true because
> >>> there were TWO of us working on the article.  I'm being permanently
> >>> banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments
> >>> by friends of mine that are a bit silly?  Isn't that a bit extreme?
> >>>
> >>> You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
> >>> But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.
> >>>
> >>> Stewart Pederson
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith
> >>> <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
> >>>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> >>>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
> >>>>> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
> >>>>> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
> >>>>> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
> >>>>> Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
> >>>>> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
> >>>>> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
> >>>>> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
> >>>>> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
> >>>>> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
> >>>>> process has completed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
> >>>>> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
> >>>>> have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
> >>>>> you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
> >>>>> to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
> >>>>> that help the article.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
> >>>>> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
> >>>>> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stewart Pederson
> >>>>
> >>>> Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
> >>>> article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
> >>>> mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
> >>>> VfD discussion is at
> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
> >>>>
> >>>> The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
> >>>> royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
> >>>> the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
> >>>> royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
> >>>> Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
> >>>>
> >>>> Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
> >>>> contributor responded with a single citation:
> >>>>
> >>>> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
> >>>> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
> >>>> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
> >>>>
> >>>> The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
> >>>> associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
> >>>> Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
> >>>> being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
> >>>> twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
> >>>> permitting, in Spring 2005."
> >>>>
> >>>> As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
> >>>> currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
> >>>> until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
> >>>> eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
> >>>> all recognizably similar in style.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
--- Sj <2.718281828 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
> community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
> having a separate wiki.

But being different types of reference works does. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, Wikibooks is a collection of textbooks/manuals, Wiktionary is a
translating dictionary and thesaurus. Each has its own unique way of presenting
information to the reader (Wikibooks instructs, Wikipedia informs, Wikisource
regurgitates) and each has very different concepts about what goes onto a page
and linking (very few internal links in Wikibooks and Wikisource, for example).

The separation is both necessary and desirable. The only issue I see is the
abiltiy to link user accounts across wikis and maybe have the option of having
combined recent changes and watchlists.

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
> and we should do something about it.

Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
Wikipeople).

-- mav

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki


from_name: Gerard Meijssen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Patrol feature

body:
Hoi,
A first version of the "patrol" functionality is on-line. However, you
can mark your own contributions as patrolled. This I think is a smudge
on the face of this widely requested functionality. Just a simple
compare against the change it is patrolling for might do the trick..

For your information, on the nl:wikipedia there was a temporary truce
whereby no references were made to the nl:wiktionary. This truce was
agreed because the interproject links were promissed for release 1.4.
The relevant bugzilla entry has one of the highest number of requests.
As the interproject links have not been implemented, references to
wiktionary are created again in the nl:wikipedia. The argument that the
developpers do want they want and according to their own priorities is a
valid one. However when things are agreed in the "user world" based on
expectations from developpers, it is also reasonable that when these
expecations are not met, it is not without consequences.

Thanks,
    GerardM


body:
Creating a bogus article IS a serious offense. I doubt your ban is
permanent. Could you quote the message you receive when you try to log in so
we can check on what was done and the reason given?

Fred

> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
> <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 07:57:08 -0900
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: alleged improper block of Tteexx
>
> Now I've been "permanently blocked" and my article removed.  You would
> think I was some sort of vandal.  True there is a similar style in
> several of the keep votes.  This is because I phoned several friends
> and colleagues to support this article.  Some didn't take it as
> seriously as others.
>
> A couple people changed their vote because two different IPs (and two
> different keeps) both worked on the article.  This is true because
> there were TWO of us working on the article.  I'm being permanently
> banned for having an article you don't think is belivable and comments
> by friends of mine that are a bit silly?  Isn't that a bit extreme?
>
> You can doubt the reseach and find it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
> But banning me from a single contribution is over the top and abusive.
>
> Stewart Pederson
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 08:18:19 -0500, Daniel P. B. Smith
> <dpbsmith at verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:30:43 -0900
>>> From: Stewart Pederson <stewped at gmail.com>
>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Illegally Blocked user: Tteexx
>>>
>>> Dear Wikipedia Folks,
>>>
>>> I have been blocked for editing my article, and continuing to add
>>> information.  The article is currently a VfD candidate and the
>>> democratic process has been occuring until today.  The apparent reason
>>> for my block was that Neutrality assumes I am using multiple accounts?
>>> Or is it that he thinks my article is a hoax?  He also mentions the
>>> use of self-made images.  These images are related to the article and
>>> it shouldn't matter that I created them.  The information being
>>> presented is brand new research and though it may be deemed that it
>>> does not deserve a place on Wikipedia, I feel its unfair to block me,
>>> remove all images, and attempt to discredit me before the democratic
>>> process has completed.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the block policy states, "Use of blocks to gain advantage
>>> in a content dispute...", and since this is the only article that I
>>> have been editing, it would seem that this clearly is the case.  If
>>> you don't like the research, vote the delete it.  If you like it, vote
>>> to keep it.  Don't censor me from attempting to bring in other sources
>>> that help the article.
>>>
>>> I have e-mailed Neutrality about this situation, and have yet to see a
>>> reply.  I would appreciate a valid reason with proof instead of
>>> assuming that all keep votes were done by me.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Stewart Pederson
>>
>> Those interested in this matter should make a point of reading the
>> article itself, which for some reason this correspondent does not
>> mention. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yopu , and the
>> VfD discussion is at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Yopu .
>>
>> The article, about an alleged Tibetan legend, says in part that "the
>> royal family decreed that human excrement was no longer to be used for
>> the fertilization of rice. This was done to ensure that no member of
>> royalty ever had to eat peasant poo." This created dissatisfaction, and
>> Yopu become the leader of the "Pu Rebellion."
>>
>> Pressed to provide verifiable evidence that the legend exists, the
>> contributor responded with a single citation:
>>
>> Lewinski and Manes. "Legends of Rural Tibet." The Journal of
>> Asian/Diasporic and Aboriginal Literature.
>> http://www.kuixing.panopticonasia.com/fall04/yopu.html. Fall 2004.
>>
>> The URL yields a "404 not found." The site and the 115 messages in the
>> associated Yahoo group contain no references to Yopu, Lewinski, or
>> Manes. Although one portion of the site does refer to a first issue
>> being planned for "Spring 2004," another states that "The first of the
>> twice-yearly issues of Kui Xing will be available, conditions
>> permitting, in Spring 2005."
>>
>> As I write this, if unsigned votes from anons are ignored, VfD is
>> currently running about 16 deletes, one "keep," and one "weak Keep,
>> until it is proven beyond doubt that it's a hoax." There are also about
>> eight "keeps," all posted from IP addresses with no previous edits and
>> all recognizably similar in style.
>>
>> --
>> Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at verizon.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: AndyL

subject: [WikiEN-l] Silverback and the 3RR

body:
1) Silverback, you were clearly warned that a fourth revert would result in
a tempban
2) the question was about your inclusion of a paragraph of original
research. Readding that paragraph after it has been removed is a reversion.
It doesn't matter if that's the only thing you do in your edit or if you do
other things as well, it's still a reversion. If it wasn't then that would
create a huge loopholw in revert wars, one could get around the 3R rule
simply by reverting whatever text is in question and editing something else
in the article at the same time. Indeed the paragraph was readded 4x within
a 24 hour period without any alterations, additions, or subtractions to it.
The fact that you simultaneously changed *other* parts of the article
doesn't mitigate the fact that you reverted on four occasions.
3) In retrospect I should have either asked another admin to implement the
tempban or, failing that, put in a request on the admin discussion page. I
don't implement bans very often so I'm not as familiar with protocol as I am
with the protect page protocol and only recently learned that there was such
a thing as an admin discussion page. The only time I've used it to request a
tempban was in the case of an editor against whom I have an ArbComm
complaint so I thought it would be better to ask someone else to administer
the ban.
4) in any case, regardless of who administered the tempban, the fact is you
broke the 3RR after you were warned not to.

Regards,
AndyL


from_name: Sj

subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki

body:
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
< > we find a compromise...

I agree with Andre's observations here; community discussions in the
past do not seem to have distinguished between [the need for separate
views for different contributors, and different policies for different
subprojects] and [the need for separate wikis/databases, technical
arrangements, lists of administrators, interlang links].

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:18:21 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Certainly, wiktionary is now maturing into something that it
> could never have been without being separate from wikipedia, and so
> having a separate reference work makes complete sense there.

Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
having a separate wiki.

There are a number of wiki subprojects that set their own local
policy, have their own microcosmic village pumps and portal pages,
have dedicated contributors who use their watchlists to efffectively
create a specialized Recentchanges list without losing the ability to
tap into the 'global' recentchantes, etc.

It makes a lot of sense to me, theoretically, to have the all projects
working on collective reference works share a single wiki [database].
Then to rethink namespaces in such a way that there is no extra fear
of naming conflicts; then to use URL-rewriting to take advantage of
the shorthand of the many top level domains we have, so that no URLs
break (or even redirect).   I can see keeping non-reference projects
like, say, some kind of resource for original research, being separate
(that is, actively preventing users and readers from seeing a global
recent changes that suggests that such work is like the reference work
going on elsewhere).

It should be possible to do this without changing the user experience
for readers and users, except for the fact that all of the "external"
links that currently go to other wikimedia projects would become
blue/red internal links.

But many internals would change; the database schema, calculating
statistics, etc.  And this system would ideally work cleanly with the
hazily-defined namespace policies of Wikibooks.  I don't know that
this is something worth spending time on this year, but perhaps, in
the spirit of the Great Database Schema Change of 2005, we can start
discussing whether this would be a good idea in the future.

--
+sj+


subject: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki