from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2006-02-07

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

Running test BUG 361: URL within URL, not bracketed... FAILED!
Running test External links: invalid character... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2702: Mismatched <i> and <a> tags are invalid... FAILED!
Running test A table with no data.... FAILED!
Running test A table with nothing but a caption... FAILED!
Running test Link containing "#<" and "#>" % as a hex sequences... FAILED!
Running test Magic links: PMID incorrectly converts space to underscore... FAILED!
Running test Template with thumb image (wiht link in description)... FAILED!
Running test Link to image page... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A ISBN with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test BUG 1887: A <math> with a thumbnail... FAILED!
Running test Image caption containing another image... FAILED!
Running test BUG 561: {{/Subpage}}... FAILED!
Running test Simple category... FAILED!
Running test Section headings with TOC... FAILED!
Running test Media link with nasty text... FAILED!
Running test Image link to nonexistent file (bug 1850 - good)... FAILED!
Running test Bug 2095: link with pipe and three closing brackets... FAILED!
Running test Sanitizer: Validating the contents of the id attribute (bug 4515)... FAILED!

Passed 262 of 281 tests (93.24%) FAILED!


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wheel warring

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

> 1. In the spirit of the 1RR, no sysop action may be reverted more
> than once in any given dispute. In practice, this means that a
> reviewing admin may unblock a user previously blocked by another
> admin or unprotect a page previously protected by another admin (for
> example), but the original admin or second reviewing admin may choose
> to reblock or reprotect. At this point, no further reversion is
> allowed?even by a previously uninvolved party.
> 1. a. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
> 2. Further reversion is only allowed once the parties involved have
> reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a specific intervening decision is
> made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. This means that mere
> interpretation or extrapolation of something Jimbo said previously
> does not warrant further reversion.
> 3. Any administrator who violates this policy shall be desysopped
> immediately. The desysopped admin may refer to Requests for
> adminship, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the
> Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors for review and appeal.

I presume that this rulebound nonsense was intended as a joke.

Ec


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wheel warring

body:
> I presume that this rulebound nonsense was intended as a joke.

I'm glad we're capable of serious conversation about important
subjects here. Way to improve the level of discourse.

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


from_name: Jay Converse

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/6/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at
> > > [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
> > >
> > > 1. Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
> > > reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate
> > > discussion.
> > > 1. a. Blocks may be extended without discussion, but they cannot be
> > > shortened or lifted.
> > > 1. b. 1RR is strictly enforced on protected pages.
> > > 2. Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
> > > admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately
> > > without further review.
> > > 3. Once discussion is opened, a final decision cannot be made until
> > > either the parties involved have reached Wikipedia:Consensus or a
> > > specific intervening decision is made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration
> > > Committee, User:Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation Board of
> > > Directors. (This means that mere interpretation or extrapolation of
> > > something Jimbo said previously does not warrant admin reversion.)
> > > Any administrator who reverts another admin's use of administrative
> > > powers before this has happened shall be desysopped immediately
> > > without further review.
> > > 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months
> > > before starting the process to regain admin status.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Philip L. Welch
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
> >
> >
> > The only objection I have to this is that sometimes, an admin makes a
> > mistake (say, for example, a 3RR block when in reality, only three
> reverts
> > and a legitimate edit was made). I've had editors contact me wanting to
> > contribute to Wikipedia, but find they can't because of a wrong
> blocking. In
> > these cases, I usually go ahead and unblock them, and then leave a nice
> > message on the blocking admin's talk page. Any other delay due to
> > communication between admins I think is unfair to the blocked editors.
> >
> > This is an international project, and we all can't expect to be online
> at
> > the same time, what with time zones, sleeping, eating, school, work and
> > such. I don't think I'll be able to say to that blocked editor "Sorry, I
> > can't unblock you for fear of losing sysop status for at least three
> months.
> > You'll have to wait while Admin XYZ, who is currently sleeping in
> > Asia/America/Europe to check his email/talk page and unblock you."
> >
> > But otherwise, a strict wheel-warring policy is needed. Admins aren't
> above
> > the law. Our disciplinary procedures should at least attempt to show
> this.
> >
> > We are now at the age where adminship is truly a "big deal".
>
> It really doesn't have to be.
>
>
Yes, it does.  There are far too many people coming to this site, we have
far too much visibility, to take a lassiez faire attitude towards keeping
the site operational.

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


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guettarda
>
> > This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and
> > rethinking my role here.  If El C and Carbonite leave we have
> > lost a lot more than can be counted in them just as
> > individuals.  El C, for one, made this place fun, and if you
> > aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
>
> Are we here to have fun or to write an encyclopaedia?

Actually, to have fun.  We are unpaid volunteers.  This is a hobby.  If it
isn't fun, if it isn't enjoyable, then there is no reason to stick around
and no way to build this encyclopaedia.
No fun, no community = no encyclopaedia.

Ian


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my
> role here.  If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be
> counted in them just as individuals.  El C, for one, made this place fun,
> and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
>
> Wheel warring is something that sensible people should not indulge in.  On
> the other hand, the ability of admins to undo each others' blocks is one of
> the things that make adminship "no big deal".  Piles of regulations, and
> people who live to interpret regulations and find loopholes in regulations
> do the project no good.  Rather than wheel-warring, clamp down on
> inappropriate blocks.  Blocking vandals is an easy decision.  Blocking
> people who say "Get the fuck away from me you fucking psycho" are easy to
> block.  But the onus needs to be on the first person doing the blocking,
> that they get it right, not on the other people involved.  We need to look
> at people's actions, look at the number of blocks you had overturned and the
> number of blocks you overturned...and if you have more than three blocks
> overturned in a fortnight, then someone needs to take you aside an talk to
> you.  If you regularly overturn blocks, then someone needs to talk to you.
> We are developing a culture where wheel warring is become acceptable.  We
> need to change to culture, not by creating new regulations, but by
> socialising people away from it.
>
> Page deletion and recreation is another issue.  We cannot fetishise process,
> and *fD needs serious reform.  We need to organise a Wikiproject to reform
> *fD.  Get people to throw in ideas, and get other people to repackage them.
> Do not impose a solution, and make sure that we come up with something so
> devoid of ego that no one feels ownership of the idea.  The standard
> "propose-and-argue" method has too much ego in it - you fight to defend
> "your view".  We need some people to generate ideas and write them up, other
> people to try to put together, and others to harmonise the final ideas. Be
> editors, not creators.  Or some crap like that.
>
> Despite my efforts to stay on the fringes, I find this whole thing sapping
> my energy.  I don't know what it does to people at the centre of it all.
> Give it a rest, try to preserve your sanity - and try to think about
> collaborative solutions.
>
You are exactly right, but history tells us that process-oriented,
rules-as-ritual, paranoid, vindictive bureaucracies generally win in
the long run. It's an incremental process, but each step is based in
the logic that security (or rather, the illusion of security) is more
important than individual freedoms, that there are enough bad people
and precious things in the world to ruin the happiness of the good.

I'm glad that there's still some culture of questioning rules and
trusting people.


subject: [WikiEN-l] "Wheel war" (Worst. Userbox. Ever.)

body:
On 2/6/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> Wake up and smell the coffee, everyone.  With our new Alexa rating,
> we've had our very own September That Never Ended, and the rules have
> changed.

This is patent nonsense, in my humble opinion. The rules of assuming
good faith, being open to everyone, and avoiding false attachment are
fundamental to the project and shouldn't change.

I totally agree with being responsible, but worrying about legal
liability is not a good way to make policy decisions. Do what's right,
not because we're afraid of the dangers of doing wrong.

Wake up and smell the coffee: the world was okay before Wikipedia and
will be okay after it. Wikipedia makes it a better place, but then, so
does coffee.


from_name: Sue Anne Reed

subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts from a relative newbie

body:
Somehow I missed hearing about wikipedia up until a couple of months
ago. I think I had seen it pop up on google searches, but I didn't
really explore it until after I heard Jimbo either NPR or C-Span or
maybe both. I started off editing by finding a broken link on a Survivor
page and have continued editing heavily on Olympics pages and reality
TV. As time has gone by, I have read a bunch on the RfA, AfD, etc.

While I'm a newbie here on WP, I've been online since 1994 (ah, the days
of lynx). A lot of what I see going on here is similar to what I've seen
elsewhere, especially as the popularity has shot up. I'm sure there are
people that can remember when there were 800 editors and now there are
800 admins.

It's interesting, especially with this most recent "wheel warring" how
my views on userboxes has changed. At first, I thought they were just
silly. Then, I added a few to my page. Right around this time was the
issue of Kelly Martin deleting the userboxes and then came Jimbo's
statement. Up until a couple of days ago, I held the opinion that
someone else mentioned where user pages are like cubicle walls at work
and people should be allowed to decorate them as they want, but that
really isn't my opinion anymore. To me, setting up a system where some
userboxes are okay and some are not is always going to create a turf war
on where is the line. If user boxes are allowed, there is going to have
to be a clear line that says, language user boxes are okay but these
types of user boxes are not okay.

On the pedophilia issue ... I find pedophiles disgusting, but even if
someone self-identifies as a pedophile, they are not breaking the law
with that admission. If there is evidence that they are doing something,
like trying to get in contact with children via WP, than there has to be
some sort of process to take care of that. I mean, there is a fairly
balanced article on NAMBLA on WP. This userbox issue over the weekend
was the final thing that fully swayed my thinking on userboxes and if
there isn't some sort of guideline, these sorts of things will happen
again.

Sue Anne
sreed1234


from_name: geni

body:
On 2/7/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
> c.f.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/Workshop
>
> Our actions have real-world consequences. Wikipedia is no longer a
> closed society where we may make our rules and policies as we please.
> Instead we are a prominent web site in a larger world that imposes
> standards of behavior and conduct rather more stringent than
> Wikipedia's own. When we have a lapse in judgement, we put "an
> encyclopedia that anyone can edit" at risk. Our ability to live up to
> "your changes will be visible immediately" without interference from
> the courts, the government, the press, and other powerful institutions
> depends increasingly upon our ability to demonstrate that we can
> conduct our affairs responsibly. Responsible websites don't joke around
> about pedophilia; they shut down any discussion that has the least hint
> of a solicitation for sex with minors.  A user who places a userbox
> reading "this user is a pedophile" might be seen by some as soliciting
> minors.  We can't take the risk.
>

Too late:
http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11

Somehow I doubt we will see a change in US law just because of one userbox.

> I applaud Jimbo's actions in dealing with this matter decisively and in
> desysopping a few people who clearly lack the judgement to be
> administrators at Wikipedia.
>

Decisively? No. This isn't over.

> Wake up and smell the coffee, everyone.  With our new Alexa rating,
> we've had our very own September That Never Ended, and the rules have
> changed.
>
Yes it would appear we are more worried about PR than doing the right
thing. You had better go and delete our [[Race and intelligence]]
article before the media find out about that. Or what if the media
start asking questions about the [[Autofellatio_2.jpg]] image?

--
geni


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
The Cunctator wrote:

>On 2/7/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This whole mess has left me feeling bruised and shocked, and rethinking my
>>role here.  If El C and Carbonite leave we have lost a lot more than can be
>>counted in them just as individuals.  El C, for one, made this place fun,
>>and if you aren't having fun there is not reason to stick around.
>>
>>Wheel warring is something that sensible people should not indulge in.  On
>>the other hand, the ability of admins to undo each others' blocks is one of
>>the things that make adminship "no big deal".  Piles of regulations, and
>>people who live to interpret regulations and find loopholes in regulations
>>do the project no good.  Rather than wheel-warring, clamp down on
>>inappropriate blocks.  Blocking vandals is an easy decision.  Blocking
>>people who say "Get the fuck away from me you fucking psycho" are easy to
>>block.  But the onus needs to be on the first person doing the blocking,
>>that they get it right, not on the other people involved.  We need to look
>>at people's actions, look at the number of blocks you had overturned and the
>>number of blocks you overturned...and if you have more than three blocks
>>overturned in a fortnight, then someone needs to take you aside an talk to
>>you.  If you regularly overturn blocks, then someone needs to talk to you.
>>We are developing a culture where wheel warring is become acceptable.  We
>>need to change to culture, not by creating new regulations, but by
>>socialising people away from it.
>>
>>Page deletion and recreation is another issue.  We cannot fetishise process,
>>and *fD needs serious reform.  We need to organise a Wikiproject to reform
>>*fD.  Get people to throw in ideas, and get other people to repackage them.
>>Do not impose a solution, and make sure that we come up with something so
>>devoid of ego that no one feels ownership of the idea.  The standard
>>"propose-and-argue" method has too much ego in it - you fight to defend
>>"your view".  We need some people to generate ideas and write them up, other
>>people to try to put together, and others to harmonise the final ideas. Be
>>editors, not creators.  Or some crap like that.
>>
>>Despite my efforts to stay on the fringes, I find this whole thing sapping
>>my energy.  I don't know what it does to people at the centre of it all.
>>Give it a rest, try to preserve your sanity - and try to think about
>>collaborative solutions.
>>
>>
>>
>You are exactly right, but history tells us that process-oriented,
>rules-as-ritual, paranoid, vindictive bureaucracies generally win in
>the long run. It's an incremental process, but each step is based in
>the logic that security (or rather, the illusion of security) is more
>important than individual freedoms, that there are enough bad people
>and precious things in the world to ruin the happiness of the good.
>
>I'm glad that there's still some culture of questioning rules and
>trusting people.
>
Sadly, I agree.  Real original progress comes from people who are
willing to take risks, not from those obsessed with protecting what they
believe they already have.  My impression is that those who like this
web of rules are not really interested in solutions.  They can't say
outright that they don't want the project infected with new ideas, but
they have other techniques for intimidating the newcomer who may really
have some good ideas.  The newcomer doesn't yet know the players; they
have no basis for distinguishing between the new sysop trying to
exercise his new powers and the more mellow experienced user.  He has no
idea who can be safely offended.

I believe that sysops should be held to a higher standard, beginning
with the ones who are too quick to impose blocks.  There should be no
presumption that the person who imposed a block is prima facie more
correct than the one who undoes that same block.  A review of an unblock
should include a review of the block, and if the original block is
determined to be improper, the blocking sysop should be subject to
blocking for the same period of time that he sought to impose on the
user.  If he uses the block fairly and competently he will have nothing
to worry about.

I don't always agree with Cunc and Ed Poor, and perhaps they can
sometimes be annoying or outrageous.  I have learned to live here with
others whose opinions on a broad but complex variety of issues are
diametrically opposed to mine.  I don't think that I have been wrong to
believe that this has been critical to a properly functioning wiki.  I
have never needed a tome of rules to teach me that.

I am more willing to pay attention to people like Cunc who speak from
conscience than to those who have nothing better to offer than more
rules. I won't always agree with him, but at least I'll listen ... and
listening is the first step to any solution.

Ec


subject: [WikiEN-l] Why has everything gone to hell?

body:
On 2/7/06, Alex Schenck <linuxbeak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright, look. I came back from a two-week break to witness the explosion of
> the wheel warring crap. From what Jimbo has said to me, he is very tired of
> the lack of cooperation that used to exist. What ever happened to that sense
> of respect for each other,

Never existed. People were just polite enough to hide their lack of
respect most of the time.

> when people actually understood that Jimbo's word was final,

On balance I'd say that one started to crack around the answers.com
thing. The WP:TOOLS link never did happen.

> that the ArbCom is in fact the judicary body that knew what they
>were talking about,

On blanance when the community outright rejected the Stevertigo
descission. Then there was the various issues around kelly martin and
jimbo messing with the election.

>and people would respect time on the project?

If you mean raw length of time on wikipedia then it probably just
became diluted currency. There are so many people who have been here 1
year plus that it is a pretty meaningless distinction.

>I mean,
> come on. When people start giving out USER WARNINGS to people such as David
> Gerard, you can tell that the times have definitely changed, and some
> oldy-moldy (or at least somewhat oldy-moldy editors such as myself) are not
> liking what we see.

It's been going on for a long time. I blocked Ambi back when she was
an arbcom member (3RR). Didn't seem to cause any problems.

>
> Mindspillage and I are on the same wavelength (I'll let her speak for
> herself beyond that): we miss the old community that was focused more on
> writing an encyclopedia instead of focusing on user pages and userboxes.
> What ever happened to writing FEATURED ARTICLES?

We seem to finaly have moved above a rate of one per day. The writeing
the encyopedia community is still there. You just need to write.

>Instead, we have people
> more focused on userboxes ("this user rebelled against the great userbox
> purge of 2006 [redirect to RFC:kelly martin] and would do it again"... wtf!)
> and arguing with others.

Because they feel that they are not being respected.

> At this point, I'm afraid desysopping people would be like placing a
> band-aid on an artery wound. Why has the community changed instead of
> adapted? We're not myspace, we're Wikipedia. Can we keep it that way?

Sure. If we can get people to follow policy again. After recent events
it is in many ways all we have left.
--
geni


body:
On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid I must agree.
>
> As an editor of 3 years I must ask what happened to writing an encyclopedia?

Still going on. Still happening. It is us who have moved away.

> I must say that the community has started trudging along and becoming more
> venomous over the last few months to a year.

Because people took it for granted.

> If it were me I'd say delete all userboxes except for the babels and mandate
> that users spend more attention on articles and meta issues relating *directly
> to articles
> *

However we are here and this is now. Walk away try something else. I'm
looking for recruicts for my new defence in depth tactic for dealing
with vandalism.

--
geni


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: netoholic

subject:
[Wikipedia-l] Simple English Wikipedia to use Commons images
	exclusively

body:
A recent image use change was discussed and accepted on Simple English
Wikipedia (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy).

We're going to move towards using the free images available from
Wikimedia Commons exclusively.  There are several benefits to this
move, particularly in helping Simple become a highly-portable source
to aid inter-language article translation.  By using only free images
on Commons, which can be immediately used on any project just by
creating an image link, we eliminate potential legal problems and
speed the overall process.

A side-benefit is that this move will help discourage proliferation of
"pop culture" topics on Simple - such as Pokemon, albums, and movies -
which are arguably better done on the home-language Wikipedias. Simple
tries to concentrate on "core" encyclopedia topics and related.

If anyone is interested in helping create an easy-to-read,
easy-to-translate encyclopedia, please visit
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcome.

-- Netoholic


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current
> guideline:
>
>      * If you think something is a good idea, do it.
>      * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.
>
> isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.

I'm not sure that the solution to people ignoring a simple guideline
is to make a complex one.

-Matt


from_name: Fred Bauder

body:
That mention of Lynx certainly does date you. I liked it too when I
was online with a CP/M Amstrad machine...

My thinking is that if a person presents themselves in an obnoxious
way that they are being disruptive. After all Hitler, if he were
alive, could edit anonymously.

If a user covers their user page with swastikas or emblems of the KGB
or the information that they are a pedophile and really think its
Ok,  they are doing us harm both internally and externally and based
on how bad it is and how much trouble they are causing we can take
action.

Fred

On Feb 7, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Sue Anne Reed wrote:

> On the pedophilia issue ... I find pedophiles disgusting, but even
> if someone self-identifies as a pedophile, they are not breaking
> the law with that admission. If there is evidence that they are
> doing something, like trying to get in contact with children via
> WP, than there has to be some sort of process to take care of that.
> I mean, there is a fairly balanced article on NAMBLA on WP. This
> userbox issue over the weekend was the final thing that fully
> swayed my thinking on userboxes and if there isn't some sort of
> guideline, these sorts of things will happen again.
>
> Sue Anne
> sreed1234


from_name: SP

body:
Pretty sure that contacting the owner of this user box would be a TOP
priority for some kids. Mostly roving groups of bored, thrill seekers.
But also some troubled kids.

Regards,
Sydney aka FloNight

MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>On 2/7/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
>
>
>>A user who places a userbox
>>reading "this user is a pedophile" might be seen by some as soliciting
>>minors.  We can't take the risk.
>>
>>I define "soliciting minors" as asking minors to get in touch (and I'm
>>pretty sure that IS the definition). I doubt identifying oneself as
>>pedophile would attract any minors to contact someone.
>>
>>Wikipedians should be judged on their wiki-related activities, not what they
>>do outside Wikipedia or what they believe in even if a majority of people
>>thinks what they do is wrong.
>>


from_name: Ilya N.

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Why has everything gone to hell?

body:
But it removes the slippery slope argument of "Why this and not that?"

Babel is the only box I've seen that can be directly tied to
encyclopedic matters

On 2/7/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/6/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm afraid I must agree.
> > >
> > > As an editor of 3 years I must ask what happened to writing an
> > encyclopedia?
> > > How come we become more about community just because we're in the top-20
> > of
> > > internet sites?
> > >
> > > I must say that the community has started trudging along and becoming
> > more
> > > venomous over the last few months to a year.
> > >
> > > If it were me I'd say delete all userboxes except for the babels and
> > mandate
> > > that users spend more attention on articles and meta issues relating
> > *directly
> > > to articles
> > > *
>
>
> There's nothing wrong with the occasional userbox. There's a number of them
> on my user and apart from copyright issues with the images involved, none of
> them really caused me any problems. religious and political userboxes can
> have their place as well. They tell you where people's expertise lies.
> It's boxes about someone's beliefs that probably need to go. Those are the
> ones that cause a division (with people who don't agree).
> Besides, I don't see the use in setting up a userbox for each little thing.
> We've got Template:Userbox which anyone can alter and subst: into their
> userspace. No need for all those separate templates.
>
> Mgm
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

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


body:
Correction: Not slippery slope...just annoying :\

On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it removes the slippery slope argument of "Why this and not that?"
>
> Babel is the only box I've seen that can be directly tied to
> encyclopedic matters
>
> On 2/7/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2/6/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid I must agree.
> > > >
> > > > As an editor of 3 years I must ask what happened to writing an
> > > encyclopedia?
> > > > How come we become more about community just because we're in the
> top-20
> > > of
> > > > internet sites?
> > > >
> > > > I must say that the community has started trudging along and
> becoming
> > > more
> > > > venomous over the last few months to a year.
> > > >
> > > > If it were me I'd say delete all userboxes except for the babels and
> > > mandate
> > > > that users spend more attention on articles and meta issues relating
> > > *directly
> > > > to articles
> > > > *
> >
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with the occasional userbox. There's a number of
> them
> > on my user and apart from copyright issues with the images involved,
> none of
> > them really caused me any problems. religious and political userboxes
> can
> > have their place as well. They tell you where people's expertise lies.
> > It's boxes about someone's beliefs that probably need to go. Those are
> the
> > ones that cause a division (with people who don't agree).
> > Besides, I don't see the use in setting up a userbox for each little
> thing.
> > We've got Template:Userbox which anyone can alter and subst: into their
> > userspace. No need for all those separate templates.
> >
> > Mgm
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.
> http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
> http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
>

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


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] I'm not allowed to say you're attractive, but...

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm

> Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through
> Wikipedia will get a very permanent ban on their person.

Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
> "Without further review" is unclear to me - you mean that the
> desysopping takes place immediately (sounds ok), or that there is no
> potential for review of this action afterwards (sounds like trouble).

Yeah, I've fixed that part.

>> ?4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three
>> months
>> before starting the process to regain admin status.
>
> Sounds unnecessarily harsh. Maybe first-time offence warrants a one
> week a suspension, then subsequent offences give the treatment you
> suggest?

I've removed this part entirely.

> Any chance of sysop suspensions for blatant breaches of policy? Eg,
> protecting pages you're working on, blocking users for personal
> disagreement, etc...

Eh, outside the scope of what I'm working for.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
>> Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
>> reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate
>> discussion.
>
> This disturbs me a bit. I can think of many legitimate examples
> where an admin might reverse another admin's action without
> discussion. I did it just a couple of days ago, for instance, where
> I undeleted an article that had been incorrectly tagged for
> speedying and then deleted. I didn't discuss this with the deleting
> admin (I didn't think it needed discussing, frankly; I did leave a
> courtesy note explaining what I'd done on his talk page). Was this
> 'wheel warring'? Under your policy it would get me desysopped.

I agree and have changed this part of the proposal already.

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


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] What to do

body:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > I believe that Steve was talking about your protection of your user
> > page.
> >
> > Also, people aren't required to get permission before
> editing a page.
> > Please read the protection policy:
> >   --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
> Please read the user page policy:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pa> ge
>
> Quote:
> "In
> general it is considered polite to avoid
> substantially editing another's user page without their
> permission, but feel free to correct typos and other mistakes."
>
> Yes, I violated [[Don't be a dick.]] So did Drini.

>From the protection policy:
Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing,
except in the case of simple vandalism.

So, one person violates "It is considered polite", and another violates
"Admins must not".

You don't really think you're in the right here, do you? I can
understand how things happen in the heat of the moment, but in
retrospect, it's pretty clear which one of you is at fault. It seems
that Drini was acting in the bests interests of WP - he even stated in
the edit summary "rm aggressive divisive userbox".

For what it's worth, here's the edit history of The Cunctator's user
page.

# (cur) (last)  03:41, 7 February 2006 The Cunctator (It's getting a bit
--what's the word -- nicey nicey? velvet rope? mm.)
# (cur) (last) 03:16, 7 February 2006 The Cunctator m (I like how I've
been managing to make fun of userboxes from day one without even knowing
it. Now it even looks like one!)
# (cur) (last) 03:10, 7 February 2006 The Cunctator m
# (cur) (last) 02:46, 7 February 2006 The Cunctator (The Featured
articles are, imho, some of the worst entries in Wikipedia.)
# (cur) (last) 16:11, 6 February 2006 The Cunctator m
# (cur) (last) 16:11, 6 February 2006 The Cunctator (Here's a more
polite version, you sanctimonious jerk.)
# (cur) (last) 06:55, 6 February 2006 Drini (yes but it goes against
WP:CIVIL policy)
# (cur) (last) 04:45, 6 February 2006 The Cunctator (For the second
time.)
# (cur) (last) 21:53, 5 February 2006 Drini (rm aggresive attacking
userbox)
# (cur) (last) 20:50, 5 February 2006 The Cunctator m (I'd like to be
able to state my own opinions.)
# (cur) (last) 22:13, 4 February 2006 Drini (rm aggressive divisive
userbox)

Sorry, I'll let it go now. Just a bit disappointed.

Steve


from_name: NSLE (Wikipedia)

subject: [WikiEN-l] WIKIPEDIA USER ZOE

body:
How nice, waking up to BIG BLOCK LETTERS ;)

On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There was our entertainment for the day :)
>
> On 2/6/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > > On 2/3/06, asd asdh <chemancheche at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>ZOE IS A TERRORIST SYMPATHIER, BLOCKS AMERICAN PATRIOT FOR REPORTING
> > >>TERRORIST
> > >>
> > > Exactly how did this message get through?
> > >
> >
> > Mark got bored? :)
> >
> > --
> > Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> > "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> > Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.
> http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
> http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 2/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Consensus doesn't scale.
>
>
> We've recently seen the numbers from Gmaxwell and Kim Bruning that
> show that this is not at all the case with articles - except a couple
> of hundred articles (out of 900k+) which appear to be pathological.
> *Mostly*, people leave articles to others who know about the area, and
> those who know about an area mostly manage to thrash out a consensus.
> The failures of consensus in article editing get a lot of attention
> but they are the *exception*.
>
>
> >With policy, this hinders change greatly, but it's unlikely to be a
> >major problem in the near future. With wheel warring or serious edit
> >wars, however, the fact that consensus doesn't scale is wasting a lot of
> >our time here. It takes being hauled in front of the arbcom to get any
> >results.
>
>
> Yeah. It's getting policy consensus to scale that's tricky. Continuous
> reference to basic principles - "we're here to write an encyclopedia",
> "NPOV", "don't be a dick", etc - may be a useful touchstone for either
> deriving a lot of the crufted policy from first principles or getting
> rid of it.

Those numbers really don't show as much as one might think, though.
OF COURSE any individial article will, on average, have only a handful
of editors.  The problem is that Wikipedia is increasingly becoming
large enough to make reinventing the wheel on every individual article
untenable.  Thus, we get attempts to create policy/guidelines/style
guides/whatever centrally and apply them to a (large) group of
articles at the same time, which means consensus needs to form not
among a few editors of an article, but among all active editors in a
field.

This is most obvious in AFD, incidentally; attempts to delete all
schools/Pokemon/roads/etc. get a lot more people involved than have
edited any single one of the articles in question.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 2/7/06, uninvited at nerstrand.net <uninvited at nerstrand.net> wrote:
>
> A user who places a userbox
> reading "this user is a pedophile" might be seen by some as soliciting
> minors.  We can't take the risk.

I define "soliciting minors" as asking minors to get in touch (and I'm
pretty sure that IS the definition). I doubt identifying oneself as
pedophile would attract any minors to contact someone.

Wikipedians should be judged on their wiki-related activities, not what they
do outside Wikipedia or what they believe in even if a majority of people
thinks what they do is wrong.

Mgm


body:
On 2/7/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm afraid I must agree.
> >
> > As an editor of 3 years I must ask what happened to writing an
> encyclopedia?
> > How come we become more about community just because we're in the top-20
> of
> > internet sites?
> >
> > I must say that the community has started trudging along and becoming
> more
> > venomous over the last few months to a year.
> >
> > If it were me I'd say delete all userboxes except for the babels and
> mandate
> > that users spend more attention on articles and meta issues relating
> *directly
> > to articles
> > *

There's nothing wrong with the occasional userbox. There's a number of them
on my user and apart from copyright issues with the images involved, none of
them really caused me any problems. religious and political userboxes can
have their place as well. They tell you where people's expertise lies.
It's boxes about someone's beliefs that probably need to go. Those are the
ones that cause a division (with people who don't agree).
Besides, I don't see the use in setting up a userbox for each little thing.
We've got Template:Userbox which anyone can alter and subst: into their
userspace. No need for all those separate templates.

Mgm


body:
On 2/7/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
>
> >On 2/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Those numbers really don't show as much as one might think, though.
> >OF COURSE any individial article will, on average, have only a handful
> >of editors.  The problem is that Wikipedia is increasingly becoming
> >large enough to make reinventing the wheel on every individual article
> >untenable.  Thus, we get attempts to create policy/guidelines/style
> >guides/whatever centrally and apply them to a (large) group of
> >articles at the same time, which means consensus needs to form not
> >among a few editors of an article, but among all active editors in a
> >field.
> >
> >This is most obvious in AFD, incidentally; attempts to delete all
> >schools/Pokemon/roads/etc. get a lot more people involved than have
> >edited any single one of the articles in question.
> >
> Not to mention that ludicrous conclusions on AfDs are often reached --
> you won't believe how many times I've heard "'''Keep''' all schools" or
> "'''Keep''', this school exists". Surprisingly, these people often "win".

That's because not everyone thinks that's a ludicrous conclusion.
Considering that even the smallest school affects hundreds, if not
thousands of people, and that schools in general have a remarkable
longevity, it's not that bizarre.


from_name: Phil Boswell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: What to do

body:
"The Cunctator" <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote in
message news:dfd0b40602061757m20aed09ay280e817ffb1188f0 at mail.gmail.com...
[snip]
> .... Not as humble as John S. Novak, though.

ObNovak: nobody is as humble as John S Novak III, the Humblest Man on the
Net
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
...who by a strange quirk of Usenet history still considers himself entitled
to call JSN "Uncle John" :-)


body:
Question from a newbie: has the community gotten younger? Has
Wikipedia become more accessible to non-geeks? Has it become more
attractive to people not interested in encyclopaedic writing?

These would be the most likely causes...

Steve

On 2/7/06, Alex Schenck <linuxbeak at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's about friggin' time that something was done about wheel warring.


from_name: Rob Smith

body:
In any whole of parts a loss of harmony between the parts is paid for by the
whole in a corresponding loss of self-determination... and this conclusion
is what we should expect, since it is the inverse of the conclusion, which
we have reached earlier...that a progress towards self-determination is the
criterion of growth."

Toynbee, *A Study of History*, IV.C.III.(a).p.132-133, "The Mechanicalness
of Mimesis"

nobs


from_name: Angela

subject: [Wikipedia-l] 3D Anaglyphics Commons-logo

body:
> I now created a derivative work of the original commons logo, to use in this
> template:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Commons-logo-Anaglyph.svg
>
> I realize that this already constitutes a violation of the original
> commons-logo license, but I'd like to transfer copyright of my logo the the
> Wikimedia foundation as well to make it official. Is that possible? Who'd be
> the appropriate person to contact and sort out the mess?

I forwarded this to juriwiki
(<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/juriwiki>) and Brad Patrick said he
will take care of it.

Angela.


from_name: Nick Boalch

body:
Sam Korn wrote:

>> I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in
>> love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory
>> age of consent.
>
> As per the Wikiholic test, sockpuppets don't count.

There's a masturbation gag here somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see
what it is. :)

Cheers,

N.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> 2. Any administrator who reverses another administrator's use of
> admin powers without any discussion shall be desysopped immediately
> without further review.

"Without further review" is unclear to me - you mean that the
desysopping takes place immediately (sounds ok), or that there is no
potential for review of this action afterwards (sounds like trouble).

> 4. Administrators desysopped under this policy must wait three months
> before starting the process to regain admin status.

Sounds unnecessarily harsh. Maybe first-time offence warrants a one
week a suspension, then subsequent offences give the treatment you
suggest?

Any chance of sysop suspensions for blatant breaches of policy? Eg,
protecting pages you're working on, blocking users for personal
disagreement, etc...

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

> I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at
> [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:

I instinctively recoil from the instruction creep, but the last few days
suggests it may well be necessary.

However:

> Any given use of administrative powers cannot be reverted or
> reversed by another admin unless the issue is brought to adequate
> discussion.

This disturbs me a bit. I can think of many legitimate examples where an
admin might reverse another admin's action without discussion. I did it
just a couple of days ago, for instance, where I undeleted an article
that had been incorrectly tagged for speedying and then deleted. I
didn't discuss this with the deleting admin (I didn't think it needed
discussing, frankly; I did leave a courtesy note explaining what I'd
done on his talk page). Was this 'wheel warring'? Under your policy it
would get me desysopped.

Cheers,

N.

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

> I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at
> [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:

By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current
guideline:

     * If you think something is a good idea, do it.
     * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.

isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.

Cheers,

N.

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


from_name: charles matthews

body:
"Sue Anne Reed" wrote

> If user boxes are allowed, there is going to have to be a clear line that
> says, language user boxes are okay but these types of user boxes are not
> okay.

That kind of assumes people won't and don't get round clear-cut rules.  All
I know is that they will and do.  If people really want to make a mess of
their user pages, so that others referring to them will get no reassurance,
they will certainly do that somehow.  For myself I'd take an axe to most of
the templates, but treating it mostly as a fad that will pass is a better
idea, for its nonsensical aspects.

Charles


body:
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Question from a newbie: has the community gotten younger? Has
> Wikipedia become more accessible to non-geeks? Has it become more
> attractive to people not interested in encyclopaedic writing?
>
> These would be the most likely causes...
>
> Steve

Wikipedia skyrocketed on the list of most often viewed pages in the world. I
wouldn't be surprised if this attracts trolls and other troublemakers. They
love to target high-profile websites.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
I don't think we require strict rules Phil Welch suggested them.
It's easy to make a mistake by overlooking a certain discussion or some
entry in a log, which could easily make the number of admins dwindle and
cause a lot of people to leave the project.

I think we should encourage people to discuss more. If something turns into
a wheelwar, all the parties involved should receive a warning not to
continue. This would leave good faith unblocking after user requests open
without any fears for the involved admin.

Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At
such a time any further changes need to be discussed.

Mgm


subject: [WikiEN-l] CVU -> WP:CVP? (was The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa?

body:
On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> cabal").

Vandalism Cleaning Brigade?
Grafitti Purging Workforce?
Slaves for an Unvandalised Wikipedia?
The Anti-vandalism Superheroes?
Vandalism Posse?

I wonder if ironically ugly is good though. Isn't CVU already sort of
ironically ugly? Maybe some people aren't getting the irony...

Steve


from_name: bobble wik

subject: [WikiEN-l] Ambi's two week block of Bobblewik

body:
Ambi has given me a two week block with the comment:
"Continues to make disputed edits under main account at bot-speed (120/hour) despite being asked to stop by multiple people.".
Previous blocks have been made by Ambi and Talrias.
Ambi said: the edits are "disruptive and not being supported by consensus or policy"; the Manual of style "is a very obscure page"; "Bobblewik's campaign is a personal one".

The edits relate to date links and implementing WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS-L, and WP:CONTEXT. Several editors have been working on this. Whenever anyone has disagreed with the implementation, I have directed them towards those policy guidelines and suggested they seek a change in the policy. I even suspended my edits for a short while and proposed more constrained wording.

Ambi and Talrias also complained that my earlier edits were too fast. So I limited my speed to 120 per hour because I thought that was reasonable. If I can still be blocked for implementing the manual of style at that speed, I would be prepared to reduce to 60 per hour, 30 per hour or even perhaps 12 per hour. Just tell me what the limit is and I will comply. It is bizarre to have a policy that cannot be implemented for fear of being blocked.

I hope I am not misattributing the following quotes from the various talk pages:
"I think a block at present would be utterly wrong." Thincat
"Disclosure: i favor the current guideline, and have made soem edits of the same sort. But blocking soemone for editing in accordance with the current state of the MoS seems improper to me." DES
"It is certainly not justifiable to block someone for making edits for the manual's current advice." Neonumbers
"I completely fail to understand how anyone can object to what Bobblewik is doing." Dpbsmith
"Has he served enough time now? This is a good, experienced, civil, productive editor. I'm not sure a two week sentence is really the most beneficial way ahead." Haukur

Please can people look into this and comment. Thanks
Bobblewik

--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting
> over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
>
>
Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded for a lot of
people, or they never had a sense of it in the first place (cf, Karmafist
wheel warring with Jimbo).  Our constitutional monarchy model has problems
.

Ian


from_name: Stan Shebs

body:
Alex Schenck wrote:

>Mindspillage and I are on the same wavelength (I'll let her speak for
>herself beyond that): we miss the old community that was focused more on
>writing an encyclopedia instead of focusing on user pages and userboxes.
>What ever happened to writing FEATURED ARTICLES? Instead, we have people
>more focused on userboxes ("this user rebelled against the great userbox
>purge of 2006 [redirect to RFC:kelly martin] and would do it again"... wtf!)
>and arguing with others.
>
To keep things in perspective, if it weren't for the mailing list,
I wouldn't even have heard about the wheel war. 99+% of editors
and I daresay, at least 90% of admins are just working away and not
getting into fights of any sort; I personally am content just
exercising admin powers to revert random vandalism and whack unwanted
images, and using the bit of spare time left over to add some of my
own content.

While the conflicts do matter and need to be resolved, let's not get
overly focussed on those. It would be interesting to see the results
of a "friendliest admin" contest for instance - who has managed to
do the most admin actions with the least amount of complaint, and
what's their secret? Are we holding up fighters as exemplars, or
diplomats? War is exciting, but peacetime is more productive.

Stan


from_name: Jay Converse

body:
On 2/7/06, SP <poore5 at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Pretty sure that contacting the owner of this user box would be a TOP
> priority for some kids. Mostly roving groups of bored, thrill seekers.
> But also some troubled kids.

What?  I'm not aware of any children wanting to go out of their way to
contact a pedophile.

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


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
> While I don't like the legalese and penalty clauses, I do like the
> basic
> thrust of Phil Welch's proposal - that an admin action may be
> reversed ONCE
> by another admin and after that discussion is mandatory. Make it a
> guideline.

We already have a guideline and it's not stopping anyone. A credible
threat of desysopping will stop people one way or another.

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


body:
On 2/7/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Sam Korn wrote:
> >
> > >> I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians fell in
> > >> love on a talk page. But only if they were both above the statutory
> > >> age of consent.
> > >
> > > As per the Wikiholic test, sockpuppets don't count.
> >
> > There's a masturbation gag here somewhere, but I'm damned if I can see
> > what it is. :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > N.
>
> "This user is believed to be a sockpuppet of User:Penis....."
>
> Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'll go stand in the corner of shame now.
>
>
>
I've brought tomatoes, everyone!  START THROWING!

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


body:
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> > expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> > an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> > "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> > cabal").
>
> Vandalism Cleaning Brigade?
> Grafitti Purging Workforce?
> Slaves for an Unvandalised Wikipedia?
> The Anti-vandalism Superheroes?
> Vandalism Posse?
>
>
If we're going to have the name changed, let's at least change it to
something that's not hopelessly goofy. :/

Although the thought of being a WikiSuperHero is quite intriguing...

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


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever
> >people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He
> >shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and
> >being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia
> >projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the
> >English Wikipedia.
>
> Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the
> authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed
> directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start fighting
over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.

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


body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch

> >> Anyone using Wikipedia to initiate sexual contacts through
> Wikipedia
> >> will get a very permanent ban on their person.
> >
> > Cripes. And it's Valentine's Day next week, too.
>
> I agree. I think it would be very sweet if two Wikipedians
> fell in love on a talk page. But only if they were both above
> the statutory age of consent.

Well, I dunno. Thinking back to the editor who precipitated all this, it's
clear that he's big on what I'd call frivolous userboxes. He identifies as
"16-ish" (in one of the few items of personal information NOT found in a
userbox), and when I was 16-ish, I had very strong desires for others in
that age range. I'm thinking of Joan Smith here, a 17-ish classmate whose
ripening womanly attributes dominated my adolescent thoughts to a remarkable
degree. If she had appeared naked and willing in bed beside me (in respose
to my fervent prayers), I would not have hesitated. I would have embraced
the moment.

Perhaps young scamp Joeyramoney was being serious when he declared his love
for children, and he meant someone about his age, rather than what we older
and wiser folk might at first imagine. Perhaps he was having a bit of a
laugh at our expense.

I can understand why some O&W editors wanted to shoot him and scatter his
ground up ashes into the Rhine, but I cannot condone this sort of behaviour.

Peter (Skyring)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
>>> If people had WWJD (What Would Jimbo Do) in mind when they start
>>> fighting over stuff, a lot of this crap would just go away.
>
>> Actually I think the aura of the God-King has either faded
>> for a lot of people, or they never had a sense of it in the
>> first place (cf, Karmafist wheel warring with Jimbo).  Our
>> constitutional monarchy model has problems .
>
> That may be because it isn't a constitutional monarchy. If the
> monarch's
> power is unfettered and he intervenes directly in minor matters
> that are
> otherwise the province of government, then it is a dictatorship. A
> benevolent dictatorship, I trust.

I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a fascist one-
party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and say "no, stop,
you're being stupid."

This is a big argument for constitutional monarchies being better
than republics, incidentally.

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


from_name: Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Most immature war ever? Are we embarrassed yet?

body:
Let me get this straight:

   1. A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for
   their sexual orientation
   2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside
   claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti
   monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells
   3. This user was unblocked
   4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!),
   thus starting a wheel war
   5. Chaos ensues
   6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing
   the above wheel war.

Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did a
bunch of clowns start running the place?

Do correct me if I've made a mistake.

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos


body:
Pedophilia isn't really a sexual orientation.  Not to get off-topic or
anything.

k

On 2/7/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me get this straight:
>
>
>   1. A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for
>   their sexual orientation
>   2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside
>   claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti
>   monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells
>   3. This user was unblocked
>   4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!),
>   thus starting a wheel war
>   5. Chaos ensues
>   6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing
>   the above wheel war.
>
> Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did
> a
> bunch of clowns start running the place?
>
> Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
>
> Sam
>
> --
> Asbestos
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] What ever happened to Article Validation? (EOM)

body:
On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> This thread has come up several times. The response seems to be some
> variation of "It's ready. There is no hold up."
>
> Well?
>
> Steve

Last I herd it was being recoded due to paranoia.
--
geni


body:
On 2/7/06, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me get this straight:
>
>
>   1. A few editors suggest we should start blocking people on sight for
>   their sexual orientation
>   2. One editor blocks a newbie who claimed to be a pedophile, alongside
>   claims to being a mutant, a potential believer of the flying spaghetti
>   monster, approved of by mr rubber ducky, and needing more cowbells
>   3. This user was unblocked
>   4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!),
>   thus starting a wheel war
>   5. Chaos ensues
>   6. Jimbo re-blocks and de-syspos a half-dozen editors for continuing
>   the above wheel war.
>
> Am I right to be embarrassed for Wikipedia? Have I missed something or did a
> bunch of clowns start running the place?
>
> Do correct me if I've made a mistake.
>
> Sam

Slightly more complicated than that:

2a. Blocking admin announces said fact on AN.
2b. General argument over blocks ensues.
2c. Another admin blocks some people for expressing support for the
original block.
2d. Said people are unblocked.
2e. One of them blocks the admin mentioned in (2c).

And so forth.  Jimbo arrived pretty late in the game, actually.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Sam Korn

body:
On 2/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This thread has come up several times. The response seems to be some
> > variation of "It's ready. There is no hold up."
> >
> > Well?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Last I herd it was being recoded due to paranoia.

For paranoia, please read "an unwillingness to commit non-optimised
code".  That doesn't seem like paranoia.  That seems like common
sense.

--
Sam


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Philip Welch wrote:
>
> > I've proposed a strict policy against wheel warring at
> > [[Wikipedia:Proposed wheel warring policy]]:
>
> By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current
> guideline:
>
>     * If you think something is a good idea, do it.
>     * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.
>
> isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.

Hear, hear, Nick!
You're absolutely right!

Mgm


body:
On 2/7/06, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This thread has come up several times. The response seems to be some
> > > variation of "It's ready. There is no hold up."
> > >
> > > Well?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > Last I herd it was being recoded due to paranoia.
>
> For paranoia, please read "an unwillingness to commit non-optimised
> code".  That doesn't seem like paranoia.  That seems like common
> sense.
>
> --
> Sam

No the last objection I heard about was due to security.

--
geni


from_name: Jimmy Wales

body:
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:
>    4. Jimbo re-blocks the user for voting Keep on a TfD (for a week!),
>    thus starting a wheel war

That's just a gross mischaracterization of the whole thing.

> Do correct me if I've made a mistake.

The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to
an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of it.

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
>> Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is
>> overturned. At
>> such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
>>
> Exactly; I think that's a good guideline.  If something is done
> unilaterally and it's reverted (e.g. blocking a user; speedy-
> deleting a page, moving a page, etc.), it should be discussed at
> least briefly before being re-instituted.
>
> Of course, it doesn't help when our own Jimmy Wales ignores this
> guideline, even going so far as to use beaurocrat powers to "win" a
> wheel war.

You're acting like Jimbo is just another admin. He's not. He's Jimbo.

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


body:
> This is a tiresome argument, and entirely beside the point.  Yes,
> Jimbo legally can do whatever he wants (with consent of 2 of the
> other 4 board members).  That's quite different from how Wikipedia
> as a community operates, though, since it relies mainly
> volunteers.  Everyone is here because we're a community editing an
> encyclopedia, and believe in its mission; the Board serves us, not
> the other way around.  If the community decides the present
> leadership does not have its confidence, it can move elsewhere, as
> Encyclopedia Libre did.  Jimbo's power is mainly "soft power", not
> "hard power", and in that sense, he was wheel-warring.

OK, so Jimbo can do whatever he wants and if you don't like it you
can fork off. Therefore, Jimbo should avoid pissing off enough people
to cause a fork to happen.

Are you going to fork over this?

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


from_name: David Altmayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked username

body:
To Whom it May Concern:

My usename has been blocked, and I believe that it is not in violation of
the WP:Username policy.

The originator of the block, Karmafist, tells me that he believes that it is
in violation according to this rule:

     2. any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or
endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

I belive that "any name that may be seen as potentially offensive" is
all-encompassing, as even the username for the originator of the block could
definitely be seen as "potentially offensive," as I am sure many other
usernames could be.  My username is also not "endorsing or opposing the
politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure."  I'm not using the
username "Jesussucksballs" or "Jesusisgreat" or anything like that.  I am
using a hnadle that I have used online for almost 10 years with no problems
until I came here.

Thank you in advance for reviewing this case, and please get back to me to
let me know your thoughts.  I would love to make contributions to Wikipedia,
and I love the idea of an online data source that is ediatble to anyone, and
thus kept very unbiased.
--
David H. Altmayer


from_name: Peter Mackay

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of STEFAN
> CLAUDIU TIULEA

> --- Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:

> > Perhaps young scamp Joeyramoney was being serious when he
> declared his
> > love for children, and he meant someone about his age, rather than
> > what we older and wiser folk might at first imagine. Perhaps he was
> > having a bit of a laugh at our expense.
> >
> > I can understand why some O&W editors wanted to shoot him
> and scatter
> > his ground up ashes into the Rhine, but I cannot condone
> this sort of
> > behaviour.
>
> Children, as in this case, are usually defined as those under
> 13. If an adult has sex with a teen between 13 and 17, it is
> defined as underage sex.

I thank you for your detailed explanation, but in this case I think that an
16YO boy with a pronounced sense of the absurd wasn't thinking along the
same lines as yourself, an "older and wiser" editor.

I'm coming around to the view that while some userboxes serve a useful
purpose, and some are just plain silly and harmless, we should draw the line
at those that touch on sex, politics or religion, because the potential for
abuse, misunderstanding and incivility is too great.

Peter (Skyring)


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
On 2/7/06, Nick Boalch <n.g.boalch at durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> By the way, I think it's a massive, massive shame that the current
> guideline:
>
>      * If you think something is a good idea, do it.
>      * If people disagree, take a step back and discuss.
>
> isn't enough on its own to stop people wheel warring.

It might be if you added:

      * Flagrant violations of this guideline may result in desysopping.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
On 2/7/06, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:

> I've held off on sharing this story with this mailling list because I
> feel that in telling it, it should have a moral or a lesson -- but I'm
> not smart enough to point to it. Except to belabor the obvious point
> that Wiki communities aren't as self-regulating as people think they are.

Moral: any community run entirely on good will can be permanently
damaged by a short but serious bout of ill will?

Steve


from_name: Sean Barrett

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

Delirium stated for the record:

> This is a tiresome argument, and entirely beside the point.  Yes, Jimbo
> legally can do whatever he wants (with consent of 2 of the other 4 board
> members).  That's quite different from how Wikipedia as a community
> operates, though, since it relies mainly volunteers.  Everyone is here
> because we're a community editing an encyclopedia, and believe in its
> mission; the Board serves us, not the other way around.  If the
> community decides the present leadership does not have its confidence,
> it can move elsewhere, as Encyclopedia Libre did.  Jimbo's power is
> mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense, he was
> wheel-warring.
>
> -Mark

- From what mandate does your authority as spokesman for the community
derive?  There are, after all, vast numbers of people who disagree with
you, including those elected from the community to arbitrate serious
disagreements.  (That those of us directly appointed by Jimbo disagree
with you is hardly remarkable.)

It seems to me that considerable evidence suggests that you will be
disappointed in the outcome this affair and in any similar affairs to
come.  Both the Board and the Arbitration Committee have endorsed the
fact that Jimbo has the powers of a GodKing and occasionally will use
them.  And the consensus of the community seems to me to be a vehement
"whatever."

You have the privilege of trying to change that consensus, of course.
You'll probably find the community, herd of cats that it is, easier to
steer than the Board or the ArbComm.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | She had lost the art of conversation,
 sean at epoptic.org | but not, unfortunately, the power
                  | of speech. --George Bernard Shaw
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD6Q1JMAt1wyd9d+URAly/AJ9Y02Y6BUxOj6oyls6iGaaDvkCdWACghTgI
ApEdEnOiZu2FzTRQddxNN6U=
=wKKT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Jon

body:
What's wrong with the KGB? And if a user covered their user page with lots of images with the CIA (which on a worldwide scale has a far worse reputation than the KGB) would that be acceptable?

  Jon

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
  That mention of Lynx certainly does date you. I liked it too when I
was online with a CP/M Amstrad machine...

My thinking is that if a person presents themselves in an obnoxious
way that they are being disruptive. After all Hitler, if he were
alive, could edit anonymously.

If a user covers their user page with swastikas or emblems of the KGB
or the information that they are a pedophile and really think its
Ok, they are doing us harm both internally and externally and based
on how bad it is and how much trouble they are causing we can take
action.

Fred

On Feb 7, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Sue Anne Reed wrote:

> On the pedophilia issue ... I find pedophiles disgusting, but even
> if someone self-identifies as a pedophile, they are not breaking
> the law with that admission. If there is evidence that they are
> doing something, like trying to get in contact with children via
> WP, than there has to be some sort of process to take care of that.
> I mean, there is a fairly balanced article on NAMBLA on WP. This
> userbox issue over the weekend was the final thing that fully
> swayed my thinking on userboxes and if there isn't some sort of
> guideline, these sorts of things will happen again.
>
> Sue Anne
> sreed1234

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Cars NEW - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online search now
---------------------------------


from_name: [LiM] Manop

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Creating guidelines

body:
When I was a Wikipedian newbie, I wrote many guidelines on Thai WP
including major policies and those manual of styles . Most of them I
adopted from EN and modified for Thai users. I started writing those
one by one. Although they're not complete at first but useful enough
for new Wikipedians.

To me those are the things which make people talking in the same page.
When there are "enough" users, that time the guidelines will be
rewriten to match the community.

Manop - th

On 2/7/06, Habj <sweetadelaide at gmail.com> wrote:
> How many of the 'pedias out there have some formal labelling of guidelines,
> saying "this is a guideline of the prtovleskian wikipedia" etc.?
>
> Swedish Wikipedia didn't until this summer. There were some pages with
> "rules" of various kinds floating around in the Wikipedia namespace. Some
> people liked to say "this and that is a policy of Swedish wikipedia" but
> there was no way to define which these policies were. Now we are trying to
> define guidelines and policy all at once, so to speak. It seems obvious that
> policies should go through some kind of more formal procedure - but what
> about guidelines?
>
> How do you do it on the other wikipedias? Do people just think to themselves
> "this is a good page, we need it, people should have this in mind" and then
> label it "guideline" to see if someone reverts? Are there formal procedures?
> Input from as many 'pedias as possible would be appreciated.
>
> /Habj
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>

--
(LiM) Manop Kaewmoracharoen
427 Town Engineering Bldg.
Iowa State University


body:
On 2/7/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
> > Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2006 00:04
>
> > My thinking is that if a person presents themselves in an
> > obnoxious way that they are being disruptive. After all
> > Hitler, if he were alive, could edit anonymously.
>
> He would have to. He would be speedily kicked off if he used his real
> name.
>
> But he could bring some great insights to the [[Nazism]] article.
>
> His contributions might tend to be long and rambling and turgid and
> ranting
> and dogmatic, but we're used to that here.

Actually he would be yet another problem user pushing povs about his pet
topic, deleting criticisms, and making OR conclusions because, well, he's
making it up as he goes along.  He would probably have a bery hard time
editing to NPOV ("editing for your enemies")

Ian


body:
This thread has come up several times. The response seems to be some
variation of "It's ready. There is no hold up."

Well?

Steve

On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> Along the same vein, what happened to implementing a stable version
> guideline?
>
> On 2/6/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone know if this extension is still in the works, going to be
> > implemented, or shelved? Because the way some things look right now, we
> > need
> > all the help we can get.
> >
> > --
> > Ben Emmel
> > Wikipedia - User:Bratsche
> > bratsche1 at gmail.com
> > "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
> > -- William Blake
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.
> http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
> http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
>> I'm sure that if Tony Blair decided to turn the UK into a
>> fascist one- party state, Queen Elizabeth would come down and
>> say "no, stop, you're being stupid."
>
> This is a long established principle. Bagehot talked of three rights
> belonging to the monarch: "the right to be consulted, the right to
> encourage, and the right to warn"
>
> She has far more experience than any current politician in the
> processes of
> government, and her advice would be valuable. But she can do no
> more than
> warn. If she dismissed the Government and selected another more to her
> liking, then without the support of the House of Commons, that
> replacement
> would soon run out of money.

Yes, but much like Jimbo, the Queen's authority rests in the respect
others have for her. If she dismissed the Government and dissolved
Parliament (she can still do that, right?), how the people of the UK
respond determines the ultimate result. If they overwhelmingly choose
to ignore the Crown and vote the fascists back in, I suspect the
Queen would be over.

>> This is a big argument for constitutional monarchies being
>> better than republics, incidentally.
>
> Well, I dunno. What happens if the Queen decides to turn the UK into a
> fascist one-party state? It's not as if it hasn't happened before.

I didn't say it was a good argument. I just said that it was a big
argument, i.e. an argument that holds much weight and is considered
significant in the debate. I don't have strong opinions about good
government, and if I did they'd be completely off-topic to this list.

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


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Alternative names for the Counter Vandalism Unit

body:
On 2/7/06, Jay Converse <supermo0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Pretty much the best kinds of project names are ones that are either
> > > expressly positive (i.e. their name assumes good faith, doesn't create
> > > an us/them dichotomy), or failing that are ironicly ugly (like
> > > "bureaucrat", "benevolent dictator", or "spelling nazi" or "mediation
> > > cabal").
> >
> > Vandalism Cleaning Brigade?
> > Grafitti Purging Workforce?
Okay in that they're simply descriptive.

> > Slaves for an Unvandalised Wikipedia?
Good.

> > The Anti-vandalism Superheroes?

That's both us/them and not ironicly ugly.

> > Vandalism Posse?

Us/them.

Other ideas--positive:

The Fencepainting Project (Shades of Tom Sawyer, with other
neighborhood-building connotations.)
Welcome Mat Project (the vast amount of vandalism is
newbie-ish--enfolding handling vandalism into the concept of welcoming
new users makes sense to me. I.e. there are no strangers, just friends
we haven't met (and indoctrinated).)

Ironically positive:
Care Bear Brigade (I know this was discussed and negged earlier, but
it's hilarious.)

Ugly:
Users for Mindless Conformity.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
>Consensus doesn't scale.

We've recently seen the numbers from Gmaxwell and Kim Bruning that
show that this is not at all the case with articles - except a couple
of hundred articles (out of 900k+) which appear to be pathological.
*Mostly*, people leave articles to others who know about the area, and
those who know about an area mostly manage to thrash out a consensus.
The failures of consensus in article editing get a lot of attention
but they are the *exception*.

>With policy, this hinders change greatly, but it's unlikely to be a
>major problem in the near future. With wheel warring or serious edit
>wars, however, the fact that consensus doesn't scale is wasting a lot of
>our time here. It takes being hauled in front of the arbcom to get any
>results.

Yeah. It's getting policy consensus to scale that's tricky. Continuous
reference to basic principles - "we're here to write an encyclopedia",
"NPOV", "don't be a dick", etc - may be a useful touchstone for either
deriving a lot of the crufted policy from first principles or getting
rid of it.

- d.


from_name: MacGyverMagic/Mgm

body:
On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But it removes the slippery slope argument of "Why this and not that?"
>
> Babel is the only box I've seen that can be directly tied to
> encyclopedic matters

What about boxes that show people live in a certain country or have studied
a certain subject?
Those would tell someone they have local knowledge which is helpful to
building an encyclopedia.

Mgm


body:
On 2/7/06, John Lee <johnleemk at gawab.com> wrote:
>
> I strongly second (or is it third?) this. UninvitedCompany has
> referenced the [[September That Never Ended]], which I think explains
> why this has happened. When I became an admin January 2004, I got about
> 20 votes of support -- today, any successful nomination with less than
> 40 supports would be an oddity. (It's also quite likely I would not pass
> now, what with editcountitis -- or its cousin,
> non-article-namespace-editcountitis -- running rampant.) Our community
> has expanded, and our decision-making mechanisms have not scaled along
> with it. When was the last time we had a major policy change? It was the
> 3RR, I think, and that was over a year ago. Pretty much everything since
> then has been tinkering around the edges (although things like
> [[WP:PROD]] haven't made me lose all hope yet).

Not entirely. We also had the speedy deletion of unsourced images.


subject: [WikiEN-l] No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
charles matthews wrote:

> "Steve Bennett" wrote
>
>> Could we agree
>
> not to ever again block people for what they are?
>
> Easy to say that in the context that Wikipedia is not under siege, and
> has its reputation pretty much intact.  What about the guy who arrives
> in the middle of an election and annouces "I'm being funded to remove
> all your bias on candidates' pages"?

If he does it according to *our* concept of bias, then huzzah.

Anyway, unless the person supplies real name and funding details,
the statement isn't verifiable and doesn't need to be taken that
seriously. Does everybody automatically believe everything they
read on user pages or something?

Stan


body:
Is there a userbox for "this user is a developer on mediawiki"? That
would be handy too. Similarly, "this user has a PhD in Greek history"
type things. Roll your eyes, but at the end of the day, it is helpful
to know whether someone is talking completely out of the arse or not.

On the other hand, someone stating that they're Jewish doesn't offer
any kind of insight into their expertise on Jewish affairs.

So I would support a delineation of project-oriented vs
non-project-oriented userboxes. It may be helpful to deliberately
prevent people from getting lists of all "X-like" people, where X is
non-project oriented.

Steve

On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> Correction: Not slippery slope...just annoying :\
>
> On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But it removes the slippery slope argument of "Why this and not that?"
> >
> > Babel is the only box I've seen that can be directly tied to
> > encyclopedic matters
> >
> > On 2/7/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/7/06, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2/6/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm afraid I must agree.
> > > > >
> > > > > As an editor of 3 years I must ask what happened to writing an
> > > > encyclopedia?
> > > > > How come we become more about community just because we're in the
> > top-20
> > > > of
> > > > > internet sites?
> > > > >
> > > > > I must say that the community has started trudging along and
> > becoming
> > > > more
> > > > > venomous over the last few months to a year.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it were me I'd say delete all userboxes except for the babels and
> > > > mandate
> > > > > that users spend more attention on articles and meta issues relating
> > > > *directly
> > > > > to articles
> > > > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > There's nothing wrong with the occasional userbox. There's a number of
> > them
> > > on my user and apart from copyright issues with the images involved,
> > none of
> > > them really caused me any problems. religious and political userboxes
> > can
> > > have their place as well. They tell you where people's expertise lies.
> > > It's boxes about someone's beliefs that probably need to go. Those are
> > the
> > > ones that cause a division (with people who don't agree).
> > > Besides, I don't see the use in setting up a userbox for each little
> > thing.
> > > We've got Template:Userbox which anyone can alter and subst: into their
> > > userspace. No need for all those separate templates.
> > >
> > > Mgm
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~Ilya N.
> > http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
> > http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~Ilya N.
> http://w3stuff.com/ilya/ (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia)
> http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
>This is why
>I proposed on [[Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats]] that 'crats be given the
>authority to desysop/block in a wheel/edit war to defuse it and get
>discussion flowing again.

Sounds good - I like the idea of "desysop first, ask questions later".
Asking questions can and should include reinstating admin powers in
most cases. Preferably after the admin in question has agreed that
they were in the wrong.

Steve


body:
On 2/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> No the last objection I heard about was due to security.

I think unsecure code is non-optimised!  I'd hardly call it paranoia, either.

--
Sam


from_name: Delirium

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to
>an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of it.
>
>
That's simply factually incorrect.  The user was blocked once (by
Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!).  You then blocked the
user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war".  That is
not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker.

The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal
channels.  A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I
speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone
who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again
without discussion.

-Mark


from_name: Rob Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: No more blocking people for who they *are*?

body:
Careful you don't create a class of martyrs (shaheed) who wear as a badge of
honor their persecution, discipline, or punishment.

nobs

"Penalized classes generally respond to this challenge of being excluded
from certain opportunities and privileges by putting forth exceptional
energy and showing exceptional capacity in such directions as are left open
to them?much as the blind develop exceptional sensitiveness of hearing."

Toynbee, *The Stimulus of Penalizations, *from A Study of History

On 2/7/06, Ryan W. (Merovingian) <bigwiki at earthling.net> wrote:
>
> Although I think you're right, I don't think any admins blocked people
> just for believing certain things.  Those who were blocked were acting in a
> way that justified their I-hate-to-call-it-punishment.
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

>Wheelwars usually start when the overturning of a decision is overturned. At
>such a time any further changes need to be discussed.
>
>
Exactly; I think that's a good guideline.  If something is done
unilaterally and it's reverted (e.g. blocking a user; speedy-deleting a
page, moving a page, etc.), it should be discussed at least briefly
before being re-instituted.

Of course, it doesn't help when our own Jimmy Wales ignores this
guideline, even going so far as to use beaurocrat powers to "win" a
wheel war.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Comparison with other wikis

body:
>Until now Jimbo has had to step in whenever
>people (especially cabal members) need to be told to cool off. He
>shouldn't have to. Jimbo's role is being the face of the foundation and
>being the last court of appeal. He has to handle all the Wikimedia
>projects -- he shouldn't be spending his time tackling problems on the
>English Wikipedia.

Agree. I suspect the only issue is getting people to trust the
authority and good sense of other people. They *must* be appointed
directly by Jimbo for that to happen, I think.

Steve


from_name: Kirill Lokshin

body:
On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to
> >an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of it.
> >
> >
> That's simply factually incorrect.  The user was blocked once (by
> Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!).  You then blocked the
> user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war".  That is
> not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker.
>
> The usual procedure for a controversial block is to go through normal
> channels.  A similar thing happens with speedy deletions---if I
> speedy-delete someone as non-notable and it gets undeleted by someone
> who claims otherwise, it's not appropriate to simply speedy-delete again
> without discussion.

I suspect that Jimbo is referring to the other blocks involved
(Carnildo's, El_C's, etc.) as well as the deletion/undeletion war over
the actual userbox, rather than the initial block itself.

Kirill Lokshin


from_name: Ryan Delaney

body:
On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
> >The wheel war was well underway when I stepped in to set things back to
> >an appropriate status quo, and desysopping several people as a part of
> it.
> >
> >
> That's simply factually incorrect.  The user was blocked once (by
> Carbonite), then unblocked once (by Radiant!).  You then blocked the
> user again, without discussion, thereby starting a "wheel war".  That is
> not "well underway"---you were the first re-blocker.

Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo
retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal
or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he
and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is
wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war
because anyone who undoes his block is wrong.

Personally, I like it, because I think there has to be /someone/ who can
step into shit heaps like this and just flush the whole thing down the
toilet where it belongs; and that's exactly what he did.

Ryan


body:
Ryan Delaney wrote:

>Like it or not, these rules don't apply to Jimbo. Did you forget that Jimbo
>retains the power to ban anyone from Wikipedia, and that there is no appeal
>or discussion if he chooses to do so? Everyone who edits is here because he
>and the board permit them to. And anyone who reverts his block of a user is
>wheel warring. By definition, Jimbo cannot participate in a wheel war
>because anyone who undoes his block is wrong.
>
>
This is a tiresome argument, and entirely beside the point.  Yes, Jimbo
legally can do whatever he wants (with consent of 2 of the other 4 board
members).  That's quite different from how Wikipedia as a community
operates, though, since it relies mainly volunteers.  Everyone is here
because we're a community editing an encyclopedia, and believe in its
mission; the Board serves us, not the other way around.  If the
community decides the present leadership does not have its confidence,
it can move elsewhere, as Encyclopedia Libre did.  Jimbo's power is
mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense, he was
wheel-warring.

-Mark


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wheel warring

body:
Philip Welch wrote:

> You're acting like Jimbo is just another admin. He's not. He's Jimbo.
>
All the more reason that it's distasteful for him to get involve in
wheel-warring.  These sorts of petty power-fights, combined with his
flaming of several users on the mailing list as "unqualified" to edit
Wikipedia, reduce my confidence in his ability to lead Wikipedia.

-Mark


from_name: Mark Wagner

body:
On 2/7/06, Ilya N. <ilyanep at gmail.com> wrote:
> While I agree with the general point, slippery slope arguments are
> usually pretty weak.

The problem is that the step from "admitted pedophiles" to
"pedophiles" has already been taken, and from there, it's a *very*
small step to "accused pedophiles", an illustrious group that includes
Ta bu shi da yu, Schissel, and Lucky 6.9, all named by "Parents for
the Online Safety of Children", Jtdirl, Gmaxwell, and me, all named by
Jeff Merkey, and no doubt others.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Sam Fentress (Asbestos)

body:
Jimbo claims he blocked him for voting "Keep" on a TFD...

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

The vote in question:
"Keep, i guess* i put it on my user page as just a joke, but i can see how
some would be offended by it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_5&diff=prev&oldid=38350734

Sam
--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

On 2/7/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 2/7/06, Sam Spade <samspade.thomasjefferson at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Holy crap, this guys 16?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joeyramoney
> >
> > and he was blocked for this?
>
> By quite a number of people includeing Jimbo.
>
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


body:
On 2/7/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Jimbo's power is mainly "soft power", not "hard power", and in that sense,
> he was
> wheel-warring.
>
>
There isn't much I can do here except flatly disagree. And suggest that you
try to reframe yourself, because if you continue to have this expectation,
you are going to continue to be disappointed.

Ryan


body:
Philip Welch wrote:

> OK, so Jimbo can do whatever he wants and if you don't like it you
> can fork off. Therefore, Jimbo should avoid pissing off enough people
> to cause a fork to happen.
>
> Are you going to fork over this?
>
Not over this specifically; I'm not quite that impulsive, and I don't
currently have enough free time.  If this pattern of "leadership"
continues, though, it's a possibility.  I will probably eventually fork
Wikipedia in my area of knowlege, based on my current guess of how the
Wikimedia Foundation will continue to proceed.

-Mark