from_name: Will (Zsinj) Bumgarner

subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 36, Issue 79

body:
Not to start anything, but I removed this when it came to WP:RFI
because I saw it as admin slander by an account that had that report
as that user's only edit. Where this should go, if anywhere, is beyond
me, espically when multiple accounts have been used to post this
information there (check WP:RFI history).

Zsinj

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Oldak Quill" <oldakquill at gmail.com>
> To: Rptng03509345 <barbecue43564 at yahoo.com>, "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:36:54 +0100
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail
> Please use the proper channels to raise your concerns.
>
> I'm forwarding this e-mail to the WikiEN-l mailing list.
>
> On 19/07/06, Rptng03509345 <barbecue43564 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > This vital information on admin abuse his been removed by abusive administrators at wikipedia from requests for assistance, from talk pages, and even from an AFD from [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]  where the info is crucial to the decision...
> >
> > (see removal from AFD here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=64624774])
> >
> >
> >
> > Below are links to edits by multiple users.  Because these users are administrators, they will likely use the article delete power to hide them.  All edits only going back the last 30 days or so.
> >
> > MONGO blanks sections of talk pages that were not vandalism or personal attacks.  [[WP:VAND]] considers this action vandalism.:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=64253369] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Todd_Lanuzzi&diff=prev&oldid=64249564]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=63164639] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=61794896]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Todd_Lanuzzi&diff=prev&oldid=64249564]
> >
> >
> > Makes threats of premeditated speedy deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica article in edit summaries:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414695]
> >
> >
> > Modifies another user's talk page comment that was not a personal attack or vandalism:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=64170242]
> >
> >
> > Protected an article about twelve hours after two edits that he disagreed with were reverted:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64241376]
> >
> >
> > Edited an article after protecting it removing many cited sources (see his words on why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125]) :
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64241784]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64364917]
> >
> >
> > Admits he was fine with the older screenshot on Encyclopedia Dramatica:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64332883]
> >
> > User Kizzle uploads an image that is an attack image and unfree to MONGO's user talk page.  Even fair use are not allowed there.  MONGO, Tony Sidaway, and all the other admins leave it and do nothing, despite MONGO's previous quick deletion of images and quickness to protect articles:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=64403776&oldid=64367621]
> >
> > User NoSeptember protects the image after someone tried to replace it with an image that wasn't illegal and restores the illegal image:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ADramatica_what.jpg&diff=64447683&oldid=64401879]
> >
> > MONGO further endorses the illegal image:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kizzle&diff=prev&oldid=64408191]
> >
> >
> > MONGO removes any attempts of users he bans from communicating with him:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Todd_Lanuzzi&diff=prev&oldid=64249564]
> >
> > MONGO calls encyclopedia dramatica retarded as well as promising to remove protection and put the external link back (which he later refused to do at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64457667&oldid=64456778]):
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64370597&oldid=64369119]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64421961]
> >
> >
> > MONGO refuses to put link back or unprotect the article Encyclopedia Dramatica:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64440681]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64457667]
> >
> >
> >
> > MONGO engaging in personal attacks when giving block reasons:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MONGO&page=User%3AHmmm1111111]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MONGO&page=User%3AJeremyJX+]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MONGO&page=User%3AKirkharry]
> >
> >
> > TonySidaway engaging in personal attacks when giving block reasons:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3APrometheuspan]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3AScented+Guano]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3APlumped]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3AMyrtone86]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:MONGO1 has made edits directly coinciding with MONGO on wikipedia first learning that he had an article on that site.  The edits included vandalism and personal attacks:
> >
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996965047]
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara&diff=prev&oldid=1996965048] [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara&diff=prev&oldid=1996965049]
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Talk:Girlvinyl&diff=prev&oldid=1996965050]
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO1&diff=prev&oldid=1996965052]
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996970554]
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996970555]
> > [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996970558]
> >
> > Encyclopedia Dramatica Checkuser found the account came from 24.252.28.188 = ip24-252-28-188.om.om.cox.net
> >
> > Proof that it is MONGO:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=60621470
> >
> > Evidence of MONGO hiding edits from his IP on wikipedia:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64482074]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User+talk%3AWsiegmund]
> >
> >
> >
> > Directly after the MONGO1 account was banned a new account arose, using the name "Ed Poor", potentialy impersonation.  [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor contributions] that did more vandalism and personal attacks.  This one used AOL IPs 205.188.116.196, 205.188.117.70, 205.188.117.74.
> >
> > Ed Poor states it was not him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEd_Poor&diff=64466312&oldid=64387571]
> >
> > Other IPs with associated vandalism afterward:
> > *203.109.225.187 resolves to 203-109-225-187.bliink.ihug.co.nz
> > *128.2.141.33 resolves to ERR.CYLAB.CMU.EDU
> >
> >
> > MONGO and Tony Sidaway removed the results -- In general psychology (from wikipedia's articles), if someone was innocent they would want it to stand as evidence whereas a guilty person would want to hide it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64414695&oldid=64413700 (example)] all mention of it and banned the account for eternity that said it.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908 MONGO protects the talk page where it was first mentioned.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=64419489 Tony Sidaway also hides the IP results] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64419133] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=64419540]
> >
> > Another admin wishes to investigate this and MONGO reverts that admin twice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=64419540] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64420588]
> >
> > MONGO hides the cox.net IP and claims it was only AOL.  Is it because the cox.net IP is his?:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaranda&diff=prev&oldid=64423313]
> >
> > MONGO deletes the user and user talk page of someone mentioning this and MONGO makes personal attacks in the summary of why he deleted them:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=MONGO&page=User%3ARptng03509345]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=MONGO&page=User%3ARptng03509345]
> >
> >
> > MONGO tells someone to post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however he has reverted complaints about him there (see above):
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64427147]
> >
> > MONGO says, "well the sight is supportive of calling African-Americans (and blcaks in general) by the "N" word...so if there was an article that used that word on the mainpage, that would not be worth linking to either.":
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64431937]
> >
> > When asked if MONGO would spend the "spend the same amount of time and energy on that article" (being GNAA article), MONGO said:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437013]
> >
> >
> > MONGO deletes an image instead of reverted a changed version of it:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=MONGO&page=Image%3AEncyclopaedia+Dramatica+front+page.PNG]
> >
> >
> > MONGO vandalizes the article again by removing the external link to the site:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64509881]
> >
> > MONGO removes links that quote his wiki edits in talk pages:
> > *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64522808&oldid=64521807]
> >
> >
> >
> > Other actions by MONGO:
> > * "''Ah, I am not aware of them or their activities. I have worked very hard in the past to protect many wikipedians from off-wiki harassment by those that have posted at wikipediareview and hivemind. I can't be at all places at once, and I was alerted by someone about this stuff.--MONGO 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)''"  Guess what? He banned the person who helped him out. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64433577&oldid=64433176]
> > *"''What are you accusing me of? I see that you have had an account with us for a year and have less than 150 edits total and you want me to take your commentary seriously? I was alerted to this situation...I don't have the time to be everywhere, buddy. How about you go write one long well referenced article and stop your trolling.--MONGO 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ''" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64437013&oldid=64436043]
> > * After being asked why he targets the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and not GNAA, MONGO blanks the talk page, moving discussions from minutes ago into an archive so the entire talk page is blank. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437662]
> >
> >
> > *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125 Mongo announces plans to destroy the article Encyclopedia Dramatica so it passes AFD.]
> > *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64457667 Then states that he continues this plan]
> >
> >
> > Tony Sidaway examples of personal attacks:
> > *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64367096]
> > *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64329354]
> > * ''"I have blocked this editor becausae he's stupid"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60770791]
> > * ''"he's an obvious nutter ...  Let's just tell him to fuck off."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=60773841]
> > * ''"He's a troll. Our only appropriate words to him are "fuck off."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60775460]
> > * ''"I sincerely suggest that "fuck off" is almost too kind for this pernicious and stupid troll."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60776863]
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony Sidaway also reverted someone's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlu_Aardvark&diff=64326390&oldid=63585773]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Note troll is used as a personal attack. See [[WP:NPA]].  MONGO also uses the word retarded both for a personal attack on a user (first one in list below as well as for a website)
> >
> > MONGO gives personal attacks in edits:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64413700]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=64182308] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirkharry&diff=prev&oldid=64182504]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bouquet&diff=prev&oldid=64179187]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirkharry&diff=prev&oldid=64182504]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64363033]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64363082]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64363732]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64540034]
> >
> >
> > MONGO gives personal attacks in edit summaries:
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaranda&diff=prev&oldid=64423313]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414695]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=64244420]
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_77&diff=prev&oldid=57519187]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Puppy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Did you check any? I saw a little incivility, but that's it.
-kc-

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No problem, I replied this to him:
>>
>>  yes, well I am not sure what I can do, I don't want to get involved in
>> this.
>>
>
> Hell yeah. Wow. I know we often like to ask for diffs, but that many???
>
> 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
>
>


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Human dignity

body:
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you give me a definition of "notability" that is not entirely
> centred around the culture and experience of the person who uses it?

Well you can come up with lots of definitions for different classes of
things. The top 10 richest people in some category, top 10 most
decorated athletes in another, etc, are all notable. An overall
definition is tricky, but we must take into account that there are two
reasons for having articles in Wikipedia: either because the subject
is notable, or for completeness. Most communes in France aren't
notable - but having reference material on all the communes is pretty
useful. (and there are better, less contentious examples)

On that last note, it would be interesting to formulate a rule like:
If X% of all members of some class are "notable", then articles for
all members of that class should exist.

Then, what should X be?  30? 50?

> I'm yet to hear one. IMO, we should completely abandon, or redefine,
> "notability" for something more tangible, measurable and worthy of our
> efforts.

Yep. Because the fundamential issue here is not "is Y notable?" It is
"should we have an article on Y?" Therefore the issue should be called
"includability" or something. And then we can formalise what we
already all basically agree on: that the rules for what we do and
don't include depend to a great extent on the individual subject
matter. But that perhaps there are a couple of common principles that
can be applied to them. I tried to come up with some a few months ago,
maybe it's time I had another go.

Steve


from_name: Michael Hopcroft

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
You know, I haven't really seen a good working definition of the term
"fancruft", yet I seem to have run afoul of the concept more often than
I have failed to. Mind you, the areas of my expertise (animation and
RPGs) are especially vulnerable to such claims, but I seem to be running
into it far more often than most other editors.

I would say that I have an objection to some of the ways the policy has
been applied, particularly to my own articles, but since I do not know
what the policy actually entails (all things considered) it is difficult
for me to form a rational response or objection to the times when I feel
it is applied unfairly or unwisely.

Could someone give me a non-judgmental (because it usually seems to be
applied to content that those who cite find objectionable for other
reasons, as in the case of the possibly offensive Archbishop Tutu joke
that Mr. wales cites) explanation of just what the term 'fancruft" means
and entails as a matter of Wikipedia policy?  (The apparently
contemptuous nature of the term 'fancruft" itself also sticks in my craw
as inherently judgmental, but that is neither here nor there.)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Ken Lay's death prompts confusion on Reuters

body:
On 7/18/06, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> True, but not getting breaking news wrong in the first twenty four
> hours should be.

We allow people to add whatever information they want, whenever they
want. Any problems arising from people finding incorrect information
on Wikipedia in the minutes after a major event are really a question
of PR: people should not be expecting accurate information at
Wikipedia so soon.

> Maybe a guideline that new information shouldn't be added for a week
> or two unless it is necessary to correct something old (adding in a
> date of death, for instance).  The guideline could be part of a
> template, which includes a link to the wikinews story, for those who
> want to participate in such things.

I dunno. Reporting Ken Lay's death immediately seems right to me. But
readers should be warned that it could be inaccurate. Our goal is an
accurate encyclopaedia long term. Putting information that is
half-accurate *now* is working towards that goal. Refraining from
adding the information is not.

Steve


from_name: Lord Voldemort

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
On 7/19/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Did you check any? I saw a little incivility, but that's it.
> -kc-

Yeah, actually I checked them all except for the ones to ED (not
really our domain, ya think?).  Incivility and personal attacks aside,
I didn't see any actual ADMIN abuse.

But really, I wish all complaints came with the documentation that one
did.  It _does_ help see where actual errors occured.  --LV


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Michael Hopcroft wrote:

>You know, I haven't really seen a good working definition of the term
>"fancruft", yet I seem to have run afoul of the concept more often than
>I have failed to.
>
I would think of it in terms of how much thought and effort went
into the connection.

If a movie is a retelling of a historical event, then it's something
that hundreds of people worked to create, and it affected the thousands
who watched it, so the existence of the movie is significant enough
to be worth noting on the historical event's page.

But if the event is only suggested in a offhand joke in a TV show,
it was probably the result of a total of five minutes work by one
scriptwriter, and only a tiny number of viewers, aka the "fans",
would even notice the reference at all, so it's insignificant.

Another way to look at it is that WP is a condensed summarization
("compendium"). So if you had a 700-page scholarly work on the
Simpsons that, as part of its thoroughness, explained every joke
and allusion in every show, and condensed it down to 70 pages of
WP articles, what would you choose to keep? Probably not every
one of the random allusions.

Stan


from_name: Guettarda

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
>
> Jimmy Wales wrote:
> <snip>
> > I quote our article:
> >
> >> In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as
> >> saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
> >> stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they
> >> got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop
> >> Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
> >>
> >
> > I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> > very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))
> >
> > --Jimbo
> <snip>
> >
> I removed the entire Trivia section - none of it was sourced and yes, it
> was *all* very trivial.
>
> -kc-

But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
reliable source?  Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up?  I think that
almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR.  And that's a real
problem.  They even have templates for TV shows that are currently ongoing.
It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in
half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy violation...


list: commons-l

from_name: Essjay

subject:
[Commons-l] Please don't spam user-talk pages with
	generic	warnings

body:
Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:
> Hi Wikipedians,
>
> Brianna Laugher wrote on 07/18/2006 05:04 PM:
>
>> While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page.
>>
>
> Do they? I haven't tested it at the Commons, but in DE.
> A blocked user (in DE) is not able to edit his talk page.
> It's blocked like every other page.
>
> Bye, Tim.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
That should be reported to wikitech-l; as far as I know, the "blocked
users can edit their own talk pages" fix was enabled everywhere around
this time last year.

Essjay

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060719/fed6dc1a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's not true, non-readable media can serve as a source.

Direct quotes (like the Rachel one) are probably appropriate use of the
episode as a primary source (though, obviously, it should be referenced to
the episode, the medium (DVD, original run, or syndication) and the date and
time accessed).  But creating a synopsis of a movie or TV show is OR because
it requires that you look at the episode, determine what is more important
and what is less important, and come up with what happened.  In effect, you
create your impression of what happened.  And that is improper use of a
primary source.

> But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
> > reliable source?  Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up?  I think
> that
> > almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR.  And that's a
> real
> > problem.  They even have templates for TV shows that are currently
> ongoing.
> > It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in
> > half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy
> violation...
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
> "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
> knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.

Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
better than providing a source.  Recently there was a discussion at
[[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered
to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
source that statement.  It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
source.  If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the
sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea.  Just
sticking in a source at random can be misleading.


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I am not online, or I would just edit this myself.  But I thought it
> sort of sadly humorous enough to mention here. :)
>
> I am offline, reading our biography of Desmond Tutu.  A great man, a
> Nobel Peace Prize winner, instrumental in the fight against apartheid,
> and of incredible cultural importance and impact on our era.
>
> I quote our article:
>
>> In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as
>> saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
>> stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they
>> got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop
>> Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
>>
>
> I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
I removed the entire Trivia section - none of it was sourced and yes, it
was *all* very trivial.

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> of a barnstar.

And any that takes the time to do a little searching to see if they
can provide a source themselves should get two. ;-)  --LV


list: foundation-l

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] Update on ombudsman issue

body:
On 7/19/06, Anthere <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
> forgotten :-)
>
> Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
> commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
> privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.
>
> A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
> and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.
>

So is it now time to froce a name change on user:ombudsman?
--
geni


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))

You must not be trying hard. :)

A fun technique is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Friends&limit=1200&from=0

Whenever I'm feeling too happy I'll run that against buffy the vampire slayer.

Ashame we don't have a mechanism in place that would allow us to batch
up changes to reasonable articles and review them all critically
before making them the front version. ;)


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> > I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
> > better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
> > no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> > back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> > of a barnstar.
>
> Ack. I would like to point out to this article:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis
>
> There are currently 88 different references. Some of them are
> referenced in the article several times. Some of them contain multiple
> sources (hmmm, there could be a better solution for that)
>
> Apart from the rather ugly poste^wtemplate at the bottom and the
> atomisation on different subpages, I recommend this article to anyone
> when it comes to referencing.
>
> Mathias

For proper sourcing of biographical articles, I'd actually recommend
[[Joel Brand]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Brand

an article written by SlimVirgin, which recently achieved Featured
Article status.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
> reliable source?  Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up?  I think that
> almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR.  And that's a real
> problem.  They even have templates for TV shows that are currently ongoing.
> It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in
> half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy violation...

That no source was provided is a problem, but it's not the problem.

The inclusion of sub-trivia on our articles damages is a waste of
reader time, an insult to our editors, and a cause of damage to our
professional image... It's also a magnet for potential vandalism,
especially if we'll tolerate it without citation.

If it's not notable enough to mention it (and other cases like it) in
the article on the TV show, it's certainly not notable enough to go
into other articles.


from_name: Jesse W

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Guettarda wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>> Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known
>> survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to
>> emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go
>> much wrong by following their example.
> Some do, but that's bad form.  Generally papers like that are badly
> written
> papers by a grad student - the kind of papers which attribute
> information to
> the wrong source (the kind that say X say xxx, when in fact X cites Y
> as
> saying xxx).  It looks sloppy and amateurish there, it looks equally
> amateurish here.
I strongly disagree.  While we certainly should not do partial
citations - if we cite someone else citing a third source, we should
list the full chain - we *should*, most of the time, cite "common
textbooks or well-known survey-type monographs or articles" over the
original sources they are based on - this goes along with being an
encyclopedia, a tertiary source.  What the actual folks doing novel
research say is exactly what we should *not* be citing - that gets into
original research.  It's the long-standing, uncontroversial material in
multiple textbooks that we should be including in Wikipedia, and we
should cite it from there.  We are not writing scientific papers, and
we shouldn't blindly take their style guides as our own.  Furthermore,
as for looking "amateurish", we *are* amateurs - remember - "anyone can
edit"?  Looking amateurish is simply looking honest, in our case.

Jesse Weinstein


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a big fan of referencing, but the problem I have is determining
> what is common knowledge. I think I tend to over-reference (which is
> preferable to under-referencing). Could someone give me a good measure
> of where to draw the line?

When in doubt, provide.

We need to build intolerance for missing citations of non-obvious
material.  Once we've done that the solution simply is to provide
citations when every anyone thinks you need them... and then we watch
for folks abusing the practice to create disruption and deal with them
on a case by case basis.


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Travis Derouin

subject: [Wikitech-l] upgrading woes

body:
We've been running on MW 1.4 for longer than we should have been, and
tried upgrading today to 1.6.7. We're running a Squid server on one
machine, and PHP 4.4.2 with Apache 2.0.46 with eAccelerator installed
on another, and then a third server for mySQL 4.1, all machines are
Linux.

I did a db dump, imported it into a new database, went through
config/index.php to convert the new database and pointed Apache to the
new source directory. The load on the Apache server went through the
roof and won't stay down. I tried restarting Apache, rebooting the
server, any way to bring the load down to 0, then started Apache and
Squid back up, and the load would go through the roof again - and it
stays there.  The database shows a lot of open & sleeping connections,
but none are locked.  Switching back to 1.4 seems to solve the load
problem.

Any ideas? Did I miss something during the upgrade process?

Travis


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> "The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future
> co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry
> around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on
> well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even
> throwing a few pies at each other."
>
> Is that true?  Is it not true?  As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy
> way to know.  If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference.
> If it is not true, it should be removed.
>
> I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
> better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
> no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> of a barnstar.

Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is
there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living
people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common?
Thanks in advance. --LV


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:42:38 -0700, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
>> back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
>> of a barnstar
>>
>
> Close - I got an ArbCom case :-)
>
> Guy (JzG)
>
All I get is Someone Investigate Vandal Admin KillerChihuahua!!! posts
on AN/I

-kc-


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:34:18 -0700, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't
>> see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove
>> unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is
>> outpacing the reviewing.
>>
>
> Depends.  I have been involved in several extremely bitter edit wars
> over the insertion of highly questionable content whose removal is
> condemned as "suppressing information".
>
> Guy (JzG)
>
Ah, you're censoring information too, eh?
-kc-


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
One thing which might help to address the concerns raised by Timwi
would be a more consistent approach to block notices.

I raised a proposal here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Block_templates

Essentially, I think that all block templates should have a pointer to
a Help page "help I've been blocked" which details how to use
{{unblock}}, how to email the unblock list, how to find the email link
for the blocking admin, and also some explanatory text about the fact
that blocks may be more or less automatic (3RR), and that it is the
edits, not the editor, which are the problem.  Also, I think the
username of the blocking admin should be included automagically via
the block templates (maybe with the link to email right there?), and a
{{{duration}}} argument for almost all of them, since it's often
unclear how long the block is for.

I guess this comes under the heading of managing expectations.

Also I would remove the note to admins about unblocking themselves to
the unblock screen, since it's irrelevant to anyone else and probably
violates [[WP:BEANS]] anyway :-)

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
> > "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
> > knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
>
>
> Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
> better than providing a source.  Recently there was a discussion at
> [[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was considered
> to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
> source that statement.  It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
> but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
> implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
> source.  If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if the
> sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea.  Just
> sticking in a source at random can be misleading.

I think a better idea might be to make the general statement, but
source it to multiple sources. If it's common knowledge then there
will be plenty of sources saying the same thing; once you have enough
reliable sources repeating a claim, you can simply state it generally.

Jay.


from_name: Anthere

body:
So that it is clear that discussions do not always get buried and
forgotten :-)

Some time ago, we discussed the possibility to create an ombudsman
commission to deal with complaints related to abuse of the Foundation
privacy policy, associated to checkuser activity or not.

A resolution(*) has been written to describe the role of the commission
and the extent of its delegation. 3 members have been proposed.

Angela and I approved that resolution early july. The quorum for a
resolution to pass is 3 approval. We are waiting for another board
member to vote.

Anthere

(*) For those who wonder what this "resolution" stuff is and coming to
Wikimania in 2 weeks, I'll try to explain how the Foundation is
functionning (or not functionning) on sunday the 6th of august (open and
free ad)


from_name: A

subject: [WikiEN-l] Quackpotwatch AfD

body:
Hi-- I wonder if a few experienced folks might be willing to take a
look at an article I nominated for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quackpotwatch

It does not appear to be notable per [[WP:WEB]], and it exists solely
as an attack site against a notable website, Quackwatch.com.

My reason for asking here is that I have an article featured on
Quackwatch.com (which I have noted for a long time on my user page). I
don't want it to seem like my reasons are solely because I disagree
with Quackpotwatch. It just doesn't seem notable or reliable
regardless of my POV, and I can't find any published sources that cite
it. The only citations are other websites that dislike Quackwatch.

Thanks!
Jokestress


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
> Guettarda wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Actually there are times when leaving something as "common knowledge" is
> >better than providing a source.  Recently there was a discussion at
> >[[Evolution]] about a statement to the effect that evolution was
> considered
> >to be responsible for the vast diversity of living things and whether to
> >source that statement.  It's very easy to find someone who has said that,
> >but to source it to anyone in particular could be misleading because it
> >implies that there is some special relationship between the idea and the
> >source.  If something is common knowledge it should only be sourced if
> the
> >sourcing helps to establist the origin or development of the idea.  Just
> >sticking in a source at random can be misleading.
> >
> Scientific papers manage this by citing common textbooks or well-known
> survey-type monographs or articles, maybe even several of them to
> emphasize the commonness of the knowledge; I don't think we can go
> much wrong by following their example.

Some do, but that's bad form.  Generally papers like that are badly written
papers by a grad student - the kind of papers which attribute information to
the wrong source (the kind that say X say xxx, when in fact X cites Y as
saying xxx).  It looks sloppy and amateurish there, it looks equally
amateurish here.


from_name: SPUI

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Oldak Quill wrote:
>>Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is
>>there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living
>>people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common?
>>Thanks in advance. --LV
>
>
> A feature which does this is soon being introduced. It is called
> "category math" (probably at
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_math).

I can't wait for the stub cabal to instantly lose their purpose.


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Violet/Riga <violetriga at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > A fun technique is:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Friends&limit=1200&from=0
> >
> > Whenever I'm feeling too happy I'll run that against buffy the vampire
> > slayer.
>
>
>
> I find The Simpsons to be the worst, with Spongebob close behind.

At one time buffy was the worse... But I removed a few hundred
references. There are likely lower hanging fruit now. :)


from_name: Anthony

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> I quote our article:
> >In the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties RACHEL is quoted as
> >saying "My parents happened. All they had to do was sit in the same
> >stadium, smile proudly, and not talk about the divorce. But nooo, they
> >got into a huge fight in the middle of the commencement address. Bishop
> >Tutu actually had to stop and shush them."
>
> I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))
>
> --Jimbo

The source is right there: "the Friends episode The One With the Two Parties".

Anthony


from_name: Andrew Gray

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsourced biographies

body:
So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is
[[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no
encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping
some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely
unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689

What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack
anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where
there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.

But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get

> Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 ? June 28, 2006) was married to a military person

...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I
suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.

What I've done in the three or four cases where I ran across this was
put a prod tag on, saying that we simply cannot have any article of
this form without sources. Better, I feel, to have it deleted than to
have a dodgy article left up (even if the subject's dead, it's still
ethically iffy) I've been told this is "impatience"; I'm jumping past
normal cleanup procedures and slapping a "fix in X days or else"
warning on.

Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with
things like this that actually works...

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


from_name: Oldak Quill

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Please use the proper channels to raise your concerns.

I'm forwarding this e-mail to the WikiEN-l mailing list.

On 19/07/06, Rptng03509345 <barbecue43564 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This vital information on admin abuse his been removed by abusive administrators at wikipedia from requests for assistance, from talk pages, and even from an AFD from [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]  where the info is crucial to the decision...
>
> (see removal from AFD here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=64624774])
>
>
>
> Below are links to edits by multiple users.  Because these users are administrators, they will likely use the article delete power to hide them.  All edits only going back the last 30 days or so.
>
> MONGO blanks sections of talk pages that were not vandalism or personal attacks.  [[WP:VAND]] considers this action vandalism.:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=64253369] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Todd_Lanuzzi&diff=prev&oldid=64249564]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=63164639] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=61794896]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Todd_Lanuzzi&diff=prev&oldid=64249564]
>
>
> Makes threats of premeditated speedy deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica article in edit summaries:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414695]
>
>
> Modifies another user's talk page comment that was not a personal attack or vandalism:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=64170242]
>
>
> Protected an article about twelve hours after two edits that he disagreed with were reverted:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64241376]
>
>
> Edited an article after protecting it removing many cited sources (see his words on why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125]) :
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64241784]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64364917]
>
>
> Admits he was fine with the older screenshot on Encyclopedia Dramatica:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64332883]
>
> User Kizzle uploads an image that is an attack image and unfree to MONGO's user talk page.  Even fair use are not allowed there.  MONGO, Tony Sidaway, and all the other admins leave it and do nothing, despite MONGO's previous quick deletion of images and quickness to protect articles:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMONGO&diff=64403776&oldid=64367621]
>
> User NoSeptember protects the image after someone tried to replace it with an image that wasn't illegal and restores the illegal image:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ADramatica_what.jpg&diff=64447683&oldid=64401879]
>
> MONGO further endorses the illegal image:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kizzle&diff=prev&oldid=64408191]
>
>
> MONGO removes any attempts of users he bans from communicating with him:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Todd_Lanuzzi&diff=prev&oldid=64249564]
>
> MONGO calls encyclopedia dramatica retarded as well as promising to remove protection and put the external link back (which he later refused to do at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64457667&oldid=64456778]):
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64370597&oldid=64369119]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64421961]
>
>
> MONGO refuses to put link back or unprotect the article Encyclopedia Dramatica:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64440681]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64457667]
>
>
>
> MONGO engaging in personal attacks when giving block reasons:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MONGO&page=User%3AHmmm1111111]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MONGO&page=User%3AJeremyJX+]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=MONGO&page=User%3AKirkharry]
>
>
> TonySidaway engaging in personal attacks when giving block reasons:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3APrometheuspan]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3AScented+Guano]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3APlumped]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=User%3AMyrtone86]
>
>
>
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/User:MONGO1 has made edits directly coinciding with MONGO on wikipedia first learning that he had an article on that site.  The edits included vandalism and personal attacks:
>
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996965047]
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara&diff=prev&oldid=1996965048] [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara&diff=prev&oldid=1996965049]
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Talk:Girlvinyl&diff=prev&oldid=1996965050]
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO1&diff=prev&oldid=1996965052]
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996970554]
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996970555]
> [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=1996970558]
>
> Encyclopedia Dramatica Checkuser found the account came from 24.252.28.188 = ip24-252-28-188.om.om.cox.net
>
> Proof that it is MONGO:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=60621470
>
> Evidence of MONGO hiding edits from his IP on wikipedia:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64482074]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=User+talk%3AWsiegmund]
>
>
>
> Directly after the MONGO1 account was banned a new account arose, using the name "Ed Poor", potentialy impersonation.  [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Special:Contributions/Ed_Poor contributions] that did more vandalism and personal attacks.  This one used AOL IPs 205.188.116.196, 205.188.117.70, 205.188.117.74.
>
> Ed Poor states it was not him. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEd_Poor&diff=64466312&oldid=64387571]
>
> Other IPs with associated vandalism afterward:
> *203.109.225.187 resolves to 203-109-225-187.bliink.ihug.co.nz
> *128.2.141.33 resolves to ERR.CYLAB.CMU.EDU
>
>
> MONGO and Tony Sidaway removed the results -- In general psychology (from wikipedia's articles), if someone was innocent they would want it to stand as evidence whereas a guilty person would want to hide it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64414695&oldid=64413700 (example)] all mention of it and banned the account for eternity that said it.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908 MONGO protects the talk page where it was first mentioned.] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=64419489 Tony Sidaway also hides the IP results] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64419133] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=64419540]
>
> Another admin wishes to investigate this and MONGO reverts that admin twice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=64419540] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64420588]
>
> MONGO hides the cox.net IP and claims it was only AOL.  Is it because the cox.net IP is his?:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaranda&diff=prev&oldid=64423313]
>
> MONGO deletes the user and user talk page of someone mentioning this and MONGO makes personal attacks in the summary of why he deleted them:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=MONGO&page=User%3ARptng03509345]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=MONGO&page=User%3ARptng03509345]
>
>
> MONGO tells someone to post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, however he has reverted complaints about him there (see above):
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64427147]
>
> MONGO says, "well the sight is supportive of calling African-Americans (and blcaks in general) by the "N" word...so if there was an article that used that word on the mainpage, that would not be worth linking to either.":
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64431937]
>
> When asked if MONGO would spend the "spend the same amount of time and energy on that article" (being GNAA article), MONGO said:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437013]
>
>
> MONGO deletes an image instead of reverted a changed version of it:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=MONGO&page=Image%3AEncyclopaedia+Dramatica+front+page.PNG]
>
>
> MONGO vandalizes the article again by removing the external link to the site:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64509881]
>
> MONGO removes links that quote his wiki edits in talk pages:
> *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&curid=1975039&diff=64522808&oldid=64521807]
>
>
>
> Other actions by MONGO:
> * "''Ah, I am not aware of them or their activities. I have worked very hard in the past to protect many wikipedians from off-wiki harassment by those that have posted at wikipediareview and hivemind. I can't be at all places at once, and I was alerted by someone about this stuff.--MONGO 08:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)''"  Guess what? He banned the person who helped him out. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64433577&oldid=64433176]
> *"''What are you accusing me of? I see that you have had an account with us for a year and have less than 150 edits total and you want me to take your commentary seriously? I was alerted to this situation...I don't have the time to be everywhere, buddy. How about you go write one long well referenced article and stop your trolling.--MONGO 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ''" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEncyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=64437013&oldid=64436043]
> * After being asked why he targets the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and not GNAA, MONGO blanks the talk page, moving discussions from minutes ago into an archive so the entire talk page is blank. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437662]
>
>
> *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony_Sidaway&diff=prev&oldid=64453125 Mongo announces plans to destroy the article Encyclopedia Dramatica so it passes AFD.]
> *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64457667 Then states that he continues this plan]
>
>
> Tony Sidaway examples of personal attacks:
> *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64367096]
> *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64329354]
> * ''"I have blocked this editor becausae he's stupid"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60770791]
> * ''"he's an obvious nutter ...  Let's just tell him to fuck off."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=60773841]
> * ''"He's a troll. Our only appropriate words to him are "fuck off."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60775460]
> * ''"I sincerely suggest that "fuck off" is almost too kind for this pernicious and stupid troll."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=60776863]
>
>
>
> Tony Sidaway also reverted someone's own messages in their talk page and protected it, claiming "they attempted to use their talk page." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlu_Aardvark&diff=64326390&oldid=63585773]
>
>
>
>
> Note troll is used as a personal attack. See [[WP:NPA]].  MONGO also uses the word retarded both for a personal attack on a user (first one in list below as well as for a website)
>
> MONGO gives personal attacks in edits:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64413700]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=64182308] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirkharry&diff=prev&oldid=64182504]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bouquet&diff=prev&oldid=64179187]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kirkharry&diff=prev&oldid=64182504]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64363033]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64363082]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64363732]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=64540034]
>
>
> MONGO gives personal attacks in edit summaries:
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jaranda&diff=prev&oldid=64423313]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414908]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64414695]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGO&diff=prev&oldid=64244420]
> [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_77&diff=prev&oldid=57519187]
>
>
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsourced biographies

body:
I'm a rampant inclusionist but I completely agree with you in this
case. If an article is wholly unverifiable and/or factually inaccurate
(especially an article as contentious as this), it should be deleted
as soon as possible.

Are there currently any active WikiProjects to monitor these
"dangerous" categories for defamation (particularly defamation of
living people)? If not, I suggest a few of us attempt to set one up.
We cannot tolerate the the use of Wikipedia to injure others
unnecessarily.

On 19/07/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is
> [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no
> encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping
> some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely
> unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
>
> What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack
> anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where
> there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
>
> But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
>
> > Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 ? June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
>
> ...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I
> suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
>
> What I've done in the three or four cases where I ran across this was
> put a prod tag on, saying that we simply cannot have any article of
> this form without sources. Better, I feel, to have it deleted than to
> have a dodgy article left up (even if the subject's dead, it's still
> ethically iffy) I've been told this is "impatience"; I'm jumping past
> normal cleanup procedures and slapping a "fix in X days or else"
> warning on.
>
> Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with
> things like this that actually works...
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
On 7/18/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is more to do with Wikipedia's ability to adapt and change
> with developing technology. If Encyclopedia Britannica had created a
> wiki back in 2000, Wikipedia may not exist and Britannica would have
> extended their lifetime by a few decades.

"It's not the technology. It's the social structure, stupid".
Although Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and not about a
building a community, without our social structure our project could
not be a success.   Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but
to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely
by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.

There is always the chance that they'll adapt... I'm not expecting
them to go away any time soon.. It's still a useful resource, is so
much as something which isn't instantly available to more than an
infinitesimal fraction of the world can be...

[snip]
> As long as we are willing to embrace changes and developments (such
> as, at the moment, Wiktionary Z and Semantic MediaWiki) and don't
> object for reasons of familiarity, we should do fine.

To add some contrast:
Just because you die out without some changes, does not mean all
changes should be accepted.  In biology we find that most mutations
are harmful.

Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is
sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This
results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest'
environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a
significant risk.

I can't suggest a real solution to this today, but I think that one of
the things we already to today helps the situation somewhat:  do as
much as possible without modifying Mediawiki. And with bots,
toolserver, templates, manual, and quasi-manual processes... we're
already doing that.

I'm wary of software which grants someone who merely has working code
the ability to control long term direction of the project.  Enwiki
folks are very concerned about the consolidation of 'power' that comes
from combining a bcrat and a arbcom member in one usrs....  Good thing
that developers are under the radar, because with the ability to make
wide scale decisions without consensus that comes from a patch is
pretty much unparalleled.   But I suppose thats why we don't have any
developers on the Wikimedia Foundation board.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
Then I apologise, I thought I'd better show the list this spam.

On 19/07/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hey, I think this was spammed to many admins. I got it too.
>
> Adam

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsourced biographies

body:
On 7/19/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I've been going through the endless barrel of fun that is
> [[Category:Rapists]], slapping prod tags on the people of no
> encyclopedic significance ("X priest got two years in jail for groping
> some choirboys") and, in a couple of cases, encountering entirely
> unsourced articles. Perhaps the most obvious of these was:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sedley_Alley&oldid=64313689
>
> What ought we to do with them? I mean, policy is aggressively attack
> anything unsourced that would be defamation if it was false; where
> there were other avenues of notability, I've done that.
>
> But in this case, when we remove all forms of the negative material, we get
>
> > Sedley Alley (August 16, 1955 ? June 28, 2006) was married to a military person
>
> ...which is in and of itself a candidate for speedy deletion, though I
> suspect doing that would get me brickbatted for nefarious deletionism.
>
Um, did you try to find sources, or did you just remove stuff that
didn't already have a source listed?  What was your source for his
death date?  Because it didn't take me more than a few seconds to find
tons of sources on this person.

By the way, it's not possible to defame dead people, is it?

Anthony


from_name: Nathan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

references:
<200607191730.k6JHUf38025652@localhost.localdomain>
	<54f6f2050607191036y122cf2cfud1aaf28be90cd6ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<44BE6FFF.2010402@KillerChihuahua.com>

body:
That would make it two for me. This person (I was about to say "idiot")
should be banned as well as all of his socks. (though probably has been by
now).

- Nathan

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Puppy wrote:

> Oldak Quill wrote:
> > Please use the proper channels to raise your concerns.
> >
> > I'm forwarding this e-mail to the WikiEN-l mailing list.
> >
> > On 19/07/06, Rptng03509345 <barbecue43564 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> This will make the third time I've received this email... *sigh*
> -kc-
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
And even mailing users such as myself (who have nothing to do with this
at all). And this person thinks I'm supposed to do something about this how
exactly?

- Nathan

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:

> Wasn't this discussed in WP:ANI?
> I think it was something of a frivolous nomination, but I can't remember.
> Anyway, if they have a problem with it, they should've sent it to either the
> admin in question, or to the list. Mailing admins, who have nothing to do
> with it, personally looks like you've got something to hide and it is spam
> to boot.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 7/19/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/19/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > > Did you check any? I saw a little incivility, but that's it.
> > > -kc-
> >
> > Yeah, actually I checked them all except for the ones to ED (not
> > really our domain, ya think?).  Incivility and personal attacks aside,
> > I didn't see any actual ADMIN abuse.
> >
> > But really, I wish all complaints came with the documentation that one
> > did.  It _does_ help see where actual errors occured.  --LV
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsourced biographies

body:
If the rape is "notable" then there will necessarily be sources; if
not primary, secondary. If it is truly "notable" then it would have
been widely reported?

On 19/07/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with
> > things like this that actually works...
>
> If the central claim to notability of a person (such as a notable
> rape) cannot be verifiably established, we ought not have an article
> on them. Probably the best is move the text to AFC, ask for a source,
> and speedy the original under "no claim to notability". Kind of an
> abuse of the system, though, if it's the same person that deleted the
> previous claim to notability :)
>
> 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
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Wiki does a lot in facilitating our activity, but
> >to suggest that Britannica would have had an increased lifetime merely
> >by adopting Wiki technology is somewhat laughable.
>
> I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't
> invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having
> done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I
> don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS
> community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could
> argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS
> community). Britannica could have been just as successful if they had
> allowed anyone to edit.

The number of unsucessful and amazingly unsuccessful wiki's implies
that there is secret sauce involved, and that the secret sauce isn't
the mere use of Wiki technology.

It is by no means a given that britannica could have been successful
simply by letting anyone edit as there have been failures among sites
which have done exactly that.

> > Because of the poor resource availability to cost ratio our project is
> > sorely lacking alternative solutions on the development side. This
> > results in an inability to produce a 'survival of the fittest'
> > environment for software features. I am concerned that this is a
> > significant risk.
>
> We do, in fact, have quite a powerful development environment. The
> "open-sourceness"of our software allows for interesting twists and
> turns in MediaWiki. Others can develop MediaWiki in a ways that we
> don't have time and resources for. As an example of this, just take a
> look at the development of Semantic MediaWiki on Sourceforge. This
> development takes nothing from Wikimedia resources but potentially
> benefits us on a grand scale. This is facilitated by our commitment to
> free software - the ability of others to reuse our work and create
> better things with it
>
> I think we *do* have a "survival of the fittest" development method.
> Apart from the aforementioned "open-sourceness" of our software,
> members of the community (who aren't developers) spend their own time
> developing certain features and additions in the form of bots and
> tools on toolserver. These features are then put through rigorous
> practical tests (bots function on Wikipedia, proving their worth and
> exposing their mistakes). If one of these features proves to be
> wonderfully useful, it is assimilated into MediaWiki proper.

It doesn't change that fact that there are additions which can't be
simply done outside of mediawiki core (due to schema change
requirements, and needing hooks in places we don't provide them).

There is no 1:1 competition for "Semantic MediaWiki" that I'm aware
of...   In general users are left to take or leave software features.
I'm not whining about it, because I don't see how we can avoid it...
we're already doing a great job being modular.   It's just something
that we should be aware of...   What we have works, in part because
Brion is a great gatekeeper, but it's not a competative model and I'm
very glad we haven't enabled most of the extensions out there... a
fair number of them are pretty terrible.  (They scratched the authors
itch, but thats as far as many go).


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unsourced biographies

body:
On 7/19/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thoughts? I'm really not convinced we have another way to deal with
> things like this that actually works...

If the central claim to notability of a person (such as a notable
rape) cannot be verifiably established, we ought not have an article
on them. Probably the best is move the text to AFC, ask for a source,
and speedy the original under "no claim to notability". Kind of an
abuse of the system, though, if it's the same person that deleted the
previous claim to notability :)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
On 7/19/06, Adam Lorenz <kungfuadam at gmail.com> wrote:
> No problem, I replied this to him:
>
>  yes, well I am not sure what I can do, I don't want to get involved in
> this.

Hell yeah. Wow. I know we often like to ask for diffs, but that many???

Steve


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was making the assumption (an assumption which I maintain isn't
> invalid) that having put the Wiki infrastructure in place, and having
> done a little advertising, the project would have been successful. I
> don't think Wikipedia was successful because it grew from the FLOSS
> community. It was successful because anyone could edit it (you could
> argue that this was entirely because Wikipeida grew out of the FLOSS
> community). Britannica could have been just as successful if they had
> allowed anyone to edit.
....
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)

Is this so certain, though? It seems fairly clear that Britannica
wouldn't be using copyleft licensing, but proprietary licensing of
some sort. Speaking for myself, I know I would not be contributing to
a proprietary EB wiki. A lot of the initial seed for Wikipedia (for
starting the virtuous cycle/exponential growth) seems to have been
essentially ideologically motivated, and I do not think any
significant segments of technically literate, motivated, educated and
willing-to-donate-their-time people would have tossed their lot in
with an EB wiki, except perhaps some academics.

~maru


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
> "The defining moment for Sergey, however, was when he met future
> co-president of Google, Larry Page. Sergey was assigned to show Larry
> around the university on a weekend tour. Reportedly, they did not get on
> well to begin with, arguing about every topic they discussed, and even
> throwing a few pies at each other."
>
> Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy
> way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference.
> If it is not true, it should be removed.
>
> I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
> better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
> no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> of a barnstar.
>
> --Jimbo

http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=225408
http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html

I could not find anything about pies, however. Probably from The
Google Story; I don't feel like digging through the copy on Google
Books, however.

~maru


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Garion96 wrote:

> A counter example. I recently requested a source on the fact that a
> person
> (living person) is blind. (Not Stevie Wonder). But it was deemed so
> obvious
> that it was ixnayed. Correct or wrong? My sentiment is that even if it
> is so
> obvious, why not source it anyway.

The fact that the person is blind may be common knowledge, but it's
inadequate information. A proper treatment would need to address whether
they were born blind, or how they became blind. That kind of detail
needs a source, and it follows that it also serves as a source for the
more general fact.

If all you've got is obvious information that doesn't require a source,
then you haven't got an encyclopedia article.

--Michael Snow


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Disambiguation policy

body:
Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:

>I've decided to ask this question here because I am interested in a more international perspective.  My query relates to the use of disambiguation.  Recently a survey was conducted to determine whether Syracuse should be a disambiguation page or whether it should link directly to the original Syracuse in Italy (creating a separate Syracuse disambiguation page for the others, as often happens).  Those who were in favour of it becoming a disambiguation page were overwhelmingly American, and had in mind the fact that Syracuse, New York is today a significant city.  Indeed, many were putting forward the argument that it should own the name outright because more google hits were looking for that particular city.
>
>  I think there is an issue here that goes beyond the original question.  Being an English language encyclopedia (and at the moment, the most international of all the wikipedias), it has to be asked how much such issues should end up being determined by the sway held by the largest group of native speakers (who, as it turns out, have both economic and technical clout).
>
>  As it happens, the survey ended up 15 to 8 in favour of Syracuse linking directly to the orginal and more historically significant Syracuse (after which the modern New York city was named), but a particular ruling clique managed to maintain it as a disambiguation page.
>
>  If you ask a purely American audience, they will clearly vote in favour of the link being to the New York city.  If an international audience is asked, my guess is that it would be to the original and historical one.  Making it a disambiguation page might seem the obvious and fairest solution - but for a serious encyclopedia, is that really the correct answer?
>
>  I finish by noting that Troy currently goes directly to the historical Troy, despite the fact that there are about a dozen place names in the US called Troy (which are dealth with in a separate Troy disambiguation page).   At a minimum, I see a problem of consistency, and I simply wonder whether there is something else at play here.  I hope I have managed to  explain this clearly.
>
When this issue was raised sevral years ago it was clear that a
disambiguation page should be used unless one usage was overwhelmingly
more common..  If there are any serious doubts about something being
overwhelming then it's not overwhelming.

Ec


from_name: Dabljuh

subject: [WikiEN-l] Things about admins

body:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:15:27 -0700
Jesse W <jessw at netwood.net> wrote:
> Jesse Weinstein

That's what you call a biased sample, its a statistical fallacy.
They're all warnings automatically produced by bots. These are
supposedly more elaborate than what the average admin does when
someone edits an article he has an interest in.


from_name: Tim 'avatar' Bartel

subject:
[Commons-l] Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic
	warnings

body:
Hi Wikipedians,

Brianna Laugher wrote on 07/18/2006 05:04 PM:
> While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page.

Do they? I haven't tested it at the Commons, but in DE.
A blocked user (in DE) is not able to edit his talk page.
It's blocked like every other page.

Bye, Tim.

--
http://wikipedistik.de

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 546 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060719/caeab1f9/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
I'm a big fan of referencing, but the problem I have is determining
what is common knowledge. I think I tend to over-reference (which is
preferable to under-referencing). Could someone give me a good measure
of where to draw the line?

On 19/07/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> > Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> > back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> > of a barnstar.
>
> And any that takes the time to do a little searching to see if they
> can provide a source themselves should get two. ;-)  --LV
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
That's not true, non-readable media can serve as a source.

> But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
> reliable source?  Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up?  I think that
> almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR.  And that's a real
> problem.  They even have templates for TV shows that are currently ongoing.
> It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in
> half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy violation...
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:42:38 -0700, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com>
wrote:

>Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
>back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
>of a barnstar

Close - I got an ArbCom case :-)

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
Let me give you an example. If I were writing an article on a drug and
I included the sentence "tyrosine is an amino acid", I would be
expressing a relation that is learnt in secondary education. It being
an amino acid is the first thing anyone would learn about tyrosine. Is
this reference worthy?

> There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
> "common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
> knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.
>
> Mathias

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia is forever.

body:
> I've read that Encarta represented the first shoe to drop for EB; it
> could not easily adapt to that technology shift.  Now, with the benefit
> of hindsight this does not seem as though it would have been such a big
> change.
>
> The major paradigm shift lay in the enabling of two-way online
> communications.  The passive consumer could now also become a content
> producer.  This wasn't quite what ISP's had hoped for in an asymmetrical
> technology that assumed that the public would want to download far more
> than they would upload.  Their model also presumed that they would
> profit from also providing the content.

I'm not sure this changes my point. If Britannica had adapted to the
proliferation of personal computing and portable media by releasing a
comprehensive, easy-to-use and widely advertised electronic edition
before Microsoft managed to release Encarta, they may have remained on
top into the 21st century. Similarly, if they had jumped on the Wiki
bandwagon a little later, they may have further adapted and remained
on top for several more decades.

> One should not presume that any specific technology will be the one that
> leads to the big steps forward.

Again, this was not my point. We should not invest in few technologies
and hope they win out, we should spread our bets. We should adopt and
adapt to new technologies as soon as they appear. We shouldn't be
afraid to change; Britannica were and they are dead.

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
What an odd point! You are saying that the creative construction of an
article violates our original research guidelines. No article can be
exhaustive, certain things are left out and those deemed more
important are kept in. The construction of an article on a historical
event (that is, deciding what is worth mentioning and what is not) is
a creative process and, by your definition, is original research.
Writing an article about the construction of the computer is therefore
original research. By your definition, every article in Wikipedia
should be promptly deleted.

On 19/07/06, Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's not true, non-readable media can serve as a source.
>
>
> Direct quotes (like the Rachel one) are probably appropriate use of the
> episode as a primary source (though, obviously, it should be referenced to
> the episode, the medium (DVD, original run, or syndication) and the date and
> time accessed).  But creating a synopsis of a movie or TV show is OR because
> it requires that you look at the episode, determine what is more important
> and what is less important, and come up with what happened.  In effect, you
> create your impression of what happened.  And that is improper use of a
> primary source.
>
> > But, but...I remember that from Friends, doesn't my memory count as a
> > > reliable source?  Can't I just go to the DVD and look it up?  I think
> > that
> > > almost every TV or movie-related article violates WP:NOR.  And that's a
> > real
> > > problem.  They even have templates for TV shows that are currently
> > ongoing.
> > > It's nice to be able to find out what you've missed when you walk in
> > > half-way through an episode of 24, but it's a complete policy
> > violation...
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:34:18 -0700, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
wrote:

>In practice (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), I don't
>see much resistance to someone taking the initiative to remove
>unsourced material. The problem is more that the scribbling is
>outpacing the reviewing.

Depends.  I have been involved in several extremely bitter edit wars
over the insertion of highly questionable content whose removal is
condemned as "suppressing information".

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
> Actually, and forgive my immense lack of knowledge on the subject, is
> there any automated way to see which articles [[Category:Living
> people]] and [[Category:Articles lacking sources]] have in common?
> Thanks in advance. --LV

A feature which does this is soon being introduced. It is called
"category math" (probably at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_math).

--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)


from_name: Mathias Schindler

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> I think that's one of the worst examples of fancruft I have seen in a
> very long time.  (And, I note, there is no source. :))

Breaking news on reuters about confusion at
wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu in 5..4..3..

Mathias

(PS: Thanks to "Killer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Desmond_Tutu&diff=64721999&oldid=63779619)


from_name: Nathan Russell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail

body:
I think he may hasve sent it to all the admins, or a large cross section.

Nathan

On 7/19/06, Nathan <lists at home.nathanr.com> wrote:
> And even mailing users such as myself (who have nothing to do with this
> at all). And this person thinks I'm supposed to do something about this how
> exactly?
>
> - Nathan
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
>
> > Wasn't this discussed in WP:ANI?
> > I think it was something of a frivolous nomination, but I can't remember.
> > Anyway, if they have a problem with it, they should've sent it to either the
> > admin in question, or to the list. Mailing admins, who have nothing to do
> > with it, personally looks like you've got something to hide and it is spam
> > to boot.
> >
> > Mgm
> >
> >
> > On 7/19/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7/19/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> > > > Did you check any? I saw a little incivility, but that's it.
> > > > -kc-
> > >
> > > Yeah, actually I checked them all except for the ones to ED (not
> > > really our domain, ya think?).  Incivility and personal attacks aside,
> > > I didn't see any actual ADMIN abuse.
> > >
> > > But really, I wish all complaints came with the documentation that one
> > > did.  It _does_ help see where actual errors occured.  --LV
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:

> I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
> better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
> no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
> back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
> of a barnstar.

Ack. I would like to point out to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_crisis

There are currently 88 different references. Some of them are
referenced in the article several times. Some of them contain multiple
sources (hmmm, there could be a better solution for that)

Apart from the rather ugly poste^wtemplate at the bottom and the
atomisation on different subpages, I recommend this article to anyone
when it comes to referencing.

Mathias


subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ashame we don't have a mechanism in place that would allow us to batch
> up changes to reasonable articles and review them all critically
> before making them the front version. ;)

Do I hear someone asking for a stable version mechanism? :)


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On 7/19/06, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a big fan of referencing, but the problem I have is determining
> what is common knowledge. I think I tend to over-reference (which is
> preferable to under-referencing). Could someone give me a good measure
> of where to draw the line?

There is no such thing as over-referencing. There is no such thing as
"common knowledge" regarding encyclopedic content. If it feels "common
knowledge", it may be lacking relevancy at least in a certain context.

Mathias


from_name: Platonides

subject:
[Commons-l] Please don't spam user-talk pages
	withgeneric	warnings

body:
No, it wasn't. At first it was only enabled on enwiki. On commons was activated on Brianna's request.
  "Essjay" wrote:
  Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:
Hi Wikipedians,

Brianna Laugher wrote on 07/18/2006 05:04 PM:
  While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page.

Do they? I haven't tested it at the Commons, but in DE.
A blocked user (in DE) is not able to edit his talk page.
It's blocked like every other page.

Bye, Tim.

    That should be reported to wikitech-l; as far as I know, the "blocked users can edit their own talk pages" fix was enabled everywhere around this time last year.

  Essjay
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060719/c509355a/attachment.htm


from_name: Violet/Riga

subject: [WikiEN-l] fancruft

body:
On 7/19/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A fun technique is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Friends&limit=1200&from=0
>
> Whenever I'm feeling too happy I'll run that against buffy the vampire
> slayer.

I find The Simpsons to be the worst, with Spongebob close behind.

~~~~ Violet/Riga


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

references:
<44BE6F0E.5010000@wikia.com>
	<ng5tb2p4mtc0lihvhrqanbrap7q8rqtv49@4ax.com>
	<44BE9BA0.30008@KillerChihuahua.com>

body:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 16:52:48 -0400, Puppy <puppy at KillerChihuahua.com>
wrote:

>All I get is Someone Investigate Vandal Admin KillerChihuahua!!! posts
>on AN/I

Maybe you need to apply a little [[WP:ROUGE]]...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] insist on sources

body:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:02:27 -0700, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
wrote:

>Yeah, I've been working more in the science area these days, and
>not only does it tend to have fewer rabid partisans, but there is
>an ever-so-gradual influx of professional scientists for whom adding
>citations is as natural as breathing. (Not long ago, I narrowly saved
>myself from embarassment when I was about to disagree with an editor
>on a fine point, then realized he was the very author of the printed
>material open on my lap...)

Dream ticket!  I'm off to do a bit of wikistalking...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG