>James-
>
>this does not belong on wikipedia-l. I have therefore copied it to
>wikien-l, and all replies should go there.
>
>1) There was an edit war on the "Mother Teresa" page after you moved away
>about 20K of text to a separate "criticism" page in clear violation of our
>neutrality policy, which states that no preference should be given to any
>side.
Not so. NPOV requires balence in content. The critique in such detail
clearly violated wikipedia's NPOV policy. It doesn't matter if it was 70%
glorification or 70% demonisation of MT or anyone else. Making an article
overwhelmingly one sided where the vast majority of the text is putting
forward one view, expecially when when the text isn't about the person the
article is about at all but about her religious order, is unambiguously
against NPOV. I did not remove the criticism. I put it up front in the
opening paragraph. I moved the main complex text to a link article, linked
/in/ the text of the article, and was in the process of summarising the
criticism in a couple of paragraphs, so that the information would be there,
expressed unambiguously, without turning the entire article on Mother Teresa
into 'Christopher Hitchens on Mother Teresa's order and how they washed
their bed linen and used needles', which is what chunks of the stuff you
added in was about. Doing that makes perfect sense and absolutely in keeping
with wikipedia's 'be bold' editing policy. But your response was to
/immediately/ place the link article on the VfD page, dump the text and keep
reverting the article back to the over long, badly written, biased and
frequently off-topic article in place of a properly written, NPOV, balanced
piece that covered the pluses and minuses of MT without letting one side,
/either/ side, dominate. That is the basic definition of NPOV.
>
>2) I have warned you repeatedly not to make any substantial changes to the
>article while the major issue of whether the text was to be moved to a
>separate page was not settled. You ignored these warnings and pushed
>forward to edit the text, including your movement of 20K of text to a
>separate page, and complain that these edits were reverted together. This
>is simply disingenuous and you know it.
Again, not so. All I did was try to NPOV a POV mess of an article. Most (but
not all) of the problem was with that 20K text, which did not belong there,
and you know it.
>
>3) A sysop protected the page in an attempt to cool down the edit war.
>This was a largely symbolic gesture since we are both sysops, but we chose
>not to edit the page while it was protected. However, this precluded non-
>sysops who had announced that they wanted to make edits to the page from
>doing so. To prevent this unfortunate situation, I unprotected the page
>with the comment:
>
> "removing protection for now (I was involved so I won't edit for
> another few hours if Jtdirl won't, but others should be able to)"
>
>I did not edit the page for the next few hours and nor did you,
You know I am not on during the daytime. So I didn't have a choice, just
came back to find you were editing away again, having unprotected a
protected page in clear breach of sysop rules.
>You moved virtually all the criticisms of Mother Teresa to a separate page
>without discussing this on the talk page first. Three users (myself, Bryan
>and Jiang) disagreed with this. I and Bryan Derksen reverted your changes.
>It might be argued that it would have been "wiser" to just wait a day or
>two and then address the matter again, but that is clearly wrong -- had we
>done so, you would have reorganized the entire article(s) according to
>your idea of NPOV, making it very difficult to reach any kind of consensus
>on the matter.
>
No I didn't. I moved a body of text, much of which was about her order, not
about her, to a separate article and attempted to put a shorter summary in.
Others on the page had already complained about what you had added in but
you went ahead regardless.
>In addition to that, you continue to play your usual games, which consist
>of
>- personal attacks (always singling out one contributor, even though
>several users have expressed disagreement with your actions)
I have to say at this point that a ban of Jtdirl is no longer out of the
question for me.Eloquence 22:07, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
Given that he is editing a page about a person that is supposedly all about
love, he carries a great deal of hate inside him.
You can play up your oh-so-critical "lapsed Catholic" attitude as much as
you want
Here you have Jtdirl, the valiant defender of truth and neutrality who makes
all people happy and contented.
I have big doubts that you would engage in an edit war over Sun Myung Moon,
but of course with your proven pro-Catholic bias it seems obvious that you
would want to defend the fiction that has been built around Mother Teresa,
without any substantial arguments to support your edits.
Who made all those attacks, Eric?
>- false accusations of abusive behavior
And what were those comments above then?
>- disingenuous tactics like your behavior in the edit war, piling changes
>upon changes to bully your way through
>- making false claims (e.g. repeatedly claiming that the criticism section
>was merely based on "a single TV show", whereas I have shown you the
>multitude of sources on which it was based, including several books and
>newspaper articles and an editorial in "The Lancet")
All of which I mentioned in the short summary which you called censorship.
>
>I chose to ignore your continuous stream of attacks against me, but other
>users would not have shown the same amount of patience and be driven away
>by your behavior, which resembles that of a schoolyard bully.
What was that again about personal attacks?
>
>In spite of this unacceptable behavior on your part, I have repeatedly
>offered to seek a cooperative, consensual solution for the alleged or real
>NPOV problems on the page in question. In fact, I was working on reaching
>a consensus with Bryan and other contributors while you continued
>reverting to your style. Everyone can see this by taking a look at
>[[Talk:Mother Teresa]].
>
>It is time for you to stop playing strategic games against other
>contributors, and to start working in the spirit of mutual cooperation.
>Now is a good moment to do so -- I fully approve of your recent edits of
>the article (provided you haven't again started moving away the criticism
>section).
So why then accuse me of a 'pro-catholic bias' and censoring criticism of
MT, when I was doing nothing of the sort, merely trying to NPOV an article
and give stuff not about MT its own article?
>Yet you continue your bullying tactics against other
>contributors. You do not want peaceful cooperation, you want to pick
>fights and win. That is not how Wikipedia works.
Which is why, I suppose, every edit I made for ages tonight was screwed
around when you went in and began changing past tense to present tense while
I was trying to save NPOV changes. So much for co-operation. And throwing
accusations of 'pro-catholic bias' really is constructive and non-bullying,
I suppose?
>
>I can and will work with you on this article, provided you make a serious
>commitment to seeking consensus on your changes.
Others users earlier criticised your constant adding in of more and more
detractors' claims and said that it unbalanced the article. Here and
elsewhere your usual approach has been 'be bold' when you think you can get
away with it, cry 'consensus' when someone stops you.
>That cannot always be
>done, of course, but there are reasonable courses of actions in the cases
>where it can't (act based on established precedent, hold a vote, ask Jimbo
>etc.). Just trying to get "your way or the highway" will not lead to any
>kind of solution.
More threats from 'The User Who Does Not Make Threats', eh?
>
>So here's my offer: Make the changes to the criticism section you find
>important. I will edit the parts which I don't like and if we can't agree,
>we'll go to the talk page. Once the criticism section is edited, we will
>take a look at the entire article and if it is too long (32K), we will
>summarize individual sections and split them away, regardless of their
>content. If it is still below that size, we won't do that. If the
>criticism section is still too dominant, we will together try to expand
>the other sections of the article. How about some wiki-cooperation for a
>change?
I have co-operated with many people on wikipedia. The only fights I have had
here in ages have been with you, when you tried to POV not one but a series
of articles on religion. Each time you accused me of a 'pro-catholic bias'.
Others said the edits were perfectly NPOV. Bias has no place in a wikipedia
article, whether it is bias for or against RCism, protestantism, Islam, the
Jewish faith, etc. How is it that it is your edits on religious matters that
draw criticism from people and accusations of bias.
You are perfectly entitled to hold humanist views and be critical of
organised religion, but what you cannot do is go around turning articles
into polemics for your opinion. I have been accused of bias for and against
Australian republicanism, the British monarchy, Israel, communism, etc often
simultaneously, for standing up to both sides and saying 'that is not NPOV'.
I have turned religious articles that were seen as unsalvageable into
articles that were praised as NPOV. What makes you think I want to turn an
article on Mother Teresa into a POV polemic. I don't. If I was trying to
'silence the facts' I would have simply deleted them, not moved them up to
the opening paragraph and given them their own article. But I am sick and
tired of wild accusations of 'pro-catholic bias' for trying to do a
professional editing job on sloppily written one sided articles, whether
they are pro- or anti- catholic, pro- or anti- MT.
On this article, comments made on your massive add-in include
In this article, 1/3 described her life and work, and 2/3 described
detractor's claims. And this is for someone who won the Nobel Prize for
Peace. Is this NPOV? --Kaihsu 16:35, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why is there such a long DIATRIBE against this person in an aricle which is
supposed to have a neutral POV? The criticisms are written with such bias
that even as a stand-alone article it currently violates NPOV.205.188.208.72
21:38, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to summarize the controversies here, and
move the whole text to another article. This one has gotten way too long in
my opinion. Dori 19:06, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Who said anything about hiding. Like most other people, I see an article
that long (which looks more like a book report) and I shy away. I said
summarize and link to the long article. If you want to write your PhD thesis
here, then go ahead. Dori 21:43, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In moving the text, I was doing no more than reflecting the will of those
users you ignored and told " It is not a place for apologetics" as if they
too were part of some big pro-catholic conspiracy to stop you telling 'the
truth'. If you want to lecture people on NPOV, start practising it. If you
want to accuse everyone else of bias, start looking just how neutral /you/
are in your edits, and just how many facts as opposed to opinions you have.
And don't lecture everyone else on your behaviour when your approach is to
break sysop rules if you can't get your own way, accuse everyone else of
bias if you can't get your own way, and throw around POV allegations like
confetti against those trying to fix a poorly written article that veers
between glorification and demonisation of the subject and misses NPOV by a
mile.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
[en]
I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks! I don't
mind if people write in French or German because the machine translation
provided by Systran seems to be quite sufficient to understand
conversations. Japanese is fine, especially if people spell out most of
the kanji in hiragana, because that way I might be able to put my junior
high school level Japanese to use. But there does not seem to be any
automatic translation service for Esperanto.
[fr]
Je veux juste aller sur le disque indiquant ceci: L'espéranto suce! Je
ne m'occupe pas de si les gens écrivent en français, Allemand parce que
la traduction automatique fournie par Systran semble être tout à fait
suffisante pour comprendre des conversations. Le Japonais est très bien,
particulièrement si les gens définissent le kanji dans les hiragana.
Mais il ne semble pas y avoir aucun service de traduction automatique
pour l'espéranto.
[de]
Ich möchte gerade auf die Aufzeichnung gehen, die dieses sagt: Esperanto
saugt! Ich kümmere mich nicht, um wenn Leute auf französisch schreiben,
Deutscher, weil die maschinelle Übersetzung, die von Systran zur
Verfügung gestellt wird, scheint, ziemlich genügend zu sein, Gespräche
zu verstehen. Japaner ist fein, besonders wenn Leute aus dem Kanji in
den Hiragana buchstabieren. Aber es scheint, kein automatische
Übersetzung Service für Esperanto geben.
-- Tim Starling.
From: Luc Van Oostenryck
<luc.vanoostenryck(a)easynet.be>
Pas de probl�me pour le delai, mais j'avais compris
qu'il �tait question que les tous les wikis seraient
modifi�es en m�me temps, mais tous les
wikis ne sont pas pr�ts en m�me temps. D�sol� si ma
demande �tait une peu
''rude'', ce n'�tait pas son intention.
------
C'est juste que j'avais esp�r� que d'autres wikipedias
profiteraient du "wagon", et �clairciraient leur
politique d'utilisation des images en m�me temps que
les francophones.
I had just hoped that other wikipedias could benefit
of the "legal" work we had done with Alex, and would
go toward a cleaner image use policy with us.
Since Alex showed us inline linking could lead to
liability issues, since english had proof it could go
with strong vandalism, and since I try to show that
inline linking would be detrimental to the information
we are trying to offer readers and users of the
encyclopedia, I had hoped in my innocence, that
disabling inline linking could be made a global policy
(perhaps with exceptions) on wikipedia.
For this reason, I have several times tried to raise
the topic here, on international list and one meta. It
was meant to be an international work, not something
with just french people in mind. That was why I talk
about it here.
Not just a "french" policy because "french" people had
asked for it. But a global policy because a wikipedian
has suggested it, given arguments for it, and asked
for feedback.
Except for Andre who asked for time to fix the images,
no one opposed this disabling of in line linking. I
think it should be disabled everywhere.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>From: Karl Eichwalder <ke(a)gnu.franken.de>
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Saints
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:37:23 +0200
>
>"James Duffy" <jtdire(a)hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > You don't know your theology. He (or she) was made a saint in the belief
> > that he or she was in heaven, because of his or her conduct on
> > earth. Ipso facto, s/he was a saint when he lived, and declared a saint
> > when he/she died.
>
>This is true from the POV of the Church.
Garbage. I was simply pointing out the complexity which bares little
parallel to your simplistic theories.
>
>--
> | ,__o
> | _-\_<,
>http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Mach trans isnt supposed to be as good as people are.
It cant by definition ever be -- because machines are
machines, and people are not... But it's a tool to
throw stuff out there in more or less like the way the
language should look. There's noone here who reads
French or German who cant figure out pretty easily
what machine translated German/French paragraphs are.
There is usually a term or two which it totally flubs.
( like the word flubs!)
~S~
Nod.
Like the machine translation of "Esperanto sucks",
which is Esp�ranto suce.
(hum, blow job right ?)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
[fr]
>Si quelqu'un commet un acte de � vandalisme pure et
>dur �, je me fiche
>completement de l'impact psychologique du blocage.
Absolument d'accord avec toi.
>Je respecte que l'on soit contre tout blocage,
Ce n'est pas mon cas. Lorsque quelqu'un poste des
textes porno de fa�on r�p�t�e par exemple, je n'ai pas
d'�tat d'ame non plus
>mais je refuse l'argument de l'editeur logg�.
>En quoi aurait t'il plus de droit que l'editeur
>anonyme !
Tu as �galement parfaitement raison. Nous sommes
d'accord sur ce point aussi.
>>> [fr:]
>>> Aoineko, je d�bloquerais tout utilisateur qui sera
>>> bloqu� pour des actes autres que vandalisme pur et
>>> dur. En particulier lorsque l'utilisateur sera
>>> provoqu� par d'autres �diteurs.
>>[fr]
>>Je bloquerais tout utilisateur pour des actes de �
>>vandalisme pur et dur �.
>>M�me si l'utilisateur aura �t� provoqu� par d'autres
>>�diteurs.
>Dresse mieux ton troll la prochaine fois ;o)
>Pas de museliere, mais si il commence a casser la
>maison, faut sortir le
>baton.
>Aoineko
Hum...d'abord, le baton a d�j� �t� sorti la derni�re
fois, par Ellislk et autres. Ne le nie pas Aoi :-) Il
a m�me �t� sorti avant m�me que les d�g�ts commencent.
Et puis...d�sol�e, mais j'�tais en vacances quand le
baton a �t� utilis�; je me suis surtout content�e de
retirer le baton des mains des aggresseurs.
J'ai toujours pens� qu'un chien que l'on maltraite
finit naturellement par faire pipi sur la moquette. De
m�me qu'il semble que beaucoup d'adultes maltraitants,
aient eux-m�me �t� maltrait�s dans leur enfance.
Peut �tre devrions nous travailler un peu sur les
articles portant sur la maltraitance ?
Bien le bonjour � ton fils. Faudrait renouveller la
photo :-)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I thank you for this Tim :-)
I do not question the utility of the loggued in ban
option to fight worst cases of vandals. Thank you for
doing it and saving people time.
I note what Jimbo said. I think, just to take a bit of
perspective, it is interesting to read it again, with
awareness of the recent cases discussed.
>I think we need to revisit having the ability for
sysops to ban logged
>in users. Maybe the wiki way of doing this is to put
the ability into
>the software, but all sysops must agree to use it
*only* to ban
>*certain* variants on a known banned troll.
>
>In the current case, it seems clear to me that
banning Zog, Anti-Zog,
>Baboon Mouth, JamesERay, and so on, should be done
virtually
>instantly, so as to discourage the behavior.
*only* to ban *certain* variants on a known banned
troll.
>This has to be an emergency situation to ban someone
>who is doing something really egregious right now, or
>to ban someone who you are *certain* is one of our
>usual suspects.
Emergency.
Usual suspects.
Egregious is unfortunaly not in my dictionnary, but I
can guess.
And your wise answer :
>I agree. But how do we implement it? We could create
>the concept of a
>"trusted user", perhaps defined in terms of number of
>edits and joining
>date. If a user is not "trusted", a sysop can ban >him/her.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: Tim Starling <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com>
>> > I do not think it is necessary that you switch
off the
>> procedure Tim, as I know what french people will
vote.
>14 vs 1.
you forgot the abstention :-)
However, most said they wanted it only with a clear
procedure and rules. And a log. It is not clear
whether people are favorable to "punishment" in case
of abuse. It seems some fear sysops will never dare
blocking if there is a risk of punishement afterwards.
Interesting. No power should ever go without personal
responsability in case of power abuse. I know that it
will be a veto case for me if there is no possibility
to do anything in case of abuse. The fact we trust
current sysops can not be automatically extended in
the future.
Aoineko says "For me, if the blocked logged/annonyme
have any solution to contact other wikipedians and
contest the blocking, and if any other admin can
un-block logged/annonyme, there are no risk of a
abuse."
I think he is thinking that anything reversible has no
impact on spirit. No consequences. Such as when
someone is put in jail for 6 months because of an
juridical error. If the trial shows he is innocent,
and released, nothing happened; there was no abuse
whatsoever.
I agree reversible is the main thing. I object to the
"there is no abuse".
[fr:]
Aoineko. Je pense que tu sous estimes l'impact
psychologique d'un blocage, ou de tout situation
d'exclusion, m�me temporaire. Ce n'est pas le fait de
relacher un innocent apr�s coup qui efface d'un coup
de baguette magique l'impression d'�tre exclu. Et le
fait de reconnaitre une erreur apr�s coup �galement, a
ces limites en termes de responsabilit�. Toute
personne qui a un pouvoir, quel qu'il soit, doit �tre
capable de se justifier, doit accepter de reconnaitre
ses erreurs, et doit �tre pr�te � les assumer. Toi,
moi, Chirac (enfin, dans le meilleur des mondes). Il
ne doit pas y avoir pouvoir sans controle de pouvoir
et sans pouvoir retirer le dit pouvoir � celui qui en
abuse.
Cela ne veut pas dire que cela sera pratiqu�, mais en
cas de besoin, et pour l'avenir, c'est n�cessaire � un
bon �quilibre.
-------
I have no idea which french word could have been
translatd in club-footer :-(
Would the log appears in recent changes when it is
modified ?
> > I would really would like that
> * the log feature is done, so tracking of who ban is
> available for public consideration
> * a system is made possible to warn people that a
> loggued in user has been banned (could it be a
message
> at the top, or an automatic email, or automatic
update
> of a visible banning log ?)
> * that on the message displayed to the banned user,
> the adress of the mailing list appears, and that the
> message sent be automatically approved by the
emailer
> (perhaps could it be a wikimail to the mailing list)
> and this whether the user has a valid email address
or
> not
> * that any first blocking be initially programmed to
> expire after a certain number of hours
> * perhaps that a specific page on wikipedia is made
> editable even by a loggued in user, for wikipedia
> communication. The banned user could not edit any
page
> but this one.
> > These are propositions.
> I think english people can handle blocking better
than
> we can, with less risk of abuse.
> But since we have not your safeguard, I think we
need
> other tools to avoid slipping.
See my comment on the bistro. Expiry times are easy,
the log is in the
dev branch. If you have a proposal for a message which
is displayed to
blocked users, I suggest you put it in the
fr:Wikip�dia namespace, like
I did with [[en:Wikipedia:You have been blocked]].
Soon (when the CVS
branches are next merged), the message displayed will
be directly
editable by any French administrator, or by any user
if you choose to
unprotect it. The other suggestions are certainly nice
ideas, but they
will take time to implement. We have to prioritise.
-- Tim Starling.
[en:]
Ok, thank you Tim. As you said in your other messages,
you and Jimbo wished this use would be limited to
vandals, reincarnations of ban users.
I similarly hope it will not be used to censor people,
to threaten others, to deal with problematic users, to
manage edit wars.
And we both know how our wishes go :-(
[fr:]
Aoineko, je d�bloquerais tout utilisateur qui sera
bloqu� pour des actes autres que vandalisme pur et
dur. En particulier lorsque l'utilisateur sera
provoqu� par d'autres �diteurs.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>Peter Gervai <grin(a)tolna.net> writes:
>
> > (btw if someone is saint for christians and Foo for Xyzzyans then
>article
> > should mention both.
>
>Sure, and if he is just a normal human being for the rest of the
>world? Yes, here is the solution:
>
> > If they contradict, list them in separate sections referencing the
> > source.)
>
>Talk about sainthood(?) later. As long as he lived, has was no saint;
>after his death he was made a saint.
You don't know your theology. He (or she) was made a saint in the belief
that he or she was in heaven, because of his or her conduct on earth. Ipso
facto, s/he was a saint when he lived, and declared a saint when he/she
died.
JT
>
>--
> | ,__o
> | _-\_<,
>http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
L'anglais n'est que la langue mondiale pour les paresseux :)
>From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
>Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>CC: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Esperanto sucks
>Date: 24 Oct 2003 06:31:00 +0200
>
>Tim-
> > [en]
> > I just want to go on the record saying this: Esperanto sucks!
>
>I will go on the record saying this: There is a world language, and its
>name is English. Can we please stick to it in conversations? It has the
>additional advantage that it keeps the French out.
>
>In return, it would be nice if Americans could finally adopt the metric
>system.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Erik
>
>PS: Hey, with the Mother Teresa flamewar over, we need to talk about
>something, right?
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail