>I don't know. Maybe some help with the vandalism instead of getting attacked for doing the right thing?
Rick If I came across as if I were attacking you I apologise. It was not my intention. Let's not fight among ourselves eh?
> Maybe not have people unblocking him when he's destroying people's pages?
Who unblocked him? I've been blocking every proxy he uses. So have several others.
Anything he can do can be sorted out. Let's not get emotional about it. He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban. He's said he'll leave for good. Great! He's far more trouble than he is worth IMO. Let's just let him go. I can't help but feel quagga is enjoying the fight and doesn't want Wik to go. I feel that Quagga is not in any way acting in the best interest of wikipedia.
> Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned?
Note that, in the unlikely event that Wik returns after his ban expires, the other
components of the arbitration ruling will still apply. However, there is a broader point.
There are roughly three schools of thought:
A) A ban of one month lasts one month, regardless of attempts at evasion.
B) A ban of one month requires one month of uninterrupted absence from Wikipedia -
any attempt to evade that ban automatically resets the ban timer. Banned users with
poor self-control may end up banning themselves indefinately.
C) Evading a ban is itself a bannable offence - doing so automatically triples the ban
length (after which, (B) applies).
(B) has precedent in that it's how we dealt with Cantus when he evaded a quickpoll ban.
I'm unaware of any other precedents on the matter, so I intend to write this into
[[wikipedia:banning policy]], and copy this post to the Talk page. Those who favour a
different approach are welcome there.
Another issue that has come up in this case is dealing with known users who go on a
"vandalism spree", which I believe may apply to at least two people in this case. In the
past this has been a quickpoll matter leading to a one day ban, but that process was
suspended for 30 days, owing largely to disputes over its application to revert wars, but
a sufficiently bold member of the cabal may wish to ressurect it for dealing with
vandalism sprees. There may also be an option for sysops to make unilateral
judgements to temp-ban following vandalism sprees, even for users who have made a
few non-vandalising edits, but I'm not clear on this, so perhaps someone more
experienced in vandalism-defence could clue us in?
Well, I bit the bullet and moved Accusations section to the Talk page. We'll see what happens...
On 05/24/04 at 05:15 AM, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> said:
> I have no specific suggestions for the improvement of the article, other
> than more historical background and context, and less cataloguing of
> WIKIPEDIA IS ONE of the more remarkable projects on the Web. The
> online encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.com) is the work of 6,000-odd
> volunteers covering a huge range of subjects, even though it does
> better on science and technology than on arts and culture. Not
> surprisingly, the articles are of uneven depth and quality. If you
> find an error, you are welcome to suggest a correction. And if you
> find a topic that isn't covered, you are welcome to create a new
> article. (An editorial group decides which corrections and
> contributions merit posting.)
Uh, who is this "editorial group"? This wouldn't disturb me so much
if I hadn't sent a letter to another columnist recently about almost
the same language. I supposed the WikiWay is just too hard for some
people to believe, but who is this "editorial group"?
Wow. Three consecutive lines, 76 chars each. By accident. ::Bow::
-- ---<>--- --
A house without walls cannot fall.
Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
-- ---<>--- --
Well Ray, not to put too fine a point on it, but screw you.
Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Sent by: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
05/28/2004 12:23 PM
Please respond to English Wikipedia
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Greetings
>Hi all, new user here. I hope to get the lay of the land here soon and
>contribute some articles and edits on Egyptology. Particularly I'd like
>to do write-ups on Sneferu and his pyramids, which often seem to get
>overlooked in favor of the Giza group. Any thoughts would be most
Yeah. Just go ahead and write.
WikiEN-l mailing list
--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
> It is very poor form, at the very least,
> for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
> They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
> but they are not "A Wikipedia".
I have some excellent news. After contacting the
Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
>From: "Diagonal Media Group Service Desk"
>Subject: Trademark violation
>Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:00:54 -0400
>Thank you Angela.
>I'm forwarding this to my engineer.
>The wording on the top of the pages was to have
>changed. I'm sure he can make this change.
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
Mav, you are right in that the effect is limited because we cannot
retroactively apply the second license to past edits. But if we consider the
effect, it seems it is still better to introduce it than not, and we would
do just as Electicology suggested:
>If "new" licence is chosen, then it could be noted that all contributions
>after a decided year would come under the new licence. If a contributor
>was also active before that date any contribution that he makes after that
>date will carry a retroactive application of the licence to his previous
>edits. We can deal with the others later.
If you think about the fact that village pump is used daily, for example,
the introduction of such license would prevent further violation quite
effectively. So are the increasing amount of Template: texts and wikiproject
templates that will be developed in the future. Some materials are sent to
meta. And many language-wikipedias perhaps translate some of key policies
from English Wikipedia first.
(Besides, Japanese Wiktionary has just started, making it even more
reasonable to dual license it.)
While I am not intended to push the idea at this point, it should happen
sooner than later, and being late is better than never, it seems.
(Disclaimer:I am not a lawyer.)
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
> --- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
>>It is very poor form, at the very least,
>>for them to call themselves "A Wikipedia".
>>They may be a Wiki, they may be a Wiki Encyclopedia,
>>but they are not "A Wikipedia".
>I have some excellent news. After contacting the
>Diagonal Media Group, the parent company of
>PhatNav.com, they have replaced the claim that they
>are "A Wikipedia" with a more appropriate title for
>their pages. Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia Foundation,
>are, of course, still linked to at the end of each
Excellent news indeed - thank you for your work, Angela. At least on
this occasion, nobody will be able to say that we don't protect our
trademarks. There remain, of course, the questions of whether, when, and
where to register those trademarks, an issue I expect the board will
take up once it is fully constituted.
I wish to propose that images available under *some* of the Creative
Commons licenses, that offer equivalent (or even more permissive) use
than the GNU FDL, be permitted to be used in Wikipedia.
The licenses are the:
The only requirement to use works create by this license is that you
must give the author credit.
The Attribution-ShareAlike license:
Like the by-attribution license with the additional requirement that any
derivative works must be made available under the same terms as the
As I understand things, the consensus is that including these works in
the Wikipedia doesn't present any legal problems, as combining works with
different licenses is permitted under clause 7 of the FDL, the aggregation
I also believe that the CC by-sa license is very similar in spirit to
the GPL and FDL, and the CC attribution license is even more permissive
than what we allow. Therefore, philosophically, there is no reason not
to allow such images on the Wikipedia.
I know there are others who wish to allow images using some of the other
CC licenses on to the Wikipedia. While there are arguments on both
sides to that one, it's a seperate debate.
My motivation for this is simple: I am in negotiation with a body that
has a very large database of images that would be useful for the
Wikipedia, many of them unobtainable from any other source. However,
the individual whom I am discussing this with is a little hesitant about
taking the GNU FDL to his bosses, as it is so hard to interpret. This
will make it much harder to get permission. Having a simpler,
easier-to-understand, and functionally equivalent license they can use would
make the task easier. Others on the list have mentioned the same
What do you all think?
The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job
to interpret law.
-- George W. Bush