WikiEN-l October 2005

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

160 participants
455 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...
by actionforum＠comcast.net 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

-------------- Original message -------------- > On 10/18/05, Philip Sandifer wrote: > > When did maintaining the status quo qualify as a policy change? > > > > -Snowspinner > > Show me where policy says admins can go against a consensus to keep or delete. Policy and practice and diverge when there isn't the cultural norms to support policy. Given current practice, not only can admins go against a current consensus, but users also can, as 172 did on the VfD for Category:Totalitarian Dictators If we have a culture where do many people think that policy is for others, and that they occasionally know a better and more efficient way, then perhaps we get what we have. -- Silverback

2 1

Placeopedia
by Angela 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

Placeopedia is an online application which integrates Google Maps images and Wikipedia encyclopedia articles.See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placeopedia> and<http://www.placeopedia.com/>. The Board are currently working on a logo licensing contract which would permit such sites to use the Wikipedia logo. A new mailing list for Placeopedia has recently been created at <http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps> and they would welcome input from Wikipedians on various aspects of the site. For example, some issues already raised are whether links to Placeopedia should be added automatically to all Wikipedia articles that have a corresponding entry in Placeopedia. There is already a template for this on the English Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Placeopedia>) but so far any links have only been added manually. Another issue is whether users of Placepedia should be able to add categories to Wikipedia directly from Placeopedia. If you have an interest in maps, please join the mailing list to help answer these Wikipedia-related questions. <http://www.mysociety.org/mailman/listinfo/mysociety-maps> Angela.

8 9

Blocking proposal
by Martin Richards 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

Hi guys, there is a proposal for a new form of blocking at [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal]]. In a nutshell would nable to us to block IP addresses, but allow registered users to use that IP address, this would mean "good" users will not be blocked by accident, and vandals from AOL, schools etc. can be blocked. The main drawback is that more determined vandals could then just register an account and continue vandising, but we can't do much about those determined vandals anyway. Plus we could have some kind of system to further deter vandals from registering, such as having a delay on their account creation or something (see the page for more). At present the "vote" (yes I know, we all hate votes) looks like it will favour introducing the new kind of block in some form, but of course the ins and outs will probably have to be decided by the developers as to what is technically feasible etc. What do you guys think? Plus, if it does prove popular, how do we go about implementing it? I have little understanding of the software so am totally lost on that front. Martin (User:Bluemoose)

4 8

Re: [WikiEN-l] Funny joke...
by actionforum＠comcast.net 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

-------------- Original message -------------- > On 10/18/05, Alphax wrote: > > Apparantly community consensus doens't include putting thought into > > closing deletion debates; admins are supposed to count the numbers and > > press the magic button. > > > > Draw circle on desk. Bang head here. > > Of course since doing anything otherwise would involve trusting admins > beyond the bare minium needed to keep wikipedia ticking over. Openness and compliance with agreed upon processes, are easier to verify than "good faith". Processes involving evidence, rules and supermajority protections have proven better than assuming the character of officials in large organizations can be of uniformly high quality. Of course, there has to be a minimal culture or ethic of support for due process, that doesn't tolerate short cuts, just because they "know" what the final judgement will be. -- Silverback

1 0

[[:meta:Help:CheckUser]]
by David Gerard 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

I've started a user help page on Special:CheckUser at [[:meta:Help:CheckUser]]. I've tried to write it neutrally for any MediaWiki installation, not just Wikimedia. Clarifications and additions are welcomed! I've been particularly cautious in my assertions concerning the privacy policy ... - d.

10 16

Re: [WikiEN-l] Vandalbot range block
by David Gerard 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

>This may be a stupid question, but can someone point me towards the >history behind this Wik chap? There's a lot of references now, but it >seems to just predate me... Wik ([[User:Wik]]) was a Wikipedian dedicated to the point of obsession. He mostly made very good edits, but was somewhat brittle and abrasive. Eventually he got pissed off with another user doing things to his talk page and wanted it *stopped*, and eventually wrote a nasty vandalbot to do just that ([[User:Vandalbot]]). He returned as [[User:Gzornenplatz]], but continued to be abrasive in the same way, and ended up at the AC. It turned out he was definitely Wik. He came back again as [[User:NoPuzzleStranger]], editing from open proxies; and continued okay for a while, but then was abrasive again in exactly the same way; then Lucky 6.9 noticed that "NoPuzzleStranger" was an anagram of "User Gzornenplatz". Then he (just recently) started a bot to watch particular pages and create a new username and edit them the moment they were unlocked. Fun stuff. He's firmly dedicated to Wikipedia and still makes mostly good edits. However, he (a) has great problems working well with others (b) does nasty things when he doesn't get his way. So he isn't very well favoured. (Any details above incorrect, please correct!) - d.

6 5

Why AFD works Great
by Grease Monkee 18 Oct '05

18 Oct '05

AFD functions well, and I'm surprised to see the never ending stream of emails to this list complaining about the process. My only suggestion to improve AFD is for it to have its own mailing list. Some of AFD's features I find particularly appealing ... * efficiently disposes of sewage - has a very low error rate * satisfies the appetites of certain editors who crave visibility, drama and social interaction * is a wonderful soap box for bombasts to opine, prognosticate and listen to themselves * distracts the Fucking Idiots from more important parts of the encyclopedia * provides a place for these animals to gnash their teeth and hump each other ...while the rest of us write an encyclopedia. Most of the complaining has been about the AFD process, when the real problem is the behavior of the editors who are drawn there. If AFD was reworked to eliminate the possibility of bitching, whining and sniveling, this behavior might just move elsewhere in our project. The current process, amazingly, motivates volunteer editors to passionately evaluate tens of thousands articles per year. And while it's not perfect and can probably be improved, it's pretty damn good.

12 28

Re: Why is this a problem
by Daniel P. B. Smith 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

> From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VFU is utterly beyond hope > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org> > Message-ID: > <605709b90510161417w70cb1b4ar952c22ee9564458(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 10/16/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 10/16/05, Brian Haws <brian(a)bhaws.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree, this insistance on process and instruction over common >>> sense in VFU is very disheartening to me. And the proposed >>> Deletion Review doesn't seem to be concerned about this, the goal >>> seems to be making it as easy as possible to keep things deleted. >> >> well yes the alturnative is that any AFD that decides to delete will >> be listed on VFU by it's supporters. > > Why is this a problem? It's not a problem if you believe that articles are being deleted too quickly and easily and generally favor slowing the process or making it more difficult. HYPOTHETICALLY, because nothing like this is happening in practice: IF --there were general agreement that arguments on the merits of the article were completely appropriate for VfU --every article closed for deletion in AfD were systematically taken to VfU then the result would be that an article could not be deleted unless it had basically been voted for deletion TWICE: once in AfD by 2/3 majority, then a second time in VfU by simple majority. In most cases, of course, _all things being equal,_ an article getting a 2/3 majority in AfD would be expected to get a simple majority when re- argued. Unless the rules for VfU and AfD are asymmetrical, than VfU becomes a pointless waste of time. Discussion of the merit and content of the article should not be mechanically excluded from VfU. But it should be limited to cases where it can convincingly be shown _something has changed_ between AfD and VfU that would lead one to believe that the people taking part in AfD would probably have voted otherwise had they had known. Articles that are _genuinely_ and _substantially_ rewritten just before close of AfD (e.g "delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, delete, comment: rewritten, keep, keep") would be one example. Or "Har Gobind Korhana is so kewl! I love his lecutres" followed by a string of delete, non-notable prof", closed for deletion, someone points out that it's a misspelling of Har Gobind Khorana who won a Nobel prize. Whatever the rules and practices are, VfU should be _different_ from AfD and involve _different_ considerations. It should not just be mechanical re-run of AfD to see whether the percentage of people who think Jenny MacNabb is notable will turn out to be different. -- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/

7 10

VFU is utterly beyond hope
by Tony Sidaway 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

AfD sometimes makes mistakes, and VFU is supposed to correct them. For some reason it signally fails to--often point blank refuses to--carry out this task. The article on Professor Albert Wolters was delete a few days ago. The usual false pretexts are being posed as excuses for not immediately undoing this travesty. I am therefore taking the unusual step of undeleting this article.

14 46

Admins, please delete my EYES, per the rules (EOM)
by Stefan Sittler 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

I am still willing to read about content, my offers for discussion are still open, but I've changed my mind and must demand that MY EYES be deleted per the 48 hours of HORRIBLE PAIN of ACRIMONIOUS DEBATE rule. Please use your magical "admin" powers of "Make Everything Right" soon, because the corners of the monitor are not sharp enough and I don't have the self -control for the sharp, sharp stick. Also I could use some minutes on my phone card and some better shoelaces. (Yeah, you know how they get all cut up on the eyelets) (amazing flying shoes would be nice, but I understand if I am not ready) Thank you, magical "admins"! Stefan (user:Kiaparowits) P.S. OH GOD THE PAIN. OMGWTFBBQ P.P.S. no offence, really

8 8

← Newer
1
...
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
...
46
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l October 2005