-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Apparantly people who think that consensus on AfD means "70-75% with at
least 10 clear non-sock/meatpuppet votes, with votes without clear
reason being disregarded" aren't suitable to be admins.
AfD is evil. Long may it and the people who play there burn in wikihell.
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Brian, I'm forwarding your email to the wikien-l group, and someone will
be able to help you promptly.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Getting Unblocked at Wikipedia
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:22:09 -0800
From: Brian C <brianwc(a)ocf.berkeley.edu>
I like to occasionally contribute to the Wikipedia. I also run a tor
server. I do not want a Wikipedia username, and so I always just
During the recent fracas about tor and Wikipedia, my static IP address
from which I run my tor server was blocked for an "infinite" time
period. I have since decided that until I get more than one static IP, I
will only run my tor server in "middle-man" mode, so it is not presently
possible that defacement of Wikipedia (or Slashdot, or the Gentoo
Forums, etc.) is exiting from my IP address.
I was able to email Slashdot and can login there again, and I don't
presently contribute to the Gentoo Forums often enough to worry about
it. However, I am finding it impossible to correct the Wikipedia block,
because without a username the only way to contact an admin is to edit
their "talk" page, but I am forbidden from editing any page because of
the block. A vicious cycle.
Does anyone have any experience with this such that they could direct me
to an actual email address of a Wikipedia admin who could remove the
block or otherwise advise me on how to proceed? Thanks.
In reply to:
"Let's not get narky, eh? I didn't like his tone, either,"
I'm sorry if my tone offends some; the record, it was generated by the
following, which *I* didnt much like, either:
> "All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission
> > are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have
> > tolerated them for some time..."
I'm not writing here for the purposes of offending anyone; the purpose
is to provoke some thought, if not discussion (I'm sure this has
already been done, dont worry) on a policy which I find antithetical to
the notion of a commons. A secondary purpose is to provide feedback on
why I personally, have been dissuaded from contributing material to
Wikipedia. I was in the process of going through my photo archive and
linking them up to articles in Wikipedia, when I came across the
requirement that they be open to profit-making; which pulled me up very
quickly. The above statement stopped me in my tracks. If that
information is useful to you, then well and good. If not, it really
doesnt make much difference to me.
In reply to:
> Because Wikipedia is free as in freedom. Your pictures are not free
> (though apparently they are gratis); you are limiting who can
> them. Please re-evaluate contributing to Wikipedia if you are
> to support freedom.
My answer is that I do not see how enriching private corporations
furthers freedom. My pictures are indeed gratis.
The only objection I have is to allowing others to make profits from my
work. That definition of freedom isnt in my dictionary.
Ask the Java community how they feel about Gates embracing and
extending their freedoms.
When freedom is defined by the ability of corporate persons to enrich
themselves at the expense of the community, whether thats by patenting
life forms, folk medicine, or whatever, then we have truly lost the
idea of freedom. It is of interest that the images allowable are still
restricted - by for example the "by" atrribution. Its only the "nc"
that seems to draw howls of protest.
I cannot understand why people freely contributing material to be used
by anyone else for whatever purposes they wish - EXCEPT to make a fast
buck - is considered "if you are unwilling to support freedom."
I suppose we each have our definitions of what freedom truly is.
I posted this question at the Village Pump last night,
but it hasn't got much response (perhaps because most
everyone was asleep at the time I wrote it).
The crux of my point is that the number of active
editors in Wikipedia has grown nearly 10 fold since
ArbCom was created 2 years ago, while the number of
Arbitrators has remained constant at 12.
Perhaps this just means we should expand the pool of
Arbitrators and elect 20 or 30 this time around as
some people had proposed (though one might have
trouble finding enough people to run).
As an alternative, I suggested moving to a system more
like Admins / Bureaucrats where we continually approve
trusted members of the community to serve in this role
and allow the pool to grow as needed to keep up with
Wikipedia's growth. A pool of 50-100 trusted
community members, working in groups of 10-15, could
make short work of the backlog generally seen at
>Does "the entire world does not have broadband" mean anything to you?
>Ok so 32 is probably a little low for an article size limit but 40+
>and popular culture/trivia are second on my list of things to kill
You mentioned the Arb Com as someone to deal with this sort of thing.
I suggest you check the case of Robert the Bruce, where systematic
removal of verifiable information from articles was considered the
most heinous of his offences.
What on Earth do you think you're doing? Spin it out to a separate
article if its presence offends your sense of order so grievously.
I've removed Lysdexia from the list. They posted a rant ending in a
personal attack, which I rejected, and they couldn't see where the
personal attack was and made further ones. Too bad, IMO.
If I'd read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lysdexia earlier it
would have happened a lot sooner. Note the progression with time.
Christopher and Kelly,
I know what you're saying, and I don't think anyone on the
Foundation-L list would endorse anything like regulation or being on
the hook legally.
But this clearly should be added to the wake up calls -- "SOFIXIT"
does not cut it anymore. Wikipedia cannot enjoy the bragging rights of
a "Top 40" web site without changing its quality standards to match.
I'm not convinced the Article Rating feature that is waiting in the
wings is the right or efficient way to do it. But we have to get
closer to the "1.0" solution. It's time.
On 11/30/05, Brian <brian0918(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Talk amongst yourselves.
> foundation-l mailing list
I've been asked to help out with this.
Discussion on [[Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals#Babel Barnstar
for Translation|Babel Barnstar for Translation]] at [[WP:BAP]] has
been at a standstill for almost two months. If nothing is done
quickly, it'll be archived. Please join the discussion and let your
voice be heard. Translations should be recognized with their own
I suspect the crap information inserted into the John
Seigenthaler article was part of a general trend of a
group of JFK conspiracy theorists who have used
Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their more
farfetched speculations. I've spend a good chunk of
my WP time over the last year cleaning up as much of
this stuff as I could possibly stand, and in fact
rewriting much of the Lee Harvey Oswald article was my
first major WP project.
Even if this has nothing to do with the conspiracy
buffs, it is part of a much larger problem, which is
that every unsourced text dump by an anon seems to be
treated as holy writ and uncritically accepted. While
we should apply WP:accept good faith to editors, we
should apply a lot more skepticism to unsourced info
dumps, the source of many problems involving libel and
copyright violations and just good old fashioned
inaccuracy. We have a culture of openness and DIYism
and all those good things, but I'm not convinced we
have a culture of quality control yet. How could any
halfway decent editor see a passage like "For a brief
time, he was thought to have been directly involved in
the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his
brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven" and not think
"Hmmm, something's wrong here, at the very least it is
Maybe the problem is simply that an article like John
Seigenthaler Sr. is too obscure to get a lot of eyes
on it. It appears that between the crap insertion and
the insertion of a copyvio bio (possibly by
Siegenthaler himself?) months later, only one editor
edited the article. Perhaps we could just chalk this
all up to obscurity, but there are too many of the
same type of problems with articles that aren't as
obscure that we shouldn't just write this one off as
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005