=>From: David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au>
=>
=>"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
> There are a number of policies which make notability a
> deletion criterion, even if they don't use the word
> "notability". It's certainly used as a criterion often
> enough; it may be the single most popular reason given
> for deletion.
> Jay.
LOL! When is a spade not a "spade"?
Answer: When it's an "earth-removal device".
Okay, class, we can put aside the obligatory joke and get to the heart
of the lecture.
I think our policies should be consistent. Otherwise we'll be
duplicating that sorry historical episode in which one person was
acquitted of bribery, while the guy he bribed was convicted for
receiving the very same bribe.
Too complex? Okay, let's try again.
If the person is not notable enough to have his own article, and we VOTE
to delete that article on those grounds, then how can we say that it's
crucial to Wikipedia's editorial independence to mention a "fact" about
him in another article? Especially when it's merely the FACT that
someone has called him a nasty name?
Can I mention in an article that Wikipedian Joey Fastwoney ducked out of
paying his share of the check at the First Boston Meetup? (By the way,
this really did happen, you can ask Danny. I just haven't decided
whether to "out" the poor slob. The conclusion of this debate will
determine whether I do or don't!)
And is it relevant that I don't really like Joey that much, for other
unrelated reasons? That is, must we consider my vengeful motivation, my
desire to embarass him about X because I'm really mad at him for Y?
Anyway, I've just started to dip into the A.U.K. newsgroup, and some of
the things it mentions are even worse than "kook of the millenium". Just
try clicking on this reference, if you dare. It's pretty gross, i.e.,
it's not very pretty.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/browse_thread/threa
d/41f8a13468d342a5/fcc6e23e6968dd04?q=wollman+++group:alt.usenet.kooks&r
num=6&hl=en#fcc6e23e6968dd04
I just searched for Wollman on Google groups, and this was one of the
first 10 hits. It makes "the pot calling the kettle black" seem tame
indeed.
Well, obviously there's a lot of anger and hostility and outrage being
expressed here. Should we really write about all the details? How about
summarizing what people on alt.flame say about each other? How is that
encyclopedic?
With all the time that's been wasted discussing this issue, a few of us
could have researched and written a fairly good article about AUK by
now.
For one thing, there's no point in mentioning that a certain person has
been "named kook of the millenium" unless we know WHY they chose to call
him that. And if there's any controversy, we ought to describe the major
sides fairly. (Hey, anyone around here remember NPOV?)
Otherwise, we just spread the anger around. It has even begun to infect
level-headed, even-tempered old Uncle Ed.
*sigh*
Now, let's forget all this nonsense and get back to work.
Ed Poor
--- "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
> Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's
> that fascinating? If it
> survives the VFD process, than that might give us an
> excuse to mention
> him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails
> a vfd vote, that's
> pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
>
> Ed
He's already been deleted following a VfD vote.
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
> You haven't been around VFD much lately, I take it.
> It's not just an immune
> system but an autoimmune disease; people appear to
> be trying to use it as
> Wikipedia's quality control system.
>
>
> - d.
And this is bad because ...?
RickK
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
At what point do deletions of images, paragraphs, etc., cross the border
from edits to becoming either violations of NPOV or even vandalism? I keep
running into one editor who deletes whole sections of information with no
explanation or a simple dismissal, e.g., "untrue assertion," "no evidence
for this," or sometimes appeal to authority. I think there is an honest
disagreement about the subject matter under editing, but simply deleting
inconvenient facts or assertions is imho bad, and possibly unacceptable,
behavior.
Leif (Leifern)
--- Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he
> can't deserve an
> article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be
> addressed before we turn
> into just a list of people *everybody* knows about
> already.
> --
> Phil
> [[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
Straw man. Not the prevalent idea at VfD at all, but
then, it seems to be common argument of the radical
inclusionist that things like [[List of pizza parlors
in New York City]] is somehow an encylopedia article.
It has nothing to do with "I've never heard of him"
and everything to do with "He doesn't merit an
article."
RickK
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
help
-Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org]
On Behalf Of wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:24 PM
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)Wikipedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The niceness principle (Theo Clarke)
2. RE: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Poor, Edmund W)
3. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (David 'DJ' Hedley)
4. Re: Google hit rankings (Asbestos)
5. Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Anthere)
6. Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Anthere)
7. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (David Gerard)
8. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (David Gerard)
9. Re: Scope of phone support, (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected
(Wollmann)) (Jason Trickey)
10. Re: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway)
11. RE: Re: Corrected (Wollmann) (Tony Sidaway)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:27:29 +0100
From: Theo Clarke <wiki(a)tignosis.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The niceness principle
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <2005512152729.413584@Theo214>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:39:03 +0100, Stacey Greenstein wrote:
> Should we then only write nice things about people/ Should we only
> include facts that the subjects' approve? Or should we be impartial and
> show that there is reality and negativeity?
The impartiality of showing reality and negativity does not mean that we
need to abandon principles such as kindness. I find it helpful to remember
that there are feeling people on the other side of my screen. And, yes, I do
recognise that some people will see this view as sanctimonious.
Theo
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:17:40 -0700
From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC28040A6ADA(a)sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it
survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention
him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's
pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Ed
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:29:58 +0100
From: "David 'DJ' Hedley" <spyders(a)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <001301c55731$5d6f0ca0$b8bd9d51@hedlatora>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>From mailing list messages I read earlier, Wollmann's article already
failed
VfD previously (and had serious NPOV issues).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it
survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention
him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's
pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Ed
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:47:17 +0100
From: Asbestos <asbestos999(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Google hit rankings
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <ad789c9005051213476405d0(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Maybe Google's annoyed that Yahoo got to host Wikipedia space instead of
them...
Sam
--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
On 5/12/05, Stan Shebs <shebs(a)apple.com> wrote:
>
> Nathan Wong wrote:
>
> > Why does Wikipedia seem to be so low recently? It seems to be barely
> > featured for lots of common searches, whereas various snapshots and
> > Wikipedia mirrors are indexed frequently. For example:
> >
>
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=prime+minister+of+the++united+kingdom&fsrc=
1&oi=moresources
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Australia+capital&fsrc=1&oi=moresources
> > (those are question answers, but thats what many people may look for).
> >
> > With Wikipedia being such a popular site, I'd have thought that it
> > might be higher.
>
> I imagine the Google spider doesn't wait around five minutes
> hoping for the page to come up. Many times it just has to cache
> the empty page from wikipedia.org <http://wikipedia.org>, can't be good
> for our
> page rank vs quick-responding mirrors.
>
> Stan
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:46:20 +0200
From: Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <4283C09C.3000606(a)yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
> Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it
> survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention
> him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's
> pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
>
> Ed
Admitedly... I am surprised his article was deleted for him being non
notable... while at the same time he is mentionned in another article
(which seems to imply he is...).
But maybe this is not an argument for notability ?
Ant
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:47:19 +0200
From: Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <4283C0D7.2090807(a)yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
David Gerard a écrit:
> Anthere (anthere9(a)yahoo.com) [050513 03:34]:
>
>
>>While I would just not answer anything at all, the problem is that he is
>>calling by phone Terry. And while it is easy not to answer a mail, it is
>>not so easy not to answer a phone call.
>
>
>
> She asks him to hereby stop calling and write a proper legal threat (on
> paper, from proper lawyer, signed for, etc.) if he has one to make. He
> keeps calling, it's harassment.
>
>
> - d.
You have a point...
We might suggest that he (Terry is a man...) record the discussions...
Ant
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:17:18 +1000
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20050512211717.GR9978(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Poor, Edmund W (Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com) [050513 06:20]:
> Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it
> survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention
> him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's
> pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
You haven't been around VFD much lately, I take it. It's not just an immune
system but an autoimmune disease; people appear to be trying to use it as
Wikipedia's quality control system.
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:18:14 +1000
From: David Gerard <fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <20050512211814.GS9978(a)thingy.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Anthere (anthere9(a)yahoo.com) [050513 06:47]:
> Poor, Edmund W a écrit:
> >Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If it
> >survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to mention
> >him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd vote, that's
> >pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
> Admitedly... I am surprised his article was deleted for him being non
> notable... while at the same time he is mentionned in another article
> (which seems to imply he is...).
> But maybe this is not an argument for notability ?
"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:19:49 +1000
From: Jason Trickey <jason(a)mydomain.com.au>
Subject: Re: Scope of phone support, (was [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected
(Wollmann))
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.2.20050513071632.02247390(a)mail.mydomain.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Make, and enforce policy of not supporting any encyclopedia content over
the phone. Refer him back to this list if need be :)
Reserve phone usage for media and press enquiries and other business needs
only. Content issues should be dealt with in writing.
Cheers,
-j
>David Gerard a écrit:
>>Anthere (anthere9(a)yahoo.com) [050513 03:34]:
>>
>>>While I would just not answer anything at all, the problem is that he is
>>>calling by phone Terry. And while it is easy not to answer a mail, it is
>>>not so easy not to answer a phone call.
>>
>>She asks him to hereby stop calling and write a proper legal threat (on
>>paper, from proper lawyer, signed for, etc.) if he has one to make. He
>>keeps calling, it's harassment.
>>
>>- d.
>
>You have a point...
>We might suggest that he (Terry is a man...) record the discussions...
>
>Ant
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:20:59 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<21618.62.252.0.4.1115932859.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Ray Saintonge said:
>
> If Mr. Wollmann thinks that he has a case let him go ahead with it, and
> show us that he means more than simply to intimidate. We can easily
> promise that when we receive the court documents in the case we will
> reconsider our position in the matter. This may or may not result in a
> removal of what he finds offensive from the site. Meanwhile it will
> have been very costly for him to mount his case with no prospects of
> recovering those costs.
Well, Wikipedia probably wouldn't be vulnerable, but where individuals are
involved he could get a default judgement in a plaintiff-friendly UK court
for a no-show defendant in the US, with costs awarded (which is very
common in UK cases), and then use that as leverage in the US. This
technique has been tried against Usenet posters and worked well. Since
Wikipedia content is produced by individuals who are often identifiable it
would probably work as well on Wikipedia.
He may have to demonstrate standing to sue in UK courts, but that could be
as simple as selling books through Amazon.co.uk--which Wollmann does, as
it happens.
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:24:07 +0100 (BST)
From: "Tony Sidaway" <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: Corrected (Wollmann)
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<40692.62.252.0.4.1115933047.squirrel(a)happy.minority-report.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Poor, Edmund W said:
> Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if he's that fascinating? If
> it survives the VFD process, than that might give us an excuse to
> mention him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails a vfd
> vote, that's pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
>
Been there, done that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Edmond_Wollmann
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 22, Issue 33
****************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Knutsen [mailto:vyerllc@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:03 PM
[snip]
> I do appreciate the need to enforce rules and be consistent
> about it, but I
> also think that a) a warning is in order before blocking
> someone; b) the
> person who is being blocked should have some means of
> defending his/her
> actions; and c) it should always raise flags in a situation
> like this, when
> the person (an admin) whose deletions were reverted reported
> the reverts;
> and another, who only a few weeks before had lost a dispute
> with me, jumped
> at the opportunity to block me.
All that sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you ever need to be
unblocked, shoot me an e-mail or leave a message at my talk page.
I helped WRITE the guidelines for "when to block" and we all agreed back
then that there are one or two steps that ought to be taken before a
block.
1. Talk to the person. Explain the situation. Make a polite request.
2. If they persist in violating a RULE after you have (a) explained it
AND (b) warned them that another violation will result in a block; THEN
you may do the block.
I think I speak for the entire community on this. (If there have been
changes, while I wasn't watching, no doubt maveric169 or Anthere or
someone on the Arbitration Committee will set me straight, but I had
thought these principles were written in stone.)
Once again, if you have any trouble, just let me know.
Ed Poor
Wikipedia's First Elected Bureaucrat
Mailing List Admin Emeritus
Developer Emeritus
(and all-around nice guy)
Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> Leif Knutsen wrote:
>
>> If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby.
>> I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a
>> great loss for the WP community.
>And again. Why do newbies keep posting this? How many people actually
>fall for this? How many people actually read this and go "OMG we're
>gonna lose a valuable contributor! Must unblock quick!!!"?
I'll remember next time to show greater humility before all those wiser than
me, but perhaps you will also let me know when I've edited enough articles
to move from being "newbie" to "peon cadet," or whatever the next level is.
I do appreciate the need to enforce rules and be consistent about it, but I
also think that a) a warning is in order before blocking someone; b) the
person who is being blocked should have some means of defending his/her
actions; and c) it should always raise flags in a situation like this, when
the person (an admin) whose deletions were reverted reported the reverts;
and another, who only a few weeks before had lost a dispute with me, jumped
at the opportunity to block me. I'll grant they both acted within the letter
of the law, so to speak, but they both misbehaved - and badly. If there's a
pattern of such misconduct over time among such admins, they shouldn't be
admins - after all, being an admin involves a responsibility that is greater
than being an editor, as this episode amply demonstrates.
As for my "threat," it was meant earnestly. I work 60 hour weeks, am the
parent of two kids, one of whom has special needs, and I have a long
commute. I am doing this partly because I think it's fun and partly because
I think it's important. I expect lots of disagreements here, and plenty of
obnoxious, unreasonable, and ignorant people. But I also expect that the
role of admin is taken seriously. You all don't have to be perfect, but
there's got to be a higher standard among you; and I can safely predict that
this whole enterprise will collapse under its own weight unless the
responsibility of doing the right thing isn't reinforced and if necessary
enforced. The two individuals who (probably inadvertently) colluded to block
me should be ashamed of their actions, and I'll stand by that.
All the best,
Leifern
I have just noticed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GordonWattsDotCom ...
It seems to me to be somewhat inappropriate to create a username advertising
a personal website, but I didn't see anything in the Wikipedia username
policy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username ) that says
anything about adverts...
So I thought I'd pose the issue to the mailing list, see what you all think.
--
! blankfaze
*the good times
are killing me*
User:Jtdirl blocked me (Leifern) for allegedly violating the 5 reverts in 24 hour rule. This is both unreasonable and an abuse of his admin privileges, for the following reasons:
- There are actually 4 reverts in about 4 hours
- The reversions were of deletions of graphs - since it's simply not possible to reword images, I had little option besides reverting the deletions
- The person who kept deleting the graphs did very little to justify them besides saying that they were irrelevant
- My adversary (Geni, also an admin) reverted three times, but this apparently didn't bother Jtdirl
- Jtdirl has an axe to grind - we had an editing dispute that he lost about heirs apparent - I can't help but think this is a vindictive act.
- Jtdirl gave no warning, made no effort to mediate, simply went ahead and blocked
I don't know what the remedy for this is, but I would propose that both Jtdirl and Geni lose their admin privileges. If I am not unblocked immediately, I am happy to find another hobby. I believe my contributions speak for themselves - that would be a great loss for the WP community.