SPUI writes:
"What if "keep all schools" is the reason the person is voting to keep?"
Then the editor making that claim (or indeed the mirror claim "delete,
there is nothing notable about a box with students") should have
convincing arguments to support his ambitious thesis. Since the
propositions are not widely accepted on Wikipedia it's a somewhat weak
reason for keeping any particular school. Surely it would be more
sensible to address the reason why *this* particular school article should
be kept, or to point out that since school deletion debates almost
invariably end in the article being kept (currently 87%) the proposition
that schools are *not* notable seems to be gathering such a lot of
counter-evidence that those proposing to delete a school article had
probably better have a good reason to support their request in the case of
this school--that they might argue that perhaps the school is a pre-school
in a country where such institutions are not regulated, or information
about the school is extremely difficult to verify
.
I don't want to start an argument about schools here, and I've moved on
from the schools debate after five months intensive involvement, so I
won't post any more on the subject. I simply want to address SPUI's point
about wanting to keep a whole class of article on principle, and how one
should as a good Wikipedian seek to convince one's fellow editors that
there is some merit to one's views.
On 14/09/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> PWDS encourages revert warring. Do you really, honestly, think that
> is a good thing?
I balance this against the benefit of ending AfD. Personally, I judge
the benefits of PWDS to far outweigh the downsides.
Of course, others will disagree. And we probably will never get rid of
AfD without consensus, which we'll never get, as plenty of people
think AfD is perfect. So this conversation is probably pointless :-).
Dan
PS Someone also mentioned rc patrolling: as I've said before, I don't
see how PWDS would be a hinderance. Unless someone as made a
well-reasoned justification for the blanking on the Talk page and
signposted that in the edit summary, revert.
On 9/14/05, Carbonite <carbonite.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Proof of your sockpuppets absolutely doesn't exist?
>Hmm...I must have misread this then:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#Sockpuppet_check_request
>Carbonite
Mr. Gerard's statements could not be considered proof, evidence, or even supported conjecture. If Mr. Gerard did IP lookups for these editors, is there any reason why he can't post the results so that we can see the similarities (if any)? Is there any reason why he can't show us the output of a proxycheck instead of alluding to open proxies?
I can think of one reason: total disclosure would not be loyal to the cause. The faithfulness I see amongst administrators is important to the smooth operation of an association. Yet historically, it has also been the breeding ground for corruption. Exclusion is a sure warning sign that methods of punishment are forming and malfeasance is creeping into the system. When it gets to the point that administrators like Jayjg and SlimVirgin don't even try to tie punishment back to any rule or standard of Wikipedia, we can know for certain that their actions are driving off good editors and contributors to this work.
At some point, the corruption becomes so blatant that it is impossible to get much of anything productive accomplished. At that point, the system fails. I hope you will not wait that long. When there is ample evidence of two of your administrators using their power to bias the content of articles, it is time for them to relinquish that power. Loyalty can include all Wikipedia editors when our editing power is equal.
Thank you for your consideration,
Zephram Stark (zephramstark(a)yahoo.com)
(432) 224-6991
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote this:
"Name one article that was wrongly deleted in the past 3 days."
Oh I haven't done speedy patrol for a while, so I thought I'd take a quick
look for you and see what I could find. I only looked at the first page
of the log,
FTSEurofirst 80: "FTS Eurofirst 80 Index is a stock index of European
stocks."
And there's a link.
Plenty of context, infinitely expandable--you can add the history, who
compiles it, who uses it, compare it to other indexes of this type in the
same and other markets, and so on. Excellent encyclopedia-fodder.
A brief google search shows that this index is cited by the OECD, so it's
unlikely to be a hoax or vanity--and even if it were it would be a AfD
candidate.
A similar article, FTSEurofirst 100, was also deleted.
Here's another:
Buffalo Lake, Alberta: "Buffalo Lake is the fourth biggest lake in Alberta."
Short and sweet. Pop that on AfD and you'll have a decent article in no
time. If anyone says "no context" I shall scream. It's the fourth biggest
lake in Alberta, for heaven's sake! If it is we need an article on it,
and if it isn't we'll find out soon enough.
13th key: "13th Key is a RPG mage using RPG Maker by Matthew Smith. It is
a combination of A bad game and a good game in terms of grphics and
gameplay."
Well a bit POV but not speediable. Of course I know who Matthew Smith is
and the deleter didn't. He could have checked, though. He's the guy
who wrote Manic Miner for the Spectrum as a seventeen-year-old, and he has
a Wikipedia article.
Are these articles worth bothering about? Possibly. Depends what kind of
mood I'm in. At the very worst, each one of these is AfD territory, not a
speedy---as far as twelve hours ago--and I only looked at speedies by one
particular RC patroller.
Referring to this user page - User:Matt von Furrie; is his statement at the top of the page allowed on Wikipedia? I thought all content was supposed to be at a minimum GDFL which includes user spaces?
New guy here, do not flame me too bad ;)
~Terry
----------------------------------------
Return-Path: <wikien-l-bounces(a)wikipedia.org> Thu Sep 15 04:22:56 2005
Received: from zwinger.wikimedia.org [207.142.131.234] by mail7.webcontrolcenter.com with SMTP;
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:22:56 -0700
Received: from zwinger.pmtpa.wmnet (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F35E1190A58;
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:23:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.207])
by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7508D1190A29
for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:23:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id n15so64502nfc
for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.48.49.9 with SMTP id w9mr91063nfw;
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.2.16 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Delivered-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=Qt4yDvMEfOQgwQPjN5nigM3fWTZWimh1gnMUWQRv10h2eqIKcFzKu/VGydKgigkJhs/CEH02SXxFc9AWN/ih8BT8lXdYvgAnsL77BbXAdddXIx+FKG8wqKf2KzUYABACKNEGJq5Q0eNAbLslPquseZwJPn+RRBpTU84sVfqxS3o=
Message-ID: <cfe1dfe10509150423405853b2(a)mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:23:10 +0100
From: Dan Grey <dangrey(a)gmail.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wrongly deleted articles
In-Reply-To: <dd5435b705091407265a6b8619(a)mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4576.192.168.0.10.1126698063.squirrel(a)elektra.homeunix.org>
<dd5435b705091407265a6b8619(a)mail.gmail.com>
Cc:
X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dangrey(a)gmail.com,
English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,
<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
X-SmarterMail-Spam: SPF_None
X-Rcpt-To: <bader(a)tcbader.com>
On 14/09/05, Phroziac wrote:
> They're halfway decent stubs, but we really don't need a lot of one
> line articles, and we probably really didn't loose anything by
> deleting them.
Well, we lose the bits of information they do contain, and remember:
every article started out as a stub.
The flip side is: what do we gain by deleting them? Nothing, I contend.
Dan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In an effort to start some serious discussion on this, I present
herewith some pros and cons of granting some form of commons adminship
to wikipedia admins (including en, de, fr, and possibly other large
wikipedis).
Pros
1. The wikipedias would benefit from better handling of commons
vandalism that affects them. In particular, prominent non-main page
vandalism could be addressed more quickly.
2. Commons would benefit from an influx of editors. Wikipedia editors
would be more willing to become involved in commons knowing that they
need not spend some weeks or months "paying their dues" as a non-admin
editor.
3. The process of transfering suitable images to commons may go faster,
benefitting all projects, due to an atmosphere of increased trust.
4. Wikipedia editors would become more aware of other languages and
sister projects by virtue of working with their peers from these
projects at commons.
5. I believe that there would be more rapid growth at commons, which I
believe would be a good thing.
Cons
1. Some care would have to be taken to be sure that wikipedia admins
are familiar with the differences between their wikipedia and commons,
particularly the multilingual environment and the more restrictive
copyright policy. A page on the differences between commons and each
of the major wikipedias could be written to address this, much as was
once done for h2g2 an Everything2 authors joining Wikipedia.
2. Some existing commons admins don't support the idea.
3. The "small wiki" culture at commons would change, and some people
who moved to commons due to frustration with the size of their home
Wikipedia may find that discouraging.
uc
I'm not sure if the focus of this discussion is clear to everyone. As I
understand it, the primary concern is with preventing vandalism of
prominently placed images, such as those on the Main Page. This is
handled by protecting the images. I take it that this is the only
administrative function UninvitedCompany (and others who would like
Commons to adopt more liberal adminship policies) proposes to use there.
Nobody is going to be going on blocking or deleting sprees.
This would be a good candidate for a technical solution, specifically
using the MediaWiki feature of user access levels. If the only adminship
function you need on Commons is protection, for the purpose of
protecting another project from vandalism, then it should be routine to
grant (only) that function to anyone who's an admin on said project. It
might even be possible to make this automatically part of adminship once
single login is implemented, but at that point I feel like I'm wandering
into pipe dream territory.
--Michael Snow
Michael Turley wrote:
>If you don't like the requirements that each of the other communities
>establishes, don't try to short circuit their processes through
>discussion on the "parent project". Go there, and convince them it is
>in their best interest to grant common adminship. Don't start here
>and say "Hey, they should grant me adminship upon arrival". Here, I
>think the only appropriate discussion is whether Wikipedia-EN grants
>other projects' admins immediate access to our admin toolbox upon
>arrival. Just as they have no business telling us who to grant
>adminship to, we have no business telling them.
I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to make such a request
at commons-l without discussing it first here. If there is agreement
here that it would be a good thing, I would expect that discussion at
commons-l would follow.
I wonder whether commons has become more of a separate community than
was originally intended. As the name implies, it was originally
supposed to be a shared area for media for all mw projects, ideally
with participation from each of them. In that light, I'm surprised at
the degree of independence commons participants seem to expect.
JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Well, almost enough. In addition to Sarah's cogent summary,
>I should add that Zephram Stark has been at this for over two
>months now, and that David Gerard was consulted regarding
>"Go Cowboys" and "Felice L'Angleterre", and he stated that
>the technical information available to him also confirmed their
>obvious sockpuppet status, and expressed support that they
>be blocked.
>Jay.
I think you should let David Gerard speak for himself, Jay. I have made no sockpuppets. Proof that I have absolutely does not exist. Please try to stay to the facts. If you and SlimVirgin want to quote me, please quote in context.
Thanks,
Zephram
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:44:58 -0500
>From: "Ben E." <bratsche1(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] My Compliments
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
<e8494092050913204476ee13a(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Editors: You see, we are appreciated.
By sockpuppets?
There's no way you can disprove so, that would leave
intact the basis for supposedly identifying
sockpuppets, by gut feeling about what they say and do
- a process whose apparent blunt-instrument falliblity
is being discussed here in the Zephram case.
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com