"Gregory Maxwell" wrote
> > We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
>
> Since when did arbcom set precedent?
We don't. Principles are there to make the reasoning in a given case more comprehensible. They neither set precedent nor constitute policy.
> I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits'
> simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate
> way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring
> out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about
> resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.
Define 'quits'. I can't, or don't want to. It certainly has no status as a concept.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>Hell, I'm villified by a large portion of the community simply because I
>had an association with the group that's been trolling him. I've written
>an FA, created over 250 articles, and I have 10k edits to my name, but
>that doesn't change anything in a number of people's minds.
You can run for admin anytime you want and I will abstain from voting. I dropped out of the arbcom race since I had no chance of success..a number of others did as well. I counted 10 opposers that were in some way affiliated with ED in some manner or another, and with an open arbcom hearing, I saw no reason to continue.
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
On 12/12/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> I don't like this. First, because I would have been desyopped,
> second, because very upsetting things happen in the normal course of
> events and having been worked over once, they would under that policy
> be worked over twice. The people who get upset are often our very
> best. How could you not get upset at some of the nonsense?
>
Well said, Fred.
Sarah
"Matthew Brown" wrote
> Some admins seem to want Arbcom decisions to be purely a mechanical
> application of rules, purely based on the evidence set forth, and with
> a very laid down set of penalties for various violations of the rules.
> I do not, personally, agree with that.
Nor do I. Tariffs for things are wrong in principle. We have to look at intention, we have to weigh advantage and harm to the project.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Our fair use policy states -- correctly, I think -- that we should not
use fair use for generic images and should remove any non-licensed
images which can be reasonably re-created as free images. The goal
behind this was to discourage unnecessary invocations of the fair use
clause, as well as to encourage free content to be created whenever
possible.
That's all well and good. But does this mean that NO images of people
who are currently alive can be used under "fair use"? After all, if
they are alive, potentially one could take a picture of them and
license it as GFDL.
It sounds like an absurd interpretation of the intention of our "fair
use" policy to me, but this is how people have been insisting on
interpreting it at the Wikipedia:Fair Use talk page. I think this is
foolish on many levels -- it has absolutely nothing to do with either
legal issues or free content, it effectively results in the
jettisoning of many perfectly fine "fair use" images which just happen
to be of living people, and it focuses people attention on the most
immaterial fact-y aspects of "fair use" policy rather than trying to
actually understand how to implement it or why it works the way it
does. I think it is a policy which will cause more trouble that it
will benefits.
That particular interpretation of the policy slipped into the main
policy without any discussion.
I've given up on trying to participate in this discussion, though, as
it has, in my opinion, been hijacked by people who really just see
this as a way to get rid of "fair use" media on the English Wikipedia.
While I can see the ups and downs of "fair use" usage, I think that's
a separate issue that should not be what comes into play in
discussions of policy implementation. If the explicit desire is to get
rid of fair use alltogether, this should be handled in a direct
fashion, not in these indirect, five-and-dime approaches.
I'm just posting it here so that people who care about either our
"fair use" policy or about whether Wikipedia has sensible policies or
not can participate either way on the discussion. What disturbs me the
most about it is that many of these changes which will have vast
effects on the use of "fair use" media on Wikipedia are only being
discussed among a very small group of very interested people. In my
opinion if one is to make such a draconian rule as "no living people
allowed", one must gain a certain amount of legitimacy for it, either
by showing it to be in accord with a substantial popular opinion or
from our non-popular authority structures (i.e. by fiat of a
recognized authority).
Just FYI. Discussions taking place at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_usehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_of_living_people
The criteria in question is FUC #1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria
You can find a long rant from me about it -- with more eloquence than
this little note here, in my opinion -- at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use_criteria#FUC.231_and_p…
At this point I don't care either way about it as I've gotten really
sick of even trying to participate in en policymaking especially in
the "fair use" area, as it has gotten clogged with extremists of all
opinions and nobody seems to have much of an interest in creating
sensible, rational policy (I'm aware not everyone will share my
interpretations or cocerns). I just want to open up the discussion a
bit so that people won't be surprised when the day comes that when
five people at WP:FU change our policies and start deleting images
left and right.
I don't think Wikipedia is a waste of time but it certainly caters to
those with time to waste.
FF
I actually did quit. I was requested
by numerous emails to return to
help with articles related to the
events of 9/11. I have not once
quit before and unless ArbCom
or Jimbo Wales tells me to,
I don't intend to quit again. I
have been editing on a limited
basis over the past couple of days.
The 9/11 articles are generally
excellent and all I have done is to
try and ensure that we adhere to
the undue weight clause of NPOV
when confronted with efforts by
others to expand on what most
label as conspiracy theories. Just as
a geologist might be helpful when
writing articles related to geology,
my 3 months in the field at GZ I
thought would be helpful to making
those articles better.
---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.
On 12 Dec 2006 at 13:58, "Michael Smith" <runedchozo(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Whatever you say, dick.
As the person you're addressing does not appear to be named Richard,
I would categorize the above as a personal attack.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 12 Dec 2006 at 10:37, "Michael Smith" <runedchozo(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you
> can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the
> lying.
Attacking people for the religion they believe in is likely to make
you look like a bigot and cause your ideas to be discounted.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
> From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm a new kid on the block. I am sending this first email mostly to
> see what
> happens when I do, and to find out how the process works. What type of
> subjects are open for discussion? My only warning is that I am hard
> science
> and math challenged - in these areas, I will gladly act as an
> astounded
> observer. My education, background and experience is in clinical
> psychology.
> My interests are many - my curiosity insatiable.
So, Marc... have you satisfied your 'satiable curiosity about what
kinds of subjects are typically discussed on this mailing list?
I do hope you had the wisdom to sign up with the "digest" option!
By the way, the traffic the last few days has been unusually high,
but I'd say the general range of subjects and tone and tenor of the
discussions has been reasonably typical...
"M Roget" wrote
> Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to
> protest this or that is automatically desysopped?
Not sure I want that.
The 'wiki way' has always involved the idea that if you are fed up of the wiki, you take a break. Some people make a big deal about that, which is a pity (flouncing takes some dress sense, in my experience ...)
People in standing who leave and come back should be welcomed. That's about it.
We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information