---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pce3(a)ij.net <pce3(a)ij.net>
Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Sceptre <sceptre(a)tintower.co.uk>
Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice
The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation in
accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or disable
access to the web pages listed below:
1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party
[512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610
Pce3(a)ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911
2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location
[512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information
location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the
infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classificationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classificationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduc…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_…
3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works
[512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation
3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk: Harvard
Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is no
legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use of
the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and
withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. – Patrick Eberhart
5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury,
that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner
[512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material. –Patrick
Eberhart
The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove, or
disable access to the material.
--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk
this was a deletion review, with a view to restoration, of a userbox
that said the owner was a satanist. I have canceled it on the grounds
that such a template could only bring the project into disrepute.
I'm confident that this is best for Wikipedia. I don't think the goal
of producing a high quality encyclopedia can be served by encouraging,
though the provision of templates saying "I'm a satanist" and the
like, the use of Wikipedia's website for social networking and
coordination of work between adherents of satanism. It could only
bring the whole enterprise into disrepute to permit such abuse.
Therefore it's inappropriate to hold a DRV-style debate where
traditionally the item is restored if a certain proportion of editors
vote to restore it. We cannot make such a decision on the basis of
votes. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page of the template might be
appropriate, though I think it would require a very strong case to be
made for this particular template
On 5/26/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> When we choose to publish facts on private people
> versus public people, for example, is a judgment call about how
> "notable" they are---not anything to do with verifiability, as many
> private/non-notable people have information about them verifiable from
> e.g. phone books.
Actually, I'd dispute that a phone book is a reliable source. It's
pretty easy to get fake information into a phone book. Also I'd say
there usually isn't enough information in a phone book to uniquely
identify a person anyway.
I'd go so far as to say phone books are completely excludable as
Wikipedia sources, regardless of whether the information is on a
public or private person, famous or average, "notable" or
"non-notable".
Anthony
>From time to time, I come across complaints about the "admin subculture" at
Wikipedia, and there are times when I've been struck by the fact that while
som/most admins make a sincere effort at applying policy, guidelines and
their judgment consistently, others seem to have absolutely no difficulty
abandoning any semblance of fairness if other considerations are more
weighty.
People who raise the issue in this forum are typically frustrated - they are
told that either being an admin is "no big deal," or that "the system works
pretty well," or "stop being a malcontent," all in so many words.
At the same time, there is an ongoing debate about the various trends
(userboxes, lawsuits, editors with inferior intellects) that threaten the
existence of Wikipedia.
I have my own opinion about what threatens Wikipedia most (a decay of
intellectual integrity for the sake of conventional wisdom, SPOV, and
appeals to authority that in turn breed slovenly thinking), but I really do
want to weigh in on an appeal that the admin community - whether it is a
subculture or not - give some serious thought to how the reinforce
accountability around the WP core standards.
Being an admin is a big deal whether we want it to or not, because admins
have it in their power to do really really annoying things to editors. Aside
from 24-hour blocks, locking articles in various ways, closing discussions
on AFDs, CFDs, etc., they also seem to enjoy a certain level of immunity
against complaints. There is, as far as I can tell, a presumption that
anyone who complains about an admin is a bit of a narcissist or
troublemaker. There are also constant allegations that some admins are
softer on people whose POV align with theirs, etc.
I think that the open source philosophy should be preserved, so I'm
reluctant to add more rules and processes than absolutely necessary.
However, I do think that some principles should apply, whether they are
instituted formally or not:
* Admins should be able to defend their actions in light of Wikipedia
policy, guidelines, or accepted practice. In other words, if an editor
protests a decision made by an admin, it should be incumbent upon (and easy
for) the admin to point to a clear precedence for his/her decision. And
these precedents should be developed by some level of consensus that at
least meets the standard applied for everything else.
* Admins should strive to be role models in their roles as editors. There
will be people who are better suited as admins than editors, and we all have
content issues we're passionate about; but I believe there is plenty of room
within policy and guidelines to expresss passion without being uncivil,
dishonest, flip, or offensive.
* Admins should strive for transparency in their workings. Backchannel
communications should be an exception limited to very specific problems.
I could think of more, but this is plenty for now.
Leif
The comments were very useful in general. The most
important ones among them are the ones addressing
possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
for it was one of them.
I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and
had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I
decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked
indefinitely (how do you think I know the
'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
hope that the points raised below contribute to the
efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion...
I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
Further explanations are given [in the square
brackets].
Best,
Resid
--------------------
[[WP:OURS]]
--------------------
[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.
[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]
1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]
[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]
[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]
2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is
resolved.
[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
the opinion of the related study groups. The group may
vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a
decision. It does not have to be a final decision
though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR,
edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may
result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and
admins who feel obligated to force the rules
consciously.]
3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.
[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamics measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]
4. '''Limited block policy'''
A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.
[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]
[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.]
------------------------
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I would like to start by applauding Mr. Wales for his
wonderful idea of writing a free online encyclopedia
by the contribution of volunteers. I am hoping that it
can be improved to a reliable source of information as
time goes.
At this point, it is evident that, there are some
structural problems in Wikipedia. Ignoring these
problems doesn't lead to a reasonable solution and
doesn't help.
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between
the user rights and admin privileges. It can be
adjusted and corrected but the problem needs to be
identified first. It might not seem to be a
serious issue for one who is not effected, but it
really is. It is of paramount importance to realize
that motivation of ordinary users from any background
can be stimulated only by a fair treatment of
their edits.
It is also equally important to realize that the
conjuncture has a strong influence on the editors
without an exclusion of the admins. Some people feel
marginalized and faced to bias actions from some
admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The
answer to the question is strongly related to the
strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.
Please note that any person leave Wikimedia is not
only a minus to the community, in general, is a plus
to the anti-Wikipedia community. I, myself, am at or
around that border line and before crossing it I
wanted to make a friendly call for a discussion of the
issue. I would be glad to discuss the issue and make
some suggestions for the solution if you are
interested.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hello,
even though I haven't touched the J-P Muhammad cartoons since
my last block one month ago, I have now again been blocked
for a week for criticizing administrators, who unjustifiably
blocked editors for "Censorship" resp. "removing Muhammad
images" and literally called editors vandals, who merely
removed an insult on their religious belief.
I am not a Muslim myself, but discrimination bothers me wherever
I see it. Therefore I created a page in my userspace, where
I documented cases, in which editors apparently only have been
blocked, because of the strong "free speech" convictions of
some administrators: [[User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims]]
One of those self-proclaimed free speech proponents deleted
that page, filed a report on the Administrators' noticeboard
and threatend to block me indefinitely should I recreate that
article in any fashion. After some fruitless discussion on
WP:AN/I, where I consented to change the title, I decided to
file a Deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=5…
which itself got removed after administrators commented
"Keep this shit deleted" respectively "Why are we discussing
this unspeakable crap?" merely 9 hours after I created it.
It truely lets me doubt the "free speech" motives of
administrators, if they have to censor people they disagree
with.
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1.2FPersecution_of_Muslims]]
Zoe reports the deletion of my critique on 22 May
[[WP:ANI#User:Raphael1_blocked_for_a_week]]
block report by Zoe on 26 May, where he lists diffs
where I allegedly personally attacked him.
Btw. I have never claimed, that any administrator is a persecutor
of Muslims. Instead I've made clear on [[WP:ANI]], that I consider
the persecution a side-effect of their blocking habits.
best regards
--
Raphael
The recent days have been very confusing to me. I'll keep it short. User:Zoe demanded a certain part of the article to be sourced. That part of the article was sourced, but had no footnotes attached to it. Zoe asked what the sources were, and I gave them the two souces: one was a book and another was a Doc-file. These sources had been included in the article.
Zoe claimed that they didn't have the book and that the Doc-file could not be accessible for all people. After much discussion, Zoe agreed to restore the part of the article, until it was found that the text was plagiarized from another site and was again removed. All was fine.
Meanwhile, I went to a few articles started by two other users and removed the unsourced material. I was reverted and warned for being disruptive. After some negotiations, I started instead to discuss the issue, as Zoe said that I should do. I went to ANI to ask questions about the Wiki policy on sources. I didn't care about the text that was removed due to plagiarization, as I deemed the decission to be a correct one. I went to ANI to ask whether an article about a comicbook could use that same comic as a source. I then asked if an article about a movie could use the same movie as a source. I thought it was original research, because the author of the article needs to interpret the art by himself and then write about it. No-one gave me any answer to the topic; instead, Zoe blocked me for disruption and trolling.
I'm sure that most admins will agree with Zoe's decission, even tho I was being polite the whole time and even tho I was ultimately blocked for asking questions on ANI (which ironically, saw a couple of admins contradict themselves) by an admin who was involved in the dispute. That's fine with me: you can agree with Zoe and everyone else that disagreed with me. Perhaps I was being disruptive by asking too many questions. But I would still like to know if an article about a movie can use the movie as a source; and if an article about a comicbook can use that same comicbook as a source. If the answer is no, can any action be taken against such articles? And where can this info be found?
I don't want to be accused of taking things out-of-context or for whatever else, so I will include the links to the relevant discussions.
The question on ANI that ultimatelly got me blocked:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
* My first question on ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
* Vlad III Dracula source conflict:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vlad_III_Dracula#Nine_anecdotes
* My talkpage (accused of vandalism, trolling, disruption, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anittas#Vlad_III_Dracula
* The discussion on ANI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
* Discussion on one of the related articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abin_Sur
User:Anittas
---------------------------------
Be a chatter box. Enjoy free PC-to-PC calls with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
I notice that throughout your extended grumblings you have never managed to tell me how on Earth I'm supposed to stop this thing called top-posting.
Molu
On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:00:54 +1000 Mark Gallagher wrote:
<snip>
>As for why he quoted it *above* his message, it's because he knows how
>to send emails. *Please* stop top-posting.
>--
>Mark Gallagher
>"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
>- Danger Mouse
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>As a mathematician I'm particularly interested on his contributions to see
>why (if they were correct) were removed and think of possible reasons, but
>again, no user with that username
Sorry I got it wrong. My username on the English wikipedia is Herve661.
And the contribution that was deleted is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=26373…
Thanks for the replies, everyone.