You may be interested to know that the practice you describe as great is considered a blockable offence by some admins.
Molu
On Thu, 4 May 2006 13:04:24 -0400, Fastfission wrote:
"Consulting others is not a problem. Writing to people and saying, "I'd
like it if you'd weigh in on this," is great practice. Especially when
the people consulted are thoughtful and will even on occasion disagree
with the person who had solicited them! All the better."
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone.
>
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:51:07 +0100
> From: "Tony Sidaway" < f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] We need to recognize that advocating is a
> basic right
> To: "English Wikipedia" < wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <605709b90605050451u54ffec61i46939c96b8f8a6e1(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/4/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> >
> > On May 4, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/4/06, John Tex < johntexster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> This is "advocacy". Contacting people to recruit them to support
> > >> you or to
> > >> act according to beliefs you think they may already have should
> > >> rightly be
> > >> called "campaigning". This is a Good Thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > > You're on the wrong project, mate.
> >
> > He's thinking about policy issues and expressing himself in the
> > proper forum. He's being courteous. He may be wrong, but input on
> > policy questions is welcome.
>
> All of the above may be true, but he's still on the wrong project.
> This is a project for the production of an encyclopedia, not for
> political campaigning.
Hi Tony,
I thought it was a bit rude of you to essentially invite me to leave the
project with your "You're on the wrong project, mate." However, since
you're known for your somewhat surly statements and lack of civility, I let
it slide. Now that you've repeated your transgression, however, I feel
compelled to respond.
I'm here to build an encyclopedia. I hope that my contributions log shows
that I have helped to do that. If people disagree, then there are proper
channels to go through if anyone thinks I shouldn't be here. I'd thank you
to use one of them rather than to make your snide, off-wiki comments saying
I'm in the wrong place.
In the meantime, building the encyclopedia requires decisions on policy, as
well as daily decisions about how to apply policy to individual situations.
This requires discussion and sometimes debate. That is inherently a
political process. Person A will inevitably be trying to convince person B
and C that Person A is proposing the correct solution. Sometimes Person A
will be successful in bringing B and C around. Sometimes the opposite will
happen and A will change positions. Sometimes people will agree to
disagree. Etc.
Fortunately, Wikipedia is not ruled by Tony Sidaway, so you don't get to
make all the decisions yourself. As long as multiple people are
contributing to decision-making, politics is a fact-of-life.
I welcome your continued presense on Wikipedia and I thank you for the
myriad contributions you have made to date. I would thank you as well to
extend me the same courtesy, even if you disagree with my position.
Sincerely,
Johntex
On 5/5/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I am still having difficulty figuring out where exactly Wikibooks is
> supposed to mesh with Wikipedia in the grand Wikimedia scheme...to read some
> of the discussions there, it would seem that they don't think any kind of
> "meshing" suitable at all, which seems ridiculous to me...
And similarly, Wikitravel. There is such a lot of duplication of
effort on city articles. IMHO, a wikitravel article on a city should
basically be a great big {{wikipedia:en:Paris}} followed by "the best
bars are..." and "don't forget to buy a metro ticket". There's plenty
of information in Wikitravel that ought to be present in Wikipedia as
well, and a vast amount of the opposite situation.
Steve
I've opened an AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_0.9… because the article is unenclopedic. WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, which means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary mathematical nuggets. Shall I proceed to publish Prof that 1+1 = 2. Bertrand Russel proved it in 260 pages, but it could be shortened. If this is deleted it will also open up the avenue to delete many other proof articles. It's a shame that we fall over ourselves deleting biogaphies of proffessors and sportspersons while content like this is allowed to stay on.
Molu
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
>> "Moving out of Wikipedia" is a term I would reserve for transwikis.
>Got another?
"Take offline" perhaps. Still, I don't really think a euphemism is needed. We
delete it so let's call it a deletion. We just need to be a bit friendly when
we do so.
Sjakkalle
---- Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 May 2006 10:58:15 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >There is a bit of talking by one another here. Reasoned polite
> >advocacy of policy positions is welcomed. Tendentious biased editing
> >(especially when you are working in a group) is not. However, there
> >are numerous situations where which is occurring is not immediately
> >clear. Often the touchstone is that the nasty behavior goes on and on
> >and on and on and on and at some point you realize you are engaging
> >in deliberate behavior calculated to subvert neutral point of view
> >(or in some other way create some tendency which simply doesn't
> >belong in a reference work.
>
> Yes, I suspect we are in violent agreement. It probably comes down to
> how one understands advocacy: I understand it as a point of view
> forcefully put, whereas on Wikipedia I rather prefer a case simply
> stated and consensus sought. But there is more than one shade of the
> colour advocado.
>
> Guy (JzG)
> --
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
> Good Afternoon Guy,
I had fully intended to just come to this address today and delete anything that came from Wikipedia, due to the way I was treated last night. Are those people administration, or are they just faking it? If they are supposed to be behaving professionally , they sure did not do so last night. Ask Phil and Mark what happened. I saved their emails if your are interested in the disgusting way they are representing your enterprise. I am only here for my love and devotion for the english language and writing. I want to be able to help people who need advice. I did not come online last night to get in a word-fight with a couple of ignorant, mean men who had absolutely no idea of who and what they were dealing with.
-Julie Harding____________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---- Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>You better watch it Phil. I am fingerprinted and accepted by the State of California and it is illegal for you to make false allegations against me, even if it is in cyberspace. The police know how to track people down with just their email addresses. What's wrong? Does a little intelligence from a woman intimidate you? One more public false allegation and I'll turn you in.
Julie Miller Harding
951-788-8934
Julie Harding has been put back on moderation while she learns how to
> format posts and to not be on crack. If you were dying to get
> Julie's response to your point, you may want to e-mail her privately.
>
> -Phil
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Both times I've tried to register with a name I was reading wikipedia and
wanted to make a small addition/correction. Inspired by some of the other
funny user names I've seen on wikipedia, I wanted to make one. But this
whole process has left me with a bad taste about what wikipedia is. Rather
than 'assume good faith' and not resorting to ad hominem attacks like I've
seen recommended in so many wikipedia pages, I've seen a lot of nastiness,
on this list (which I don't read often, but just glancing at some of the
side conversations and other conversations, it's hard to find one devoid of
insults) and on wikipedia. I guess this list isn't held to the same
standards as wikipedia, so I suppose maybe why the concentration of nasty
people here is because this is where angry wikipedians go? I don't know.
I'm sure someone will just insult me for being earnest. Have at it.
Bacchante
> On 5/4/06, Steve wrote :
>
> Quick question: Did you register that name because you wanted to edit
> Wikipedia, or because you wanted to make a point?
>
> Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POINT
>
> Steve
>
>
No thanks. As you say, it's just informing people, and it's okay irrespective of sample selection methods. Wikipedia is not a democracy, there's no such thing as vote stacking. And please stop wheel-warring without consensus.
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 20:32:12 -0400
From: Ben McIlwain
Subject: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking
To: English Wikipedia
Message-ID: <44594B8C.1030001(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I recently came across a very contentious Afd having to deal with the
movement to impeach George W. Bush. The discussion was overwhelmed with
vote-stacking. I caught two users doing it and temporarily blocked
them, but was reverted by an admin who says it's "not in policy" that we
can block for that. I've also since discovered a third person who was
vote-stacking.
Vote-stacking is wrong, it is harmful to Wikipedia, and it needs to be
discouraged and stopped. The simple way to do this is to block users
who are doing this. If it's not in the policy now, it should be.
I heard the argument, "Well, if you're just informing other users,
that's not vote-stacking." That's wrong on two counts. First of all,
all of this vote-stacking going on here was specifically encouraging
people to come to the Afd and vote a specific way. And, even if the
message is "neutrally worded", it's still vote-stacking unless I'm
sending it out to a random sample of Wikipedians. Do you think these
vote-stackers were using a random sample? No. They were sending the
messages to people they know already vote their way. In this case, it
appears to be a combination of a What links here on the {{User
republican}} userbox and an examination of which ways people voted on
the previous Afd, and then selectively sending the message to just the
people who previously voted in agreement with the vote-stackers views.
We cannot put up with these attempts at gaming our consensus-based
system. Consensus doesn't work when it just becomes a numbers game of
who can recruit the most votes. And trying to make a rational decision
about the merits of an article when a bunch of sheeple are coming in
mindlessly on both sides and voting without even considering the issues
is absurd. We need to deal with this problem. We need to modify our
policy so that it IS a blockable offense to vote-stack and game the system.
- --
Ben McIlwain ("Cyde Weys")
~ Sub veste quisque nudus est ~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFEWUuMvCEYTv+mBWcRAjkAAJ9JMYgoDcXMZkfFAbfKXmA7gyn0kACfT/Kl
1wdpoLvHP4fzhrECLwXGtsA=
=TV21
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Perhaps Wikipedia should have some new policies to deal with vote stacking??
I could do checkuser if anyone wants, I'm a network admin so could probably learn it fairly quickly.
It would take the workload off admins/current checkusers.
Craig
--- robchur(a)gmail.com wrote:
From: "Rob Church" <robchur(a)gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] We need a policy against vote-stacking
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:50:06 +0100
On 5/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> (interesting question: if we delete material, do we still own the
> copyright to it? Is it still released under GFDL?)
As Geni pointed out, we never owned the copyright. And yes, the
material is still GFDL. It's just that by deleting it, we reject it.
Rob Church
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l