WikiEN-l May 2006

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

184 participants
353 discussions

WP:BLP and George M. von Furstenberg
by Joseph Hiegel 29 May '06

29 May '06

Yesterday a user posted to ANI requesting that excisions be made from the edit history of a biographical article in order that information troubling to the subject should be removed (the discussion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_not…] was removed from ANI by [[User:Bishonen]] at the request of the original poster, ostensibly because we'd discerned the article the poster was referencing and noted it on the board). Because I'd replied on ANI, the user e-mailed me with respect to the article, and because I'm not certain how we ought to apply [[WP:BLP]] in this case, I thought I'd ask here. The article in question is [[George M. von Furstenberg]], the subject of which corresponds with the user who compiled much of his biography, [[User:Jpbrenna]]. Furstenberg is concerned because, in the edit history, the year of his birth (and only the year) is given (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_M._von_Furstenberg&directi…) as recently as 1 March; his concerns stem from fears about identity theft, for which reason, apparently, he also seeks the removal of the names of his wife and son (most recently in the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_M._von_Furstenberg&directi…] on 1 March). BLP suggests that, where a non-public personnage requests birthdate removal, we ought only to leave the year, and the year of birth is all the article ever contained. With respect to his wife and son, I'm disinclined to think the son to be notable, but his marriage to a Baronness von Willmurg likely is notable (he doesn't want her maiden name to be given), even as the languages she speaks likely don't need to be enumerated. My inclination, then, would be to remove nothing (especially in view of the considerable difficulties involved, as much of the information was added concomitantly to the date of birth and wife and son names). Finally, one issue of which I think we can easily dispose: the professor doesn't wish the fact of his having been born titled (as a baron) to be in the edit history, as he desires that he should not be associated with an aristocratic background, lest one should think him to have become successful only because of his family history. Notwithstanding that the birth name isn't cited (although I'm certain it could be), I'm disinclined to think we ought to remove it; the concern, though privacy-based, seems to be one about which we shouldn't care. I know, though, that my interpretation of BLP may be affected in part by my general disfavoring of it (as I've explained many times, we ought to edit, IMHO, absent legal concerns, wholly dispassionately and disinterestedly, not caring about the extra-Wiki consequences). So, what parts, if any, of the edit history ought we to remove, and what ought we to ask [[User:Jpbrenna]] to pass along to the subject (should we simply encourage him to contact the Foundation's designated agent or even an admin directly, or should we do what we can to assuage his concerns)? Thanks in advance for your help, Joe Hiegel Jahiegel

1 0

'Death of Wikipedia' well summarizes the future of Wikipedia!
by Ceyda Lacin 28 May '06

28 May '06

'Death of Wikipedia' is a motto already invented to summarizes the future of Wikipedia. Good luck! CLacin >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 11:47:38 -0700 >From: Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - waiting for unblock >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Message-ID: <11a683e55c6ed34062d8acb6d6a40977(a)netwood.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > >On May 28, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote: > > Hi Jesse, > > So, will someone unblock me form editing? > > Thank you, > > Ceyda ([[User:Light&Truth]]) > >No. I have reviewed the evidence at the CheckUser subpage, and >considering the history Rgu has with creating fake other people who >share his typos, only edit when he isn't editing, and otherwise are >clear sockpuppets, I have changed my opinion. I no longer believe that >you are in fact a different person, and Rgu has without any question >worn out his welcome here. Sorry. > >Jesse Weinstein > > > _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

2 1

Google indexes quickly!
by Steve Bennett 28 May '06

28 May '06

Hi all, Here's a story: 1. I noticed that the Georgia article had been updated to include a link to "Australian pianist" [[Georgia Ollier]]. 2. At this latter link, there are templates asking for sources etc. 3. I google the name...the number one hit is the Georgia disambiguation page. 4. Check the history on the disambig page - that addition was made all of *three hours* previously. That's impressive - you add a link to a disambig page, and less than 3 hours later you're the number one hit on Google. What's the lesson here? Steve

12 18

Re: [WikiEN-l] The shift of Wikipedia
by A. Nony Mouse 28 May '06

28 May '06

Just extrapolating from the fact that his email address is at free.fr A. Nony Mouse On 5/28/06, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5/28/06, A. Nony Mouse <mousyme(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I believe that is because you are looking at the wrong Wikipedia. > > > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Lerichard > > > > Perhaps? > > Hmm.. shouldn't he complain at wikifr-l then? >

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Critique on administrators is no personal attack
by Daniel R. Tobias 28 May '06

28 May '06

On 28 May 2006 at 11:34, Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at> wrote: > Mark Gallagher wrote: > > > > You were not being a legitimate critic. You were building a hit list. > > I wouldn't call it a hit list. It was more like a list of (virtual) > victims of the J-P cartoon controversy article. Victims or perpetrators... depends on your POV, I guess. -- == 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/

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] katefan0 (was: First post)
by Daniel R. Tobias 28 May '06

28 May '06

On 29 May 2006 at 01:17, "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's time to destroy WR. They've had more than six months to > actually do some reviewing and come up with some constructive > criticisms, and have offered nothing but hatred. That would be sinking to their level, wouldn't it? However, I, too, am disappointed that WR has taken the low road and, instead of providing constructive criticism (which every project needs; goodness knows that there are plenty of problems and issues with Wikipedia which could be brought out constructively), has been a gathering place for people determined to destroy Wikipedia, by any means no matter how sleazy. -- == 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/

2 1

Surprising VfD discussions
by Steve Bennett 28 May '06

28 May '06

Hi all, Recently there was a vague request for AfD/VfD discussions which had radically changed course from keep to delete or whatver. By chance I stumbled upon a user who has a collection of a dozen or so on his user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rossami Enjoy. Steve

2 1

Unblock request - waiting for unblock
by Ceyda Lacin 28 May '06

28 May '06

Hi Jesse, So, will someone unblock me form editing? Thank you, Ceyda ([[User:Light&Truth]]) >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 22:30:02 -0500 >From: "Ceyda Lacin" <ceyda-lacin(a)hotmail.com> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Deal! >To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >Message-ID: <BAY122-F14B7CB14D08364C66B4701F19C0(a)phx.gbl> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > I would agree on that. It is OK with me to wait a few more months while >editing on other articles and gain more experience. Please note that, none >of my edits were out of acceptable limits. I took all my edits serious on >Gulen talk page too, as you can easily see from quality of my edits. I >believe this Wikipedia project can be improved further and I am ready and >willing to offer my help. > On the other hand, I canot accept your statements which imply that I am >editing barely to support someone else. With my whole respect, that is not >a >kind and good statement. I am not a blind follower of someone and Dr. >Gulerdem who is an adorable person, a gentleman with an unbelievably good >mind did not asked me to back up him on that dispute. It is not something >he >can do, and it is not something I could agree on. He mainly introduced the >project to me, in particular pointed out the Gulen article. I thought I can >do something about it myself. I do not know why those people feel animosity >towards Dr. Gulerdem (other than some ideological or religious hatred) but >I >think one should consider it as a chance for Wikipedia, if he still wants >to >continue on editing. > Thank you for your recommendation and understanding. > Ceyda Lacin > >------------------------------ > > >Message: 5 >Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 14:28:39 -0700 >From: Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - We are not a group acting > like one person >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Message-ID: <adb306998433c836aadd1f27e0416e1a(a)netwood.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed > >On May 27, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote: > > Please note that my contributions to the Gulen article is no more > > than my contributions to other articles. >According to the contributions of Light&Truth >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Light%26Truth ): >The account made 11 edits to Fethullah G?len (or the talk page). 7 >more edits to user_talk and Wikipedia pages related to the controversy >on the Fethullah G?len page and/or the account's relationship to >Rgulerdem. A few edits to the user page; and a total of 8 edits to any >other page. Of those 8 edits: >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >title=Speech_act&diff=prev&oldid=47905348 was changing quote marks; >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >title=Amoeba&diff=prev&oldid=47906593 was a good, useful addition >(which I appreciate), >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk: >Myosin&diff=prev&oldid=47908396 and >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk: >Integrin&diff=prev&oldid=47908564 were apparently useful suggestions; >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >title=Ezra_Crack&diff=prev&oldid=54071880 was changing quote marks; >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >title=Papiamento&diff=prev&oldid=54072104 was apparently changing a >space, or at least, nothing shows up on the diff; >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >title=History&diff=prev&oldid=54073468 was an apparently useful >clarification of the def; >http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? >title=Cuiheng&diff=prev&oldid=54075558 was a small, but useful >rephrasing. > >Looking this over, it seems clear that the account was started on >Wikipedia to participate in the Fethullah G?len controversy (as over >50% of the edits are on that subject), but that the account holder is >apparently honestly willing and interested in contributing to Wikipedia >in other areas. Bringing new users to Wikipedia in order to sway the >outcome of a controversy is justly frowned upon, however, on this >evidence alone, I would recommend an unblock if, and only if, the >account holder agrees to avoid the Fethullah G?len controversy for a >period of time (at least a few months, and maybe a year). > >Jesse Weinstein > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 15:34:57 -0500 >From: "Ceyda Lacin" <ceyda-lacin(a)hotmail.com> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - We are not a group acting like > one person >To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >Message-ID: <BAY122-F6FFC06F3F742306E32F0DF19F0(a)phx.gbl> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > > Did you mean Users Azate and Netscott should be blocked because they >are >acting like a single person? Maybe sysop Cyde too? Please note that my >contributions to the Gulen article is no more than my contributions to >other >articles. To interpret us like 'a group acing together' will mislead you in >your decision. We both know some abuout the issue and wanted to contribute >to the article. You will see that it is not a blind support to Mr. Gulerdem >if you check the talk page. All actions and edits are within the limits of >Wikipedia rules. Please check Gulen talk page. > Thank you, > Ceyda Lacin > > >------------------------------ > > > >Message: 3 > >Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 07:49:11 -0600 > >From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request - Further explanations of the > > case > >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> > >Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> > >Message-ID: <00A1A72E-6418-49B0-A620-888CCCF01D7A(a)ctelco.net> > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; > > format=flowed > > > >A small group of people who act like one person may be treated as one > >person. > > > >Fred > > > >On May 27, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote: > > > > > I will try to explain as briefly as possible: > > > > > > Please check the following links to see the case clearly: > > > * [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] > > > * [[Fethullah Gulen]] > > > * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem] > > > > > > Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid > > > background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I > > > have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he > > > has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue > > > but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few > > > books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to > > > the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried > > > to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles. > > > > > > Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on > > > Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We > > > quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and > > > [[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity > > > towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without > > > much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or > > > cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him, > > > together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified > > > indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user > > > does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions > > > took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems > > > to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again > > > indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no > > > doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in > > > Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on > > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem]). > > > He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because > > > Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under > > > some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried > > > really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can > > > ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block > > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem]). > > > That is the main picture in my mind. > > > > > > Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him > > > to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a > > > check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate > > > his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what > > > they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is > > > strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact > > > not a violation except under some certain situations which are not > > > applicable to our case. > > > > > > What are these guys doing on that Gulen article: > > > > > > [[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at > > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem#Response]). > > > A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier > > > accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has > > > been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also > > > asking about any possible relation between these two users but it > > > was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and > > > quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that > > > and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening. > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my > > > critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at > > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/ > > > Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]). > > > Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about > > > who is doing what on that article. > > > > > > [[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits > > > ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3% > > > BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962]) > > > over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on > > > the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is > > > irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant > > > contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active > > > in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never > > > provided a reason > > > to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable. > > > I should also add that > > > [[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the > > > article from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of > > > the main article. I hope this gives some insight > > > about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The > > > links are provided at > > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem#Response] > > > you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the > > > quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from > > > a block > > > that is applied to two others in the same conflict > > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not > > > be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I > > > have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing > > > Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at > > > the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems > > > with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it > > > from his talk page. > > > > > > Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the > > > middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we > > > know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check > > > user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and > > > the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations, > > > there is no a single serious statements made among those > > > accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok) > > > and Dr. Gulerdem > > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > > Rgulerdem#Response). > > > > > > Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also > > > change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and > > > want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate > > > accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter. > > > > > > Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a > > > just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I > > > doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem. > > > > > > Ceyda Lacin > > > > > > > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> Message: 6 > > >> Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600 > > >> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> > > >> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar > > >> IP's > > >> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> > > >> Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> > > >> Message-ID: <BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77(a)ctelco.net> > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > > >> > > >> Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia. > > >> Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the > > >> very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three > > >> accounts will not wash. > > >> > > >> Fred > > >> > > >> On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not > > >> > looking at the > > >> > case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page > > >> are not > > >> > legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am > > >> > expecting a > > >> > sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later. > > >> > Thank you. > > >> > Ceyda. > > >> > > > >> > Message: 9 > > >> > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600 > > >> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> > > >> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request > > >> > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> > > >> > Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> > > >> > Message-ID: <1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA(a)ctelco.net> > > >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > >> > > > >> > There is more to it than that. > > >> > > > >> > Fred > > >> > > > >> > On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> Hi, > > >> >> > > >> >> I wonder how you can say, they are the same user, > > >> >> when all you can check is that they are using the > > >> >> same IP-address. > > >> >> > > >> >> best regards > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Raphael > > >> >> > > >> >> Fred Bauder wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >>> These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked > > >> this. I > > >> >>> doublechecked. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Fred > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> Hi, > > >> >>>> I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username > > >> >>>> [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr. > > >> >>>> Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my > > >> >>>> friend know > > >> >>>> about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project. > > >> >>>> Unfortunately > > >> >>>> at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face > > >> to an > > >> >>>> inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my > > >> >>>> partner > > >> >>>> [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not > > >> >>>> true. I tried > > >> >>>> to explain it on the check user page: > > >> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ > > >> >>>> Rgulerdem. > > >> >>>> I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all > > >> >>>> living at the > > >> >>>> same university housing complex and using the same IP's > > >> randomly. I > > >> >>>> understand that check user made his decision based on that. > > >> >>>> I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as > > >> much as I > > >> >>>> can. I > > >> >>>> would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are > > >> >>>> not the > > >> >>>> same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal. > > >> >>>> Thank you in advance. > > >> >>>> Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]]) > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> _________________________________________________________________ > > >> >>>> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - > > >> >>>> it's FREE! > > >> >>>> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >> >>>> WikiEN-l mailing list > > >> >>>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > >> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > >> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> _______________________________________________ > > >> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list > > >> >>> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > >> >>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > >> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> WikiEN-l mailing list > > >> >> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > >> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > _________________________________________________________________ > > >> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - > > >> > it's FREE! > > >> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > WikiEN-l mailing list > > >> > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > >> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http:// > > > search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > > WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® >Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > > > _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 294
by John Lyden 28 May '06

28 May '06

> From: "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> > > Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > > On 28 May 2006 at 00:19, "John Lyden" <rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Yes yes. We are ALL very anti-Muslim, as has been shown by yourself, > >> Prasad, Abu-Hama-Saladin whoever, Dr. Gulerdem, Rocky Balboa, The New > >> York Times, Marvel Team-Up #193 and last but certainly not least > >> Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard. > >> > >> It's all a conspiracy perpetrated by THE CABAL. Fnord. > > > > Waitaminnit... Marvel Team-Up (1st series, 1972-1985) ended at issue > > #150 (there were also 7 annuals), while its second series (1997-1998) > > was canceled after issue #8. Thus, there was never any #193... or is > > there just a conspiracy to cover up its existence? (Source: The > > Standard Catalog of Comic Books, Krause Publications, 2002; obviously > > part of the conspiracy.) > > > > It's going to be written in the future. You assume that The Cabal does > *not* have access to time-travel technology? Sheesh, who do you take > them for? The Justice League? TINJLA? Clearly, we are the Great Lakes Avengers of the Intarweb. -- John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com "The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time..." -Kerouac

1 0

Separating admin accounts from user accounts (Re: katefan0)
by Steve Bennett 28 May '06

28 May '06

On 5/28/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not that I'm sold on it, but if you're going down *that* avenue, just > RFA in batches of twenty or thirty and hand out accounts en bloc... I'm not sold either, but the debate should perhaps be had. There are basically three broad options: 1. "The borg" - all admins by default act through the same account. It is possible, but with difficulty, to determine who performed which administrative act. - Major problems of accountability of course. 2. "Pseudonyms" - each admin has an account used exclusively for administrative actions. At his discretion, he may disclose this link. Problems - maintaining the secrecy, convincing users that accountability is maintained, users having no idea of the history of each admin (where they suddenly came from...) 3. As current - problems: targetability, admins having more sway than is reasonable when acting outside their role (eg, content disputes) etc. Comments and opinions pls. Steve

6 13

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
36
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l May 2006