WikiEN-l April 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

179 participants
353 discussions

Will the WMF protect admins acting as their agents to enforce policies?
by Info Control 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

Or are admins on their own legally? An authorized WMF agent needs to answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes (as is happening on the Brandt discussion). Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. I'm terribly afraid that the WMF will not do a thing to not risk losing claimed and still untested Sec. 230 immunity in the United States.

14 46

Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo - community support?
by Jeff Raymond 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

Jimmy Wales wrote: > I think just about any prominent admin could have unblocked Brandt by > giving the reasons I have given, and they probably would have gotten > some heat about it. The real test is: how to respond to that heat? As > for me, I am happy to take the heat, and intend to simply answer > questions as best I can. This is why I wonder how in tune you are with the community these days. This isn't a knock against you, but a legitimate criticism, I think - any other person with administrative powers right now would, bare minimum, be in the midst of an RfC right now, if not dragged in front of the ArbCom based on the community discussion that you apparently feel didn't come to a consensus. Whether ArbCom would take the case (or whether you'd instruct ArbCom not to), no one knows, but there's no way any other person would get just "some heat." -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman

6 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] Ryulong blocked ALL accounts
by Fred Bauder 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Sidaway [mailto:tonysidaway@gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 03:19 PM >To: fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info, 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Ryulong blocked ALL accounts > >On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote: >> >> >Come now, how did Ryulong's actions put people in danger? His block >> >*prevented* them from editing Wikipedia. We still don't know their >> >identities (although as a matter of course, given the similarity of >> >the inflammatory accusations by socks, I hope the checkusers have >> >investigated this affair for possible abusive socking). >> >> I'm not going to do any such thing. > >Quite right. Let cowardice die a loveless death, nameless, unmarked. Because I don't abuse checkuser and make more trouble? I don't think so. There ought to be an end to it. Fred

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo - community support?
by Fred Bauder 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 04:30 PM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo - community support? > >On 4/20/07, Tony Sidaway <tonysidaway(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Jimmy Wales wrote: >> > >> > > I disagree that there is any community consensus here. >> > >> > Wow. Okay. what do you call the massive discussion, then? >> >> Seriously, Jeff, can you look at the conflicting opinions being >> expressed by Wikipedians who hold one another in mutual regard, and >> proclaim a consensus on this issue? >> >Very few people have posted here or on Wikipedia in support of the >unblock. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus against it -- >including Brandt himself! What I support is not unblocking, but negotiating with him, regarding all issues, including his outing activities. Unblocking, note he has not edited, is only a means to that end. Listening respectfully to his issues regarding his article may be productive regarding all the issues which surround such biographies. Fred

2 1

A word of appreciation
by Tony Sidaway 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

The account of administrator User:Robdurbar on English Wikipedia went rogue in the early hours of this morning. Rob had made a friendly goodbye message about six weeks ago and hadn't been active since then. Between 0957 and 1014 UTC, the account deleted the main page as well as several articles: "History", "Cheese", "Esteban Huertas, "Pita, Guinea", "Balham railway station" and "Mardi Gras Mystery". It also vandalized the main page and blocked several prominent editors including User:Jimbo Wales. The account was blocked by User:Sarge_Baldy at 1013 UTC, but unblocked itself and blocked the blocker. At 1014 User:Jon_Harald_Søby, apparently having been notified on IRC by User:Peter_Isotalo through #wikimedia-stewards, desysopped the Robdurbar account on English Wikipedia, and the account was finally blocked indefinitely by User:Cryptic. As a formal matter, a checkuser request has been made for the disabled account. Overall, this incident was handled very promptly and efficiently. Well done and I think a word of appreciation is due to all the volunteers involved. The worst damage here was the loss of the main page for about fifteen minutes, and the accompanying scrabbling between Robdurbar deleting it and other administrators restoring it.

7 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider
by Fred Bauder 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Erik Moeller [mailto:erik@wikimedia.org] >Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:34 PM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider >Wikipedia should do its best to protect the integrity of articles >about living persons. We are not a random web forum and should hold >our articles to a higher standard. > >If Brandt wants to sincerely work with us to achieve that -- fixing >any remaining flaws in his biography, and working with us to identify >strategies to keep it, and other similar articles, sane -- then he >should say so. [excised] and recognize that he is dealing with a group of people who >mean him no harm. [Excised] >-- >Peace & Love, >Erik Amen Fred

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider
by Fred Bauder 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

I didn't do that quite right, he also quoted a post by Eric: >On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> If we take our role as an encyclopedia seriously, then these >> externalities are irrelevant. I would be deeply concerned about the >> kind of precedent where a sufficient amount of noise alone guarantees >> the removal of information. Now it may be Daniel Brandt, tomorrow, >> some strange religious group nobody has ever heard of, then some >> litigious video game lawyer .. this is the wrong way to look at the >> problem and could seriously damage our usefulness. And if you think >> that you can actually close this issue by deleting Brandt's article, >> you've apparently not followed the debate after the last speedy >> deletion attempt. >> >> I'm already concerned that we have a thin skin when it comes to legal >> threats. I want us to develop a legal strategy where we have the >> confidence to stand up against bullies and kooks, rather than folding >> as soon as we get a nasty letter. But that also means that we have to >> take more responsibility to ensure that all our BLP processes are >> working -- including stable version tagging, and so on. >> >> I can understand the notion of an "opt-out" for borderline notability, >> but I've come to the conclusion that this cannot be implemented in a >> reasonable fashion. The only thing that I see viable is that the >> subject's wishes are, by policy, one factor to be taken into account >> in an AfD. That doesn't mean they necessarily outweigh the interests >> of the encyclopedia, but that the people debating the issue ought to >> make a judgment call about it. Then let the chips fall where they may. > >I feel that Jimmy Wales made the wrong decision when he unbanned >me a couple of days ago. I had asked that my article be deleted, >along with the Talk pages, and my User and User_talk pages too. >I am not interested in editing Wikipedia, and never have been, >apart from my desire and need to comment on why I objected to that >article on me, in whole and in part. > >I ask that Mr. Wales reconsider. If the article still exists >several weeks from now, I will formally appeal to the Wikimedia >Foundation Board of Trustees. Since Erik is a trustee (at least >until June), he may have a chance to cast his vote on this issue at >that time. If the Board declines to get involved, then this will >introduce an additional level of confusion over the distribution >of power and responsibility within Wikipedia. > >Since the structure of Wikipedia has a direct bearing on the >content offered by Wikipedia, this distribution of power has legal >implications. Let me put it bluntly: While it may be true that the >Foundation Board of Trustees does not seek to shape content apart >from its control over moderation privileges through the software >it develops and the servers it owns, it is still true that the >Board has the power to summarily delete content. Failure to do so >is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board >is made aware of the situation. I don't think anyone seriously >disputes this. If it is a matter of dispute, then this is what >I hope to clarify someday in a court of law. > >Erik thinks very highly of Wikipedia's mission, and feels that >the topics it chooses to cover should enjoy sanctuary from outside >interference -- Wikipedia exists in the wonderful world of >cyberspace, where real-world laws don't apply. The only concession >he makes is that the subject's wishes are "one factor": the victim >gets to say some final words before execution. > >That is not a realistic point of view. It is especially unrealistic >given the fact that hordes of anonymous editors, many of them >underage, are creating Wikipedia's content, and can change it >at any time. > >It was pointed out by another that I'm neither powerful enough >nor rich enough to give Wikipedia any trouble, and therefore it >follows that Wikipedia should ignore me. As pathetic and immoral >as this viewpoint may be, it is the logical extension of Erik's >position. If Erik is wrong, it's the death of Wikipedia in the >short-term. And if Erik is right, it's still the death of >Wikipedia, but now perhaps in the longer-term. > >I think Mr. Wales should delete my article, with the understanding >that in this case he is acting for the Board. It would save >everyone a lot of trouble. > >-- Daniel Brandt

1 0

Media coverage of reliability in comic strips
by Cheney Shill 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

Today's (Friday 4/20) Get Fuzzy comic strip, for those who prefer the name Wackypedia: http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20070420.html ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site) --spam may follow-- __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt unblocked by Jimbo - community support?
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

"Erik Moeller" wrote > I think we should all be willing to try out such experiments > more frequently, rather than dividing our world into friends and > enemies. Magnanimity is a good card to play against malice, when in a position of strength. I think there is little doubt that Brandt means harm to Wikipedia's reputation, and intends to do such harm by placing adverse media stories. This will happen whether or not he is a Wikipedia editor. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

8 12

Re: [WikiEN-l] Brandt, bios, and other thoughts
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 20 Apr '07

20 Apr '07

"Kirill Lokshin" wrote > I think it would be reasonable to > say that this issue has become, by any measure, the single most > disruptive one we've experienced in terms of damage to the community > and the project as a whole. It might be reasonable to say that; but for me it is not true to say that. And it is important to point out that what Brandt actually wants is to damage our credibility (not the community or project as such). If the argument is 'don't give him a pretext', I fear that the mere existence of Wikipedia is an adequate pretext. He feels we are owed 'public relations disasters', just for having the prominence we do. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
...
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 April 2007