On 4/10/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/10/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/10/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > George, you're a regular laugh a minute.
> >
> > Always nice to keep things properly in perspective.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > > Why would I believe unblock-en-l is any different? Why should anyone?
> The
> > > statistics show that three users answer more than 90% of the unblock
> > > requests on-wiki. THREE users, and they uniformly deny them all. Why
> would I
> > > believe that a secretive email list where nobody can see in, is any
> > > different? I don't see a reason why.
> >
> > "The statistics" is an interesting claim - no statistics are in
> > evidence, nor am I aware of anyone having generated any.
>
> I was speaking of the statistics of the {{unblock}} template, though
> there's a fair amount of abuse of that too - especially abusive
> administrators who block someone and then lock their talk page or revert
> their attempt to place the {{unblock}} template before another user sees it.
There's no connection between {{unblock}} and unblock-en-L. They're
parallel mechanisms which can do the same thing.
> > In some cases we find admins have made mistakes, or done something
> > abusive, in which case we go talk to the admin. On rare occation an
> > unblock-en-L member has just unblocked, without talking to the
> > blocking admin first, but we operate under the principle that it's
> > better to talk first and avoid wheel warring over blocks.
>
> Funny, that - that's precisely the policy that's made appealing to "another
> administrator" a complete joke. You continually state that users have the
> "right" to appeal to any other administrator, but the policies as put in
> place say otherwise: an administrator is required to "talk" with the abusing
> administrator, who merely has to keep their mouth shut in order to stonewall
> action.
No, if we believe there's been a major error made, and the blocking
admin isn't reasonably responsive, people will unblock and notify the
blocking admin. It doesn't happen often, but it doesn't have to
happen often. Admins usually respond. One of the advantages of
unblock-en-L is that we have a bunch of admins there who are willing
to push the issue politely; if I find something I ask the blocking
admin to reconsider, and they don't, Luna or Yamla or Clowns can often
show up and chime in on the blocking admin's talk page (or any of many
others, just a few off the top of my head).
Deferring to the blocking admin doesn't mean ignoring the situation if
they don't respond or are unreasonable.
> > >> "anyone who thinks we need more oversight is welcome to propose
> > more oversight."
> > >
> > > Bullshit. I'd have been happy to do so, but your corrupt freaks decided
> that
> > > anyone who dissents, anyone who gets too close to the truth about their
> corruption,
> > > has to be banned before those with power get exposed.
> >
> > Unblock-en-L has very little power to be corrupt with. If we stood in
> > the way, blocking other mechanisms of block appeal, it might be
> > possible for us to cause problems. But we don't. Any blocked user
> > has 1300-odd admins they can appeal to directly via email;
> > unblock-en-l; posting the templates on their talk page; Arbcom; and
> > the Foundation in extremis.
>
> All of which are rubber stamps, more or less. And your claim that they can
> appeal to 1300-odd admins "directly via email" is doubly duplicitous, since
> the rules on "wheel warring" basically prohibit any administrator following
> up.
The rules on wheel warring most certainly don't prohibit any admin
from following up. That's a ridiculous view of the situation. Wheel
warring just means don't *keep* doing something which gets undone; go
talk about it. We take situations to AN/I all the time, asking for
independent review and comment. The unblock-en-l admins and other
volunteers are really good at doing per-policy notification, advocacy,
and escalation. We don't have to do it very often, but we do it.
> > Unblock-en-L has not been granted any special power by the Foundation,
> > Arbcom, or community. We're just there to help clear things up for
> > people, and if they need help, we can provide it. There's no special
> > power in the list, or list members. The Foundation or Arbcom could
> > come stomp on us tomorrow if they felt we were abusive, or the wrong
> > mechanism or any such.
>
> And why would they stomp on a rubber stamp?
> > I don't like being rude, but really. Put up or shut up.
>
> I don't like being rude, but really, you're just being a prick now. You've
> seen the behavior that leads me to distrust the claims you're making, and
> you're just going on like this now?
I believe a lot of people have grounds for complaints about the
process. But that's not the same as being paranoid about the whole of
WP infrastructure being out to get you.
> > We're open
> > to oversight and review.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it. The behavior I've seen, not just in relation
> to unblock-en-l but in relation to wikien-l and wikipedia in general, shows
> that administrators think "oversight" is another tool for abusing people and
> maintaining POV-clique control of the article space.
>
> > It's possible that there's no overlap
> > between the set of people you'd trust to propose to review
> >
> > Unblock-en-L and the set of people who we'd trust with people's
> > privacy enough to do the oversight role.
>
> It's possible. I don't know yet. See below.
> > If that turns out to be true
> > then we have a mutual problem.
>
> There are plenty of problems with Wikipedia, generally. If this was a mutual
> problem, at least you'd be admitting it was a problem, which would likely be
> a first.
>
> > But you haven't made the effort to
> > attempt to nominate someone for a review or oversight role.
>
> Because any nomination, as long as the abuse by David Gerard hangs over all
> this, is rather futile now isn't it? I mean, seriously. I propose one.
> Someone else - likely David or one of his cronies - says absolutely not,
> because the person I nominate now has a connection to me. The abuse and
> flaming by David and his corrupt cronies will go on, and before you know it,
> the whole thing's torpedoed.
I don't think David's on unblock-en-L and I don't think anyone but
Jimbo or the Board would get veto power over people joining it.
> Ah, what the hell. The worst you can do is make more enemies for your
> corrupt selves.
>
> You mentioned Marc. I don't know him that well. I don't know if he's
> suitable or not. I'd prefer to see Saintonge, because he at least APPEARS to
> be one of the few trustworthy wikipedians who's had any connection to this
> list - but I note even he went silent, probably again at the hands of Gerard
> and his minions. So I really can't say for certain.
That's not the right spelling for his account name, and I'm not
recalling the correct one... I just went wandering through a bunch of
stuff and couldn't get it, either.
>From what I recall, he was fine. Have you asked him?
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
The reasoning completely necessitates the purging - we had a number of
people who'd joined the list instead of just sending us unblock
requests. We'd seen the one major incident with info leaking in what
became an arbcom case, we'd also seen a number of people who joined
the list under questionable circumstances start to reply to other
people sending in new requests, some of those replies not being
accurate or helpful.
I'm not clear what you mean by:
> nor does it necessitate the amazingly harsh setup in which even those who
> come in good faith can't see the responses to their own messages.
...are you referring to the fact that unblock-en-l list members can
have private discussions in response to a request, without copying the
requestor? Or are you referring to the slightly broken email reply-to
which leads a lot of us to accidentally reply just to the list and not
copy the requestor on responses? The latter is just a list setup bug;
if anyone can figure out how to fix the reply-to right we'd love to
fix it. The former... Well, ok, someone could see it in a paranoid
light, but most of what happens is just boring.
As I said, anyone who thinks we need more oversight is welcome to
propose more oversight. So far, we haven't had any "you need more
oversight" complaints - we've had complaints when we cleaned up the
list, but I think most of the cleanup was pretty black or white
situations, not a lot of grey.
If Wikipedia critics like Parker (or Brandt, or anyone else) really
feel strongly about this, propose someone to join the list who we can
all believe will respect private personal info in a responsible adult
manner, to keep an eye on things.
Marc Riddell, who's not particularly a WP insider (and I don't think
is an admin), is in the process of coming on board now. I think he's
getting the emails as of a couple of days ago. He might be someone
the critics would believe and trust.
If you particularly want someone else, propose them. It needs to be
someone that *we* can trust with private info too, but if there exists
a mutually agreeable candidate I have no problems with them being
there.
You could have asked us if we were willing to have some sort of
oversight review before you acused us of rejecting it, and avoided a
silly, nasty argument. 8-)
-george
On 4/10/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, George. I just send them in the same way as always.
>
> If you really claim that's the reason unblock-en-l is locked down, I call
> foul. That reasoning doesn't necessitate the "purging" you did a while back,
> nor does it necessitate the amazingly harsh setup in which even those who
> come in good faith can't see the responses to their own messages.
>
> It's a fraud, and you know it.
>
> Parker
>
>
> On 4/10/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com > wrote:
> > It may have been mailed to a bunch of list members directly, with
> > faked header info looking like it was sent via lists.wikimedia.org.
> > The headers and footer are wrong-looking.
> >
> > I read my wikien-l at gmail, which isn't showing me the true whole
> > headers, but someone who got the whole headers of the message could
> > figure out where it was injected.
> >
> > I don't particularly mind, but it is sort of silly.
> >
> > Also silly and a bit pathetic is the rant about unblock-en-l. It went
> > private because people were sending detailed identifying info to the
> > list, and the Foundation's policies for protecting personal info
> > details required it. We had detailed personal info leak from one
> > party in what became an Arbcom case to another party in that Arbcom
> > case by joining Unblock-en-l when it was unmoderated. The party whose
> > personal info was out there claimed phone and work harrassment later
> > followed, though we don't know that the info came via that particular
> > leak or have verification of the claimed harrassment.
> >
> > This sort of information leak is intolerable for any organization that
> > cares about personal privacy. Parker, how would you feel if what had
> > leaked was your home phone number, address, and employer's contact
> > information?
> >
> > The list is not closed and locked down to any outside oversight. It's
> > just not freely open in an unrestricted manner now. If anyone has
> > serious questions about oversight or review of unblock-en-l
> > activities, propose an oversight mechanism. Just be aware that the
> > oversight mechanism will have to work with the privacy mechanism.
> >
> > The complaint about unblock-en-l also betrays a serious
> > misunderstanding of what the role is of unblock-en-l. We're there as
> > one of several appeals mechanisms. Others include email to the
> > blocking admin, email to any other admin who will listen, posting an
> > unblock request template on your talk page, filing a request with
> > Arbcom, or ultimately going to the Foundation or OTRS. Unblock-en-L
> > can't and has no authority to override and keep blocked anyone who
> > successfully appeals via another mode, and we certainly aren't the
> > only way to appeal something. We're just one way to get ahold of
> > people who are real human beings, will take a look at a situation if
> > asked, and will assist if we think it's needed. There is no special
> > power - I was active on unblock-en-L for many months before becoming
> > an admin, using nothing more than the powers of research, reasonable
> > discussion, and persuasion where I found a block that I thought might
> > be questionable.
> >
> >
> > -george
> >
> > On 4/10/07, Gary Kirk <gary.kirk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not getting into it, but why didn't this message come with [WikiEN-l]?
> > >
> > > On 10/04/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > A new entry for you to read, and enjoy.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you will find enlightened, depending on how corrupt a
> wikipedian you
> > > > are.
> > > >
> > > > The more corrupt will dismiss it out of hand, of course.
> > > >
> > > > http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------
> > > > the "Unblock-en-l" list, which was supposedly created to allow a new
> avenue
> > > > for people to seek unblock (once people on wikien-l got tired of
> people
> > > > asking for unblock there), has been Completely Closed Off. The
> archives are
> > > > no longer public record. Nobody is allowed to subscribe, save for
> those who
> > > > are in the "good graces" of a certain group of abusive administrators
> > > > already. Anyone can submit an email to it, but until such time as they
> see
> > > > an email back, they cannot see the discussion surrounding them, or the
> > > > behavior of those inside the group.
> > > >
> > > > I can tell you why this is. It is simply because the Unblock-en-l
> group is a
> > > > *total and utter fraud.* It was never intended, and has never been
> intended,
> > > > that it be a legitimate place for legitimate users to get unblocked.
> Rather,
> > > > it's yet another rubber-stamp on the lies and deception
> > > >
> necessary<http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/3130.html>to
> keep anyone
> > > > who page-owning administrators and interest groups feel might
> > > > one day be part of a consensus against their particular point of view,
> out.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ====
> > > > Parker Peters
> > > > http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gary Kirk
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > george.herbert(a)gmail.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ====
> Parker Peters
> http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
Not getting into it, but why didn't this message come with [WikiEN-l]?
On 10/04/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> A new entry for you to read, and enjoy.
>
> Perhaps you will find enlightened, depending on how corrupt a wikipedian you
> are.
>
> The more corrupt will dismiss it out of hand, of course.
>
> http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
>
>
> --------------------------------
> the "Unblock-en-l" list, which was supposedly created to allow a new avenue
> for people to seek unblock (once people on wikien-l got tired of people
> asking for unblock there), has been Completely Closed Off. The archives are
> no longer public record. Nobody is allowed to subscribe, save for those who
> are in the "good graces" of a certain group of abusive administrators
> already. Anyone can submit an email to it, but until such time as they see
> an email back, they cannot see the discussion surrounding them, or the
> behavior of those inside the group.
>
> I can tell you why this is. It is simply because the Unblock-en-l group is a
> *total and utter fraud.* It was never intended, and has never been intended,
> that it be a legitimate place for legitimate users to get unblocked. Rather,
> it's yet another rubber-stamp on the lies and deception
> necessary<http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com/3130.html>to keep anyone
> who page-owning administrators and interest groups feel might
> one day be part of a consensus against their particular point of view, out.
>
> --
> ====
> Parker Peters
> http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com
>
--
Gary Kirk
Before I start, my apologies if you've already read this message - I'm
posting in quite a few places for maximum visibility, as it's the only way
to get such an idea off the ground :).
As a part of the new Community Projects Group, a page has been set up where
you can tell Wikimedia about your "Success stories" with the projects in
real life. For example, have you used Wikibooks or Wikiversity to learn a
new skill, or have you used Wikipedia or Wiktionary in education? We want
to hear about what effect Wikimedia participation has had on you in real
life, and we'd also like you to tell us how you might have seen other people
using the projects for benefit. Take a look at <
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Success_Stories_-_How_has_Wikimedia_Changed_…>
on meta, and tell us *your* experiences.
Thanks,
Martin (User:Martinp23)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Seth Finkelstein [mailto:sethf@sethf.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 9, 2007 09:32 AM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Opt Out for Not So Notable Biographies
>
>> Christiano Moreschi
>> Is there really a single situation where our existing system of BLP
>> vigilance, emails to the Foundation, OTRS volunteers, AfDs, reliable
>> sourcing, etc has failed to deal with people wanting their bios taken
>> down/fixed with the exception of Daniel Brandt?
There are several unresolved situations. An aggrieved subject must be something of a diplomat to figure out who to appeal to and how.
Fred
> Well, if you define "deal with people" as "has anyone else
>taken their unhappiness as far as has Daniel Brandt?", the answer is
>"No". But I don't think that would be a useful definition.
>
>> Beyond Daniel Brandt, do we really have a problem here that needs fixing?
>
> Yes (IMHO).
>
> My view is that I'm not going to go on a legal crusade over
>my own issues with Wikipedia - that for biographies of living people,
>it's an attractive nuisance and a weapon of asymmetrical warfare.
>But I sure do think it's a problem that needs fixing.
>
>Seth Finkelstein
A common sense attitude. What can we do to reduce the problems that arise? Neglected articles with defamatory material, articles with little in them but some unfortunate incident, clumsy attempts to correct articles by subject.
Fred
>Plagiarism is masquerading another's ideas as your own. Using a single
>source almost always leads to this situation (unless you creatively
>reinterpret the single source (==original research!)). You can be
>plagiaristic while crediting the work you're plagiarising - depends
>how the referencing is done.
>
>If I were to restate a philosopher's critique without incorporating
>other critiques or constantly reminding the reader that the critique
>is not my own (e.g. "Dennett then goes on to state..."), I risk
>plagiarism. This is the case even if I reference the philosopher (here
>Dennett) at the end of the essay.
>
>--
>Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)
Not if you candidly credit your source for each significant fact or assertion contained in your article. Just a footnote at the end would not suffice. We expect every significant fact or assertion to be verifiable by reverence to a reliable source. You may have written a poor article, but you have not plagiarized.
Fred
On 4/8/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Israel_News_Agen…
>
> Eventualy proved posible to delete through AFD despite claims to the contry.
The AFD in question... http://tinyurl.com/yrzj2h
But in order to make it possible, you had to make a special rule about
having to have 150 edits to make a keep/delete comment, a rule that
doesn't apply to any other AFD though a similar "made up" rule was
used once used for GNAA.
If it is necessary to treat certain controversial sock prone AFDs this
way then a policy needs to be adopted covering it, who can invoke
"special rules", under what circumstances, and what qualifies an
account to "vote" when the rule is invoked. This is so it doesn't look
like the nominator is pulling rules out of his ass. If I am not
mistaken, users have been warned in the past about making up their own
policies.
As for how such a rule would be phrased, I don't like the use of "edit
counts". In the case of the INA AFD, my vote would have been ruled out
even though I am nobody's sock and have been around since 2005. A
better idea would be to disallow "votes" from accounts less then 15
days old which should cover the length of an AFD plus a relisting.
That is, if it must be done at all.
>I hope the horse I am beating is still alive: we have to be absolutely
>ruthless about removing "I think I heard it somewhere"
>pseudo-information from Wikipedia, and especially from biographies.
>
>People who are fighting the good fight here are sometimes threatened
>with a trip to ArbCom. They need our support, though.
>
>--Jimbo
It needs to be clear up and down the line that the arbitration committee will support people who remove unsourced information, as long as they are nice about it. But these things should never come to us, people who resist removal of unsourced information should be clued in long before it comes to that.
Fred
Recently, [[User:DennyColt]] has created an essay article,
[[WP:BADSITES]], that advocates banning all links to sites that are
considered to be "attack sites". Although this is an essay, and
explicitly says that it is not a policy, he then proceeded to invoke
his own essay in pursuing a draconian campaign to suppress all links
to Wikpedia Review, an anti-Wikipedia web forum. In doing so, he did
things that are normally considered to be against Wikipedia policy,
such as altering other people's comments on talk and project pages,
and editing archive pages and closed AfDs.
While I am on the record as strongly critical of the tone and
atmosphere of the WR site, I am also strongly against the imposition
of a flat ban on linking to it, even on user, talk, and project
pages. This is part of a consistent position I have of opposing all
flat bans on linking to particular sites other than blatant spam
sites of the "Buy Herbal Viagra Now" variety (and even *those* might
have rare cases where links to them are appropriate, such as when
methods used by spammers are being discussed and criticized).
When one is engaged in a discussion about those sites themselves, and
the people on them, and the things they're saying, we are tying our
own hands if we can't cite specific things there in the course of the
discussion. For instance, there's a very interesting thread that
discusses this very "anti-attack-site" campaign:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7988
I don't know about the merits of the legal claims that guy is making
(does fair use for the purpose of commentary require citing and
linking to the source?) but some of his points about how absurd
various talk-page comments became once "redacted" by Denny are right
on target. But how would I be able to comment on this if I weren't
allowed to link to the thread involved?
We should "know thine enemy"; we shouldn't act like a mind-control
cult trying to stop its members from finding out about critics and
what they have to say, but we should encourage our editors to read
such criticism -- and refute it on the many occasions where it's
wrongheaded. But occasionally the critics say something right, too.
Anyway, when they're threatening to sue Wikipedia and its editors,
shouldn't we make ourselves aware of this? Banning all links to the
site would prevent that too.
--
== 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/