Know your way around? Able to keep a cool head consistently in the
face of staggering stupidity? Willing to send ID to the Foundation?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/volunteering
I see we've got a few volunteers from this thread already ...
- d.
On 11 Jul 2007 at 23:28:53 +0100, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Wikipedia-style consensus"
That's defined as:
Character-assassinate everybody who disagrees with your side of a
dispute, by applying every label you think can possibly be made to
stick, such as:
1. Troll
2. Single-purpose account
3. Partisan of an attack site
4. Sockpuppet
5. Meatpuppet
6. Seems to live in the same state as a banned user
7. Was once warned about bad behavior by an admin
8. Seems to have similar opinions to a banned user
9. Has a low edit count
10. Has too few edits in main article space; thus not a useful
contributor
11. Has too few edits outside main article space; thus not
knowledgeable in policy and governance issues
12. Has mostly been fighting vandals; has no real experience making
substantive edits
13. Hasn't been fighting vandals enough; has no familiarity with how
pernicious and harmful they are, so their opinion on anything
pertaining to this is suspect
Once all opposing views are successfully labeled, then claim a
consensus because all remaining people agree.
--
== 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/
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2007 02:09 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
>
>On 05/07/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless I am mistake, hasn't it been stated above that the ruling only
>> applied to ED, but yet KM was apparently blocked for linking to WR.
>> KM's edit summary n inserting the links was "vague ArbCom statements
>> from 8 months ago aren't policy. that ArbCom case pertained to ED and
>> the links were being used for harassment. this link is genuinely
>> informative."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=next&oldi…
>> and on examining what was inserted, no confidential or abusive
>> material was linked to.
>
>
>I predict you will see no substantive answer to this - the edit has
>been retrospectively declared a "breaching experiment", much as the
>person who edited WP:BADSITES to read *as it is now being applied* has
>been retrospectively declared to have been trolling to sabotage it.
>
>
>- d.
The telling clue is the comment, "vague ArbCom statements from 8 months ago aren'tpolicy. tat ArbCom case pertained to ED and the links were being usedfor harassment. this link is genuinely informative." That in the fact of a direct warning not to do it. ~~~~
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some doubt they apply to this particular edit.
Fred
I'm going to be in London (in England, not any of the other Londons
of the world) next week, arriving Saturday the 14th (departing from
America the [unlucky?] night of Friday the 13th). I know that some
people on this list (and on Wikipedia) are around there, so if
anybody's interested in meeting me in person, to argue with me,
applaud me, personally-attack me, or whatever, I might be open to
it... just let me know.
--
== 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/
...find out which exact article Time is referring to when they said the
following in their Dec. 06/Jan.07 Person of the Year issue cover story.
"The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that
Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a
way for scientists to share research."
It would be great to be able to place a talk tag letting people know it was
cited in Time on the right article. But it could be any, either Tim's, the
interenet, WWW, etc.
I suppose we could redirect all articles on current events to Wikinews. What we are doing with that type of article is about the same as CNN. They throw in a bit of original reporting, but mostly just comb other media and repeat it. Would Wikinews put up with that?
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gabe Johnson [mailto:gjzilla@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2007 07:38 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times Magazine on Wikipedia
>
>On 7/1/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/2r3xkm
>>
>> --
>> Sean Barrett | In America, anyone can be President.
>> sean(a)epoptic.com | That's one of the risks you take.
>>
>>
>
>First of all, congratulations to Gracenotes and the other Wikipedians
>mentioned in the story.
>
>However, we need to think. What can we, at WP, do to avoid choking
>Wikinews and making it a backwater alley of the WMF projects? Or
>should we just give up on it, or fold it into Wikipedia? Thoughts and
>suggestions appreciated. ~~~~
>
>
>--
>Absolute Power
>C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
Is there an easy way to change the email address through which one
receives/sends list messages?
The university I am not attending[0] will soon be deleting my account,
for reasons which I'd rather not go into[1] right now. As such, if you
want to continue to enjoy my dulcet tones, I'm going to have to make
some changes ...
[0] What with being a blue-rinsed grandmother in a council flat in Essex
who is merely spoofing this address ...
[1] Here's a hint, though: in eight days' time, you all have to call me
"sir".
--
Mark Gallagher
"'Yes, sir,' said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten
in the leg by a personal friend."
- P G Wodehouse, /Carry On, Jeeves/
Some people might be interested in the election graphs I have online:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/election_analysis/ivote3/graphs.html
Included are graphs of total votes, breakdown by project, voter
turnout information, and a number of other things.
The graphs are automatically updated every 10 minutes.
Feedback is welcome and appreciated.
Enjoy.
>From [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates]]:
> I only just joined this project, so forgive me if my suggestion is somehow
> naïve. I use the 'who' tag often, as in:
>
> Some groups[*attribution needed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words>*] oppose these measures.
>
> It seems to me that one could simplify this tag to "who?", as in:
>
> Some groups[who?] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution> oppose these measures.
>
>
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of
sentences?
pretty please?
please?
please?
> As far as the fact of Fred Bauder editing Kamryn's comment goes, I
> reverted it:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio…
>
> - Salaskan
You didn't. You did exactly the opposite. Fred had already self-reverted,
and you reverted back to his editing of the comment!
ElinorD