On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:19:09 -0700, Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > The two messages I got from this list are exactly the same as on your
> > blog. Sure that the truncating isn't happening on the receiving end
> > of your pipe?
>
> That's odd, then. I asked a few people to look at it, and the first to
> respond said they had received a truncated version (unless there was a
> miscommunication), and the versions in the list archive --
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094246.html
> and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-June/094248.html
> -- appear to be truncated as well. It may be worth noting both you and
> I have gmail addresses, but beyond that I don't know what to make of
> this. Apologies for any confusion/annoyance caused.
You appear to have been a victim of the infamous "Unix 'From' line
misfeature", where the word "From" at the start of a line is treated
by Unix-based programs (and those in other operating systems
imitating their behavior) as an indication of the start of a new
message in the standard 'mbox' format, which can result in peculiar
behavior when it appears in the middle of a message. In this case,
it seems the mailers involved insert a ">" mark at the start of a
line beginning with "From", which messes the format a bit and makes
part of your text look like a quote, but otherwise preserves the
message intact as it goes out to people's mailboxes. However, the
process that archives the list for the Web doesn't do this, and
instead truncates right before the "From".
The "Unix-Haters' Handbook" gripes about this.
--
== 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/
FT2 a very long reply but I did not see anything in there that addresses
head-on the disparity between allowing an admin to do any action they want for
any reason or no reason, and then requiring a committee to reverse it.
That is the essential failure of the ArbCom verbage. Can you address that
exactly.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/10/2008 1:31:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
And we are certainly not bound to include every detail of something
that can be verified. I'm not sure what useful purpose naming her
brother serves, nor forum shopping this here.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You forget that I'm a troll.
Oh no. Well don't actually address the argument shall we.
At any rate, we're not talking about "Every detail" just one detail.
Naming her brother serves the purpose of being consistent, logical, and
direct.
Her brother is named by ABC news. The broadcast is available off their own
official site.
Not naming him, even though we link directly to the broadcast from her
article, would seem to smack of censorship with the only intent being, that we
don't link the name "Wiley" to our article on "Genie".
Talk about going down the silly road of pointlessness.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/18/2008 7:22:35 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
toddmallen(a)gmail.com writes:
If BLP is to be strictly enforced, it also needs to be strictly
defined. >>
-----------------
I couldn't agree more. The constant meandering of "BLP policy" all over the
board serves mostly to drive off our contributors. The actual subjects of
most of these issues could care less about what we do or don't say in their
articles. Those who want to shift BLP policy to cover other areas, should be
willing to step-up and suggest clear language for the policy, instead of
constantly trying to re-interpret it to cover things it simply does not.
ArbCom's decision will hopefully be roundly ignored, since it replaces Wheel
Warring by Bully-on-the-Playground. Hardly an equitable situation.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/10/2008 1:46:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
This
is a person who wants, needs, and deserves privacy--all three to a
degree rarely seen in these discussions. I am no supporter of the
Wikipedia interpretation of DO NO HARM as a general rule, but it does
apply in exceptional cases.>>
---------------------------------------------------
"Wants". No she doesn't want privacy. No one to my knowledge has ever
asked her.
"Needs". Well no, she doesn't need it either. There is simply no public
way to find her knowing her name. She has no phone number, no listed address,
no entry in any public database. Never paid taxes, never bought land, never
married, never had children. No way to find her using public databases.
"Deserves". Odd point. If the mayor of San Francisco divorces his wife and
is written up in the Chronicle doing so, does he "deserve" privacy ? If in
that article it mentions that his mother's name is Gladys, does Gladys "des
erve" privacy? We are not the reports of first venue, that's been done. We
are repeating what's already been given out, not creating it. If Gladys is
quoted saying "My son is the most amazing man in the Universe" and that's
repeated in 37 newspapers across the country, can we not quote it even though
Gladys herself might be a "private person" ?
That's the real point. Twisting rules to address specific cases, without
actually changing policy to so address them. Interesting that certain people
in that other thread advocating this, are then complaining about this as well.
If policy is not to be the ultimate decider, and we are going to
read-between-the-lines in every special case, why have any policy that says anything
whatsoever.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
I'm a might bit surprised nobody's talking about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Sp…
here, so I thought I'd bring it up.
I'm really unsure on what I think. ArbCom introducing new policy?
That's probably bad. Admins actually empowered to take action over
policy violations apart from WP:CIVIL? That's probably good. That
action being effectively immune to oversight, except in *maybe* the
most egrarious cases of abuse? That's probably bad.
But how the community will respond is still up in the air and needs
voices. Recall that even though the ArbCom introduced the
contraversial MONGO remedy, eventually the community pushed back until
it could no longer be applied farther than the original policy had
allowed. So if a lot of people are upset (and I've never seen so much
talk of open revolt), it probably is possible for the community to
collectively put this into a different, more well thought out form.
Cheers
WilyD
In a message dated 6/19/2008 7:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
As
Jimmy Wales as often mentioned, we should not be posting defamatory
matter, just as a question of ethics. Let alone the possibility that the
whole project might be closed down by a successful libel suit.>>
---------------
You cannot libel garbage by saying "it stinks". Some people think anything
negative may lead to a lawsuit. Sure... from a person who doesn't understand
the requirement for evidence in a libel suit.
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/19/2008 8:45:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com writes:
I doubt this would have happened if NYBrad had not been forced
to resign. >>
---------------------------------
Why was he forced to resign? What's the link?
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
In a message dated 6/19/2008 7:14:20 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
The mission is to write an encyclopedia, right, not a scandal sheet?
The disagreements I see aren't really about the term "encyclopedic". >>
-----------------
Well is an encyclopedia simply based on bland statements? Or all reported
statements from reliable sources? Are you calling the New York Times, the San
Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Post. Are you calling these scandal
sheets? If we re-report them saying that President Clinton apparently had an
affair with Paula Jones, even if it embarrasses him, even if it's defamatory,
even if it's controversial.... are we engaging in "scandal"? Or are we
engaging in reporting of material that may be negative.
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:27:12AM -0400, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Actually, no. How the Wikipedia system works has often been missed.
> Any admin can reverse any admin's decision, and this is a protection.
In the end, since arbcom is the entity that decides on removal of admin
access, they have some freedom to decide what they will permit in terms
of wheel warring and what they will not permit. There have been several
arbcom cases in which the committee decided that the unilateral reversal
of an admin action is wheel warring, or that discussion should be tried
first. Here are two:
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war#Wheel_warring
* Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war#Undeletion_of_pages
> A single reversal of an admin action isn't wheel-warring.
I would argue it is, although historically the WP:WHEEL page has been
written to permit it. I would argue that the definition of wheel warring
that permits one unilateral reversal of any action is detrimental to the
project. It short-circuits dispute resolution in favor of the status
quo; it actively discourages those who disagree with an admin
action from coming to compromise with the original admin.
I'm not focusing specifically on BLP here, I'm thinking of the
general principle. Once an admin action is performed to which there are
objections, the correct course of action is to find a compromise thorugh
discussion. This is no different than any other disagreement on
Wikipedia.
- Carl