In a message dated 7/22/2008 5:51:45 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
beesley(a)gmail.com writes:
By avoiding speedy and copyvio deletions,
there's a better chance the content archived there is only
unencyclopedic and not legally problematic.>>
-------------
Speedies are often the result of reposted notability issues.
Since they occupy the same article title, are you going to reveal the
original article?
Or no article at all?
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
actually, I think the policy ought to be that if one is running a
sock, and either account is significantly disruptive, all accounts
connected with it should be permanently banned in all cases.. Running
a disruptive account is a gross violation of basic expectations.
Nobody can possibly do it for good reasons. An editor (viewed as a
human, not a login name) who acts in a way so contrary to the basic
expectations of the community should not be editing--and least not
until full public disclosure and a consensus to allow another start.
I see no reason why established accounts should get any special
consideration.--the longer an abusive account is run, the worse it is.
The only question requiring discretion is whether or not an account is
actually abusive. Unless it clearly is, then there is reason for
private action to tell the user to abandon one account or the other,
and to be advised to edit less disruptively. But running two accounts,
one of which is disruptive, is no better than running one disruptive
account, with the added charge of being deceloptice about it. As the
degree of disruption will not be known before the checkuser, such
checks must continue to be private. But certainly the person must
always be told. Otherwise it is a secret inquisition based perhaps on
anonymous evidence.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<abd(a)lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> That's correct. Actually, there *is* a presumption against *anyone*
> being checked, unless there are grounds to suspect abuse. Being a
> long-term contributor is a possible reason to discount such
> suspicion, but, under some circumstances is irrelevant. There may be,
> and indeed I have some reason to suspect that there are, long-term
> contributors who have operated long-term sock accounts, carefully,
> using standard detection evasion methods.
>
> There are four possibilities, first two: main account is not
> disruptive, sock account -- I'll define this as the newer one -- is.
> The reverse happens: main account was disruptive, sock account isn't.
> In both these cases there is some question as to whether or not we
> should bother with sock detection. The argument for detection and
> action is that if we merely deal with an block the disruptive
> account, there is a risk, then, that the other account will take up
> disruptive activity -- or will create a new sock, having learned that
> a disruptive sock can be created -- or a nondisruptive sock
> maintained -- without risk to the editors access. And the argument
> against detection is a common one: "Why are you bothering with this
> SSP report, the account isn't disruptive!" Frankly, I don't see a
> clear reason to prefer one of these arguments over the other, hence
> the circumspection that is described below.
>
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
The Price we pay from the Deletionists:
Paul Graham's Y-Combinator is actively looking to fund Wikipedia-like
startup that does away with them.
See: http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html (Ideas we are looking to sponsor)
> 23. More open alternatives to Wikipedia. Deletionists rule Wikipedia. Ironically, they're constrained by print-era thinking. What harm does it do if an online reference has a long tail of articles that are only interesting to a few people, so long as everyone can still find whatever they're looking for? There is room to do to Wikipedia what Wikipedia did to Britannica.
On that note, why don't we enable access to deleted content ? It's
already there, we can just dump them nightly into a big file.
The thread at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
very disturbing. SlimVirgin seems to have inside knowledge from the
Checkuser Logs of which users Lar has been running checks on. The only way
she could have obtained this knowledge is if there is either a leak on the
Checkuser-L list or if someone with access to the Checkuser logs told her.
What is being done to plug this leak? If it came from a CheckUser or
developer that person should be sacked immediately.
SV should be required to say how she got this information and if she refuses
she should be blocked until she becomes co-operative.
This sort of security breach is completely unacceptable and intolerable.
Dave
On 21 Jul 2008 at 13:48:17, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll put something up in the arbcom case later, but let me posit this
> - "the center" should look at everyone involved (at least as far out
> as me on "my side", probably as far out as Larry and Allison, probably
> as far out as Dan Tobias, Viridae, and certainly everyone more
> involved than we are). Determine whether the factions have become
> sufficiently hostile to Wikipedia's community and goals that this
> needs to end now, and take forceful action to end this.
I'm far out, you say? Far out, man!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!" -- Barry Goldwater, in
a speech written by Karl Hess, who later became the Libertarian Party
News editor
--
== 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/
In a message dated 7/20/2008 8:09:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
alecmconroy(a)gmail.com writes:
One that has
less strict content requirements, while at the same time, not having
the same reputation for quality that we would hope for Wikipedia.>>
---------------------
How about a fork which as one of its core principles simply states "We do
not have and will not have any notability requirement".
Since notability is, in the main, what seems to doom a large number of
articles in-wiki.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Why isn't this discussion also taking place on the article's talk page? The
amount of discussion there about this issue is now less than the amount
here. It should be vice-versa imho.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
In a message dated 7/20/2008 8:51:10 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Therefore, I can
look at the original Japanese version of Inuyasha and read the name off, and
that's a legitimate source. >>
------------------
Ignoring of course that other editors on this article, reading the same
source, come to the opposite result as you. That is the entire basis of the
problem. Which character is actually being shown.
Continuing to cast this as a "mistake" when it's a perception issue, doesn't
make your argument stronger.
Will Johnson
**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
The "apartheid wars" continue with an AFD at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of…
Of course, this isn't about apartheid all but actually yet another POV
pushing battle over Israel with proponents of the article wanting to keep it
because deleting it would mean Israel is isolated in the apartheid
allegation wars whilst opponents of the article want it deleted for
precisely that reason.
This is yet another example of how ArbComm's perpetual stalemate on issues
of any consequence only makes wiki more of a battleground since they dropped
the ball last year in the Allegations of Apartheid RFA.
The only way for the community to deal with this mess is if uninvolved
editors and admins - those who have nothing to do with
Israeli/Mideast/Palestinian articles - keep their eye on these articles and
intervene.
David
I may be totally wrong as many details are missing here.
a) Lar is wrong. He should not have communicated CU findings with his wife.
Policy is clear on that.
b) SlimVirgin, you are wrong when you think that there should be a
*good*valid reason for a CU; a valid reason is sufficient. And of
course, though
it is not binding, a CU can have some courtesy of informing the subject of
the check. But i do believe that the question of *"[people] who are checked
are told whether and by whom, if they ask*" is less relevant than answering
the question about the reason of the check itself. And we all know that
sophisticated sockpuppetry comes more often from established accounts --
hope this is not defending the CU *team *but more a sign of emphasizing on
the fact that there should be no exemptions for established accounts. Of
course, fishing and general trawling aside.
I won't care about who is check usering me if I am not doing something
wrong. So... c) what do parties want?
Fayssal F.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:04:15 -0500 SlimVirgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] SlimVirgin and CheckUser leaks
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<4cc603b0807201604j7e1dbf4aq273a82fd5db26066(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 7/20/08, Thatcher131 Wikipedia <thatcher131(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> So I don't think one can come to the conclusion that "the checkusers"
> found no problem, we lacked key information to conduct a proper
> review. At the time I believe I suggested asking a subcommittee of
> checkusers from other wikis to be given access to all the information
> for a non-biased review, but it never happened. And to the best of my
> knowledge, no formal complaint has ever been made to the ombudsman
> commission.
>
> Thatcher
No formal complaint was made to the commission because we were told
they couldn't examine checkuser policy violations, as I said earlier.
Therefore, this was never investigated properly -- and you do lack key
information for that reason. What I found most disturbing were the
slightly different versions of events that were produced for different
audiences. Had it not been for that aspect, I'd have been willing to
forget the whole thing.
I think your subcommittee of checkusers idea is a very good one. I
wonder why it didn't happen.
However, working out how to prevent this kind of thing is what matters
now, and the best way to do that is to ensure that people who are
checked are told whether and by whom, if they ask.