I dispute that this is the case.
Do you have any evidence?
In a message dated 2/15/2009 12:06:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
pattonabc(a)gmail.com writes:
Currently editors are allowed to continue being incivil untill they are
evenetually indefinitly banned with no chance of rehabilitation. I think
this system would be more desireable.
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye…)
With 3RR you don't have a "both editors" situation.
It's not as clear that the situation is completely unjust, as it is, when
one side of a incivil exchange is blocked and the other (usually a friend of the
blocking admin) is not. Of course the blocked party is given no
possibility of challenging their block.
That's why we do not want to go down this road. More ways to smother
contributors is not what we want.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 2/15/2009 11:51:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
scream(a)datascreamer.com writes:
Current policy prescribes a 24H block for 3RR violations on both editors.
I don't see a similar policy on incivility. That is the difference.
**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusye…)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: P. Birken <pbirken(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2009/2/15
Subject: [Foundation-l] Flagged Revisions, Report on german WP
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I would
like to share with this list.
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one
sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors
have to be looked at. On average, around 1.000 pages were marked for
the first time per day and these are now carried over to looking at
edits that have to be flagged. This means that since February 4th, the
number of pages with revisions awaiting review has dropped from almost
13.000 to 5.000 (see
http://toolserver.org/~aka/cgi-bin/reviewcnt.cgi?lang=german&action=images&…
last picture). More importantly, the maximal waiting time for edits to
be reviewed has dropped from 16 days to less than 7 now, which means
that finally, we are now in an acceptable regime. The goal is, to
reduce this time until tuesday to 5 days
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gesichtete_Versionen/Nachsichtung).
The median waiting time for edits until review is still within hours.
Still on the list of things to do is making the criterias for a
sighted version more precise from "has been looked at by an
experienced editor and is without vandalism."
Best,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but this
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhaul>doesn't appear
to have had much discussion. What do you think about it? Personally I think
it's a good idea, the only draw back being new accounts abusing it.
I am a bit weary about the over standardization of the site. There seems to
be a "one correct version" philosophy. I was hoping it to self-destruct but
it seems like that aint gonna happen.
We are now forced to use US style dates... Thus it is the American
Encyclopedia internationals (non USians) should feel uncomfortable in
visiting let alone editing.
We are now forced to use a certain specific template when an alternate is
available... Self righteous people will deprecate the other one without even
bothering to discuss...
We are now forced to not link to dates on list articles...
There are tens of other similar changes.
Even more trivial issues are dictated by either a guideline or a
wikiproject. Are we a bureaucracy now?
In the past we had multiple correct ways. For example the use of ISO dates
(aka [[yyyy-mm-dd]] dates) were encouraged. Users could alter their settings
to display the dates in any way they please. The ISO dates were drafted as a
compromise to the international versus US date war. Now US dates are hard
coded. You do not get to alter it.
The site is becoming increasingly hostile.
Oh and yes I know this mailinglist post will most certainly not fix
anything. There isn't a better median though.
Hey,
I have a question:
Every time I go to a movie page to know how it is, I read the Plot
section. However, I have realised that 95% of them write about key
twists or scenes and they even tell the ending. I have thought of
editing some of them, but I thought I'd rather ask here first.
Are movie articles supposed to tell you ALL the movie?
Thank you,
--
Alvaro
...but absurdly trivial this time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm
I note that the BBC helpfully doesn't tell us what the right answer was!
(For the record, Grove Art states "b ... ?1485–90; d Venice, 27 Aug
1576", so it's definitely unclear)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
<<In a message dated 2/9/2009 2:00:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com writes:
David Gerard wrote:
> Suggestion posted to AC noticeboard:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboa…
>
> More input needed for the idea, general support, general revulsion, etc.
>
I would go broader, for a cleanup of userspace, now widely used for
blogging and personal attacks. Basically we want to get back to the
point where it is understood that (a) Wikipedia pages relate to the
mission, not anyone's felt need for self-expression, and (b) although
this tenet needs to be relaxed somewhat around elections, the pages are
also not for battling and campaigning for personal attitudes and beefs.
In short, as far as I'm concerned, the yelling and personalia can all go
offwiki, even if there needs to be a special site set up for that.
People, we are a serious organisation, with something as technical as FR
getting broad coverage (another column in today's London Independent).
Charles>>
-----
I disagree with equating "blogging and personal attacks" with
"self-expression".
Most of our editors enjoy marking up their user page with details about
themselves, and I see no harm to the project in that and it's my believe that
those who do it, constitute the majority of the editors and thus the "consensus"
that it should be viewed as just fine.
Will Johnson
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?ncid=emlcntusmusi00000002)