Guess who wins:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AsFU3sAlPx4
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
In a discussion at the Norwegian (bokmål) Village
Pump, a nowiki bureaucrat and meta admin claims that
Resolution:Licensing policy is not binding. The reason
is that we are supposed to reach consensus through
discussions at Wikipedia. He further says that when it
comes to images, a small group is forcing through its
will without reaching consensus, and that the
licensing policy is totally not settled. He is also
saying that the Foundation can not dictate our
editorial policy. I personally find such arguments
puzzling, as it seems pretty clear to me that the
resolution is binding, and that the board indeed can
decide that we aren't allowed to use NC- and ND
licenses. Is he right?
A somewhat related discussion: nowiki has a couple of
hundred images uploaded back in 2004 and early 2005
without proper sources or attribution of the author.
We take such matters very seriously now, but back
then, nowiki's image use policy wasn't especially
strict on such matters. I have suggested a cleanup
project, where every user should check his uploads
from 2004-05 during the next couple of months, and
give them proper source information. The same user is
opposing this proposal, claiming that our current
image use policy and rules about sources do not apply
retroactively, and that starting to mass-delete images
without a source will be disrespectful to the users
active back then, who were following the rules at the
time (well, actually the lack of rules). I claim that
it is the uploaders' responsibility to make sure that
their uploads are ok, but he claims that it is the
users who want to delete (or points out that a image
is unsourced) who need to prove that the image is a
likely copyvio. Who is right?
Kjetil (User:Kjetil r)
[This message is not an official statement by the subcommittee, and
nor are GerardM's messages.]
Hello,
The decision was accompanied by a three-paragraph explanation, and
later explained again differently when a user challenged the decision.
It is difficult to assume good faith when users comment without even
glancing at the issue at hand. As such, I will paste the explanations
below, taken from the request page at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Montene…>.
Explanation for decision:
----------------------------------------
"This request has been rejected for the same reasons as the November
2006 request; the discussion below has not provided new information
that would change this decision.
"Wikis should not be split along political lines, and we encourage
Montenegrin editors to collaborate with Serbian or Serbo-Croatian
editors in a single wiki or, at the very least, to have Montenegrin
pages alongside the others. If political divisions make this
difficult, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation's goal is giving
every single person free, unbiased access to the sum of all human
knowledge, and not to contribute to political development or to
provide information from individual political communities.
"Although other Serbo-Croatian languages have their own wikis, these
were created before the existence of the language subcommittee and it
is likely that no new projects will be created in these languages."
----------------------------------------
Further arguments were later provided in discussion:
----------------------------------------
I'm sorry that you disagree with the decision. You state that "their
articles regarding Montenegrin issues are so one-sided and filled with
propaganda", and that is precisely the problem the closing comment
mentions. If a Montenegrin Wikipedia is created, articles about
Montenegro on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia will continue to be biased.
Similarly, articles about Serbia or other issues about which
Montenegrin editors have strong opinions will be biased without the
input of other Serbo-Croatian editors.
This is the problem of 'providing information from individual
political communities', as stated in the closing comment. On the other
hand, collaborating in a linguistically unified Wikipedia, the
opinions of all editors balance out so that articles are much more
balanced and neutral."
----------------------------------------
The language subcommittee exists to promote flourishing wiki
communities and prevent mistakes made in the past. We are obviously
not to blame for the separation of the Serbo-Croatian wiki years ago,
which predates the subcommittee, as Mark suggests. Fortunately, Mark
later agrees with our position: "I, for one, do not think that would
have been a bad decision. I do think it would've slowed down growth,
but it would've helped NPOV and duplication of work."
Therefore, the subcommittee will *not* allow new projects that are
likely to be politically biased or duplicative simply because they
were previously approved by politically-charged, sockpuppet-filled
votes *before* the subcommittee.
Yours cordially,
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Yes, exactly. Thank you, Casey. I said "I don't think I'd vote for him in
the future if he tried again" - which means that I could change my mind if
he changed as well. But he'd really have to try.
--Maria Fanucchi
User:Arria Belli
On 4/15/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I don't think she meant that she would hold a grudge. She just meant that
> based on her experience with him in the face failure or pressure, he
> turned
> to complaining and being otherwise "difficult". These are features the
> she
> does not see as being fit for an admin.
>
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray
> Saintonge
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:00 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Adminship tools on Commons
>
> Maria Fanucchi wrote:
>
> >I couldn't agree more with Thomas Dalton's message. Though frankly, given
> >Yonidebest's attitude on the vote page and on this mailing list, I don't
> >think I'd vote for him any time in the future if he tried again.
> >
> You can't accomplish much by holding grudges.
>
> Ec
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Darko
> Bulatovic
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 3:23 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Adminship tools on Commons
>
> Pedro Sanchez wrote:
> >
> > No I'm talking about sysop priviledges. No one is entitled to them or
> > can demand them until the project community thinks he should get it.
> >
> > So, he's not having the COMMONS community trust, I?m pointing 2 ways
> > so he can earn it, showing he's willing to really help the project.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> As I saw he was looking for way to help translation, and someone told
> him that he need sysop for that. And you are having problem with sysop
> privilege, forgetting to show him the way how to help translation of
> that project.
>
> Darko
Darko, the main issue is that Commons admins have outlined how Yoni can
translate pages without having sysop access; he can add the translation to
the talk page of a protected page and add the {{editprotect}} template, or
he can post them on a subpage of his and ask an admin to add it to the
proper page.
He has done NO translations to any of the pages he says he will translate if
he gets sysop rights, stating that it is a "waste of time" doing it in the
manner we have suggested. He wishes to be granted sysop rights immediately
despite the fact that he has not yet shown that he is a quality member of
the Commons community. If he had begun translations on talk pages and
subpages, made useful contributions, and participated in discussions as is
expected of administrator candidates then there would have been, by now or
in time, no problem with granting him sysop access if the community agreed.
However he instead chose to wait and do nothing, then bring people from
he.wikipedia to vote for him in hopes we would make him a sysop on our
project.
Adminship on Commons is based on Commons contributions, and what the user
has already done and how they have proven to interact with the community.
Adminship elsewhere or the fact that you run a bot on another wiki does not
mean you automatically qualify to be an administrator on the Commons, where
our work deals mostly with copyrights and images.
Regards,
Ayelie
On Sat, April 14, 2007 19:02, Casey Brown wrote:
> We are not denying or accepting the fact that you deserve, could use, or
> will be trusted with the tools. We are denying the fact that you are
> entitled to them and that you should discuss this with Wikimedia. Sysop
> powers are something that is given based on *local-community* trust. If
> you have hardly edited on that site, then you will not be given ... etc
A thought from the sidelines here, rather than about this particular case.
Whilst a "local community" should, I concurr, decide who is and who is not
to be an admin/sysop of the local projects - be they language-based or
otherwise (books/source/pedia/tionary/etc) I do wonder whether the same
should apply in all cases to commons, specifically because commons is a
resource for *all* the Wikimedia projects world-wide, and not strictly a
"local" project at all.
I could see that there is some validity to accepting someone's need for
admin/sysop capability on the multinational/multilingual commons where
their 'track record' - and need for access - is based on a more local
project.
Alison Wheeler
I disagree. I think I am entitled to use the tools Wikimedia can offer in
order to translate the site. There is not reason to reject a temoprary
adminship, to say the least.
Yoni
2007/4/14, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net>:
> You really have no case for an appeal. The Commons community may appoint
> whoever they want as administrators. I am not taking sides, but you have
> no
> case. The best place to take this up would be locally on the Commons
> Village pump or Administrators' noticeboard.
>
> Cbrown1023
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yoni Weiden
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:09 PM
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Adminship tools on Commons
>
> FYI, The first nommination has nothing to do with my request to translate
> the site and it is very old. In any case, who can help me appeal?
> Yoni
>
>
> 2007/4/14, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest(a)gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I am talking about the following unfair vote:
> >
> >
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/
> Yonidebest-2
> > -
> >
> > (note that the link may not work because of the "-" at the end of the
> > link: I have once before opened a redirect from
> > Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Yonidebest-2
> > to
> > Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Yonidebest-2-
> > but it has been deleted before. I hope they wont delete my redirect
> again.
> > In any case - if the link doesnt work, please add a "-" at the end of
> the
> > address bar link).
> > Yoni
> >
> >
> > 2007/4/14, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net>:
> >
> > > Please provide some links or otherwise identifying material so that we
> > > can
> > > figure out what you are talking about.
> > >
> > > Cbrown1023
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > [mailto: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yoni
> > > Weiden
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:52 PM
> > > To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Subject: [Foundation-l] Adminship tools on Commons
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I feel my request to use the admin tools on Commons was unfairly
> > > rejected
> > > because of many many reasons. I would like to appeal this unfair
> > > decision of
> > > the voters and get my chance to present my case infront of a neutural
> > > set of
> > > people. I request this because I will not accept this kind of behavior
> > > in a
> > > Wikimedia site. This is, IMHO, against the ideas of Wikimedia and
> > > against
> > > the reasons for which Adminship exists. Can you please advise to whom
> I
> > > should speak to?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yoni
> > > aka, Yonidebest(a)he.wiki
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Hi,
I feel my request to use the admin tools on Commons was unfairly rejected
because of many many reasons. I would like to appeal this unfair decision of
the voters and get my chance to present my case infront of a neutural set of
people. I request this because I will not accept this kind of behavior in a
Wikimedia site. This is, IMHO, against the ideas of Wikimedia and against
the reasons for which Adminship exists. Can you please advise to whom I
should speak to?
Thanks,
Yoni
aka, Yonidebest(a)he.wiki
Casey Brown wrote:
> That's the point, it is publicly accessible but not editable (for the most
> part).
>
> Cbrown1023
>
>
In mediawiki there is files that contain GUI informations for
translation, I purpose that is same for this project. Making copy of it
and make it publicly available should not be problem.
Darko