Vicki wrote:
> Having gone back and read that email, I note that this unblocking was
> in violation of stated policy and decisions--Jimbo had banned Helga
> for three months. It may be that your reference to a two-month ban
> that "should have expired" is part of why nobody noticed that you
> had, in fact, changed the rules unilaterally.
Vicki,
You are right, and I'm sorry that I jumped the gun. I have also apologized privately to Jimbo.
Based on discussion on the wikitech-l mailing list, I think Jimbo is going to restore the ban.
Actually, any sysop can do it. Simply click on the following URL.
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Blockip&ip=164.58.161.98
You'll be taken to a confirmation page, where you can enter the reason. Then, click the "Block this address" button.
Ed Poor
At 12:28 PM 12/3/02 -0500, Ed Poor wrote:
>I unblocked Helga's IP on November 12th and reported this on the mailing
>list as follows:
>
>http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007408.html
>
>However, to my regret and consternation, I note that my e-mail was so
>obscure as to fail to catch anyone's attention.
Having gone back and read that email, I note that this unblocking was in
violation
of stated policy and decisions--Jimbo had banned Helga for three months. It may
be that your reference to a two-month ban that "should have expired" is part of
why nobody noticed that you had, in fact, changed the rules unilaterally.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr(a)redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org
Lir, in answer to your questions: 1) it was an
ultimatum. Helga wants it to be a treaty because she
is trying to prove that most of what is now Poland and
the Baltic states, along with much of Hungary, the
Czech Republic, and Slovakia, are traditionally part
of an entity anachronistically known as Magna
Germania. This is somewhat of an oversimplification,
but sums up the essence of over a year of Helga's
"cooperation" on the site. 2) The fact that no one
has taken the time to write on Boleslav's successors
doesn't mean there aren't any, only that no one has
taken the time. The articles started out as a Helga
demonstration that the Poles were somehow vassals of
the Emperor, and so really their lands were German...
More importantly, I do hope someone is talking to
Helga (hint, Jimmy), because one of her new pages is
entitled something like German cities conquered by the
Soviet Union -- again, something that by itself could
be seen as almost (but really not) neutral, but is in
fact meaningless separate from a series of articles
that will include information on how these areas were
unfairly conquered by evil communists...
JHK, who was beginning to be re-lured into it at the
end of the quarter, but is now thinking it's still SOSDD.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
After much deliberation, and after due consideration for all of the
arguments and discussions here, and taking into account what appears
to me to be a general consensus, I have chosen to ban Helga for a
period of 3 months.
After that time, she can reapply to me personally for re-instatement.
I know that not everyone will be happy with this decision, although
the vast majority will be. Such is the nature of consensus. I can't
wait for unanimity, or we will wait forever.
I am fully aware of the dangers of precedent, which is why I have
waited so long to take action in this case. Banning should always be
a "last resort". After more than a year of trying to work with Helga,
and after losing more than one highly valued contributor because of
her, we are now at a last resort stage.
To my mind, the difficulty with Helga is not her idiosyncratic views
on history, but her inability or refusal to work co-operatively to
resolve differences. Even here, on the mailing list, where I invited
her to discuss these issues, she prefers to ignore discussions about
her posting style in order to re-iterate accusations of censorship and
to repeat her strange historical claims.
In order to contribute to a restoration of the peace, I will be mostly
avoiding further public comment, although everyone who likes is more
than invited to write to me privately to support or decry this
decision.
Helga, in particular, is welcome to write to me to discuss this, but
there is really no appeal possible at this point. The ban is not
permanent, and with good behavior, she can come back and try again in
3 months time.
--Jimbo
Hello again,
I have a query about copyright, although not directly related to the Bryce
Harrington thing. If an article is in breach of copyright, and someone
else replaces the text with original material, the copyrighted material is
still publically available on the Wikipedia to anyone who knows about the
revision history page. Doesn't this mean that there is still a breach of
copyright here? And if so, doesn't the entire article (along with its
history) have to be deleted, and not just rewritten?
I think I may have edited some articles that *previously* contained
copyrighted material, and now I'm wondering if these edits actually need
to be deleted, which would be annoying...
Thanks for clarifying this!
Oliver
+-------------------------------------------+
| Oliver Pereira |
| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
| University of Southampton |
| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
+-------------------------------------------+
I was the person who noticed the Oregon City article had a copyright notice
WITH an invariant section that the notice could not be removed. This violates
the copyright agreement to add to Wikipedia (no invariant sections). I
respectfully asked Bryce to remove the incompatibility or delete his additions
that he claimed credit for. He removed the invariant section. Let me make the
rest of this discussion a practical one. Who among us would have accepted it
if I would put at the end of *every* 30,000 or so city articles a message that
the articles were mine and copyrighted "2002 Derek Ramsey"? I am pretty sure
(unless I misunderstand) that if you add to Wikipedia you give your consent to
let others modify your work. That may mean eliminating it, removing your
copyright notice, or whatever they feel like doing. Wikipedia has a copyright
notice and that should be sufficient. If you can't agree to it, you can't add
articles, no matter how much we want them.
Ram-Man
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Vandalisme :
N'oubliez pas de mettre un message sur la liste
fran�aise en cas de vandalisme : plus de chance
d'attraper un sysop non actif sur la wikip�dia
Eventuellement, mettre aussi un message � Tarquin sur
la wikip�dia anglaise, il peut s'y trouver et venir
aider � bloquer les ip
Aussi, en cas de submergement, mettre un message sur
la main liste pour demander de l aide � la r�version
Peut-etre mettre un mot sur la wikitech si il est
n�cessaire de bloquer un vandale logu�
Oui, il faut que plus de personnes prennent le status
sysop pour aider en cas de pb
N�anmoins cela ne changera rien en cas de vandalisme
logu�, ou en cas de vandalisme aux heures creuses.
Heureusement que Shai etait la...
http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-November/007713.html
ant
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
One thing I noticed on another wiki(running a perl version of wiki) was the implementation of subpages. For example, you have page "Rants" and on that page is the link code [[/MyRants]]. MyRants then becomes a subpage of Rants and is linked via /Rants/MyRants. Has anyone implemented this in Wikipedia?
---------------------------------------------------
Jason "Rodzilla" Rodzik
Seriously! Owner & Director of Operations
http://www.seriouszone.com