Anthere wrote:
>I encourage editors to consider the three
>articles I have been restoring. These
>three have any right to be on meta. The
>content of these is uncontroversial.
Article quality is irrelevant because they should not
have been created to begin with. However, if you had
created them independent of any action by 142.177 then
the existence of the articles would be fine. Since all
you did was copy /exactly/ what 142.177 wrote Cimon
Avaro has blanked them. If somebody wants to create
their own unique content about those subjects, then do
so. But re-creating the exact text by a hard banned
user is subverting that ban.
>It could be edited by anyone, and I am
>ready to put any effort necessary in
>those to modify them, as I indicated to Mav,
They are a clean slate now. Go ahead. However we
should not do this too often since it allows 142.177
to direct our attention to certain topics. Thus also
subverting the ban.
>provided that they are not deleted again,
>even when I recreate them under my name.
The text in these particular articles is minimal.
However if you did that for larger ones then you would
be in violation of the GNU FDL (since you would deny
142.177 credit). If this were a generally accepted
policy then the Wikimedia Foundation would be open to
a copyright infringement lawsuit or at least a take
down order. Please don't give such ammunition to a
person who wants to destroy Wikipedia as it is and who
severely hates "Jimbo and his friends."
>I do not feel ready to put some work on articles
>that are being deleted immediately after. I fear
>that instant deletion of these articles as now
>practiced, under any editors name, even trusted
>ones, is likely to slow down discussion and
>evolution of meta.
No it won't. It will just take control of meta's
content away from 142.177 (who is, BTW, meta's number
one 'contributor') and give it to the wider community.
As it is 142.177's idiosyncratic garbage is chocking
meta.
>It is not a good idea that any topic touched
>by a banned user, becomes de facto a topic
>which must not be mentionned any more.
What? I already explained on your talk page that this
is not the case. There is nothing stopping you from
writing on topics that a banned user 'touches'! Just
don't recreate the banned users exact (or even
substantial) edits and try hard not to be prompted to
edit a subject just because the banned user brought it
to your attention. This denies the banned user
influence over our content and the direction of
discussion.
>I entirely recognise and accept the decision
>over the banning of 142.
Then why are you recreating his edits!
>But the fact is that unfortunately, 142 is
>writing on many topics, two of them being my
>favorite topics.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here:
A banned user 'touching' a subject does /not/ prevent
you from contributing to that subject. Besides that is
/not/ what you have been doing: you have been
reverting the deletion of the text that 142.177 has
written and you have also been responding to his
posts. That is very different than just happening to
write in the same areas. Your involvement is direct
and with the banned user.
>....
>The second is ecology, .... 2)feel that I am not
>gonna stop participate on my favorite topics just
>because a banned user has put a black hand on it.
Again, any edits unique to you are perfectly
acceptable. But don't give 142.177 the reward of
having any of his text survive in the top edit.
142.177 can write a lot; if only 20% of what he writes
survives then that is encouragement for him to keep
coming back. He is also a self-described troll, so
engaging him in conversation and doing things like
recreating his content that causes a great deal of
controversy is /exactly/ what he wants. Please stop
feeding the troll.
>If this goes to this, preventing regular users to
>edit topics because of their smell, where is
>Wikipedia going ?
I think I have already proven that this is a weak
argument, if not a strawman.
>The second point is this one :
>Meta is for everyone who is interested in
>wikipedia wide building. It is not only the
>english meta, it is also everyone meta. And
>all those involved in the matter, should feel
>concerned about how meta is growing, and in
>particular how rules are currently being made
>on meta.
I agree with this. However the banning of 142.177 was
an "everywhere" decision and was very justified. That
includes meta.
>The rules should not be decided by Mav,
Since when have I been deciding the rules in this
regard? I was acting on a decision authorized by Jimbo
and in response to a request by another user to
immediately delete the articles in question. You were
acting on your own authority. So who is making up the
rules?
>the rules should not be automatically the
>english rules that suit him.
Perhaps you have not read this email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-March/009407.html
>....
>Just like the english main page, not editable
>by most users. Just like the wikimedia guide,
>just you editing it, and calling other attempts
>forks.
What? Please stop the personal attacks and lies. In
addition to myself these other users have also edited
the user's guide: Patrick, Brion, Nanobug, Hashar,
Kat, Mintguy, Archivist, and MyRedDice. And that is
just from the first several pages of the guide! I have
not taken issue with their edits. What I do take issue
with is the creation of a competing MediaWiki
documentation project instead of simply adding to the
current one. However I think the person doing this and
I have reached an understanding.
>Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job,
>and you have been hurt by that user, and
>that 142 is indeed banned;
Then why are you aiding and abetting him in the
subversion of the ban?
>what I have troubles accepting is that you
>decide the way we should enforce the ban,
>you remove my comments on talk pages, you
>delete articles I created under my name,
>assuming if need there is their authorship,
>and finally, that you try to break the only
>opposition to your decisions on meta by
>calling for unsysoping people.
Perhaps you have not read my first email:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-November/013113.html
Where in that email have I called for de-sysoping
anyone? I did consider doing that but then I realized
that it really wasn't an abuse of sysop power that you
were doing, but a basic disregard for policy. I also
recreated your edits (a one line response to 142.177)
and removed just what 142.177 wrote. Yet you reverted
that.
>So Mav, there is a point there. I explained
>in length on meta why I was restoring these
>three articles.
And I explained in length why I deleted them and
reverted 142.177's edits.
>...You just do not consider my explanations.
And you either do not read what I write or do not
recognize Jimbo's authority to authorize bans
everywhere.
>I also remind you that other users on en are
>also doing this, and that it has suggested
>that in case this is done, the articles should
>be recreated under another person name.
Again that is subverting the ban and is a violation of
the GNU FDL. Just because others are doing it too does
not make it right.
>....
>In any place, there should be balance. The
>fact you delete them is fine with me; the
>fact you refuse to accept that other people
>have different opinions on how meta should
>work is just plain not wiki.
The fact that you are helping a banned user get his
content into meta is a direct subversion of the ban.
The ban was for /everywhere/ so stop trying to pretend
that that does not include meta.
It is also highly insulting and in fact disgusting
that you are helping a person who stated that my
murder would be justified because I am being a censor.
>From 142.177:
"Murder of vast numbers of people who believe as you
do becomes justified, when you use control of a
technology that they don't have, to censor their views
on what you are doing, and make it impossible for them
to stop you any other way."
ref:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=4935…
He goes on to say that if I continue to IP block
"someone" that "they" can use things such as guns and
anthrax to silence me:
>From 142.177:
"It is entirely reasonable to say, ethically, that if
you use technology (e.g. IP bans and sysop priveleges
they don't have) to silence someone, they may also use
technology that you don't have (e.g. guns, anthrax) to
silence you,.."
ref:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=5313…
And recently he stated this:
>From 142.177:
"There are very few things you will regret more in
your life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong,
racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to
realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back
in, so, you deserve what you get."
ref:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=1997…
On top of this he also used my real name in a very
slanderous and false statement and if believed by my
employer could get me fired. That diff has since been
deleted from the database thanks to Brion.
Do I deserve that Anthere? By subverting the ban you
are implicitly saying that what 142.177 wrote above is
OK since in effect you are directly opposing the ban
as if it did not have merit. In fact I'm going to
inform the cops about 142.177 (I've never read all his
threats in quick order before - it creeps me out).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Check these things on hu.wikipedia.org:
See [[Hévízi-tó TT]] (you can find it in recent changes if you're not
accent-read), and check "Mi hivatkozik erre" ("who links here"). Nobody.
Now go to [[Magyarország természetvédelmi területei]] (in the recent changes
as well), and look for the string "Hévízi-tó TT", and you'll see: the
article contains link to the one before. However its link is "red" or
"question marked". If you click on it (create a non-existing article) then
you'll realise that it does exist, since the editor window contains the
actual text.
If I would edit and save the second article I'm sure it'd heal (preview
shows it healed) but I don't want to mess it up until someone check what the
bug is.
Brion? See anything?
(The article can be fixed, naturally, but the bug should be instead. :-))
I encourage editors to consider the three articles I
have been restoring. These three have any right to be
on meta. The content of these is uncontroversial. It
could be edited by anyone, and I am ready to put any
effort necessary in those to modify them, as I
indicated to Mav, provided that they are not deleted
again, even when I recreate them under my name. I do
not feel ready to put some work on articles that are
being deleted immediately after. I fear that instant
deletion of these articles as now practiced, under any
editors name, even trusted ones, is likely to slow
down discussion and evolution of meta.
It is not a good idea that any topic touched by a
banned user, becomes de facto a topic which must not
be mentionned any more.
I entirely recognise and accept the decision over the
banning of 142. But the fact is that unfortunately,
142 is writing on many topics, two of them being my
favorite topics.
One is meta and cooperation between people, in
particular in the intent of having cooperation between
internationals and english users. I am also interested
by in everything that turns around people management
and systems. And of course banning, because it may not
have escaped some of you, the french wikipedia had to
ban someone about 2 weeks ago, our editors had to take
the decision to ban someone with no set rules or
recommandations; and then we had to fight (with the
great help of Tim Starling) to have this ban inforced
one way or another. So, naturally, all these topics,
about how someone is excluded from a place (and
whether it a community decision, or a single person
dream) interest me.
Unfortunately, 142 is also meddling in these topics as
well.
The second is ecology, because I am an agronom, and it
is just my job ! And not so many people are writting
on agricultural and ecological sciences topics,
neither on fr nor on en. Unfortunately 142 is also
interested in ecology. So I keep meeting him or rather
his articles on the topic. Participation on ecological
matters is sometimes biaised, but it is an interesting
approach, and participate to the global scheme. Given
that rather few people participate on these topics, I
1)feel it bad that good articles are just deleted
because of their author, just to leave instead a hole
and 2)feel that I am not gonna stop participate on my
favorite topics just because a banned user has put a
black hand on it.
If this goes to this, preventing regular users to edit
topics because of their smell, where is Wikipedia
going ?
The second point is this one :
Meta is for everyone who is interested in wikipedia
wide building. It is not only the english meta, it is
also everyone meta. And all those involved in the
matter, should feel concerned about how meta is
growing, and in particular how rules are currently
being made on meta. The rules should not be decided by
Mav, the rules should not be automatically the english
rules that suit him. The rules should be done by
everyone making meta, by the community. And perhaps,
these rules will be slightly different from en.
When I try to discuss this with you Mav, all I get is
"this is the way it is and this is final" or rather
"End of story".
Just like the english main page, not editable by most
users. Just like the wikimedia guide, just you editing
it, and calling other attempts forks.
Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job, and you
have been hurt by that user, and that 142 is indeed
banned;
what I have troubles accepting is that you decide the
way we should enforce the ban, you remove my comments
on talk pages, you delete articles I created under my
name, assuming if need there is their authorship, and
finally, that you try to break the only opposition to
your decisions on meta by calling for unsysoping
people.
So Mav, there is a point there. I explained in length
on meta why I was restoring these three articles. And
Dori made good comments about that. You just do not
consider my explanations. I also remind you that other
users on en are also doing this, and that it has
suggested that in case this is done, the articles
should be recreated under another person name. Which I
did (and I repeat I am ready to change the content as
well). So how what I do is different from what other
people do ? And why should I be unsysoped, when other
people are not for precisely the same actions than me?
And why would you not be unsysop yourself for deleting
my articles without other people opinion ?
In any place, there should be balance. The fact you
delete them is fine with me; the fact you refuse to
accept that other people have different opinions on
how meta should work is just plain not wiki.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
I encourage editors to consider the three articles I
have been restoring. These three have any right to be
on meta. The content of these is uncontroversial. It
could be edited by anyone, and I am ready to put any
effort necessary in those to modify them, as I
indicated to Mav, provided that they are not deleted
again, even when I recreate them under my name. I do
not feel ready to put some work on articles that are
being deleted immediately after. I fear that instant
deletion of these articles as now practiced, under any
editors name, even trusted ones, is likely to slow
down discussion and evolution of meta.
It is not a good idea that any topic touched by a
banned user, becomes de facto a topic which must not
be mentionned any more.
I entirely recognise and accept the decision over the
banning of 142. But the fact is that unfortunately,
142 is writing on many topics, two of them being my
favorite topics.
One is meta and cooperation between people, in
particular in the intent of having cooperation between
internationals and english users. I am also interested
by in everything that turns around people management
and systems. And of course banning, because it may not
have escaped some of you, the french wikipedia had to
ban someone about 2 weeks ago, our editors had to take
the decision to ban someone with no set rules or
recommandations; and then we had to fight (with the
great help of Tim Starling) to have this ban inforced
one way or another. So, naturally, all these topics,
about how someone is excluded from a place (and
whether it a community decision, or a single person
dream) interest me.
Unfortunately, 142 is also meddling in these topics as
well.
The second is ecology, because I am an agronom, and it
is just my job ! And not so many people are writting
on agricultural and ecological sciences topics,
neither on fr nor on en. Unfortunately 142 is also
interested in ecology. So I keep meeting him or rather
his articles on the topic. Participation on ecological
matters is sometimes biaised, but it is an interesting
approach, and participate to the global scheme. Given
that rather few people participate on these topics, I
1)feel it bad that good articles are just deleted
because of their author, just to leave instead a hole
and 2)feel that I am not gonna stop participate on my
favorite topics just because a banned user has put a
black hand on it.
If this goes to this, preventing regular users to edit
topics because of their smell, where is Wikipedia
going ?
The second point is this one :
Meta is for everyone who is interested in wikipedia
wide building. It is not only the english meta, it is
also everyone meta. And all those involved in the
matter, should feel concerned about how meta is
growing, and in particular how rules are currently
being made on meta. The rules should not be decided by
Mav, the rules should not be automatically the english
rules that suit him. The rules should be done by
everyone making meta, by the community. And perhaps,
these rules will be slightly different from en.
When I try to discuss this with you Mav, all I get is
"this is the way it is and this is final" or rather
"End of story".
Just like the english main page, not editable by most
users. Just like the wikimedia guide, just you editing
it, and calling other attempts forks.
Mav, I recognise you are doing a great job, and you
have been hurt by that user, and that 142 is indeed
banned;
what I have troubles accepting is that you decide the
way we should enforce the ban, you remove my comments
on talk pages, you delete articles I created under my
name, assuming if need there is their authorship, and
finally, that you try to break the only opposition to
your decisions on meta by calling for unsysoping
people.
So Mav, there is a point there. I explained in length
on meta why I was restoring these three articles. And
Dori made good comments about that. You just do not
consider my explanations. I also remind you that other
users on en are also doing this, and that it has
suggested that in case this is done, the articles
should be recreated under another person name. Which I
did (and I repeat I am ready to change the content as
well). So how what I do is different from what other
people do ? And why should I be unsysoped, when other
people are not for precisely the same actions than me?
And why would you not be unsysop yourself for deleting
my articles without other people opinion ?
In any place, there should be balance. The fact you
delete them is fine with me; the fact you refuse to
accept that other people have different opinions on
how meta should work is just plain not wiki.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
142.177 has been hard banned for some time now and with a great deal of cause.
Anthere, however has been consistently undoing reverts of 142.177's edits on
meta and either restoring or recreating articles that 142.177 created.
I have tried to reason with her but she seems intent on not seeing as valid
Jimbo's pronouncement that 142.177 is banned /everywhere/:
ref: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-March/009407.html
This is in spite of the clear evidence otherwise (see above) and the fact that
it was primarily actions 142.177 did on meta which initiated the ban. She
seems to think that the ban only applies to en.wikipedia.
In my view, one of the main reasons he keeps coming back is because some
people continue to restore his edits. Such actions implicitly say that what
he did was OK to begin with.
Also, Jimbo's position on evaluating each edit by a banned user (as Anthere
wants to do) is clear:
|My own position is that if someone is sneaking in to
|edit after a ban, it's really important to simply revert
|everything they do, in order to deprive them of the
|benefit that they seek. Debating over the quality of
|each individual edit only encourages them to stick
|around and argue about it, as if they had never been
|banned.
ref: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-February/001354.html
Please advise.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:15:48 -0500
From: Paul_Lorilla(a)pch.gc.ca
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Indigenous issues: Wikepedia
Encyclopedia
Mr. Jimmy Wales,
I hope this note finds you in good health and spirit.
I work for the
Aboriginal Affairs Branch at the Department of
Canadian Heritage in the
capital region of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. We came
upon your website,
Wikipedia Encyclopedia and have found your work
regarding Indigenous
languages to be very useful.
We are in the process of creating a website for our
Policy and Research
Directorate and would like to use your website as a
link for people to
research Aboriginal/Indigenous issues. This is
simply creating a
hyperlink under the word Wikipedia so that people can
then visit and
learn
from your site. We are wondering if you would permit
us to do that.
In addition, because our website is linked to the
Government of Canada,
it
is useful for sites to be bilingual (English and
French). Is there a
French version of the Indigenous website?
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your
response. I can be
contacted at 819 994 2257
Paul
-------
As far as I am aware, the french version currently
does not contain much about indigenous people, but
does contain useful things about languages.
I recommand that you start at
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langue and see if some of
the links may be relevant to you.
Do not hesitate to drop us a word.
Regards
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
We'll be moving the bug-reduced development branch of MediaWiki into
production this afternoon/evening (US time) / late night (Europe).
There may be some new bugs that haven't been caught yet, so please give
a hoot if you notice anything unusual.
User-visible changes in this round will include:
* Should be faster loading pages with many links.
* Special:Export -- export the source of individual wiki pages,
optionally with their histories, in a thin XML wrapper which includes
metadata (time, etc). This may be useful for those of you working on
automated tools. (There is not yet any comparable import facility.)
* MediaWiki: namespace for adjusting the localization of interface
messages without waiting for a new LanguageXx.php file to get
installed. Limited to sysops.
A category system is partially in the code but won't be enabled just
yet, pending another look over the code.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Mr. Jimmy Wales,
I hope this note finds you in good health and spirit. I work for the
Aboriginal Affairs Branch at the Department of Canadian Heritage in the
capital region of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. We came upon your website,
Wikipedia Encyclopedia and have found your work regarding Indigenous
languages to be very useful.
We are in the process of creating a website for our Policy and Research
Directorate and would like to use your website as a link for people to
research Aboriginal/Indigenous issues. This is simply creating a
hyperlink under the word Wikipedia so that people can then visit and learn
from your site. We are wondering if you would permit us to do that.
In addition, because our website is linked to the Government of Canada, it
is useful for sites to be bilingual (English and French). Is there a
French version of the Indigenous website?
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response. I can be
contacted at 819 994 2257
Paul
Paul C. Lorilla
Policy Officer / Agent de politique
Policy and Research Directorate / Direction de la politique et de la
recherche
Aboriginal Affairs Branch / Direction générale des affaires autochtones
Canadian Heritage / Patrimoine Canadien
Tel. (819) 994 2257
Fax. (819) 997 3471
paul_lorilla(a)pch.gc.ca
(cross-posting to general list, because policy affects all languages)
On Saturday 22 November 2003 11:01, Adam [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
> Today is apparently spelling day, it appears that a number of users are
> running bots to fix spelling errors. I believe this practice should be
> stopped; first off, it is a waste of time to correct spelling on articles
> which are far from finished. But more importantly, the bots are going to
> write over words which are supposed to be spelled a certain way, I know
> that there are quotes with deliberately misspelled words in them. Spelling
> day is a bad idea.
I disagree that correcting spelling errors in principle is a bad idea because
articles are not finished. This is nonsense, articles on wikipedia are never
finished - that doesn't mean they should contain spelling errors. You're
right however on the spelling bots: These things are dangerous, and should be
avoided. Fixing spelling errors on wikipedia is a massive task. Either we
disallow bots for this purpose or we introduce a guideline that each spelling
error has to have been looked at by the person running the bot first, and
then approved for editing by the bot. I know that this is not directly
enforceable, but most policies on wikipedia are not. If someone makes a
"spelling correction" with a bot where the spelling was correct in the
context, that shows that they have not actually looked at that particular
instance. Appropriate measures can then be taken. WDYT?
Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Please encrypt all email. Public key available from
www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc