Wikipedia-l November 2003

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

71 participants
98 discussions

since we are on legal matters ...
by Daniel Mayer 27 Nov '03

27 Nov '03

Anthere wrote: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-November/013123.html Response here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikilegal-l/2003-November/000067.html Wikilegal-l sign-up page: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilegal-l --mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

1 0

Anthere is subverting the 142.177 hard ban
by Daniel Mayer 27 Nov '03

27 Nov '03

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

2 1

possible link rendering bug?
by Peter Gervai 27 Nov '03

27 Nov '03

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. :-))

5 8

Mav and policy
by Anthere 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

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

1 0

Mav and policy
by Anthere 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

1 0

Anthere is subverting the 142.177 hard ban
by Daniel Mayer 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

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)

1 0

Indigenous issues: Wikepedia Encyclopedia
by Anthere 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

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

1 0

Software upgrades
by Brion Vibber 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

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)

3 7

Indigenous issues: Wikepedia Encyclopedia
by Paul_Lorilla＠pch.gc.ca 26 Nov '03

26 Nov '03

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

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Spelling Day?
by Sascha Noyes 25 Nov '03

25 Nov '03

(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

4 4

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l November 2003