[WikiEN-l] RE: How many Arbitrators should we have?

Thu Oct 6 17:04:03 UTC 2005

<snip> The current mediation process doesn't work very well, for exactly
those reasons, and should not be used an an example of what to do w
the ArbCom. They are making changes and improvements, but it is
despite, rather than because of their selection process, that it is
occuring.

Jack (Sam Spade) </snip>

Can you clarify what you mean, Sam Spade? Thanks.

Flcelloguy
>From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

>From: wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>Reply-To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Subject: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 55
>Date: Thu,  6 Oct 2005 16:39:20 +0000 (UTC)
>
>Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
>	wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Michael Turley)
>    2. Re: Trademarked images and image use policies in	non-English
>       Wikipedias (Andrew Gray)
>    3. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Kat Walsh)
>    4. Re: Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability (Sean Barrett)
>    5. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Jack Lynch)
>    6. Re: Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability (Andrew Gray)
>    7. Re: Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability (Tony Sidaway)
>    8. Re: Trademarked images and image use policies in	non-English
>       Wikipedias (Justin Cormack)
>    9. Re: How many Arbitrators should we have? (Kelly Martin)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:11:32 -0400
>From: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com>
>Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<d148b6870510060911h6afdb564n35144b918e003186 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Michael Turley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> >
> > All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
>
>By the same process we do now, just create more vacancies to fill.
>
>--
>Michael Turley
>User:Unfocused
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:16:28 +0100
>From: Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in
>	non-English Wikipedias
>To: Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com>, English Wikipedia
>	<wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <f3fedb0d0510060916u2c157cd2i at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 06/10/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd be really interested in reading about what decisions the other
> > language versions of Wikipedia made and why.
> >
> > Can someone point me to a place where I can discuss this (preferably
> > in English)?
>
>Wikipedia-l may be a good idea, or if you ask on meta there might be
>someone knowledgeable. The en.wiki articles on foreign-language
>editions may or may not have brief summaries of such policies, but not
>really the reasoning behind them.
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:18:24 -0400
>From: Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<8e253f560510060918i3abd1bf3k56e0ee0667637a87 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Turley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> >
> > All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
> >
> > - - Ryan
>
>I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request
>process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general
>agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool
>of people to draw from.
>
>I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be
>a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would.
>It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality
>required.
>
>-Kat
>[[User:Mindspillage]]
>
>--
>"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
>escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:24:03 -0700
>From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
>To: David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>,	English Wikipedia
>	<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <43454FA3.3050205 at epoptic.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>David Gerard stated for the record:
>
> > On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>- is too stupid (possibly wilfully stupid) to understand without
> >>>falling afoul of it. As we've seen from this thread, even then they
> >>>frequently can't or won't learn.
> >
> >
> >>Well, after warning someone about the 3RR because I saw that he had
> >>reverted twice in a couple hours (with some snippy edit summaries), he
> >>made the following elaborate argument that he had done nothing wrong.
> >>You can see my painful, and ultimately fruitless, attempt to explain
> >>the situation to him at [[User talk:Freemarkets]].
> >>"According to baseball rules, if one has "more than 2 strikes" called
> >>against him while at bat, that player will be called "out." In other
> >>words, each batter is "entitled" to 2 strikes before being called
> >>"out." According to Wikipedia rules, if one edits a page "more than
> >>three times" in a 24 hour period, he is subject to being blocked. How
> >>is it, then, that that rule does NOT "entitle" an editor to "three
> >>reverts" without being called out? If one must break a rule to be
> >>blocked, and one cannot break the rule without reverting more than 3
> >>times in 24 hours, then how have I violated the rule, and how would I
> >>be subject to being banned? Further, of what use is your
> >>warning?--Freemarkets  11:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)"
> >
> >
> >
> > What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At
> > least not the first time.
>
>Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.
>
>- --
>  Sean Barrett     | It is dark, and you are likely to
>  sean at epoptic.com | log off the wrong account.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFDRU+jMAt1wyd9d+URAtYOAJ4k5auqmO1VeuFVNj9jMvC1Wq9PHQCfdYTE
>F/J4nxsoB4YM1Ir0SDSAmNE=
>=fgTQ
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 18:27:05 +0200
>From: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<49bdc7430510060927h2b597b4cnee3477890eeaf3d3 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>The current mediation process doesn't work very well, for exactly
>those reasons, and should not be used an an example of what to do w
>the ArbCom. They are making changes and improvements, but it is
>despite, rather than because of their selection process, that it is
>occuring.
>
>Jack (Sam Spade)
>
>On 10/6/05, Kat Walsh <mindspillage at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Turley wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > > > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I
> > > > would never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.
> > > > If I'd thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority
> > > > to arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking,
> > > > page locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal"
> > > > and a lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> > >
> > > All right, then. How would you suggest we choose them?
> > >
> > > - - Ryan
> >
> > I can see something like the current Mediation Committee request
> > process working: a sort of unstructured request, with general
> > agreement from the community and no veto by the arbcom, to form a pool
> > of people to draw from.
> >
> > I do think as some others have that not every suitable admin would be
> > a suitable arbitrator/magistrate/clerk -- though quite a few would.
> > It's a few additional skills and a more specific sort of personality
> > required.
> >
> > -Kat
> > [[User:Mindspillage]]
> >
> > --
> > "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily
> > escaped the chronicler's mind."  --Douglas Adams
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:33:17 +0100
>From: Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <f3fedb0d0510060933x31f3ffb7l at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 06/10/05, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org> wrote:
>
> > > What a pity being that wilfully clueless isn't a blocking offence. At
> > > least not the first time.
> >
> > Something to add to [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is not a game of baseball.
>
>Should we add that the 3RR is also not cricket? ;-)
>
>--
>- Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:36:08 +0100
>From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<605709b90510060936p74a9c87aq857a4511018832e8 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Wikipedia is not baseball.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:41:13 +0100
>From: Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in
>	non-English Wikipedias
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID: <1128616874.19912.4.camel at scrod.vision>
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 10:48 -0500, Nyenyec N wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In HuWiki there's an ongoing debate over trademarked images, such as
> > company logos. On the one hand, they're usually copyrighted so they
> > shouldn't be uploaded, on the other hand they can be used to
> > illustrate encyclopedia articles about the specific company without
> > the fear of anyone suing us.
>
>Except that they might implicitly be taken to imply endorsement, or we
>might be asked to remove them.
>
>WHat is the summary of the argument on HU?
>
> > I know that they cannot be uploaded to commons (since they're
> > copyrighted) and I think the German Wikipedia also doesn't allow such
> > images, since they don't have a free license.
> >
> > I'd be really interested in reading about what decisions the other
> > language versions of Wikipedia made and why.
>
>en is overlax and allows upload of pretty much any copyrighted image at
>the moment. Clearly this is going to have to change. I wouldnt use the
>policies of en as a basis for anything else. Also it depends on the fair
>use policy of the country in question (as that is where it will largely
>be used). Germany has no fair use right in law apparently, hence their
>decision.
>
> > Can someone point me to a place where I can discuss this (preferably
> > in English)?
>
>Here, or wikiproject fair use on en.
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:38:51 -0500
>From: Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
>To: Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com>,	English Wikipedia
>	<wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Message-ID:
>	<bd4c411e0510060938k13f93177hcff5643bad070341 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are a lot of current administrators that I've either voted to
> > support, or simply refused to vote oppose in their RfA that I would
> > never consider supporting in the position of an arbitrator.  If I'd
> > thought that one future day they'd get handed the authority to
> > arbitrate in any way stronger than they now can (by blocking, page
> > locking, etc) it would certainly have been less "no big deal" and a
> > lot more "let's screen these people very carefully".
> >
> > Keeping adminship "no big deal" has to include keeping the authorities
> > granted to them in the same general class.
>
>I'm also in agreement that the notion of letting any admin volunteer
>to act as an adjudicator on any dispute is a bad idea.
>
>First, you have the issue that adminship is currently "no big deal".
>If we give admins the right to make unilateral binding decisions (even
>if subject to appeal) with the full authority of the ArbCom, then
>suddenly adminship is no longer "no big deal".  We'd really need to
>reconfirm all our current admins to this new standard, and I bet a lot
>of them would fail to meet it.
>
>Second, allowing people to pick and choose what issues they will offer
>justice on is an open invitation to bias.  If a candidate jurist has a
>POV on a particular issue, he will want to judge it in order to impose
>his POV.  I oppose any system in which assignment to cases is on a
>voluntary basis; all of our jurists should take the cases as they
>come, with the option (and obligation) to recuse in case of conflict.
>
>As to the problem of getting people to want to serve as magistrates
>(which is, frankly, a really nasty job, almost as bad as that of
>arbitrator, and with less prestige and power): the one selling point
>is that it stands to reason that magistrates will naturally be the
>most probable candidates to become future arbitrators, and are likely
>to be called on to serve as temporary arbitrators to fill vacancies
>and so forth.  Combine that with the fact that there are some crazy
>people who enjoy being jurists, and I think we can scare up enough
>qualified people to at least blunt the storm somewhat.
>
>And, on top of that, I will personally buy a round of drinks for
>anyone who serves as a magistrate, at every Wikimania I attend. :)
>
>Kelly
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
>End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 27, Issue 55
>****************************************

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/