<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(a)Wikipedia.org
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To: wikien-l(a)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(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikien-l-owner(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
To: Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com>
Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<d148b6870510060911h6afdb564n35144b918e003186(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in
non-English Wikipedias
To: Nyenyec N <nyenyec(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <f3fedb0d0510060916u2c157cd2i(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 06/10/05, Nyenyec N <nyenyec(a)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(a)dunelm.org.uk
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:18:24 -0400
From: Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<8e253f560510060918i3abd1bf3k56e0ee0667637a87(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)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(a)epoptic.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
To: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <43454FA3.3050205(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<49bdc7430510060927h2b597b4cnee3477890eeaf3d3(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/05, Ryan Delaney
<ryan.delaney(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <f3fedb0d0510060933x31f3ffb7l(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 06/10/05, Sean Barrett <sean(a)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(a)dunelm.org.uk
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:36:08 +0100
From: Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autoblocking, reverts, and verifiability
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<605709b90510060936p74a9c87aq857a4511018832e8(a)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(a)specialbusservice.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Trademarked images and image use policies in
non-English Wikipedias
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <1128616874.19912.4.camel(a)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(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How many Arbitrators should we have?
To: Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Message-ID:
<bd4c411e0510060938k13f93177hcff5643bad070341(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 10/6/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)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(a)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
****************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!