Hi,
The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_N…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_N…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_N…
But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
Cberlet
user Seancdaug is abusively deleting valid external links to 'Final Fantasy
video games' including a website that is referenced in the article. he
enlisted the help of an admin to block me from editing, in an abuse of that
power. i request other administrators to deal with this.
Dear fellow wikipedians,
Yesterday, stewards received a request to unsysop
Stevertigo, after a failed reconfirmation of
sysophood, following an arbcom decision.
Jtkiefer also asked me privately by irc to carry on
the request.
I consequently unsyoped Stevertigo.
Today, Steve post on my talk page, this comment :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthere#Request_for_permissions
As a reminder, stewards are not here to judge, but to
carry on the decision of the community. I have no idea
why Steve was brought in front of the arbcom (well,
right, it is a 3RR issue, but I do not know the
details, and I do not want to get in this).
Now, I think in this case, the "judges" are
* the arbcom
* the voting community
And the steward is just to carry on the decision the
"judges" made.
If there is something unclear in the final decision,
it should not be my job to go reading all the
discussions around this case, so as to figure out
myself the "correct" conclusion. I think Stevertigo is
a honest editor, and he would not try to cheat on the
decision, so if he feels the outcome has not been
fair/clear, it is probable that there is a little
something unclear somewhere.
So, what I would like you to do, is to clarify the
current situation, so that the correct decision, to
desysop or not to desysop, is taken.
I give it 48 hours without doing anything, and if
there is no clarification by then, I will revert to
the previous stable situation (ie, Steve sysop) till
an agreement is reached between yourselves.
Ant
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Finaly happened. You can stop cheering now
Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !". The reason given for
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I'm guessing the reason is something to do with this. Could someone
kill the block?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
--
geni
> From: Jtkiefer <jtkiefer(a)wordzen.net>
>>> The Guardian has a story entitled "Can you trust Wikipedia?" in
>>> which
>>> various specialists rate Wikipedia articles in their field of
>>> knowledge: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1599116,00.html
>
> As I also posted in another thread roughly on this topic, although we
> should be concerned whether or not Wikipedia is trustworthy we
> shouldn't
> get ourselves too concerned about the register's "articles" about
> Wikipedia since every single article is clearly biased against
> wikipedia
> beyond factuality so the register slamming us with criticism is just
> business as usual.
No, but we _should_ be concerned about the _Guardian's_ articles
about Wikipedia.
Because the Register isn't trustworthy, but the Guardian is.
On a trustworthiness scale of 0 to 10, I'd pesonally score the
Register as 3, the Guardian as 9.5.
And Slashdot as 2, Drudge as 4, and Wikipedia as, um, about a 7?
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
steve v wrote:
>--- "Ben E." <bratsche1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What we had was a transfer of the duties of ArbCom
>>to the community,
>>seemingly against their own principles and ours at
>>[[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which shows that
>>adminship can only be removed
>>by Jimbo Himself or by that very ArbCom.
>>
>>
>>Hopefully, the committee can expand and define
>>the case to completely reflect it and the
>>
>>
>community's > wishes.
>
>To resurrect a case requires dabbling in the sinister
>arts -- not often associated with justice or fairness.
>I would argue that 're-deciding' a case cannot be
>fairly done without actually 're-hearing' the case.
>
>Understandably, the Arbcom would prefer to make things
>easy on themselves (theyve been through a lot after
>all), but --just to cheer things up --I contend that a
>re-deciding an old case without re-hearing it is
>improper -- putting aside the /double-jeopardy/
>hung-jury/ mistrial/ precedents involved.
>
>
Well, you were right to put those aside, because even if people in
arbitration cases were entitled to the rights associated with criminal
procedure (which they're not), double jeopardy wouldn't apply in this
case. After a mistrial or hung jury, the next step normally is to have a
new trial if the parties still want to litigate. Since no final verdict
was reached, it's not a second proceeding in the double jeopardy sense;
it's a resumption or a restart of the first proceeding. Which is exactly
what you're getting, since the Arbitration Committee has retaken the
case after the RfA "jury" declined to reach a resolution to the case.
--Michael Snow
Do we have any way to issue Wikipedians press badges? There are a lot of
events that could be covered by Wikipedian photographers that would allow
the whole mess of copyrights... since Wikipedian photographers are likely to
copyleft than copyright....
--
Jason Y. Lee
AKA AllyUnion
I think that photos, which are intended to make a specific point, should not be uploaded to Wikipedia unless they have been previously published by a disinterested, reputable 3rd party.
Flikr.com, weblogs, partisan political web sites (dailykos, freerepublic, etc) and such are not acceptable, but commercial news organizations and commericial publishers and to a lesser extent, non-profits would be ok. There is simply too much opportunity out there to stage photos, for example:
Supporters of Candidate A take Candidate B's signs and make a big mess in a parking lot with them and leave also a lot of trash like water bottles and sandwich wrappers.... the Wiki caption for this reads, "trash left behind after local rally for B".
Clearly it's a staged photo intended to make a point. If the control parameter of "intended to make a point" is not enforced, the excuse regarding the above scenario would be "I found the trash & signs in the parking lot and merely snapped the photo". Such assertions could not be disproved, opening a pandora's box of scheming opporunities.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/151 - Release Date: 10/28/2005
Hi all,
This is just to let people know that Aranda56 has submitted their name
to be granted the rollback privilege on the requests for rollback
privileges[1] page (currently a proposed policy).
What would happen in the event that the nomination is successful? There
is also the possibility that the nomination will be unsuccessful, for
three reasons:
- People do not believe putting people through a proposed policy is a
good idea;
- That they think the candidate is unsuitable for rollback;
- They do not believe the proposed policy is a good idea and they are
proxy voting on the issue of Aranda56's candidacy as a way to show their
opposition to the policy.
In the third case, I believe it would be best to leave the proposed
policy page open in case community consensus later forms to make this
proposed policy into practice. However, the first and second
possibilities leave us with a quandry as it would be difficult to know
whether people believe the policy should be in place or not.
What do people suggest in the way of resolving the potential scenarios
from this?
Chris
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFR#Aranda56