>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Sidaway [mailto:tonysidaway@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 02:33 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattack site link policy
>
>On 7/2/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> and a matter to be considered in future elections. as a reference
>> point, Fred's term expires at the end of 2007.
>>
>
>My! You're a nasty bit of work, aren't you? Fred didn't make that
>decision alone.
I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to contemplate what Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of dogs fall on someone after he and his ilk are in control, I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by and do nothing.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:37 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>
>On 2 Jul 2007 at 16:41:33 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
><fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
>> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>
>Then why exactly did you recently remove a link to a Wikipedia diff
>that in turn linked to Wikipedia Review, and endorse the 24-hour
>block of the person who had posted that link, all the while saying
>that this was justified only when a specific arbitration ruling had
>been made on the specific site?
I misread the link. Made a mistake. Embarrassing, but needs to be said. Unless the link to Wikipedia Review is pretty nasty, it doesn't violate the rule about linking to attack sites. That said, I think there may be some problems with the edit. Actually I think it is original research, a whole other matter. But certainly not a blockable offense.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kamryn Matika [mailto:kamrynmatika@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 03:35 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Kamryn Matika [mailto:kamrynmatika@gmail.com]
>> >Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 10:58 AM
>> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>> >
>> >On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>> >>
>> >> Fred
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why did you endorse my block if this is the case? The block was enacted
>> >solely on the ruling in the MONGO case and was applied to my reverting to
>> a
>> >version of a page that contained a reference to Wikipedia Review. If
>> there
>> >was no arbitration ruling that relates to Wikipedia Review, how is the
>> >justification for my block valid? Why did you support it?
>>
>> I didn't read the link right. In this case the link might be fine,
>> although Wikipedia Review is down right now. I don't support broad
>> generalization of the MONGO case. Glad we cleared that up. Maybe we can
>> resolve this. Who is it that thinks someone can be blocked for a link to
>> Wikipedia Review based on the MONGO case?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>Heh, okay... everyone makes mistakes.
>
>See [
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=prev&oldi…]
>this edit I made, and my talk page [
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KamrynMatika&oldid=1404…]
>following it.
>
>It seems that (in this case) ElinorD and Crum375 believe that it is OK to
>block an editor for adding a link to Wikipedia Review. In this case, the
>link pertained to the article as it linked to a thread on Wikipedia Review
>where Essjay's deception was first brought to light, and (in my opinion)
>it's quite relevant. I was warned for adding the link, based on the MONGO
>ruling, and then blocked when I ignored the warning (my bad there I guess).
>Is this or is this not appropriate? Thanks.
Yes, you should not ignore the warning, but ElinorD and Crum375 are probably overdoing it. I say probably, because I don't speak for the whole Arbitration Committee and have not been able to look at the link you posted due to Wikipedia Review being down. I can understand their confusion however, as a number of users have been taking strong positions. Wikipedia Review is not subject to a site ban, only ED is. Unless something happens to change that... However, they are correct that it is possible to find some pretty nasty stuff on Wikipedia Review, and until recently on Daniel Brandt's site.
Fred
On 2 Jul 2007 at 01:52:20 +0300, "White Cat"
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a mailing list not an article. You are borderlining trolling and I
> suggest you stop
Labeling people "trolls" is something I wish people would stop doing,
here and on Wikipedia. It doesn't add anything productive to any
discussion.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 2 Jul 2007 at 17:36:03 +0000, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikime wrote:
> No, I just read the link wrong. I made a mistake. Good thing I
> wasn't flying an airplane : I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.
> Or stirred them up unnecessarily.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've "stirred" something
up unnecessarily as a result of your failure to properly understand
policy or the facts of a situation. A couple of months ago, on this
list, you were pushing an odd interpretation of the WP:BLP policy
that allegedly held that, if any admin claimed that BLP was being
violated, and deleted an article as a result, then this decision was
unreviewable and unassailable, except by a full-blown Arbcom case,
even if the original admin was completely wrongheaded about it.
(And, given that somebody recently even attempted a serious argument
to the effect that [[Jesus Christ]] was covered by BLP because he
rose from the grave, one can't be sure of the policy always being
applied sensibly; the checks and balances of normal policy and
process are important for helping this.) You were claiming (with no
justification) that all of this was provided in the BLP policy, but
had to back down from that, and the policy now is that normal process
such as DRV can in fact be applied, though there's a presumption in
favor of keeping deleted in the case of BLPs anyway.
I expect much better from somebody in a position of trust who's
tasked with interpreting policy and passing judgment on Wikipedians.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
White Cat wrote:
> I am warning you all that this is a moderated mailing list.
If White Cat has any power to enforce this threat, that power ought
to be removed.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/donate
--------------------------------
On 2 Jul 2007 at 16:41:33 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
Then why exactly did you recently remove a link to a Wikipedia diff
that in turn linked to Wikipedia Review, and endorse the 24-hour
block of the person who had posted that link, all the while saying
that this was justified only when a specific arbitration ruling had
been made on the specific site?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 2 Jul 2007 at 13:07:46 +0000, "Fred Bauder"
<fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> I did originate it though and am not intimidated. I shudder to
> contemplate what Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia. If a pack of
> dogs fall on someone after he and his ilk are in control, I guess
> we will simply be obligated to stand by and do nothing.
The "pack of dogs" I see is the clique that's pushing the link ban,
and ganging up on anybody who doesn't go along with it (such as, for
instance, torpedoing their RfA nominations). You're one of the big
dogs in that pack. It's precisely because I believe in standing up
to bullies that I'm opposing you on this.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I suspect most of the readers of this list are eligible to vote in the
current board election, yet most eligible people haven't voted and
most won't unless there is a major trend change. Especially excluded
are users who only log in to edit every few weeks. Hopefully this list
will reach some of them.
There are many reasons why it is very important that YOU vote in this
election. The board is responsible for oversight and direction of the
Wikimedia projects, including fundraising, defining the mission, and
determining foundation-wide policies, so though it does not have
direct input into English Wikipedia day-to-day policy, you still are
affected by what they choose to do.
The election process is simple, and because it uses approval voting,
you don't have to figure out who is best; you simply need to select
all candidates who are acceptable.
You can find out more about the election at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/en
The election closes at 23:59 on Saturday, July 7, 2007 (UTC, don't let
the timezone catch you off guard!). That means you still have time to
participate, although with thousands of words written in question and
answer pages it will probably take you a little time to build a fair
assessment of the candidates, so you should start looking now.
You can read the candidate statements at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Candidate_presentation_…
and each candidate has as Question/Answer page linked from their
statements.
As it stands right now substantially less than 16% of all eligible and
recently active voters on English Wikipedia have participated in the
election process. This is a lower turnout than previous years although
enwiki has always had poor voter turnout.
Low turnout makes the election process dramatically more vulnerable to
several types of bias; for example, people with strong emotions and
potentially unreasonable feelings about the candidates are more likely
to participate without encouragement. The impact of sockpuppets,
small-POV groups, and parties with any personal or financial interests
in the outcome is greater when turnout is low, because these parties
will tend to cast a fixed number of votes.
Regardless of the election outcome, low turnout from English Wikipedia
also sends the wrong message to the board. English Wikipedia is by far
the largest Wikimedia community, and English Wikipedia has the largest
readership. While it is very important that other Wikimedia projects
be well supported and understood by the board, the importance of
English Wikipedia should not be understated.
There are organized campaigns to increase turnout from some of the
other projects, and the result appears that English Wikipedia's
influence and interest in Wikimedia is far less than it actually is.
Even if you do not have an opinion on the outcome of the election,
even if you think that all candidates are acceptable or that all are
unacceptable, you can and should still vote. We use approval voting,
and you can cast a vote approving everyone or even a vote approving no
one. Neither of these two options will influence the direct outcome of
the election, but both will still add to the total count of English
Wikipedia voters and both will send the message that our project is
important and involved.
I am disappointed that the election committee hasn't worked to improve
voter turnout, but it is what it is.. Their time is limited and they
already have a huge job without drumming up more participation so our
communities need to step up to the challenge and fill this gap.
Rejected by the community.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 11:31 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>So what happened to the attack sites proposal? (I was busy doing other things)
>
>Fred
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: The Mangoe [mailto:the.mangoe@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 11:02 AM
>>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
>>
>>On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>> I recall no arbitration ruling which relates to Wikipedia Review.
>>
>>Perhaps you have forgotten then that the "attack sites" proposal was
>>directed at it.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>