Marc Riddell wrote
> Charles, take an honest look at the culture you are involved in here. The
> greatest problems this Project must confront in the coming year are the
> state of its internal structure, and the dysfunctional interactions of its
> people.
To be frank, as an Arbitrator I see more of the "culture" than ever gets discussed on this list. To paraphrase what you are saying, well, it's all just people. I don't agree with your past postings, on the topic of centralization and leadership.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Marc Riddell wrote
> > "Daniel R. Tobias"
> >
> >> Though, in the "some animals are more equal than others" environment
> >> of Wikipedia, there's a handful of powerful people (sometimes termed
> >> the "clique" or "cabal") who, if they decide that some banned user is
> >> Evil Incarnate, will promptly add to their Enemies List any admin
> >> that dares to unblock such a user, try to shame that admin into
> >> reversing the action, and agitate for the desysopping or banning of
> >> the non-groupthink-compatible admin if he/she resists that.
> on 9/30/07 10:13 AM, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com at
> charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >
> > You of course have entirely reliable sources documenting every syllable of
> > this.
> >
> Charles,
>
> Are you seriously questioning the accuracy of Daniel's statement?
>
> Marc Riddell
The "cabal" is of course a canard. The idea that anyone gets desysopped for unblocking strikes me as far-fetched. Simply stringing together bits from grievances that bannees propagate isn't actually an argument. It would be foolish for anyone to say that "X never happens". The longer I'm here, the more I have evidence for every combination of circumstances arising, and being played out according to the possible scenarios. But if there is a powerful group on the site, I think I'd know about it.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
In situations where I hadn't been the blocking admin I'd open a consensus
discussion. If no one brought something serious to light that I hadn't been
aware of previously, I'd support restoring editing privileges on at least an
experimental basis.
-Durova
> I think the matter was sufficiently discussed at CSN. At this point
you're
> nearly halfway through the waiting period for my standard offer. If
you'll
> respect the ban by not trying to sockpuppet around it or bash Wikipedia
> around the Internet, and if you pledge to refrain from repeating the
> behavior that led to the ban in the first place, then e-mail me in mid
> January and I'll see what I can do to help bring you back.
Mmm. Note that a "community ban" on en:wp means "not one of 1000+
admins is inclined to unblock you."
- d.
"Daniel R. Tobias"
> Though, in the "some animals are more equal than others" environment
> of Wikipedia, there's a handful of powerful people (sometimes termed
> the "clique" or "cabal") who, if they decide that some banned user is
> Evil Incarnate, will promptly add to their Enemies List any admin
> that dares to unblock such a user, try to shame that admin into
> reversing the action, and agitate for the desysopping or banning of
> the non-groupthink-compatible admin if he/she resists that.
You of course have entirely reliable sources documenting every syllable of this.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
geni wrote
> 3)Different cultures. One of the few things considered respectable in
> British retirement is to research your local history
:) - metonymic accuracy. Bridge? Though perhaps pensioner bridge players smoke too much.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I think the matter was sufficiently discussed at CSN. At this point you're
nearly halfway through the waiting period for my standard offer. If you'll
respect the ban by not trying to sockpuppet around it or bash Wikipedia
around the Internet, and if you pledge to refrain from repeating the
behavior that led to the ban in the first place, then e-mail me in mid
January and I'll see what I can do to help bring you back.
-Durova
On 9/29/07, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archi…
>
> About 2-1/2 months ago, I was given an indefinite ban by the
> community after 5 hours of "discussion". I feel it was wholly unjustified.
>
> Editor Art Carlson noted that the banning editor had "refused to
> justify his block", and, editor Bladestorm noted that he was "having
> a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here".
>
> How do I clear my name when editors will not provide actual evidence
> against me, or make unsubstantiated accusations?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ian Tresman
> www.plasma-universe.com
> > ...A photograph of an individual
> > in a public place is by definition
> > not private information. What
> > occurs in public is public...
> ...I'd imagine we'll be pretty safe...
Safe?
> ...as long as we don't accept
> seriously substandard photographs
> of celebrities, if it's similar in
> appearance...
Copyright infringement case law allow damages for publishing look-alike
pictures, even if only in design, layout, or theme - not just outright
"copies".
My challenge is who takes responsibility? Wikipedia, or the submitter,
or the photographer?
> ...We want free photos, but we
> don't want free photos likely to
> get us into a whole heap of trouble...
Therein lies the rub.
"Getting into trouble" is not up to us, it's up to anyone who accosts us
or sues us. We might prevail, or not.
"Doing the right thing" is up to us, regardless.
We took AB off moderation so as to see if that would stem the
repetitious flow of querulous semisensical complaints. It seems to
have only encouraged such. After numerous complaints about AB's
prodigous outpourings onto the list, AB is back on moderation. One
message a day, under 10KB, first message found in queue at 00:00; all
others will be sent back.
- d.
On 29 Sep 2007 at 18:11:02 -0400, "Michael Noda"
<michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What a coincidence; David's first message just led to me rescuing a
> one-sentence article on a mayor of New York City which had been tagged
> {{db-bio}}. Clearly mayors of New York as a class have never done
> anything notable, and therefore are just fair game for deletion these
> days </snark>
Like that Giuliani guy... whatever happened to him? :-)
--
== 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/
This is the mailing list for the Wikipedia projects, I am sending this to
the English Wikipedia mailing list (wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org).
On 9/29/07, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archi…
>
> About 2-1/2 months ago, I was given an indefinite ban by the
> community after 5 hours of "discussion". I feel it was wholly unjustified.
>
> Editor Art Carlson noted that the banning editor had "refused to
> justify his block", and, editor Bladestorm noted that he was "having
> a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here".
>
> How do I clear my name when editors will not provide actual evidence
> against me, or make unsubstantiated accusations?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ian Tresman
> www.plasma-universe.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.