On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
He does have a point. Jimbo founding principles did have something
about keeping mailing lists open. I would hope that this applies to
foundation-l as much as wiki-en-l, which I believe predates the
foundation
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about 100
posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that was just
appearances. The reality is that the support was substantial, the
opposition was sub-articulate, and
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 8:50 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
He does have a point. Jimbo founding principles did have something
about keeping mailing lists open. I would hope that this applies to
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Architect of WP:CIVIL,
creator of Arbcom,
Inventor of those WP:Shortcuts
That's funny.
You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it, but
why not start small on this? New mailing lists don't come
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's funny.
What's funny?
You may not want my advice, and I probably shouldn't be giving it..
Eh. True.
I'm looking for either support or dissent. Support I can deal with.
Dissent I can deal with too. :-)
And we
I have to agree with the idea, posted a bit ago, that a new email list
is a bit of a backdoor if we're all for transparency. Discussions
about the dispute resolution process, might get more input, if done
in-universe. I'm not sure why you want a new channel.
Will
-Original Message-
Steve,
Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work
it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I
think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular
on-wiki discussion of dispute resolution.
Fred
Stevertigo:
And of
Excellent comments by Bod Notbod.
Posting my response under the 'A modest proposal - a recap of
resolution-l' thread.
-Stevertigo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work
it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I
think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular
Bod Notbodbodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list
is actually against the grain of that.
I understand this point, and I have made it myself in the past - both
with regard to mailing lists, and with regard to the
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you?
(See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone? My attitude toward Cary has actually
been quite
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Previous post correction diff:
- its issues that are best discussed openly.
+ its issues are best discussed openly.
-Stevertigo
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:44 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Keep in mind you are making the same misconceptions that Thomas did.
The resolution-l forum is not for getting into details about how to
handle
Should be how to handle.. specific on-wiki disputes/conflicts.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
Um, no. There is a more actual reason underlying that one - that I was
embarrassing Cary, and by extension anyone else on functionaries-l or
else using private communication that they were being non-responsive.
There are several slang substitutes for non-responsive in common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
stevertigo wrote:
I'm proposing that we start a resolution-l mailing list.
Yes, I know we talked about it a month ago, to the tune of about
100 posts, and it seemed that it wasn't going anywhere. But that
was just appearances. The reality is that
2009/7/28 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
The real truth is that we have been waiting for Cary to fulfill one of
his many duties and create the list. That having failed, we have been
waiting on Cary to tell us why he has not. [snip]
Who is this we? While a small number of people (I would estimate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree
with you? (See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I
stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Can you not do this thing of bad-mouthing people who disagree with you?
(See your attitude to Cary Bass.)
How have I bad-mouthed anyone?
*Splutter.*
You had very
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please don't assume that you were embarrassing anyone except yourself.
This looks like good, sound, hard-learned advice, even if it is
presented as an inappropriate and off-topic personal attack.
-Stevertigo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I did give it proper consideration.
Um, no. You didn't. 'Proper consideration' requires sending signals
out to people and getting some signals back - responsiveness.
I apologize for treating you special and not having
2009/7/28 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I did give it proper consideration.
Um, no. You didn't. 'Proper consideration' requires sending signals
out to people and getting some signals back - responsiveness.
It is the job of
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been
how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
Hm. Is it then the job then of the officials to decree there is no consensus?
Strange, and
2009/7/28 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It is the job of the proposer to demonstrate consensus. That has been
how it has worked for as long as I've been around.
Hm. Is it then the job then of the officials to decree
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Considering that Arbitrators regularly get hounded on their talk pages,
and are subject to pile-ons in just about any forum, this is not my
particular concern. The heat in the kitchen probably deters a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a
link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All
you had was a mailing list thread where not many people agreed and
very few
2009/7/28 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
You have to demonstrate that it has been achieved, usually be giving a
link to the discussion where (almost) everyone was in agreement. All
you had was a mailing list thread
Trying to overcome my aversion towards Java, I've written a little app
that can aggregate watchlists for a user across WikiMedia projects.
'nuff said:
http://magnusmanske.de/MetaWatchlist/
Cheers,
Magnus
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:21 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah. Just looking through the list of current mailing lists:
Checkuser-l, functionaries-l, arbitration-l (sic), mediation-l (sic),
accounts-en-l, OTRS-en-l (also de, fr, etc.) - quite a few private
lists, actually, for such an
2009/7/28 Luna lunasan...@gmail.com:
That, specifically, is something I find missing from your proposal: an
earnest explanation of what this gives us that on-wiki discussion cannot.
Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been
banned on-wiki to continue arguing.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Carcharothcarcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
get the photographer credit, unless the photographer is famous). There
have been cases (I won't name names) of photographers putting their
name in the filenames, but there should be other ways to address the
I do
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:37:16 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
although you could not find anyone to agree with you
Actually not true. Fred and George I can think of off-hand.
You mean these guys?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html
Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet?
' Yet in the last few months, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has
been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are
angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates
LOL. Can you say scapegoat?
biblio
--- On Tue, 7/28/09, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 9:58 PM
Oh, that bit is actually very simple. It allows people that have been
banned on-wiki to continue arguing.
If that's the main difference, doesn't it seem likely that this is a
proposal not likely to gain consensus? If the community has decided
that a contributor shouldn't contribute, why would
34 matches
Mail list logo
