User talk:Raul654: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:05, 23 February 2006

For your tireless work in making Wikipedia better, for keeping Template:Feature up-to-date, for doing the grunt work of cleaning up Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, for mediating in disputes, for adding lots of really nice pictures, and for still finding the time to work on articles! In a few months you've already become a highly valued member of the community. Stay with us and don't burn out, please. --Eloquence Apr 10, 2004

suggestion: top level categories for features index

Hi Raul, Thanks again for the sandbox page creation. If you have time, could you comment on the top level categories here?: User:Vir/sandbox

I've finished my first (and second) drafts of the categorization outline. (Please ignore the 3rd level subcategories.) I personally think the main feature index page would benefit greatly from the three main top-level heads being edited into place now with categories assigned roughly as on the linked page (with whatever wording edits). There are over 25 categories now (too many in one group). A category breakdown would help much in finding info. I'm not sure when to propose that top level categorization edit: Perhaps in a week or two or whenever the Culture/Anthro and Soc category edit is resolved. But if you think it is a relatively simple matter (and not subject to much debate), I could suggest now.

Do you think the top level categories -- Arts and Humanities, Society and Social Sciences, Technology and Natural Sciences -- are helpful? Vir 18:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On the feature index, I will not be suggesting we created new categories right away, like Theater and Animals in society (though I think the index could use both). Nor am I suggesting to move around links at this time (though in time yes). I am just talking about the need to add the 3 top level categories and organizing existing categories under those as on the page linked above. Vir 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. There is precedent in Wikipedias for the use of top-level categories to sort featured articles. The other two largest wikipedias, german and french, include a top level general subject index of featured articles. The top categories vary a bit, having 7 and 10 main categories, but these have common themes (such as arts, politics and society, science, etc.). See:

I think a top level set of main categories is a basic need in helping folks to find features.

I'm a bit swamped right now. Give me a day or three to review this and get back to you. Raul654 05:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I found a place to propose and possibly try out this idea. And, there is a ready given template for this on the English Wikipedia (the top category and portal categories). See this proposal on the proposed good article policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Proposed:_Top_level_categories_for_this_page Vir 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint: Effectively Blocked for Five Months

Today is the first day I have been able to log on since late September (or possibly early October -- I did not keep a log). I am writing to you because you are the administrator who notified me of a decision in the Ultramarine case, and hopefully will guide me as to where to complain.

At essentially the same time as the arbitration was accepted, I found myself functionally blocked from Wikipedia. Since mid-September, I have been mostly unable to log on, and when I have logged on, attempts to edit any article, including the arbitration, have resulted in crashes. I tried editing without signing on, and fared no better. Changing workstations, or even trying dialup as opposed to broadband was no help. Eventually, I could not even read Wikipedia much of the time. Today is the first time that I have been able to log on in months.

Unsurprisingly, the Ultramarine Arbitration went on with no input from me. As a result, my first experience with Wikipedia in a consierable time is to find myself admonished not to engage in "Sterile edit warring," an accusation that I deeply resent. I realize that the affront was unintentional -- probably the result of a hardware problem or a bug -- but I wonder how many other editors have been similarly excluded and simply given up never to return.

If you are not the appropriate person, please let me know to whom I should complain.

Robert A West 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have forwarded your comment to hte arbitration committee mailing list. Raul654 05:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore a nonsense edit?

You restored a nonsense edit [1]. Why? --The Cunctator 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of god. As I explained twice on this very page already, someone pretending to be a troll happened to make a legit edit. While in the process of reverting his edits, I slipped up and reverted the good one along with the 4 bad ones he made. Raul654 00:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting Main Page FAs from vandal images

I've got a half-baked idea for preventing main page FA image vandalism while still leaving the wiki generally editable. What do you think? See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Protection against vandal images. Thanks.--Pharos 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rather funny edit

I just checked my watchlist, and couldn't help but notice an interesting edit. Would you care to comment on how an FAC that's been out for ten days, has no oppose votes, and has but a sole opposing comment (whose resolution would require deleting the article) does not constitute consensus? Saravask 05:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Your Decision In The Userbox Issue

I know it wasn't the majority opinion, but I want to thank you for your restraint in regards to the arbcom's apparent belief that i'm a liability to the project. If I am a liability to the project, please be honest and tell me so with ways I can improve, but please know that I will never change my belief that all Wikipedians should be free to learn from their mistakes in an intimidation free atmosphere and I will stand up against anyone, even Jimbo himself(as i've shown), who tries to intimidate one of my fellow Wikipedians.

I'd be more than happy to be an admin again if somebody nominated me and I pass, but please know that I would gladly give it up in a second for that belief I just mentioned and in the hope that everyone who wishes to constructively contribute to this project can do so without fear of retribution. Karmafist 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Speaking only for myself) As I said in the proposed decision, I think admins should be entitled to the occasional screwup and I think 'Zero tolerance' doesn't make it easy for people to learn the ropes. I do think that admins who repeatedly screwup should be desysopped, but I saw no evidence of that in your case. I don't think going up against Jimbo was a prudent thing to do, however. Raul654 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One More Thing

I have a favor to ask. Please let the other arbitrators know my beliefs if they don't already. A more thorough document on what they are and how I think we need to reform Wikipedia's governance can be found at this petition. Karmafist 13:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed word of this along. Raul654 02:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um

Well, I guess i'll take that as a "You're Welcome" for the "Thank You" above. One question:Is it a normal RFA or is it going to be a Stevertigo style slaughterfest? I'm just curious because i'd like someone else to nominate me, i'm not a big fan of self noms. Karmafist 02:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks, you are free to do it however you see fit - either by self nom or to get someone else to nominate you -- I am sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone willing to do it. Raul654 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cvgproj template

Hi Raul, a while back you reverted some changes to Template:Cvgproj. The todo list is now back in the template, but it is hidden, and can be expanded by clicking "show". If you still have objections, perhaps you could raise them here. If we've broken some talk page guidelines I'll make sure your objections are respected. Cheers! Jacoplane 13:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup pictures and such

Hi, you seem to be the "keeper" of many of these Wikipedia related pictures, and I noticed a lot of them use a kind of "with permission" license template. To the best of my knowledge the Wikipedia:Licensing for community images proposal failed and current policy as handed down by the foundation is to not allow with permission only content, and unfortunately I have not seen anyting to indicate that exceptions where given to "meta" content. Wouldn't it be better to move this kind of stuff off site, maybe set up a "facebook and Wikipedia meetup" wiki on Wikicities and use a NC license on it or something like that instead of using them here in a way that strictly speaking makes them speedy deletion candidates? --Sherool (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image in FA tomorrow

Raul654, while protecting the images on the main page for tomorrow, I noticed that tomorrow's FA (Douglas Adams) was a fair-use image. I did a quick scan of the article and of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and all of the images appear to be fair use. I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Is there any way we can get a non-fair use image or use another FA instead? What are your thoughts? Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a non-fair use image, but this is a subject that doesn't lend itself easily to that. A quick search on Flickr images using CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses turned up nothing. Raul654 18:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words to go with it? Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on occasion, we do use fair use images for subjects that do not have any free ones available (ala, Jim Henson). It's not something I like but we don't really have much choice in the matter. Raul654 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are probably not suitable, but I thought I'd post them anyway. [2][3]. If you're going to go with the Fair use image, you might consider this one, I think a smiling Douglas Adams is more appropriate. Jacoplane 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting main page articles

I'm flattered my FA, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) was selected for the main page on 22 Feb, Baden-Powell's birthday. Is it possible to protect this page and its images before and during the time it is on the main page? I notice many MP articles are vandalized, such as the Gettysburg Address article has been vandalized several times today. There are many people who dislike the Scouts intensly out there and I'm concerned about this vandalism as being on the main page seems to draw out vandals like bugs to bright lights. Rlevse 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb and image that appear on the main page are protected, but hte article is not. See user:Raul654/protection for the explination. Raul654 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the rationale to a point, but I do not agree with the part about non-protection just before and during its main page time. This is the highest vandalism threat time and anyone who seriously wants to improve the article will come back and do so. Serious editors, like myself, should NOT have to watch a MP article and revert repeated vandalism. We have better things to do, like improve the article, vice chasing down maliciousness. Rlevse 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stress

Why level 3? Seems a bit high...with all of the people on wikibreak now, I hope that you're OK.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 07:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston

Yes, indeed, I'm definitely thinking of going. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic edits at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)

Just to give you a heads up, I've had some problems with User:Netoholic at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). I wasn't aware until recently of his ban in wikipedia namespace and he has reverted my changes several time. Keep up the faith. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sock puppets

My ArbCom case was about editing on the Khmer Rouge page. You discuss very little of that in your proposed decision. Instead you talk about sock puppets.

VeryVerily made the exact same accusations a year ago, and nothing happened. Yet in his appeal, this wiki-stalker and violator of 3RR (which I did not violate when he stalked me) is being cleared, and his discarded accusations of a year ago are being upheld? This is absurd.

What evidence do you present? You link to the edit of (POV warrior) TDC. TDC requested a checkuser on me, which turned up nothing. Instead of this clearing me, you are using his accusation being shown to be bogus as evidence? And what arbitration related decisions are you talking about?

Then you link to David Gerard, who said of all my crimes, my high crime was editing "AFDs" with a user named Mr. Know-It-All. Of course he provides no diffs as required. But since unlike most of these accusations, he is not exceedingly vague or misleading, it is easily disprovable. I have not only not edited the same (plural) AFDs as Mr. Know-It-All, I have not edited any AFDs with Mr. Know-It-All.

I'm not sure why ArbCom is mud-slinging instead of just saying Wikipedia does not like certain political opinions and booting me off. Instead bogus charges about sock puppets are made, with anything specific like David Gerard's AFD claim being easily disprovable. The evidence against me is a checkuser by TDC in which I was not convicted but cleared, which you turn on its head and say is evidence I avoided arbitration-related decisions (which you don't cite). Then there's David Gerard's claims I edited AFDs with Mr. Know-It-All, which thankfully is a specific enough claim that it is easily disproved.

Anyone who reads these links, when cited, can see this is all BS. So please just explain the real reason why I'm being booted. It's quite obvious the sock puppets on Khmer Rouge are not mine. My only adversary on the Khmer Rouge page who I'm fairly confident is not or is not using sock puppets is Adam Carr.

I thought David Gerard was still on ArbCom, so I thought dealing with any of this was pointless. But I checked and realized he is no longer on it, so I decided to give evidence his claims about AFD and the like are bogus. Ruy Lopez 18:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColenFace

Yeah, I know him. He's my friend from high school and there's no need to ban him for harassing me or anything. That's fine. However, I'm trying to keep him straight in the article space so if he does something there feel free to block--just not over me. Thanks for notifying me. gren グレン ^? 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from The Kindness Fairy

Hello Raul. In celebration of Random Acts of Kindness Week, I want to thank you for all the good work that you have put into Wikipedia. I would like to especially note your work with featured articles, which has been profoundly helpful in allowing Wikipedia to present its best work to the outside world. Please keep it up for many more years to come. The Kindness Fairy 06:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't forget to finish that PhD.

B4rnz+4R 4 j00

Take a deep breath, think of all the good you've done and all the people you've made happy. . . And whatever you do, don't fall asleep on the job!

Currently medicating my own WikiStress with loud music and caffeine, Anville 08:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Tell me about the butterfly.

I read the text about the defiant butterfly, and I was very much impressed with it, and would like to spread it's beauty. However, it'd be much better if I had some sort of source. So could you pleeeeeease tell me the answer to your challenge? You could always mail me at jobjorn@gmail.com if you do not wish to make it publicly avaiable on your (or my) talkpage.

(Pleeeeease?) Jobjörn 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald (the book is in the form of a diary. The quote on my userpage is from the May 31 entry; page 93 in the 1960 edition). Raul654 02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Now I must, however, find that book and read it... which, considering that Sweden's largest Science Fiction-store does not have it in it's online catalogue, might prove troublesome. :)

Jobjörn 12:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

Please do not edit that page while I am updating the featured article list. Raul654 06:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Didn't know if you were going to update the FA page now or tomorrow and I wanted to add it ASAP. My bad. Palm_Dogg 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all right - just be more careful in the future. It's not the first time that someone thrilled with scoring a featured article jumped the gun and edit conflicted with me while I was updating the FA list. Raul654 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC list

Just wondering why you removed all those articles from the FAC list. I'm somewhat new at the featured articles process so maybe I've missed something, but there's no edit summary or talk page entry so I wanted to check with you. Thanks! Kafziel 12:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After nominations have been on the FAC for a while, I promote them or archive them (depending on the discussion). Wikipedia:Goings-on contains a list of the ones I promoted. Raul654 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow's featured article discussions

Maybe from now on you could start adding these to the talk pages of the daily FA blurbs, as it's not always clear why a specific wording or image was chosen. Thanks.--Pharos 20:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1996 campaign finance scandal

Why did you remove this from the FAC page to the archive? It's only been 5 days since it was nominated and I have just reverted one of the objections to a "support" and am still working on changing the other two (one of which has already changed to a "weak object"). Please revert this back ASAP.

A second of the three objections has just changed to "supporting" the article. Additionally, there are still articles on the FAC page that are 11 days older than my nomination, but are still there. Please explain your reasoning for your action. --Jayzel68 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --Jayzel68 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the...?

Why are these troll spammers attacking the Wikipedia article...? Who's attack sight is this...and why are they after you [4]? Is this just some old troll trying to "settle an old score"?Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably one of the regular trolls from Wikipediareview. Raul654 05:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A critique

Regarding the FA scheduled for 18/Feb, I have ventured a critique of the same here and would like to draw your attention to that. Regards, ImpuMozhi 06:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd FA candidacy

I'm pretty new to the FA process, so I might be missing something, but why was the Pink Floyd candidacy removed? It's still listed as a current candidate on its talk page, and it has not been archived. There were only 3 object votes versus 9 support (yes, I know it's not a number vote, but the percentage does not indicate an "object" consensus). The objections were addressed, and I know for sure that at least one of the "object" voters has mentioned to me on user talk pages that he planned on re-evaluating it when he had the time. It's been up for less than a week, and I don't think the article has reached a definite consensus either way. Since you didn't archive it, I'm wondering if you removed it from the candidate page in error. - dharmabum 23:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're a busy guy, but just also wanted to point out that one of the object votes changed their mind after I addressed their concerns, as you can see from this comment on my talk page, but was unable to find the listing since it's no longer on the FAC page. - dharmabum 05:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a pest, but another editor advised me to try asking you again as you may have missed my message. I'm still wondering what's going on, as the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pink Floyd still isn't listed on either Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log, or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations, and I'm worried it's been lost in the shuffle. - dharmabum 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is the second nomination from this edit which appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I'm going to recheck all of them now to see what happened. Raul654 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have rechecked them, and it appears that indeed Pink Floyd and Thrasybulus both slipped through the cracks. I have promoted Pink Floyd now - sorry for the mixup. Raul654 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! This was my first FAC and I'm sorry if I got a little buggy, after 30-odd hours of work on the article I got a little panicky. :) Thanks! - dharmabum 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thrasybulus

In the same vein as the above comment, I'm a little puzzled by the removal of Thrasybulus. Based on the final state of the nomination, I would think it would have passed, but it hasn't been promoted (although it has also not been archived). It was removed along with a whole bunch of others, and I'm hoping it just got lost in the shuffle. I brought it up on the FAC talk page, and they suggested I should drop you a line here. Thanks, Robth^Talk 15:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Thrasybulus without listing it in either wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations, meaning that it was definitely lost in the shuffle. I've gone ahead and promoted it. Thanks for the heads up. Raul654 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publically available?

See evidence by FeloniousMonk.

Wikipedia does not reveal peoples' IP address... officially (she might have once made a slip.. but)

Separately, The email address connection cannot be public knowledge

Kim Bruning 20:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Jim62sch in his comment - Disputem maiorum: Now, let me dispose of the following: this claim is NOT factual, "certain key information elements can only have been obtained through private correspondence, specifically email address". Anyone Googling the user's alias can find the info on e-mail address. The same holds true for identity info. Raul654 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II

Oops... I misread the template. However, I removed World War II from the list after I saw an anonymous editor adding it, when I know you're the only one who adds / removes FAs from WP:FA. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Blackburn

Heya Mark. Just wondering if this is a protection due to WP:OFFICE or just because of vandalism. I assume the latter but I just want to make sure as we're not unprotecting OFFICE ones without Jimbo or Danny's approval. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My plan was to leave it protected until I get a response from the staffer "early next week" - Monday or Tuesday. I'd appreciate it if the article stayed protected until then, as it would simply matters greatly. Raul654 17:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks, I had no idea... though it makes sense when you think about it. Also, is there anyway to change any signatures I made using the ~~~~ option, to reflect the new screename? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean besides going through all of them manually and changing them? No. Raul654 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well... thanks again! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raul564

Noticed that User:Raul564 came up in the user creation log. Just thought I'd let you know about this. --Spaceman85 | my talk 15:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added him to my fan club Raul654 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Kerala on Tomorrow's FA

Hi Raul654 - I wanted to ask if there was a problem hanging up the nomination of Kerala for TFA. If you can let me know, I can get that addressed immediately. I admire your work very much. Thank you! Rama's Arrow 23:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we just had an India-related featured article yesterday. I didn't want to feature one again so soon afterwards. Raul654 00:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Rama's Arrow 13:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers on Tommorrow's FA

Hi Raul! I nominated Cheers to be a front page FA after its promotion for no particular day, but Alkivar made an interesting suggestion. Because Cheers is about a bar he suggested I try for a day of heavy drinking, March 17 (Saint Patrick's Day). Pharos has recently voiced a concern that this might be seen as un-PC towards either the Irish heritage of the holiday or alcoholism and I was wondering if you think this concern is severe enough that I should revert the nomination to no particular date? Staxringold 14:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clue me in

Mark,

You were one of the arbitrators on my recent requests for arbitration of the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article. I read your bio and you have an impressive amount of Wikipedia expertise. I'm wondering if you can help me to understand how this whole Wikipedia thing works. Bear in mind that I'm not complaining - I just want to understand.

I stumbled upon the "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" article on Wikipedia because somebody made the comment to me that "homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals". I thought "hmmmm... I wonder if that is right". I have no axe to grind either way, but I wondered if that was really true or if that was one of those things that people repeat without thinking about. So I did a quick Google search and ended up at Wikipedia.

I was shocked at how biased that article was. It was incredible. They were blaming natural disasters on Protestantism and berating "anti-gay religious dogma". The article declared that "only 38% of the general public think that homosexual behavior is wrong" even though the word "only" had been previously contested and that percentage was wrong even according to their own posted link. There was example after example of blatant bias and errors.

I nominated the article for deletion, but it turns out that the gay advocates that had created the article were the same people who got to vote regarding its deletion. Needless to say they voted me down. (A quick review through the user pages shows that most of them are gay.)

So I took it to a higher authority and asked for mediation. It turned out that the mediator was also gay.

So I again took it to a higher authority and asked for arbitration. That will apparently be rejected on the grounds that this is a "content dispute". I suppose that it is a content dispute in the sense that the content is biased and incorrect, but it is more than that since any corrections to the content are overwritten by the group of gay advocates who maintain the page.

So here's where I need some explanation. I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck, but I am trying to raise a red flag about this and I don’t know how. Doesn't anybody in the Wikipedia community care that a group of zealots got together to control what gets published in that Wikipedia article? Does nobody care that they won't allow changes unless you take them to mediation? (And once mediation ends they have free reign once again).

The question I asked in the request for arbitration was not rhetorical: "How can extremist groups be prevented from using Wikipedia to spread propaganda?" Isn't there something built into the model that prevents a dozen or so zealots from using Wikipedia to get their message out, truth be damned?

This bothers me because Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia. So some high school kid doing a research paper comes along and thinks that what he's reading are facts. But not only isn't the information correct, it was made incorrect deliberately.

I don't understand the inner workings of Wikipedia very well, but it seems to me that unless there is a way to prevent groups of extremists from publishing disinformation, the public will catch on before long and that will spell the end for Wikipedia. Won’t it? Lou franklin 05:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you have to understand is the institutional composition. The members of the Arbitration Committee, though we are intelligent and dedicated wikipedians, are not experts in all subjects. We are simply not comptent to dictate what any given article should say, and so we've pointedly avoided doing that. (Yes, there are probably a few exceptions - Charles Matthews is a math professor, I'm a PhD student in computer engineering, Fred is an ex-lawyer - so we could be considered 'experts' in our particular subjects, but the Commiitee doesn't make that distinction)

So, rather than dictate what an article should say, the Committee instead focuses on enforcing the 'wiki process', so to speak. When there is a dispute, both sides are expected to rationally discuss it, and cite credible sources to back up their claims. Seth Mahoney stated that "The actual problem is that Lou either doesn't know or doesn't want to admit that he knows what constitutes a good reference for what. Apparently, any time a fundamentalist organization makes a claim on the web, that constitutes a good reference (in his mind) for a statement of fact. When confronted with this, the only response ever really given is, "my links aren't any better than yours" or "who's to say what truth is?". This is a grave allegation to make, and would definitely have been considered had this request gone to arbitration. We do expect our users to be able to distinguish between political propaganda and legitimate scientific sources. There have been a few rare cases where it was shown, to our satisfaction, that one side was incapable of writing about the subject neutrally [5] or competently [6], and those typically result in us banning that user from that article and/or related articles.

It seems to me like what you are describing here is related to our no-article-ownership policy [7], which says that users shouldn't edit articles to the exclusion of others. On the other hand, if you are putting inflammatory material into articles, and then citing un-credible sources, they have a legitimate reason to remove your changes. Raul654 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, but when we talked specifics there was a lot of agreement that the article was indeed biased. Sure some people objected to my "inflammatory" edits, but nobody denies that the original article was badly and intentionally biased and had been for years. Nobody could. Since I brought it up for mediation hundreds of changes have been made to the article. That wouldn't have been possible if the article wasn't biased and just plain wrong in many many areas.

I'm not coming down on the Arbitration Committee, it's just that somebody contacted me and told me not to waste my time trying to improve Wikipedia because they said that the model fundamentally doesn't work. They said that the best thing I could do is not to resist and let the article be as biased as possible. That way the general public would catch on more quickly that the information on Wikipedia is a sham. The public would eventually stop using Wikipedia and it would wither on the vine. They said that the quicker Wikipedia dies the better it will be for everybody who cares about fairness and accuracy.

A cynical attitude for sure, but I can't find the flaw in it. It seems that the answer to my question is that there is NOTHING in place to prevent extremist groups from using Wikipedia to spread propaganda - in fact that happens all the time. So that high school kid doing a research paper will get bogus information for now, but it won't be long before his teachers will get wise and not accept research done on Wikipedia because the information is just too inaccurate. Maybe by trying to improve the accuracy, I have just slowed down that process.

I am trying to understand what makes Wikipedia worth fighting for. If there is really no way to stop the propaganda, then I'm coming up empty. Lou franklin 11:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as saying the homosexuality article is bad - you are preaching to the choir. I voiced my opinion last July, when I said the article was literally the worst high-profile article on wikipedia. The introduction could have served as a perfect example of what-not-to-do when writing an article. Looking at the introduction today, it's not perfect, but it's certainly miles above where it was before.

As far as the person who contacted you and told you Wikipedia could never work - you may wish to read Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Wikipedia_can_never_be_high_quality, which directly addresses those concerns. Raul654 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mail sent

About the CFP conference. Write me back soon, if interested :) +sj +

'Replied by phone. Raul654 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent CheckUser request

Please see WP:RCU regarding User:Bowlhover. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tinyurl

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#tinyurl http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#More_suggestions_about_tinyurl

Thanks.Travb 16:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox policy

Re your objections to my draft policy, you might like to look at an updated version being worked on at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/Policy --Doc ^ask? 18:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Mt St Helens.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mt St Helens.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SteinbDJ 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Raul

Nice job, Raul. How about the talkpage? Can I assume that should go too? Bishonen | ノート 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'd prefer not to delete the talk page, if it can be helped. Let's wait a while and see if it cools off. Raul654 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot

Thanks for slashdotting the interview...it's cool to have a lot more eyes reading it. Ral315 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Raul654 23:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A complex rename request

Hello Mark,

I'm looking for a friendly local bureaucrat to help out with a possible user rename. I'm afraid mine is not a simple case, so this is mostly an inquiry if it would possible at all.

Unfortunately there are two people with almost the same user name. 'Abelsson' (me) and 'Abelson' (another editor). I had no idea there was an Abelson when i registered my account and to make matters worse, we apparently live in the same city and work in the same field. I don't expect people will be able to keep us apart.

The annoying thing is that my preferred username (Henrik) was used by a vandal for a single day almost three years ago. I am not sure this is possible at all, but would in any way be any way for me to take over Henrik? I believe it unlikely the original user is much interested anymore. I realize this would probably require a special solution, but I thought I might ask.

Cheers! Abelsson 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no problem letting you usurp an account that has done nothing but vandalism. I'll post a note on Wikipedia talk:Changing username to see if anyone objects, and if no one does, I'll make the changes. Raul654 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Much thanks. Abelsson 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

Hi Raul, I recently changed my name but it still appears as the old name. Could you please assist me in fixing this situation?King Legit

I assume you mean that when you sign something (with ~~~~), it uses your old name. To fix this, go to your preferences and change your signature accordingly. Raul654 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

main page FA

Re: my entry of 12Feb on protecting main page FAs. Now that my FA, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) is off the main page, which BTW I am flattered it made it that far, I have experience to speak of. I know you won't agree with me and I also know this is a long running debate on wiki, but I still say the main page FA should be protected (yes, I read your subpage on why you don't support that). I also feel all wiki users should be required to have an account and that account be verified with a confirmation from a valid email account. This would drastically cut vandalism because it'd be easier to track them as there'd be no guessing about who an anon IP was. My FA was NEVER vandalized prior to being on the main page. It was vandalized OVER 40 TIMES today. About 6 anti-vandal admins and myself spent most of the day doing reverts and reporting and blocking these scum. My point is we shouldn't have to waste our time on this; it'd be better spent improving articles. All but 2 of the 40+ cases were anon IPs. Requiring accounts with verified emails would cut this way down and virutally everyone who has Internet access has an email account. We should not have to put up with this moronic behavior. One case today was when an anon blanked the page and put up a close up of a human male penis. Now, one of your arguments for not protecting the FA is that it is to show wiki at its best in all its features. I don't think this qualifies. Now what if a young child saw that before it was revereted? People are hitting the main page constantly and it's certainly possible that a young child saw that; and yes this vandal was anon. If you ask why I worried about this today and didn't leave it to the admins--because I'm a good wiki user, created this article, wrote 99% of it, nursed it through FAC, and am the Scouting Project and Portal coordinator. In other words, I am responsible for it being it the best it can be at all times. I should not have to deal with such rampant vandalism. Oh BTW, only about 3 users made contributions of any note at all and nothing major, all this effort and time by the admins and myself could have and should have been avoided. We should not have had to put that much effort into this. Wiki sorely needs a better way to prevent and stop vandals. On a better note, I think you do great work for Wiki, but you will never, ever get me to agree that the main page FA should be unprotected nor that wiki has found the best way to handle vandals.Rlevse 03:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, think about it this way. Let's say we were to do everything you want - we lock Wikipedia down so that only logged in users can edit. When registering accounts, we require users to pass a captcha, and respond to an email. Is that going to stop the dedicated vandals, who account for a good portion of the vandalism on highly visible articles? No. Email addresses are cheap and easily obtained. What it will do is (a) drive it underground (everyone knows when you see an anon edit a highly visible page, it's probably a vandalism and easy to revert; making everyone log in won't fix this) and (b) make it harder for legit users to register. As many people here could tell you, Wikipedia is addictive once you start editing, but the trick is to "hook" people by making that first edit as easy as possible - e.g, allowing them to do it without having to make an account first. So, as you can see, I don't see much to be gained from locking down wikipedia, but plenty to lose. Raul654 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say, but I am sure that you will agree that the Main Page featured article is a huge magnet for vandalism. As far as I can see, it attracts much more attention than any other article linked to from the main page (ITN or DYK, entries, for example).

The Main Page blurb is rightly protected. I wonder it is not time to think about protecting the version of the featured article that is linked to from the Main Page - for example, the Main Page blurb yesterday could have linked to a sub-page of History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) (say, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/Main Page) which is either fully protected or semi-protected. Depending on the type of protection, either admins, or all logged in users, would be able to edit it as usual, but the anonymous vandals would not. We could even include a template at the top saying "This is the Main Page featured article, which is protected to avoid vandalism. Please edit the live version (<link>) if you see any errors.".

What do you think? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's okay to encourage vandalism and require the efforts of several people fighting it on Wiki's most visible article in order to get more users? I don't think that's right. If you have a better idea on controlling vandalism, I'd love to hear it, because wiki certainly needs one, esp re the main page FA. I'd also like to know what your response to the penis issue is. Rlevse 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of VeryVerily

Don't you feel some personal responsibility for the mistake you made a year ago? When grown adults do something wrong, they admit their error, apologize, and try to make amends. I feel you see that an error was made but aren't really trying to fix it (much less say, "I was wrong"). By keeping the primary restriction on me you are in fact basically doing nothing. VeryVerily 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 365: / Line 365: @@
 ::So it's okay to encourage vandalism and require the efforts of several people fighting it on Wiki's most visible article in order to get more users?  I don't think that's right.  If you have a better idea on controlling vandalism, I'd love to hear it, because wiki certainly needs one, esp re the main page FA.  I'd also like to know what your response to the penis issue is. [[User:Rlevse|Rlevse]] 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
+== Appeal of VeryVerily ==
+Don't you feel some personal responsibility for the mistake you made a year ago?  When grown adults do something wrong, they admit their error, apologize, and try to make amends.  I feel you see that an error was made but aren't really trying to fix it (much less say, "I was wrong").  By keeping the primary restriction on me you are in fact basically doing nothing. [[User:VeryVerily|Very]]<font color="green">[[User talk:VeryVerily|Verily]]</font> 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)