Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the responsibility. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday A few legitimate use cases could be: *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves. *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins. *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason. None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
A few legitimate use cases could be: *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves. *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins. *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason. None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or something like it. Removing the tool from the software would be more a symbolic measure than anything. In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it (or only use it under conditions agreed upon in consultation with the editor communities). Building such an agreement could have benefits for WMF-Community relations, whereas misuse of the tool would be detrimental to community relations. Though intangible, those relationships are important, and the WMF appreciates that there is value there that should be considered. So, no, we can't force the WMF to respect our wishes, but we can hope that they will work with us because a good relationship between the WMF and the editor community is important for both groups. -Robert Rohde On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the responsibility. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday A few legitimate use cases could be: *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves. *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins. *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason. None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
The general trend in the past few months has been for WMF to be more respectful and supportive of the community, and I hope that this trend continues (for example, by empowering the grantmaking committees with more discretion and leadership responsibilities, and by placing more emphasis on supporting small affiliates that show growth potential). The WMF Board could legislate that no one on the WMF staff may invoke superprotect directly, and all superprotect-related actions must be reviewed and applied by a steward. (I am assuming that stewards will agree to implement superprotect actions that WMF is required to undertake for legal reasons). I do think that such a policy would improve WMF's relationship with the community. Pine On Aug 13, 2015 2:19 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: No, the WMF can't be physically prevent from using superprotect or something like it. Removing the tool from the software would be more a symbolic measure than anything. In principle though, it may be possible to convince the WMF not to use it (or only use it under conditions agreed upon in consultation with the editor communities). Building such an agreement could have benefits for WMF-Community relations, whereas misuse of the tool would be detrimental to community relations. Though intangible, those relationships are important, and the WMF appreciates that there is value there that should be considered. So, no, we can't force the WMF to respect our wishes, but we can hope that they will work with us because a good relationship between the WMF and the editor community is important for both groups. -Robert Rohde On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: Is there actually any way that WMF could be prevented from access to the tool if and when they decide they need it? If not, this discussion seems a bit pointless. Do they not have physical access to the hardware and complete access to the software? If they decide they need to use it they will do so. They may do so for good or bad reasons, depending on who is doing the reasoning, and we all have the option of explaining after the fact why it should have been done differently. The person or group who authorises the action takes the responsibility. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2015 10:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday A few legitimate use cases could be: *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves. *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins. *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason. None of this is an endorsement of WMF's first use of superprotect. I would prefer that if superprotect continues to exist as a tool, that it be in the hands of the stewards and not WMF directly. Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6086 / Virus Database: 4392/10427 - Release Date: 08/13/15 ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
Pine W wrote: *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves. *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins. *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason. And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify this misfeature's existence, in my opinion. I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios. In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm boggling pretty hard at your reply here. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Does openly declaring your gender change the probability of having an upload overwritten?
I have pulled together the following table together for the past 360 days, counting whenever an image was reverted by someone who was not the last uploader, and then attempting to find any declared gender: 2014-2015 Commons file overwrite stats compared to gender +---+--+ | sex | count(*) | +---+--+ | female-female |1 | | female-male | 110 | | female-none | 426 | | male-female | 139 | | male-male | 1376 | | male-none | 5711 | | none-female | 479 | | none-male | 5289 | | none-none |15716 | +---+--+ Key: none means not set in user preferences, female-male means a woman has overwritten a man's file and male-none means a declared male has overwritten an account with no gender set. I'd appreciate any views on whether there is any statistical meaning to be pulled from these figures, apart from showing that men probably outnumber women contributors by ten times on Commons. If the email is displaying badly, you can find a wiki formatted table and original generating SQL on the Commons village pump[1]. I thought this would be of wider interest as though image revert warring is mostly an issue for Wikimedia Commons, it is a very similar area of heated disputes when compared to edit revert warring on Wikipedia projects. The question popped up from someone interested in my long running 'significant reverts' tracking report.[2] Links: 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Does_openly_declaring_your_gender_change_the_probability_of_having_an_upload_overwritten.3F 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/SignificantReverts Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect's first birthday
Hi, No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I needed to re-read my comments before I realized that they could be read the way that you seemed to have done, and I apologize if I was unclear. If an admin account becomes compromised, the current procedures for locking that account would apply. A use of superprotect could be to protect certain pages or settings against actions stemming from the hypothetical but possible scenario that an admin account is compromised. I hope that I've made my position clear now. I think that I've spoken my share in this thread, so my intent is to be quiet for the moment so that others can have airtime. If you have additional questions for me about this thread, please contact me off list. Thanks, Pine On Aug 13, 2015 6:54 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Pine W wrote: *Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to prevent damage caused by a hijacked admin account. The theory here is that admin accounts are more numerous than steward accounts, so the liklihood of a successful admin account hijack may be higher. Superprotection would proactively limit possible damage. Admins doing routine maintenance work, or taking actions with community consent, could simply make a request for a temporary lift of superprotect by a steward or ask a steward to make an edit themselves. *Upon community request, superprotection of pages by a steward where those pages are the subject of wheel-warring among local admins. *Superprotection of a page by a steward for legal reasons at the request of WMF Legal, for example if a page is the subject of a legal dispute and normal full protection is inadequate for some compelling reason. And nobody should be in the business of trying to retroactively justify this misfeature's existence, in my opinion. I'm pretty horrified to see that you completely ignored this and instead decided to continue raising completely implausible and absurd scenarios. In the case of a compromised admin account, did you seriously just suggest that stewards would try to go around randomly super-protecting pages instead of simply removing admin rights from the compromised account? I'm boggling pretty hard at your reply here. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
