What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka
British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft, acquiring
checkuser and crat status on various
Hi,
I don't get it, why isn't it a problem when we start posting OTRS tickets to
pastebin.
The article was already deleted for more that 24 so there was no need to
give the information to SilverSpoon. SilverSpoon wasn't active with the
article so there was no need to share the information with
This is an essay. May be someone can find it useful.
For a number of reasons which are not appropriate to address here, three
weeks ago I voluntarily left Russian Wikipedia, which used to be my home
wiki for four years, and decided to turn to low-key activity in the
articles in English
During the next month or two Language committee will work on new
Language proposal policy [1]. You can watch the changes. If you have
your own ideas, please use talk page [2], not the new policy draft.
The first change agreed among all LangCom members is about allowing
projects in macrolanguages
On 3 June 2011 09:17, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka
British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies,
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Coombe
Sent: 03 June 2011 13:14
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 09:17,
My hospital IT department has become more draconian as of late. Was
attempting to make changes to breast thermography an imaging technique for
breast cancer to discover that websense considers it nudity. Had a
discussion with IT and they concluded that they can be off no help.
What sort of
I have found another work around. It appears that websense does not block
the secure Wikipedia and thus I can edit on that.
James Heilman
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:06 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
My hospital IT department has become more draconian as of late. Was
attempting to
You are interested in this topic; many users (or most, I am afraid) are
not.
You have an expert knowledge in this topic, namely the knowledge of
Russian language. Most of English Wikipedia editors don't.
There is a plenty of low-hanging fruits in classical music articles
(especially in
On 3 June 2011 14:54, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
For the usability, last time I checked the usability wiki was dead as well
as the Wikiproject Usability on en.wp. If someone can show me what would be
an appropriate place to list my issues (meaning there is somebody there who
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:17:54 +0100
Subject: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
What does it take for a global ban?
Do
We have uploaded images from Flickr, and Commons supports image formates
like, jpg, png, svg, and others, but for videos it supports only ogv
formate. So, I think most of the YouTube videos need to be converted to ogv
(from mpeg or flv). Can we do that automatically with script? Currently we
have
On 3 June 2011 15:45, Tanvir Rahman wikitan...@gmail.com wrote:
We have uploaded images from Flickr, and Commons supports image formates
like, jpg, png, svg, and others, but for videos it supports only ogv
formate. So, I think most of the YouTube videos need to be converted to ogv
(from mpeg
WebM videos on YouTube are in a free format. Do we accept WebM yet?
From Commons page [1]: WebM support will likely be added in the future. See
this bug report [2] for its current status and this test wiki [3] for
implementation tests.
So, as of now, we don't support WebM. :S
Regards,
--
In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
necessarily be discussed publicly, Poetlister should not be editing under
any account name on any project. The fact that as recently as a couple of
months ago he was applying for advanced permissions on a project is
On 3 June 2011 16:40, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
necessarily be discussed publicly, Poetlister should not be editing under
any account name on any project. The fact that as recently as a couple of
months ago
No, we don't. Our video support is laughable.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:09 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 15:45, Tanvir Rahman wikitan...@gmail.com wrote:
We have uploaded images from Flickr, and Commons supports image formates
like, jpg, png, svg, and others, but
Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
of en:wp by letting him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one.
- d.
Not to digress, but in fairness to the folks active on Wikiquote, I don't
think that
On 3 June 2011 17:21, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
of en:wp by letting him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one.
Not to digress, but in
We already have a policy covering data preservation and recovery under
any foreseeable disaster scenarios:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TERMINAL
;)
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/2/11 4:44 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:11, Neil Harrisn...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Tape is -- still
I think that one of the biggest barriers to the implementation and
enforcement of global bans are past history, a lack of understanding of the
forced interdependence of projects through the SUL process, and difficulties
in finding ways to share information about the seriousness of problems
created
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Risker/Anne
I see your reasoning, but I also see at least two serious deficiencies:
1) Some projects explicitly rejected
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening?
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sue Gardner
Sent: 03 June 2011 18:11
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 10:00,
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to support that
Scott MacDonald wrote:
The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they problematic in
some way (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins can't
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they
problematic in
some way (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins
can't
handle)?
The idea that you can stop manipulation of the system by sporadic (and
wildly inefficient) witch-hunts is rather insane. If the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 03/06/11 00:44, Mark Wagner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:11, Neil Harrisn...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Tape is -- still -- your friend here. Flip the write-protect after
writing, have two sets of off-site tapes,
On 3 June 2011 18:43, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Scott MacDonald wrote:
The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they problematic in
some way
On 3 June 2011 10:38, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sue Gardner
Sent: 03 June 2011 18:11
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Responding to Scott, and also MZMcBride earlier... I don't think the
Wikimedia Foundation could successfully make decrees to permanently
ban editors from all projects. It might be the right solution in some
cases, and
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:06 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
My hospital IT department has become more draconian as of late. Was
attempting to make changes to breast thermography an imaging technique
for
breast cancer to discover that websense considers it nudity. Had a
discussion
On 3 June 2011 11:22, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Sue, the one thing that comes to mind is that the Foundation does have the
right to restrict access to private or non-public information and can decree
that a specific individual is banned from any position that permits access
to such
On 3 June 2011 19:22, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of users who have created serious
I personally think project independence is a sine qua non condition
for recruiting a certain class of contributors (for instance,
academia). We have enough conspiracy theories without the foundation
enforcing another rule over the head of the communities.
Strainu
Yeah, but there is a
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
Sent: 03 June 2011 18:05
To: Wikimedia Foundation
Scott MacDonald wrote:
I'm now actually wondering whether there is a structural problem in getting
lunatics like poetlister banned, or whether it is just the case that one
community (wikiversity) is seriously messed up.
Projects, like children, need love. Wikiversity _only_ gets attention when
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a good idea.
Please argument that position David. Has this person abused
On 3 June 2011 21:25, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I'm now actually wondering whether there is a structural problem in getting
lunatics like poetlister banned, or whether it is just the case that one
community (wikiversity) is seriously messed up.
Note that we had pretty
This is somewhat off-topic but..
Whilst that is a somewhat glib view of the smaller projects :P it's not
entirely inaccurate.
By virtue of being smaller and starved of editors it is a lot easier to gain
permissions at those projects. In fact, if one of us (established editors)
was banned from
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a
On 3 June 2011 22:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh? You knew who he was and didn't inform anyone?
Yes, and we were telling the arbs on the functionaries list.
Don't rewrite history.
You seem stressed. Assume good faith!
- d.
Hi,
As a follow-up to my original question, my brief presentation today at
the all day Wellcome Trust research images workshop went down well and
everyone was happy to see in perpetuity as a commitment. Thanks for
the comments made in this thread, they did influence the nature of my
discussions.
Is there anyone active on Wikiversity that hasn't been banned from every
other project? It seems to be turning into a regular Mos Eisley cantina.
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/3/11 8:40 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
necessarily be discussed
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:05 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 22:01, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Please argument that position
On 3 June 2011 22:23, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
no, just confused. how were you telling the arbs on a mailing list
that didn't exist at the time Cato was checkuser.
Ah, that would indeed have been the arbcom list at the time, yes.
I note you weren't an arbitrator at the time,
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
Sent: 03 June 2011 22:28
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011
2011/6/3 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
embedding would be promoting YouTube
Embedding YouTube videos in Wikimedia content would send IP addresses
and other information about Wikimedia users to Google. This is
against Wikimedia's
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
require the submission of identifying information?
-Dan
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
require
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
information, not as a distribution method.
-Dan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
information, not as a distribution method.
Cato (=Poetlister) was a
My local IT got back to me today and agreed to unblock all of Wikipedia for
all 25,000 computers they manage. A bit of success for increasing access.
IMO Wikimedia needs to stay on top of these issues. I have emailed Websense
who created the list my institution uses. We need to work with them so
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of George Herbert
Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language
Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all
the same reasons that real
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
-Original Message-
On Behalf Of George Herbert
Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language
Wikipedia is
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:33 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad to see this discussion made more general -- beyond this
particular case, and towards the general process for how and when we
can (and should) globally ban someone. I also think that we need to
have a clear
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg
Sent: 04 June 2011 00:10
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
On Sat, Jun 4,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/6/3 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
embedding would be promoting YouTube
Embedding YouTube videos in Wikimedia content would send IP
(I'm not sure offhand if I'm set up to cross-post to Foundation-l; if this
doesn't make it, somebody please CC a mention if necessary. Thanks!)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside from the very real privacy issue, YouTube videos can disappear at any
time. I
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details
cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate
On 4 June 2011 01:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion
Not at all! That would be bad, and misses the point - I don't care at all
who he is in meat space.
But consider me unable to pick apart the million threads of information
about his on-wiki activities. I've tried, and need a better intro.
Tom
On 4 June 2011 01:20, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
Sent: 04 June 2011 01:41
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
Not at all! That
The Register seems to be the only forum that is prepared to expose the gross
injustice meted out to me as [[en:wp:User:Rodhullandemu]], so, sorry, if I
need to take that route, it's a lot cheaper than employing Max Clifford. I
have nothing to hide here. Best of luck with dealing with that, but
On 06/01/11 7:55 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
There's a huge difference between consulted Wikipedia on any matter in
their professional arena and relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a
medical matter about a patient's treatment.
A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of several) to
Hello, everyone.
To those of you not (yet) following the Wikimedia Blog, let me point your
attention to my (first) blog post, introducing the Grant Advisory Committee:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/03/gac-it-up-introducing-the-grant-advisory-committee/
Thanks,
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia
Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue, then
there seems no reason to demand a global ban. Bad stuff happened on WP with
him impersonating real people, that seems to be dealt with. Unless there is
anything more, the response seems kosher...
Except other comments
On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue, then
there seems no reason to demand a global ban. Bad stuff happened on WP with
him impersonating real people, that seems to be dealt with. Unless there
I second everything that Risker has said.
I am not convinced that further public discussion of this situation is
really going to do anything other than feed Poetlister's ego, and create
exactly the bitterness and divisiveness in the community, or communities,
that it seems to be one of his aims
I am being a bit of a jerk over this, because I do know some of the
details (enough to support any global ban).
But the *point *I am trying to get across is this; Scott posted to this *
public* list asking why a global ban was not on the table for this guy, and
why projects were sidestepping any
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello, everyone.
To those of you not (yet) following the Wikimedia Blog, let me point your
attention to my (first) blog post, introducing the Grant Advisory Committee:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
... And the answer is twofold; firstly it is an assertion of independence. But
mostly it seems to be due to a lack of clear communication between projects
as to what abuse has occurred that merits such strong
http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=4389
Asaf Bartov wrote:
But the Wikimedia way is one of public conversation, and I intend to devote
attention to ensuring as much of the debate about grants and grantmaking does
indeed happen in public.
Fantastic! :D
Will the new committee be working on a
79 matches
Mail list logo
