So User:mfgaowener should get an automated mail saying because you
did a pagemove with edit summary Haers! you were checkusered.
Please be more subtle in your vandalism next time.
I trust the current checks and balances, and I don't think the system
is getting significant levels of abuse.
--
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:36 AM, David Richfield
davidrichfi...@gmail.comwrote:
So User:mfgaowener should get an automated mail saying because you
did a pagemove with edit summary Haers! you were checkusered.
Please be more subtle in your vandalism next time.
I trust the current checks
On 13 June 2012 21:30, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking over old discussions, and wondered: who originally came
up with the notion that the principle of least surprise should apply
to educational content? If it existed before Wikimedia, who introduced
it to the image filter
On 14 June 2012 12:52, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you miss the point of a concept. The idea is not that say
[[Marriage]] shouldn't contain information about homosexual marriages,
heterosexual marriages, marriages of convenience or polygamous
marriages but that it probably shouldn't
On 14 June 2012 14:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
As I have noted already, this idealised version is not how it was used
when it was introduced to the discussion and is not how it's been used
in the most recent round of it.
Looking at the timing of the phrase appeared in the email
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
rather than something that can be imposed by filtering.
True for
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 17:22, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Shocking images in [[Nanking Massacre]] are pretty much expected.
[[People's Republic of China–Japan relations]] not so much. [[Agent
orange]] is a more boarderline case but these
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered.
The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple as:
X performed a checkuser on you because Y at Z UTC
that provides
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
sure it's the best one, but I'm not sure leaving it out is any better.
The present usage
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered.
The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the community's own judgement in all edge cases; I'm not
sure it's the best one,
On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
user have the right to be notified when and why they are being
checkusered.
The evidence
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the
past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit
Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response,
and I
I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the
past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit
Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response,
and I think this is a good thing.
On the other hand, what's being proposed
If you go to http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/ you can donate… insecurely.
If you go to https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/ you can donate… but you get an
SSL certificate error.
This seems like a problem.
--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
I do apologise. I meant to send this to Wikimediauk-l rather than Wikimedia-l.
--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will be a service
to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for
keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the
prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't
just scanning
No that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are
handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but
because it ii the way things are. And it is not at all particular to CU
issues. What really reeks of obfuscation is using words and
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily
be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best
reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity
but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which
aren't
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.comwrote:
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily be
a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best
reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through
The request--at least the original request here-- was not that they be
made public. The request was that they be disclosed to the person
being checkusered,. There is thus no stigmatization or drama. That it
might upset the subject to tell him the truth is paternalism.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at
22 matches
Mail list logo
