Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia User Group China
Great news! Congratulations to China. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations! Sydney On Jul 30, 2014 12:18 PM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote: Dear all, It is an honor to announce that the Affiliations Committee has resolved [1] recognizing the Wikimedia User Group China as a Wikimedia User Group; their main focus areas are getting more chinese people know and use Wikipedia, encouraging people to become contributors to the different Wikimedia projects, and maintain the community healthy and growing. Let's welcome the newest member of the family of affiliates -and the fourth from the Sinosphere! Regards, Carlos 1: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/ Resolutions/Wikimedia_User_Group_China_-_July_2014 -- *Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain. Carlos M. Colina Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 | www.wikimedia.org.ve http://wikimedia.org.ve Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee Phone: +972-52-4869915 Twitter: @maor_x ___ 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 -- *Nurunnaby Chowdhury Hasive* Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:nhasive Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People Social Media Interaction Moderator | The Daily Prothom-Alo http://www.prothom-alo.com Bangladesh Ambassador | Open Knowledge Foundation Network http://www.okfn.org Treasurer | Bangladesh Open Source Network (BdOSN) http://www.bdosn.org Task Force Member | Mozilla Bangladesh http://www.mozillabd.org fb.com/nhasive | @nhasive http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy, the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page on Commons. Can you also outline for your audience what harm you believe you have suffered? Regarding policy, Russavia is claiming that the CU results were given to someone who wasnt a CU on Commons. In my experience sometimes that happens in cross-wiki investigations, but it should not be given to someone who isnt a CU anywhere, and it would be a very clear violation of CU policy for it to have been given to someone who wasnt WMF identified. It would be good if Russavia could clarify, and/or the OC could confirm, that the person who received the CU data was WMF identified at least. this is the policy? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy i personally do not care about the russavia case in particular i must say. but i care about the (non-)care of persons having access to account data triggered by a bad policy. imo * checkuser usage must be requested traceable * checkuser usage must be done traceable * data retrieved via checkuser usage must not be given outside the persons authorized to have technical access right to this data anyway. rupert ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On 2 August 2014 06:25, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy, the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page on Commons. Can you also outline for your audience what harm you believe you have suffered? Regarding policy, Russavia is claiming that the CU results were given to someone who wasnt a CU on Commons. In my experience sometimes that happens in cross-wiki investigations, but it should not be given to someone who isnt a CU anywhere, and it would be a very clear violation of CU policy for it to have been given to someone who wasnt WMF identified. It would be good if Russavia could clarify, and/or the OC could confirm, that the person who received the CU data was WMF identified at least. I am guessing that Russavia has yet to hear how the CU on his account complies with the CU policy. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Was there a serious concern that Russavia was using alternative accounts in a prohibited manner? Was he vandalising? Hmm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia/Archive By May 2014 there were certainly suspicions on en.wikipedia that Russavia was socking. It would be fairly understandable if the relevant authorities on en tried to gather further information. If Russavia has a problem with this he is free not to use sockpupets on the English Wikipedia. -- geni ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
Hello, just a few remarks from the OC about this case. 2014-08-01 22:19 GMT+02:00 Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com: Hi all, On 27 May 2014 I received an email back from the OC which basically said that because no personal information was divulged, there was no breach of the WMF Privacy Policy. It also said that they would inform the WMF about the case, and if I had any further information on who released such information then I should contact them. Confirmed. On 6 June 2014 I heard back from the OC and they stated that my complaint was being forwarded to the Wikimedia Foundation and that they had been informed about the possible running of an unnecessary CU, in addition to the possible release of CU logs. Additionally, I was told that the OC would relay to me once they had it from the Board. Also confirmed. 1) There was indeed a leak of my CU data. An unknown Commons CU had indeed leaked my CU data to another person who was NOT a CU on Commons. The information given to this non-CU person included the very name of the person who ran the CU on me; information which was so sensitive to keep from me, but not sensitive enough that it was able to be shared with every Tom, Dick and Harry that wasn't me. I wonder why the OC never got any information about this from you. So would you please write us where that information comes from and what exactly happened? Thanks. On 2 July 2014 I was contacted by someone within Legal informing me that it was their understanding that the Ombudsman Commission has finished its investigation into this matter and has already communicated its decision to you. It had, on the basis of the information we got from you. We can obviously not base our decision on information that is not relayed to us, like that mentioned one section above. Given this, I am asking very publicly the following questions: * (1) on what grounds a CheckUser action was performed on my account on Wikimedia Commons? * (2) who requested that it be performed on Commons? * (3) who fulfilled the request? * (4) why is it acceptable for CUs to share actions related to my account with non-CUs whilst at the same time actively keeping this information from me? * (5) why are complaints such as this actively ignored by the WMF Board? (1) through (3) can only be answered by the Commons community. It is completely outside the OC's remit to answer this. @ (4): You might want to discuss this with the OC non-publicly. We are very interested in getting any available information about this. In general, you are right that it is not acceptable to share non-public information with non-CUs. However, it is acceptable to give CU information to stewards (who might not be CU on Commons), for example, under certain circumstances. Best regards, Thogo. (current member of the OC) ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 1:25 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Russavia said something nice to someone in 2013 on their retirement, and raised a formal complaint about an unknown CU's action in 2014. How are these related?? That a well respected CU has retired isnt a good reason for the OC to not investigate a complaint, especially if that CU data was passed around. It may make the investigation less fruitful, and it is a good reason for the outcome to be measured against the good done by the volunteer when they were active. Mistakes happen. Usually apologies follow, and that is the end of it, or maybe some lessons learnt bring about improvements to the system. -- John Vandenberg You're right, I misunderstood the timeline and thought Russavia had been aware of the issue for much longer. The key aspect of the complaint is whether the CU disclosed the information to the non-CU. Russavia is also demanding disclosure about the circumstances of the use of the tool; this demand is not supported by any relevant policy. ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On 2 August 2014 09:17, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: I'm guessing you mean June 2014, as the only earlier investigation was April 2013, which was a royal mess. No. The April 2013 check was extended beyond en. No reason not to extend it to commons. -- geni ___ 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] Review of grantmaking costs and outcomes for APG, PEG, and IEG
In general, using Google to store Wikimedia slide decks is a bad idea as that's essentially temporary (and restricted-access) storage - it's much better to upload a copy to Commons so they are properly archived (hopefully indefinitely!) and available to all... Thanks, Mike On 1 Aug 2014, at 22:48, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote: Jessie, Can you make sure that your slides from yesterday are shared publicly so people can take a look at them? Right now they seem to be shared only to WMF employees. Thanks! Dan On 1 August 2014 14:45, Gergo Tisza gti...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote: Slides from all the presentations are available here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Metrics_and_activities_meetings/2014-08 The grantmaking slides seem to be limited to WMF employees though. ___ 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 -- Dan Garry Associate Product Manager, Mobile Apps Wikimedia Foundation ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
Thogo, et al On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Goldammer tho...@gmail.com wrote: 1) There was indeed a leak of my CU data. An unknown Commons CU had indeed leaked my CU data to another person who was NOT a CU on Commons. The information given to this non-CU person included the very name of the person who ran the CU on me; information which was so sensitive to keep from me, but not sensitive enough that it was able to be shared with every Tom, Dick and Harry that wasn't me. I wonder why the OC never got any information about this from you. So would you please write us where that information comes from and what exactly happened? Thanks. I'm not sure I understand you Thogo. A steward contacted the OC about the leaking of my CU data to a non-CU, not me. The nature of Points 1 and 2 from my initial email were relayed to me by a member of the OC in a private conversation and that individual shall forever remain nameless, of course. I'm not sure how the OC, or anyone, expects me to give any information on an issue that I am not totally aware of, and never would have been aware of if it weren't for me being provided with full #wikimedia-steward-internal logs. I am happy to publicly replicate these unaltered and unedited logs if actually required. It had, on the basis of the information we got from you. We can obviously not base our decision on information that is not relayed to us, like that mentioned one section above. This is not what was told to me on email by the member of the OC who was liaising with me on email as a result of the complaint. Perhaps permission to release that email from the individual concerned will show others that the investigation was not over, but had instead been referred for investigation to the WMF based upon the CU in question having left all Wikimedia projects. Not sure if permission will be forthcoming given the person is no longer on the OC.[1] Given this, I am asking very publicly the following questions: * (1) on what grounds a CheckUser action was performed on my account on Wikimedia Commons? * (2) who requested that it be performed on Commons? * (3) who fulfilled the request? * (4) why is it acceptable for CUs to share actions related to my account with non-CUs whilst at the same time actively keeping this information from me? * (5) why are complaints such as this actively ignored by the WMF Board? (1) through (3) can only be answered by the Commons community. It is completely outside the OC's remit to answer this. @ (4): You might want to discuss this with the OC non-publicly. We are very interested in getting any available information about this. In general, you are right that it is not acceptable to share non-public information with non-CUs. However, it is acceptable to give CU information to stewards (who might not be CU on Commons), for example, under certain circumstances. Sorry, but I beg to differ here. It is within the remit of the OC to investigate issues of the abuse of the CU tool.[2] The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. There is zero evidence that the check was done for any of these reasons, and hence it is a violation of the privacy policy and is absolutely within the remit of the OC. Furthermore, at this time it might be pertinent to add that in May 2014 when the issue was being quite openly discussed on IRC in #wikimedia-commons, a Commons CU at that stage stated that they had no idea why the CU was run. In July 2014, when the issue was again being openly discussed in the same IRC channel, the same Commons CU publicly stated that they were in possession of the full story (I know everything and I also know what's true and what's not, but I won't share with you and I know the whole story). This CU, given they are in possession of the whole story should be able to tell us publicly what vandalism, sockpuppet abuse or disruption I was involved in on Commons in April 2013 which necessitated the uber-secretive use of the CU tool on my Commons account; but NOT on other accounts on other projects. Given that at least one Commons CU has been able to get the full story in the short space of 2 months, I fail to see why the OC has been unable to get the same fully story and instead has publicly thrown its hands up in the air and claimed one thing, whilst privately I am being told something else completely different. Russavia [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_administratorsdiff=prevoldid=9055834 [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser_policy#Use_of_the_tool ___ 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,
[Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
What's the article on Wikipedia in question? ___ 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne On 2 August 2014 23:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. 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 ___ 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne The Guardian states in the first paragraph that: Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new right to be forgotten legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be misread as the Guardian newspaper. 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
Well, Fae, since the only place that Adam Osborne is mentioned in Wikipedia is as the son of his father, and it does not mention anything more than his name, I am pretty certain that you're mistaken. The exact quote from the Guardian is: Google has already begun to implement the ruling, with tens of thousands of links removed from its European search results to sites ranging from the BBC to the *Daily Express*. Among the data now hidden from Google is an article about the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. Nothing in that quote says that it is a Wikipedia article that is hidden. Risker/Anne On 3 August 2014 00:12, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. Risker/Anne The Guardian states in the first paragraph that: Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new right to be forgotten legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be misread as the Guardian newspaper. 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 ___ 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
Google's motto is Do no evil I suppose you would have ours be do all notable evil Fred Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. 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 ___ 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia Fred Re: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event, wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an article about it? The information being disappeared is the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne. 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 ___ 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia Fred Yes... This is tedious, but Fae's mistake was thinking content about Adam Osborne was what was being hidden on Wikipedia. It isn't; that's just the Guardian providing an example of something else that was removed from Google results. ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On 2 August 2014 17:18, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: ... i personally do not care about the russavia case in particular i must say. but i care about the (non-)care of persons having access to account data triggered by a bad policy. imo * checkuser usage must be requested traceable * checkuser usage must be done traceable * data retrieved via checkuser usage must not be given outside the persons authorized to have technical access right to this data anyway. CheckUser usage is logged internally, Although the logs are not maintained indefinitely due to possible privacy issues. I believe from memory it's approximately three (3) months at the current stage. ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 August 2014 17:18, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: ... i personally do not care about the russavia case in particular i must say. but i care about the (non-)care of persons having access to account data triggered by a bad policy. imo * checkuser usage must be requested traceable * checkuser usage must be done traceable * data retrieved via checkuser usage must not be given outside the persons authorized to have technical access right to this data anyway. CheckUser usage is logged internally, Although the logs are not maintained indefinitely due to possible privacy issues. I believe from memory it's approximately three (3) months at the current stage. ___ I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the logs are maintained indefinitely but the data is retained for only 3 months (i.e. the results of the check that is recorded in the log). ___ 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] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: .. I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the logs are maintained indefinitely but the data is retained for only 3 months (i.e. the results of the check that is recorded in the log). The checkuser log are kept indefinitely, but it only records what usernames/IPs that were checked (i.e. the query), and the reason given by the checkuser for the check. It does not record the results of the query. That said, the sequence of checks run by a CU often creates a permanent record in the private CU log of an persons likely IP addresses. e.g. the log may contain a check on an account, with a reason given, followed by checks on IPs, with the same reason logged. -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] SatuSuro, stop stalking the home of my parents
In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro.[1] The editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share private communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the email, along with all headers. In this email SatuSuro made the following statement: I am not 100% sure where you contextualise your comments from, but he is a local, and I know his parents house quite well Upon reading it, I was absolutely gobsmacked. Firstly, the comment was wildly out of place in the context of the email, and secondly, this is how the email ended. One will note that he states that he doesn't say that he knows me nor knows my family, but that he knows my parents' house quite well. This obviously made me quite squeamish, because it's not my home that he states he knows well, but the home of my parents. I have never met SatuSuro (T.H.) in real life, and have had no reason nor great desire to meet him. So he is not known to me on a personal level in any way, shape or form. With this in mind, I sent an email to my folks asking them if they knew T.H. or if they recognised him from his photo.[2] I told them that the guy had stated I know his parents house quite well. They were concerned. My old lady, especially so, who looked at his comment the same way I did. I won't divulge what sort of search terms I found in her Google search history, even after I showed them the email which was sent by T.H.. Both my old man and old lady confirmed that they do not know T.H. by name nor by photo, and have no idea how he could know their house well. I informed them that if they should see him near their home that they should contact the police. My folks, who are enjoying their retirement and have their four young grandkids at their house every other day, also took the grandkids aside and showed them T.H.'s photo and said that if they see this man that they should tell them or their parents straight away - a much needed lesson in stranger danger I guess. It doesn't stop there, but I was informed the other day at a family get together, that they had shelled out a fair amount of money for multiple infrared cameras which are situated around their residence (in the open and hidden), recording equipment, added security monitoring and installation. This is so not cool. Absolutely not cool. One may expect to deal with creepy stalker cunts as a result of participating in sites such as 4chan (I dunno, never participated, but it has that rep perhaps), but one should absolutely not expect to have to deal with such things from their participation in Wikimedia projects. And especially not from someone who is a member of a WM Chapter (WMAU) and the recipient of a scholarship from the WMF to travel to Wikimania next week.[3] There is no reason at all that would have required T.H. to attempt to stalk me in real life, and there is absolutely zero reason or excuse for him to be stalking, not my home, but the home of my parents, which has resulted in them upgrading security, as great cost, to their castle. A message to SatuSuro -- stop stalking the home of my parents you creepy fuck. Russavia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_at_Wikimania_2013.jpg [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2014_WMF_Scholarship_Recipients (#83) ___ 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] SatuSuro, stop stalking the home of my parents
This e-mail strikes me as a major overreaction based on the information presented, especially since there is no indication that Russavia ever contacted the person he is accusing and asked him what was meant by the comment. In any event, the posting is wildly inappropriate for a public mailing list. Newyorkbrad On 8/2/14, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro.[1] The editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share private communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the email, along with all headers. In this email SatuSuro made the following statement: I am not 100% sure where you contextualise your comments from, but he is a local, and I know his parents house quite well Upon reading it, I was absolutely gobsmacked. Firstly, the comment was wildly out of place in the context of the email, and secondly, this is how the email ended. One will note that he states that he doesn't say that he knows me nor knows my family, but that he knows my parents' house quite well. This obviously made me quite squeamish, because it's not my home that he states he knows well, but the home of my parents. I have never met SatuSuro (T.H.) in real life, and have had no reason nor great desire to meet him. So he is not known to me on a personal level in any way, shape or form. With this in mind, I sent an email to my folks asking them if they knew T.H. or if they recognised him from his photo.[2] I told them that the guy had stated I know his parents house quite well. They were concerned. My old lady, especially so, who looked at his comment the same way I did. I won't divulge what sort of search terms I found in her Google search history, even after I showed them the email which was sent by T.H.. Both my old man and old lady confirmed that they do not know T.H. by name nor by photo, and have no idea how he could know their house well. I informed them that if they should see him near their home that they should contact the police. My folks, who are enjoying their retirement and have their four young grandkids at their house every other day, also took the grandkids aside and showed them T.H.'s photo and said that if they see this man that they should tell them or their parents straight away - a much needed lesson in stranger danger I guess. It doesn't stop there, but I was informed the other day at a family get together, that they had shelled out a fair amount of money for multiple infrared cameras which are situated around their residence (in the open and hidden), recording equipment, added security monitoring and installation. This is so not cool. Absolutely not cool. One may expect to deal with creepy stalker cunts as a result of participating in sites such as 4chan (I dunno, never participated, but it has that rep perhaps), but one should absolutely not expect to have to deal with such things from their participation in Wikimedia projects. And especially not from someone who is a member of a WM Chapter (WMAU) and the recipient of a scholarship from the WMF to travel to Wikimania next week.[3] There is no reason at all that would have required T.H. to attempt to stalk me in real life, and there is absolutely zero reason or excuse for him to be stalking, not my home, but the home of my parents, which has resulted in them upgrading security, as great cost, to their castle. A message to SatuSuro -- stop stalking the home of my parents you creepy fuck. Russavia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SatuSuro [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SatuSuro_at_Wikimania_2013.jpg [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:TPS/Wikimania_scholars#2014_WMF_Scholarship_Recipients (#83) ___ 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] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved. As it says anonymous applicant, it does seem likely they dont know which article, or maybe the status of the applicant is officially 'anonymous' but the details are known and unable to be reported. Anyway, I've asked in the off-chance they can give clues. https://twitter.com/jayvdb/status/495802112429682688 -- John Vandenberg ___ 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
