On 20 January 2015 at 03:30, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The page itself is interesting, as is some of the related discussion on
the talk page. I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security
theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not
much else.
It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
Now they hide themselves behind a collective account
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice issuing batches of
global locks
2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information
(in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
discussed
That's the question of trust: there have been too many situations recently
when WMF asked us just to believe:
- believe that there were reasons to ban somebody (Russavia)
- believe that there were reasons to switch-off fundraising in Russia
- believe that most readers prefer MultimediaViewer
-
transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information
(in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been
advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the
Terms of Use for
Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
rubin
2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org:
It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
Now they hide themselves behind a collective account
Chris Keating wrote:
Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as
cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly
well-equipped to deal with.
[citation needed]
One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or
Philippe,
hi Fae,
fair enough, but clearly the Board could decide to delegate the oversight
privilege in these cases to community-elected members.
best,
dj pundit
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the functionaries of high
trust you give
This is correct, but it supports the question that the board has not a well
defined control.
A good governance says that the responsible should be proactive.
What Chris is saying is perfect, I would not change a word.
It means that it's not in conflict with what your saying, but he is already
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the functionaries of high
trust you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
by us*.
If there is to
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
responsible for everything WMF does.
Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as
cross-project disruption is not something the
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com:
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
responsible for everything WMF does.
Yes, I am aware of that.
What I was advocating
+1.
Here are some more questions that I would be interested in having answers
to:
-- What do women who are presently editing find most demotivating about
contributing to Wikipedia?
-- Have they ever thought of throwing in the towel, and what were the
reasons?
-- Based on past experience, what
This explanation is really correct.
The board is responsible, the board has the mean to control everything is
responsibility of WMF, so the board cannot say to don't know or that they
cannot know.
This is not a personal opinion but it's a principle in every governance's
framework.
On Tue, Jan
On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or
Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no
shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We
typically block
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 15:38:
As I noted, this is a legal stick
There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were
required by law.
It's possible they were, sure. But we are abandoned to mere speculation
from supporters of either interpretation. See talk page on
I appreciate that WMF is taking action to make the communities a safer and
friendlier place to do volunteer work. Enforcing the Terms of Service at
the Foundation level is right step toward managing the community of WMF
wikis that are interconnected but run independently.
When we discuss adding
I believe it is vital for our survival, that we manage to transform our
communities into a more professional way of working then we have today
(which very much look the same as 5 or 10 years ago, when we were newbies)
I for example think about 50% of our project should be closed down as
their
On 20 January 2015 at 18:23, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
wrote:
Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate
specific refutation next time. The answer dig through the logs and
archives will find no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from
many rabid
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
wrote:
Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or
she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what
the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be
On 2015-01-20 18:21, Sydney Poore wrote:
Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community
indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than
these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a
professional
whose work is being evaluated.
Sydney
On 2015-01-20 18:51, Charles Andrès wrote:
Dear Wikimedians,
please find here an information about one of the outcomes of the
Wikipedian in Residence experience at the Swiss National Library, a
Wikimedia CH initiative.
Charles
Hi Charles,
this is absolutely great, congratulations.
Is
On 20 January 2015 at 17:19, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
wrote:
I guess I don't object much to specific ban reasons not disclosed to the
*public* if it at least is publicly said reasons of privacy prohibit us
from commenting specifically, however I would object if specific ban
Dear Wikimedians,
please find here an information about one of the outcomes of the Wikipedian in
Residence experience at the Swiss National Library, a Wikimedia CH initiative.
Charles
IT:
Oltre 1000 Schweizer Kleinmeister on-line
La Biblioteca nazionale svizzera ha reso liberamente
Lfaraone, you're an English Wikipedia arbitrator only as far as I know. What
gives you the authority or expertise to make assertions about the legal
implications of WMF terms of use violations?
Are you a WMF employee?
Are you a lawyer?
Trillium Corsage
20.01.2015, 04:19, LFaraone
On 20 January 2015 at 17:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
The problem is that WMF already produced a lot of damage, and foremost,
damage to their reputation. Russavia at the point he was banned was still a
Commons administrator, and he recently survived a desysop discussion.
On 20 January 2015 at 17:23, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 15:38:
As I noted, this is a legal stick
There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were
required by law.
That's neither what I said nor meant, but don't let me
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 21:11:
As I noted, this is a legal stick
There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were
required by law.
That's neither what I said nor meant
Sorry if I was unclear: I know you didn't. It's just a distinction worth
noting.
Nemo
It turns out that something happens when you stop grumbling and start
doing things. To be honest, initially I was really surprised that it's
working. So, I want to assure you that that works and I would
recommend you to try the same.
This issue was raised at least two times on this list during
(sort of) related to this old thread... the DOI resolver site went
down today because they apparently forgot to renew the domain, and the
author of this blog post from CrossRef (who runs it) suggests relying
on *us* for persistent identifier stability:
phoebe ayers, 20/01/2015 23:42:
suggests relying
on*us* for persistent identifier stability:
Hmm I'm not sure that's what it's written there.
However, relatedly, also today:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/01/26/cobweb
«The footnote, a landmark in the history of civilization, took
Auguri!
Will be a peculiar but a successful Wikimania!
2015-01-21 0:32 GMT-06:00 Emeric Vallespi emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr:
Congratulations to all people involved in this choice and, on behalf of
Wikimédia France, special big congratulations to Wikimedia IT and Wikimedia
CH who led it all
Congratulations to all people involved in this choice and, on behalf of
Wikimédia France, special big congratulations to Wikimedia IT and Wikimedia CH
who led it all \o/ !!
--
Emeric Vallespi
Vice President
Wikimédia France
www.wikimedia.fr | Twitter: @Wikimedia_Fr
Kudos to the team and to the jury for daring to try something totally
new exciting for Wikimania 2016 that sounds just a little bit crazy.
:D I am hugely looking forward to being part of this -- and I think
everyone who signs up to come will do so in the spirit of exploration
adventure in which
I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia
was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about
it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's
not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent.
On 2015-01-20 20:12, Chris Keating wrote:
My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF
people
in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more
damage
for themselves than they hoped to
On 2015-01-20 20:20, Thomas Goldammer wrote:
I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why
Russavia
was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia
about
it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no,
that's
not a speech against
On 2015-01-20 19:10, geni wrote:
The reality is that its recent actions have made no difference in that
respect other than reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
positions on commons by one. Realistically there was no course of
action
that the WMF people could take that would bring
My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF people
in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more damage
for themselves than they hoped to create good.
I think if you're looking at
20.01.2015, 18:06, geni email clipped:
However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary
issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the
English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the
relevant logs and archives.
Thank you
My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF people
in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more damage
for themselves than they hoped to create good.
I think if you're looking
42 matches
Mail list logo
