Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Strainu
2012/6/13 Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl: I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the dynamic assignment option does alleviate some people's privacy concerns, right? It depends on their OS. On

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Deryck Chan
On a separate note about IPv6: I just saw the first IPv6 anon entry appearing on my watchlist. It's exciting! Deryck On 13 June 2012 13:43, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: I noticed that my current IPv6 address

Re: [Wikimedia-l] speedydeletion.wika.com lauched

2012-06-13 Thread Mike Dupont
ok kim, thanks again for your constructive feedback, and thanks to everyone who has given input. It is great to have a supportive group of people like you to talk to. now i have upgraded the code, including templates and full history. It gets all new articles not seen before every 10 minutes.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread FT2
IPv6 is designed to operate on a one IP = one device/connection (non-NAT) basis, far more than IPv4. Privacy policy coversd personally identifiable information. An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows a person to be identified. If IPv4 can be personally identifying then IPv6

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: IPv6 is designed to operate on a one IP = one device/connection (non-NAT) basis, far more than IPv4. Privacy policy coversd personally identifiable information. An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: snipping FT2's comment Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Pro-active user privacy (Was: Update on IPv6)

2012-06-13 Thread James Forrester
On 13 June 2012 11:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Why is improving anonymity a goal? Our privacy policy governs the disclosure of non-public information, but the IP addresses of editors without an account have always been effectively public. Are IP editors clamoring for more privacy? Is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of any

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Brandon Harris
On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Risker wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of any logged-out user is for attribution purposes, although some use it for other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread FT2
Wikipedia has held since the start, a philosophy that some aspects of neutral accessible editing are enhanced by pseudonymity. One only need look at early policies and current policies to see they started with strong strict views on this, and retain strong strict views. Reasons where it matters

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On Jun 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Risker wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP addresses of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 14:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the *publicly viewable* IPv6

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I think perhaps I was not clear in what I meant by nefarious purposes. The IP addresses in our contribution logs have been used by others to locate editors, to make allegations against individuals and organizations because

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 15:06, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: snip I have to disagree for several reasons. First, while you are correct that no other top 10 website publishes IP information of users, that is in no small part a byproduct of how different Wikipedia is from the other 9. snip I am

[Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

2012-06-13 Thread Richard Symonds
All, Just to let you know that the .wiki TLD has been applied for by 'Mr Raymond King' from 'Top level Design LLC'. The company has successfully submitted 10 applications to ICANN for: .blog http://icannwiki.com/index.php/.blog, .design http://icannwiki.com/index.php/.design,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: The original Wikipedia platform (lo those long years ago) published only partial IP addresses. Today, significantly less transparency seems to mean create an acccount to many people. However, that is antithetical to the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

2012-06-13 Thread Casey Brown
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Little bit confused as to who this chap is... any ideas? It looks like he works for AboutUs.org: http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Raymond_King -- Casey Brown (Cbrown1023) caseybrown.org

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 15:39, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Risker wrote: I am struggling to think of any other website of any nature that I have ever visited that publicly identifies editors/posters by their IP address, except

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Nathan, I'm still trying to come up with *any* site that permits unregistered users to post but also publishes their full IP address. Can you think of any at all? Let's not limit it to the big guys, let's really think this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] .wiki TLD

2012-06-13 Thread phoebe ayers
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Little bit confused as to who this chap is... any ideas? It looks like he works for AboutUs.org:

[Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread David Gerard
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 discussion, on what rationale? [Personally I think it's an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread Richard Symonds
Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which may be an important difference... Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Disclaimer viewable at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk On 13 June

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread David Gerard
On 13 June 2012 21:32, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Not sure, but I think it's the principle of least /astonishment/ - which may be an important difference... Pretty sure it doesn't for educational purposes. I think my objection stands in its entirety. (I note that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread Michael Peel
My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't expect them (e.g. if

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread David Gerard
On 13 June 2012 21:44, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the summer of 07. On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread David Gerard
On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the summer of 07.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread phoebe ayers
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread Platonides
On 13/06/12 00:39, Kim Bruning wrote: What with XS4ALL (my ISP) now also offering IPv6 out-of-the-box, there's at least one extra IPv6 anon on en.wp. ;-) I noticed that my current IPv6 address appears to be assigned dynamically by XS4ALL. I can probably get static if I choose it. But the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread FT2
I can't say who came up with it. The point I first became aware of it was the posts, and consultation reports series, on Meta. It may well have predated that though, in which case I couldn't say. Advanced search in old enwp and meta dumps, or mailing lists would be a way to explore before that.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
David Gerard, 13/06/2012 23:02: On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments for years, as early as April 2005. Yeah, that's arguably a user interface issue (with arguments being somewhat alleviated by a forest of redirects). I see it's been commonly used around user interface

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread Tom Morris
On 13 June 2012 22:02, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 21:56, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a Muhammad images thread started

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Pro-active user privacy (Was: Update on IPv6)

2012-06-13 Thread Kim Bruning
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:22:52AM -0700, James Forrester wrote: Can I suggest that we try to discuss this on-wiki (as it's more inclusive of the community)? - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_user or something linked from there would be the 'obvious' place to start. Wow,

[Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are for anons. But for those users who have been around for a period,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
On 13 June 2012 19:18, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: This is something that has been bugging me for a while. When a user has been checkusered they should at least be notified of who preformed it and why it was preformed. I know this is not viable for every single CU action as many are

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
I am not a checkuser, I do not have access to checkuser-l, the CU wiki, or any other private information. This goes far beyond the one case, I was just using it as a recent example On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 June 2012 19:18, John

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
My apologies to you John - and also to John Vandenberg, whose name popped up when I cursored over this. Please do consider expressing a concern to the Audit Subcommittee with respect to this case, or alternately to the Ombudsman. Risker On 13 June 2012 19:37, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-13 Thread John Vandenberg
On Jun 14, 2012 1:30 AM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote: A couple of weeks ago, Brion Vibber and I started walking through a series of thoughts about eliminating publicly viewable IP addresses altogether, creating Proto Accounts. That is, to completely anonymize anonymous

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote: PS I am not a former arb, do not have access to functionaries mailing list, I do not have access nor have ever had access to any of the above

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Thomas Dalton
Why shouldn't spambots and vandals be notified? Just have the software automatically email anyone that is CUed. Then the threshold is simply whether you have an email address attached to your account or not. This seems like a good idea. People have a right to know what is being done with their

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Risker
Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the limits of the privacy policy. These standards vary widely. So, the correct place to discuss this is on each project. Risker On 13 June 2012 21:02, Thomas Dalton

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
Yet another attempt from a checkuser to make monitoring their actions and ensuring our privacy more difficult. On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Each project has its own standards and thresholds for when checkusers may be done, provided that they are within the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of checks and balances in place. First, the CUs watch each other. With a broad group, you can be assured they don't

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
Risker comment was basically lets not set a global accountability and ability to get CU related logs of our self on a global level, instead take it to each project and fight it out there to me that reeks of obfuscation. Realistically this should be a global policy, just like our privacy policy is.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread Nathan
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote: I dunno, John, you almost had me convinced until that email. I saw in that mail a reasonable comment from Risker based on long time precedent. As you may know, there are a number of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread James Alexander
To be honest the biggest problem is that releasing this information can hurt quite a lot. It can give away the techniques the checkuser (or checkusers, more then one working together is very common to make sure they're right) used to draw the connections. This is especially true for technical

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-13 Thread John
I am not asking for checkuser results, rather the basic logs about when/why/who may have checkusered the account. I am not asking CUs to release IP/user-agent/other info, but to let users know that they are being CUed, by whom and why. and to be able to request that historical information from the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked principle of least surprise for the image filter?

2012-06-13 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Michael Peel wrote: My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't