Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread David Richfield
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. --

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Stephanie Daugherty
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on IPv6

2012-06-14 Thread Andrea Zanni
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread geni
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread David Gerard
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread geni
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread geni
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread Todd Allen
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.

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

2012-06-14 Thread Andrew Gray
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread John
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread David Gerard
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan
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

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

2012-06-14 Thread Risker
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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Risker
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Sydney Poore
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread En Pine
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread John
Wow I am utterly in shock, while trying to dig up the diff that En Pine requested I get this comment from a checkuser *Checkusers are accountable to your representatives on the AUSC, to the Foundation's ombudsmen, and to one another—not to you.* -User:AGK when a user was looking into

[Wikimedia-l] donate.wikimedia.org.uk has an SSL error

2012-06-14 Thread Tom Morris
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/ ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] donate.wikimedia.org.uk has an SSL error

2012-06-14 Thread Tom Morris
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread En Pine
Nathan, I’d like to respond to all three of your recent comments. Can you explain how this is so? I did a fair amount of work at SPI as a clerk, and I'm not sure I understand how the mere fact that a check was performed is giving sockpuppeters a roadmap for how to avoid detection. If you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Birgitte_sb
Here is the log, from my home wiki, as you requested: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ws:an#Checkuser_notification As others have said this is a community dependent issue. The wikis are self-governing and some govern with (largely) publicly transparent logs available (I am not a CU and honestly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Birgitte_sb
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Dominic McDevitt-Parks
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread Nathan
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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

2012-06-14 Thread David Goodman
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