Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker 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 G

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.

[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, alo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Nathan 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > On 2 August 2014 17:18, rupert THURNER 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 polic

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On 2 August 2014 17:18, rupert THURNER 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 > * checku

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder 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 o

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

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 m

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 te

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker 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

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. Risk

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,

[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 disappea

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

Thogo, et al On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Goldammer 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 p

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On 2 August 2014 09:17, John Mark Vandenberg 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 _

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 1:25 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan 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 res

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:41 PM, geni wrote: > On 2 August 2014 06:25, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan 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

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 : > 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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On 2 August 2014 06:25, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan 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 chec

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan 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 ch