Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

2017-09-11 Thread Dennis During
Can we get back on topic please?  I isn't  there another thread for beating
the fundraising-disclosure-oversight dead horse?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners for logged-in users (was:How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?)

2017-09-11 Thread David Emrany
Hi lodewijk

I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.

The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to
Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO
website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking
to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that
whoever speaks for WMF links to it.

I am categorically saying

1) In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3
weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the
local festive season when people are receptive to giving.

2) The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in
users and readers.

3) Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian
ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016
?.

4) Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the
questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because
you are on the consuming side ?

If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?

https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/wikipedias-new-email-campaign-is-a-master-class-in-emotional-intelligence.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_wikipedia_fundraising_promise/

PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was
paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid
"through" Jonesday.

warmly

David

On 9/11/17, Lodewijk  wrote:
> hi david,
>
> as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be
> whether
> you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not happen,
> unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you have
> that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.
>
> you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the
> question
> at hand: the two stage loading problem.
>
> lodewijk
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Joseph
>>
>> Thanks for that link.
>>
>> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
>> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
>> self-financing model.
>>
>> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
>> linking to the following messages
>>
>> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
>> for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
>> 
>>
>> *"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
>> money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
>> the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
>> apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
>> which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
>> booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
>> squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
>> before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
>> donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
>> (a not insubstantial amount).
>>
>> Dave"*
>>
>>
>> 2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
>> 
>>
>> *"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490
>> fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute:
>> We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a
>> case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer
>> to donate their domains (especially if they are community members),and, to
>> date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type
>> of case."*
>>
>> 3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
>> 
>>
>> "Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
>> knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
>> , Germany
>> ,
>> France , and
>> India."
>>
>> including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not
>> linked unlike the others
>> So to sum up:
>>
>> 1. The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916
>> for legal services in 2014-15
>>
>> 2. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of
>> that was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my own
>> sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for this
>> case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).
>>
>> 3. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
>> this cyber 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

2017-09-11 Thread David Emrany
Dear Joseph

Thanks for that link.

*NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
self-financing model.

Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
linking to the following messages

1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*


*"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
(a not insubstantial amount).

Dave"*


2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*










*"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490
fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute:
We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt
with a case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters
who offer to donate their domains (especially if they are community
members),and, to date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much
money on this type of case."*


3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*


"Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
, Germany
,
France , and
India."

including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not linked
unlike the others
So to sum up:

1. The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916 for
legal services in 2014-15

2. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of that
was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my own
sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for this
case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).

3. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had
straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF and
close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up huge
legal bills which were financed by donations, and probably continues to do
so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .

4. I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally
discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party who
was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF donation banner-ads, as a
logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was at
Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached
Austraila.

5. So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.

Warmly

David


On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon 
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked thread relating to this
> topic.
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
> September/088570.html
>
> Regards
> Seddon
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:46 PM, David Emrany 
> wrote:
>
> > Sure Lodewijk,
> >
> > Banners from December 2016:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Inline_
> > donor_bannerbass.png
> >
> > Comments from Seddon
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-
> > December/085612.html
> >
> > Perhaps these banners were muted for logged-in users in USA, but I was
> > in S-E Asia last December and it was a very unpleasant experience for
> > me, especially while on mobile and logged in, to get a begging
> > banner/pop-up about after every 4 pages I loaded.
> >
> > David
> >
> > On 9/6/17, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > Would you mind elaborating on the first point? I vaguely recall test
> > > banners being shown to logged in users, but don't recall seeing one
> > myself
> > > while logged in for a while.
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Chapter De-Recognition: Wikimedia Macedonia

2017-09-11 Thread Kirill Lokshin
Hi Mārtiņš,

That's correct; this is in reference to the original Wikimedia Macedonia.

Regards,
Kirill Lokshin
Chair, Affiliations Committee

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Mārtiņš Bruņenieks 
wrote:

> Hi!
> I assume this is the original Wikimedia Macedonia Chapter and not the
> Shared Knowledge User group which has been organizing all current
> activities in Macedonia.
>
>  Mārtiņš
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Samat  wrote:
>
>> Dear Kirill,
>>
>> That's a really sad news. :(
>> Thank you for letting us know about it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Samat
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Kirill Lokshin > > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate — a chapter, thematic
>>> organization, or user group — is a privilege that allows an independent
>>> group to officially use the Wikimedia trademarks to further the Wikimedia
>>> mission. While most affiliates adhere to the basic compliance standards set
>>> forth in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation, a protocol has
>>> been developed to address the exceptional cases when a Wikimedia movement
>>> affiliate does not meet basic compliance standards and their continued
>>> recognition as a Wikimedia movement affiliate presents a risk to the
>>> Wikimedia movement.
>>>
>>> On February 13, 2017, Wikimedia Macedonia was notified that their access
>>> to the Wikimedia chapter benefits was being suspended as a result of
>>> long-standing non-compliance with reporting requirements, and informed of
>>> the deadlines for returning to compliance in order to avoid
>>> de-recognition.  As Wikimedia Macedonia did not submit the required reports
>>> by these deadlines, they were subsequently notified that they would no
>>> longer be recognized as a Wikimedia chapter after the termination of their
>>> Chapter Agreement on September 10, 2017.
>>>
>>> As always, if you have questions about what this means for the community
>>> members in Wikimedia Macedonia’s geographic area or language scope, please
>>> refer to the affiliate de-recognition FAQ (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi
>>> ki/Wikimedia_movement_affiliate_de-recognition_FAQ) or contact the
>>> Affiliations Committee directly.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Kirill Lokshin
>>> Chair, Affiliations Committee
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Affiliates mailing list
>>> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Affiliates mailing list
>> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Affiliates mailing list
> affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Banners for logged-in users (was:How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?)

2017-09-11 Thread Lodewijk
hi david,

i'll respond inline.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:08 AM, David Emrany 
wrote:

> Hi lodewijk
>
> I've altered the subject line at your suggestion.
>

thank you.

>
> The name of the case (and the opposite party) is equally well known to
> Wikimedia-Legal. The first decision in the case is online at the WIPO
> website, however, since it is still under litigation, I am not linking
> to it under the WP:OUTING policies, and it would be far better that
> whoever speaks for WMF links to it.
>

entirely different topic. lets no mingle that.


>
> I am categorically saying
>
> 1) In 2016, WMF's Asian fund-raising campaign in SAARC began 2 or 3
> weeks before they started elsewhere, probably to coincide with the
> local festive season when people are receptive to giving.
>

fundraising happens all over the world at different times - nobody is
denying that, and I see no problem with that.


>
> 2) The WMF banner ads for SAARC did not discrimnate between logged-in
> users and readers.
>

that is your claim, so much is clear. Do you have anything to back that up
in other accounts. Also, this does not consider the simple possibility of
human error.


>
> 3) Perhaps WMF learned from all this and adapted it to their non-Asian
> ad banner / email solicitation campaigns which began from 29 Nov 2016
> ?.
>

I must say that seddon sounds better informed, and has a more plausable
explanation, even if it were correct.


>
> 4) Perhaps you have an inherent COI in this case to suppress the
> questionable means by how WMF funds / endowments are raised, because
> you are on the consuming side ?
>

I mostly have beef with unfounded or unhelpful criticism.


>
> If it is evidence you want, try this for intelligent hounding ?
>
> https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/wikipedias-new-email-
> campaign-is-a-master-class-in-emotional-intelligence.html


i'm missing the relevance of the email campaign?

>
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/16/jimmy_wales_
> wikipedia_fundraising_promise/



i'm sorry, but where it comes to the register, i refuse to take their
coverage serious.


>
> PS: I would certainly like specific clarity from WMF on how much was
> paid in 2014-15 for legal services "to" Jonesday and how much was paid
> "through" Jonesday.
>
>
again, straying off-topic. lets not go there.

best,
lodewijk


> warmly
>
> David
>
> On 9/11/17, Lodewijk  wrote:
> > hi david,
> >
> > as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be
> > whether
> > you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not
> happen,
> > unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you
> have
> > that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.
> >
> > you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the
> > question
> > at hand: the two stage loading problem.
> >
> > lodewijk
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Joseph
> >>
> >> Thanks for that link.
> >>
> >> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
> >> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
> >> self-financing model.
> >>
> >> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
> >> linking to the following messages
> >>
> >> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form
> 990
> >> for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
> >>  >
> >>
> >> *"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
> >> money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
> >> the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
> >> apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
> >> which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
> >> booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
> >> squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
> >> before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
> >> donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
> >> (a not insubstantial amount).
> >>
> >> Dave"*
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
> >>  >
> >>
> >> *"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490
> >> fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute:
> >> We’re not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with
> a
> >> case that fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who
> offer
> >> to donate their domains (especially if they are community members),and,
> to
> >> date, we have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type
> >> of case."*
> >>
> >> 3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
> >> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How can we fix the two-stage page loading problem?

2017-09-11 Thread Lodewijk
hi david,

as with your accusations regarding the spending, my question would be whether
you have anything to substantiate it. Seddon was clear: it did not happen,
unless perhaps a human error in a minimal number of campaigns. If you have
that then please bring that up in a *separate* thead.

you're going more and more off topic. I suggest that we return to the question
at hand: the two stage loading problem.

lodewijk

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:41 AM, David Emrany 
wrote:

> Dear Joseph
>
> Thanks for that link.
>
> *NB*: I hope that the list moderators shall not censor / block / unduly
> delay this important internal conversation we are having concerning WMF
> self-financing model.
>
> Since this concerns the WMF fund-raising drives of Nov-Dec 2016, I'm
> linking to the following messages
>
> 1. *[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990
> for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki*
> 
>
> *"WMF's sheer wastage of donated money (incl. lunch
> money from Scottish schoolkids) on unnecessary litigation, I cite that
> the single most prominent case they defended in the period was
> apparently a domain name dispute (said to billed at US$ 317,490) in
> which the opposite party (a Wikipedian of long standing) who had only
> booked the domain name to prevent it from being snaffled by "cyber
> squatters"  had immediately offered to donate it WMF free of cost
> before the case began. Had WMF accepted that voluntary and good faith
> donation offer, they would have also got back 75% of the filing fees
> (a not insubstantial amount).
>
> Dave"*
>
>
> 2. *Reply by Greg Varnum (WMF) on this mailing list*
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"As for the question about why the Wikimedia Foundationspent $317,490 
> fighting "cybersquatters" that offeredto donate the domain in dispute: We’re 
> not sure where this question comes from, as we haven’t dealt with a case that 
> fits this description. We do not fight cybersquatters who offer to donate 
> their domains (especially if they are community members),and, to date, we 
> have not spent anything approachingthat much money on this type of case."*
>
>
> 3.   *Your donation keeps Wikipedia and free knowledge thriving*
> 
>
> "Legal defense to preserve your right to access, share, and remix
> knowledge, including court battles won over Wikimedia content in Brazil
> , Germany
> ,
> France , and
> India."
>
> including unreplied comments on why the India court battles were not
> linked unlike the others
> So to sum up:
>
> 1. The WMF form 990 says US law firm "JonesDay" received US$ 1,742,916 for
> legal services in 2014-15
>
> 2. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community how much of that
> was spent on fighting a specific "cyber-squatter" from India (my own
> sources at the time said US$ 300,000 was paid by WMF to JonesDay for this
> case, mainly billable hours for JD partner Carrie Kiedrowski).
>
> 3. WMF is unprepared to specifically inform the community whether or not
> this cyber squatter (who claims to be a community member since 2003) had
> straightaway offered to donate the domain name free of cost to the WMF and
> close the case, however, WMF rejected the offer and instead ran up huge
> legal bills which were financed by donations, and probably continues to do
> so since that case is still ongoing in India's legal system .
>
> 4. I distinctly recall that when I was in India in mid-November 2016,
> attending the Opendaylight Linux forum in Bengaluru and incidentally
> discussing there the progress of this legal case with the other party who
> was an attendee, I was bombarded with WMF donation banner-ads, as a
> logged-in user, which carried through till mid-December 2016 when I was at
> Sri Lanka and Kathmandu but which curiously stopped when I reached
> Austraila.
>
> 5. So, as a community member and contributor, I would like to know how
> every dollar raised by WMF is collected, and also spent thereafter.
>
> Warmly
>
> David
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> I would refer to my answer I gave on the forked thread relating to this
>> topic.
>>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-Septe
>> mber/088570.html
>>
>> Regards
>> Seddon
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:46 PM, David Emrany 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sure Lodewijk,
>> >
>> > Banners from December 2016:
>> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inline_donor_bannerbass.png
>> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Inline_
>> >