It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
describing a process for instituting global bans. In fact, the ToU
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, the RfC is trending towards dispensing with the current global
ban policy. A large portion of that sentiment is from people opposed
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
read 3/4ths
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing
free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to
make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not
release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't
agree
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
[snip]
It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
been co-opted to
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
whether or not
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date
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
and which don't, that seems
like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would
attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive
when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU.
~Nathan
,
potentially personally identifying) has been disclosed to another
volunteer.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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
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
privacy, without (to my mind)
establishing the particular benefits of that outcome.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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
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
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
are checks -
order of magnitude - made on users who are eligible to vote in arbcom
elections?
SJ
At least every day, there are 5 or 6 who qualify by edit count waiting for
CU on SPI right now.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l
is accessed on
Wikimedia, if we invest that information with the significance that many
wish to. To be honest, I'm surprised Risker doesn't agree, given the
emphasis on personal privacy demonstrated in the IPv6 thread on this list.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l
What happens to your system if an article is deleted from Wikipedia, a new
article is posted again under the same name, and then that one is also
deleted?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin
, as well as the host Wikimedians, take no political positions implicit
or otherwise.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
birgitte...@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
is neither wise nor ethical.
On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in
in the Americas range.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
that well.
~Nathan
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I don't think it does say that, or if it does, I can't see where. You're
certainly liable if you break a law in your own country, but I don't think
you've broken the terms of use. It says
401 - 425 of 425 matches
Mail list logo
