[Wikimedia-l] A Quick Hello from New List Subscriber
Hi Wikimedia-l, Just to say hello and introduce myself to the list. I'm a research professional seven years experience hoping to break into the legal field. I'm not 25 or anything like that though. I've done other stuff in my life, and I am middle-aged. How do I come here to the list? I was a Wikipedia (English) contributor for like six years before being blocked. I hope you do not infer guilt into that statement or that I'm somehow a bad person. I am not here to discuss that and would also ask you not to, of course, because it's off-topic for the list. I just say it because I'm introducing myself. The reason I subscribe to the list is because after I couldn't edit content anymore, I became more interested and thoughtful as to the meaning of Wikipedia and its effect on the world. Because of the way people web-search for information, where Wikipedia of course is so incredibly often the top result, it has immense power on the way people think about the subjects of all its articles. The more I analyzed this, the more I became critical. Anyhow, my interest in this Wikimedia Foundation list is really because I hold the WMF responsible for Wikipedia. I reject the notion that Wikipedia is just some separate construct owned by the WMF, like a copy machine or something. And for which it is not responsible. So I come here to be informed by all of you and also perhaps to inform all of you. I know most on this list use their real names. I choose to maintain a pseudonym. It's not because I am scared to own my words. I want to own all my words. It's rather because I have realized that there is a value in online anonymity, because of the invasive force the Internet has become in telling any random stranger about our lives. I respect the decision though of those that sign their real name to everything, and endeavor to consider that in any interaction I have with you. Signature: well let me see how my nickname shows up on the list. I selected Trillium Corsage as the name at the email service, but I typed Cloaked Citizen when I registered for this list. I guess I'll sign after this with whichever of those appears. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours
I am writing to ask that the new privacy policy be stopped, pending briefings of and thorough consideration by the incoming executive director Lila Tretikov. The timing of this major policy change with all its implications, including great legal implications, is at minimum discourteous to Ms. Tretikov in this the second day of her tenure, and in my judgement should additionally be viewed as alarming. Wikimedia is beholden to no one, yet accountable to each and every human being, she said day before last. Yet the new policy makes every effort to distance it from accountability, by attempting to force every editor to consent to the most privacy-invasive technologies known, which include, all quoted: You should be aware that specific data made public by you or aggregated data that is made public by us can be used by anyone for analysis and to infer information about users, such as which country a user is from, political affiliation, and gender. Type of device you are using possibly including unique device identification numbers. The type and version of your browser, your browser's language preference, the type and version of your device's operating system. The name of your internet service provider or mobile carrier. Which pages you request and visit, and the date and time of each request (note: says visit, not merely edit). We actively collect information with tracking pixels, cookies, and local storage. We use your email address. We can use GPS and other technologies commonly used to determine location. We may receive metadata. IP address of the device (or your proxy server) you are using to access the Internet, which could be used to infer your geographical location. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy). What is the heck is all this? Editors don't know they are signing up for this! But it gets even worse, because the WMF is not only providing this to its employees, but to hundreds of anonymous administrators to whom it grants access to this non-public, easily personally-identifying data. This means particularly, but not limited to: checkusers, arbitrators, stewards, UTRS users, and community developers. Who are they? While Ms. Tretikov aspires to accountability, the new privacy policy flees to exemptions and we know nothing. It specifically exempts these hundreds of people from the privacy policy. The WMF's Privacy Fellow Roshni Patel said two weeks ago the Foundation can’t control the actions of community members such as administrative volunteers so we don’t include them under the privacy policy. Is this accountability? No. She further mystifyingly continues: however, under the access policy, these volunteers must sign a confidentiality agreement. Mystifyingly, because it's *not* *true*. That part of the privacy policy Requirements for Community Members Applying for Access to Nonpublic Information requires only an email address and an assertion from an anonymous individual that he or she is 18 or over. Is there requirement there somewhere for a signature? No. Shall they sign for example under the nicknames of the prominent administrators like Beeblebrox and Wizardman? This is not accountability. (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy#Minimum_requirements_for_community_members_applying_for_access_to_nonpublic_information_rights.) How can the executive director be expected to assume responsibility for this stuff in 14 hours, on her third official day on the job? Out of simple courtesy to her, it needs to be delayed, while she is briefed on it by those who most understand it, like the general counsel Geoff Brigham. Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours
Dear Mr. Brigham, Excuse me, I should have copied you in the email I sent to the Wikimedia-l list I sent a few minutes ago, because I mentioned you in it. Here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-June/072499.html. Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours
To Luis and others, First thank you for responding. Now, you referred to WMF lawyer Michelle Paulson's excellent blog post, yes I suppose it is that. It's a terrific marketing document and piece of salesmanship, with feel-good phrases like the Wikimedia way is unique, open and collaborative process, and the policy wouldn’t have been possible without support from users like you. Its title is a bit ominous: Launching a Privacy Policy Built the Wiki Way. I, and 90 percent of editors if they understood what they are about to be subjected to, want a privacy policy built by lawyers and executives that they reasonably trust to protect their interests, not one that purports to be written as if a Wikipedia article by whomever shows up and starts typing. Is the policy, as Paulson states, truly intended to protect the user community? Explain to me and others that are concerned how Wikipedia using tracking pixels, supercookies, GPS technology, and metadata on us is designed to protect us. As Jimi Hendrix sang: let us stop talking falsely now, the hour's getting late. What Paulson and Brigham are doing there, only with the other tracking and analysis technologies that I quoted directly from the policy in my email preceding last, is not protecting the users but rather establishing the legal defense position of you were duly warned. Luis, please tell me if I'm wrong then, for example, how my being monitored at Wikipedia with tracking pixels and GPS technologies protects me or my interests. I also disagree with you where you emphasize that there were 200,000 words of constructive discussion. To anyone who reads Wikipedia talkpages, there is a great portion of chat-room-like content as well as redundancy as well as people that just don't know what they are talking about. So it doesn't convince me for you to brandish 200,000 words, no more than 2 million. Wikipedia editors don't keep up with that, they depend on specialists to look out for their interests, and this policy is not doing that at all. How does it look out for the community's interests to accord total anonymity and exemption from the policy to the hundreds of administrators that are basically online role-playing gamers, pushing around editors and investigating them at whim and to the devil knows what ends? Not long ago one of these types actually banned a Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson. The same administrator had previously boasted on Wikipedia of his large penis, and further cursed a content editor that he should rot in the hell that is eternal block. Josephson won his Nobel in physics for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier. The administrator, that goes by at least three known usernames, is a cheap dumb anonymous cyberbully. The world the WMF is making places the one above the other, but I'm not sure it's the right one. (Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALogtype=blockuser=DangerousPandapage=User%3ABrian+Josephsonyear=month=-1tagfilter=), (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidentsdiff=prevoldid=503298359.) The answer is simple on that part at least. The WMF must start identifying, if not publicly at least to it, those it accords access to the personal-identifiable information of editors. They're going to behave better if they know they can be held accountable for their actions. Trillium Corsage 05.06.2014, 18:34, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org: Hi, Trillium and others- ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
Dear Ms. Tretikov, Would you please speak on the new revision of the Access to Non-Public Information policy? Can you express your objection to it? Can you express your support of it? You'll find it here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy This governs the conditions by which the WMF grants access to potentially personally-identifying data such as IPs and web-browser profiles of Wikipedia editors. It grants these to particular administrative participants, for example checkusers and oversighters and arbitrators, of the various communities, for example the Wikipedias of various languages. Under the terms of the prior access policy, those administrative participants were required to send a fax or scanned copy of an identification document. Editors were led to believe that the WMF kept record of who these people actually were. It was repeatedly claimed that they had identified to WMF. This soothed the concerns of editors like me that thought, okay, well at least someone knows who they are. The truth was that a WMF employee marked a chart of usernames only that the administrative participant's ID showed someone 18 or over, and then shredded or otherwise destroyed those records. The phrase that so-and-so has identified to WMF or is identified to WMF was so commonly stated, including by the WMF, that I regard it as a great deception and betrayal that it really was shredding and destroying the identifications. The new policy is even worse. It abandons the mere pretense of an identification. So while it goes the wrong direction, at least it ceases to deceive. All it calls for now is an email address, an assertion that the person is 18 or over, and an assertion that the owner of the email account has read a short confidentiality agreement. The person need not provide a real name. You are well aware that various web-email services offer basically untraceable email addresses. You are well aware that only a named person can enter into agreement on confidentiality. An agreement by a Wikipedia username with an untraceable email address is not only unenforceable, it is a ludicrous proposition. The webpage says the policy is not in effect yet. I urge you to reject it as written and instead have it amended to actually require identification for those faceless entities you prepare to turn loose with potentially cyberstalker tools. Whatever your stance, I do call on you to speak on the question. Say yea, say nay, or say not my concern, but at least speak. Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
Hi again Luis, Thank you for commenting my open letter to Lila. I guess if I send an open letter I should expect open responses, however I surely hope Lila will speak on the matter, yea, nay, or not of concern to me, as I asked. Yes, I recall your previous response to my previous email (which was actually larger in scope, criticizing the now-effective overall privacy policy, whereas I now focus on the access-to-non-public information sub-policy, not yet in effect). In it you said the policies would never attain perfection. Below you assert there is no magical answer. These are examples of thought-terminating cliches. Presented with reasoned criticism of the policies, you attempt to stop discussion by saying they can never be perfect or magical. To give you credit, a lot of times thought-terminating cliches are effective in debate with non-lawyers. I'm going to go ahead and answer your perhaps when we next look at the question in a few years with the obvious observation that the procedures the policy lays out now are going to affect contributors mightily within the next few years. The access policy is not effective yet and can still be amended. So I'm going to resist your kicking the can down the road a few years. Now, to dig into the actual merits of what you say, I respond that these policies were not discussed extensively with the community. You obtained input almost exclusively from the *administrative subset* of the community, and none no more so than the individuals that currently have or stand to obtain the accesses in question. Should we be surprised that they prefer anonymity for themselves, as they explore the IPs and browser signatures and so on of the rank and file content editors? No. The community according to Lila is *all* the editors, a mere fraction (though powerful) of which are the insider and involved administrative types that commented on the policy drafts. I'm confident you'll agree that this distinction is more or less accurate, that in fact it is the administrative participants particularly that tend to comment this stuff, and not so much representatives of the great masses of content editors that actually built Wikipedia. Please do not gloss over this distinction in the future when claiming immense community participation. I'm not saying it's your fault that the discussion wasn't representative though. I'm just saying that's how it is. Neither am I faulting, or at least I shouldn't fault, anything about Michelle Paulson's hard work on the matter. I think the bad decision to accord anonymity to the checkusers and so forth was made higher up. In fact it's interesting to look back in the discussion to see what she said: 1) We do not believe that the current practices regarding collection and retention of community member identification are in compliance with the Board’s current Access to nonpublic data policy and hoped to bring the policy and practices closer to fulfilling the original intent of the policy (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy/Archives/2014#Rethinking_the_access_policy:_Response_to_recent_feedback). What she's saying is that WMF Legal became uncomfortable with the fact that what the responsible individuals were doing with the identifications (shredding, deleting) was at odds with what the policy clearly stated to editors was the case (identifying). Faced with this problem, there were two ways to go: 1) change the practice to conform with the policy (i.e. start securely keeping the identifications), or 2) change the policy to conform to the practice (i.e. grant anonymity to those granted access to non-anonymous information of others). What I am saying here, and if Lila is reading this far, is that you chose the wrong option. This email is already long, and I am not going to start commenting again why I think the administrative culture has attracted exactly the wrong kind of people, cyber-bullies, MMORPG players, creepers, and that this change to the policy is going to magnify that. I guess I'll just close by saying that it is not that hard to buy a secure file cabinet for the identification faxes and, say, the removable hard-drive containing the identification emails. There aren't all that great many checkusers and oversighters and OTRS volunteers and so forth, and they're not being added that fast. The existing ones can be accounted for in stages. So these practical difficulties you refer to Luis, I don't see them as so severe. As for the risks to volunteers what are you saying? Are you saying the WMF cannot securely keep some copies of identifications? The real volunteers at risk are those rank and file editors you propose to expose to a group of anonymous and unaccountable administrative participants. Trillium Corsage 27.06.2014, 01:48, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org: Hi, Trillium- As I pointed out to you the last time we discussed the privacy policy
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
@Nathan You said so if you want to argue that such users should be positively identified, then please make some practical suggestions (which you have conspicuously avoided doing so far). How should identities be confirmed? In what circumstances should the ID information be disclosed, and to whom? What, fundamentally, is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? What are the use cases in which it is necessary? It would be a good faith evaluation of the copy of the identification document provided. There's no need to be quarrelsome about the practical suggestions I've conspicuously avoided. I did at least suggest a secure filing cabinet and making use of a removable hard-drive. As to the precise criteria by which an identification document is deemed good enough, I'd suppose those would be developed on a good faith basis by the action officer. Nobody is depending on perfection by that individual. The principle would be that the document appears genuine, has the minimum elements settled on by the policy (name, age, address, possibly other elements). If the document is in a foreign language, say Swahili, and the WMF person can't read that, I would think it would be a do the best you can and file it by respective Wikipedia and username. None of these are insurmountable obstacles. The answer to this is hard is not well, let's just stop doing it. The answer is this is important, let's just do the best we can. I have called for a basic examination of the document, not any verification process. I'd suppose if the document looked suspect in some way, then a telephone call or follow-up could be done, and that would be a verification, but I would expect that to be the exception, not the rule. Again, these details would be settled by the hands-on person, not by me attempting to write a ten-page standard operating procedure while Nathan zings me with what are your specifics on the mailing list. What is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? Well, I thought the premise here was obvious. It was obvious enough to those that crafted the previous policy in the first place. It establishes some level of accountability to those individuals accorded access to the personally-identifying information of editors. Personal accountability encourages acting with self-control and restraint. With apologies to the other person that responded, anonymity encourages a care-free and unrestricted handling of that data, and in fact to some of these people it indeed yields a MMORPG (multimedia online roleplaying game) environment, and they will do whatever they want, because they are free from accountability. The other key aspect of usefulness is to the rank and file editors. They will feel better knowing that if some creepazoid or cyberbully starts going over their IPs, and of course Googling and otherwise sleuthing for more on them, that at least the WMF knows who they are, and the rank and file editor potentially has some recourse if it finally comes to it. So I say the usefulness there is treating editors right and furnishing a safer environment for them, in which they are not so exposed to anonymous administrators. Thank you for your response. Trillium Corsage (by the way although Trillium is a type of flower, I am in fact a dude. So please use male pronouns if it occurs to you. It was just an email address I picked sort of randomly and then I ran with it as pseudonym). ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy
Pine, An analogous argument to the one you're making is: someone who intends to rob your home will be able to get in one way or other, so why bother locking the doors when you go out. This is not a good argument. You're calling into question the reliability of every identification document copy ever presented to the WMF by an advanced-rights-seeking administrator because a really sophisticated wrongdoer (I dunno, Chinese military intelligence, with whom arbitrator Timotheus Canens is said by some to be associated?) could make a masterful forgery that beats the system. The fact is that 95% of them, I'd suppose, are going to be okay and the identification requirement is going to be an effective deterrent to at least the casual among the bad apples. And of course, once they've truly identified, the personal accountability aspects of it are going to keep in line once well-intentioned administrators that might be tempted to go bad for some reason. Forging identification documents is not impossible is another variation of the perfection is not attainable and no policy can be a magical solution arguments put forth previously on this mailing list by the WMF's deputy general counsel Luis Villa. I've attempted to answer those by explaining that you can have a pretty good and effective policy without having an infallible one. Trillium Corsage 29.06.2014, 07:32, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com: Trillium, I am having difficulty understanding how retaining copies of possibly forged identification documents helps anyone with holding accountable any rogue functionary or OTRS user. Can you explain that please? Surely someone who intends to misuse the tools will be smart enough to forge an identification document. Even in the United States, forging identification documents is not impossible, and the police occasionally catch people creating such documents. Pine On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: @Nathan You said so if you want to argue that such users should be positively identified, then please make some practical suggestions (which you have conspicuously avoided doing so far). How should identities be confirmed? In what circumstances should the ID information be disclosed, and to whom? What, fundamentally, is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? What are the use cases in which it is necessary? It would be a good faith evaluation of the copy of the identification document provided. There's no need to be quarrelsome about the practical suggestions I've conspicuously avoided. I did at least suggest a secure filing cabinet and making use of a removable hard-drive. As to the precise criteria by which an identification document is deemed good enough, I'd suppose those would be developed on a good faith basis by the action officer. Nobody is depending on perfection by that individual. The principle would be that the document appears genuine, has the minimum elements settled on by the policy (name, age, address, possibly other elements). If the document is in a foreign language, say Swahili, and the WMF person can't read that, I would think it would be a do the best you can and file it by respective Wikipedia and username. None of these are insurmountable obstacles. The answer to this is hard is not well, let's just stop doing it. The answer is this is important, let's just do the best we can. I have called for a basic examination of the document, not any verification process. I'd suppose if the document looked suspect in some way, then a telephone call or follow-up could be done, and that would be a verification, but I would expect that to be the exception, not the rule. Again, these details would be settled by the hands-on person, not by me attempting to write a ten-page standard operating procedure while Nathan zings me with what are your specifics on the mailing list. What is the usefulness in collecting this information to begin with? Well, I thought the premise here was obvious. It was obvious enough to those that crafted the previous policy in the first place. It establishes some level of accountability to those individuals accorded access to the personally-identifying information of editors. Personal accountability encourages acting with self-control and restraint. With apologies to the other person that responded, anonymity encourages a care-free and unrestricted handling of that data, and in fact to some of these people it indeed yields a MMORPG (multimedia online roleplaying game) environment, and they will do whatever they want, because they are free from accountability. The other key aspect of usefulness is to the rank and file editors. They will feel better knowing that if some creepazoid or cyberbully starts going over their IPs, and of course Googling and otherwise sleuthing for more on them, that at least the WMF knows
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal: List administration policy
Hi Fae, I was banned from the list by Austin Hair. I had contributed in my view a lot of good and polite stuff that was reasonably reasoned, but he banned me on the basis of a 17-word parenthetical phrase regarding arbitrator Timotheus Canens. I said that I had read it claimed that he was connected to Chinese military intelligence. Is that a reason to ban me? I emailed him, and then repeat emailed him to talk to me about it. I was met by silence. I wasn't going to get upset about it, and didn't. I figure Austin just another type who got moderator privilege on a mailing list. It's not even worth it to criticize him, but I guess I'll notice he banned me within minutes, and he hasn't posted to the list anything since, and I don't recall him ever contributing a email of substantive opinion since I joined the list. I logged on here today with the aim of unsubscribing to the list, but I'll keep reading long enough to see if your below email asking for transparency on the list goes anywhere. Good luck. Trillium Corsage 11.07.2014, 11:28, Fæ fae...@gmail.com: Hi, I would like to propose that this list have a published process for post moderation, banning and appeals. Perhaps a page on meta would be a good way to propose and discuss a policy? I would be happy to kick off a draft. This list has a defined scope at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l which explains who the 3 list admins are, but no more than that. There is no system of appeals, no expected time limits on bans or moderation, nor an explanation of the 30 posts per month behavioural norm that sometimes applies to this list. Neither is there any explanation of what is expected of list admins, such as whether there is an obligation to explain to someone who finds themselves subject to moderation or a ban, as to why this has happened and what they ought to do in order to become un-banned or un-moderated. I believe this would help list users better understand what is expected of them when they post here and it may give an opportunity to review the transparency of list administration, such as the option of publishing a list of active moderated accounts and possibly a list of indefinitely banned accounts where these were for behaviour on the list (as opposed to content-free spamming etc.) I see no down side to explaining policy as openly as possible. Thoughts? Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae (P.S. I am active on the English Wikipedia where I have a GA on the go, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fae. Sorry to disappoint, but reports of my retirement are premature.) ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Advocacy Advisors] Transparency and right to be forgotten notices from search engines
I see I am not the only one who noticed what WMF Legal is doing, but I see it a different way than Nathan. I see it as the WMF intimidating and threatening those EU individuals who dare to to exercise their rights under the court's ruling. Brigham and Paulson are basically saying just try it. We will Streisand you. Trillium Corsage 06.08.2014, 16:11, Nathan email clipped: Thanks very much for this, Stephen and the legal team. I especially appreciate that the WMF has decided to make public the specific notifications of the use of the Right to be forgotten in the EU.[1] It's interesting that the bulk of the suppression requests have come from a single (ex?) Wikimedian targeting internal process pages of his home wiki. Not shockingly, the RtF request is now in the top 5 results on a Google search of that persons name. The NY Times covered the transparency report: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/wikipedia-details-government-data-requests/?src=twr [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Stephen LaPorte email clipped wrote: Hi All, The “right to be forgotten” has been the subject of much discussion and debate (including on this list),[1] particularly following the May European Court of Justice judgment ordering Google to delist some links related to a Spanish citizen.[2] Since then, search engines have been receiving requests to remove hundreds of thousands of URLs from search results. Google recently released more information about its right to be forgotten requests.[3] The WMF legal team has been watching the “right to be forgotten” issue closely and considering what legal strategies we should take going forward. Today, the WMF published its first transparency report[4]—you can read more in this blog post.[5] WMF held a press briefing announcing our strategy of advocacy and transparency on link censorship. We will oppose what we see as a misguided court decision that has resulted in a crude implementation of the “right to be forgotten.” Lila has also issued a statement,[6] and, Geoff, WMF’s general counsel, and Michelle Paulson, WMF's legal counsel, have published a blog on the subject.[7] As the topic is of interest to this group, we wanted to keep you informed of these recent legal developments. Thanks, Stephen [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000547.html, http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html [2] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131 [3] https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/edit [4] http://transparency.wikimedia.org/ [5] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-transparency-report/ [6] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes-in-free-knowledge/ [7] https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-search-results/ -- Stephen LaPorte Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation *NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.* ___ Advocacy_Advisors mailing list advocacy_advis...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you
13.08.2014, 01:46, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au: if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against the other party instead of talking properly then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it? desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating they didn't collaborate at all they added the js hack as if it was something urgent, that needs saving people from i would only do this if someone added a virus into mv by mistake this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto other people I agree with your thinking here Svetlana, but would disagree with your terminology that the vocal complainers about superprotect should be shorthanded as the community. That is what they like to think of themselves, but they are really a minority of the community. They are the administrative culture. They are not really the editors, not really the readers, both of those groups dwarf the administrators and administrative participants. The community is all the readers, all the editors, and after them in size the vocal and visible administrative set. So Mr. Moeller shouldn't feel intimidated, and clearly doesn't, when a bunch of very loud people writes volumes of complaining text on discussion pages insisting that he has affronted the community. Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila (Harassment Policy)
I wrote an open letter to Lila because I saw Philippe Beaudette saying he was taking advice from English Wikipedia Arbcom on the matter of offsite harassment. The problem is that is that Arbcom has an history of harassing. So it should not be giving any advice on the matter of stopping it. To make this case, I used the examples of FT2's Anvil Email threatening an editor's family and AGK's filing a trumped-up complaint to an editor's employer, and then on a similar theme I pointed to Wikimedia Foundation steward JurgenNL and administrator TBloemink's real-life stalking of MoiraMoira (they laughed about her on IRC and then took a train trip to visit her house). I won't copy-paste the whole thing here, but if you're interested you'll find it here: http://timsongfan.livejournal.com/1971.html. Feedback is welcome. I think the WMF's policy of according IP and other sensitive user data via checkuser and UTRS and so forth to anonymous administrators is creating real risks to Wikipedia editors, and that is the case I make in the open letter. Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila (Harassment Policy)
One is a steward the other is an administrator, I may have reversed their roles, but they are definitely the two that stalked Moiramoira. Thanks for the notification, I'll doublecheck which is which and see about correcting that. Trillium Corsage 02.02.2015, 14:55, Hong, Yena li...@revi.pe.kr: Uhm, was JurgenNL steward? I thought TBloemink was, not JurgenNL. -Yena Hong (Revi) [[User:-revi]] -- Sent from Android -- 2015. 2. 2. 오후 11:49에 Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com님이 작성: I wrote an open letter to Lila because I saw Philippe Beaudette saying he was taking advice from English Wikipedia Arbcom on the matter of offsite harassment. The problem is that is that Arbcom has an history of harassing. So it should not be giving any advice on the matter of stopping it. text clipped for brevity ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila (Harassment Policy)
Nathan, there is no context that could possibly justify those evidenced incidents of harassment and stalking. There is no excuse. The information is out there for anyone who wants to read about them, but it's wrong to attempt to rationalize them in a sea of details and that's why I didn't do it. Trillium Corsage PS: yes, I identify as male (he, his etc.). 02.02.2015, 15:03, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: I wasted the few minutes necessary to read Trillium's blog post, and I don't recommend anyone else make that same mistake. He's taken a few incidents in a 7 year period, presented them utterly without the totally necessary context, and ignored any evidence that might make it clear how silly and ignorant his (or her) position is. ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation global ban policy
Lfaraone, you're an English Wikipedia arbitrator only as far as I know. What gives you the authority or expertise to make assertions about the legal implications of WMF terms of use violations? Are you a WMF employee? Are you a lawyer? Trillium Corsage 20.01.2015, 04:19, LFaraone wikipe...@luke.wf: MZMcBride z at mzmcbride.com writes: I'm not sure if wiki bans strictly fall within security theater, but it seems fairly clear that these bans are for show and not much else. It's the Internet, after all, and anyone can edit. Under the current scheme, the best we can do is try to revert and prevent bad behavior alone. Attempting to ban individuals has proved impossible. Users banned by the Wikimedia Foundation who continue to edit in violation of their ban may be placing themselves in possibly legally unfortunate situations, per ToU §12[1]. A Foundation ban would almost certainly be viewed as a stronger demand to desist than bans imposed by the community. Regardless, the WMF is often better-positioned than the community to investigate certain types of issues, and as such it would make sense that they would be the entity to take the aforementioned action. The logic presented above, when taken to its logical conclusion, seems to be why bother banning ANYONE, ever, since they can just sock?. [1]: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#12._Termination -- LFaraone ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
20.01.2015, 18:06, geni email clipped: However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the relevant logs and archives. Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate specific refutation next time. The answer dig through the logs and archives will find no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from many rabid and shifty accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why the WMF acted. Do some homework and figure it out yourself is no answer for an 100 million dollar organization with scores of employees to say. Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a CC network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which one do you think it is going to do? You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise the editor of all that privately, say publicly because of privacy or legal implications, we won't be specific, but we advised the individual privately, and that would be reasonable as far as I'm concerned. Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board transparency (thread fork)
Agree, in that I found that the Board's minutes from last year, for the session in which it eliminated the identification process for those administrators it accords access to personally-identifiable identification of editors, were very vague. Aside from the fact that SJ Carden moved to approve that and the other changes, and that WMF lawyer Michelle Paulson briefed it and then left the room, there was no hint of the reasoning. It would also have been nice to see if any trustee had voted against the policy change, which I think was an extremely bad one, and likely to make Moiramoira-type stalking incidents more frequent in the future. Trillium Corsage 14.03.2015, 06:35, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com: Hi Bishakha, Pardon my forking the thread here. I have previously asked about having more transparency and openness for WMF Board meetings. From my skimming of Board minutes, it's difficult to perceive what level of diligence is being done by the Board. I realize that corporate notetaking practices sometimes suggest summarizing discussions in meeting minutes as discussion about X rather than listing detailed questions. I would encourage more detail and transparency about Board deliberations, along the lines of what is being done for departmental quarterly reviews (which I greatly appreciate). text clipped for brevity ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bye
24.02.2015, 18:25, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com: I moderated Nemo when, after protesting the fact that Odder was still moderated (more on that later), he started forwarding messages for him. Before I had any chance to clear the matter up, he sent that message and quit in a huff. I was willing to unmoderate him, on the condition that he doesn't try to circumvent the moderation system in the future, but it seems that ship has sailed. He's free to subscribe again if he wishes. Austin, instead of moderating the guy before you have a chance to clear the matter up, why don't you clear the matter up before you moderate the guy? Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access to Private Information Policy: How Long Will This Be Left a Question Mark?
Mr. Starling, thanks for your response. I have to preface this by saying my opinions are legitimate criticism and rightly motivated, but I nevertheless fear that they won't be allowed on the mailing list and that I will be kicked off it because of them. I don't know what identifying people with checkuser permissions is meant to achieve, when they are not liable for a breach of the privacy policy. I can understand requiring identification for Board members, who have legal responsibilities. But what is the point of having a photocopy of a CheckUser's passport when there are no conceivable circumstances under which you would give that photocopy to police? No, there are plenty conceivable circumstances under which the WMF would be compelled to identify a community administrator to the police, such as a lawsuit for cyberstalking. For example WMF Steward Tbloemink and global sysop JurgenNL engaged in the stalking of Moiramoira via IRC, harassing phonecalls, and a visit to her home in which they peeped in her windows (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Privacy_violation_by_TBloemink_and_JurgenNL). They did use their advanced administrative rights to identify her. So a criminal or civil case could be brought in which a subpoena for the passport would be lawfully issued. In the broader picture, requiring identification would improve the behavior of any bad administrator that has slipped through the cracks and uses the advanced tools to violate users' privacy. Why? Because anonymity reduces the risks involved with bad behavior. So they are no longer restrained by personal accountability in checkusering people. They can do as they like, use the information in any way they like, and, beyond desysoping I guess, can never be held to account. Maybe the idea is that if a CheckUser publically doxes someone for some petty purpose, such as revenge, then the victim may subpoena identifying records from the Foundation as part of a suit against the CheckUser. Note that I have done my fair share of troll hunting, it occupied quite a bit of my time between when I first got shell access in early 2004 and when I introduced CheckUser in late 2005. I have publically discussed identifying information of logged-in users. I never heard any credible theory on how my actions at that time might have created legal liability. Surely, if there was such a legal remedy, trolls would constantly threaten to use it. Your presumption here is that administrators across the board are honorable troll hunters fulfilling a community duty, but the reality is somewhat different. The demonization of an editor as troll and sockpuppet and so forth is often falsely used by the administrator as an excuse for acting on his or her personal antipathies. They become irritated at an editor and set out to attack him or her, there are no controls on or standards for their actions. I think that the most important practical measure we can take to protect users' privacy against CheckUser is to regularly audit the CheckUser logs. We should also work to improve their auditability. The logs have hundreds of entries of the form: Yeah, that's a great idea, but further make it *publicly* auditable. Redact the privacy (IP) information and let the public know whom the checkusers are checkusering. Another great step would be to force entry of a *reason* before the checkuser tool can be used. As I understand it from all I've read, the checkuser tool now has a reason field, but it can be left blank. Reconfigure the tool to force entry of a reason for its use. And this also would immensely improve the ability to audit the logs. 13.04.2015, 01:56, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org: On 13/04/15 00:12, Trillium Corsage wrote: text clipped for brevity ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] Access to Private Information Policy: How Long Will This Be Left a Question Mark?
I'm writing to get an answer (from anybody at the WMF) on the status of the WMF's policy access to private (i.e. IP, Browser, etc.) information. Each day thousands of people edit Wikipedia and deserve to know what measures, if any, are taken to avoid divulging to the wrong sort of people this sensitive information about them. On 25 April last year, the board of trustees approved, in a non-public and scantily-documented meeting, a policy that accords Checkuser and Oversight and other statuses to community members appointed by a community process with essentially a mere two requirements: provide an email address, and assert that you are 18 or over. Name, address, NOT required. Is this truly an adequate way to protect the privacy interests of all those that edit Wikipedia? Well, I don't think so, but my purpose right now is to try to eliminate the ambiguity of what is actually occurring at this time. One source of this ambiguity is the edit of the WMF's James Alexander (http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Access_to_nonpublic_data_policyaction=historysubmitdiff=98029oldid=95071) on 6 June, in which he wrote: This policy has been replaced by a new [[m:Access to non public information policy|Access to non public information policy]], which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014. However, this policy remains in force until the new processes mandated by the new policy are put into place. A future announcement will be made to those affected before the new policy goes in effect. It's now the future (and after nine months, quite so), so what is the policy? The old policy mandated that those seeking the accesses fax or secure email a from of identification. Casual and rank-and-file Wikipedia editors were repetitively told that the checkusers and oversighters etc. were identified to the WMF. This was incredibly misleading because the practice of Philippe Beaudette was to shred and otherwise destroy the identifications after marking the noticeboard. It is apparent to any plain-spoken individual, I think, that you can't tell people that those granted these accesses are identified to the WMF when you have shredded the documents and all that is left (except in Mr. Beaudette's memory) is a checkmark by a username on a noticeboard. It wasn't a semantic dodge predicated on the definition of identified, rather it was in my opinion a smoke-screen. Mr. Beaudette felt loyalty to the privacy of the administrators, and evidently none to the common editors whose IPs and so forth he was exposing to them. The immediately above is not necessarily a criticism of the old policy, which taken at face value strongly implies that the WMF keeps the identifications on file, on a secure computer, or in a physical safe. It's rather that Mr. Beaudette operated for years in open defiance of the policy. To his credit though, apparently he impelled the Board to rewrite the policy in a manner corresponding to his actions. BUT MY QUESTION NOW is: What is the status of the policy? For example English Wikipedia just got three new checkusers: Bbb23, Callanecc, and Mike V. What information were they required to provide? Proper documents, or merely an email address and assertion that they are over 18? Trillium Corsage ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Access to Private Information Policy: How Long Will This Be Left a Question Mark?
Very strange response, Oliver. I guess I'll take it one step at a time. 1) Well into the email I certainly critiqued Philippe for shredding the identification documents, but it is a step too far to say I attacked him. 2) That he (and you) goes by his real name is a rightful aspect of his WMF (a public charity) employment. Yes, I strive to protect my online privacy and speak here from an obvious nickname or pseudonym. While I limit my statements to what I think is reasonable, I don't think I'm obligated to disclose my identity as he must. I also have never sought the ability to block others or to access their IP etc. information on Wikipedia, which would be a good argument that I identify. 3) Am I in the grip of a paranoid fantasy that Philippe Beaudette controls the WMF's board of trustees? No, I spoke only of the one matter. But okay, in that specific matter I gave him credit for forcing the board to change the access-to-private-information policy. While drawing pay, he flouted and defied the prior WMF policy. It's a matter of record that WMF Legal's Michelle Paulson was alarmed by this and brought it to the attention of the board, which then strongly impliedly endorsed Beaudette's actions by changing the policy. I dunno if he could similarly move the board on policy he's not intimately involved with implementing, I'd say not. Okay, then. Trillium Corsage 12.04.2015, 17:20, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com: Have you considered that you might get a better response to your messages if you - and this is just an idea drawn of idle whimsy, here - not spend quite so much of them on an extended trip off the reservation in order to attack and critique someone under their real name in public while hiding any identification of who you are? While we're discussing privacy, here. Seriously: you've spent a lot of this email indulging in the paranoid fantasy that Philippe controls the board (he doesn't. One way you can tell is that they don't wear sweaters literally everywhere :p). If we're asking questions we've already seemingly made our minds up about, and prefacing them with lots of grumping, let me get in on this - exactly what response do you expect? How do you think your claim of a Philippe Occupied Government enhances the utility of your message and the value a reader takes from it? On Sunday, 12 April 2015, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com wrote: I'm writing to get an answer (from anybody at the WMF) on the status of the WMF's policy access to private (i.e. IP, Browser, etc.) information. Each day thousands of people edit Wikipedia and deserve to know what measures, if any, are taken to avoid divulging to the wrong sort of people this sensitive information about them. On 25 April last year, the board of trustees approved, in a non-public and scantily-documented meeting, a policy that accords Checkuser and Oversight and other statuses to community members appointed by a community process with essentially a mere two requirements: provide an email address, and assert that you are 18 or over. Name, address, NOT required. Is this truly an adequate way to protect the privacy interests of all those that edit Wikipedia? Well, I don't think so, but my purpose right now is to try to eliminate the ambiguity of what is actually occurring at this time. One source of this ambiguity is the edit of the WMF's James Alexander ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Access_to_nonpublic_data_policyaction=historysubmitdiff=98029oldid=95071) on 6 June, in which he wrote: This policy has been replaced by a new [[m:Access to non public information policy|Access to non public information policy]], which was approved by the Board of Trustees on 25 April 2014. However, this policy remains in force until the new processes mandated by the new policy are put into place. A future announcement will be made to those affected before the new policy goes in effect. It's now the future (and after nine months, quite so), so what is the policy? The old policy mandated that those seeking the accesses fax or secure email a from of identification. Casual and rank-and-file Wikipedia editors were repetitively told that the checkusers and oversighters etc. were identified to the WMF. This was incredibly misleading because the practice of Philippe Beaudette was to shred and otherwise destroy the identifications after marking the noticeboard. It is apparent to any plain-spoken individual, I think, that you can't tell people that those granted these accesses are identified to the WMF when you have shredded the documents and all that is left (except in Mr. Beaudette's memory) is a checkmark by a username on a noticeboard. It wasn't a semantic dodge predicated on the definition of identified, rather it was in my opinion a smoke-screen. Mr. Beaudette felt loyalty to the privacy of the administrators, and evidently none
Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's cool?
Todd, since you credit yourself as a collaborative creator of a world-historic
educational work, what are some of the articles you have created or greatly
contributed to? Or is it that you derive your credit from administrative work
and blocking others, if so what are your most notable administrative
achievements or are some of the bad Wikipedia participants you have blocked?
Trillium Corsage
10.06.2015, 21:54, Todd Allen email clipped:
Well, let's not forget the big picture.
For all the bickering and squabbling it might have entailed, for all the
stumbles that might have happened in the process, the lot of us have
created the largest and probably most significant educational work in the
history of the world. And we've done it in a not for profit and freely
shared fashion.
I think that's damned cool and I think it's something to be very proud of.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ain...@wikimedia.se wrote:
Perhaps a bit early of the roundup of the Wikidata Menu Challenge, but I
think it is cool so I'll share it already. Some stats (thanks to André
Costa for collecting it) on the 300 items in the challenge:
Month of the challenge (and a few days afterwards) (2015-05-08 -
2015-06-08):
{
users: 183,
bytes_added: 1832120,
edits: 9057
}
To be compared with the month before the challenge: (2015-04-04 -
2015-05-01)
{
users: 132,
bytes_added: 71879,
edits: 493
}
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se
0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens
samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2015-06-10 22:15 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org:
This is really cool indeed and I am told (by the little birdie) that
there
is more we can do. Thank you, team! Awesome!!!
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
[re: experiments using video.js to improve UI of TimedMediaHandler]
And we will need brion’s ogv.js https://brionv.com/misc/ogv.js/demo/
work
to support browsers without OGV/WebM support.
A couple updates on that front:
1) It looks like it should be easy to integrate ogv.js into video.js
as a
player tech.
2) I have an early version of WebM decoding in JavaScript
https://brionv.com/log/2015/06/07/im-in-ur-javascript-decoding-ur-webm/
working! It's much slower than Ogg but has higher video quality when
there's CPU available for it, as on a fast desktop/laptop that's
running
Safari or IE without WebM drivers natively installed.
3) I've also found a combination of free-but-crappy codec options that
works in iOS natively: AVI with Motion-JPEG video and uncompressed
audio
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T101716! To keep the bitrate sane
we'll
have to turn quality down, but 5fps and scratchy audio is often better
than
nothing. This will work at times when ogv.js can't be used, such as the
embedded web browsers in iPhone apps that haven't updated to Apple's
latest
embedding APIs.
-- brion
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] What's cool?
Todd, is it perhaps this diff among yours (https://archive.is/MRUkZ) where you
called for the keeping of an apparently explicit autofellatio image in a
since-deleted autofellatio article that makes you think you're partially to
share the credit for a world-historic educational work?
Note to all: the link provided doesn't contain a sexual image, though the image
under discussion must be.
Trillium Corsage
11.06.2015, 19:31, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com:
Todd, since you credit yourself as a collaborative creator of a
world-historic educational work, what are some of the articles you have
created or greatly contributed to? Or is it that you derive your credit from
administrative work and blocking others, if so what are your most notable
administrative achievements or are some of the bad Wikipedia participants you
have blocked?
Trillium Corsage
10.06.2015, 21:54, Todd Allen email clipped:
Well, let's not forget the big picture.
For all the bickering and squabbling it might have entailed, for all the
stumbles that might have happened in the process, the lot of us have
created the largest and probably most significant educational work in the
history of the world. And we've done it in a not for profit and freely
shared fashion.
I think that's damned cool and I think it's something to be very proud of.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Jan Ainali jan.ain...@wikimedia.se wrote:
Perhaps a bit early of the roundup of the Wikidata Menu Challenge, but I
think it is cool so I'll share it already. Some stats (thanks to André
Costa for collecting it) on the 300 items in the challenge:
Month of the challenge (and a few days afterwards) (2015-05-08 -
2015-06-08):
{
users: 183,
bytes_added: 1832120,
edits: 9057
}
To be compared with the month before the challenge: (2015-04-04 -
2015-05-01)
{
users: 132,
bytes_added: 71879,
edits: 493
}
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se
0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens
samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2015-06-10 22:15 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org:
This is really cool indeed and I am told (by the little birdie) that
there
is more we can do. Thank you, team! Awesome!!!
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Brion Vibber bvib...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
[re: experiments using video.js to improve UI of TimedMediaHandler]
And we will need brion’s ogv.js https://brionv.com/misc/ogv.js/demo/
work
to support browsers without OGV/WebM support.
A couple updates on that front:
1) It looks like it should be easy to integrate ogv.js into video.js
as a
player tech.
2) I have an early version of WebM decoding in JavaScript
https://brionv.com/log/2015/06/07/im-in-ur-javascript-decoding-ur-webm/
working! It's much slower than Ogg but has higher video quality when
there's CPU available for it, as on a fast desktop/laptop that's
running
Safari or IE without WebM drivers natively installed.
3) I've also found a combination of free-but-crappy codec options that
works in iOS natively: AVI with Motion-JPEG video and uncompressed
audio
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T101716! To keep the bitrate sane
we'll
have to turn quality down, but 5fps and scratchy audio is often better
than
nothing. This will work at times when ogv.js can't be used, such as
the
embedded web browsers in iPhone apps that haven't updated to Apple's
latest
embedding APIs.
-- brion
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
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,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[Wikimedia-l] Moderation of Trillium Corsage, was Re: Moderation of Fae
I wasn't going to join in, not wanting to affect Fae's situation with my own, but reading the latest emails he was actually concerned with the UK list, so I'll go ahead. Would someone mind taking me off moderation as well? I see what the issue was in the first place, and will not do it again. I think it has been much more than a year since then. Beyond my own case, I echo Fae that there really should be some sort of process and communication with the moderated user about A) what precisely he or she did, B) whether the moderation is permanent, and C) what he or she can do to become unmoderated again. Trillium Corsage 24.05.2015, 14:07, Ad Huikeshoven email clipped: Hi all and Fae, One, I'm not a moderator on this list. Two, I do support civility and friendly space policies, Three, let's assume good faith, Four, Fae asks to be unmoderated and or asks for a rationale for moderation, Five I would like to see a rationale myself and or unmoderation of Fae. Have a nice and special Sunday, Ad Ad Huikeshoven Bestuurslid / Board member Wikimedia Nederland Internationaal / International Affairs Gemeenschap / Community tel. (+31) (0)70 3608510 mob. (+31) (0)6 40293574 Steun vrije kennis! Kijk op wikimedia.nl http://www.wikimedia.nl/pagina/doneren-aan-wikimedia-nederland *Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:* Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3 3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht ABNAMRO NL33 ABNA 0497164833 - Kamer van Koophandel 17189036 2015-05-24 14:59 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com: It has now been over a year that my email address was put on moderation (perhaps someone would like to provide a date, I have not trawled the archives). In the absence of any appeal process, I ask that this is lifted. My most recent email to this list has yet to be posted, it has been waiting for 9 days. Waiting for several days or over a week is now the norm for my rare posts to list. Though not one of my emails has ever been rejected from publication, this effectively makes communication impossible and amounts to an effective ban after being black-balled. Based on timing, I was put on moderation apparently due to Russavia's incivil posts to Wikimedia-l, not because of any email I have ever posted to this list that anyone can provide a link to, nor for any reason of incivility on my part. If I am to remain forever on moderation I ask that a clear rationale be given so that I can change the wording I use in emails to met whatever the list moderators believe is needed. At the current time I am completely in the dark as nobody will discuss this with me or provide examples. Thanks, Fae -- fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ 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, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"
The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and get them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so at a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm. Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and POV and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them so no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations of the articles. I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this. As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby poor countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody accounts. Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether the entire case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners destroying the business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other easterners just trying to put food on the table for their kids. Trillium Corsage 02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" : > Glad to hear it. > > Original message > From: James Heilman > Date: 09/01/2015 10:31 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam > targeting small businesses and celebrities" > > We have a number of discussions ongoing with respect to what measures we > > should take to address the issue of promotional paid editing generally and > > to prevent this from happening again > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_James/Paid_editing > > -- > > James Heilman > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine > > www.opentextbookofmedicine.com > > As of July 2015 I am a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation > > My emails; however, do not represent the official position of the WMF > > ___ > > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > ___ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"
Response to Peter Southwood's question. Are the investigators acting in bad faith? Does a mob know it is a mob, or is it that the people in it have lost the capacity for self-critical and analytic thought? On the one Orangemoody article I've been able to review so far, Bosch Sensortec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_Sensortec), I found it to be a solidly-sourced, neutrally-toned, and informative "stub." It's currently being derided by Orangemoody investigators as promotional copy-and-paste of an alleged company press release (which has not been pointed to) and further claimed without visible evidence to have been contracted out by Orangemoody to a low-wage author through Elance. The answer is that I don't know; in order to examine it further I'd like to view the deleted articles to see for myself whether they were actually promotional and unsourced obvious advocacy articles. Or if, like Bosch Sensortec, they tended actually to be pretty good. Unfortunately the Orangemoody investigation's team has decided they must remain unavailable to the public, allegedly to protect the article subjects from repeat alleged victimization. Trillium Corsage 03.09.2015, 07:55, "Peter Southwood" : > Do you really think they may be acting in bad faith? > Peter > > -Original Message- > From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Trillium Corsage > Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2015 10:58 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail > scam targeting small businesses and celebrities" > > The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the > apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, > organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and > get them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of > safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so > at a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm. > > Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and > POV and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them > so no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the > investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations > of the articles. > > I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own > articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said > this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this. > > As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused > Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. > Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby > poor countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody > accounts. Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether > the entire case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners > destroying the business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other > easterners just trying to put food on the table for their kids. > > Trillium Corsage > > 02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" : >> Glad to hear it. ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)
"Community" is a loaded term, because it is typically self-praisingly used by a relatively small number of administratively-oriented Wikipedians to describe themselves. It's basically WP:AN/ANI, Arbcom & associated access level seekers, and those who use Wikipedia as a social or socializing network. The vast majority of *content* editors, occasional or prolific, are completely unaware of this other side of Wikipedia. It's they who build the encyclopedia. I'd argue that where Wikipedia articles are good, it's a result of the content editors, not the administrative participants lauding themselves for riding herd on them. Lila Tretikov has said that the proper definition of the Wikipedia "community" is *all* the editors, administrative participants, and readers. The administrative subset is not a *representative* subset of that. It's rather a self-selecting and much smaller subset with its own behaviors. You can see this recently I think, where in the current Arbcom elections, it has installed a filter to screen editors with less than 500 edits from asking questions of the candidates. I'm not aware that it has yet barred such editors from actually voting, but that would be the next step following its own logic. What the administrative component is doing is protecting its own influence and position by keeping these others out of the process. Todd Allen took it a step farther below by proclaiming "community members" as "way more important than readers." Seems pretty brazen and non-inclusive to me, and illustrative of the attitudes of the administrative set. Trillium Corsage 02.12.2015, 16:36, "Todd Allen" : > That's nice. Do you want me to explicitly say "Volunteers are more > important than readers"? Alright. Volunteers (community members, or > dismissively, "power users") are way more important than readers. We're the > reason there are readers at all. > On Dec 2, 2015 9:20 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Also, the banner pops up, comes down, and covers most of the page. That's >> > really not acceptable. Wikimedia should follow acceptable ad practices, >> > which means a small and STATIC banner, not something that moves, shouts, >> or >> > otherwise interferes with page content. That should be done even if it >> > makes it less effective and raises less money, just to address the >> > inevitable butbutbut. >> >> Well, to be fair, the Foundation seems to have done its homework on these >> issues with last month's survey.[1] >> >> When it comes to matters like banner intrusiveness, what matters most is >> what the average reader thinks. Volunteers are not necessarily a >> representative sample. >> >> [1] >> >> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Wikimedia_Reader_Survey_November_2015.pdf >> ___ >> 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, >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ___ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Wishlist Survey: Top 10 wishes!
17.12.2015, 01:26, "Sam Klein" : > Thanks to all for organizing the survey and for sharing! > And a mentor-friendly feature I've wanted for a long time: > #10. Add a user watchlist That's not only mentor-friendly, it's hounder-friendly and harrasser-friendly. Really, you should have a look at the seamier side of (at least) English WIkipedia. There are people, particularly among the administrative set, with null interest in articles but consumed with interpersonal conflict and targeting of others. It's not a small problem. Trillium Corsage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Wishlist Survey: Top 10 wishes!
28.12.2015, 21:00, "James Heilman" : > Deadlinks are one of the most common ways of spamming Wikipedia. Paid > editors replace deadlinks with links to the spam site which now contains > the contain as it way copied from waybackmachine. Linking to waybackmachine > is thus superior. > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian Not necessarily disbelieving you, but can you point to a single, concrete example of a "paid editor replacing a deadlink with a link to the spam site copied from waybackmachine?" I'd like to see what you are talking about. Trillium Corsage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Tech survey on watchlist use
My English Wikipedia talkpage is watchlisted by a surprising number of users that I have no cooperative or friendly editing relationship with. Some of them refer to themselves as "talkpage stalkers." Might it be possible for a user to prohibit such persons from watchlisting him or her? If it's not possible to selectively prohibit, how about an on/off switch, i.e. *no-one* may watchlist an editor's individual talkpage. Trillium Corsage 21.05.2016, 02:20, "Johan Jönsson" : > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:06 AM, Danny Horn <dh...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki watchlist, >> one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we conducted >> at the end of last year. [1] >> >> We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help inform >> our work. > > Hi everyone, > > A couple of months ago, the Community Tech team ran a survey to gather > information on how Wikimedians use their watchlists. You can see the > results here: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Survey_results > > If you're interested, there are also some very early and rough > wireframes available on the project page: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Tech/Cross-wiki_watchlist#Current_work.2C_for_discussion > > //Johan Jönsson > -- > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harassment and blaming the victim
Obviously racial criticisms and so forth are awful like Pax said, but on the matter of "troublemakers who are banned" I say it's a greatly overblown issue chiefly emphasized by administrative participants who feel their authority is threatened. One should really look to the nature of the ban-evading edits. If they are productive edits, I quarrel with the actions of those that revert them because of the supposed villainous character of any bannee or their psychological need to "teach the bannee a lesson" or temperamental or intellectual inability to actually appraise the edits. Take a look at Russavia. He did an immense amount of contributions. He's banned by WMF for, what, an escapade in which he got Australian novelty artist "Pricasso" who paints with his penis to do a portrait of Jimbo Wales, who quickly alleged "sexual harassment?" (That's one theory, but I'd argue that he's actually banned for, in his capacity as Wikimedia Commons administrator, attempting to investigate the real-life stalking of Dutch Wikipedia's MoiraMoira, which I say was a case that WMF wanted to quickly go away.) Russavia was an immensely productive participant, and he's been shabbily treated. Consider that the makeup of (at least) English Wikipedia administrative structure is in fact a bullyocracy. There are so few controls on what are essentially "imperial administrators." There're an hundred more examples, but I think right now of "BWilkins" who actually told some poor editor to "rot in the hell that is is eternal block." And nobody even blinked at it. It and an array of his other horrific actions went to Arbcom, and they wouldn't even consent to hear it the first time. He ran amok for like two more years, before an genuinely Herculean effort by some editors, assisted by off-wiki criticicism, finally resulted in his desysoping. But what of all the good editors he'd done away with by that time. There's no repair system for that. And WMF "san-fran-bans" are one thing. If you people are talking about "community bans," that's a complete misnomer for the actions of the regulars at WP:AN/ANI. There's no charter for WP:AN/ANI, there's no rules-based process for its "vote him or her off the island" mob violence, it's completely illegitimate mainly from the sadistic tendencies of some of those regulars that, I dunno, also want to feel superior and important. Anyhow, I'm just trying to illuminate a different perspective on the hundreds and hundreds of wrongly perma-blocked editors, and as well the thousands and thousands of perma-blocked IP editors in this nearly completely unaccountable administrative system that attracts some of the worse kind of psychologies imaginable. Trillium Corsage 05.06.2016, 17:49, "Pine W" : > Hi Pax and Pete, > > It sounds like part of the issue in this case may be that may we need more > effective tools for dealing with troublemakers who are banned but continue > to return and cause problems. I'm wondering if Patrick Early can comment on > what efforts WMF is making in terms of dealing with persistent block > evasion. > > Pine > On Jun 5, 2016 07:13, "Pax Ahimsa Gethen" > wrote: > >> I am defining harassment primarily as personal attacks, not merely >> disputes (even strongly-worded disagreement) over content. >> >> Some examples of what I consider harassment: >> >> - Vandalizing an editor's user or talk page (hence my Inspire proposal: >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Protect_user_space_by_default >> ) >> >> - Making derogatory comments about an editor's gender, sex, race, >> ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or (dis)ability >> >> - Posting personal information about an editor that was gathered off-Wiki >> >> - Evading bans with IP-hopping to do any of the above. >> >> These actions not only cause "net harm to community health," they cause >> unnecessary, avoidable harm to specific individuals, and discourage >> marginalized people from participating in the project. >> >> - Pax >> >> On 6/5/16 5:09 AM, Pine W wrote: >> >>> Hi Pax, >>> >>> I agree that blaming the victim is an unsatisfactory resolution. >>> >>> On the other hand, defining what is meant by "incivility" and "harassment" >>> can be very tricky. Just because there is a strong disagreement doesn't >>> imply that people are being uncivil, and we cannot expect that no one will >>> ever lose his or her temper when provoked. Similarly, a pattern of >>> disagreement doesn't necessarily imply harassment, and the presumption of >>> good faith is
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia Foundation Form 990 for FY 2014-2015 now on-wiki
19.05.2016, 17:25, "Chris Keating" : > I'd like to second this question - 1.7M is a very significant sum and I am > surprised that WMF has reason to spend this much on legal services (I had > the impression that the WMF legal department handled most things > themselves). I was surprised how little WMF Legal do themselves. When a legal matter comes up, it seems what they do is find a law firm to pay to handle it. This happened in the case of Yank Berry, vocalist of 60s rock and roll group the Kingsmen (Louie Louie, etc.), who was astounded at the edits at his article by editors and administrators who very openly said on-wiki their intent was to portray him as a swindler and someone of low moral character. Mr. Berry credibly threatened a libel lawsuit and WMF Legal reacted by hiring some law firm to defend the editors. What WMF Legal seems to do itself is modify and update the terms of service, give advise to the board, coordinate with WMF Trust and Safety in the banning of certain editors, and handle routine inquiries. Trillium Corsage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report
30.01.2016, 14:03, "Maggie Dennis" : > The pictures may not be the individuals at all; they may be pornographic > pictures of others that are misattributed. And sometimes the attribution is > not to a real name, but to their usernames. In all cases, the intent seems > to be to humiliate and hurt the target. Sometimes the goal seems to be to > drive them away. That was the story of Lightbreather, a English Wiipedia editor that self-identified as female. She ran afoul of some other editor that (IIRC, I'm confident this is basically correct) that labeled some images on a porn site as being her (they were labeled "Lightbreather"). The outcome (GET THIS!) was that she (Lightbreather!) was formally banned by Arbcom for complaining about it at Wikipedia. They said she was "outing" the culprit by calling attention to his off-wiki activities. Horrendous I know and tends to shows that Arbcom and the rest of Enwiki administrative structure genuinely have a problem with women, which they are often alleged to (i.e. in Gamergate and all that). Trillium Corsage PS: A similar thing happened to editor Kiefer Wolfowitz. After seeking in vain to get a email reply about another editor that was exhibiting curious-approaching-alarming interactions with boys and young men, he sought, in measured terms, comments from the arbs and WMF staff on WIkipedia. Arbcom then banned Kiefer, protecting the editor in question with whom at least one of the arbs (Wormthatturned) was very friendly. I guess a year or so after that, the WMF quietly issued a no-comment "SanFranBan" against the editor Kiefer had complained about. Which would indicate Kiefer had a legitimate concern all along. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 12, Issue 07 -- 17 February 2016
Hang tough, Lila Tretikov. This will all pass. These people leaving blaming you, bah! You are cleaning the WMF cupboard, and that's overdue. Don't let anybody or anything psyche you out. Trillium Corsage 19.02.2016, 21:31, "Wikipedia Signpost" : > Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of > Lila Tretikov > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-17/Special_report ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings
The "minutes" released to the public are ridiculously scant. I tried to find out more last year about the board's removing the identification requirement from those the WMF grants access to the non-public information of contributors, but ran into dead-ends. The only thing I could decipher really is that boardmember Samuel Klein raised the motion to remove the requirement. Trillium Corsage 03.03.2016, 16:22, "Brion Vibber" : > On Mar 3, 2016 8:19 AM, "Pete Forsyth" <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Enjoying this discussion, glad to see it happening. One question I haven't >> seen addressed: >> >> Are there notes kept during executive sessions? > > Per the minutes policy listed on wiki yes they are kept; they are kept > separate by the secretary and not published. > > -- Brion > >> From what I've seen, it seems that the answer might be no -- and that >> doesn't seem good. Having minutes is not the same thing as publishing >> minutes; but keeping notes on private meetings, if only for the >> participants to return to when there is a need to refresh their memories > > or >> resolve disputes, seems important. >> >> For similar reasons, I like the idea of video- or audio-recording > > meetings, >> *independent* of the question of whether such recordings should be more >> widely distributed. >> >> -Pete >> [[User:Peteforsyth]] ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings
26.04.2016, 03:25, "John Mark Vandenberg" <jay...@gmail.com>: > My reading of that is Jimmy supported her "departure" with sadness. > i.e. he avoids indicating how the departure occurred; neither dismissal nor > resignation. > > No doubt that type of phrasing is in the HR handbook for situations like > this, to avoid pain or legal disputes after the fact. > > Thank you Craig for nipping this one in the bud. Craig gave the right link. Here's the exact exchange. Gorillawarfare: I would love to know whether you supported Lila Tretikov's departure. It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own, and I would like to know if you were one of the folks who thought her departure would be beneficial, or if you preferred she "weather the storm," so to speak. Jimbo Wales: I supported it with sadness. The whole thing is a sad train wreck. Yeah, it's accurate no-one says the word "dismissal." That was my interpretation of it based on recollection, I wasn't trying to introduce a new concept to anything. I don't understand why we're walking on eggshells really. Jimbo "supported her departure with sadness." It seems pretty clear he's not referring to getting misty-eyed over cake at Lila's farewell party. He did something. He's not quarreling with Gorillawarfare's take that "she did not up and resign on her own." As just an observer from afar, I liked Lila and thought she was doing a good job. She hired a child-protection person for one thing. However I've heard about the employee poll that said she really was failing to get support from the ranks, and I'm in no position to second-guess that. And then a couple months ago, she's getting bashed right and left on this very list, with a person going so far as to say she should "choke on shame" and "just go away." With no objection from the list moderators.Jimbo is going bonkers on James Heilman regarding his characterization of "Knowledge Engine." And of course Lila was a proponent of that. All the same, her resignation came quickly and as a surprise to me. If the board had no discussion on her future and did NOT ask for or otherwise overtly encourage her resignation, it would be easy enough for any one of them to say that. If they on the other hand actually did meet or tele-conference and vote on it, that's the meeting I wanted minutes for. And obviously (thank Risker!) this doesn't mean I want to gawk at gossipy details of trustees criticizing her, I just would like to know which trustees gave the thumbs down, which didn't, and which introduced the motion. Is this secret HR stuff that would embarrass Lila? It doesn't seem that way to me. There've been a dozen news stories on her leaving, and none have reported it was on wonderful terms all around. So what's the big deal? Publish the minutes or say "there was no meeting, there are no minutes." Trillium Corsage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
[Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?
I noticed Michelle Paulson editing the "Cookie Statement" page, and it seemed kind of strange to me because I thought it more a technical and IT thing to edit. But Michelle is WMF Legal, right? Is WMF doing something new (or newish, maybe I'm a little late in picking up on this) with cookies? Can someone describe to me what that is, in layman's terms? Is it about third-party marketing and working up personal profiles of editors and readers? What sort of new information is the WMF gathering, if it is, on editors and readers? Are there privacy concerns we should be worried about? Will the information gathered by the cookies be made available to the anonymous administrative "volunteers" the WMF grants access to the non-public information of editors? The so-called "sockpuppet investigators" and so forth? Here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Cookie_statement=historysubmit=revision=105722=104960. Trillium Corsage ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings
Not responding to the particulars of the discussion below, but still on the topic expressed in the header above, I would like to know if the minutes of the board meeting in which the trustees voted to dismiss the executive director Lila Tretikov will be published. I did look for them (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes) but these minutes (if they exist) are not currently there. Jimbo responded to arbitrator GorillaWarfare on this list, basically, "yes, I supported with sadness the decision to dismiss Lila." I am interested a little further. I would like to know if Jimbo not only supported but *introduced* the motion to dismiss Lila. If not him, okay, but then whom? Thank you. I'd like to review some minutes but would also be pleased to hear the comment of any trustee that was there. Jimbo has already revealed his vote, so it doesn't seem like another trustee should be criticized for violating any confidence, after all Wikimedia prides itself on transparency. Trillium Corsage 16.03.2016, 12:17, "Andreas Kolbe" : > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:51 AM, SarahSV wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, John Mark Vandenberg >> > wrote: >> >> Are we still waiting for Jimmy to agree/reject to James' request to >> >> release an email? >> > >> > Yes. Jimmy said on 28 February that he wanted to speak to others about >> > whether it was okay to release his 30 December 2015 email to James. [1] >> > >> > There's also the question of releasing the more recent email he sent to >> > James and cc-ed to Pete. >> > >> > James has said nothing needs to be kept confidential for his sake. [2] >> > >> > Sarah >> > >> > [1] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-March/083058.html >> > [2] >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2016-February/082815.html >> >> Jimmy, could you please treat this request with the absolute highest >> priority. It has gone on too long. >> If some parts must be redacted because you cant get agreement from >> other parties, then so be it -- just tell us why (broadly) some part >> was redacted. > > As far as I am aware, we are still waiting for an answer from Jimmy here. > The same applies to the question Sarah posed here[1] and others repeated > here.[2] > > There is a very understandable sense of fatigue that sets in when things > drag out like this. Everybody gets tired of the topic after a while. But I > submit that there is a systemic issue here that has blighted communication > in this movement for long enough. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings
Risker, your suggestion that by asking for board minutes I was really calling (and "pruriently" so!) for public release of Lila's performance appraisals is so bizarre and ridiculous that I don't know how to defend it except by advising anyone confused by you to actually read my prior email. Similarly, your assertion that "Patricio's email and public posting stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it" equates to official board minutes, and no more is needed, leaves me a bit lost for words. What I asked for is a document like the dozens posted here (https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Meetings), and as I've written here before those things are so sparse of detail to barely qualify as "minutes" but they *do* typically say who raised a motion, who seconded it, and the result. Which is all I asked for. Now, what you also did is place the resignation ball firmly in Lila's court "Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it." This is at odds with the common perception that the board issued the call for her resignation, and she had little choice as a professional but to comply. Is that not what you thought? Or you thought the resignation came spontaneously from Lila? At least GorillaWarfare didn't see it that way. She said " It is clear that she did not up and resign on her own." Anyhow, it's a simple request for transparency. The board should publish the minutes or let it be known otherwise which trustee initiated (and which seconded) (and which opposed if any) the call for the ED's resignation. Trillium Corsage 16.04.2016, 02:23, "Risker" : > I think they already have been - by Patricio's email and public posting > stating that Lila tendered her resignation and the Board accepted it. It > doesn't matter who makes the motion to accept the resignation, since the > Board would have to debate it regardless; for motions like this, the > identity of the mover is more process than substance. > > The rest of the discussion would be a human resources matter which I > certainly hope was not recorded, or if it was, that it would ever be > published. I cannot imagine that anyone on this list would seriously > believe that personal performance appraisals should be published. It would > probably violate quite a few labour and human rights laws, not to mention > the separation agreement that no doubt exists. That's not transparency, > it's prurience. > > Risker/Anne ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Kevin Gorman has passed away
When Kevin first became an administrator there was something he did that I found objectionable. It would be poor form to revisit that now, but I mention it to avoid making a saint of the guy. I had later glimpses of him and he seemed like a good guy. He seemed overall like a kind human spirit and I'm sad that he's off to the next destination so soon. By messages and his Facebook page he was an organ donor, and his heart is beating in some other person right now. Consider designating yourself as an organ donor, everyone, mark the option on your driver's license or identification. Trillium Corsage 29.07.2016, 22:26, "Ed Erhart" : > I regret to inform everyone that Kevin Gorman, a Wikipedian who was the > first Wikipedian-in-residence at a US university or college, has passed > away. There is a memorial page on Facebook, and editors are leaving > condolences on his English Wikipedia talk page. > > https://www.facebook.com/bombus.memoriam/ > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kevin_Gorman > > Best, > --Ed > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice
FYI, and to finish this matter off for the list: "Not on my watch. I have no access to past conversations so cannot comment on the conversation you say you have had with list admins in the past..." says Asaf. I furnished Asaf with verbatim copies of the relevant emails that he may be confident it was not merely a "conversations I "say" I have had." It is accurate though that I erred by recalling that the list moderator suggested I was "trolling" when he actually used the word "baiting." Trillium Corsage > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:20 AM Trillium Corsage <trillium2...@yandex.com> > wrote: > >>>> As always, he is (and other >>>> moderated users are) welcome to submit posts to the list before then, >> and >>>> if the posts are respectful and on-topic, they would be let through. >> >> That has not been my experience. In fact the last time I sent a >> coherently-explained, completely civil, on-topic,and time-sensitive email >> to the list, it was held by a moderator who: >> >> A) Suggested I was "trolling the WMF" (is trolling an entire >> 100-person-plus organization even possible?) >> >> B) Faulted it on bases including that I used the phrase "couple days" >> (i.e. "this might take a couple days") rather than his preferred >> formulation "couple *of* days" >> >> C) Put it up for a consensus vote among the other list moderators. >> >> I see the list has some new moderators, but I figure odds are this email >> will be stopped as well. > > Not on my watch. I have no access to past conversations so cannot comment > on the conversation you say you have had with list admins in the past, but > I will state for the record that I think grammatical imperfections (real or > perceived) are absolutely not an acceptable reason to withhold a message > from the list. The vast majority of subscribers are not native speakers of > English, and even if they were, language snobbery is an anti-pattern for > constructive communication. > > Re trolling, I am personally very wary of applying that label, and lean > toward avoiding it in all but the most extreme cases. Neither a favorable > opinion of the WIkimedia Foundation, nor a real-world identity, are a > prerequisite for posting on this list. It is perfectly acceptable and > on-topic to question or criticize the Wikimedia Foundation on this list, so > long as one adheres to basic rules of discourse: remaining civil, concise, > on-topic, and respectful in the face of disagreement; avoiding repetition, > aggression, and irrelevant hobby-horses; etc. > > A. > ___ > 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, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia
06.06.2017, 01:11, "Risker" <risker...@gmail.com>: > As far as I can tell (and from comments made in the past by actual Tor > users), there is no problem whatsoever for Tor users to read Wikipedia > while using Tor. Editing is a completely different situation - and well it > should be, given the pure unadulterated trash that tends to come in > whenever a Tor exit node is missed in the routine lockdowns. Risker, example of "pure unadulterated trash" edits on Wikipedia, or are we just to take your word for it? You know, how about two examples? Trillium Corsage ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia
David Gerard, you and "John" go on about how horrible the English Wikipedia edits from Tor are. Can you give a couple examples (and quote them) just so we have a little basis to believe that no Tor editor was ever good, and refute the notion that the blocking of Tor IPs that haven't done anything bad is done by administrative hall monitors with too much time on their hands for no good reason? I am grateful though that John pledges solemnly to observe WP:BEANS. Trillium Corsage 05.06.2017, 18:44, "David Gerard" <dger...@gmail.com>: > Editing may be a tricky one, particularly on en:wp, which has found > Tor exit points to overwhelmingly be fountains of garbage, and > automatically blocks them. > > - d. > > On 5 June 2017 at 18:30, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think that's an excellent idea and very much aligned with our commitment >> to provide free information also for those who are living under unfavorable >> conditions. >> >> I personally endorse it. >> >> Thanks Cristian for suggesting it. >> >> Regards, >> Micru >> >> On Jun 5, 2017 19:11, "Cristian Consonni" <crist...@balist.es> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have written a proposal about setting up an onion (hidden) service to >>> serve Wikipedia over Tor: >>> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/A_Tor_ >>> Onion_Service_for_Wikipedia >>> >>> I was thinking about this and I also discovered that the Internet >>> Archive is experimenting with a very similar idea: >>> www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/750- >>> Freedom-of-Information.html >>> >>> I would like to have some feedback on this, I am also in contact with >>> the author of the aforementioned proxy which could be able to give some >>> help in setting it up. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Cristian ___ 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
