Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's set up a Tor onion service for Wikipedia

2017-06-13 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2017-06-11 Thread Trillium Corsage
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>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Moderation notice

2017-03-06 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Kevin Gorman has passed away

2016-08-01 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Harassment and blaming the victim

2016-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2016-05-31 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Community Tech survey on watchlist use

2016-05-25 Thread Trillium Corsage
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>

[Wikimedia-l] What New Thing is WMF Doing w. Cookies, & Why is Legal Involved?

2016-05-01 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2016-04-26 Thread Trillium Corsage
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>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-04-16 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Open and recorded WMF Board meetings

2016-04-15 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2016-03-03 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost -- Volume 12, Issue 07 -- 17 February 2016

2016-02-19 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] 2015 Harassment Survey - Results Report

2016-01-30 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Community Wishlist Survey: Top 10 wishes!

2015-12-28 Thread Trillium Corsage
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 Wishlist Survey: Top 10 wishes!

2015-12-20 Thread Trillium Corsage


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] Fundraising banner (again)

2015-12-02 Thread Trillium Corsage
"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] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-03 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"

2015-09-02 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] What's cool?

2015-06-11 Thread Trillium Corsage
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?

2015-06-11 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2015-05-26 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Access to Private Information Policy: How Long Will This Be Left a Question Mark?

2015-04-13 Thread Trillium Corsage
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?

2015-04-12 Thread Trillium Corsage
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?

2015-04-12 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Board transparency (thread fork)

2015-03-16 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2015-02-24 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

[Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila (Harassment Policy)

2015-02-02 Thread Trillium Corsage
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)

2015-02-02 Thread Trillium Corsage
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)

2015-02-02 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2015-01-20 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2015-01-20 Thread Trillium Corsage


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] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

2014-08-13 Thread Trillium Corsage


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Advocacy Advisors] Transparency and right to be forgotten notices from search engines

2014-08-06 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Proposal: List administration policy

2014-07-11 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy

2014-06-29 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy

2014-06-27 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2014-06-27 Thread Trillium Corsage
@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

[Wikimedia-l] Open Letter to Lila Regarding Access to Non-Public Information Policy

2014-06-26 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

[Wikimedia-l] Stop the New Privacy Policy until Lila is Thoroughly Briefed on It, Countdown 14 Hours

2014-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2014-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage
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

2014-06-05 Thread Trillium Corsage
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] A Quick Hello from New List Subscriber

2014-06-04 Thread Trillium Corsage
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