Re: [Wikimedia-l] Staff Images

[Eddy Paine]

Hi, 
I didn't say that people with thats are not proffesionals. I have multiple 
myself also. 
I am saying that the page has a lay-out with pictures that all fit together and 
are specially made for that page. I believe you shouldn't destroy the lay-out 
or style by adding "personal" pictures. Otherwhise you should lose the style 
completly. 
Secondly we are a world wide organisation, and there are still enough countries 
where tats are not accepted yet. So it can be wise to try to minimise the 
things on pictures that can be offensive for some people. 
And as last. Brandon places his tattoo first and makes his face blurry. Thats 
why I started posting. If both the tattoo would be vissible and his face I 
wouldn't have any problems at all. 
Ed
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Staff Images

[Eddy Paine]

Dan, 
A placeholder for people without pictures shouldn't be a problem. Thats common 
use. And they are all the same so thats a OK thing.  
The picture of Rory is a picture of Rory. It even says its a mascot and I agree 
with Erik we need Tux for Engineering. 
And no, we are not in the 1950's but as a international organisation we should 
still keep in mind that tattoos aren't accepted world wide. Placing your tattoo 
on a staff page and your face faded away is provocating the fact that he has 
tattoo's and not proffesional. 
Secondly all staff pictures are made by a professional photographer? Or kind of 
in the same setting. That will keep the page uniform also. 
Ed
> From: swatjes...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:02:56 -0400
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Staff Images
> 
> I don't see any problem with it. I'm not sure how it is somehow more
> unprofessional than "absentee" (for lack of a better term) pictures being
> labeled "Cloak of invisibility?" Or the picture of Rory as "mascot"?
> 
> Further, what does "all but neutral" mean?
> 
> Really, aren't there better things to do than play morality police because
> someone "might" be upset about some ink? This isn't the 1950's. Who is
> upset, and why?
> 
> -Dan
> 
> 
> Dan Rosenthal
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Eddy Paine  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > While its maybe not something for the whole community. Since only Staff
> > can edit Wikimedia Foundation website I believe this will be the correct
> > place to post this.
> > I feel that the staff images on the Foundation site should show the staff
> > in a good way where nobody can have a problem with it. The images being
> > made by professionals for that.
> > I believe the image Brandon Harris is using since this night is not
> > suitable for a staff picture. The ink he is showing can discourage people
> > and the picture is all but neutral. Secondly he isn't even really on the
> > picture his is faded out.
> > I would strongly advice to keep the images there proffesional.
> > Ed
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Staff Images

[Eddy Paine]

Hi, 
While its maybe not something for the whole community. Since only Staff can 
edit Wikimedia Foundation website I believe this will be the correct place to 
post this. 
I feel that the staff images on the Foundation site should show the staff in a 
good way where nobody can have a problem with it. The images being made by 
professionals for that. 
I believe the image Brandon Harris is using since this night is not suitable 
for a staff picture. The ink he is showing can discourage people and the 
picture is all but neutral. Secondly he isn't even really on the picture his is 
faded out. 
I would strongly advice to keep the images there proffesional. 
Ed
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

[Eddy Paine]

Martijn, I think the main source of the problems here is that we have a users 
that wants to share the knowledge, share his edits and got locked out and will 
start doing or trying things so he can edit again. This can be strange 
behavior. Sure, people will not like it.I am sure that every user can use his 
temper and doing personal attacks. A personal attack is easy to do, hard to 
forgot and even harder to forgive. But then there is a discussion between two 
people from two sides.Copyright violations ARE a problem. But I didn't see any 
violations in the logs. If there are I strongly believe he should be blocked. 
Copyright violations can lead to legal costs and people don't donate for that. 
But again, I don't see logs about that.He is now blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia 
for what? 4 years? In between he has been a administrator on many projects and 
a good member of them. So I don't believe that he is unfit to work on a 
project. People voted him to be administrator, or doing work for the movement 
by handling mailing-list and blogs. So the question here is why can he work on 
projects for years without problems and got unfit for the WHOLE community on 
request by one or two projects. We got 700 projects? 
Ed
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

[Eddy Paine]

Hello, 
First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it very 
strange how people behave against other people and I would like to write about 
it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user but there are more 
users like this. 
I understand that its needed for people to block users when the encyclopedia or 
the project is in danger, but where do will place the border? I think 
destroying people or behaving against people like I will describe below is also 
endangering the project. We should all remember that we are humans and not 
robots and everybody makes mistakes. Therefor I am sure that there was behavior 
that was totally wrong, but the way the whole international community decided 
to handle it was wrong also.
First of all we have a policy against socks. In that policy we describe that 
its not right to edit with two accounts at the same time or working together 
with 2 accounts to get something done. Secondly its not right to use new 
accounts to evade blocks. Lastly bot accounts are not seen as socks neither are 
old and unused accounts. Besides that we have a policy in place that says that 
people are free to leave the project or abandon a username and continue with a 
new name. This I guess is for protecting the project and protecting the people 
that work on it. 
Now to get to my case. On 3 July on Meta a attack started against a former 
Dutch Wikipedia user. This attack was mainly started by people of the Dutch 
Wikipedia. The same people that are willing to destroy this user. 
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor) now before you all 
click away this message hear me out and give me opinions. This is now almost 
two years ago and a good moment to look back. If I am wrong please point me to 
that and lets keep a good talk instead of going all "don't waste our time". 
In this case there was a big list of names that where socks and this 
"sockmaster" needed to be blocked. But when we look at our policies and on that 
list we see the following: 
Abigor (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - thats meAbiBot (talk 
• contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot 
editsAbiBot.nl.wiki (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock 
its a bot, only did bot editsAbibot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki 
• CA) (renamed to AbiBot[2], self acknowledged)Huib (talk • contribs • block • 
SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Created on request by meta communety en en.wiki 
communety, because I sign with Huib while I'm abigor... Its points to my abigor 
account and its created to protect my own account. Execpt for the rename edits, 
it didn't edit at all.Huib (old) (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • 
CA) Did a rename request to get Huib free..Sterkebak (talk • contribs • block • 
SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to 
use that oneSterkeBak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old 
account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkebot (talk 
• contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot 
editsSterkeBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed from 
Sterkebot[3][4] and later renamed to AbiBot[5][6])P.J.L Laurens (talk • 
contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - Its a account created for my 
uploads, it has a different userpage on Commons with information about me as 
photographer. Didn't do any edits just created for the userpage and 
information. All my uploads are pointed to this one with a link.WikiLinkBot 
(talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot. Only 
editted on nl.wiki to let its userpage be removed, the dutch admins didn't want 
to remove the page.This list is ctrl C Ctrl V from Meta. 
Now go to the policy: 
Abigor is the account of the user. Than we have AbiBot, AbiBot.nl.Wiki and 
Abibot sterkebot SterkeBot as bot accounts. According to the policy accounts 
used by a bot without human edits are not socks. Huib and Huib (old) Sterkbak 
SterkeBak P.J.L Laurens. All those names are old accounts without overlapping 
edits so according to the policy its not socking. Some accounts doesn't have 
edits at all but where only there to redirect. WikiLinkBot is intresting cause 
its now in use by a other user. This user is also the source for the blocking 
on the Dutch Wikipedia. Abigor would have placed personal attacks against this 
user and now the user is having that accounts. Very intresting don't you think. 
Then we get a bunch of accounts: 
Accounts with only a few edits and no CU results where linked to this users. I 
strongly believe that we should have proof before pointing something out and 
say "hey it was you". But the account where I want to speak about is Delay. We 
have the policy that says that you can start right over with a new account. But 
still a Foundation employee confirms a link between the Delay Account and the 
Abigor account

Re: [Wikimedia-l] movement blog, not WMF blog, was: Go away, community (from WMF wiki at least)

[Eddy Paine]

Hello, 
A strange thing about the conversation that was going on before it escalated 
isn't addressed at all. Something is happening on Meta. The community takes 
action and then a few months later everything is passed and the user is 
unblocked and working happily again. But then *BOOM* a Wikimedia Foundation 
Staff member decided that he should be removed. The discussion if he is 
informed or not can't be proofed, its a fact that other users say the same was 
happening to them. Why did you wait three months to take action? While if you 
believed that there was a danger you should have removed the rights before 
that. Or where there any edits that made you believe that Huib / Abigor was 
doing the wrong things? Otherwise the story is different but the subject is the 
same. Staff removes volunteer without the real need. 
I do strongly believe that Tilman Bayer with his responds provoked Huib to say 
the things he said. And no its not good that Huib did. But there where enough 
discussions on this lists or on the Wiki where the conclusion is that users 
with a mental problem can have problems on the Wiki because we don't understand 
them. Or we don't want to understand them. When we look at the first e-mail 
send by Tilman you see he is pointing that at the moment that the rights where 
removed he was blocked on multiple Wiki's. I did take a quick look and in 
November it was going the right way with Abigor.
If there is a case of Autism with Abigor it is possible that it provoked him to 
give a personal attack. So lets continu without pointing fingers who did what 
wrong. Cause if Abigor thinks different than us it possible that Tilman 
provoked him. And the pointing to that was not needed to make his case.
Ed
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l