I'm with Thomas Dalton on this. If we allow role accounts then sooner or
later we will get edit wars by two different people logged into the same
account, disputes about U1 an G7 deletions where one person used an account
to create something and another user of the same account then gets upset.
In the course of editing an article today, I came across these Objects.
THE TRUSTEES SHALL HOLD THE TRUST FUND AND ITS INCOME UPON TRUST TO
APPLY THEM FOR SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL IN THEIR
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION FROM TIME TO TIME THINK FIT.
Wow. Carte blanche.
Gordo
I can't imagine a good rationale for a role account. Many of us have
legitimate socks as open wifi accounts or demonstration accounts (such
as my vanilla user:Faelig to show what a normal account logged in
looks like) and accounts like user:Jon Davies (WMUK) seem suitable and
sensible without
On 29/04/12 11:20, Gordon Joly wrote:
In the course of editing an article today, I came across these Objects.
THE TRUSTEES SHALL HOLD THE TRUST FUND AND ITS INCOME UPON TRUST TO
APPLY THEM FOR SUCH CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL IN THEIR
ABSOLUTE DISCRETION FROM TIME TO TIME THINK
I dont know whether this is what Richard and his friend were
discussing, but the MonmouthMuseumWales RFC has closed
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_namesoldid=489718366#MonmouthMuseumWales
On 29 April 2012 02:17, Richard Symonds chasemew...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I was of the understanding that it was something to do with copyright/legal
issues, but it's been a few years since I passed RfA, and I'm struggling to
remember the arguments that I once remembered so well. I had a
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
does say it is a copyright matter; but the page linked to doesn't seem
to spell that out. Perhaps it should.
Charles
As I
Not quite carte blanche. Surely such charitable purposes does limit them
to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable in UK law.
WSC
On 29 April 2012 11:20, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:
In the course of editing an article today, I came across these Objects.
On Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 13:08, Harry Burt wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com (mailto:charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com)
wrote:
snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_contact_role_accounts
does say it is a
Not quite carte blanche. Surely such charitable purposes does limit them
to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable in UK law.
Well, quite!
The main purpose of Trustees is to make sure the organisation only spends
money in pursuit of its charitable objectives. Which means
On 29 April 2012 13:30, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite carte blanche. Surely such charitable purposes does limit them
to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable in UK law.
Well, quite!
The main purpose of Trustees is to make sure the
On 29 April 2012 13:08, Harry Burt harryab...@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, role accounts are in all practical terms regarded merely
an accountability issue these days. Which is probably why no page goes
into detail on the copyright matter.
It also seems quite at odds with the fact that we
On 29 April 2012 13:46, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
On this issue I would argue along the same lines as I did on accepting
in-kind donations: We have trustees for a reason - to exercise their human
wisdom on things that are not absolutely black and white! If they aren't
given the
On 29 April 2012 14:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
With respect, this doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Please consider:
1. We allow IP editing. One IP may be shared by thousands of people. Any one
of them can say it wasn't them. If we are so careless about one half of
edits made to
We shouldn't confuse two overlapping issues here, role accounts and
promotional usernames. Neither are allowed in Wikipedia, but the objections
are different.
As for the comparison between IP accounts and registered accounts, yes
there is an anomaly which would matter if the reason for not
Is a user name like MonmouthMuseumWales promotional?
You could equally argue that it is transparent. And it is just this sort of
transparency which we demand from the Bell Pottingers of this world (and
crucify them for if we find them editing as John Smith, without telling
us who they work for).
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 2:34 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
blocking is much quicker than having a quiet word.
By the way, I do think you've hit the nail on the head here.
Andreas
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a
negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
it
On 29 April 2012 15:23, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with
usernames such as Millie C from Acme PR then it would be obviously
promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
For me the difference that matters is that they are part of the movement,
WMF and WMUK in accounts denote staff editors. Communicating that is
something I see as internal communication. There are lots of ways in which
we allow internal communication to do things that we would not allow
external
I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
especially in a case like Monmouth Museum.
Well the community is pretty sure about that, if you want to change that I
suggest you start with an RFC. Personally I'm not annoyed by not for
profits using promotional names and happy
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a very different subject. The choice is not between pushing things
underground and allowing promotional usernames. People can declare a COI
without revealing who they are or putting things in their
Thought I might give you some thoughts on this wet day.
It depends what you mean by a role account.
An account name, even if an apparently real name, is just a
pseudonym in Wikipedia terms - we are not allowed to consider the
real person behind the account (I
On 29/04/12 13:57, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Just to clarify, Gordon wasn't quoting WMUK's objects.
So true. I was a bit off topic.
Sorry about that!
Gordo
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
On 29/04/12 13:12, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Not quite carte blanche. Surely such charitable purposes does limit
them to spending the money on things that would be deemed charitable
in UK law.
WSC
This reminds me on the recent proposals of the UK Government to put a
cap on charitable giving,
We've been discussing just that in the office - however, the general
profile of donations to WMUK means that we're not really affected by the
cap on charitable giving. The vast majority of people who donate give less
than £20 - there's just an awful lot of people who do so.
Richard Symonds
Gordon, no offence, but wtf?
Can we try to keep discussions on this list at least tangentially relevant to
issues related to Wikimedia UK?
Harry
From: Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, 29 April 2012, 21:29
27 matches
Mail list logo
