http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=4389
Asaf Bartov wrote:
> But the Wikimedia way is one of public conversation, and I intend to devote
> attention to ensuring as much of the debate about grants and grantmaking does
> indeed happen in public.
Fantastic! :D
Will the new committee be working on a (writ
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 20:36, Thomas Morton
wrote:
> ... And the answer is twofold; firstly it is an assertion of independence. But
> mostly it seems to be due to a lack of clear communication between projects
> as to what abuse has occurred that merits such strong response. We need to
> detail th
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> To those of you not (yet) following the Wikimedia Blog, let me point your
> attention to my (first) blog post, introducing the Grant Advisory Committee:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/03/gac-it-up-introducing-the-gran
I am being a bit of a "jerk" over this, because I do know some of the
details (enough to support any global ban).
But the *point *I am trying to get across is this; Scott posted to this *
public* list asking why a global ban was not on the table for this guy, and
why projects were sidestepping any
I second everything that Risker has said.
I am not convinced that further public discussion of this situation is
really going to do anything other than feed Poetlister's ego, and create
exactly the bitterness and divisiveness in the community, or communities,
that it seems to be one of his aims to
On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue, then
> there seems no reason to demand a global ban. Bad stuff happened on WP with
> him impersonating real people, that seems to be dealt with. Unless there is
> anything more, the res
Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue, then
there seems no reason to demand a global ban. Bad stuff happened on WP with
him impersonating real people, that seems to be dealt with. Unless there is
anything more, the response seems kosher...
Except other comments indicate
Hello, everyone.
To those of you not (yet) following the Wikimedia Blog, let me point your
attention to my (first) blog post, introducing the Grant Advisory Committee:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/03/gac-it-up-introducing-the-grant-advisory-committee/
Thanks,
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Fo
On 06/01/11 7:55 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> There's a huge difference between "consulted Wikipedia on any matter in
>> their professional arena" and "relied exclusively on Wikipedia for a
>> medical matter about a patient's treatment".
>>
>> A doctor might well use it as a regular place (one of seve
The Register seems to be the only forum that is prepared to expose the gross
injustice meted out to me as [[en:wp:User:Rodhullandemu]], so, sorry, if I
need to take that route, it's a lot cheaper than employing Max Clifford. I
have nothing to hide here. Best of luck with dealing with that, but i
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
> Sent: 04 June 2011 01:41
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> Not at all!
Not at all! That would be bad, and misses the point - I don't care at all
who he is in meat space.
But consider me unable to pick apart the million threads of information
about his on-wiki activities. I've tried, and need a better intro.
Tom
On 4 June 2011 01:20, geni wrote:
> On 4 June 2011 0
On 4 June 2011 01:10, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
>
> I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
> exactly this person did.
>
> As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details
> cannot
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details
cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate
(I'm not sure offhand if I'm set up to cross-post to Foundation-l; if this
doesn't make it, somebody please CC a mention if necessary. Thanks!)
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM, aude wrote:
> Aside from the very real privacy issue, YouTube videos can disappear at any
> time. I would much rather w
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> 2011/6/3 Jon Harald Søby :
> > The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
> > embedding would be promoting YouTube
>
> Embedding YouTube videos in Wikimedia content would send IP addresses
> and other information about Wikimed
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg
> Sent: 04 June 2011 00:10
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> On Sat, Ju
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:33 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I'm glad to see this discussion made more general -- beyond this
> particular case, and towards the general process for how and when we
> can (and should) globally ban someone. I also think that we need to
> have a clear process that can be us
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Scott MacDonald
wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>>
> On Behalf Of George Herbert
>> Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
>> taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language
>> Wikipedia is clearly prohibited n
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>>> Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
>>> Wikiversity.
>>
>> How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does
> -Original Message-
>
On Behalf Of George Herbert
> Right. Merely staying pseudonymous or anonymous is supported, but
> taking on some other real life person's identity on English Language
> Wikipedia is clearly prohibited now, and should be. It's bad for all
> the same reasons that r
My local IT got back to me today and agreed to unblock all of Wikipedia for
all 25,000 computers they manage. A bit of success for increasing access.
IMO Wikimedia needs to stay on top of these issues. I have emailed Websense
who created the list my institution uses. We need to work with them so th
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
> Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
> information, not as a distribution method.
Cato (=Poetlister) was a checkuser, so they did als
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>>>
Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and decept
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
information, not as a distribution method.
-Dan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wr
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>>
>> > Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
>> > Wikiversity.
>>
>> How precisely does one engage i
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>
> > Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
> > Wikiversity.
>
> How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
> require the submis
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>
>> Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
>> Wikiversity.
>
> How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
> require the submis
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
> Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
> Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
require the submission of identifying information?
-Dan
__
2011/6/3 Jon Harald Søby :
> The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
> embedding would be promoting YouTube
Embedding YouTube videos in Wikimedia content would send IP addresses
and other information about Wikimedia users to Google. This is
against Wikimedia's privacy policy,
Jon Harald Søby wrote:
> With the news that YouTube will start letting users choose to upload their
> videos under CC-by, what will be the way we deal with it? Should we open for
> embedding videos directly from YouTube, or should they be uploaded to
> Commons first? The only reason I can see for n
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
> Sent: 03 June 2011 22:28
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> On 3 June 201
On 3 June 2011 22:23, John Vandenberg wrote:
> no, just confused. how were you telling the arbs on a mailing list
> that didn't exist at the time Cato was checkuser.
Ah, that would indeed have been the arbcom list at the time, yes.
I note you weren't an arbitrator at the time, so clarificatio
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 7:05 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 22:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu wrote:
>>>
Please argument that position David. Has this person abused his
checkuser status?
>>>
>
Is there anyone active on Wikiversity that hasn't been banned from every
other project? It seems to be turning into a regular Mos Eisley cantina.
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/3/11 8:40 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
> necessarily be discussed
Hi,
As a follow-up to my original question, my brief presentation today at
the all day Wellcome Trust research images workshop went down well and
everyone was happy to see "in perpetuity" as a commitment. Thanks for
the comments made in this thread, they did influence the nature of my
discussions.
On 3 June 2011 22:01, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Oh? You knew who he was and didn't inform anyone?
Yes, and we were telling the arbs on the functionaries list.
> Don't rewrite history.
You seem stressed. Assume good faith!
- d.
___
foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu wrote:
>> 2011/6/3 David Gerard :
>
>>> I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
>>> defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a good idea.
>
>> Please argument that position
This is somewhat off-topic but..
Whilst that is a somewhat glib view of the smaller projects :P it's not
entirely inaccurate.
By virtue of being smaller and starved of editors it is a lot easier to gain
permissions at those projects. In fact, if one of us (established editors)
was banned from Wik
On 3 June 2011 21:25, Scott MacDonald wrote:
> I'm now actually wondering whether there is a structural problem in getting
> lunatics like poetlister banned, or whether it is just the case that one
> community (wikiversity) is seriously messed up.
Note that we had pretty much the same discussio
On 3 June 2011 21:09, Strainu wrote:
> 2011/6/3 David Gerard :
>> I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
>> defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a good idea.
> Please argument that position David. Has this person abused his
> checkuser status?
He tr
Scott MacDonald wrote:
> I'm now actually wondering whether there is a structural problem in getting
> lunatics like poetlister banned, or whether it is just the case that one
> community (wikiversity) is seriously messed up.
Projects, like children, need love. Wikiversity _only_ gets attention wh
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Scott MacDonald
wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
>> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
>> Sent: 03 June 2011 18:05
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>
> I personally think project independence is a "sine qua non" condition
> for recruiting a certain class of contributors (for instance,
> academia). We have enough conspiracy theories without the foundation
> enforcing another rule over the head of the communities.
>
> Strainu
>
Yeah, but ther
2011/6/3 David Gerard :
> I suspect there is more than a little of that in current local wiki
> defiance of global bans. And it's really, really not a good idea.
Please argument that position David. Has this person abused his
checkuser status?
I personally think project independence is a "sine qu
On 3 June 2011 19:22, Risker wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
> > On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker wrote:
> >
> > > I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
> > > of users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
> > > multiple-p
On 3 June 2011 11:22, Risker wrote:
> Sue, the one thing that comes to mind is that the Foundation does have the
> right to restrict access to private or non-public information and can decree
> that a specific individual is banned from any position that permits access
> to such information. (The d
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:06 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> My hospital IT department has become more draconian as of late. Was
> attempting to make changes to "breast thermography" an imaging technique
> for
> breast cancer to discover that websense considers it nudity. Had a
> discussion with IT and
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker wrote:
>
> > I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
> of
> > users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
> > multiple-project level.
>
> Is there something the Foundat
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Responding to Scott, and also MZMcBride earlier... I don't think the
> Wikimedia Foundation could successfully make decrees to permanently
> ban editors from all projects. It might be the right solution in some
> cases, and many editors might w
On 3 June 2011 10:38, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
>> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sue Gardner
>> Sent: 03 June 2011 18:11
>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [Foun
On 3 June 2011 18:43, MZMcBride wrote:
> Scott MacDonald wrote:
>> The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
>> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
>
> And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they problematic in
> some way (particularly in a
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 03/06/11 00:44, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:11, Neil Harris wrote:
>>> Tape is -- still -- your friend here. Flip the write-protect after
>>> writing, have two sets of off-site tapes, one copy of each in each of
>>> two s
> And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they
> problematic in
> some way (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins
> can't
> handle)?
>
>
> The idea that you can stop manipulation of the system by sporadic (and
> wildly inefficient) witch-hunts is rather insane
Scott MacDonald wrote:
> The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
> http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
And? I don't see a problem with those contributions. Are they problematic in
some way (particularly in a way that the English Wikiversity admins can't
han
> On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker wrote:
>
>> I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
>> of
>> users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
>> multiple-project level.
>
> Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening?
At b
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sue Gardner
> Sent: 03 June 2011 18:11
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> On 3 June 2011
Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker wrote:
>> I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
>> users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
>> multiple-project level.
>
> Is there something the Foundation could do to support that h
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yaroslav M. Blanter
> Sent: 03 June 2011 18:05
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
>
>
>
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker wrote:
> I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
> users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
> multiple-project level.
Is there something the Foundation could do to support that happening?
> I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
> users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
> multiple-project level.
>
> Risker/Anne
I see your reasoning, but I also see at least two serious deficiencies:
1) Some projects explicitly rejec
I think that one of the biggest barriers to the implementation and
enforcement of global bans are past history, a lack of understanding of the
forced interdependence of projects through the SUL process, and difficulties
in finding ways to share information about the seriousness of problems
created
We already have a policy covering data preservation and recovery under
any foreseeable disaster scenarios:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TERMINAL
;)
Ryan Kaldari
On 6/2/11 4:44 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:11, Neil Harris wrote:
>> Tape is -- still -- your friend here.
On 3 June 2011 17:21, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
>> bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
>> of en:wp by letting him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one.
> Not to digress, but in fairness to the folks
>
> Poetlister is the level of case where project autonomy is an actively
> bad idea. e.g. en.wikiquote deciding to demonstrate their independence
> of en:wp by letting him onto the Checkuser list. Nice one.
> - d.
>
Not to digress, but in fairness to the folks active on Wikiquote, I don't
think t
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
> necessarily be discussed publicly, Poetlister should not be editing under
> any account name on any project. The fact that as recently as a couple of
> months ago he was a
No, we don't. Our video support is laughable.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 15:45, Tanvir Rahman wrote:
>
> > We have uploaded images from Flickr, and Commons supports image formates
> > like, jpg, png, svg, and others, but for videos it supports only ogv
On 3 June 2011 16:40, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
> necessarily be discussed publicly, Poetlister should not be editing under
> any account name on any project. The fact that as recently as a couple of
> months ago he was applying fo
In view of the entire history of this matter, not all of which should
necessarily be discussed publicly, Poetlister should not be editing under
any account name on any project. The fact that as recently as a couple of
months ago he was applying for advanced permissions on a project is
particularly
>
> WebM videos on YouTube are in a free format. Do we accept WebM yet?
>
>From Commons page [1]: "WebM support will likely be added in the future. See
this bug report [2] for its current status and this test wiki [3] for
implementation tests."
So, as of now, we don't support WebM. :S
Regards,
On 3 June 2011 15:45, Tanvir Rahman wrote:
> We have uploaded images from Flickr, and Commons supports image formates
> like, jpg, png, svg, and others, but for videos it supports only ogv
> formate. So, I think most of the YouTube videos need to be converted to ogv
> (from mpeg or flv). Can we d
We have uploaded images from Flickr, and Commons supports image formates
like, jpg, png, svg, and others, but for videos it supports only ogv
formate. So, I think most of the YouTube videos need to be converted to ogv
(from mpeg or flv). Can we do that automatically with script? Currently we
have F
With the news that YouTube will start letting users choose to upload their
videos under CC-by, what will be the way we deal with it? Should we open for
embedding videos directly from YouTube, or should they be uploaded to
Commons first? The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
e
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "Scott MacDonald"
> To: "'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'" <
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:17:54 +0100
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
> What does it take for a global ban?
>
> Do you remembe
On 3 June 2011 14:54, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> For the usability, last time I checked the usability wiki was dead as well
> as the Wikiproject Usability on en.wp. If someone can show me what would be
> an appropriate place to list my issues (meaning there is somebody there who
> can use them)
> You are interested in this topic; many users (or most, I am afraid) are
> not.
>
> You have an expert knowledge in this topic, namely the knowledge of
> Russian language. Most of English Wikipedia editors don't.
>
> There is a plenty of low-hanging fruits in classical music articles
> (especia
I have found another work around. It appears that websense does not block
the secure Wikipedia and thus I can edit on that.
James Heilman
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:06 AM, James Heilman wrote:
> My hospital IT department has become more draconian as of late. Was
> attempting to make changes to "b
My hospital IT department has become more draconian as of late. Was
attempting to make changes to "breast thermography" an imaging technique for
breast cancer to discover that websense considers it nudity. Had a
discussion with IT and they concluded that they can be off no help.
What sort of measu
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Coombe
> Sent: 03 June 2011 13:14
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> Even old Greg
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Coombe
> Sent: 03 June 2011 13:14
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> On 3 June 2011
On 3 June 2011 09:17, Scott MacDonald wrote:
> What does it take for a global ban?
>
>
>
> Do you remember "Poetlister"? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka
> British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
> sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> this would be 10 years of my work. Note that this is just a narrow topic
> which does not overlap with my professional interest (I am a theoretical
> physicist specializing in nanoscience). In this field, I am just an amateur
> (may be s
During the next month or two Language committee will work on new
Language proposal policy [1]. You can watch the changes. If you have
your own ideas, please use talk page [2], not the new policy draft.
The first change agreed among all LangCom members is about allowing
projects in macrolanguages o
This is an essay. May be someone can find it useful.
For a number of reasons which are not appropriate to address here, three
weeks ago I voluntarily left Russian Wikipedia, which used to be my home
wiki for four years, and decided to turn to low-key activity in the
articles in English Wikipedia.
Hi,
I don't get it, why isn't it a problem when we start posting OTRS tickets to
pastebin.
The article was already deleted for more that 24 so there was no need to
give the information to SilverSpoon. SilverSpoon wasn't active with the
article so there was no need to share the information with hi
What does it take for a global ban?
Do you remember "Poetlister"? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka
British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple
sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft, acquiring
checkuser and crat status on various project
86 matches
Mail list logo
