Re: [Foundation-l] excluding Wikipedia clones from searching

[John Doe]

I'm In the process of creating a cleanup tool that checks archive.org and
webcitation.org  if a URL is not archived it checks to see if it is live and
if it is I request that webcitation archive it on demand, and fills in the
archiveurl parameter of cite templates.

John
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Kafkaesque story on the English Wikipedia

[John Doe]

Ive double checked with multiple sources and cross referenced both
unblock-en and OTRS (in case you mixed up your emails) and can find no
record of a request or email from you to either group. So Unless your using
even more sockpuppets than your claiming, (or used an unknown email address,
failed to state your IP address, user account or blocking admin. Which is
very unlikely) You are full of bullshit. Please stop lying, or admit to all
your sock puppets, because with the information that you have provided, the
logs for both unblock-en-l and OTRS prove that you did not send or get a
message from either group.

John

>
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Seventy Nine wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am sending this letter to this mailing list after several failed
>> attempts
>> to address administrators in the "Arbitration Committee" and the "Unblock
>> mailing list". Apparently this is a Kafkaesque story which no one wishes
>> to
>> handle.
>>
>> I have recently started to edit on the English Wikipedia. I wished to
>> remain
>> anonymous, which, to my best knowledge, is legitimate on the English
>> Wikipedia, therefore I contributed under my IP address. Later on, and
>> after
>> several pleas on behalf of other editors, I opened an account. In order to
>> keep my edits under the same attribution, I called the account
>> "User:KnownAs-79-181-9-231" (
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KnownAs-79-181-9-231). My edits on the
>> article "Golan Heights" were reverted. I was asked to explain them, and so
>> I
>> did, in details, on the "Talk Page" affiliated with the article. This
>> explanations were contested in a lengthy discussions. Some of the comments
>> were good, and I addressed them. Some, especially from two users whose
>> aliases I won't mention in this message, offered comments which seemed to
>> be
>> politically motivated. One of these users posted questions on my personal
>> "Talk Page", which included threats (not "real life" threats, but threats
>> to
>> act against me within the English Wikipedia editors' community). I refused
>> to answer his personal questions.
>>
>> Then, one morning, and without any previous notice, I found myself banned
>> for being a "sock puppet" of some editor. The person who submitted the
>> request to ban me (a request which I found after searching many
>> administrative pages), is one of the two aforementioned users who objected
>> my edits. The editor who posted threats on my personal "Talk Page" second
>> him. The "evidences" were my edits, which, according to them, resembled
>> the
>> edits of another editor who had been previously banned for one reason or
>> another. Apparently, my ban was sweeping, i.e. I couldn't comment on the
>> allegations against me, nor post a request to overturn the ban. I sent a
>> letter to the "Arbitration Committee" with copy to the "Unblock mailing
>> list". I asked to revoke the ban immediately, as it was based on sheer
>> speculations. The committee can ask me questions if it deemed it
>> necessary,
>> but their first task is to lift a ban which was imposed without due
>> process.
>>
>> I received an outrageous response, suggesting my ban was legitimate until
>> I
>> could prove otherwise. How exactly can I disprove far-fetched
>> speculations?
>> Furthermore, after searching the administrative pages a bit more
>> thoroughly,
>> I found out that the two users who asked my ban, where banned themselves
>> several times for making problematic edits on articles related to Middle
>> East issues. This makes the allegations against me even more peculiar.
>>
>> Thank you very much for your attention.
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

[John Doe]

Like I said before, If I can get some template support on commons, Ive got a
translation tool that uses one of googles APIs for translating. I just need
some assistance with figuring out how to best integrate it into commons. But
I do have a on demand mass translation tool.

John

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Tisza Gergo  wrote:

> Magnus Manske  writes:
>
> > Basically, this will (on the search page only!) look at the last query
> > run (the one currently in the edit box), check several language
> > editions of Wikipedia for articles from the individual words (in this
> > case, "Pferd" and "Schach"), count how many exist, pick the language
> > with the most hits (in this case, German), and put a link to link to
> > Nikola's tool under the search box. The link pre-fills the source
> > language and query in the tool, which automatically opens the
> > appropriate search page.
>
> Again, I would suggest using Google (or an alternative with open data, if
> one
> exists) instead of trying to reinvent the wheel:
>
> http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|Pferd%20Schach
> http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlanguage/documentation/#Detect
>
> It might support less languages then we have wikipedias for, but I'm pretty
> sure
> it would give better results for the major ones.
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

[John Doe]

the basic translation matrix is in place, here is how you say horse in as
many languages as you can:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%CE%94/Sandbox&oldid=40748125

John

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:56 PM, John Doe  wrote:

> Since I'm a fairly active programmer, I have some code sitting around. If I
> can get some support on commons with regards to templates (something that
> gives me nightmares) I could probably get a translation matrix program up
> and running within 24-48 hours. I would just need to figure out a good
> method for tracking what needs translated, what has been machine translated
> and needs review, and what has already been translated.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> >> If we consider
>> >> that current English native speakers mostly already have internet and
>> those
>> >> without internet are likelier than not to be non-English speakers I
>> would
>> >> be
>> >> careful to advocate the unilateral use of English.
>> >
>> >
>> > As would I, though I don't think you mean what you said.
>>
>> Why not? To me, it means that we're widening the digital divide by
>> making it so that people who don't have the internet would have little
>> use for it anyways if it's all written in a language they don't
>> understand.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

[John Doe]

Since I'm a fairly active programmer, I have some code sitting around. If I
can get some support on commons with regards to templates (something that
gives me nightmares) I could probably get a translation matrix program up
and running within 24-48 hours. I would just need to figure out a good
method for tracking what needs translated, what has been machine translated
and needs review, and what has already been translated.

John

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Mark Williamson  wrote:

> >> If we consider
> >> that current English native speakers mostly already have internet and
> those
> >> without internet are likelier than not to be non-English speakers I
> would
> >> be
> >> careful to advocate the unilateral use of English.
> >
> >
> > As would I, though I don't think you mean what you said.
>
> Why not? To me, it means that we're widening the digital divide by
> making it so that people who don't have the internet would have little
> use for it anyways if it's all written in a language they don't
> understand.
>
> m.
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] How to reply to a mailing list thread

[John Doe]

I agree top posting tends to be the most effective method for handling
mailing lists

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:

> Hoi,
> The easiest way to deal with such issues is use a decent mail client. I use
> Gmail and it ensures that all the threads are together and in order. It
> hides all the copies of old replies and given the copious amount of storage
> it is no problem that all the crap is still there.
>
> When you argue that this is not best practice, my question to you is, when
> has your best practice been re-evaluated for the last time.. Does it
> consider the improved functionality that is there for you to have ?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 31 March 2010 00:41, MZMcBride  wrote:
>
> > Hello --
> >
> > Some of the people posting to this mailing list don't seem to understand
> > how
> > to write a decent, readable reply to a mailing list thread. This makes
> for
> > far more noise than signal, as people wade through six copies of the
> > foundation-l footer or eight old and irrelevant replies trying to find
> the
> > content of the reply to the previous message.
> >
> > The Toolserver wiki has a fantastic page that explains how to reply to a
> > mailing list thread the Right Way.[1] If you suspect you've been Doing It
> > Wrong, please have a read.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] mo.wikipedia is not yet renamed to mo-cyrill as it was promised !!

[John Doe]

Cetateanu Im going to be nice in how I say this, DO NOT DEMAND things from
developers. If dev says they are not ready THEY ARE NOT READY. please also
consider that these developers run one of the top ten websites on the
internet, so they must be doing it right for the most part or the servers
would be a smoking pile of rubble. There are a lot more complex and unseen
factors that exist on large scale server arrays such as wikimedia's than
what your recommending. If either of your ideas where feasible with the
current system it would have been taken care of. Here is a suggestion, LET
THE DEVELOPERS DEVELOP a good way to implement your request without breaking
things

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Cetateanu Moldovanu
wrote:

> Hello Mister Vibber,
>
> I'm glad to see you already made a plan, I supose you know the best
> mediawiki and wikipedia architecture, aren't there anybody else to execute
> those points from that plan ?
>
> Even if those points sounds havy, since the number of articles&files from
> mo
> is not so high, I'm sure you can do all those points in a day or two of
> work.
>
> >for each of 22 clusters
> I'm sure you have a script to execute a command on all clusters at once and
> see the results.
>
> Or in the meantime you build a "infrastructure for conveniently renaming
> sites", you can put in place a temporary solution that is easier to build.
> You could just make a new vhost(mo-cyrill) that point to the same dir as
> mo.
> And for mo you could make a htaccess (or equivalent) that would redirect
> all
> the request to the mo-cyrill (with a script that get REQUEST_URI and output
> a redirect header).
>
> Hope to hear you soon.
>
> Best regards,
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Brion Vibber  wrote:
>
> > Hi Cetateanu --
> >
> > As replied previously, we don't yet have infrastructure for conveniently
> > renaming sites. Given that the site has been locked for years and there's
> > nothing to replace it with at mo.wikipedia.org, it's no higher on our
> > priority list than the other sites that have language code renames
> pending.
> >
> > Since we've been in the midst of a slow migration of external text
> storage
> > as well, it's slid farther back on the burner than planned. I'll see if
> we
> > can make sure it's on the radar at least...
> >
> >
> > The problem isn't intractable, but merely inconvenient, and due to the
> > number of sites & databases needing renaming it needs to be scripted and
> > tested for safety first:
> >
> > * Ensure language/localization files have been updated for new language
> > code
> >
> > * Lock site
> >
> > * Rename public file storage subdirectories
> >
> > * Rename private file storage subdirectories
> >
> > * Ensure all site config entries have been updated for new language code
> >
> > * Rename core database on primary database cluster (create new database,
> > rename all tables, drop old empty database)
> >
> > * Ensure that all slave databases were properly updated
> >
> > * Rename blob databases on all external storage clusters (for each of 22
> > clusters, create new database, rename all tables, drop old empty
> databases)
> >
> > * Ensure that all slave databases were properly updated
> >
> > * Make sure it didn't break anything _else_...
> >
> > * Unlock site
> >
> > * Rename or move data dump archives
> >
> > * Check if anything else needs cleaning up in recent changes channels,
> > interwiki links, or other output.
> >
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
> >
> >
> > Cetateanu Moldovanu wrote:
> >
> >> *Hi, I want to remind you that on 26 Nov 2008 **
> >>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047554.html**youhave
>  promised that subdomain name mo will become mo-cyrl, it's July now
> >> and mo is still not yet renamed.*
> >>
> >> * *
> >> *
> >> If you cannot rename please delete it altogether.
> >>  Hope to get a ETA, or to know at which point is the progress.
> >>  Brion Vibber and his superiors, please make a room for this task to be
> >> done, also I (as a programmer) can volunteer to help you do this thing
> if
> >> you have a lack of resources !
> >>  IT'S IMPORTANT !
> >> *
> >>
> >
> >
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter

[John Doe]

I see the actions as 100% public. Just because the edit that was attempted
was not allowed does not mean it was not meant to be public. The "Logs" are
just another avenue that an edit may take if it meets some conditions. the
only difference between logging and previous behavior is the edit never made
it to the "live" page. this is very similar to flagged revisions behavior of
not showing an edit until its approved.

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, John at Darkstar  wrote:

> It is not refusing to accept some kind of edit that creates the problem,
> it is the logging of the action because you then collect information
> about the users. Preventing the vandalism instead of reacting to it
> shifts the actions from a public context to a private context. By
> avoiding collecting such information and adhering to "administration of
> the system" most of the problem simply goes away. Its not about using or
> not using the extension, its about limiting the logging so that no one
> can gain access to any data to make later actions against the users (ie.
> the vandals).
>
> WMF may choose to log the information anyhow, like it may choose to not
> respect copyright laws in some countries. I don't think that is very
> wise, but I can only say what I believe is right.
>
> John
>
> Nathan skrev:
> > The peculiarity in some respects of Scandinavian law seems to come up on
> > this list fairly frequently, but it's usually short on specifics or
> actual
> > cases. John, do you have any specific references to what you've described
> as
> > a problem?
> >
> > Adhering to your interpretation on the possible limits on "private"
> > information would effectively eliminate the abuse filter as a useful
> tool.
> > I'm having a hard time seeing this as a widespread problem; there can't
> be
> > many jurisdictions that define public and private in this way, or place
> such
> > restrictions on what can be done with this data that blocking someone
> from a
> > private website in another country could be a violation of the law.
> >
> > To my mind, private data of the sort we need to worry about is not
> "private"
> > in the sense that it is owned by the Foundation or not publicly viewable,
> > but "private" in the sense that it contains potentially sensitive details
> of
> > individual editors and readers. Nothing in the abuse filter would seem to
> > change the public availability of this sort of data, and I can hardly see
> > Wikimedia being penalized simply for preventing vandalism instead of
> > reacting to it.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John at Darkstar  wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving
> >>  the page "George W. Bush" to "moron") will now be private (he get a
> >> message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from
> >> a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of
> >> actions done in this private context to another site. Users of this site
> >> will then have access to private information. It is not the information
> >> _disclosed_ which creates the problem, it is the information
> >> _collected_. It seems like the information is legal for "administrative
> >> purposes", but as soon as it is used for anything other it creates a lot
> >> of problems. For example, if anyone takes actions against an user based
> >> on this collected information it could be a violation of local laws.
> >> (Imagine collected data being integrated with CU) If such actions must
> >> be taken, then the central problems are identification of who has access
> >> to the logs and are they in fact accurate. That is something you don't
> >> want in a wiki with anonymous contributors! :D
> >>
> >> The only solution I see is to avoid all logging of private actions if
> >> the actions themselves does not lead to a publication of something.
> >> Probably it will be legal to do some statistical analysis to administer
> >> the system, but that should limit the possibility of later
> >> identification of the involved users.
> >>
> >> There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are minor to
> >> this.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> > ___
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome to Fred Vassard!

[John Doe]

what be is IRC nick so we know who to poke when servers crash :)



On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:

> 2009/3/23 Brion Vibber :
> > He'll be helping us out with operations, monitoring, and documentation
> > of our servers, making sure everything's running smoothly and improving
> > our responses to and anticipation of problems.
>
> Fantastic! Just what we've been needing. Welcome aboard!
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l