Re: [Foundation-l] excluding Wikipedia clones from searching
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
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 ip791819...@gmail.comwrote: 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
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 gti...@gmail.com wrote: Magnus Manske magnusman...@... 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%20Schachhttp://translate.google.com/#auto%7Cen%7CPferd%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
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 node...@gmail.com 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
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/Sandboxoldid=40748125 John On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:56 PM, John Doe phoenixoverr...@gmail.com 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 node...@gmail.comwrote: 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
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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: 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 z...@mzmcbride.com 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 !!
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 cetatean...@gmail.comwrote: 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 articlesfiles 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 br...@wikimedia.org 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
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 vac...@jeb.no 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 vac...@jeb.no 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!
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 thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/3/23 Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org: 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
