Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
wtf? On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM, kometbr...@netzero.net kometbr...@netzero.net wrote: Kimberly Brown 310 310-5477-Cell 301 622-2469-Home ___ 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] (no subject)
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:56 PM, C F shma...@gmail.com wrote: wtf? Sometimes people send blank e-mails by accident, it's best to just ignore them. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
With 2 personal phone numbers? Nevermind it seems that one of them has the wrong area code (although I might be wrong), which suggests that the phone numbers were the only things intended for that email. On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:56 PM, C F shma...@gmail.com wrote: wtf? Sometimes people send blank e-mails by accident, it's best to just ignore them. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ 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] (no subject)
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, C F shma...@gmail.com wrote: With 2 personal phone numbers? Nevermind it seems that one of them has the wrong area code (although I might be wrong), which suggests that the phone numbers were the only things intended for that email. Those are probably just their standard signature. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM, C F shma...@gmail.com wrote: With 2 personal phone numbers? Nevermind it seems that one of them has the wrong area code (although I might be wrong), which suggests that the phone numbers were the only things intended for that email. Those are probably just their standard signature. That was my point, if it's a signature then the numbers would have been right, if my original assumption was right - that one number has the area code wrong - then the OP typed those in for this email. Which brings me back to my original reply: wtf -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ 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] (no subject)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sorry to be blunt but, Why is this question so Wikipedia-centric? Other projects have proved ideal testing grounds for usability and such. Because Wikipedia is the cash cow. I was going to rant, but it became too depressing because it wouldn't have consisted of cheap shots - they were all true. Hopefully that will change one day. - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksoCP0ACgkQst0AR/DaKHuEEQCgi5lNdigCZ6W+ESCDYqmn59Rc 3LoAnRB7Tr7ovfi/8qAT12qw1PtyO9Et =d4JK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Issue 1: The official and public description of CheckUser lays out a transparent process for justifying when and how it may be used. In practice, it is often used in secret and quick back door process. First issue is the misrepresentation to the public and all contributors as to how and when Checkuser may be used. The same standards outlined on the CheckUser Policy page apply to all checks - whether requested in public, requested in private, or done by a CheckUser without any request at all. If those standards are not being met (which is a fact one would have to investigate) then it is a problem with the standards not being met - not the request process or lack thereof. So, you should begin by showing that there is actually a problem here before you take it as fact. Granted, you may argue that forcing requests to be made public would force more stringent compliance with the standards, but you haven't even shown that there is an issue in the first place; you have merely assumed that it is so. Beginning an argument with a false premise is generally not going to leave you in a good position to win. If you were going to argue that public requests would curb abuse then you would first have to show that 1) there is abuse; and 2) that abuse arises from private requests or checks done with no request at all; and 3) that making all requests public would curb that abuse; and 4) that making all requests public would not have other adverse effects outweighing the benefits. The additional question of whether the CheckUser policy page should mention these facts is an interesting one. I rather suspect you are referring to the page on English Wikipedia, which I haven't read in well over 1.5 years, I would imagine. If you think their page is inadequate, feel free to fix it or post to the talk page such that others can help you fix it. For the page on Meta with which I am quite familiar: there is no assertion about any request process, and it would be inappropriate for it to do so. Issue 2: Whether it is ethical or democratic to be using this back channel process. You haven't shown that there is a real issue with running checks that aren't requested in public. Therefore, your second issue simply arises from false premises. You are a long way from proving your point, but I would encourage you to make that request on the talk page of the CheckUser policy page on English Wikipedia so it can be pointed out that while there is a public request process, most requests are made in private, or done of a CheckUser's own volition. That is true, and it may be a worthwhile piece of information - though I can think of reasons the enwiki CUs may not want it included. If the public request process isn't necessary then they may be innundated with requests in private. The public process serves as a filter to keep away spurious requests. By not advertising it, private requests tend to be more reliable since it would be people in the know who would make those requests. But again: ask on the talk page. It is a wiki after all. - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrm9VkACgkQst0AR/DaKHtgyACgkwfepAMZuqRr3TdoDrhxaMlj RGIAnj3LQq7ZPiumJeXqfe2mwzYkKVaT =sdwK -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
2009/10/27 Mike.lifeguard mike.lifegu...@gmail.com: You are a long way from proving your point, but I would encourage you to make that request on the talk page of the CheckUser policy page on English Wikipedia so it can be pointed out that while there is a public request process, most requests are made in private, or done of a CheckUser's own volition. That is true, and it may be a worthwhile piece of information - though I can think of reasons the enwiki CUs may not want it included. If the public request process isn't necessary then they may be innundated with requests in private. The public process serves as a filter to keep away spurious requests. By not advertising it, private requests tend to be more reliable since it would be people in the know who would make those requests. en:WP:RFCU was actually created to stop people bugging the checkusers so much ;-) Checks are done because of public requests, but also because (a) there's an investigation by the arbcom and they want second or third opinions or (b) because there's a cross-wiki vandal and so people check on their local wiki as well. That's most of the cases on the functionaries-en and checkuser-l lists. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] (no subject)
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote: It strikes me that this is something that Creative Commons or other organizations with Godwin-like attorneys should be aggressively pursuing, but we didn't hear from any of them in the original thread, did we? Mike, could you illuminate this conversation with your professional opinion? Greg The free software foundation is very nice about GPL violations: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to license-violat...@gnu.org. We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required. We reach this stage dozens of times a year. A quiet initial contact is usually sufficient to resolve the problem. Parties thought they were complying with GPL, and are pleased to follow advice on the correction of an error. Sometimes, however, we believe that confidence-building measures will be required, because the scale of the violation or its persistence in time makes mere voluntary compliance insufficient. In such situations we work with organizations to establish GPL-compliance programs within their enterprises, led by senior managers who report to us, and directly to their enterprises' managing boards, regularly. In particularly complex cases, we have sometimes insisted upon measures that would make subsequent judicial enforcement simple and rapid in the event of future violation. In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
