Anthere wrote:
>You suggested that the discussed policy was only for
>english wikipedia. You mentionned the fact policy
>could be decided differently on other wikis. In short,
>that means that there could be two different types of
>sysop depending on which wikipedia one is sysop
Eh? There would only be one type for any one language. Just like right now
there is only one type of user per language /even though/ the 'move this
page' feature is off by default expect on the more active languages. So with
your reasoning there is already two different types of normal logged-in
users.
But this is now a moot point since the idea of having this set on a
per-language basis has been dropped in favor of discussing this in terms of a
Wikipedia-wide policy. In short, this issue has grown past being considered
as just a en.wiki policy.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[April 3]]
On Monday 07 April 2003 02:43 pm, Anthere wrote:
> Mav proposition : a 6 level of power, depending on
> each wikipedia decision
>
> An Elite:
> > * Dictator-for-life: Jimbo Wales (controls URLs,
> > bandwidth, machines; sets policy)
> > * Developers: can delete or alter any page, any
> > time, without a trace! same for blocking, promoting,
> > renaming users)
> > * Upper sysops: can delete pages or protect them
>
> from the lower classes; can see everyone IP's, block
> IP's of anyone.
>
> La bourgeoisie
>
> > * Lowers sysops: can delete pages or protect them
>
> from the lower classes; can block IP's of anonymous
> only. Don't see users IP.
>
>
> > A Lower-class:
> > * Signed-in users - cannot be blocked, except by a
> > developer
> > * Anonymous (IP) users - can be blocked by any sysop
Eh? I don't remember calling for two types of sysops. I've only advocated for
sysops to have the ability to block vandals who have happened to log-in. The
particular method by which I proposed this was simple; allow sysops the
ability to see the IPs of logged-in users.
I still think this is the best solution. Perhaps our previous disagreement was
based on the above misunderstanding? I would have opposed a two-level sysop
scheme too.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[April 1]]
Hello people! This is a potential policy issue that could affect the WHOLE
project. So please discuss this on the right list (hint: it doesn't have a
language code in the address).
Thanks!
--mav
Toby writes:
> IOW, we provide them with a pseudonym, or they may
choose their own.
I like this suggestion. And, IMHO, if someone is
reading and not writing, there's no reason to log
anything. Just my opinion--and a suggestion that
would take a lot of coding and so probably not get
implemented anyway. The coders are already quite
generous with their time; I'm not sure this would
necessarily be a priority.
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
In the case of Wikipedia, it's an instrument for public
display and use, and anyone posting to it is doing so in a
VERY public forum. I think it's entirely reasonable to
request some shred of identity from them. I don't think it
would even be out of line to require people to register
before being allowed to edit articles.
--
John Knouse (user:jaknouse)
Daniel Ehrenberg writes:
>Actually, for anonymity, I think we shouldn't store
any information
>potentially linking names and IP addresses to
messages. According to the
>"patriot" act, the government can search anything
(like servers) with
>automatic permission from a judge to find evidence
for terrorist
>suspects. If someone were to write on a talk page "I
love Sadam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden", then the government would try to
>trace it to someone,
and if they have DSL, they might find someone and
>"detain" them. Don't
Oh, it's not hypothetical at all; they'll even
"detain" (or, more properly, "disappear" [and q.v.
Argentinian history for those not understanding that
term] people for something as innocuous as
contributing to certain charities. It happened
recently with an Intel employee.)
In fact, one (e.g. this one writing) could go so far
as to argue that the U.S. is sprinting towards a
police state, with terrorism already redefined as
"damaging property" and states proposing legislation
to sentence people to 25 years for protesting (oregon)
and to outlaw hiding the content or source of any
transmission online (FL, TX, others. and note that
this, if passed, would outlaw PGP, firewalls, and
SSL).
I'd argue that now is the time to be proactive, while
it's still legal. I think it woul be great to encrypt
*all* IP addresses in the database, and to *chronjob
scrap server logs every 24 hours (this is a policy
Bear Pond Books has taken up with customer info.
Agents can request the info, even with no suspicion
the customer has committed a crime; booksellers are
under an immediate gag order about the visit. no
info? nothing to give. and, for those worried about
death threats? Mav's and Zoe's did not go unnoticed;
they were instead immediately noticed).
I sound like a hopeless paranoiac, I know.
Unbelievers should check out the text of the PATRIOT
Act and the text of the proposed PATRIOT Act II, which
would allow the U.S. government to strip citizenship
from people born in the country, but who at some point
endorse a group the government deems "terrorist" (I'm
assuming they're not yet counting themselves in this
group.) The hapless Intel employee, under Patriot Act
II would, instead of being disappeared, would be
disappeared and stateless. Good for prison labor, I
guess.
cheers (or not),
kq
q.v. PATRIOT ACT I
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206
and the exciting sequel, PATRIOT ACT II
http://publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&…
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Toby writes:
> If you want to retain your anonymity, then, your
> *only* recourse is your ISP, since only they
> can make the link between your IP number and
> your identity. Wikipedia shouldn't fool
> anybody about that. We know your IP address,
> and so does every other site that you visit.
> Never think otherwise.
Well, there are always VPNs and free & publicly
available web proxies. Oops, I thought otherwise.
;-)
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
John R. Owens wrote:
> I'll do you one better. I, JohnOwens (in case >you
couldn't guess), UNcordially request admin >status. ;)
>
> Oh yeah, UNcordially, I guess I'm supposed to >stick
my tongue out at you or something now. :p >Consider it
done.
>
As I've stated on John's talk page I think he would
make an excellent addition to the Admin ranks. He
already wipes newbie experiments and vandalism faster
than I do.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
[[WikiKarma]]
The usual at [[March 31]]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com