BASC is intended to be a venue to appeal bans specifically and not blocks, but it still sometimes responds to block appeals because an indef-block can be considered a "de facto" ban, albeit one that did not require prior community consensus (or an ArbCom decision).
Since this is not an actual community ban, it should IMO be appropriate to process any unblock request normally on-wiki as an administrator. Perhaps community comment can be sought but it does not seem to be like that would be mandatory. This is regardless of BASC's response (which, if it must be said, seems to have opined as to the validity of the block without commenting on an actual block appeal).
~Benoit / Salvidrim
[Sent from my Nexus 5]
On Aug 7, 2015 9:03 AM, Kevin Gorman <kgorman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I will say on the face of it, I'm pretty disappointed at how this
looks. Chealer's block record was not very long - yes, counting JzG's
he received three recent blocks, but there are plenty of people who do
little productive who have worse records. And frankly, two of those
blocks were for trivial reasons - 3rr, and for editing an archive? I
don't think I've ever seen anyone blocked for a week for editing an
archive. More so: I'm disappointed that although Chealer requested
diffs of what exact part of his behavior was disruptive, he only
received one link from anyone. Surely we can do better than this?
JzG's initial block offer explicitly indicated a willingness to lift
the ban if Chealer altered his behavior... but then JzG never posted
on his talk page again. Moreover, JzG's initial block statement was
insufficient - you don't get to indef a long time community member and
just say the reasons are "obvious".
Once I have more time to examine this block later today, I'm going to
be tempted to restore Chealer's talkpage access, because JzG's initial
block offer explicitly included an offer to unblock him if he changed
his behavior, and that obviously can't be done if he can't even talk.
I'll also ping JzG to the page because I'd hope the initial blocking
administrator would be the person to work this out, but if he doesn't
show up and Chealer's 'record of disruption' seems like something
where he can agree to a set of conditions that will mitigate any
future disruption, I'll be awfully tempted to act in JzG's stead in
implementing his offer.... That's certainly not an offer that can be
implemented with TPA and JzG MIA.
This could be a perfectly good block. But JzG's initial block notice
and subsequent discussion on the page don't make it obvious that it's
a good block. I'll be reviewing the entire situation later including
all of Chealer's recent edits (I've only looked at the talk page and
block log atm,) and may find it to be an entirely good block, but if
not I intend to restore Chealer's talk page access, ping JzG to the
page so that we can discuss JzG's initial offer, and if JzG doesn't
show up (to me, it's weird to use "you know what you did" block
message on anyone but vandals,) given that JzG initially showed a
willingness to unblock CHealer, if I work out a set of conditions that
I'm confident will mitigate any future problems, I'll be awfully
tempted to unblock Chealer myself. (And again, I may find an
indefinite block totally appropriate here - it's just not at all
obvious from the block message or from future discusssion on the
page.)
Even though this has already gone to BASC, I'm pretty sure these
actions would be within my authority as an administrator - someone
correct me if I'm wrong please.
Best,
Kevin Gorman
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Filipus Klutiero <chealer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I am forwarding the last mail promised in
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html
> This is the last mail in the thread on JzG's case (regarding WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
> violations). It quotes the 2 other mails in that thread (as well as the
> original report).
>
> The only mail from the BASC in this thread is entirely quoted, except for
> pre-written paragraphs.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:38:20 -0400
> From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer(a)gmail.com>
> To: arbcom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> Hi,
> During the first week of June, I was told by Chris McKenny that the Ban
> Appeals Subcommittee considered User:JzG's 2015-04-13 block as
> policy-compliant. As can be seen in the forwarded mail, I asked Chris to
> explain shortly after, hoping to understand the subcommittee's stance on
> this issue, but have not received a reply so far.
>
> I have not retired yet, and I intend to treat this issue in my retirement
> letter, which is why I hereby ask other members to explain your position.
>
> By the way, I noticed that a reform is already being discussed (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_re…
> ).
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer
> Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:37:58 -0400
> From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer(a)gmail.com>
> To: Chris McKenna <thryduulf.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> CC: English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals)
> <arbcom-appeals-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 2015-06-04 04:39, Chris McKenna wrote:
>>
>> Hello Chealer
>>
>> The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your application and
>> declines to unblock at this time.
>
>
> Thank you for the prompt response.
>
>> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and
>> block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
>
>
> Please provide the committee's deliberations on this issue. If this is not
> possible, did the committee have a unanimous stance?
>
>
>
> [...]
>>
>>
>> *---
>> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
>> thryduulf.wiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:thryduulf.wiki@gmail.com>
>>
>> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own
>> and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a
>> whole.
>>
>> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <chealer(a)gmail.com
>> <mailto:chealer@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Update: My first 2 attempts to submit this email apparently failed, as
>> discussed on #wikipedia-en and #wikimedia-stewards. Please excuse and ignore
>> in case the first attempts actually worked.
>> --------------------------------------------
>> I have never used any other username on Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> The latest block on my account, imposed by User:JzG, violates the
>> blocking policy (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK).
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chealer#Blocked (excluding the
>> unrelated "Related AN notice" subsection) is the relevant on-wiki
>> discussion. The UTRS appeal is #13664.
>>
>>
>> The administrator who reviewed my UTRS appeal rejected implying that
>> my actions were disruptive and mentioning he "f[ou]nd this block justified".
>> Since I had no chance to reply, I would like to make it clear that my
>> appeals do *not* mean I consider the block "unjustified". While I would not
>> say that "[my] actions were [...] disruptive", I will not go as far as to
>> claim that not one of the 10 000+ actions I performed on the English
>> Wikipedia over 10+ years has been disruptive. In fact, I know that some of
>> these were erroneous, and I have no doubt that I have neither fixed myself
>> nor recognized in any way some of my errors, even if we only count those I
>> already noticed. JzG's block could be "justified" in the sense that a
>> justification for it could have been provided. All I am asking for with this
>> appeal is to revoke JzG's block. I am *not* asking to be "unblocked" in the
>> sense that my account should be free to edit again. If any administrator
>> thinks my contributions call
>> for a new block, then that administrator is free to implement it in
>> compliance with policy.
>> To be perfectly clear, the outcome of this appeal will be correct as
>> long as the current block is repealed, whether my account ends up affected
>> by a policy-compliant block or not.
>>
>> By the way, I really appreciate the BASC Status ("Currently, you can
>> expect your appeal to be decided in ~ 6 weeks."). It would be nice to
>> precise "Currently" though - or even better, allow making appeals public.
>> Oh, and "Email me a copy of my message." is really nice meanwhile.
>>
>> --
>> This email was sent by user "Chealer" on the English Wikipedia to user
>> "Ban Appeals Subcommittee". It has been automatically delivered and the
>> Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
>>
>> The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any
>> information about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation
>> to reply to this email or take any other action that might disclose his/her
>> identity. If you respond, the sender will know your email address. For
>> further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and
>> removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ArbCom-appeals-en mailing list
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BASC
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-appeals-en
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Filipus Klutiero
> http://www.philippecloutier.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Dear colleagues,
In April, User:JzG set an indefinite block on my account. This was the third block to affect me in just over one month. Worryingly, 2 of these 3 blocks violated policy (the first violating block was performed by User:Bbb23).
I did not appeal Bbb23's block, which was a lesser offense since it was time-limited, and since I had already decided to retire, but I did appeal JzG's. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) operates in secrecy. Until now, the communications with the subcommittee which I am about to disclose here had not been published. Most of you are probably unaware of what happens there, and I hope the following will be seen as an opportunity for improvement rather than a discouraging report.
In my case, I had already decided to retire, and a couple of invalid blocks among the myriads of blocks we issue is not by itself a cause for alarm. This becomes a concern when weeks after they were set, none has been corrected. And this gets extremely worrying when both of the faulty users still have administrative privileges, months after their errors were reported. At that point, we have conditions for such behavior to enter mores - if that has not already happened. In light of what follows though, this is no surprise.
Transparency
The Ban Appeals Subcommittee operates behind the private email alias arbcom-appeals-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org. For a radical transparency advocate like me, having to use such a communication channel already raised a red flag. But I had no idea how bad the situation was.
It took me 3 attempts to submit the appeal. While there was no confirmation in the first 2 attempts, since the failure was quiet, and since appeals are kept secret, it is likely that other contributors also failed to submit and are waiting for the results of an appeal which never reached the committee in the first place. I reported this issue to the subcommittee and offered my collaboration to fix it, but 2 months later, no member has either confirmed that the issue is known or asked for details.
Thankfully (in a sense), the BASC appears to decide matters very quickly. The BASC's opacity apparently does not hide a problematic backlog. JzG's case was decided in just 2 weeks. What it may hide, however, is a total lack of accountability. Indeed, when the BASC declined to intervene in JzG's case, the list of arbitrators involved was not provided. In fact, I cannot even tell whether the BASC's decision was unanimous, even though I asked more than a month ago.
WP:EXPLAINBLOCK
JzG did not explain his block, yet the BASC's decision reads:
> After examining your conduct we have determined that the current block and block log message are correct and compliant with policy.
I asked the Arbitration Committee at large to explain its subcommittee's decision. Having received no answer weeks later, excluding a huge mistake, the subtext must be that the Arbitration Committee does not consider WP:EXPLAINBLOCK to be part of policy.
I am against all rules, and EXPLAINBLOCK is not the one exception to that rule. If an account with a single edit is blocked due to obvious vandalism, linking to that edit is sufficient. Administrators should not have to write even one sentence to justify such blocks. But I do agree with EXPLAINBLOCK in spirit - we should not block important contributors (whom BASC is supposed to be dedicated to) without explanation. If we cannot live up to our slogan, we should at least be transparent. It is also insulting for a major contributor to be blocked without explanation. When I was blocked by User:Swarm, I pointed out his errors and let him some time to fix before I decided to retire. I would likely not have been so diligent had the block violated EXPLAINBLOCK. And if that does not seem enough, of course, the best reason is efficiency. I was blocked 4 or 5 times on the English Wikipedia, and at least 3 were in error. If blocks are not explained, contributors may waste much time
trying to figure out the reason why they were blocked - whether such a reason exists or not.
That being said, the Arbitration Committee is free to oppose EXPLAINBLOCK. However, it should not pretend EXPLAINBLOCK is not part of policy. If the committee opposes, it can voice its concerns on the policy's talk page, but it must refuse to hear EXPLAINBLOCK violation cases until the policy has been changed. If the committee is saying that administrators should not be expected to respect EXPLAINBLOCK with current manpower levels, it *should* seek to recruit quality administrators and certainly *must not* decline to fix violations without explanation. Alternatively, the policy could be changed to state that explanations are conditional to sufficient resources. Otherwise, contributors develop an expectation of accountability.
*If* there is a coverup or anything of that kind, the BASC *must* still unblock to comply with policy, possibly renewing with a pseudo-explanation indicating that the administrators chose to keep their reasons confidential.
In short, if we have a manpower issue, randomly clearing appeals at the risk of turning away even more contributors will not help.
Since the BASC's deliberations have not been disclosed despite my request, and since the BASC will not even disclose the arbitrators at fault, I can only say that they are among the following (apologies to those who are not responsible for the decision):
* AGK
* Euryalus
* Seraphimblade
* Thryduulf (claims to be Chris McKenna)
Those of you who have had to contact the BASC know that reporting problematic blocks on their own account does not start there. I ended up there because the block revision process is broken from beginning to end. After contacting the BASC, I noticed this issue was already being discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ban_appeals_re…
My account is still blocked from contributing to any page on the English Wikipedia. I never intentionally violated policy and will not start doing so because my account was blocked, so I will not contribute there. However, I urge those who remain to contribute to this project. Proper ACL management is critical.
Note that arbcom-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org is intentionally not Cc-ed, since this will cause lists.wikimedia.org to refuse the message "for privacy protection".
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
Not much to see here, but for full disclosure, I am forwarding this last message from the thread. All messages from committee members are entirely quoted in the 2 mails now forwarded, except for 1 templated paragraph.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] BASC status and transparency
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 18:35:42 -0400
From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer(a)gmail.com>
To: arbcom-appeals-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Hi LFaraone,
On 2015-05-18 17:14, LFaraone (BASC) wrote:
> Chealer,
>
> This confirms receipt of your message, the contents of which have been
> distributed to members of the subcommittee.
Thank you
> The purpose of this list
> is to hear appeals of blocks and bans, not to submit bug reports or
> suggest changes to Wikipedia policies or processes.
I am not sure what you mean. The mail I sent primarily meant to avoid misinterpretation of my suggestion regarding BASC status, which is why I think it is relevant here, but feel free to suggest a better forum if you consider this suboptimal (although I currently have no intention to add anything).
As for the submission bug, I was not sending a proper bug report and just meant to let you know there is a bug in case this has not been reported yet. If this is already tracked, someone can point me to the ticket and I will contribute there if possible. If not, I meant to signal my willingness to help if someone else is interested. This could be a browser bug, but a Wikipedia bug seems much more likely. If someone volunteers, I use the same address on XMPP.
>
> -- LFaraone
>
>
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
Following https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2015-August/111154.html I am hereby disclosing a message I sent to the BASC 2 months ago, which unfortunately remains entirely current AFAIK.
No one has indicated whether the bug is known or not.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: BASC status and transparency (was Re: [arbcom-appeals-en] Appeal by Chealer)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:25:21 -0400
From: Filipus Klutiero <chealer(a)gmail.com>
To: Chris McKenna <thryduulf.wiki(a)gmail.com>, English Arbitration Committee mailing list (appeals) <arbcom-appeals-en(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi Chris,
On 2015-05-17 17:09, Chris McKenna wrote:
> Thank you for writing to us. The Ban Appeals Subcommittee will now consider your appeal and report its decision to you in due course. The current turnaround time for ban appeals can be checked at <http://enwp.org/WP:BASC#turnaround>. While I appreciate that you would like more precision than that, we are unable to be more specific as the length of time an appeal takes depends on many factors including the availability of individual members of the committee and the specifics of the appeal.
What I meant was not that a single measure was insufficient. I was just pointing out that as for any static document which contains "Currently", reliability is limited. Rather than "Currently, you can expect [...] ", this could read - for example - "As of December 2014, you can expect [...] ", or "Currently (last updated December 2014), you can expect [...] ". That would make appealing... more appealing ;-) In this case, one may get the information from page histories, but this is less trivial with templates.
While we're at it, according to our own article on tilde, the usage we make does not exist in English. Also, "you can expect" is vague - it would be best to say - for example - that the average time is x, or that the vast majority of appeals are processed in x, depending on what was meant (apparently the latter).
> We do not make appeals public as a matter of course as this is not normally in the interests of all parties, and in some cases would compromise privacy.
I did not mean to say all cases should be entirely public - I can understand some privacy issues. But I do not see why a public process would not "normally" be "in the interest of all parties" - or at least, in the project's interest, which is what we should consider. Speaking for my case, it would certainly be at least in my interest for the appeal to be public.
Then again, if the subcommittee wants to keep some or all of its internal communications private, that is a lesser issue. Simply opening external communications would solve most of the transparency problems, including the one which prompted this discussion, i.e. the capacity of potential users to evaluate whether an appeal would be heard (and secondarily, how fast) without requiring someone else keeping an up-to-date assessment (though that could remain a useful indicator to get a quick idea). As a bonus, potential users could evaluate the appropriateness of appeal results.
I rarely (less than once a month on average) make a benevolent online contribution to a project if I cannot do so publically, unless that is due to exceptional circumstances (say a buggy ITS). As a radical transparency advocate, I may not be a reference, but I am surely not alone.
Of course, if you care about the possibility of appealing privately, supporting both options can complicate your work or require investment. I honestly believe though, that for a project which champions openness like Wikimedia, and for an activity as critical as ban management in an open wiki, this should be seriously considered. The WMF might be able to allocate resources to help implementing this.
Finally, regarding the submission problem I noted, my third attempt to submit worked, unlike the first 2 which failed quietly. Even though there was no error, and even though I had never used Email this user before, it was relatively obvious that submission had failed since there was no confirmation (and I had requested an email copy which did not arrive). Still, I am willing to help if that issue is unknown or not fully understood yet. I was using Debian 8's Iceweasel 31 in the first attempts. I made the successful attempt using Chromium, so this may be browser-specific.
>
> [...]
> For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,
Thank you
>
> *---
> Chris McKenna (Thryduulf)*
> thryduulf.wiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:thryduulf.wiki@gmail.com>
>
> Unless otherwise noted, opinions expressed in this email are solely my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Arbitration Committee as a whole.
>
> On 17 May 2015 at 17:50, Chealer <chealer(a)gmail.com <mailto:chealer@gmail.com>> wrote:
> [...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
Hoi,
Magnus has produced new functionality that allows for lists that are based
on information in Wikidata.
The great thing is that it is essentially possible to maintain the data in
Wikidata only and show the information on any and all Wikipedias.
Examples are lists for award winners or lists that include data that
changes often.
I blogged about it and, I want to move the list for the N peace award and
make it a proper article on the English Wikipedia.
Thanks,
GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/05/wikipedia-farkhunda-iii.html
There is an important difference here. The WMF does not publicly log the IP
addresses of visitors to the site.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#your-use-of-wm-sites> It
does however publish the IP addresses of editors who are not logged in.
I could understand the elitist claim if the WMF were more privacy conscious
of editors than readers. But it isn't, if anything the divide is a three
way one, with unregistered editors as the ones who by default have least
privacy
Regards
Jonathan
On 5 April 2015 at 21:18, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I propose we run a study. We will survey random editors
>
> I always find it curious that we had dozens or hundreds of threads on
> having IPs in history: this worry is very elitist, at most few millions
> people ever edited.
>
> What about the hundreds millions users who never edited? What are *their*
> IPs being logged for? It would be rather trivial to do as the IA does:
> http://blog.archive.org/2013/10/25/reader-privacy-at-the-internet-archive/
>
> I'll start worrying about the millions when we have solved privacy issues
> for the billions.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
People are made aware with each edit as an I am that their information is publicly available. What concerns me about removing IP information is that it'll remove our ability to fight spam, detect socks, and respond to emergency@ issues, unless I've missed something?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Brian J Mingus <brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu> </div><div>Date:03-29-2015 4:36 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: David Carson <carson63000(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> </div><div>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers </div><div>
</div>Wikipedia is set up such that if you don't take the measures mentioned in
the OP, you are dox'ing yourself. Users are not aware of this.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:33 PM, David Carson <carson63000(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> "Wikipedia:Free speech" (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech) is probably worth a
> read.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Free_speech
>
> It's not directly about privacy but I think it clearly covers the ground
> that Wikipedia is a project to create an online encyclopedia, not an
> experiment in radical free speech. The system is set up to facilitate that
> goal.
>
> If you think that recording IP addresses is invasive, then you should
> probably be publishing your content on your own website, not Wikipedia.
>
> Cheers,
> David...
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Brian J Mingus <brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu
> > wrote:
>
>> In general people do not read privacy policies, nor do they understand
>> what
>> IP addresses are or what you can do with them.
>>
>> But if you recall, I simply stated that recording IP addresses is
>> invasive.
>> And it is.
>>
>> This is especially true when you know that your recordings are faciliating
>> the active de-anonymization of people who are editing Wikipedia. Not just
>> de-anonymization, but often public shaming.
>>
>> For WMF, the principle of neutrality clearly trumps the principles of
>> privacy and free speech. For the NSA, substitute security for neutrality.
>> It's hypocritical.
>>
>> Luckily, it's easy to fix. Just stuff the ip fields with random numbers
>> and
>> deal with the fallout. Stop tracking people.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In order:
>> >
>> > 1. Yes, the WMF is suing the NSA. There are a few threads/blog posts
>> > about this people here can point you to.
>> > 2. Brian: The NSA needs to store data without the permission or
>> > consent of the people generating it, sometimes through forcible
>> > interception, decryption and the introduction and maintenance of
>> > software exploits that allow them to do this but also allow any other
>> > reasonably technical nation or non-nation actor who is paying
>> > attention to exploit the same vulnerability, keeping this data for an
>> > indefinite period, with very little legal or political oversight, in
>> > order to stop terrorism, where very little evidence exists that this
>> > has helped in any way.
>> >
>> > The WMF needs to store data for a 90 day period, which is explicitly
>> > set down in a privacy policy that is transparent, human-readable,
>> > linked from every edit interface, written with the involvement of the
>> > people whose data is being stored, administered by a committee of
>> > people who come from this population of editors, and explicitly sets
>> > out what the data may or may not be used for, even within the
>> > Wikimedia Foundation, in order to stop vandalism, where multiple
>> > scientific studies have validated the hypothesis that being able to
>> > make rangeblocks and prohibit sockpuppetry is beneficial to the
>> > community we are all a part of and the wider population of readers.
>> >
>> > That's what's actually going on, here. If you thing these situations
>> > are roughly analogous, that's your prerogative. If you think the
>> > storage of this data is unnecessary, I recommend you go to your local
>> > project and explain to them that being able to checkuser potential
>> > sockpuppets or hard-block users is not needed: gaining consensus there
>> > would be a good starting point to changing this.
>> >
>> > On 29 March 2015 at 11:57, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Wikipedia is suing the NSA? Seriously?
>> > > On 28 Mar 2015 11:23, "Brian J Mingus" <brian.mingus(a)colorado.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> It has worked up to now, but I'm thinking that, especially given
>> > Wikimedia
>> > >> is suing the NSA, it is no longer justifiable. If the NSA can't track
>> > >> citizens, Wikimedia shouldn't be tracking them either. Seems simple
>> :)
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Francesco Ariis <fa-ml(a)ariis.it>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:19:35PM -0400, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>> > >> > > I think it's rather curious that edits to Wikipedia aren't
>> private.
>> > Why
>> > >> > log
>> > >> > > the IP address? Why log anything? It's invasive.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I guess it's a sensible choice against abuse (vandalism) while
>> still
>> > >> > allowing non registered users editing rights
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > _______________________________________________
>> > >> > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > >> > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> > >> >
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > >> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> > >>
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
>> > > WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Oliver Keyes
>> > Research Analyst
>> > Wikimedia Foundation
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Hi all,
I'm representing a team of researchers from Drexel University who are
researching privacy practices among Wikipedia editors. If you have ever
thought about your privacy when editing Wikipedia or taken steps to protect
your privacy when you edit, we’d like to learn from you about it.
The study is titled “Privacy, Anonymity, and Peer Production.” Details can
be found on meta where the project was discussed before beginning
recruitment here: (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Anonymity_and_Peer_Production).
If you would like to help us out, you need to read and complete the online
consent form linked here and we will get in contact with you:
http://andreaforte.net/wp.html.
We are planning to conduct interviews that will last anywhere from 30-90
minutes (depending on how much you have to say) by phone or Skype and we
can offer you $20 for your time, but you do not need to accept payment to
participate.
I have been researching Wikipedia since 2004 and have conducted many
studies, most of which have resulted in papers that you can find here:
http://andreaforte.net.
Thanks for considering it, please contact me if you have questions!
Andrea Forte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andicat
and
Rachel Greenstadt
Nazanin Andalibi
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 29, 2015, at 8:01 AM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Please do NOT hit "reply" to this digest without trimming the quoted section to only the message you are replying to!
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers (James Alexander)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 05:38:10 -0700
> From: James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Privacy Study Looking for Volunteers
> Message-ID:
> <CAOcBxPNL6Q2sXujPkuADBXyNbdZNoyao2sTehTsjsgtKrtFLjQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The idea of the IP being more private in the history/ public logs (for
> example a unique hash so that you know it's "an IP" but not where/what IP"
> ) is one that I know has been discussed and is desired by a good number
> within the foundation including within legal. I'll try to look for the
> phabricator task about it tomorrow. I think that's something that is likely
> to happen, it isn't easy though and requires a fair number of resources to
> be pointed at it to get it done so it's a question of priorities and
> convincing those who decide those things that it should be higher. I
> believe it's something, privacy wise, that legal would really like.
>
> I think it is unlikely in the short to medium term, however, to get rid of
> the IPs in the backend (in server logs and in the checkuser system for
> example) because the replacements just aren't there. I've spent a good
> amount of time thinking of a way to make the checkuser system as usable as
> necessary without revealing IPs for example (including a consultant who
> looked a lot but didn't really come up with anything we didn't know
> already). I think it's doable, but it would be a very difficult and long
> design process and I think it's unlikely in the near future.
>
> James Alexander
> Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>
>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Kyanos <someanon126(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe a different license is needed. CC licenses can be used for
>> anonymous works: The author is not given and does not have to be credited,
>> but everything else (attribution of the work and share-alike) would stay
>> the same. So a change in the terms of use to the effect of, "Unregistered
>> edits are considered to have no named author," would be sufficient.
>>
>> Kyanos
>>
>>> On 03/27/2015 06:41 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should move to a different licensing model for future IP
>>> edits. CC0 for IP edits would be a more sensible license for edits by an IP
>>> where in many cases no-one could attribute the edit to the individual who
>>> made it. If people don't want to release their edits as CC0 they can always
>>> create an account.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Jonathan Cardy
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 27 Mar 2015, at 10:28, Elias Friedman <elipongo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's actually required so as to provide attribution as per the Creative
>>>> Commons and other licenses we operate under.
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my Droid 4
>>>> Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P
>>>> אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי
>>>> elipongo(a)gmail.com
>>>> "יְהִי אוֹר"
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 138, Issue 7
> ****************************************
