I have been willing for quite a long time now to create an anti-vandalism
channel on IRC dedicated to projets with a small community and with few
edits (usually called "small projects"). There are already some tools 
but I think an IRC channel would be really practical. Despite TangoTanto's
great efforts and help, I have not been able to run pgk's bot  reporting
possible vandalism for dozens of projets on the same IRC channel. So now I
am asking for help from people who are more skilled than me in technical
stuff and Python (although being more skilled than me in those fields isn't
very difficult). I have already registered a channel on freenode  where
TangoTango and I have been trying to run the bot correctly for weeks, in
Being able to watch vandalism on small projects is really important since
there are few people to revert them. Please help running the bot or
modifying it so as to be able to manage multiple small projects on the same
 See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SWMT
http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile — You will be assimilated.
I have protected this page on meta:
It is a 91-Kb-long big mess where people are trolling and arguing. There are
lots of sockpuppets, there are people striking votes, there are sysop trying
to clean the mess and there are people messing it again.
I think it is time now for the relevant people (people from the language
subcommitee ?) to take a look at this, ask some checkusers, and clear up the
http://fr.wikipedia.org : Resistance is futile — You will be assimilated.
And another ...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com>
Date: 14-Nov-2006 00:24
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Principles of organisation - who do we serve?
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Florian Straub wrote:
>> Brion Vibber wrote:
>>> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/06, Florian Straub <flominator(a)gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>> Awesome! Is there any chance to activate it directly for new
>>>>> on commons or do they people have to confirm their adresses first?
>>>> Thanks, Brion. Specifically, could we require that new registered
>>>> users must have a confirmed email address before uploading? With talk
>>>> page email notifications as default setting.
>>> That's a complete about-face from Wikimedia's traditional policy of
>>> allowing anonymous contributions, so before I set that up I'd need to
>>> know this is acceptable to Wikimedia.
>> (I should clarify that I think it's a good idea, personally. But I would
>> not feel comfortable implementing that policy without both community
>> agreement and approval from upstairs for the ground rules changing
> I've just talked to Elian. She said that if it was a consensus between the
> commons people it would be ok.
No disrespect to Elian, but since when does she set Wikimedia-wide
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Commons-l mailing list
On 13/11/06, Artur Fijałkowski <wiki.warx(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/11/14, Barcex <lv.cabc(a)gmail.com>:
> > Just because Portuguese Wikipedia also closed uploads recently, adopting
> > the same policy than the Spanish Wikipedia.
> Nice that everybody was informed ...
Again: What do you think Commons was created for?
> ps. 6 days left and I start shooting to people
Note to Foundation-L: Artur is proposing to block all es: and pt:
contributors to Commons to save Commons admin work. That this goes
against the actual purpose of Commons as a service project to other
Wikimedia projects seems to have escaped him. Can someone rein him in?
The SPC has been authorized the creation of a *subcommittee* dedicated to
creation/removal of language projects with initial members of Ascánder,
Sabine Cretella, Berto d'Sera, Jhs, GerardM and Timichal. Their purpose will
be to recommend policies for starting such projects and setting related
standards, such as their abbreviations. A report back to SPC about its
formation is expected as soon as possible.
Good luck :)
As a member of SPC
I have been mulling-over an idea for fundraising, but I think that,
due to the details, it should probably be discussed here first, rather
than just get discussed inside the Foundation proper. Yes, this really
does mean "input welcome", not "isn't this a wonderful thought, all
supplicate afore me". :-)
One particularly powerful way in which we can increase funds is to see
if we can get "matching donation" - that is for every x units,
so-and-so promises to donate y, up to a limit. Although this increases
the value of donations to us (by a factor of x/y, obviously), which is
really great in and of itself, it actually works much more positively
to leverage donations, making people significantly more likely to
donate, and more likely to donate /more/. This means that (in the case
where x and y are both 1 - i.e., a direct matching donation) we
wouldn't just get twice as much (which would be fantastic), but thrice
or even more so (I've somewhat run out of superlatives).
There is a catch, however - this second effect only occurs if the
people donating are aware of it. The awareness cannot be achieved
through a press notice; it has to be displayed alongside the donation
request, and the display has to be rather prominent to have the best
I am aware that this may get derided as advertising, but I really
don't think it's true - this is merely an extended press release, as
it were. I think that a line (in the site notice), saying something
like "Foo have pledged to match up to US$200,000 in our [[current
fund-raising drive]]" instead of the current text ("Your [[continued
donations]] keep Wikipedia running!") would be appropriate and
understated (believe me, I'm British, "understated" is what we /do/).
I think actual advert-style copy would be a bad idea (and would
rupture the community, which is a no-no), and a logo (for example)
would be going too far, and be too flashy; it would distract readers,
suggest a stronger influence than many would be happy with, and on a
terribly practical level, companies might not be happy if we required
their logo to squish into a 30 by 100 pixel block, or whatever - and
are we sure that we'd have the strength of character not to allow a
20% increase in the sponsor logo box when they're offering so much
In the end, we could allow only matching personal donations (from the
rich, obviously, but still), if people thought that corporate matched
giving was too far - but do recall that we already accept donations
from many companies, including really very large ones, so it might not
be that significant a step. However, for a non-profit, the image of
neutrality is king, and we would want to be careful not to do anything
to sully ours.
Obviously, we would carefully vet proposed individuals and
organisations for suitability, both on legal but perhaps more
importantly vision/moral grounds - it would be difficult were the so
very conspicuous supporter to have a significantly different view of
the purpose of copyright, or the goal of the Foundation and the
projects. The exact wordsmithery for the text of the hook-line would
have to be hammered out (ho-ho), too. But these are a procedural
issues, not a philosophical ones, and I trust us all to stick, at
least at first, to the more pressing demand before getting diverted
into the less critical matters.
So... what do you all think? Worth considering? And, if it is, what
boundaries should we (we the Foundation, that is) set?
*Please note* that I post this in no official capacity whatsoever,
merely as a guy with an idea who cares about the Foundation and our
projects, like the rest of you. :-)
James D. Forrester
james(a)wikimedia.org | james(a)jdforrester.org | jdforrester(a)gmail.com