Wikimedia-l May 2007

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

128 participants
137 discussions

[Foundation-l] IRC Group Contacts
by Casey Brown 16 May '07

16 May '07

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts This is not a concern about the quality of the contacts' work, which is fantastic, but rather the fact that we have only two people in this role and their availability is sometimes limited. We currently only have two contacts, but sometimes their other Wikimedia and real-life commitments create delays. We also have to look at the nature of the job itself and the size of our IRC network. The job entails setting up cloaks and coordinating the Wikimedia Foundation and its users with the Freenode staff. Handing out cloaks itself is a rather labor-intensive process and there are many that need to be done. Sean is rather inactive and while he always replies, it is sometimes days later. For a group as large as Wikimedia, I believe we need at least 4 or 5 active contacts. The Foundation and the community need to figure whether or not we do need more contacts and, if so, who we want these users to be. Casey Brown Cbrown1023

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy
by Fred Bauder 16 May '07

16 May '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Ilario Valdelli [mailto:valdelli@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 03:27 PM >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' >Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy > >Sorry... I don't understand this thread. > >I live in Europe. This thread is concerning the foundation... I don't >understand Indians... tribes... I don't understand. > >Is this the correct ML? > >Ilario He's raised a legitimate question. An problem could occur in rare circumstances. For example we could permit an article about a "Navajo" rug weaver who makes great rugs, but is simply not a Navajo. People could view her beautiful rugs and rely on our article and lay out thousands of dollars. Whether we would actually be liable is questionable, but both genuine Navajo weavers and purchasers of fake rugs would have a legitimate grievance. One assumes these things would get caught, but considering the case of Ward Churchill, perhaps not. Being in Europe would not change this, one rug is genuine, the other not and they have value which reflects their status, Fred

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy
by Fred Bauder 16 May '07

16 May '07

The proposed policy does not conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates fair representation of all viewpoints which can be verified by reference to reliable sources. If a controversy exists regarding the legal status of a particular individual or group, we would report both sides of the controversy. The opinion of the Federal government is an important but not determining viewpoint with respect to knowledge. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey V. Merkey [mailto:jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:47 AM >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' >Subject: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy > > >I started a policy which was subsequently rejected by Wikiality based >concensus. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Native_American_Tribes > >The basic problem here is that non-Federally recognized groups claiming >to be Indian Tribes can expose the Foundation and Wikipedia to >considerable liability and negative publicity. By way of example, when >James Mooney was indicted in Utah for impersonating an Indian not only >was he charged, so was the person running his websites and posting the >false information. Mooney was indicted for 19 first degree felony >counts for operating a CEE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) for the >purposes of distributing peyote. The Southern Cherokee Nation (which is >not a real tribe) under currently operating illegal riverboat casinos >and using their claims of being a Federally recognized tribe to justify >their activities. > >Wikipedia needs to exclude these fake tribe from the project. Any of >these tribes can bring legal action against the Foundation, as can the >Federal Government if fake groups are allowed to claim they are indian >tribes, then use Wikipedia as a basis to claim credibility and break the >law. This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who >have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support >from the project and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity >and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes, as well as being >exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to >violate US laws. > >I am of Cherokee, German, and English ancestry, but I do not claim I am >a citizen of Germany or the UK., even though I am of these bloodlines as >well as Cherokee. The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the >US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments, and members are >citizens. For someone who claims Indian ancestry to set themselves up >as a tribe purports claims they are citizens of a non-recgnized >sovereign. It would be the same as for me to claim I am a German or UK >citizen just because I have ancestry from these groups, which would be a >false claim. The same applies to Indian Nations. > >I will be unable to garner support from the tribes to publicly support >Wikipedia from other tribes if such a policy does not exist, since any >fake group can claim they are an indian tribe when they are not. Please >read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision >about this matter. Tribes which are not Federally recognized in the US >are NOT indian tribes, and numerous legal liabilities are created if we >allow these groups to post false information into the project. > >Jeff > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

3 3

Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy
by Fred Bauder 16 May '07

16 May '07

I think your concern is overblown. Most such issues are adequately resolved by Wikipedia:Verifiablility which requires a reliable source for information included in Wikipedia. These sources usually contain information which casts doubt on their status. Inclusion of that material under our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view usually adequately illustrates questions regarding status. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey V. Merkey [mailto:jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:47 AM >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' >Subject: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy > > >I started a policy which was subsequently rejected by Wikiality based >concensus. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Native_American_Tribes > >The basic problem here is that non-Federally recognized groups claiming >to be Indian Tribes can expose the Foundation and Wikipedia to >considerable liability and negative publicity. By way of example, when >James Mooney was indicted in Utah for impersonating an Indian not only >was he charged, so was the person running his websites and posting the >false information. Mooney was indicted for 19 first degree felony >counts for operating a CEE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) for the >purposes of distributing peyote. The Southern Cherokee Nation (which is >not a real tribe) under currently operating illegal riverboat casinos >and using their claims of being a Federally recognized tribe to justify >their activities. > >Wikipedia needs to exclude these fake tribe from the project. Any of >these tribes can bring legal action against the Foundation, as can the >Federal Government if fake groups are allowed to claim they are indian >tribes, then use Wikipedia as a basis to claim credibility and break the >law. This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who >have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support >from the project and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity >and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes, as well as being >exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to >violate US laws. > >I am of Cherokee, German, and English ancestry, but I do not claim I am >a citizen of Germany or the UK., even though I am of these bloodlines as >well as Cherokee. The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the >US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments, and members are >citizens. For someone who claims Indian ancestry to set themselves up >as a tribe purports claims they are citizens of a non-recgnized >sovereign. It would be the same as for me to claim I am a German or UK >citizen just because I have ancestry from these groups, which would be a >false claim. The same applies to Indian Nations. > >I will be unable to garner support from the tribes to publicly support >Wikipedia from other tribes if such a policy does not exist, since any >fake group can claim they are an indian tribe when they are not. Please >read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision >about this matter. Tribes which are not Federally recognized in the US >are NOT indian tribes, and numerous legal liabilities are created if we >allow these groups to post false information into the project. > >Jeff > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy
by Philippe Beaudette 16 May '07

16 May '07

Well, it didn't go offlist. My apologies to all for sending to the world what was intended to be sent to one recipient only to avoid clutterin the list. Instead, you got two list messages. The internets are too complex for me some days. PHB ----- Original Message ----- From: Philippe Beaudette To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy Offlist to avoid cluttering it... but.... Yep. That's right. You said it better than I, and you eliminated all the maddening references to tribal politics, which truly are the worst politics (interesting aside - it was less than 8 years ago that the Cherokee Nation broke into two factions over a tribal election in which one faction occupied the square in the town of Tahlequah, the winning candidate in the election was arrested, and finally federal marshals, the BIA, SWAT teams and the CARTER CENTER were called in to sort the whole damned thing out.) Philippe ----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Bauder To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy The proposed policy does not conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contemplates fair representation of all viewpoints which can be verified by reference to reliable sources. If a controversy exists regarding the legal status of a particular individual or group, we would report both sides of the controversy. The opinion of the Federal government is an important but not determining viewpoint with respect to knowledge. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey V. Merkey [mailto:jmerkey@wolfmountaingroup.com] >Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:47 AM >To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List' >Subject: [Foundation-l] Native American Tribes Policy > > >I started a policy which was subsequently rejected by Wikiality based >concensus. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Native_American_Tribes > >The basic problem here is that non-Federally recognized groups claiming >to be Indian Tribes can expose the Foundation and Wikipedia to >considerable liability and negative publicity. By way of example, when >James Mooney was indicted in Utah for impersonating an Indian not only >was he charged, so was the person running his websites and posting the >false information. Mooney was indicted for 19 first degree felony >counts for operating a CEE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise) for the >purposes of distributing peyote. The Southern Cherokee Nation (which is >not a real tribe) under currently operating illegal riverboat casinos >and using their claims of being a Federally recognized tribe to justify >their activities. > >Wikipedia needs to exclude these fake tribe from the project. Any of >these tribes can bring legal action against the Foundation, as can the >Federal Government if fake groups are allowed to claim they are indian >tribes, then use Wikipedia as a basis to claim credibility and break the >law. This can have two possible outcomes. The genuine tribes (who >have Federal support and Federal funding) can withdraw financial support >from the project and/or Wikipedia can be exposed to negative publicity >and loss of public trust by the legitimate tribes, as well as being >exposed to Federal Prosecution if these groups use the project to >violate US laws. > >I am of Cherokee, German, and English ancestry, but I do not claim I am >a citizen of Germany or the UK., even though I am of these bloodlines as >well as Cherokee. The same applies to Native Tribes recognized by the >US Government. These tribes are sovereign governments, and members are >citizens. For someone who claims Indian ancestry to set themselves up >as a tribe purports claims they are citizens of a non-recgnized >sovereign. It would be the same as for me to claim I am a German or UK >citizen just because I have ancestry from these groups, which would be a >false claim. The same applies to Indian Nations. > >I will be unable to garner support from the tribes to publicly support >Wikipedia from other tribes if such a policy does not exist, since any >fake group can claim they are an indian tribe when they are not. Please >read the text of the policy, and the Foundation needs to make a decision >about this matter. Tribes which are not Federally recognized in the US >are NOT indian tribes, and numerous legal liabilities are created if we >allow these groups to post false information into the project. > >Jeff > >_______________________________________________ >foundation-l mailing list >foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Rethinking Brands
by Andrew Whitworth 15 May '07

15 May '07

>... we continue to suffer from the single largest >source of confusion, the Wikipedia/Wikimedia similarity. In fact, we >amplify it if we call Wikipedia the "Wikimedia Encyclopedia". Renaming all the projects (except wikipedia) to correct the confusion between wikipedia/wikimedia is similar to trying to kill a fly with a bazooka, except you aren't even aiming the bazooka at the correct fly. Consider the "problem" experianced by brands such as "Band-Aid", where people tend to refer to all self-adhesive bandages by that name. The benefits of ubiquitous brand recognition far outweigh the confusion generated by calling something "wikipedia" when it is not "wikipedia". >Given the generic >nature of the "wiki" prefix, there will also be an ever-increasing >overlap with legitimate ventures. We could be so lucky. Apple puts out the iPod and the iTunes, and now all sorts of companies are getting onto the iBandwagon. Is there overlap with the "i" prefix? yes. Does it only benefit Apple's name recognition? yes. >For the names that are based on real words like >"news" or "-pedia", the number of variants is much larger still, and >you get names like "Viquinot?cies", "Wikinotizie", "Wiki?tiri", all >referring to the same project. Sounds more like a local problem then a global one. What should likely be done is a memo should be sent out saying "These are the official brand names of the WMF, and any translations, mispellings, or adaptations of these names are not protected by the WMF". I refer to wikibooks as "that place on line where I write textbooks", but that doesnt mean you should have to copyright and protect that. >People may complain that giving the Wikipedia brand primacy is >horribly unfair. But it is already part of WMF's trademark strategy, >which is organized in tiers where we pursue the highest level of >protection for brands of high significance. What I want to know is if anybody would be in favor of this idea if we were debating renaming Wikipedia? If wikipedia's community wasn't happy with it, it certainly wouldn't even be proposed. That's hardly the issue, however. If wikipedia's brand has the most name recognition and is used most often in the press or by spammers or whoever, then you spend more money to protect that brand. "to each according to need" is certainly a fine guiding principle. If another project became as popular or even more popular then wikipedia, then focus would likewise have to change in the protection strategy. >In my opinion, it is much more honest to give a project a spin-off >name like "Wikipedia News" _unless_ you are also willing to afford the >same level of protection to its name _and_ its officially recognized >variants that you give to Wikipedia. In my opinion, it is much more honest to create a project that has the potential to reach an equal level of success and independence as wikipedia has reached. Not all (not many) of the projects will ever reach that level, of course, but crippling them from the beginning as being simply an offshoot of a "good project" is lousy. >One way to address the community concerns is to define criteria (clear >milestones, annual review, etc.) for a project to receive its own >name. Much like we qualified some projects as "beta", having them >officially associated with Wikipedia would recognize that their >reality doesn't yet reflect our ambitions. Why not associate them with "Wikimedia" instead? Wikipedia is not an incubator for new WMF projects, and siphoning strength from wikipedia to produce new projects seems counter-productive to me. I do agree that projects should be asked to meet certain milestones, although you risk losing lots of good contributors just because they speak an unpopular language. >Arguably, if we do recognize at least the _potential_ for projects to >obtain independent brands, the organization should not be called >"Wikipedia Foundation" -- perhaps it needs a different name entirely. Taking the brands away now would likely mean losing them forever. You are right that spammers tend to plan ahead, and if we give up some of our copyrights like "wikibooks" or "wikiversity" now, what do you think are the odds that we would ever get them back again? In essence, making people "earn" a brand name over a period of time is essentially denying them a brand for all eternity, unless the WMF was willing to put out the effort and the money to reaquire them at a later date, which seems harder to me then simply maintaining them. --Andrew Whitworth _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migrati…

1 0

[Foundation-l] Rethinking brands
by Erik Moeller 15 May '07

15 May '07

(Part of a "Rethinking" series.) The Wikimedia Foundation currently owns and protects the following brand names: * Wikipedia * Wikimedia * MediaWiki * Wikisource * Wikibooks * Wikiquote * Wiktionary * Wikimedia Commons * Wikispecies * Wikinews * Wikiversity Of these 11 names, three are confusingly similar: Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and MediaWiki. Moreover, only one has global recognition: Wikipedia. MediaWiki has strong recognition as a software solution and can therefore largely excepted from the following discussion. Proper protection of these brands involves trademark and domain name registrations and maintenance, and enforcement against misuse or use of confusingly similar names. This is complicated by the fact that the names are frequently used in internationalized variants. Moreover, not a single Wikimedia content project is close to the success of Wikipedia itself. Comparing the Alexa traffic rankings, only one of the other domain names used is even in the top #1000 (wikimedia.org), and that is largely because this domain name is accessed frequently, but indirectly, through Wikipedia itself (uploaded files). This is in spite of the significant attention given to these projects by featuring them on frontpages of most Wikipedias. There is an alternative brand strategy: making use of the strongest brand (Wikipedia) to identify all activities of the Foundation. In such a model, there would be: * Wikipedia Foundation * Wikipedia * MediaWiki * Wikipedia Sources * Wikipedia Textbooks * Wikipedia Quotes * Wikipedia Dictionary * Wikipedia Commons * Wikipedia Species * Wikipedia News * Wikipedia Learning (The name "Wikipedia Learning" may be a good alternative to "Wikiversity", which identifies the project less closely with a particular institutional type of learning and research, and more closely with its core activity.) Once rebranded, the projects could also be featured in different ways. For instance, a list of projects could be shown in a navigation bar at the top of every page: : Other Wikipedia Projects: Sources | Textbooks | Quotes | Dictionary | Media | Species | News | Learning At least some of the existing logos could be re-used in smaller versions, positioned under the Wikipedia logo, when identifying the projects. == Advantages == * No more confusion between Wikipedia and Wikimedia, Wikimedia and MediaWiki. * Strength of Wikipedia brand directly reflects on other activities. * Encourages thinking of new projects in terms of their function * As long as the core trademark (Wikipedia) is sufficiently protected, so are all compounds * Acknowledges that the "Wikipedia" brand stands for more than any traditional encyclopedia * Simplifies management and marketing/outreach, in particular, collaborations with other projects-- no more "Wikinews is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, which also operates Wikipedia" type introductions. * Reduces confusion with other "Wiki" entities, such as Wikitravel * If all projects use the .wikipedia.org domain name, retaining session information across wikis (after SUL) gets a lot easier (cf. wikia.com) * Recognition of Wikipedia as flagship removes some of the media pressure that every new project has to immediately (or ever) be just as successful, which may very well be completely unrealistic. * Discourages tribal thinking about projects, where even highly experienced Wiki[mp]edians are treated with as much suspicion as any newbie when they join another Wiki-* project. == Risks == * Community acceptance. Perhaps this issue should be voted upon if there is at least some support for it. * Internal use will require some adjustment (many pages affected). The frequent use of templates to identify related content should make this process easier. Phasing this in gradually should be fine. * Loss of visual identity. Again, this could at least partially be addressed by having small visual identifications under the Wikipedia logo for the different activities. * Initial confusion among those who have finally learned the differences between the names. :-) This is part of every rebranding experience. == Other perceived risks == * People would not contribute as much anymore. => I see no evidence to support such an allegation, anymore than, say, people are contributing less to Wikia.com's wikis because they are all unified under a single brand identity. I am convinced that some people would quit over such a decision, as some people will always quit (or threaten to) over anything that is remotely controversial. I doubt that this would have a significant long term impact. * Some people do not identify with Wikipedia's values. => The kind of people who join another project because they hate Wikipedia are not necessarily the kind of people who build healthy communities. If even the mere association with the Wikipedia name would give them a headache, they are not part of a Wikimedia community to begin with. * There is no such thing as a Wikimedia community. We must recognize that each small community has its own values and principles, and avoid empire-building. => A healthy dynamic between global and local values is key; describing and spreading the minimal (but important) global values that we have is a core reason we have a WMF and a chapter network in the first place. We already recognize all projects as part of the "Wikimedia" family; changing the brand to "Wikipedia" would merely reduce the confusion. * This will crush small projects under the juggernaut of the evil Wikipedia and divert even more attention from them. => There is no basis for such assumptions; indeed, it is quite reasonable to suppose that identification with the strong "Wikipedia" brand will make it _easier_ to resolve the particular technical needs of Wikipedia News, Wikipedia Sources, etc. Raising money and developing partnerships for Wikipedia is relatively easy, compared with a project hardly anybody has ever heard of. * But we spent so much effort telling people about our "Wiki-"thing, all this will now be for nothing! => Not at all. Indeed, rebranding exercises are usually an excellent opportunity to _raise_ awareness of a project. "Wikiversity is now Wikipedia Learning!" "Huh, there was a Wikiversity? And it's got something to do with Wikipedia?" * What if one of the projects eventually gets bigger than Wikipedia? Won't we look silly? => Talk about problems that are nice to have. No, we won't look silly, because awareness about the project will, from the beginning, be tied to an existing, well known brand name. Would Google look silly if Google Mail became more popular than their search engine? I'd appreciate other critical commentary on this brand model. Frankly, I see very few benefits in the strategy we have chosen to adopt (perhaps more as a habit than as a result of careful deliberation). -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees. "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic

32 93

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Citizendium-l] Shop online, support Citizendium
by David Gerard 15 May '07

15 May '07

So why are we leaving this money on the table again? - d. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Larry Sanger <sanger-lists(a)citizendium.org> Date: 15-May-2007 00:31 Subject: [Citizendium-l] Shop online, support Citizendium To: citizendium-l(a)lists.purdue.edu Want a book, game, or other merchandise of a sort that you buy online? Then, if you get it from Amazon or Barnes & Noble, please order it through us! See: http://tinyurl.com/29p9on We get 6% of the price you pay--and that adds up! Let's give credit where it's due, Nancy Sculerati, Kelly Patterson, and Jason Potkanski have set up affiliate programs with Amazon and Barnes & Noble, and have been at work on various aspects of our fundraising efforts. Thanks! Already, 14 items have been ordered and 8 items shipped from Amazon, which has raised our referral rate (i.e., the percentage of the price you pay that we receive) from 4% to 6%. We've actually received some money already, and we're very glad to have it. We'll announce a dollar amount when we get into four figures. With luck, we'll have even more fundraising news to announce soon. --Larry _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list Citizendium-l(a)lists.purdue.edu https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l

9 9

Re: [Foundation-l] Cross-Wiki accounts
by Robert Leverington 14 May '07

14 May '07

This should definitely be the case, I, like many others, am forced to create accounts on several wikis routinely due to my job as a Wikimedia Commons admin. I don't have the time to go back to my Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia userpage every time I create an account. If someone believes that one of my accounts is an impostor they should contact my before blocking it. On 14/05/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023(a)comcast.net> wrote: > You have to realize, though, that the sysop who blocks you has the duty to > seek-out and contact the person who he believes is being impersonated to get > confirmation that a block is requested and accepted or to find out if it is > the user who it is supposed to be. > > Casey Brown > Cbrown1023 > > -----Original Message----- > From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org > [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tim Starling > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:50 AM > To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Cross-Wiki accounts > > Casey Brown wrote: > > Many smaller wikis are cracking down on cross-wiki accounts to stop > > impersonation. If you create an account on another Wikimedia Project, > make > > sure it is linked from your main account. Otherwise, it may get blocked. > > An easy way to do all this is to create a master list of your accounts at > > Meta and link that page to all your other sites. This will, hopefully, > make > > it harder for you to be impersonated, and easier for your accounts to be > > identified. > > > > A tool that can be used to identify accounts that aren't yours can be > found > > at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/SUL. > > I don't really mind if someone impersonates me. I'm going to mind quite a > bit if I try to edit some small wiki and find that I'm blocked. > > -- Tim Starling > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Robert[hl] [[User:Lcarsdata]] http://roberthl.wikitest.co.uk/

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] Cross-Wiki accounts
by Thomas Dalton 14 May '07

14 May '07

> A tool that can be used to identify accounts that aren't yours can be found > at: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/SUL. Very useful link, thanks! There are 23 User:Tango's on Wikimedia's servers. I think about 5 or 6 of them are me. I was contacted a couple of days ago by an en.wikiquotes admin about an account someone had created there with the same name as me - it wasn't me, so they blocked it. I'd better go through and try my standard passwords against some of those accounts and find out which are me...

5 5

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
14
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l May 2007