Hello
Our Syrian users reported that Arabic Wikipedia access from Syria is being
blocked (reading and editing), the block started since 30/4/2008. The rest
of the languages are working properly. Advanced users can bypass the block
and view and edit (proxies) but the problem is that the majority cannot get
past the block. We don't know the reasons yet for this stupid block. Is
there anything to be done to help lift the block?
--
--alnokta
> Durova's point is that in her case, law enforcement was unable and
unwilling
> to help. Apathetic would be an understatement. Willfully negligent might
be
> even more appropriate. I think her point is that we ought to consider what
> actions the foundation can take to assist individuals in cases where the
> courts and law enforcement aren't a recourse.
>
Some of them might best be persuaded by having a couple of burly
motorcyclists show up for a discrete discussion. ;-)
----
Actually in my case they were able but unwilling until I used the wonderful
democratic system we have in my country. You see, the city in question was
Los Angeles. Jim Hahn, city attorney, had decided to run for mayor. I
brought full documentation of my case to the campaign of his opponent,
Antonio Villaraigosa. Both were in a runoff election. Within days of my
consultation, the outgoing Republican mayor Richard Riordan endorsed
Villaraigosa. It was rather unusual that that the Republican decided to
support the more liberal of two Democrats.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
Durova wrote:
> At some point Sarah was talking about people involved in this becoming
> admins and crats on other wikis. This is what has me confused. Are the
> people Gerard is refering to the same people Sarah is refering to about
> becoming admins on other language wikis?
>
> Birgitte SB
> ----
> You would have to ask Sarah and clarify with Gerard. If Gerard was
> referring to the example I read to him, the individual never had special
ops
> on any project. There exist a variety of such people, though.
>
>
I don't see Birgitte as a a person given to rash conclusions; she is
probably more careful than most about questioning them. Comments about
some stalker being an admin or bureaucrat do become a part of the
landscape. You may even be talking about two different people. In time
these stories tend to merge.
Ec
----
Ray, I call 'em like I see 'em. Your responses at this thread consistently
have the tone and content of someone who has not been paying requisite
attention to the material.
In no way did I imply that Birgitte makes rash conclusions. Nor did I
comment about any stalker being an admin or bureaucrat. It was SlimVirgin
who made that assertion, not me.
The opening post of this thread linked to a Digg page about an Article by
David Shankbone. You made a number of tangential posts, then failed to
recognize his name when I used it. It was I who started that Digg and David
cited me in his article. Three times this week I have posted to my blog on
the topic, including a full quote and a diff of a threat against David. I
posted it long before you requested that type of example here.
The word "prejudice" means premature judgment: to reach a conclusion before
examining adequate evidence.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
----- Original Message ----
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 4:27:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article
Hoi,
It would be one of the issues for a project / volunteer council.. Having a
platform to get these issues trashed out makes sense. Having the Foundation
involved can be a bad idea on many levels. However, not addressing this is
bad in and of itself.
Sure the projects are not monolithic, and there has been many examples of
people who did not do too good on one project to be perfectly at home in
another project. When stalking is perpetrated by admins, when the policies
are clear how stalking can be dealt with, make sure that these admins get
blocked first and de-adminned second.. Not doing this is giving in to the
dark side.
What I would like to know from people like Mike, Erik or Sue is what room
they have to get involved in this issue. When this is better understood, it
gives a clue to those opposed to stalkers what more and what else needs to
be done.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> > Dan, I feel we've almost left it too late. We currently have a
> > situation where several of those involved in some of the stalking
> > sites have been promoted to admins, and many more are regular editors
> > who routinely pursue editors they don't like -- via wikistalking,
> > RfCs, RfArs, and reports on AN/I -- in order to make their time on
> > Wikipedia miserable. Shortly after people were shocked that
> > NewYorkBrad was outed and left the project, one of the three people
> > who was instrumental in trying to out me in 2006 was promoted to
> > bureaucrat on another WMF project, with the support of FloNight of the
> > ArbCom. What kind of message does that send?
> >
>
> The message it sends is that projects are not administrated as a monolith,
> and rules vary from project to project while generally not taking into
> account the history of a user on other projects. You've mentioned "other
> project" actions several times - perhaps the next stage to approach would
> be
> developing a way to handle these serious conduct issues in a cross-wiki
> way.
> What I think the Foundation has been trying to stay away from is getting
> deeply involved in the user administration aspects of operating Wikimedia
> projects. There are various good reasons for this, reasons that make
> attempting other mechanisms worthwhile before involving the WMF directly.
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I apologize for the spam, but I promise this is my last public call
for help. :-) We now have 41 people lined up either as translators or
reviewers. I will start distributing the spreadsheets tomorrow. Of the
big languages, it would be good to have additional
translators/reviewers especially in Russian, Spanish, Italian, Swedish
and Japanese. (We have all these languages covered in theory, but only
one person assigned to each of them.) But, help in any language will
be needed -- we can divvy up relatively easily where it makes sense.
This will be the first large scale, multilingual survey of our readers
& contributors. It's serious and important stuff. If you can, please
help. Instructions here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/General_Survey_Translation
Thanks!
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
All;
http://digg.com/security/Stalkers_Haunt_Wikipedia_s_Volunteers
This article has been posted to digg and is rapidly getting hits. I am asking that anyone with a digg account (easy to create, free of charge) go ahead and digg this article. Cyberstalking is a real issue. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the victim's ideology, this can not be allowed to continue. RickK left because his family was threatened. By acting we can stop this menace beofre someone is hurt.
Dan, I feel we've almost left it too late. We currently have a
situation where several of those involved in some of the stalking
sites have been promoted to admins, and many more are regular editors
who routinely pursue editors they don't like -- via wikistalking,
RfCs, RfArs, and reports on AN/I -- in order to make their time on
Wikipedia miserable.
----
Have a look at this report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196
and the size of these categories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JB196http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JB…
Not only was the sheer volume of socking a monumental hassle in itself
JB196 invented an insidious attack that could be applied to nearly any
subject.
1. Create a bunch of socks.
2. Select unreferenced but verifiable articles where the sources are mostly
found in dead trees, not online. This makes it slower to provide references.
3. Tag a bunch of articles for lack of verification, simultaneously.
4. While editors are busy referencing some of those articles, delete
referenced sections from other articles.
5. Prod the tagged articles that aren't referenced yet.
6. AFD.
7. Wash, rinse, repeat.
One guy can do serious damage to the database that way, just by overwhelming
a wikiproject. And since JB196 chose a lowbrow topic to attack, the
volunteers there found it difficult to solicit help from anybody else.
JB196 played around for months, years. Good editors quit Wikipedia in
frustration because of him.
SirFozzie is the main reason we put the damper on that guy.
SirFozzie went to Wikipedia Review to represent a Wikipedian perspective in
their dialog with an aim of building bridges. Obviously, I disagree with
his decision because I have never registered there. Yet I respect that as
an act of conscience. I also respect SirFozzie's act of conscience when,
for several months, he resigned from WR in protest over the Mantanmoreland
malware issue.
It's best not to paint with too broad a brush.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
At some point Sarah was talking about people involved in this becoming
admins and crats on other wikis. This is what has me confused. Are the
people Gerard is refering to the same people Sarah is refering to about
becoming admins on other language wikis?
Birgitte SB
----
You would have to ask Sarah and clarify with Gerard. If Gerard was
referring to the example I read to him, the individual never had special ops
on any project. There exist a variety of such people, though.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
Once people have started using a word in a certain way you can't start
pretending that they haven't.
----
We got people to stop citing WP:VAIN because it was impolite. This is far
more serious.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/