list: textbook-l

from_name: Andrew Whitworth

body:
I agree with Garrett entirely. Even if we do continue to allow fair use, we
should certainly put on some restrictions, especially considering the legal
issues that fair use bring. Fair use media certainly may be helpful to
textbook writers such as ourselves, but it does nothing but create
unnecessary complications among textbook printers and readers (who are the
majority of our wikibooks audience).

A fair use image should never be used when an acceptable copyleft or PD
image is available, or when an acceptable image can be created and released
under such a license.

--Andrew Whitworth

>From: Garrett <masterthiefster at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>To: "Wikimedia textbook discussion" <textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Textbook-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 8
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:45:38 +1300
>
>Regardless of the strictness of the upcoming official statement from the
>Foundation, I think our local fair use policy should stipulate that fair
>use
>should only be used when absolutely necessary AND when no PD/copyleft
>equivalent exists. Images with stipulations that restrict re-use should
>also
>be disallowed. If someone is creating an image specifically for a Wikibook
>it should be released under the GFDL to ensure the maximum compatibility.
>
>I don't think we should go all the way and insist on Commons only, as this
>would make many history books difficult to write--it's unlikely some dead
>German general is going to claim copyright over a photograph of himself,
>but
>if Commons was the only way such images would be impossible.
>
>The goal is to find a happy medium, and watch non-free uses closely. Other
>sites have had trouble with people tagging fair use images as PD or
>GFDL-self, so we'll need to watch for that too. I don't think this is an
>impossible goal, however.
>
>--Garrett (I almost signed with ~~~~)
>
>On 17/02/07, Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What I consider terrifying is the fact that the statute of limitations
> > for copyright infringement in the United States is very ambiguous:
> > technically, it is only three years, but there are numerous
> > contradictory cases.
> >
> > Consider this example. I publish a book in August 2005. Another person
> > copies an entire chapter in December 2005 without permission and for
> > profit, directly infringing upon my exclusive right to the material,
> > including it in their book. Their book is published September 2006. A
> > second edition is published September 2007. It is still on the market
> > for several years to come. Courts might consider the December 2005
> > copy the original date of infringement, others might consider the
> > September 2006, the 2007, or even the later dates when the book is
> > still being published. Furthermore, there is ambiguity as to whether
> > one can sue for damages only based on the past three years, or on the
> > entire time the infringement (in this case) was in print.
> >
> > I know that it is pure speculation and copyright paranoia, but it is
> > frightening. Also, I want to say that even if we decide what we would
> > like to limit (or outright ban) regarding fair use, we should: (1)
> > wait for the official statement from the board and (2) get help from
> > foundation-l or more qualified legal personnel. But I would certainly
> > support discussion about what we would like to allow or disallow.
> > Also, I think we should seriously consider cleaning out our fair use
> > archives...I can testify from roving through the subcategories of
> > [[:Category:Wikibooks images]] that we have a lot of things that
> > should never be considered fair use.
> >
> > -Iamunknown
> >
> > On 2/16/07, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's more then just our legal risk in keeping those images and text.
> > Under
> > > US copyright law, we should be legally allowed to use some copyrighted
> > > material under fair use guidelines without causing any problems. There
> > are
> > > several problems with fair use:
> > > 1) Fair Use only applies in the US and a small handful of other
> > countries.
> > > In countries where fair use is not legal, all instances of it are
> > considered
> > > copyright infringement. In these countries, it is not legal to print
>or
> > > distribute wikibooks containing fair use media.
> > > 2) Fair use, or other limited licensing (such as "the author allows
>this
> > > image to be used on wikibooks only") reduces our ability to print,
> > > distribute, and modify our texts. Derivative works, a cornerstone of
>the
> > > GFDL are not compatable with fair use, and using two incompatable
> > licenses
> > > on a single aggregate project (such as a wikibook) is simply not
> > possible.
> > > 3) Many people assume that text or an image can be released under fair
> > use
> > > when it can't be. Images that are uploaded under "fair use" are
>usually
> > (as
> > > you pointed out) not properly tagged or referenced. These instances of
> > > misuse do constitute copyright infringement, and that could bring
> > lawsuits.
> > > We allowed fair use for a pretty long time on our project, but it
>isn't
> > the
> > > kind of fight that we should be pursuing any longer. There are too
>many
> > > problems with it. -
> > >
> > > --Andrew Whitworth (Whiteknight)
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "Matthew Benedict" <mattb112885 at gmail.com>
> > > >Reply-To: Wikimedia textbook discussion
><textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
> > > >To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [Textbook-l] Textbook-l Digest, Vol 33, Issue 8
> > > >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:07:29 -0500
> > > >
> > > >Now that I have thought some more about it, I do feel that the use of
> > > >fair use images should be limited, but the problem is where do we
>draw
> > > >the line? We'd have to ask ourselves if the value of using the images
> > > >in the book outweighs the legal risk of listing it under fair use,
> > > >especially if the books will eventually be published in some manner,
> > > >as I presume is one eventual goal for any book on the project. I
>think
> > > >that only in extreme cases (such as maybe those european history
> > > >images) should fair use be presumed, and these cases should be
>clearly
> > > >defined, perhaps on a case-by-case or strict categorical basis.
> > > >
> > > >As for textual quotations, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> > > >presumption of fair use for these (provided they are properly cited
>of
> > > >course) is more common than the presumption of fair use for images.
>If
> > > >we're going to do that we'll need some kind of standard method to
> > > >describe the rationale for the fair use argument, like wikipedia has
> > > >for images (i.e. this is a screenshot used only for illustration,
>this
> > > >is a low-res company logo used to show what it looks like, etc).
> > > >
> > > >Speaking of citation, one problem with current fair use images is
>that
> > > >a lot of them don't really cite the source properly; i.e. who created
> > > >it? From what source was it derived? This information should be in
>the
> > > >image page, but often they just have descriptions of what the image
> > > >is, not where it came from or who the current copyright holder is,
> > > >which can cause problems of its own.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >Mattb112885
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 2/16/07, textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > ><textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > > Send Textbook-l mailing list submissions to
> > > > >         textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > > > >         http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > > > >         textbook-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > > > >         textbook-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
> > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
>specific
> > > > > than "Re: Contents of Textbook-l digest..."
> > > > >
> > > > > Today's Topics:
> > > > >
> > > > >    1. Regarding fair use (Iamunknown)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > From: Iamunknown <iamunknown at gmail.com>
> > > > > To: textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:52:49 -0700
> > > > > Subject: [Textbook-l] Regarding fair use
> > > > > I really don't want fair use to go totally away, but I agree that
>it
> > > >should
> > > > > be significantly limited. The clause, "Because of our commitment
>to
> > free
> > > > > content, this non-free media should not be used when it is
> > reasonably
> > > > > possible to replace with free media that would serve the same
> > > >educational
> > > > > purpose," in Kat Walsh's statement comes to mind. While I have
> > expreseed
> > > > > concern on-wiki and on-mailing list before about unlicensed
>images,
> > many
> > > > > which, if licensed properly, would remained unlicensed and used
> > under
> > > >fair
> > > > > use, I think that we should not outright ban unlicensed content
>used
> > > >under
> > > > > fair use. In particular, we should allow very very limited use of
> > > >non-free
> > > > > media when it would be practically impossible to use free media --
> > the
> > > >media
> > > > > used in the European History wikibook comes to mind -- and for
>small
> > > >textual
> > > > > quotations. What are everyone else's feelings?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Iamunknown
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --===============8126416904983688626==--
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Textbook-l mailing list
> > > > > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Textbook-l mailing list
> > > >Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Find a local pizza place, movie theater, and more?.then map the best
> > route!
> > > http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag1&FORM=MGAC01
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Textbook-l mailing list
> > > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Textbook-l mailing list
> > Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Textbook-l mailing list
>Textbook-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l

_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms  http://www.NexTag.com


list: foundation-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: geni

subject: [Foundation-l] RfC: Draft licensing policy resolution

body:
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> equivalent information content.

You realise this would risk inceaseing the amount of fair use stuff
allowed on en? Since it allows the use of unfree material even when it
would be possible to create free material.

--
geni


list: wikimedia-l


list: commons-l

from_name: Brianna Laugher

subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: search manipulation

body:
Could we do this to add a 'Mayflower' button?

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: min Sui <wm.suisui at gmail.com>
Date: 20-Feb-2007 15:39
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Support WMF via GoodSearch
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

Hi.

I made a quick javaScript hack for Special:Search
from french wikipedia -> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js

this shows like this -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search
it's shows this way.
1. input word(s) to search box
2. click search
and select search engine you like, will make
result search from paticuler project.
( my script points to ja.wikipedia.org you can change it ;)
and the source is here -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js
anyone can use it freely.

thanks.

suisui
suisui at gmail.com

2007/2/15, the wub <thewub.wiki at googlemail.com>:
> You can also use a link like
> http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=812661<http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=xxx>that
> links to the search page with WMF pre-selected, which will be good to
> promote this.
> ** <http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=xxx>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Delirium

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Admins blocking each other

body:
Mark Williamson wrote:

>I have a couple of questions.
>
>First of all, in what circumstances should an admin block another admin?
>
>Second of all, is it somehow "dishonest" for an admin to unblock
>themselves when they honestly believe they have done nothing wrong?
>Does it make them untrustworthy if they do not observe a block imposed
>upon them by another admin?
>
>
I can only speak for consensus on the English Wikipedia, and don't know
how far these are universal, but on en:

1. An admin generally cannot block another admin (or any other
established user, for that matter), except in emergencies like
vandalbots, or specific circumstances like a 24-hour block for 3RR
violations.  Those sorts of blocks are the Arbitration Committee's
job---unilateral blocks by a single admin are only for cases like anon
vandals or vandal-only accounts, not for blocking established users who
have gotten engaged in disputes.

2. An admin is not generally supposed to unblock themselves, but instead
place an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and wait for another
admin to do it for them.

So I guess by en: standards, both sides in your description would be in
the wrong.  But some things are a little different---presumably small
wikipedias have no ArbCom, and also don't have enough admins for an
{{unblock}} request to be likely to be seen.  So that's a bit of a problem.

-Mark


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
comments and suggestions.

This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)

==Applicable definitions==
; Project
: the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
or Wikisource, and a language.
; Free License
: a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
: a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
(including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
context of the project. Examples include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and
http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek

==Resolution==

Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and
engage people around the world to collect and develop educational
content under a ''free license'',"
# All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition
referenced above.
# In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
# Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
# For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following
action shall be taken:
#* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable
licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should
be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a
discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale
exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.
# For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the
following action shall be taken:
#* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an
unacceptable license shall be deleted.
#* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
to coordinate this process.
#* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable
license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.

--
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


list: wikien-l

from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

body:
For transparency, the moderated user "countpointercount" has the
following message for subscribers to the mailing list:

'Your "moderators" are now claiming that any reporting of abusive
administrators is a "personal attack." This is obvious coverup
behavior.'

This is in response to my rejection of two emails, both of which I
considered to contain personal attacks because they called various
administrators 'abusive' etc. What are the thoughts of subscribers to
the list on this? What would the appropriate course of action have
been?

~Mark Ryan


from_name: Husky

body:
On 2/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> ==Applicable definitions==

; Free License
> : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
> Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.

Should maybe indicate some examples of the current heavily-used licenses
that follow these criteria, namely GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and (maybe) PD.
Maybe there should be also be some examples of licenses which are sometimes
considered 'free' but aren't, such as the Non-Commercial Creative
Commons-licenses (CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-NC-SA).

-- Hay Kranen / [[User:Husky]]


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Do the communities have to ask permission to implement an EDP in their
project? Or is that only an advice?

Will the general council also advice on the part of EDP on local law, or
only for the "US-part" ?

Does the EDP have to be fine with GFDL too?

Will the EDP be a temporary solution, or a definitive one?

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, Erik Moeller <erik op wikimedia.org>:
>
> In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
> resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
> comments and suggestions.
>
> This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
> actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
>
> ==Applicable definitions==
> ; Project
> : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
> or Wikisource, and a language.
> ; Free License
> : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
> Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> context of the project. Examples include:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and
> http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek
>
> ==Resolution==
>
> Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and
> engage people around the world to collect and develop educational
> content under a ''free license'',"
> # All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
> License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition
> referenced above.
> # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
> community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
> EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
> easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
> # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
> # For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following
> action shall be taken:
> #* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable
> licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should
> be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a
> discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale
> exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.
> # For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the
> following action shall be taken:
> #* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an
> unacceptable license shall be deleted.
> #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
> EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
> to coordinate this process.
> #* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable
> license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Do the communities have to ask permission to implement an EDP in their
project? Or is that only an advice?

Will the general council also advice on the part of EDP on local law, or
only for the "US-part" ?

Does the EDP have to be fine with GFDL too?

Will the EDP be a temporary solution, or a definitive one?

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
>
> In follow-up to previous discussion, here's the current draft of the
> resolution for an official WMF licensing policy. We would appreciate
> comments and suggestions.
>
> This is a DRAFT and not an invitation for any unusual deletion
> actions, nor an official announcement of any kind. :-)
>
> ==Applicable definitions==
> ; Project
> : the combination of a Wikimedia Foundation project, such as Wikipedia
> or Wikisource, and a language.
> ; Free License
> : a license which meets the terms of the ''Definition of Free Cultural
> Works'' specific to licenses, as can be found at
> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition version 1.0.
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> context of the project. Examples include:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use and
> http://pl.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Dozwolony_u%C5%BCytek
>
> ==Resolution==
>
> Whereas the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "empower and
> engage people around the world to collect and develop educational
> content under a ''free license'',"
> # All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free
> License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the Definition
> referenced above.
> # In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project
> community may develop and adopt an EDP. Non-free content used under an
> EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be
> easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.
> # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
> # For the projects which currently have an EDP in place, the following
> action shall be taken:
> #* As of February XX, 2007, all new media uploaded under unacceptable
> licenses (as defined above) and lacking an exemption rationale should
> be deleted, and existing media under such licenses should go through a
> discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale
> exists; if not, they should be deleted as well.
> # For the projects which currently do not have an EDP in place, the
> following action shall be taken:
> #* As of February XX, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an
> unacceptable license shall be deleted.
> #* The Foundation resolves to assist project communities in need of an
> EDP in the process of developing it. The General Counsel is directed
> to coordinate this process.
> #* By February XX, 2008, all existing files under an unacceptable
> license must either be used under an EDP, or shall be deleted.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Jim Wilson

subject: [Wikitech-l]  Announcing UsenetSyntax Extension

body:
There was some buzz on this list a while back about supporting Usenet syntax
- such as *bold*, /italics/ and _underscores_.

I have created an extension which provides this facility, which you can read
about here:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:UsenetSyntax

I welcome all feedback - and thanks in advance to anyone who wants to give
it a shot.

-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki XSS exploit

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brion Vibber wrote:
> Edward Z. Yang wrote:
>> See http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070220/mediawiki-192-utf-7-xss/ for
>> details. I'm sure we get these all the time, but since RSnake picked it
>> up it probably will get a bit more publicity than normal. Has it been
>> fixed on the trunk yet?
>
> Haven't heard of it before now, so I'll take a look.

Fixed on trunk in r20007.

As with the previous (non-UTF7-autodetection-based) bug mentioned, this
only affects wikis with $wgUseAjax enabled, which is off by default.

I went through and added preemptive charset headers in various other
places (mostly custom HTTP error output) though I didn't notice anything
that looked exploitable.

Will backport to release branches and put out bugfix releases shortly.

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF26KcwRnhpk1wk44RAi9EAJkBnW7ElARD/vRZ4/uhuwIsTaz4MgCeOttl
q+abdj0nYbC51j9uJ7KTLKQ=
=Doix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Christiano Moreschi

subject: [WikiEN-l] An idea for deletions

body:
Agreed. That particular idea is overly bureaucratic and instruction creepy
for my liking.

Besides, the load on AfD isn't that bad. Most articles get enough eyes.

Cheers,

Moreschi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving ? check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

body:
On 2/20/07, Ral315 <en.ral315 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good
> standing to have their talk page deleted.

No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user
and is part of the communities' records.

--
geni


from_name: David Gerard

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

body:
On 20/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Ral315 <en.ral315 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good
> > standing to have their talk page deleted.

> No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user
> and is part of the communities' records.

In practice we seem to take a "possibly" approach.

- d.


from_name: Andrew Gray

body:
On 20/02/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 2/20/07 8:55 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at guy.chapman at spamcop.net wrote:
>
> > Helping you not to make a fool of yourself?  It's one possibility,
> > anyway.,
> >
> > Guy (JzG)
>
>
> Come on, Guy; that's about as subjective as it gets. You're going to do me a
> favor by censoring what I write?

It's pretty much the definition of a moderated list; that some
messages, at some point, are not let through. This is, historically,
necessary so that reasonable discussion is not drowned out by a
cesspool of people frantically wanking over adding photos of shit to
articles.

(Literally - early-mid 2005, I think. The least erudite trolling I've
seen on the list...)

Call it "censorship" if you want, but I don't see any reason we should
just let people write screeds of virulent hatemail to a
wide-distribution, specific-purpose discussion list. This does exist
for a purpose; that purpose requires we play nice.

In the specific case in question, it doesn't help that "abusive admin"
or "admin abuse" is a shibboleth - people who cry that tend, on
examination, to almost invariably be talking nonsense. I don't know
why, nor do I know why the people most prone to seeing VAST
CONSPIRACIES against them seem to all come up with the exact phrase,
but it's got a pretty good hitrate.

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk


from_name: Any File

subject: [Wikitech-l] Captcha changes

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> I've fixed up the image-based captcha to read from subdirectories, which
> should put less load on the file server.

Sorry for asking more information about captcha, but I have some
problem in understanding how the various system message works.

I have found 4 system messages in Allmessages
* captcha-createaccount
* captcha-edit
* fancycaptcha-createaccount
* fancycaptcha-edit
(as weel as some other related messages like captcha-createaccount-fail )

According to what I have been seeing on it.wikinews the
captcha-createaccount message was used some time ago and was asked to
enter a word displayed distorted in an image, then the same message
was used, but what the user had to do was to solve a math operation,
than from today (or yesterday) the  fancycaptcha-createaccount is used
and an image of a distorted word is displayed.

What are the system message that are used?
Can I assume that, form now on, image of a word will be displayed and
the user asked to insert the  distorted word displayed in the image?

By the way in the default (English) message it is written "... enter
the words  ... ", the plural is used, but I have seen only one word on
the image. (Well actually I have made just a few tests)

Thanks
AnyFile


from_name: Kasimir Gabert

subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and proxy_check

body:
For creating accounts from Tor exit nodes, you might just want to
implement a CAPTCHA system and maybe a special form to fill out which
would require validation from an admin for IPs that are specific to
Tor.  This would allow honest users that have to use Tor the ability
to use your wiki, and it would keep out vandals.

Kasimir

On 2/20/07, Simetrical <Simetrical+wikilist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/20/07, Travis Derouin <travis at wikihow.com> wrote:
> > From my understanding, if a registered user uses an IP that has been
> > blocked, they will also be blocked, correct? If a solution that works
> > as a compromise is to ban just the anonymous edits from this these
> > IPs, while allowing registered users to edit from these IPs, some sort
> > of changes to Mediawiki will have to be put in place to accomodate
> > this, as far as I know.
>
> Such changes were committed some time ago.  They're definitely in 1.9,
> possibly in 1.8 (can't remember offhand).  There's now an option to
> block only anonymous edits from an IP.
>
> > Additionally, this doesn't prevent a vandal
> > from creating multiple accounts, unless there's a way to increase the
> > blocking on the IP to the normal, usual level so that registered users
> > from that IP are also blocked.
>
> It's also possible to block only account creation from an IP, thanks
> to the same set of changes to blocking.  I don't think anyone minds if
> Tor accounts are allowed to edit from registered accounts, the
> question is whether they should a) be allowed to edit anonymously
> (answer: no), and/or b) be allowed to create accounts (answer: maybe).
>
> > Another possibility is that registered users from these IPs will have
> > to confirm their registration via e-mail, if the wiki isn't configured
> > to do so already. It'd be nice to have this option just for this
> > special case.
>
> Interesting point, but you could use the same address for all the
> accounts, surely, and the only ones who could tell (and, e.g., block
> the address somehow) would be people with database access.  So you
> could just create adjgi39qaikc at hotmail.com and use it for all your
> accounts, and no one would be the wiser.  (I assume we don't enforce
> unique e-mail addresses, but even if we do, you could have
> adjgi39qaikc+1 at gmail.com, adjgi39qaikc+2 at gmail.com, etc., which will
> all be delivered to you.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>

--
Kasimir Gabert


from_name: Andrew Garrett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Jeremy Cushman wrote:
> Right now on the English Wikipedia bots are limited to 6 edits per minute.
> Is it time to raise the permitted edit rate?  Do we have the server capacity
> now to handle rapid editing?
> --Mets501

This edit-rate limitation is because nobody wants to flood Recent Changes,
 not for any particular technical reason. As far as I am aware, given the
 traffic that the servers already handle, bot traffic is fairly trivial
 ( current traffic is in excess of 40, 000 SQL queries per second. Please
 do NOT take this as gospel. Brion, Tim, Domas, Mark and the rest of the
 sysadmin team know much more about our capacity than I do, so I would
 recommend checking with them first.

Andrew Garrett
(werdna)


from_name: xaosflux

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Do we have any processes that simply aren't working when limited to 6/min;
360/hr; 8640edits/day?

[[en:user:xaosflux]]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Cushman" <mets501wiki at gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia developers" <wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

> On 2/20/07, Andrew Garrett <andrew at epstone.net> wrote:
>>
>> Jeremy Cushman wrote:
>> > Right now on the English Wikipedia bots are limited to 6 edits per
>> minute.
>> > Is it time to raise the permitted edit rate?  Do we have the server
>> capacity
>> > now to handle rapid editing?
>> > --Mets501
>>
>> This edit-rate limitation is because nobody wants to flood Recent
>> Changes,
>> not for any particular technical reason. As far as I am aware, given the
>> traffic that the servers already handle, bot traffic is fairly trivial
>> ( current traffic is in excess of 40, 000 SQL queries per second. Please
>> do NOT take this as gospel. Brion, Tim, Domas, Mark and the rest of the
>> sysadmin team know much more about our capacity than I do, so I would
>> recommend checking with them first.
>>
>> Andrew Garrett
>> (werdna)
>
>
> Bot edits don't show up recent changes by default, only in watchlists,
> where
> they can be disabled.  I'll wait for a response from one of the sysadmins
> before raising the limit in the bot policy.
>
> --Mets501
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki 1.9.3, 1.8.4, 1.7.3, 1.6.10 released

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

February 20, 2007

MediaWiki 1.9.3 is a security and bug-fix update to the Winter 2007
quarterly release. Minor compatibility fixes for IIS and PostgreSQL are
included.

An XSS injection vulnerability based on Microsoft Internet Explorer's
UTF-7 charset autodetection was located in the AJAX support module,
affecting MSIE users on MediaWiki 1.6.x and up when the optional setting
$wgUseAjax is enabled.

If you are using an extension based on the optional Ajax module,
either disable it or upgrade to a version containing the fix:

* 1.9: fixed in 1.9.3
* 1.8: fixed in 1.8.4
* 1.7: fixed in 1.7.3
* 1.6: fixed in 1.6.10

There is no known danger in the default configuration, with $wgUseAjax off.

* (bug 8992) Fix a remaining raw use of REQUEST_URI in history
* (bug 8984) Fix a database error in Special:Recentchangeslinked
  when using the PostgreSQL database.
* Add 'charset' to Content-Type headers on various HTTP error responses
  to forestall additional UTF-7-autodetect XSS issues. PHP sends only
  'text/html' by default when the script didn't specify more details,
  which some inconsiderate browsers consider a license to autodetect
  the deadly, hard-to-escape UTF-7.
    This fixes an issue with the Ajax interface error message on MSIE
  when $wgUseAjax is enabled (not default configuration); this UTF-7
  variant on a previously fixed attack vector was discovered by Moshe BA
  from BugSec: http://www.bugsec.com/articles.php?Security=24
* Trackback responses now specify XML content type

Full release notes:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/tags/REL1_9_3/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES

Download:
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/mediawiki-1.9.3.tar.gz

Patch against 1.9.2:
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/mediawiki-1.9.3.patch

Downloads, checksums, and GPG signatures for all versions:
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.9/
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.8/
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.7/
http://download.wikimedia.org/mediawiki/1.6/

Before asking for help, try the FAQ:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ

Low-traffic release announcements mailing list:
(Please subscribe to receive announcements of security updates.)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce

Wiki admin help mailing list:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l

Bug report system:
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/

Play "stump the developers" live on IRC:
#mediawiki on irc.freenode.net

- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF27NDwRnhpk1wk44RAhmmAKCVZNGTidpNmCJUwUs5JA1CIJL3OwCfUsxy
uny25mn0vihjgNoDxl2ZDiw=
=bvTp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [Wikitech-l] Tor and proxy_check

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:
> There's no system built-in to MediaWiki for detecting Tor nodes (they
> are not open HTTP proxies, so a search for them would not work even if
> the old proxy-blocking code still works, which I don't know if it does).

> You'd have to rig up a system for detecting Tor nodes, and/or use a list
> of open Tor nodes.

This said, an extension for this has long been on my to-do list. I might look
 into it at some stage.

Andrew Garrett
(werdna)


from_name: Edward Z. Yang

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki XSS exploit

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

See http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070220/mediawiki-192-utf-7-xss/ for
details. I'm sure we get these all the time, but since RSnake picked it
up it probably will get a bit more publicity than normal. Has it been
fixed on the trunk yet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFF24nRqTO+fYacSNoRAl+VAJ4vlOKYMIYamO2x6BxFJdj8qVYiewCfZ1tP
XFpAqpDHBu2onGY2NrITQY8=
=Dnhz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
[[WP:RFBOT]] is requests to run a bot, not suggestions for bots, and I will
never !vote to approve a bot operated by an indef blocked sockpuppet.  Bots
are not run server side, and require responsible, accountable operators,
something an indef user can not be.

[[en:user:xaosflux]]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Parker Peters" <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

> On 2/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> These usually get rejected over at [[WP:RFBOT]].  The last one rejected I
>> can find is [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot]], with the
>> reasonable basis that it was being proposed by an operator that was indef
>> blocked.
>
>
> I don't care who offers a suggestion, a suggestion should stand on its
> merits, not be torpedoed based on who proposed it.
>
> Parker
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
IMHO one, or both, of you need to be desysoped.

In general you should not unblock yourself unless the block message states
it, or it is your autoblock AND somone else already unblocked you.

Does your project have an ArbCom that can take care of this dispute?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Delirium" <delirium at hackish.org>
To: <wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Admins blocking each other

> Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>>I have a couple of questions.
>>
>>First of all, in what circumstances should an admin block another admin?
>>
>>Second of all, is it somehow "dishonest" for an admin to unblock
>>themselves when they honestly believe they have done nothing wrong?
>>Does it make them untrustworthy if they do not observe a block imposed
>>upon them by another admin?
>>
>>
> I can only speak for consensus on the English Wikipedia, and don't know
> how far these are universal, but on en:
>
> 1. An admin generally cannot block another admin (or any other
> established user, for that matter), except in emergencies like
> vandalbots, or specific circumstances like a 24-hour block for 3RR
> violations.  Those sorts of blocks are the Arbitration Committee's
> job---unilateral blocks by a single admin are only for cases like anon
> vandals or vandal-only accounts, not for blocking established users who
> have gotten engaged in disputes.
>
> 2. An admin is not generally supposed to unblock themselves, but instead
> place an {{unblock}} request on their talk page and wait for another
> admin to do it for them.
>
> So I guess by en: standards, both sides in your description would be in
> the wrong.  But some things are a little different---presumably small
> wikipedias have no ArbCom, and also don't have enough admins for an
> {{unblock}} request to be likely to be seen.  So that's a bit of a
> problem.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

body:
Courtesy deleted by Jimbo do not ammount to a "right to vanish", they are
simply courtesies.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ral315" <en.ral315 at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

> On 2/20/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 20/02/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2/20/07, Ral315 <en.ral315 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in
>> good
>> > > standing to have their talk page deleted.
>>
>> > No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user
>> > and is part of the communities' records.
>>
>>
>> In practice we seem to take a "possibly" approach.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> In general I'd prefer that talk pages be kept, but Jimbo has made courtesy
> deletes of both user and user talk pages under right to vanish on a couple
> occasions, and I've seen other admins do it without much of a fuss.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Ral315
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ral315
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


from_name: Parker Peters

subject: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?

body:
Another user can easily set up such a bot.

Parker

On 2/20/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [[WP:RFBOT]] is requests to run a bot, not suggestions for bots, and I
> will
> never !vote to approve a bot operated by an indef blocked
> sockpuppet.  Bots
> are not run server side, and require responsible, accountable operators,
> something an indef user can not be.
>
> [[en:user:xaosflux]]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Parker Peters" <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 10:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WelcomeCommitteeBot?
>
>
> > On 2/18/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> These usually get rejected over at [[WP:RFBOT]].  The last one rejected
> I
> >> can find is [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Welcomebot]], with
> the
> >> reasonable basis that it was being proposed by an operator that was
> indef
> >> blocked.
> >
> >
> > I don't care who offers a suggestion, a suggestion should stand on its
> > merits, not be torpedoed based on who proposed it.
> >
> > Parker
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
====
Parker Peters
http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com


from_name: Andre Engels

subject: [Commons-l] King of the FlickrLickrs

body:
2007/2/20, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:

> We've seen some copyvios from flickr. I've not personally used
> FlickrLickr, does it make it easy to see other uploads from the same
> person? Thats a typical place to look for signs of trouble.

Not really, there is a link to the image description page on Flickr, but I
rarely use it. In general all you see is the photograph, description and
tags (not the comments). The only way I sometimes notice copyvios on
FlickrLickr is that there is a series of images (the images are shown in
order of posting to Flickr, so if one person posts a series to Flickr, it
usually shows up close to each other in FlickrLickr) that seems 'too good to
be true'. Then I might go and check, and find that it indeed is.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20070220/ff26618b/attachment.htm


from_name: Jeremy Cushman

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
On 2/20/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do we have any processes that simply aren't working when limited to 6/min;
> 360/hr; 8640edits/day?

Not working, no.  But we have many bots who could accomplish leagues more if
they could edit faster.  For example, my bot, which is migrating userboxes
out of the template namespace into user space and fixing the transclusions
works almost 24/7 (whenever I have access to a computer), and literally has
hundreds of thousands of edits to make.  Editing at over 6/min could allow
it to accomplish a whole lot more than it does now.
--Mets501


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

body:
On 2/20/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> geni <geniice at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On 2/20/07, Ral315 <en.ral315 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Lucky 6.9's actions are valid; the right to vanish allows a user in good
> >> standing to have their talk page deleted.
> >
> > No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user
> > and is part of the communities' records.
> >
> > --
> > geni
>
> As I recall, didn't practice use to be that as a courtesy and a part of
> right to vanish, userspace articles could be deleted at a user's request
> - as long as they weren't needed for other purposes like for Arbcom or
> misc. vandal whacking? When did that change?
>

When RickK left.

--
geni


from_name: Matthew Flaschen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
Jeremy Cushman wrote:
> On 2/20/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do we have any processes that simply aren't working when limited to 6/min;
>> 360/hr; 8640edits/day?
>
>
> Not working, no.  But we have many bots who could accomplish leagues more if
> they could edit faster.  For example, my bot, which is migrating userboxes
> out of the template namespace into user space and fixing the transclusions
> works almost 24/7 (whenever I have access to a computer), and literally has
> hundreds of thousands of edits to make.  Editing at over 6/min could allow
> it to accomplish a whole lot more than it does now.

That strikes me as useful, but not urgent.  I think the current limit
makes sense for such bots (or bot tasks).  For urgent ones, perhaps
there could be an exception.

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070220/afcdab21/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Mark Ryan

body:
On 20/02/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm with Oskar. If they call various administrators abusive they should be
> able to back that up.
> Of course, the smarter response is to talk it out with the admin in question
> so it doesn't come to such accusations.
>
> Mgm

Ah, but the emails in question contained diffs which they claimed
shewed that the administrators in question were "abusive". Should
those have been let through?

~Mark Ryan


references:
<C2006612.1A85%michaeldavid86@comcast.net>
	<45DB015B.9030409@wikia.com> <45DB0714.6070400@earthlink.net>
	<86bqjoaaqo.fsf@elan.rh.rit.edu>

body:
On 2/20/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof --
> the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a vandalized main
> page."

um it's happened.

--
geni


from_name: Evan Prodromou

subject: [Wikitech-l] Fixing interwiki links with language section

body:
On Tue, 2007-20-02 at 22:31 +0100, Platonides wrote:
> Also interesting having a $2 for commons, ie.
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1?uselang=$2
>
> What we want here is some configuration so you would have an optional $2
> parameter selecting the project.
>
> How do you set the dafault value for $2?
> Using a default value of $wgContentLanguage would work for us, but is
> not optimal. Some odd domains are not equal to the language code (eg:
> $wgContentLanguage of simple is en).

> Plus, some external URLs may not need a language code, or only some of them.

Right. Those wouldn't have a $2 in them, so they'd work like they do
now.

> Wikitravel uses format  http://wikitravel.org/$2/$1 but if it had a page
> named Sh:sh  you would end up at http://wikitravel.org/sh/sh (requested
> URL was not found on this server).

So, I think what you're saying here is if there's a namespace on the
interwiki server that is the same string as a language code, then you'll
get false matches for the interwiki pattern.

While I agree that this is possible in principle, in practise projects
that use language codes don't have page namespaces that clash with those
language codes, for this very reason.

And if they do, then we don't use this shortcut for those projects.

~Evan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/attachments/20070220/3f4811c1/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Kat Walsh

body:
On 2/20/07, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>   Hi,
>
> Quoting Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
>
>   I suggest that this needs some additional discussion.  If en:'s experience is
> typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces the
> incentive to create or find free content considerably.  Further, I'd suggest
> that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is a
> justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.

I agree with this... yikes, definitely needs revision if that's what
it's implying.

>   Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely specific.  en:'s
> articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be formatted
> using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using the
> gallery tag.  Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it was
> easy to read it that way.

Also a good point.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


body:
On 2/20/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put
> the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just
> claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont
> even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on
> as long as there is no replacement uploaded.

That's not something that is intended -- that's what the big long
previous message about NC and ND content was supposed to be about. You
can't claim something as fair use unless it is genuinely fair use,
whether all rights reserved or ND/NC. If something that happens to be
ND  or NC licensed instead of all rights reserved is fair use, it
should be treated no differently than material that is all rights
reserved under than policy.

-Kat

--
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone


from_name: Rob Church

subject: [Wikitech-l] Captcha changes

body:
On 20/02/07, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> The ones above. The two pairs were separated a few weeks ago to make it
> easier to have distinct directions for the math sample implementation
> ('captcha') and the image-based one ('fancycaptcha').

(Note that MathCaptcha, the slightly better math-based one, also uses
the math-specific captcha messages.)

Rob Church


from_name: Jeffrey V. Merkey

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki XSS exploit

body:
Brion Vibber wrote:

If its ajax related, are there any potential issues with users running Flex?

Jeff

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
>>Edward Z. Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>>>See http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070220/mediawiki-192-utf-7-xss/ for
>>>details. I'm sure we get these all the time, but since RSnake picked it
>>>up it probably will get a bit more publicity than normal. Has it been
>>>fixed on the trunk yet?
>>>
>>>
>>Haven't heard of it before now, so I'll take a look.
>>
>>
>
>Fixed on trunk in r20007.
>
>As with the previous (non-UTF7-autodetection-based) bug mentioned, this
>only affects wikis with $wgUseAjax enabled, which is off by default.
>
>
>I went through and added preemptive charset headers in various other
>places (mostly custom HTTP error output) though I didn't notice anything
>that looked exploitable.
>
>Will backport to release branches and put out bugfix releases shortly.
>
>- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
>iD8DBQFF26KcwRnhpk1wk44RAi9EAJkBnW7ElARD/vRZ4/uhuwIsTaz4MgCeOttl
>q+abdj0nYbC51j9uJ7KTLKQ=
>=Doix
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
>
>


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

body:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:41:19 -0500, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

>But David, this takes me back to the original question: Is it really
>offensive to call someone abusive?

Have you ever read [[WP:ROUGE]]?

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:38:25 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>If they're blocked the block messages tell them that they can appeal
>on their talk page or to the unblock-en-l mailing list, not wikien-l.

And if you think there's trolling on here, you just take a peek in
that box! :o)

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: Bence Damokos

body:
>
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> context of the project.
>

Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an EDP
cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?

Thanks in advance
Regards, Dami


body:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:41:56 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

(apologies for non-trimmed top posting)

Ray, I subscribe to unblock-en-l.  The really gross cases, I simply
don't read.  I'm not capable of extending good faith so some of those
people, so I leave them alone.  I *know* some cases are valid even
though they are stated in obnoxious terms and often by obnoxious
people.  One who was unblocked under a month ago is now in front of
ArbCom; the unblock was probably valid but I'd not have unblocked. The
thing is, though, we don't need those cases here.  Here, we discuss
things which might actually be broken.  Admins blocking abusive trolls
is not broken.  I trust the mods to sort out the abusive trolls from
the simply rude and obnoxious, I then apply my own filters to the rude
and obnoxious.  Overall, the mods are doing just fine.  Either the
seriously batshit cases don't post here, like they do to the unblock
list, or they are being modded, and actually I don't care which.

Guy

>Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
>
>>For my money, a properly stated case against an admin from an editor
>>with a history and a decent reputation is never a problem.  The vast
>>majority of complaints about admin behaviour are generic "rouge admin
>>abuse" crap and can safely be ignored, especially if they can't bring
>>themselves to state it in a civil manner.  Sounds like this lot fails
>>on both levels.
>>
>An editor with a history and decent reputation knows the ropes, and that
>alone helps to keep him out of trouble.  There are exceptions, as the
>recent complaints by Waerth have shown.  His complaints about how Thai
>open proxies are blocked made sense, but his presentation of the problem
>and abuse of those who wanted to help was abrasive and disinclined most
>people from trying to help him
>
>The others probably don't know what they have at their disposal, and
>need to be taught.  One starts with the presumption that the claim is
>valid, even if 95% of those claims turn out to be completely unfounded.
>We can't really judge the validity of a claim without investigating more
>deeply.
>
>Some claimants are grossly abusive and offensive.  This goes well beyond
>simple claims of admin abuse, or the occasional cuss word.  This should
>receive a personal response from the moderator asking the claimant to
>tone down his comment, and restate his complaint in a more civil
>manner.  The mederator could even promise that if he does that he will
>let the revised complaint move onto the list.  The moderator makes no
>comment whatsoever about the merits of the claim; doing so would
>compromise his neutrality.  The moderator can let the claimant know that
>list members are free to take up advocacy or not for the claim, and that
>it is not uncommon to wait for up to 48 hours before there is any reply.
>
>Once a complaint has reached the list it is up to the interested list
>members to ask for diffs or other missing information.  A very common
>missing bit of information is the person's own user name, without which
>nothing can be done with the complaint.
>
>Assuming the complainant gets the message about how to civilly present
>his case, arguments can be made against excessive e-mails or persistent
>whining, but it is difficult to establish clear criteria about these
>because the tolerance of list members varies considerably.  Again
>though, the moderator must avoid getting himself into the middle of a
>fight that has nothing to do with him.
>
>Ec
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> > : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> > and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> > accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> > (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> > upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> > context of the project.
> >
>
> Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an EDP
> cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Regards, Dami

And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the influx
of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

body:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:55:34 +0000, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>No it does not since the talk page doesn't really belong to that user
>and is part of the communities' records.

Where's the harm?  If they are in good standing, there's unlikely to
be much to be worried about.  If they are a troll or there are edits
there vital to some debate, we'd be more likely to blank than delete.
Anything can be retrieved anyway, if the need arises.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: effe iets anders

body:
Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like
english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not
being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too
big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on
youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as
well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy
locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save
WMF-diskspace etc.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, Bence Damokos <bdamokos op gmail.com>:
>
> On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos <bdamokos op gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> > > : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> > > and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> > > accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> > > (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> > > upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> > > context of the project.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an
> EDP
> > cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Regards, Dami
>
>
> And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
> Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the
> influx
> of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Well, in your language it might be possible that some people do not like
english. So that might be a reason. And some people think commons is not
being nice, that might be a reason too. And some people think commons is too
big, and it is impossible to find out the procedures, while you know them on
youw own project. That might be a reason too. But there are of course as
well reasons to move it to commons, such as you can scratch a bit of policy
locally, you make the images available for every project, in time you save
WMF-diskspace etc.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com>:
>
> On 2/20/07, Bence Damokos <bdamokos at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ; Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)
> > > : a project-specific policy that, in accordance with United States law
> > > and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly
> > > accessed (if any), recognizes the limitations of copyright law
> > > (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the
> > > upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the
> > > context of the project.
> > >
> >
> > Does this mean, that if local law has no Fair Use or similar, then an
> EDP
> > cannot be made just be considering the US law (ie. Fair Use) ?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Regards, Dami
>
>
> And if there is no EDP, is there any point in uploading locally and not to
> Commons directly? (Except the usual, that Commons couldn't handle the
> influx
> of new users, or that its unconvenient unless there is Single User Login)
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


from_name: Simetrical

subject: [Wikitech-l] Bot edit rates

body:
On 2/20/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> That strikes me as useful, but not urgent.  I think the current limit
> makes sense for such bots (or bot tasks).

Not if there is, in fact, no reason for it.  Personally, I suspect
this was from before bot edits were hideable on RC and/or watchlists,
and was annoyance-oriented rather than technically-oriented.  But I
don't know.


from_name: David Gerard

body:
On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp at gmail.com> wrote:

> EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.

[...]

>Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> use it because of EDP.

Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
what the resolution is about.

- d.


from_name: Gregory Maxwell

body:
On 2/20/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> All the projects that I have heard of implementing this experienced
> BIG, significant drops in  upoads and copyvio uploads. Like, 1/2 as
> many afterwards. That is a big saving in admin maintenance work, even
> if you don't ever want to go to Commons-only. So I strongly recommend
> it.

I hate to see anyone from commons recommending this while we still do
not have a handle on copyright violations on commons.

Our goal should be a reduction in the percentage of uploaded copyright
infringements wikimedia wide, and I've yet to see evidence that
switching things to commons improves the situation.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Admins worthy of review

body:
On 2/20/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> Where's the harm?  If they are in good standing, there's unlikely to
> be much to be worried about.

Almost any admin is likely to have stuff of non zero significance on
their talk pages.

> If they are a troll or there are edits
> there vital to some debate, we'd be more likely to blank than delete.
> Anything can be retrieved anyway, if the need arises.
>

The deleted edits database should not be used for storage.

--
geni


body:
I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont need
the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when
there is nothing else available and it is really needed.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, jkelly op fas.harvard.edu <jkelly op fas.harvard.edu>:
>
>   Hi,
>
> Quoting Erik Moeller <erik op wikimedia.org>:
> > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
>
>   I suggest that this needs some additional discussion.  If en:'s
> experience is
> typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces
> the
> incentive to create or find free content considerably.  Further, I'd
> suggest
> that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is
> a
> justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
>
>   Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely
> specific.  en:'s
> articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be
> formatted
> using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using
> the
> gallery tag.  Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it
> was
> easy to read it that way.
>
>                                Jkelly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont need
the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when
there is nothing else available and it is really needed.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu>:
>
>   Hi,
>
> Quoting Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
>
>   I suggest that this needs some additional discussion.  If en:'s
> experience is
> typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace, reduces
> the
> incentive to create or find free content considerably.  Further, I'd
> suggest
> that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media is
> a
> justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
>
>   Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely
> specific.  en:'s
> articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be
> formatted
> using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using
> the
> gallery tag.  Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but it
> was
> easy to read it that way.
>
>                                Jkelly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
On 20/02/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:

> I simply feel the moderators (editors) need to exercise particular caution
> when deciding what words render a List post unacceptable.

We do try to. The content of the list this week should make it clear
that we're really not so very fussy ...

- d.


from_name: Peter van Londen

body:
Hallo

EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of. The resolution is supposed to
clear things up, but in fact is now doing the opposite. NC and ND is not
allowed, except if you have a EDP. You see what will happen? Whole
communities will be tested once again. Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
use it because of EDP.

I am sorry, but this is not a resolution I can back up.

Peter van Londen/Londenp

2007/2/20, effe iets anders <effeietsanders op gmail.com>:
>
> I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont
> need
> the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when
> there is nothing else available and it is really needed.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/20, jkelly op fas.harvard.edu <jkelly op fas.harvard.edu>:
> >
> >   Hi,
> >
> > Quoting Erik Moeller <erik op wikimedia.org>:
> > > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
> >
> >   I suggest that this needs some additional discussion.  If en:'s
> > experience is
> > typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> > actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace,
> reduces
> > the
> > incentive to create or find free content considerably.  Further, I'd
> > suggest
> > that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media
> is
> > a
> > justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
> >
> >   Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely
> > specific.  en:'s
> > articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be
> > formatted
> > using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using
> > the
> > gallery tag.  Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but
> it
> > was
> > easy to read it that way.
> >
> >                                Jkelly
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Hallo

EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of. The resolution is supposed to
clear things up, but in fact is now doing the opposite. NC and ND is not
allowed, except if you have a EDP. You see what will happen? Whole
communities will be tested once again. Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
use it because of EDP.

I am sorry, but this is not a resolution I can back up.

Peter van Londen/Londenp

2007/2/20, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com>:
>
> I think the idea is that as soon as you can create a gallery, you dont
> need
> the EDP for that subject, as you have enough images. So only use it when
> there is nothing else available and it is really needed.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> 2007/2/20, jkelly at fas.harvard.edu <jkelly at fas.harvard.edu>:
> >
> >   Hi,
> >
> > Quoting Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> > > # Such EDPs must be minimal. Whenever possible, content used under an
> > > EDP should be replaced with a freely licensed work if it carries
> > > equivalent information content. Media used under EDPs are subject to
> > > deletion if there is rough consensus that they lack an applicable
> > > rationale. They must be used only in the context of other freely
> > > licensed content, and may not be arranged in galleries.
> >
> >   I suggest that this needs some additional discussion.  If en:'s
> > experience is
> > typical, saying that replaceable unfree media is acceptable until it is
> > actually replaced, instead of being possible in theory to replace,
> reduces
> > the
> > incentive to create or find free content considerably.  Further, I'd
> > suggest
> > that the "burden of consensus" really needs to be that the unfree media
> is
> > a
> > justifiable exception to our goal of producing free content.
> >
> >   Additionally, the "gallery" phrasing strikes me as strangely
> > specific.  en:'s
> > articles that are substantially galleries of unfree images tend to be
> > formatted
> > using templates to recreate <.table> functionality, as opposed to using
> > the
> > gallery tag.  Perhaps you didn't mean the gallery tag specifically, but
> it
> > was
> > easy to read it that way.
> >
> >                                Jkelly
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Probably I don't understand.

However explain me if you can modify and use commercially copyrighted fair
use pictures.
Please explain to me like I am 6 years old, so I do understand.

Peter van Londen

2007/2/20, David Gerard <dgerard op gmail.com>:
>
> On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp op gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
>
> [...]
>
> >Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> > use it because of EDP.
>
>
> Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
> concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
> what the resolution is about.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
Probably I don't understand.

However explain me if you can modify and use commercially copyrighted fair
use pictures.
Please explain to me like I am 6 years old, so I do understand.

Peter van Londen

2007/2/20, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>
> On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
>
> [...]
>
> >Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> > use it because of EDP.
>
>
> Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
> concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
> what the resolution is about.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put
the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just
claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont
even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on
as long as there is no replacement uploaded.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, David Gerard <dgerard op gmail.com>:
>
> On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp op gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
>
> [...]
>
> >Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> > use it because of EDP.
>
>
> Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
> concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
> what the resolution is about.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


body:
I think the point Peter is trying to make is, that communities will just put
the current NC or ND policy under the Fair Use policy in the EDP. they just
claim they use it as fair use, easy as that. With this resolution they dont
even have to proof that the image can not be replaced, they can just go on
as long as there is no replacement uploaded.

Lodewijk

2007/2/20, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
>
> On 20/02/07, Peter van Londen <londenp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > EDP is the worst idea I have ever heared of.
>
> [...]
>
> >Fair use is NC and ND, but you can
> > use it because of EDP.
>
>
> Fair use is unrelated to NC or ND status. They are *unrelated
> concepts*. That you conflate the two indicates you don't understand
> what the resolution is about.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


subject: [Wikitech-l] Moving the contents to the side panel

body:
It would help if we could restrict the depth of the TOC for a given
article using a magic word.


body:
On 2/20/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The contents box seems to cause endless problems with article layout,
> particularly when combined with an infobox[1], or when the intro
> section is short compared to the number of sections in the article.[2]
> The result always seems to be a huge white space between the intro and
> the rest of the article.
>
> Would it be possible to have the contents box appear in the side panel
> of the GUI, perhaps above the toolbox? This could either be a
> per-article setting or perhaps site-wide.

Could equally be considered the fault of stupidly long map containing
self side-stacking infoboxes.

Consider this monstrocity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Memorial

It's problems have nothing to do with the toc....

It was even worse before someone just replaced the map in the info box.

Would be nice if the toc could be made multiple columns wide....


from_name: Yann Forget

subject: [Commons-l] Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons

body:
Hello,

Patrick-Emil Z?rner a ?crit :
> I am quite appalled about how things have a nasty tendency to a nasty
> outcome on commons. M?nchen is being moved to Munich, Praha is moved
> to Prague,... and all on a specious kind of based argumentation. I
> know how the cities are called. I have seen the traffic signs! The
> cities are actually called M?nchen, Praha,...
>
> I read e.g. that [M?nchen, Germany] would look silly. Yes it does.
> That is why it should have been [M?nchen, Deutschland] in the first
> place with the redirect being [Munich, Germany] or even a
> disambiguation on [Munich] as it already is on the en-WP. What was
> clear to many people in the beginnig of commons now gets overthrown
> and people keenly start their bots.
>
> Moreover I do not mind having [東京] as log as there is a
> redirect on [Tokyo], [Tokio] etc.
>
> As far as I remember commons was planed for all projects to coexist
> but not to assimilate them until a bad english gets the upper hand.
>
> I am appalled about this and do not know if I carry on in this pile of
> shards.
>
> disappointed greetings
>
> paddy

Yes, this is happening again.
It is very disappointing that people try to enforce an English only
categories naming. Actually categories redirect works quite well, so I
don't see why there should English names when the language of the place
is not English.

People do not even care about opposition to renaming categories, and
threathen me as vandal when I am trying to keep the original name.

This on-going change should not happen.

Regards,

Yann


from_name: Platonides

body:
Also interesting having a $2 for commons, ie.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/$1?uselang=$2

What we want here is some configuration so you would have an optional $2
parameter selecting the project.

How do you set the dafault value for $2?
Using a default value of $wgContentLanguage would work for us, but is
not optimal. Some odd domains are not equal to the language code (eg:
$wgContentLanguage of simple is en).
Plus, some external URLs may not need a language code, or only some of them.
Wikitravel uses format  http://wikitravel.org/$2/$1 but if it had a page
named Sh:sh  you would end up at http://wikitravel.org/sh/sh (requested
URL was not found on this server).


from_name: Florian Straub

subject: [Commons-l] One new and one old tool

body:
"Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote on  Sunday, February 18,
2007 11:44 AM:

> On 18/02/07, Florian Straub <flominator at gmx.net> wrote:
>> "Brianna Laugher" <brianna.laugher at gmail.com> wrote

>> > It would be useful if a few things were changed:
>> > * possibility to input image url instead of image ID. (shouldn't be
>> > that hard...)
>>
>> It could be difficult, since there are various kinds of image urls at
>> flickr, but I'll see what I can do.

> well, it doesn't have to be perfect. The two obvious cases (the image
> page, where comments and tags are, and the 'photo zoom' version which
> has different sizes) should be relatively easy. for anything else, it
> can always throw an error which explains how to find the image ID.

still thinking ....

>> > * include the {{flickrreview}} template in the pastable output (I
>> > thought it used to?)

done

>> > * make translatable, since if other langs update their special:Upload
>> > forms, they will want to link to a version in their language
>>
>>  What exactly should be translateable?
>
> Subtitle ('the easy way to upload pics from Flickr'), field name
> ('ID:'), submit button text ('Get Flickr-Info'), link names ('Open
> upload form', 'Download original size'), preview button text
> ('preview'), any error messages. You know, basically any piece of text
> aside from the paste-able content.

done

> I would also make the URL of the 'open upload form' link
> translate-able. For EN it can be
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?uselang=fromflickr&title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=$1

done

> I would also create a page just for feedback and comments on the tool,
> rather than only linking to your userpage. (And make it on commons or
> meta, please. :P) And on the page you can give info about how people
> can provide translations.

done, please use it for all further comments about Flinfo
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flominator/Flinfo


from_name: William Pietri

body:
Hi, Samuel.

Samuel L Bronkowitz wrote:
> Lie much?

Here we have an example of why you are unlikely to make any progress in
this.

No, I don't lie much. I offered you advice on how to press your case;
you rejected it out of hand. I gave my opinion in answer to a question
asked, and you accuse me of lying. I'm not sure how I could be lying
about my own opinion, but let that pass.

This isn't my job. I'm just an occasional volunteer editor, with no
special perks, no special powers, and no personal acquaintance with
anybody here. I have no obligation to deal with you just because you're
in a lather. But I took the time to look into into your concern, because
it's important to me that Wikipedia succeeds, and I think the move
toward a caste system is one of the biggest risk factors right now. If
that's not enough for you, that seems like your problem, not mine.

I'm not saying you are a sockpuppet; I'm just saying that's a reasonable
conclusion to come to, and that your behavior fits the patterns that I'm
familiar with. If you don't like that, perhaps you should try behaving
differently.

> "he was being contentious and
> difficult on AIV within 30 minutes of creating his account."
>
> You mean, I spoke up on Adminstrator's Noticeboard (AIV?) about something I
> saw that I considered to be improper behavior: the deliberate provocation of
> a user, by an admin, conduct which would never have been countenanced were
> they not an admin, a Checkuser filed obviously as a fishing expedition, and
> obviously falsified results that could have no bearing on the case.
>
> Coverup.

You're welcome to your interpretation of the events. I have mine.

Being accusatory and rude didn't appear to help you in your 7 entire
hours on Wikipedia, and it's not doing much for me here. I would like to
believe that you care about Wikipedia so deeply, but you've managed to
convince me that you're one of the tiny minority of participants who is
more invested in being upset and generating drama than in doing anything
productive.

I could be entirely wrong, of course. But your behavior has persuaded me
that it's not worth more time to find out. And I'd guess that's why
you've seen so little response here from others as well.

So again, I'd suggest that you let this go and take a month off. If
there really is a sinister cabal, it will still be here in 30 days, and
you can uncover its machinations then. And hopefully you'll do it with a
cool head and a kind word. The greatest friend to real conspiracies are
the ranting conspiracy nuts, as they make it very difficult for more
measured people to take the possibility of conspiracy seriously.

And if there isn't one, well, you can always come back and actually edit
some articles.

Regards,

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


body:
Parker Peters wrote:
> The abject refusal of anyone to make any serious enquiry into his complaint,
> the ongoing abuse of his talk page when he tried to file for unblock, and
> the continual abusive tactics displayed by many administrators in trying to
> shut off further enquiry on the WP:ANI board aren't helping him to calm
> down, either. They're more proving his accusations had some truth behind
> them.
>

I think a point where we can agree is that I think many administrative
and cleanup actions (not just blocks, but speedy deletions, regular
deletions, and reverts) would go better if editors and admins were more
patient with strong emotions, troublemaking, and the confusion of
novices. In many cases, that could help people like "Samuel" to calm
down, and it can keep people from turning into enemies. That's part of
why I'd like to see more admins, so that each one has more time and more
patience.

On the rest of it, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm open to
being persuaded that the current admin system is prone to the sort of
collusion and systemic bias that crops up regularly in police
departments. But this isn't the case that will do it for me.

> The "other list" is called unblock-en-l, but it's a joke and serves not as a
> legitimate place of complaint, but a mere rubber stamp to certify the
> "godliness" of admins, no matter how abusive an action they take.
>

When you (or anybody) write like this, I have to grit my teeth and make
a strong effort to find the useful content that lies behind the contempt
and acid words. If your goal is to get people to take your concerns
seriously, there are more effective ways to go about things.

William

--
William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri


from_name: Stephen Bain

body:
On 2/20/07, Mark Ryan <ultrablue at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/02/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm with Oskar. If they call various administrators abusive they should be
> > able to back that up.
>
> Ah, but the emails in question contained diffs which they claimed
> shewed that the administrators in question were "abusive". Should
> those have been let through?

Calling someone "abusive" is still an ad hominem statement. Rather
than saying "Admin X is abusive!1!" the person should say "Admin X
engaged in behaviour on Y page that seemed abusive to me, here's some
diffs..."

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com


from_name: brion at pobox.com

subject: [Wikitech-l] MediaWiki automated test run failure 2007-02-21

body:
An automated run of parserTests.php showed the following failures:

This is MediaWiki version 1.10alpha (r20017).

Reading tests from "maintenance/parserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Cite/citeParserTests.txt"...
Reading tests from "extensions/Poem/poemParserTests.txt"...

  18 still FAILING test(s) :(
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (single parameter)  [Has never passed]
      * URL-encoding in URL functions (multiple parameters)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Table security: embedded pipes (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2006-April/034637.html)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Link containing double-single-quotes '' (bug 4598)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <noinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: message transform: <onlyinclude> in transcluded template (bug 4926)  [Has never passed]
      * BUG 1887, part 2: A <math> with a thumbnail- math enabled  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML bullet list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML ordered list, unclosed tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested bullet list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: HTML nested ordered list, open tags (bug 5497)  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Inline HTML vs wiki block nesting  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Mixing markup for italics and bold  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: 5 quotes, code coverage +1 line  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: dt/dd/dl test  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Images with the "|" character in the comment  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, without trailing slash or name.  [Has never passed]
      * TODO: Parents of subpages, two levels up, with lots of extra trailing slashes.  [Has never passed]

Passed 493 of 511 tests (96.48%)... 18 tests failed!