Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitionsEdit
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.
Superprotect letter updateEdit
Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.
Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.
I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.
Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.
Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.
Hello! Will you look, please, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/22.214.171.124 That seems to be a destructive bot. What do you think about it? How to deal with it? Domitori (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- For now he stopped. If he continues his nonsense nominations he will be blocked from editing. Natuur12 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Could you consider the similar case at the Russian section of Wikisource?
- It seems to me, user Lozman runs a bot, that removed texts by
- The texts are moved to some strange site http://wikilivres.ru
- There, the user with the same nick Lozman removes them with pretext of violation of the copyright
- (the licenses from Wikisource are not transferred to that site).
- You may look for the example at
- What do you think about this? Domitori (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Global CSS/JS migrationEdit
Hello Natuur12. You have global scripts in User:Natuur12/global.js, which you import using your local JS pages. Since August 2014, your global.js and global.css pages are loaded automatically on all wikis. Since you already import them yourself, you may experience script errors or tools being added twice. Do you want me to fix this by removing the imports from your local pages using Synchbot (without changing any other content)?
You also have ≈700 vector.css pages with content identical to b:pt:User:Natuur12/vector.css. Do you want me to copy it into User:Natuur12/global.css, and delete the local copies? —Pathoschild 21:15, 05 July 2015 (UTC)
As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.
An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.
The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.
Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign
If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation
Greetings! You are receiving this message because, at some point in the past, you have participated in a discussion around the topic of harassment. The Support and Safety team is holding a series of consultations gathering feedback on the best potential solutions to the problem. The next stage is a workshop where we hope to narrow the focus to individual actionable ideas and explore how to bring some of these ideas to life.
- Please join us at the Harassment workshop!
in re trollingEdit
hey, the trolling is when an editor comes to a civility idea lab, and starts with his potty mouth, and then takes umbrage when people object. and surprise, he can dish it out, and he can't take it. you want to preside over an Augean stable, that's fine, go back to en and nl. Slowking4 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassmentEdit
Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.
Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The Community Wishlist SurveyEdit
You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.
You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
YouTube Content IDEdit
You may be interested to know that YouTube, in a way, turns copyright law as a whole on its head using Content ID. I've uploaded 100% copyright violations to YouTube. Content ID detects it and the copyright holder can demonetize the video or monetize it for themselves as well as add georestrictions. And the video stays up. My account doesn't get a copyright strike.
The third chapter at 22:20 of YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is. is relevant here, but I wholeheartedly recommend the whole video.
As for linking videos, I would agree that linking videos that either try to trick Content ID by distorting the picture or videos of full-length content from a producer that may be too small to have their content in the Content ID detection system could be bad practice. (you may, for example, be able to find some full-length Russian movies on YouTube) Rick and Morty though are definitely in the Content ID system. That video you linked (he said it again! he said it again! revert, aaah!) was certainly detected by Content ID. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 15:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)