Hi. I mostly work on commons and enwiki. If you would like to leave me a message here, please consider notifying me there, perhaps with a {{tb|other=1}}

Reminder: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 DecemberEdit

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information, and specifically to the OTRS system.

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 transitioning 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 anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information by way of the OTRS system 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.

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 access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing OTRS rights and access after the 31 December 2015 deadline.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 06:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageHelp

2016 Community Wishlist SurveyEdit

Hi,

You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Extremely worrying: archive.org is unreliable?Edit

@Eatcha: Storkk just closed c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dionne Slagter (OnneDi) geeft beftips - De Seksmobiel.webm. I had linked [1] there, the link indicates archive.org had captured the page on 14 August 2019. That capture has vanished and the oldest capture is now from December 12. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 16:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@: didn't you have contacts at Internet Archive? — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 00:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz Most likely it's a lag generated because of too many archiving requests. In the worst-case hardware failure. I remember that I checked the archive link and it was Attribution 3.0 Unported licensed. And even if archive.org is not 100% reliable, it's more reliable than other archiving services. // Eatcha (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eatcha: How does lag generation work? I mean I could understand if something that was only just archived isn't consistently available due to cache stuff, but this was archived 8 months ago and it was available 4 months ago. And hardware failure I think shouldn't really happen as I would expect them to have some sort of redundancy. Though if a lot of hardware fails within a short time frame this could be the reason. I'm just hoping this isn't the result of a DMCA take down notice. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 04:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: There was nothing on that archived page except the Creative Commons license that's not included in later archives. But it appears IA respects DMCAs which is actually better than expensive lawsuits : The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection. You can argue that the plaintiff wouldn't win the lawsuit, but IA doesn't have enough employees to look into every single DMCA carefully.
About the Lag: I'm not talking about replication lag here, there can be other types of lag depending on their database type/ architecture. IA is a non-profit and has old shitty servers. They can't even process more than 25 archiving requests per minute, verify it.
Why do you even care about commons anymore? It makes no sense to argue about DMCAs unless you are a lawyer in San Francisco (the location where IA's based) or at least in CA + have free time to spend on fighting lawsuits for free representing WMF. // Eatcha (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Even supposing that the Youtube video was originally freely licensed, that appears (by subsequent actions) to have been a clear mistake, subsequently and quickly corrected. As far as I am concerned, this should close the matter. Storkk (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a mistake, a video released today (DIY jezelf pijpen | Emma's Peepshow) is also Creative Commons. I suspect that YouTube disables the Creative Commons license when Content ID detects something or a party claims the video revenue manually, even if it's just a few seconds in a long video. Content ID is just an algorithm that doesn't understand context. But even manual claims can be downright idiotic. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 20:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For me, the video you just posted is listed with a CC-BY license on Youtube, which would seem to make a mistaken-then-corrected license choice on the other video more likely, not less, unless I misunderstand you. In any case, Commons, like other wikis, is a volunteer project that has an unimaginably huge amount of absolutely urgent stuff that all needs to be done immediately. As such, a fundamental principle is that people can work on what they consider to be their own priorities, and not work on areas they believe to not be a priority. I realize that my closure makes me kinda-sorta responsible for this file, but I'm not willing to spend more time investigating this at the expense of anything else. That said, if you want me to raise a c:COM:REFUND request, I'll do so... however the rationale would be to state that you asked me to raise it, and then linking to m:User talk:Storkk#Extremely_worrying:_archive.org_is_unreliable?, without editorializing further. Storkk (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. It may be sensible to wait for Eatcha to become a license reviewer (which I hope will happen at some point?) so Eatcha could review the file. But what I hope to achieve is to make you see what is the most probable series of events that brought us here:

  • Spuiten en Slikken uploads Dionne Slagter (OnneDi) geeft beftips | De Seksmobiel with a Creative Commons license on February 4, 2019.
  • Hannolans imports the video to Commons on 13 March, 2019, still with a Creative Commons license.
  • On 14 August, 2019 the YouTube video page is archived by archive.org, still with the Creative Commons license.
  • Somewhere between that snapshot and 13 December, Content ID claims the video, resulting in automatic removal of the Creative Commons license.[1]
  • On 13 December, 2019 I mention the existence of the snapshot on archive.org and Eatcha confirms it.
  • Somewhere between 13 December, 2019 and 24 April, 2020 the snapshot on archive.org was lost.

It's not that Spuiten en Slikken suddenly realized they wanted to reverse the Creative Commons license for this one video. This isn't just about this video, you'll probably encounter this again, this is just how Content ID works. — Alexis Jazz (ping me) 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  1. "Creative Commons on YouTube". YouTube Help. Because Creative Commons licenses are for your original content, you cannot mark your video with the Creative Commons license if there's a Content ID claim on it. 
A priori vastly more likely than Archive.org randomly losing a specific version of a page that would be needed to verify a historic license, is that they were asked to remove it because it was incorrectly licensed. This will almost certainly be COM:PRP. Want me to ask for undeletion? This will be my last reply to this topic here. Storkk (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)