User talk:JzG: Difference between revisions

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Billinghurst in topic Re xwiki abuse
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Abd (talk | contribs)
2,478 edits
Tag: MassMessage delivery
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Please contact me via [[en:User talk:JzG]]
Requesting +sysop back, please, I want to undelete my user & talk and do some work on spam, as originally intended. Resigned the bit in uncontroversial circumstances. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:{{done}} <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu ([[User:Kylu|u]]|[[User talk:Kylu|t]]) </font></i></b> 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks much. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


== JSTOR account redistribution (The Wikipedia Library) ==
== BL ==


Hi - according to our records you received a free account for JSTOR through [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ The Wikipedia Library]. Because we’ve used up all of our allocated accounts, and it’s been some time since they were distributed, we want to redistribute any accounts that aren’t being used to users on our waitlist.
Can you log the entries please (permanent link to the request) as the top of the pages says. I'm sure you will but it is a PITA attempting to find the rationale when someone comes along & complains in 6 months time. Cheers --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
* For sure, sorry. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 21:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


If you’re still using, or plan to use, your JSTOR access, no problem! Simply head over to the Library Card platform, log in, and request a renewal of your account. You should be able to do this from your [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/ user page], or the [https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/54/ JSTOR signup page]. If you can’t find the renewal button, or have any other issues or questions about this, please feel free to leave a message on [[User talk:Samwalton9 (WMF)|my talk page]]. We’ll begin redistributing inactive accounts in September; if you request renewal after then we will only be able to reactivate your account if we have spots remaining. Thanks, [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::Looks ok - it is a pain but finding stuff without it is worse --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 12:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwalton9/JSTOR&oldid=18314023 -->
::: Absolutely. Been there, done that. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


== Logging BL work ==
== About rename ==
Hey, I forget to mention that as you have edits >100k you have to request at [[SRUC]], where the rename will be done under sysadmin supervision. &#8208;&#8208;[[User:1997kB|1997kB]]&nbsp;([[User_talk:1997kB|talk]]) 02:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


== The Community Wishlist Survey ==
I realise you tend to work in your own rather individual way however as a courtesy to those who follow could you please [[Spam blacklist/Log|log]] entries to the blacklist as everyone else does. I accept that it does take a moment longer however when an appeal is made it is far easier to find entries from the log one which can be clicked immediately. --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
* I was called away from the computer at the psychological moment, sir, otherwise I would have done so. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
**In fairness I did wonder & confess that even I ;) have had to leave logging till a little later from time to time - apologies & thanks! --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 18:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
::* No problem, actually I was fazed by the new COIbot format, which sort of stopped me in my tracks, and I had just decided to work on the huuuuuuuge backlog there, so I wanted to work through it step by step. Please let me know if I'm doing it wrong, because I am a n00b here really. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:::*The help really is appreciated. For a while now few folk have gone near the page & the massive influx by the bot (great help but) came at a time when I have little time to spare. Thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::::* And I can see why they avoid it, the reports are numerous and often huge, and the cleanup can take hours. It would be good if we could mobilisse local spam project volunteers to wikignome the spam out. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::* Agreed - I had a crack at a handful today - some wikis had deleted the link (even blocked users), others had removed but not warned, others had left them (& that was all the same link!). An issue I found was at least three reports have link placements by the same IPs - now that to me is very suss but doesn't really come out in the "by domain" aspect of the reporting? I try & get some more done tomorrow maybe, cheers --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi,
== BL backlog ==


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]].
If you have the time can you take a look at [[Talk:Spam_blacklist#Clearing_the_backlog.21|this]] - thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 07:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:I ''think'' changing the status to "closed" clears it from the page at some stage - the ones I did yesterday are gone & I didn't manually remove them. Some "instruction manual" would be useful :) --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 08:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:: I'm sure there's a bot, but the page is near unusable so I'm doing it manually for now. Please do let me know if that causes a problem, though. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 08:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::: Fine with me - I was about to do the few I got through today. It does bother me - great tool that deserves time & thought & we don't have enough people :( --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 08:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
:::: I don't "do" barnstars but thanks. That said quite a few of us were working on it yourself included. We just need to get a framework we can all work in (been to the pub, not fully coherent :)) - cheers --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
::::: Amen to that. I've killed opver a thousand links to freerepublic on en, many copyvios and blog-as-source-in-BLP abuses. It's hard work, but worth it. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


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. /[[User:Johan (WMF)|Johan (WMF)]] 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
== BL naming ==
<!-- Message sent by User:Johan (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2019/Invitation_list&oldid=18523608 -->


== "Who Wrote That" project update ==
Shouldn't need to lobby him. He posted his agreement on the BL talk page a while back. Somewhere in the arcs - maybe a couple of months ago. Thread on renaming the list. (& yes it should be done!) Cheers --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 10:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
* Jimmy emailed the devs weeks back requesting the change, but it's not been done. I've asked him for a comment; maybe it's got a bugzilla ref now. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::Don't think it does, but I'll check and make one now if not. &nbsp;'''&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">Mike</b>]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>[[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">@en.wb</span>]]</sup> 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::Couldn't find one, so I made [[bugzilla:14719]]. If you know of other places where this was discussed, please link to it on the bug. &nbsp;'''&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">Mike</b>]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>[[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">@en.wb</span>]]</sup> 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the [[Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Search/Blame tool|2017 Community Wishlist proposal]] for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an [[Community_Tech/Who_Wrote_That_revision_search_tool#February_20,_2019|early-stage mockup]] available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to [[Talk:Community Tech/Who Wrote That revision search tool|provide your thoughts on the talk page]]. Thank you. -- [[User:NKohli (WMF)|NKohli (WMF)]] ([[User talk:NKohli (WMF)|talk]]) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
== question about askel dot com blacklist entry ==
<!-- Message sent by User:NKohli (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NKohli_(WMF)/WhoWroteThat_tool_massmessage_list&oldid=18889491 -->


== Re xwiki abuse ==
Hello,


Hi. Was pinged to your SRG post. I have a global AF that I can utilise to limit newish users from editing user and user_talk pages, though this only will apply to those wikis covered by global AF. If you are wanting protection at large wikis, then you will need to utilise standard protection. If we need to get down to detail, that is better in IRC or via email. (LTA stalk my posts, especially here.) &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I noticed an old [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spam_blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=1308994 entry] done by you in the blacklist .
* {{ping|billinghurst}}, this is still going on. Got a couple more today: [[:hu:Speciális:Szerkesztő_közreműködései/Staycork]], [[:nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/Sapsargos]], [[:it:Speciale:Contributi/JzDragQueen]], [[:es:Especial:Contribuciones/Josecarp321457]]. Not sure what can be done about the throwaway accounts. [[User:JzG|JzG]] ([[User talk:JzG#top|talk]]) 10:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
*: As mentioned, I can provide restrictions for wikis which are covered by global abuse filters, for others you are going to need to request local protection—welcome to our world. My stuff is not completely risk free, though if you are not active at that wiki, then it is usually issue. I am only going to do it where requested and after discussing risks. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
*::Check local abuselog for your user talk page, if you can, otherwise give me a ping. Catch me in IRC if that is one of your haunts. &nbsp;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 01:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Invitation|Community Wishlist Survey 2021: Invitation]] ==
Is there more information about this banlist entry?
The question comes from [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:Bande_dessin%C3%A9e#askell.com_blacklist.C3.A9 there]


<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
[[User:Esby|esby]] 02:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
[[File:Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg|thumb|48px]]
The '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Wishlist Survey 2021|2021 Community Wishlist Survey]]''' is now open!
This survey is the process where communities decide what the [[m:Community Tech|Community Tech]] team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on '''{{#time:j xg|2020-11-30|{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}''', or comment on other proposals to help make them better.
The communities will vote on the proposals between {{#time:j xg|2020-12-08|{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}} and {{#time:j xg|2020-12-21|{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}.


The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors.
== [[User:COIBot/XWiki/askell.com]] ==
You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!
</div>


<span lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">[[m:user:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]]</span>
Can you please let us know why that was blacklisted [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#askell.com here]? Thanks &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;<b style="color:#309;">[[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]</b>&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>[[:b:en:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">@en.wb</span>]]</sup> 00:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
* COIbot entry reopened due to further linking form the same subnet, looked like spamming to me. I don't care deeply enough about it for Abd to need to create an article on the website in order to force through removal form the blacklist, though. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 21:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
== Notice of review of adminship ==
<!-- Message sent by User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SGrabarczuk_(WMF)/sandbox/3&oldid=20682504 -->
Hello,


== [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Invitation 2|Community Wishlist Survey 2021]] ==
In accordance with [[Meta:Administrators/Removal]] and because you have made fewer than ten logged actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at [[Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2009]]. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before '''2009-10-{{#expr: 2 + 7}}'''. Kind regards, &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkSlateGray">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


<div class="plainlinks mw-content-ltr" lang="en" dir="ltr">
== Notice of removal of adminship ==
[[File:Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg|thumb|48px]]
I regret to inform you that you have been stripped of your administrator access, due to your failure to sign at [[Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2009]] by the prescribed time and date. Kind regards, &mdash;<strong>[[User:Anonymous Dissident|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:DarkSlateGray">Anonymous Dissident</span>]]</strong>[[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">Talk</span></sup>]] 15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
'''We invite all registered users to vote on the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Wishlist Survey 2021|2021 Community Wishlist Survey]]. You can vote from now until {{#time:j xg|2020-12-21|en}} for as many different wishes as you want.'''
: Are you still updating the spam blacklist? If you find you need adminship again, don't be shy about renominating yourself; adminship on Meta should be no big deal. [[User:Sj| Sj]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] <small><small>[[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]</small></small> 03:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.
I'm doing virtually nothing on any Wikimedia project right now, but if I do become active again I will bear that in mind. I know there's always work to be done, I just don't have the time to do it or (more importantly) argue the toss with people like Abd. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 21:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


We, the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Community Tech|Community Tech]], are one of the [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.
== Request for IRC transcript showing "consensus" on Public Speakers ==


We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!
You are also [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkoneko#Consensus_via_IRC_discussion hereby invited] to provide a transcript of the IRC discussion that found consensus to manipulate my listing on the [[Public speakers]] page here, without my participation and without notifying me. Please respond on the [[Talk:Public speakers]] page, as that is where consensus is currently building against you and your private team of manipulators. -- [[User:Thekohser|Thekohser]] 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
</div>
* You seem to be asserting that you are a suitable person to contact in respect of public speaking about the Wikipedia foundation. Since you have tried at least once to my certain knowledge to shut them down, and are banned from the best known Wikimedia project, and insist on using a heavily loaded and bizarre search term as an advertisement for your services, and this site is not actually designed as a vehicle for self-promotion especially by people in dispute with the foundation and misrepresenting themselves as being anything else, I would invite you to accommodate your views where the sun doesn't shine. Please also be advised that any future comments here will be removed unacknowledged. Goodbye. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 22:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
[[user:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]]
:JzG, don't confuse the Wikimedia Foundation with Wikipedia. There are many WP users and former users that judge en:Wikipedia to be a failure, yet strongly support the Foundation's goal to freely spread knowledge. That said, your reply here is sufficient evidence that we can't really weigh in your opinion in this matter, as it is based on a personal dislike, to say it gently. The IRC transcript would not count for anything anyway, so I for one am not particularly eager to see it. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
:: I don't. I also don't confuse self-serving twaddle with commitment to a foundation he tried to kill off. And there is no IRC transcript, much as the WR cabal would love to believe that everything is the result of off-wiki collusion. I think I've had one single IRC session in the last six months, and that devoted almost exclusively to consoling a friend on a personal bereavement. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
::: Fair enough, then the 'consensus' on IRC was probably a single-user thing. As for the intent to kill the foundation, that should be interpreted in context, I think, that is with more than one grain of salt. We're still here, after all. But wait - was it perhaps 'kill Wikipedia'? [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
== Evidence-free request at [[Talk:Spam blacklist]] ==
<!-- Message sent by User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SGrabarczuk_(WMF)/sandbox/3&oldid=20791938 -->

This is a long statement here, based on the extraordinary density of misrepresentations in your request. Better here than on that page.

[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=2529590] was completely evidence-free. You made many irrelevant claims there, with evidence for none of them. I don't intend to answer the claims there, because they ''are'' irrelevant, indeed, but there should be a response somewhere, your claims are dense with misinformation and error, and your raising of this resolved issue is purely disruptive.

You got a support, so far, from one editor whose entire history at meta for the last two years has been opposing the delisting of lenr-canr.org and lyrikline.org, he is obviously a tad biased; he gave spurious and unsubstantiated copyvio arguments in both cases. With lyrikline.org, that was totally preposterous, all content there is created for the web site, specifically, provided by the poets. Lyrikline was blacklisted because of alleged linkspam, which boils down to "adding too many links too quickly." Later examination found no links that were clearly improper; the editor was probably COI, so there was some justification for a temporary blacklisting, but the massive removal of links, as was done, was little more than vandalism, and that lyrikline.org stayed blacklisted for so long, I found evidence, frustrated many an editor. And the linking editor had stopped adding links and had apologized. The global blacklisting was probably not necessary. [[w:Lyrikline.org]] was reliable source, in fact, independently and academically edited.

With lenr-canr.org, you never did establish a ''single'' copyvio. What you did was to ''suspect'' copyvio, in a way that could be used to suspect any web site, unless you have seen a notarized permission, maybe, and very obviously you did so not because of the alleged copyvio, but because of personal enmity for the web site owner, who had previously confronted you on your ignorance. He's abrasive, but you've claimed many things about him that are not true, making yourself worse. I never saw him lie about you.

Your arguments and claims from your filing:

*''This was blacklisted due to repeated linking to copyright violations hosted on the site,

You made a series of claims with [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=1360146#lenr-canr.org the original blacklisting]. The only comment approving the original request didn't mention copyvio, it mentioned "fringe." The admin approving the request made no comment at all. When that action was challenged, Mike.lifeguard asked questions. None of them were about copyvio. In your very long response to Mike's point #2, you raised 'contributory infringement' as a specter, which is preposterous. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of contributory infringement from any linking to lenr-canr.org, unless Wikipedia were to ''knowingly'' link to ''actual copyvio,'' the case law is clear on that.

Mike.Lifeguard gave his reasons for not delisting. He settled on ''inappropriate promotion of the domain,'' but did not cite any actual inappropriate promoting edits. Your common references to such referred to Jed's IP signature, self-identifying as "librarian, lenr-canr.org," which was not a link and which was not prevented by blacklisting. What promotional links existed? All I've seen were links to pages proposed for articles, or in reasonably appropriate discussion, whether correctly or incorrectly.

Mike set the copyvio claim aside. ''DGG's reasoning may or may not be accurate, however I'm not inclined to give it much weight because it has bearing only on the secondary issues - regardless of any copyright concerns the link is being pushed & that is why I am leaving it blacklisted.''

If Mike had been correct, if the link was being "inappropriately pushed," and if, further, that this was massive or blacklist instructions and intention is being violated, he'd have been correct. (I examine this as part of the delisting request. He wasn't correct.) That is a reason to blacklist, and, I assume, that is why he chose to focus on that argument. DGG gave expert opinion on copyright, that copyvio wasn't a problem. DGG wrote, on that page, this:

:''... Cold fusion is not far out fringe. it's not, for example, UFOs. It may be unlikely, it is certainly not mainstream, but it is not utterly impossible. Its advocates should not be treated as likely to be totally incompetent copyright thieves. At least some of the material on that site is suitable US-Gov PD and other acceptable material. I have not examined it in detail, item by item, but at least for the material advocating the reality of CF, it would seem to me highly likely they did get the permission they claim. That alone is enough reason not to blacklist it--it is not predominantly devoted to copyvio. I am inclined to wonder if the attempt to do so is an attempt to keep pro-CF material out of WP, in direct violation of NPOV. DGG 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't just wonder, I know it. It's blatantly obvious. Stop trying to abuse the meta blacklist to promote your agenda.

So the claim that it was blacklisted because of linking to copyvio is utterly without foundation, it's only based in your own allegations, unsupported in that original filing.

That discussion was a mess. Why are you bringing this up again? What's the emergency, the need for blacklisting? Where is the linkspam?

*''as well as spamming of the site by its (banned) owner and several proxies.

Again, no spamming was shown. "Inappropriate promotion" was the claim. In the original filing, like this one, normal spam evidence was missing. Looking at diffs would show the domain name, part of Jed's signature, and someone not being careful might think it was a link, but it wasn't. No link, not linkspam!

"Several proxies" is very unclear. I know Rothwell and he's very direct. He doesn't edit through proxies, he does it himself, if he's not blocked, and never asked for proxying. He wasn't banned, you personally declared a ban, a practice that ArbComm definitely deprecated later. MastCell eventually blocked his old account, not used for years, stating pretty explicitly that it was a favor to you. Meat puppetry, JzG. And I showed before that links you had removed had been added by editors who were *against* Rothwell, Such as LeadSongDog, because the links were useful.

''One of the proxies campaigned for removal from the blacklist, which was done at the nth request.

That would be me, I suppose. I'm nobody's proxy, that's uncivil and unfounded. Rothwell has opposed my efforts to delist, he ''prefers'' the site to be blacklisted, and he says that privately to me as well as in public. He had ''nothing'' to do with the delisting request, he didn't even know about it, or he might have popped into oppose it, as he did before at en.wiki.

As to 'nth' request, no, after the original blacklisting, I made [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2010-10#lenr-canr.org ''one request'' for removal here], and it was granted. You believe your own arguments so strongly that you apparently fantasize that others agreed with you. One request is a "campaign"?

JzG, my strategy was simple and clean: arrange for whitelistings at en.wikipedia, based on individual consideration of papers hosted, which allowed review of copyright issues -- and that issue was raised. In one case there was some extra reason to suspect possible copyvio, and that request was dropped. (the extra reason was hosting of an as-published copy, and it would be complex to explain that here. It was not worth arguing for one page, and it may be technically copyvio, i.e., the publisher ''could'' issue a takedown notice, except that it's obviously being permitted by the publisher, that's an argument you have consistently ignored.)

And then, showing usage, come back to meta. That's what had been suggested. I also followed that with lyrikline, but hadn't come back yet, that's all.

''Having been mainly absent from Wikipedia during the period of a topic ban from the topic area which is the locus of this dispute, one of his first actions was to link to... a copyright violation located at lenr-canr.org.

I am unaware of any copyvio from lenr-canr.org. Before the delisting was granted, I linked to a series of pages in an edit to Cold fusion, after my ban had expired. These were all pages that had been whitelisted after consideration of copyvio arguments.

You have misrepresented this as "permission to link to copyvio" because you ''believe'' in copyvio. Rather, the copyvio argument was reviewed by an admin, and had the admin believed that the pages were copyvio, he would not have whitelisted. You have never stated what specific page or pages you believe to be copyvio.

You are alleging misbehavior on my part, while giving no specifics. That's uncivil.

''The tiny group of people advocating links to this site have repeatedly shown that they simply do not accept Wikipedia policy on linking to copyright violations hosted on external websites,

That policy has been rigorously followed. Sometimes there have been attempts to tighten that policy to require ''proof'' of permission, which is utterly impractical, as I've pointed out before. As to "tiny group," links to the site have been supported by consensus, which was interrupted and bypassed by your blacklisting and tendentious removals. Keep up pressure like that for a long time, what happens? Amazing, few links or no links? Just keep removing them! You have never cited the guideline you refer to (it is not, formally, policy). Here it is: [[WP:ELNEVER]].

::''Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.

Notice: it's claiming that one should never link to material known to be copyvio. I've never done that. This guideline doesn't ban the site, or else youtube would be banned. It prohibits specific links only.

There is a link now, in [[w:Energy Catalyzer]], placed by a Nobel laureate. I assure you, he's not Rothwell's proxy. He does know a bit more about physics than you, or your electrochemist friend, by the way. That doesn't make him right, necessarily, but you have imagined that anyone interested in cold fusion must be part of a "tiny group" of "die-hards."

If you'd read the recent sources, you would come up with a different impression. Publication hit a nadir about 2005, it's up by a factor of four since then, there is active research, and there are 18 positive reviews of the field in mainstream peer-reviewed publications since then, including the recent Naturwisssenschaften review, which is not an accident, some fluke. It was an invited paper, Guy. Springer-Verlag, the second-largest scientific publisher in the world, invited a review on cold fusion. Smoke that!

The two largest publishers of scientific journals are now publishing material on cold fusion, i.e., Elsevier is doing it also. There are really only a few hold-outs, such as Nature and Science and the APS journal, journals that heavily committed themselves to an editorial policy of not even considering cold fusion papers for review, back in the early 1990s. That's a story told in reliable source, in itself, in the academic press, all excluded because of your faction at Wikipedia.

So, JzG, what link are you claiming is copyvio and what is your evidence? Are you going to warn Brian Josephson about his addition of a link to lenr-canr.org? In fact, did you warn anyone about copyvio addition before? No, AFAIK, you just removed the links, and backed that up with blacklisting. Copyvio was a secondary justification you made up, finding it to have more traction than "fringe."

Have you looked at the first page of the recent Storms review on [[w:Naturwissenschaften]]? ("Status of cold fusion (2010)") In the on-line preview, you can see, prominently, a link to lenr-canr.org, as a place to read some of the cited papers, and I've seen many of these links to the site in peer-reviewed publications, published by publishers whom you imagine will be horrified by the papers being hosted by lenr-canr.org. You think they don't know?

Perhaps you have overlooked what's been pointed out: many of these publishers permit preprints to be put up by authors, and that's what lenr-canr.org typically hosts: preprints. If there are exceptions, they are rare, and are with likely permission. I believe that this is Jed's procedure. He only hosts papers when they are provided to him with permission by authors, representing that they have the right to do this. He doesn't go out and make copies to host (he has in his bibliography, and has possession of, about 3000 papers, he only hosts roughly 1000). He then requests formal permission from the publisher, if there is any unclarity. Publishers have no incentive to reply, it cost them money for no benefit, but that he has asked completely protects him from claims of copyvio, should a publisher later decide that it's a problem. He'd take it down immediately if they ask. Is this copyvio? You could watch moot lawyers argue over that for decades. In fact, there is no legal risk to Jed, and neither to any site linking to lenr-canr.org. Look at all those links in reliable sources! Those are for-profit ventures, they don't have the nonprofit shield!

It is safe unless copyvio is ''known,'' which is how the WP guideline reads. If you know there is copyvio, don't link.

More damage to Wikipedia reputation has been done by the blacklisting of lenr-canr.org than by any possible criticism over "linking to copyvio" from something like linking to lenr-canr.org. It's known and obviously based on bias.

I don't know that any paper there is copyvio, still, so I linked, and I continue to link at Wikiversity, because the whole site is whitelisted there, so as far as anything I personally care about, it's been covered for maybe a year. I requested delisting for everyone else! Including, say, Enric Naval, who has an active proposal to place a direct link to lenr-canr.org as an external link, bottom of the talk page, currently. You just bypassed the editorial process on that with your blacklisting on en.wp.

If I didn't know that you sometimes get away with this stuff, I'd call that suicidal, you are directly defying ArbComm's prior reprimand of you for your first blacklisting.

*''citing "convenience" in their defence.

"Convenience" has never been cited as a defence against a charge of copyvio, that would be preposterous. Rather, there is no copyvio known, and "convenience," as in "convenience link," is cited as the reason to link. Convenience links make verification of text far easier, where the paper is difficult to find. They are not essential, but the practical effect is that errors are far more easily found when a convenience link is present. In other words, convenience links support the basic function of verification, as well as helping further study of the topic.

JzG, if I didn't know that your perception of others is radically distorted, I'd call this a lie. Where has someone cited "convenience" as a "defence", obviously as a defense against a charge of copyvio? Who has been sanctioned for copyvio for adding these links? Where has this claim been supported?

*''Wikipedia policy cannot make such an exception because the law of copyright does not make any such exception.

The law of copyright (which is case law, linking isn't covered by statutory law, explicitly, I believe) doesn't prohibit linking to pages other than those ''known'' to be copyvio. To be triggered, legal exposure requires guilty knowledge. We do not know if a site hosts copyvio or not, we only can judge certain appearances, ordinarily. In the only case for legal sanction for linking, the linking was not innocent, ignorant. They knew, it was deliberate. So the "law" you cite does not apply to the situation. Rather, as DGG correctly argued, it's extremely unlikely that lenr-canr.org hosts any significant level of real copyvio.

To put ''content here'' we need to know about permission, it's very different. A link isn't copyvio, in itself. It's "contributory infringement" if we knowingly help a copyvio site to violate. The legal remedy for "negligent" linking would not be prosecution or lawsuit, there is no such offense, if it's a nonprofit. It would be as with any ISP, a take-down notice from the copyright owner.

You seem to imagine that Jed is greedily hoping for traffic coming from Wikipedia. He is already very prominent in google searches, and he really detests Wikipedia, largely thanks to you and how you treated him and Pcarbonn. He really has discouraged me from doing anything about the blacklistings, he's argued that it is a total waste of time. He makes no profit from lenr-canr.org, instead, it costs him money, out of his own pocket. He doesn't sell advertising!

I never tried to create an article on lenr-canr.org, but it's marginal, lenr-canr.org is mentioned in many reliable sources as the best place to find copies of published material on cold fusion. There is no way that he'd escape the attention of the publishers, his site frequently comes up first place in searches for a paper, whenever the paper isn't mentioned on Wikipedia.

*''The site has been extensively abused in the past and the abusers have returned to abusing once it was removed from the blacklist, so I think it needs to go back on, please.

No examples of abuse. None.

From the guideline at the top of the blacklist talk page:
*''Please provide evidence of spamming on several wikis. Spam that only affects a single project should go to that project's local blacklist. Exceptions include malicious domains and URL redirector/shortener services. Please follow this format. Please check back after submitting your report, there could be questions regarding your request.

Every argument in your request was irrelevant to a possible blacklisting.

Your claim is not based on any evidence of spamming, it is purely tendentious and disruptive, and you have not followed the instructions. Please stop this, and please stop the incivility, as shown in this request and even more in the delisting request.

Latest revision as of 16:08, 11 December 2020

Please contact me via en:User talk:JzG

JSTOR account redistribution (The Wikipedia Library)[edit]

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi - according to our records you received a free account for JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. Because we’ve used up all of our allocated accounts, and it’s been some time since they were distributed, we want to redistribute any accounts that aren’t being used to users on our waitlist.

If you’re still using, or plan to use, your JSTOR access, no problem! Simply head over to the Library Card platform, log in, and request a renewal of your account. You should be able to do this from your user page, or the JSTOR signup page. If you can’t find the renewal button, or have any other issues or questions about this, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. We’ll begin redistributing inactive accounts in September; if you request renewal after then we will only be able to reactivate your account if we have spots remaining. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

About rename[edit]

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I forget to mention that as you have edits >100k you have to request at SRUC, where the rename will be done under sysadmin supervision. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

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)Reply

"Who Wrote That" project update[edit]

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re xwiki abuse[edit]

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Was pinged to your SRG post. I have a global AF that I can utilise to limit newish users from editing user and user_talk pages, though this only will apply to those wikis covered by global AF. If you are wanting protection at large wikis, then you will need to utilise standard protection. If we need to get down to detail, that is better in IRC or via email. (LTA stalk my posts, especially here.)  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: Invitation[edit]

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021[edit]

We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote from now until 21 December for as many different wishes as you want.

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&oldid=20792179"