This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Commons itself. The original talk page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jameslwoodward
My formal name is James L. Woodward, but I prefer to be called "Jim"
The new WMF confidentiality agreement for nonpublic informationEdit
Although I have been busy in the real world for the last several months, I have also been very troubled by the requirement for signing a new confidentiality agreement. As I outline below, I think that the requirement is so poorly conceived and written that I have had to seriously consider what, if any, position I want as a contributor to an organization that makes such an unreasonable request.
I have decided not to sign the new confidentiality agreement required for OTRS and Checkuser status. I have three reasons for this:
First, as noted at User:Jameslwoodward, I have spent my career in the high tech world, usually as Chief Financial Officer. In that capacity I have both written and signed a wide variety of confidentiality agreements. They are typically 500 to 700 words. The documents that comprise the basis for the new WMF requirement have more than 8,000 words, and that does not include the various linked documents. I am a native English speaker and an experienced reader of complex agreements and I cannot fully understand exactly what the requirements are. I think that requiring signatures from our colleagues around the world, almost all of whom have less experience reading legalese and most of whom are not native English speakers, is just silly.
Second, while I understand and support the concept of virtual signatures, I cannot support it in this context – one where the document that is being signed is ill-defined, with many links. I have not followed most of the links, but I would not be surprised if ultimately this document set is several hundred thousand words. A virtual signature, like an old-fashioned one with pen and ink, should apply to a specific document -- a well defined set of words.
Third, every confidentiality agreement that I have ever seen provides that it does not cover information that the signer obtained outside of the scope of the agreement. A typical provision is:
- ”provided, however, that “Confidential Information” shall not include information (i) in the public domain by publication through no fault of the Employee, (ii) lawfully received by the Employee from a third party who was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect thereto, or (iii) required by law to be disclosed, but only to the extent of such required disclosure.”
The new requirement does not include such an exception and, therefore, signers can be sanctioned for revealing non-public information that they learned completely outside of their OTRS or Checkuser status. As an example, I know the real names of many of our pseudonymous colleagues because they have chosen to reveal them to me in e-mails. While I certainly respect their desire for anonymity, I should not be sanctionable if I happen to reveal one. I have explicitly asked the powers that be to clarify this, but they have not done so.
I would certainly be happy to sign a short – less than 1,000 words – self contained document (one with no links) setting forth OTRS and Checkuser responsibility to keep confidential any non-public information learned through the use of those facilities, but I cannot sign the present document and I strongly recommend that others think hard before they do so.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Brilliant essay, thank you for the information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this highly educational reply. I did signe because doing OTRS-work is my hobby which I very much enjoy to do. This said, I doubt that this agreement is even legally binding in my home country anyways because you are a) they used some sort or force to make people singe this. Namely revoking access if you don't singe without giving any change to review/revise the agreement. b) The English isn't understandable even for native speakers as stated above by Jim c) it isn't even clear if the OTRS-policy is on behave of the WMF or the OTRS-admins who have no legal authority to make such an agreement. d) It is indeed unreasonable and unrealistic e) The OTRS-admins could have reasonably suspect that this document isn't suitable for most of the audience which is a form of neglect. f) They are in neglect because they don't respond to request to clarify. Conclusion: the odds are that this agreement will not even held up in a Dutch court and I doubt this differs from other countries who are a member of the European Union. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jim. I have my doubts about signing too. First, unlike Natuur12 above, I want it and keep it as my free time hobby. I usually sign NDAs (if ever) in context of a project work, in exchange of money. While my personal responsibility for eventual harm done when disclosing sensitive information cannot be disclaimed, this agreement creates a legal imbalance - one party asserts its conditions, the other party gets nothing in exchange. « Saper // @talk » 16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion over how I counted words.
The base document is https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information which has 732 words.
However, it calls out https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#introduction as a basic set of definitions and requirements. That contains 6,335 words.
It also calls out https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Access_to_nonpublic_information_policy which contains 1,709 words.
Since I did the word counts in a fairly rough and ready fashion using MSWord, arguably a careful count would come up with somewhat fewer words, so I rounded down to say "more than 8,000 words". . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Just FYI but the request for temporary undeletion of the above mentioned file was so that I could import it to Wikiversity as Fair Use there in the lecture v:Yellow astronomy. I had no interest in its being kept on Commons. Also, the image you mentioned as "The image is the second image on this page: http://blog.onlineprasad.com/23-super-cute-pics-of-bal-gopal-krishna-everyone-will-love/." Is not the image of the above file. A copy of the correct image, still carrying the name "File:Krishna.jpg" occurs on url=http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Krishna. It was probably copied from Commons back in 2012 or so. The statement "The image itself is copyrighted and the two figures in it are also copyrighted, so you would need to get two or three licenses in order to keep it on Commons." indicates the wrong image and I checked it.
I realize Commons and its Custodians deal with a lot of images per day, but in order for this process to work of importing deleted files from Commons to Wikiversity we need to better coordinate it somehow. Any suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this situation is an anomaly. There have been five different files with the file name File:Krishna.jpg on Commons. The latest of them, uploaded on August 16, 2015, is, in fact, the two figures which I found and linked to and which you have named above. There is also a current file named File:Krishna.JPG (upper and lower case are different on WMF projects). The file at http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Krishna has never been on Commons with the name Krishna.jpg (either upper or lower case). It does, however, appear considerably larger at http://sankirthanam.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-see-god-everywhere.html. I don't think it possible for Admins to search deleted images on Commons by image, only by name, so I cannot tell if that image has ever been on Commons under a different name.
The five files with the name are (with uploader names and dates):
- 06:30, 16 August 2015 Vishnuvardhan817 640 × 640 (50,769 bytes) The two figures linked above
- 15:37, 16 May 2015 Krishna chotu 720 × 960 (81,503 bytes) Photo of two young men in informal dress
- 07:27, 27 March 2015 Krishnadahal 600 × 600 (147,127 bytes) Photo of a mid teen boy in suit and tie in front of a nondescript red building
- 23:14, 27 May 2013 Ossopunk 350 × 514 (46,487 bytes) (A copy of the same picture with slight better contrast and colour.)
- 23:25, 4 August 2005 Parvati~commonswiki 350 × 514 (30,811 bytes) (The Hindu God Krishna with holy cow) [drawing of haloed man with a flute leaning on a white cow and a peacock in the foreground.
So, the long and the short is that Commons has never had the image you were looking for under the name you gave. It may have had it under another name. In either case, I don't see how there is anything that needs fixing here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 01:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this! What I remembered of the image was Krishna standing in front of a white cow. The last file you described and the one I found on banglapedia both contained these parts of the image and were named "File:Krishna.jpg". I also found the last one you described on the web. The only way I could tell the difference was the mention of the peacock and the halo. The image on banglapedia did not show the peacock or the halo so the one I actually must have had in v:Yellow astronomy was either the last one you mentioned above or the second to last. This is not going to be as easy as I had hoped.
- Originally I asked (with consensus at Wikiversity) at the phabricator for a way to upload files deleted on Commons to Wikiversity as Fair Use. They included "commons" for use with our Import tool but mentioned that by Commons policy I could not search for the deleted image but had to have it temporarily undeleted before import by a custodian. This test has pointed out the complexity but maybe not a solution. When I used the time stamp for the Commonsdelinker removal of the image from Wikiversity, it led me to the deletion discussion I mentioned in the undeletion request. Can you establish that either the last or the second to last image you found was the one the deletion request was about? --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- (Apologies for delayed response -- I've been away for Thanksgiving)
- I'm not sure I understand the question. I listed five images above, in reverse chronological order. All five have had DRs. The most recent DR is for the most recent image, and so forth.
- If you have the correct file name of a deleted Commons file, is is trivial to recover the file. Most Admins will ask you to e-mail them with your e-mail address so they can e-mail you the file rather than undelete it.
- I think maybe you are still missing the point here. The image at http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Krishna has never appeared on Commons with the name File:Krishna.jpg or File:Krishna.JPG. That image is nothing like the two oldest images I described above. Yes, they both include a man, a white cow, and a flute, but the one is primarily blue, the man is young, and there is a tree in the background. In the deleted Commons files, the man is old, the image is primarily gold, and the background is blank. They are very different. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Please could you check . I think it may have been uploaded by someone connected with a PR company for the stadium, but I doubt that that would be OK. SovalValtos (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Done . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since several of the files in the category appear to be more or less identical, I think more than one probably needs deletion, but you don;t need me to do that -- just click on Nominate for deletion in the left column of any file page. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jim, a Brazilian admin of a local project contacted me on my talk page about an international vandal-sockpuppet-spammer, but I suppose that a Check User should be informed too. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have announced my refusal to sign the new 8,000 plus word confidentiality agreement above, so I am reluctant to do any CU work until that is resolved. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)