Maybe look into whether this all constitutes abuse of the Wikimedia license/terms/code of conduct and appeal to them? Either on some transitive CC/whatever terms (either in reproduction or the blanket access censorship?) or the using it in the platform to launch malicious zip bombs thing. I had a quick look and saw some maybes but it's not my area.
I've posted all the links and excerpts needed above. WikiMedia foundation are not the Internet police. He's violating the CCv3 both in letter and spirit, but the people to call him on that are the people who have licenced the content to the site under the CCv3. They either care enough to get a few together and demand he comply with the licence or they don't.
You and I both know that this is a useless dead end to talk about. Open-Source licenses have no police force making sure you follow them (unless you full on sue in court, which is certainly not worth the money and it's very unlikely you'd win). Short of XKeeper suffering an 'unfortunate' heart attack or webhost providers deciding to drop him off the internet for being an asshole, you have to fight the trench war. It's already not a good position for us trying to displace this manchild given the fact that the controversy that started this whole thing has died down by now and still no alternative exists to jump to. No one's gonna move if they're not being actively affected by his tyrannical ownership right then and there.
I wasn't talking about Creative Commons, I was referring to the more specific agreements under which Mediawiki is used as site software. The latter fits around the former, so that may be a factor, but shit like running what could be considered a malicious service delivering attacks that you're publicly super proud of taking credit for on your microblog is something that many providers would take issue with, open source or not.
I'm not inclined to overgeneralise, but I don't know much about how wikimedia operates. This was a "maybe this is worth looking into if anybody knows about this shit" thing; whether they'd act is up to them and that comes after identifying a violation worth bothering them with. I think the best case (outcome, not pessimism) would actually just be them giving him a talking to so that he'll quit being a massive faggot. (Even if they did nothing it'd hypothetically be fun to point out another way he's shitting the bed.)
Thanks for this! I'm working on making an archive of TCRF on another MediaWiki instance right now. By the way, I reccomend doing a grep search for "Mad Professor Mariarti" when exporting, one or two of your rips got Mad Professor'd and I caught them before uploading.
grep -rnw '/home/user/Downloads/xml_output/' -e 'Mad Professor Mariarti' | lessfor filename in *; do less "${filename}"; doneCyber_Sled_(PlayStation).xml
Cyber Spin.xml
Cyber Tiger (Game Boy Color).xml
Cyber_Tank.xml
Cyber Troopers Virtual-On_ Oratorio Tangram.xml
Cyber Tiger (PlayStation).xmlI think those were the ones I saved manually, either I forgot to delete those before compressing and sending it here or XKiker fooled me into thinking its contents were of the actual page. Either way my bad.
welp i'm a little late to to being the first to run such a site
XCreeper doesn't want the site archived?
>NO edits
Pretty much this. He's been saying on his Twitter that he's now actively interfering with efforts to archive the content. Which just makes people even more concerned about him having a meltdown and everything being lost. To reiterate once again, it's not his content. Everything contributed to the site is done so under Creative Commons Attribution licence v3. Even, so much as he's written stuff himself, his own contributions! This enshrines the right to copy the data and prohibits implementing technical prevention measures of doing so. (E.g. his idiotic spamming of junk text when people try to archive it). He wants total control over the material people have licenced to him and no "competitors"
I think it's amazing the way people are springing up to try and preserve this stuff. It's what Open Source and Creative Commons was always meant to be. And I love that there are multiple efforts to do this - all with friendly relations to each other. What was that Latin thing about tyrants? Sic Semper Trannies?
Yep - that's exactly where I was coming from on this. It doesn't physically force him to undo his changes but it makes clear the moral position when he's violating the licence and intent that contributors to the wiki donated under. At this point, people have every reason to suppose the content is vulnerable. He's already banned people for simply questioning his political views.
Awesome catch. If I may add on just because I know there are Windows users involved as well, the Powershell version would be:
Get-ChildItem *.xml | Select-String 'Mad Professor Mariarti' -List | Select Path-Recurse after Get-ChildItem.Yes, I probably wasn't clear. MediaWiki is licenced under similar terms. So they would be in a position to demand he comply with the terms if they wished. And one would hope that they'd take a dim view of someone editing their software to maliciously try and crash archivers systems by filling up all their hard drive space (this guy's expressed intent). But I can't see that happening. Unless this blew up to an extraordinary state. Content creators however, are much more in a position to just get a few together, contact him and say: "hey, stop interfering with the sharing of our content. It's not yours". All the references and excerpts for this are in this thread. There's no excuse that it's about resources or preventing malicious behaviour. It takes less resource to grab the XML version than load the page normally. And archiving and sharing the content is design intent of the licence.
Is that a sprit edit?
That is in th end. Plenty of pro-queer people realise tha transphobia is repackaged homophobia, bu that is due to both being reactions to human actions that defy human biology. Human babies are the results of ducks going to China, but whether a human has a duck or China depends on the Y chromosome that affects tonnes of things that no amount of stereotypes, surgery, or chemistry can alter. You can only defy that order by changing the definition, hence why both omosexuality and transgenderism are based on feelings instead of physical biology.
Null certainly knows the cure for such disorders. Why else did he insist on archiving everything in the rules above the comment box?
Nitpick: If CC works like the GPL, he retains the copyright for his contributions, and to grossly oversimplify it, he may not be bound by the terms he licenses it under to others. (For example, he may choose to redistribute with a different license.) But your intuition might end up being right anyway; the wiki may count as a joint work, because individual edits aren't really separable. In that case:
This is just speculation on my part and I'm not a lawyer.
There's another problem with setting up the wiki, it's the space it takes. It should take up to 100 GB in memory and that could make hosting difficult. I know about Linode, Google Cloud and Dreamhost, are they any good and are they cheap for 100 GB? Obv it's a wiki so new content will be added, it would mean that 100 GB is the bare minimum, but ideally, we'd want the double of that.
Seems like there's also things in the Mediawiki terms like prohibiting revocation of license, just saying.
same. high five, lapsed poster buddy