Mailing List Archive

[Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
Now they hide themselves behind a collective account
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of
global locks
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1>
and writing boilerplate replies
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
do not object global locks at all.
What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of
the site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me
from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.

rubin

2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org>:

> It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
> Now they hide themselves behind a collective account <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of global
> locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&
> type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1> and writing boilerplate
> replies <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
> WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
> As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
> do not object global locks at all.
> What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
> community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
> They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
> and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of the
> site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
> The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
> leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been
advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.

"Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the
Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the
list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty
clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could
endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet
companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on
the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's
followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible
company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia
Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)"

from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia

Chris

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:

> Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
>
> rubin
>
> 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org>:
>
>> It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
>> Now they hide themselves behind a collective account <
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of global
>> locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&
>> type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1> and writing boilerplate
>> replies <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
>> WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
>> As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
>> do not object global locks at all.
>> What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
>> community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
>> They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
>> and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of the
>> site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
>> The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
>> leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

----
Chris McKenna

cmckenna@sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
That's the question of trust: there have been too many situations recently
when WMF asked us "just to believe":

- believe that there were reasons to ban somebody (Russavia)
- believe that there were reasons to switch-off fundraising in Russia
- believe that most readers prefer MultimediaViewer
- believe that there is positive feedback and results from existing
annoying banners for fundraising.

I don't want to believe, I want to have transparency.

rubin

2015-01-20 15:11 GMT+03:00 Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org>:

> As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been
> advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
>
> "Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
> comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the
> Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the
> list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
> dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
> tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty
> clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could
> endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
> could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
> placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies
> - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason
> for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by -
> and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that
> executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
> (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)"
>
> from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:
>
> Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
>>
>> rubin
>>
>> 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org>:
>>
>> It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
>>> Now they hide themselves behind a collective account <
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of
>>> global
>>> locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&
>>> type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1> and writing
>>> boilerplate
>>> replies <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
>>> WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
>>> As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
>>> do not object global locks at all.
>>> What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
>>> community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
>>> They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
>>> and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of
>>> the
>>> site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
>>> The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
>>> leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>
>
> ----
> Chris McKenna
>
> cmckenna@sucs.org
> www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
>
>
> The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
> but with the heart
>
> Antoine de Saint Exupery
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information
(in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.

best,

Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. "pundit"

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, rubin.happy <rubin.happy@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's the question of trust: there have been too many situations recently
> when WMF asked us "just to believe":
>
> - believe that there were reasons to ban somebody (Russavia)
> - believe that there were reasons to switch-off fundraising in Russia
> - believe that most readers prefer MultimediaViewer
> - believe that there is positive feedback and results from existing
> annoying banners for fundraising.
>
> I don't want to believe, I want to have transparency.
>
> rubin
>
> 2015-01-20 15:11 GMT+03:00 Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org>:
>
> > As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have
> been
> > advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
> >
> > "Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
> > comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the
> > Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the
> > list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
> > dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
> > tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is
> pretty
> > clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could
> > endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
> > could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
> > placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet
> companies
> > - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason
> > for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by -
> > and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that
> > executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
> > (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)"
> >
> > from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:
> >
> > Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
> >>
> >> rubin
> >>
> >> 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org>:
> >>
> >> It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary
> move.
> >>> Now they hide themselves behind a collective account <
> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of
> >>> global
> >>> locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&
> >>> type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1> and writing
> >>> boilerplate
> >>> replies <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
> >>> WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
> >>> As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that
> I
> >>> do not object global locks at all.
> >>> What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
> >>> community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
> >>> They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
> >>> and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of
> >>> the
> >>> site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
> >>> The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me
> from
> >>> leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >>
> >
> > ----
> > Chris McKenna
> >
> > cmckenna@sucs.org
> > www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
> >
> >
> > The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
> > but with the heart
> >
> > Antoine de Saint Exupery
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--

__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>:
> transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information
> (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
> community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
> discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
> community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
> behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
> the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.

Strong +1.

2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org>:
> As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been
> advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
>
> "Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment:
> we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of
> Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the list), some
> of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to
> openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the
> reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for
> something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could endanger the user,
> their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a
> quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real
> physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very
> strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans.
> It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon -
> by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of
> action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January
> 2015 (UTC)"

Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process
i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban
infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation
from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility.

If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do
such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms
that the legal department consider adeguate.

Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board
of external, indipendent experts for this.
(say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs).

C

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high
trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
by us*.

If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
members with a power of veto.

Fae

On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> transparency does not always have to mean full public access to information
> (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
> community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
> discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
> community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
> behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
> the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
>
> best,
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. "pundit"

--
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
responsible for everything WMF does.

Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as
cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly
well-equipped to deal with. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer
group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth
thinking about.
Chris

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>:
> > transparency does not always have to mean full public access to
> information
> > (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
> > community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
> > discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
> > community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
> reasoning
> > behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
> > the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
>
> Strong +1.
>
> 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org>:
> > As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have
> been
> > advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
> >
> > "Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
> comment:
> > we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of
> > Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the list),
> some
> > of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous
> to
> > openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the
> > reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for
> > something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could endanger the
> user,
> > their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a
> > quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real
> > physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a
> very
> > strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global
> bans.
> > It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted
> upon -
> > by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type
> of
> > action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January
> > 2015 (UTC)"
>
> Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process
> i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban
> infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation
> from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility.
>
> If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do
> such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms
> that the legal department consider adeguate.
>
> Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board
> of external, indipendent experts for this.
> (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs).
>
> C
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
This explanation is really correct.

The board is responsible, the board has the mean to "control" everything is
responsibility of WMF, so the board cannot say to don't know or that they
cannot know.

This is not a personal opinion but it's a principle in every governance's
framework.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
> aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
> responsible for everything WMF does.
>
> Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as
> cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly
> well-equipped to deal with. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer
> group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth
> thinking about.
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni <
> kikkocristian@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>:
> > > transparency does not always have to mean full public access to
> > information
> > > (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving
> the
> > > community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
> > > discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
> > > community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
> > reasoning
> > > behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such
> as
> > > the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
> >
> > Strong +1.
> >
> > 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna <cmckenna@sucs.org>:
> > > As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have
> > been
> > > advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
> > >
> > > "Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
> > comment:
> > > we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms
> of
> > > Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the list),
> > some
> > > of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous
> > to
> > > openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the
> > > reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly
> for
> > > something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could endanger the
> > user,
> > > their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a
> > > quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real
> > > physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a
> > very
> > > strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global
> > bans.
> > > It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted
> > upon -
> > > by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type
> > of
> > > action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18
> January
> > > 2015 (UTC)"
> >
> > Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process
> > i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban
> > infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation
> > from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility.
> >
> > If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do
> > such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms
> > that the legal department consider adeguate.
> >
> > Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board
> > of external, indipendent experts for this.
> > (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs).
> >
> > C
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469>
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
hi Fae,

fair enough, but clearly the Board could decide to delegate the oversight
privilege in these cases to community-elected members.

best,

dj "pundit"

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Fæ <faewik@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high
> trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
> elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
> contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
> by us*.
>
> If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
> procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
> called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
> global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
> governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
> Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
> members with a power of veto.
>
> Fae
>
> On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> > transparency does not always have to mean full public access to
> information
> > (in the cases described by Philippe clearly TMI may be e.g. involving the
> > community and the foundation in lengthy legal disputes, or endanger a
> > discussed individual). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
> > community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
> reasoning
> > behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
> > the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. "pundit"
>
> --
> faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--

__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>:
> It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
> aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
> responsible for everything WMF does.

Yes, I am aware of that.
What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact
that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more
substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.

Of course there are other possible solutions.

2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ <faewik@gmail.com>:
> Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high
> trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
> elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
> contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
> by us*.
>
> If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
> procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
> called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
> global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
> governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
> Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
> members with a power of veto.

The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or
discussing the *merit* of such bans.
The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal
department and tollows from the projects' terms of use.
This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that -
indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided
by the ToS.

With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this
committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts,
with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be
more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.

Cristian

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
This is correct, but it supports the question that the board has not a well
defined control.

A good governance says that the responsible should be "proactive".

What Chris is saying is perfect, I would not change a word.

It means that it's not in conflict with what your saying, but he is already
in more advanced step.

He has been clear: if something is responsibility of WMF (and the term
"responsibility" has a well defined meaning), it is responsibility of the
board except the cases where the board has assigned this responsibility to
another body.

It does not mean "in charge of".

Regards

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>:
> > It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
> > aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
> > responsible for everything WMF does.
>
> Yes, I am aware of that.
> What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact
> that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more
> substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.
>
> --
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario>
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli <https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli>
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli <https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli>
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469>
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
Chris Keating wrote:
>Personally I think the present solution is better than no solution, as
>cross-project disruption is not something the community is particularly
>well-equipped to deal with.

[citation needed]

One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or
Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no
shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We
typically block disruptive accounts and move on. That's basically all we
can do and this newly documented process is really no different. I'm not
sure creating a shrine to the super-bad is prudent or helpful,
particularly when it means degrading community autonomy.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or
> Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no
> shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We
> typically block disruptive accounts and move on.


As I noted, this is a legal stick, not a computer security one.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
I believe it is vital for our survival, that we manage to transform our
communities into a more professional way of working then we have today
(which very much look the same as 5 or 10 years ago, when we were newbies)

I for example think about 50% of our project should be closed down as
their quality is so rotten it represent a major risk for our global
brand (when and if these are made commonly known).

And we cannot accept sysops working as mad despots. Eiither re-election
should be made mandatory or a WMF/steward/BoT controlled body should
monitor misuse of sysoprights.

And in this perspective I am of the opinion that we must also treat bad
user more strict. So I welcome this initiative as a very minor first
step, even if it surely can be improved

Anders





David Gerard skrev den 2015-01-20 15:38:
> On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride <z@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>
>> One point that's unclear to me is why the Wikimedia Foundation (or
>> Philippe, specifically) thinks this policy is necessary. There's been no
>> shortage of bad people on wiki projects since their inception. We
>> typically block disruptive accounts and move on.
>
> As I noted, this is a legal stick, not a computer security one.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
I guess I don't object much to specific ban reasons not disclosed to the *public* if it at least is publicly said "reasons of privacy prohibit us from commenting specifically," however I would object if specific ban reasons were not disclosed to the *banned individual*. It's simple fairness and common decency to tell somebody why he or she has been banned.

Consider a user like Russavia who has done a great deal of positive editing, contributed great value, to the WMF projects. He shouldn't just be banned without telling *him* specifically why. Personally I feel he was pushed around at English Wikipedia a lot, that one of his maligned and deleted focus projects "Poland Ball" was for years worthy of its own article, and that had to be vindicated by its articles in like a dozen of the non-English Wikipedias before, after years, the English Wikipedia administrative bullies finally backed down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball, now #3 in Google results).

Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be no "you compromised my privacy" complaint basis for the individual.

Trillium Corsage

20.01.2015, 12:11, "Chris McKenna" <cmckenna@sucs.org>:
> As has been explained multiple times in multiple places, the WMF have been
> advised, for very good legal reasons, not to give details.
>
> "Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to
> comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the
> Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the
> list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
> dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
> tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty
> clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could
> endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
> could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
> placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet
> companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on
> the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's
> followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible
> company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia
> Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)"
>
> from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:
>>  Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
>>
>>  rubin
>>
>>  2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org>:
>>>  It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move.
>>>  Now they hide themselves behind a collective account <
>>>  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:WMFOffice> issuing batches of global
>>>  locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&
>>>  type=globalauth&user=WMFOffice&year=2015&month=1> and writing boilerplate
>>>  replies <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
>>>  WMFOffice&diff=10982297>.
>>>  As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
>>>  do not object global locks at all.
>>>  What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
>>>  community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
>>>  They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
>>>  and global-locking any account "to protect the integrity and safety of the
>>>  site and users", actually at their sole discretion.
>>>  The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
>>>  leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>>>  wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>>  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>  <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> ----
> Chris McKenna
>
> cmckenna@sucs.org
> www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
>
> The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
> but with the heart
>
> Antoine de Saint Exupery
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
I appreciate that WMF is taking action to make the communities a safer and
friendlier place to do volunteer work. Enforcing the Terms of Service at
the Foundation level is right step toward managing the community of WMF
wikis that are interconnected but run independently.

When we discuss adding another volunteer committee or adding more
responsibilities to existing committees that's to do this type of
professional level work, we need to think in terms of the budget for proper
training and their staff support. If these committees are to function
properly they need to have a sound process and adequate resources.

I'm not convinced that I've seen a case made for creating another group (
beyond the normal oversight of the BoT) to oversee the work done by the
Legal and Community Advocacy Departments in enforcing the ToS by globally
banning and locking accounts.

Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community
indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than
these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a professional
whose work is being evaluated.

Sydney Poore



Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com>:
> > It's worth pointing out that the Board *are* responsible, even if they
> > aren't involved in the actual decision-making - as they are ultimately
> > responsible for everything WMF does.
>
> Yes, I am aware of that.
> What I was advocating for was a more substantial proof of the fact
> that the board is aware about these decisions, with the more
> substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.
>
> Of course there are other possible solutions.
>
> 2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ <faewik@gmail.com>:
> > Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high
> > trust" you give as examples in your email are elected officials, or if
> > elected have not been elected through a cross-project vote of active
> > contributors. The WMF board has a voting majority that is *not elected
> > by us*.
> >
> > If there is to be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
> > procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
> > called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
> > global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
> > governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
> > Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
> > members with a power of veto.
>
> The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or
> discussing the *merit* of such bans.
> The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal
> department and tollows from the projects' terms of use.
> This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that -
> indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided
> by the ToS.
>
> With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this
> committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts,
> with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be
> more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.
>
> Cristian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 15:38:
> As I noted, this is a legal stick

There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were
required by law.

It's possible they were, sure. But we are abandoned to mere speculation
from supporters of either interpretation. See talk page on transparency:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#Transparency_reports

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On 2015-01-20 18:21, Sydney Poore wrote:
> Frankly, I'm much more concerned about the large number of community
> indefinite blocks done by a single administrator with no training than
> these few bans that are investigated and signed off on by a
> professional
> whose work is being evaluated.
>
> Sydney Poore
>

The problem is that WMF already produced a lot of damage, and foremost,
damage to their reputation. Russavia at the point he was banned was
still a Commons administrator, and he recently survived a desysop
discussion. This means he really was trusted by active part of the
community (though there was vocal opposition as well). At some point,
WMF will need to get volunteer support for some of its actions, and it
will be extremely difficult to achieve on Commons. And this is just one
of a series of moves they continue to alienate the community with. For
me personally, the last straw was not the ban of Russavia, but the
accident of I guess last year, when a number of users (not me, I was
completely unrelated) were just duly desysopped on WMF internal wiki,
because a staffer decided she can manage everything herself (she turned
out to be wrong), and no apologies were ever offered, quite the
opposite. Community blocks can be (and are sometimes) reversed if
needed, but trust and reputation are extremely difficult to recover. I
am sorry to write this, but this is how I see the situation.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On 20 January 2015 at 17:19, Trillium Corsage <trillium2014@yandex.com>
wrote:

> I guess I don't object much to specific ban reasons not disclosed to the
> *public* if it at least is publicly said "reasons of privacy prohibit us
> from commenting specifically," however I would object if specific ban
> reasons were not disclosed to the *banned individual*. It's simple fairness
> and common decency to tell somebody why he or she has been banned.
>
> Consider a user like Russavia who has done a great deal of positive
> editing, contributed great value, to the WMF projects. He shouldn't just be
> banned without telling *him* specifically why. Personally I feel he was
> pushed around at English Wikipedia a lot, that one of his maligned and
> deleted focus projects "Poland Ball" was for years worthy of its own
> article, and that had to be vindicated by its articles in like a dozen of
> the non-English Wikipedias before, after years, the English Wikipedia
> administrative bullies finally backed down (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball, now #3 in Google results).
>
>
However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary
issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the
English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the
relevant logs and archives. Given that this does not satisfy you there
would appear to be little point in paying attention to any demands you make
for openness.




> Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or
> she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what
> the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be no "you
> compromised my privacy" complaint basis for the individual.
>
>
Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely
hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a
C&C network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has
two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can
give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and
legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which
one do you think it is going to do?



--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On 20 January 2015 at 17:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru> wrote:

> The problem is that WMF already produced a lot of damage, and foremost,
> damage to their reputation. Russavia at the point he was banned was still a
> Commons administrator, and he recently survived a desysop discussion. This
> means he really was trusted by active part of the community (though there
> was vocal opposition as well). At some point, WMF will need to get
> volunteer support for some of its actions, and it will be extremely
> difficult to achieve on Commons.


The reality is that its recent actions have made no difference in that
respect other than reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
positions on commons by one. Realistically there was no course of action
that the WMF people could take that would bring that anti WMF commons
people onside. Partly because they are pretty set on their current position
and partly because in most cases it is an extension of being anti-english
wikipedia and that is frankly even less fixable.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
20.01.2015, 18:06, "geni" <email clipped>:

> However regardless of your opinion (which is wrong but that's a secondary
> issue) of it the reasons for blocking were publicly discussed on the
> English wikipedia and can be found through enough digging through the
> relevant logs and archives.

Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate specific refutation next time. The answer "dig through the logs and archives" will find no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from many rabid and shifty accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why the WMF acted. "Do some homework and figure it out yourself" is no answer for an 100 million dollar organization with scores of employees to say.

> Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely
> hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a
> C&C network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has
> two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can
> give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and
> legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which
> one do you think it is going to do?

You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise the editor of all that privately, say publicly "because of privacy or legal implications, we won't be specific, but we advised the individual privately," and that would be reasonable as far as I'm concerned.

Trillium Corsage

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On 20 January 2015 at 18:23, Trillium Corsage <trillium2014@yandex.com>
wrote:

>
> Thank you for informing me my opinion is wrong, but I'd appreciate
> specific refutation next time. The answer "dig through the logs and
> archives" will find no doubt many criticisms of Russavia including from
> many rabid and shifty accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why
> the WMF acted. "Do some homework and figure it out yourself" is no answer
> for an 100 million dollar organization with scores of employees to say.
>

I'm not a 100 million dollar organisation but in any case we have further
established that your interest is not in fact openness.



> You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise
> the editor of all that privately,
>

No. Your problem is that you are assuming internal WMF communications are
privileged (note this term has a very precise legal meaning and that is the
way I'm using it).

--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage <trillium2014@yandex.com>
wrote:

>
> Of course if the WMF indeed tells the individual the particulars, he or
> she could himself or herself choose to make that public. Maybe that's what
> the WMF really doesn't want. If it were done that way, there'd be no "you
> compromised my privacy" complaint basis for the individual.
>

It is my understanding that the banned users are informed of the reasons
(and possibly also warned prior to ban, but of course this should not
always be the case - I can imagine scenarios in which immediate action is
needed).

best,

dariusz "pundit"


--

__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path [ In reply to ]
On 2015-01-20 19:10, geni wrote:
> The reality is that its recent actions have made no difference in that
> respect other than reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
> positions on commons by one. Realistically there was no course of
> action
> that the WMF people could take that would bring that anti WMF commons
> people onside. Partly because they are pretty set on their current
> position
> and partly because in most cases it is an extension of being
> anti-english
> wikipedia and that is frankly even less fixable.

My point is that reducing the number of anti WMF people in senior
positions on commons by one they might have converted some pro WMF
people in senior positions on commons to anti WMF people, producing more
damage for themselves than they hoped to create good.

Cheers
Yaroslav

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

1 2  View All