Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Pine W]

Hi JJ, I can't speak for anyone else, but I was responding specifically to
the statement "four arbitrators posted personally identifying information
about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.", which would be
a concern to me both in regards to the specific case and also the broader
implications for privacy.

Neotarf, if WMF Legal has reviewed the PII concerns, including escalating
them to C-level, and has chosen not to get involved, I'm afraid that you're
probably out of luck unless a change of policy happens on ENWP or with the
relevant WMF policies. You could lobby for a change, and you might get it,
although that is a long road to travel. My mental bandwidth is too
constrained to continue personal involvement in this discussion at this
time, but I don't want to discourage you from requesting a change in policy
if you think that would be good. You may wish to conserve your energy by
first dealing with your ban appeal; I have not reviewed the evidence in
your case and I will refrain from speculating on the merits of the appeal.
After that appeal is resolved, if there is a favorable outcome, you may
find it easier to propose one or more changes to policies. Good luck.

Pine
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[JJ Marr]

This seems more about Neotarf's personal ban more than anything else.
Looking at the arbcom findings of fact (which I won't quote here), it
doesn't look like the ban was related to the gender gap on Wikipedia as
much as behaviour displayed towards other editors.

Maybe it would be better for the mailing list if we stopped talking about
this? Just a suggestion.

On 15 Jul 2017 8:20 PM, "Nathan"  wrote:


I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr  wrote:

> How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
>
> On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>
> Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded.  I appreciate them taking
> time to review these concerns.
>
>
> >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
> Legal.
>
> Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
> ago
>
>
> >>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> intervention
>
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
>
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
 already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
 If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
 their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
 Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
 themselves.

 For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
 significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
 issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
 realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
 future.

 Pine


 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
 please visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Nathan]

I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr  wrote:

> How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
>
> On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:
>
> Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded.  I appreciate them taking
> time to review these concerns.
>
>
> >>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
> Legal.
>
> Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
> ago
>
>
> >>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
> certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
> intervention
>
> If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
> me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
> like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
> silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
>
> The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
> editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
> effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
> to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
> ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
> arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
> election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
> community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
> committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
> Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
> resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
> the arbcom and the community process can not?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
>> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
>> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
>> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
>> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
>> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
>> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>>
>> Pine
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>>
>>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>>
 Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
 already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
 If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
 their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
 Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
 themselves.

 For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have
 significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be
 issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but
 realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable
 future.

 Pine


 ___
 Gendergap mailing list
 Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
 To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
 please visit:
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including 

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[JJ Marr]

How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?

On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf"  wrote:

Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded.  I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.


>>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
Legal.

Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago


>>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention

If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.

The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
>>> more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
>>> or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
>>> setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:

Re: [Gendergap] FYI - GGTF case appeal

[Neotarf]

Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded.  I appreciate them taking
time to review these concerns.

>>>your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
Legal.

Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time
ago

>>>a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal
intervention

If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it.  If this can happen to
me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone
like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to
silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.

The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual
editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of
effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened
to.  But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high
ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014
arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015
election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the
community, and that the community process is failing?  The arbitration
committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy
Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the
resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if
the arbcom and the community process can not?

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on
> what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the
> PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could
> come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more
> politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal
> clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's
> interpretation of its privacy policy.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf  wrote:
>
>> The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII
>> is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back
>> the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might
>> have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it
>> should just be removed. That's just basic safety.  Maybe they are not
>> allowed to go against arbitrators  I also don't understand why arbitrators
>> would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that
>> can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very
>> professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm
>>> already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here.
>>> If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with
>>> their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF
>>> Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve
>>> themselves.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly
>>> more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly
>>> or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current
>>> setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> Pine
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>>> visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
>> visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap