Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@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 cmcke...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 cmcke...@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 ricordisa...@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=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe Chris McKenna cmcke...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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.ha...@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 cmcke...@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 ricordisa...@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=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe Chris McKenna cmcke...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 ricordisa...@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=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe Chris McKenna cmcke...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible. rubin 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@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=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk: WMFOfficediff=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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 fae...@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 dar...@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 -- fae...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 dar...@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 -- fae...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@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 cmcke...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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 fae...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 chriskeatingw...@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 kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@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 cmcke...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@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 fae...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 18:23, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 17:19, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@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 CC 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 17:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On 20 January 2015 at 17:23, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: 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. That's neither what I said nor meant, but don't let me stop you going off into a world of assumption and speculation. - 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
David Gerard, 20/01/2015 21:11: As I noted, this is a legal stick There was no indication whatsoever from the WMF that these actions were required by law. That's neither what I said nor meant Sorry if I was unclear: I know you didn't. It's just a distinction worth noting. 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent. If the owner of the website banned Russavia from editing it, Russavia must have violated the rules. Or does anyone really suspect WMF of banning people for fun? I don't and I hope nobody else does, either. m2c, Th. 2015-01-20 19:49 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On 2015-01-20 20:12, Chris Keating wrote: 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. I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue. ___ This is the framework suggested by geni, not by me. 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
On 2015-01-20 20:20, Thomas Goldammer wrote: I really wonder why it's anyone (except Russavia)'s business why Russavia was banned. Or in other words, why don't you guys just ask Russavia about it? If they want to tell you, fine, if not, fine as well... And no, that's not a speech against openness and transparency. The rules are transparent. If the owner of the website banned Russavia from editing it, Russavia must have violated the rules. Or does anyone really suspect WMF of banning people for fun? I don't and I hope nobody else does, either. m2c, Th. He claims he got only a standard notice that he was banned for TOU violation. 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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. I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue. ___ 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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 CC 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path
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. I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue. ___ This is the framework suggested by geni, not by me. Ah - I see it was - thanks. It is however a view that I've seen expressed in other discussions on this topic, so it's probably still a point worth making. Personally I think this step will be quite good for the health of the community on Commons. Chris ___ 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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
