Re: [Wikimedia-l] Very good news!

These are data for English wikipedia, right? You should compare the whole platforms. That's because bilingualism is increasing in many countries but not in the same direction. For example Italian students foreign language skills drastically increased over the last 10 years, so they edit also on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Volunteers who have access to advanced tools are required to identify themselves. The problem with volunteers dealing with extremely sensitive matters is that they have to answer to a committee. When the committee starts demanding pre-approval it becomes impossible for a volunteer to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

I don't lack faith in the community, I just recognize that not everything needs to be dealt with by us. Building an encyclopedia and dealing with these sensitive cases are very different things, and community volunteers lack both the resources and the responsibility to deal with them. Volunteers

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

AJ, > "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something doesn't > mean that they should be." Can you clarify that, please? > "Again, the difference here is between these > sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally accountable > professionals, or by

[Wikimedia-l] Very good news!

This is an extraordinary news for us! For almost 10 years I was hoping to see that and, finally, I've seen it! In short, it seems that we reached the bottom in participation in 2014 and that we are now slowly going upwards. My claim is based on the analysis [1] of the Eric Zachte's participation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Hi all, I've written a short Python script that fetches the spreadsheet using the CSV link (as John suggested), and now updates the page at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions The code is at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something doesn't mean that they should be. Again, the difference here is between these sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally accountable professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best. These cases take

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

As compared to the current system, I'd be much more comfortable with a hybrid model, where WMF and community representatives share authority for making a global ban decision. We have plenty of cases already where community members review highly sensitive evidence and make administrative decisions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Bureaucrats aren't mean to be sort of a supreme court neither, same for chapters. The central aspects of WMF-bans are: *bans issued out of usual community-driven process *bans not implying sharing info, usually collected off wiki, with people not strictly legally bound to confidentiality (I, for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

someone from the affiliates, who is also a native speaker of the person language and someone with whom there is a level of community trust through being in elected positions. ARBCOM or a bureaucrat from the project where the incidents takes place, someone with a high level of trust in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Add WMF-straff to a specific category, and make it possible to filter out users with a specific group within a category. Then forget the whole spreadsheet. Case closed. On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Vi to wrote: > AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most of projects have no arbcoms, Finally, anyone would appeal, turning WMF-issued ban into a [how to call this group?]-issued ban. Vito 2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac : > Gnangarra raised some valid and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long as there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent process. Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

what this discussion reveals is that; 1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions, and a when why they were granted 2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances, 3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of Global bans.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is not > obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what > jurisdiction is appropriate. > […] That's easy: The victim's. Tim

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Hoi, The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is not obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what jurisdiction is appropriate. Not easy and often not actionable. So imho we neef to assess a situation first and do what works. Chapters cannot be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Spot on. If it is a criminal act, remember that WMF legal are paid to protect the WMF, the police are there to handle crime, which includes protection of a victim. Fae On 18 Feb 2017 11:11, "Tim Landscheidt" wrote: Robert Fernandez wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Robert Fernandez wrote: > […] > And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance > at all. The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance > like policy issues regarding article content, etc. But when we are talking > about