[Wikimedia-l] WMF Global Bans

2017-02-17 Thread Craig Franklin
This is a good point Pete. I only know the full circumstances of a couple of the global bans, but in each case it is based on non-public information that we would not want going public. Just because each discussion is not subject to a yes/no decision on Meta, does not mean there is no community

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

2017-02-17 Thread Robert Fernandez
There is actually quite a bit of community involvement in the process. They repeatedly respond to community requests for information about processes and are open to community feedback regarding them. What they won't do is give you specific information about specific cases, and so the demands for

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

2017-02-17 Thread Nathan
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W wrote: > How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with > community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that > is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is

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

2017-02-17 Thread Pete Forsyth
I want to chime in briefly, since I have direct personal experience in WMF0-initiated bans. Not long ago, Support & Safety took an action to exclude somebody for whom I, as a volunteer, felt some responsibility. Initially, I felt that there was inadequate communication with me, and as a

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

2017-02-17 Thread Adrian Raddatz
I'm not convinced of the problem. The WMF global bans are designed to step in where community processes would not be appropriate. From their page on Meta: "global bans are carried out ... to address multi-project misconduct, to help ensure the trust and safety of the users of all Wikimedia sites,

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

2017-02-17 Thread Pine W
How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a

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

2017-02-17 Thread Adrian Raddatz
Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment are

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

2017-02-17 Thread Pine W
I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the US we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions about who

[Wikimedia-l] Central and Eastern European Spring 2017

2017-02-17 Thread Nikola Kalchev
Dear Wikipedians of the world, this year the article writing contest CEE Spring takes place for the third time. It is a contest in which Wikipedians write about topics like the culture, history, notable people, geography, etc., of the region of Central and Eastern Europe. We are aiming to close

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

2017-02-17 Thread Antoine Musso
Le 16/02/2017 à 11:31, Vi to a écrit : > Dealing with staffs they are way so close to more serious stuffs than the > mediawiki user interface, so I wouldn't care about their on site accesses. > Root access to db, squid data, mailman, physical access to residuals of old > identification system,