Re: [Wikimedia-l] Very good news!

2017-02-18 Thread Alessandro Marchetti
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 English wikipedia. It's not sure that the opposite occurs. 
It's the same with emigration. Many 25-30 years old PhD students and Postdoc 
leave Italy and move to other countries. If that area is for example UK (a very 
common destination) they start to edit enwikipedia. This could happen also in 
France, whilst many of them have to learn German or Dutch or Swedish and it 
takes more time.
I "study" flow of users from platform, you can see when I leave welcome message 
or propose autopatrolled flag here and there and they are most probably 
asymmetrical at the moment.
If someone is interested, there are some way to try to sample this flows in an 
objective way. Happy to share with you.  

Il Domenica 19 Febbraio 2017 3:33, Milos Rancic  ha 
scritto:
 

 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 statistics on English Wikipedia [2], but I am almost
sure that the rest of the projects more or less mirror it. But,
anyway, I encourage others to check other projects and other relevant
factors and see if their results correlate with what I have found. The
reasons for the change in trends should be also detected.

If we are looking Eric's statistics from 2010 onwards, it is not
immediately obvious if we are going up or down. We reached the peak in
2007 (German Wikipedia somewhat earlier, other projects later, but
English Wikipedia is approximately 50% of our activity and its weight
is too strong for other projects to balance our overall activity).
After that peak, we went down as quickly as we reached the peak. Then,
in 2010, the trends flattened.

However, it was not a stagnation, but barely visible recession.
However, that "barely visible recession" removed approximately 20% of
the very active editors in the period from 2010 to 2014, while the
"visible one" -- from 2007 to 2010 -- was also approximately 20%. At
that point of time, in 2014, the next 10 years would for sure drive
Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement into insignificance.

Comparing such data is also tricky. It's not just necessary to compare
the same months (January 2010 with January 2011, 2012 etc.), but there
could be "freak" months, which are not following general trends.

That's why I used two methods: One is coloring the months by place in
comparison to the months of the previous years. The other is average
number per year.

There are at least a couple of important conclusions:

1) Negative trends have been reversed.

2) Both 2015 and 2016 were not just better than 2013 and 2014, but
even better than 2012, while 2016 is just a little bit worse than
2011!

3) December 2016 was even better than December 2010!

4) I could guess that the period June-November 2016 was worse than the
same period in 2015 because of the political turbulence. Without them
-- as May and December 2016 likely show -- 2016 would be not just
better, but much better than 2015 and maybe even better than 2010.

I would say that the reversal is still fragile and that we should do
whatever we've been doing the last two years. Yes, detecting what
we've been doing good (or bad) is not that easy to detect. But, yes,
better analysis of all of all of the processes should be definitely
done.

I hope that this shows that we are at the beginning of our
Renaissance, Wikimedia Renaissance and that the Dark Wikimedia Age is
behind us! So, please join me in enjoying that fact, even I could be
wrong. It definitely sounds definitely amazing, even it could be just
my imagination! :)

[1] 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IXYoTI_nCBhhuJAknH5KL450_D3V67KWTHuoEAh6540/edit?usp=sharing
[2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


   
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread FRED BAUDER
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 
function because the procedure is too cumbersome and punishing. Which 
is why certain matters have gradually shifted to staff who can make 
quick decisions and have clear authority to do so. Some things are 
done by, or at the direction of, the legal department, for example.


Fred Bauder

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:02:13 -0800
 Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
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 with the most advanced permissions on the site only need 
to sign
an agreement - the WMF doesn't know who they are, and there is no 
way to
hold them accountable for properly using the information they have 
access
to beyond removing their access. Staff, on the other hand, are known 
and
can have legal action taken against them beyond their termination in 
cases

of abuse. Simple as that.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Pine W  wrote:


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 volunteers who are part-time at best."

I am puzzled by your lack of faith in the quality of work of our 
peers

in the community. Why be so negative? We have produced Wikipedia;
surely that is evidence that volunteers can be highly capable.

Certainly not all volunteers are, of course, and some of them end up
banned for good reason. But in general, I think there is good
reason to have faith in our peers.

I'm not sure how volunteers are not "legally accountable"; perhaps 
you

could clarify that point.

> How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to 
put in

> here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

I agree with you that a good use of WMF funds is to pay staff to 
work on

investigations and enforcement. This can be done in such a way that
there is always some kind of community element in a decision-maker 
role

regarding whether to ban a member of the community.

In addition to staff resources, I would like to see WMF put more 
effort

into
expanding the population of the volunteer community, particularly 
long-term

volunteers who gain sufficient knowledge and experience to serve in
higher-skill roles such as CU/OS, technical development, outreach to
GLAM+STEM organizations, and mentorship of new Wikimedians.

> You say that the current
> system is broken, because... why?

I say that the current system is inappropriate (not broken) because
WMF should not be making decisions about who is banned from the 
community.
The purpose of WMF is to serve and nurture the community, not to 
rule it.


> The community doesn't deal with it?
> That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with 
this

stuff.
> It's a blessing, not a curse.

I agree that having staff involved in investigations and enforcement 
is a

good thing.
But as I said, I find it inappropriate and unwise for WMF to (1) 
have a

largely opaque
process for making these decisions and (2) exclude the community 
from

the decision-making process.

> It might be worth explaining some more of the
> bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears 
that

it's
> just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't 
like.


I agree with you.

I think that global bans are reasonable options in some cases. In 
terms of
quantity, I would like to see more of them and to see bans initiated 
more
quickly, such as against undisclosed COI editors who violate the 
terms of

service.
I would also like to see better technical tools for enforcing bans. 
But I

want the
community, in some fashion (probably through some kind of committee, 
as
has been suggested elsewhere in this thread) to make the decision 
about

whether to impose a global ban, in consultation with WMF.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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

2017-02-18 Thread Adrian Raddatz
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 with the most advanced permissions on the site only need to sign
an agreement - the WMF doesn't know who they are, and there is no way to
hold them accountable for properly using the information they have access
to beyond removing their access. Staff, on the other hand, are known and
can have legal action taken against them beyond their termination in cases
of abuse. Simple as that.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> 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 volunteers who are part-time at best."
>
> I am puzzled by your lack of faith in the quality of work of our peers
> in the community. Why be so negative? We have produced Wikipedia;
> surely that is evidence that volunteers can be highly capable.
>
> Certainly not all volunteers are, of course, and some of them end up
> banned for good reason. But in general, I think there is good
> reason to have faith in our peers.
>
> I'm not sure how volunteers are not "legally accountable"; perhaps you
> could clarify that point.
>
> > How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
> > here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?
>
> I agree with you that a good use of WMF funds is to pay staff to work on
> investigations and enforcement. This can be done in such a way that
> there is always some kind of community element in a decision-maker role
> regarding whether to ban a member of the community.
>
> In addition to staff resources, I would like to see WMF put more effort
> into
> expanding the population of the volunteer community, particularly long-term
> volunteers who gain sufficient knowledge and experience to serve in
> higher-skill roles such as CU/OS, technical development, outreach to
> GLAM+STEM organizations, and mentorship of new Wikimedians.
>
> > You say that the current
> > system is broken, because... why?
>
> I say that the current system is inappropriate (not broken) because
> WMF should not be making decisions about who is banned from the community.
> The purpose of WMF is to serve and nurture the community, not to rule it.
>
> > The community doesn't deal with it?
> > That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with this
> stuff.
> > It's a blessing, not a curse.
>
> I agree that having staff involved in investigations and enforcement is a
> good thing.
> But as I said, I find it inappropriate and unwise for WMF to (1) have a
> largely opaque
> process for making these decisions and (2) exclude the community from
> the decision-making process.
>
> > It might be worth explaining some more of the
> > bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that
> it's
> > just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> I think that global bans are reasonable options in some cases. In terms of
> quantity, I would like to see more of them and to see bans initiated more
> quickly, such as against undisclosed COI editors who violate the terms of
> service.
> I would also like to see better technical tools for enforcing bans. But I
> want the
> community, in some fashion (probably through some kind of committee, as
> has been suggested elsewhere in this thread) to make the decision about
> whether to impose a global ban, in consultation with WMF.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Pine W
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 volunteers who are part-time at best."

I am puzzled by your lack of faith in the quality of work of our peers
in the community. Why be so negative? We have produced Wikipedia;
surely that is evidence that volunteers can be highly capable.

Certainly not all volunteers are, of course, and some of them end up
banned for good reason. But in general, I think there is good
reason to have faith in our peers.

I'm not sure how volunteers are not "legally accountable"; perhaps you
could clarify that point.

> How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
> here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

I agree with you that a good use of WMF funds is to pay staff to work on
investigations and enforcement. This can be done in such a way that
there is always some kind of community element in a decision-maker role
regarding whether to ban a member of the community.

In addition to staff resources, I would like to see WMF put more effort into
expanding the population of the volunteer community, particularly long-term
volunteers who gain sufficient knowledge and experience to serve in
higher-skill roles such as CU/OS, technical development, outreach to
GLAM+STEM organizations, and mentorship of new Wikimedians.

> You say that the current
> system is broken, because... why?

I say that the current system is inappropriate (not broken) because
WMF should not be making decisions about who is banned from the community.
The purpose of WMF is to serve and nurture the community, not to rule it.

> The community doesn't deal with it?
> That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with this stuff.
> It's a blessing, not a curse.

I agree that having staff involved in investigations and enforcement is a
good thing.
But as I said, I find it inappropriate and unwise for WMF to (1) have a
largely opaque
process for making these decisions and (2) exclude the community from
the decision-making process.

> It might be worth explaining some more of the
> bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that
it's
> just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.

I agree with you.

I think that global bans are reasonable options in some cases. In terms of
quantity, I would like to see more of them and to see bans initiated more
quickly, such as against undisclosed COI editors who violate the terms of
service.
I would also like to see better technical tools for enforcing bans. But I
want the
community, in some fashion (probably through some kind of committee, as
has been suggested elsewhere in this thread) to make the decision about
whether to impose a global ban, in consultation with WMF.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


[Wikimedia-l] Very good news!

2017-02-18 Thread Milos Rancic
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 statistics on English Wikipedia [2], but I am almost
sure that the rest of the projects more or less mirror it. But,
anyway, I encourage others to check other projects and other relevant
factors and see if their results correlate with what I have found. The
reasons for the change in trends should be also detected.

If we are looking Eric's statistics from 2010 onwards, it is not
immediately obvious if we are going up or down. We reached the peak in
2007 (German Wikipedia somewhat earlier, other projects later, but
English Wikipedia is approximately 50% of our activity and its weight
is too strong for other projects to balance our overall activity).
After that peak, we went down as quickly as we reached the peak. Then,
in 2010, the trends flattened.

However, it was not a stagnation, but barely visible recession.
However, that "barely visible recession" removed approximately 20% of
the very active editors in the period from 2010 to 2014, while the
"visible one" -- from 2007 to 2010 -- was also approximately 20%. At
that point of time, in 2014, the next 10 years would for sure drive
Wikipedia and Wikimedia movement into insignificance.

Comparing such data is also tricky. It's not just necessary to compare
the same months (January 2010 with January 2011, 2012 etc.), but there
could be "freak" months, which are not following general trends.

That's why I used two methods: One is coloring the months by place in
comparison to the months of the previous years. The other is average
number per year.

There are at least a couple of important conclusions:

1) Negative trends have been reversed.

2) Both 2015 and 2016 were not just better than 2013 and 2014, but
even better than 2012, while 2016 is just a little bit worse than
2011!

3) December 2016 was even better than December 2010!

4) I could guess that the period June-November 2016 was worse than the
same period in 2015 because of the political turbulence. Without them
-- as May and December 2016 likely show -- 2016 would be not just
better, but much better than 2015 and maybe even better than 2010.

I would say that the reversal is still fragile and that we should do
whatever we've been doing the last two years. Yes, detecting what
we've been doing good (or bad) is not that easy to detect. But, yes,
better analysis of all of all of the processes should be definitely
done.

I hope that this shows that we are at the beginning of our
Renaissance, Wikimedia Renaissance and that the Dark Wikimedia Age is
behind us! So, please join me in enjoying that fact, even I could be
wrong. It definitely sounds definitely amazing, even it could be just
my imagination! :)

[1] 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IXYoTI_nCBhhuJAknH5KL450_D3V67KWTHuoEAh6540/edit?usp=sharing
[2] https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm

-- 
Milos

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Michael Peel
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:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Peel/WMF_permissions_script 


Hope that helps!

Thanks,
Mike

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 05:58, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> I agree these types of breakages, if unintentional and not regular,
> should be raised elsewhere first.
> 
> Given Fae's reluctance to use private correspondence,...
> 
> Is there a public wiki page which can be used to alert the relevant
> team to any future breakages, in the first instance?
> 
> Or can this be managed through Phabricator? an existing tag?
> 
> Fae, you said you have your own scripts, which you are no longer
> maintaining due to changes by Google.
> Is your code in a public repository somewhere?
> We do not need to use the Google apis for accessing this data.
> Google allows spreadsheets to be exported as csv.
> here is the CSV link for the Advanced Permissions data.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DruVc7T9ZqTcfGwFAlxQrBMR4QBSD_DtjpDtGqMAAi0/pub?output=csv
> 
> With a small script, we could re-publish this dataset as csv into a
> git repository, and then another script could read the csv and
> re-publish the data as wikitext onto a Wikimedia site.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, James Alexander
>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ  wrote:
>> 
>> Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
>> narrow column so hard to read.
>> 
>> Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
>> JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
>> August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
>> October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
>> was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
>> November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
>> please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
>> understand?
>> 
>> Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
>> rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
>> 
>> Fae
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Fae,
>> 
>> As I’ve mentioned on previous occasions when you’ve brought up this
>> spreadsheet on the mailing list, it occasionally breaks. That was the case
>> here. If you send me a quick note if you see the issues, we can fix it, as
>> we did today with the use case query (including make sure that it’s
>> multiple columns again.) Pointing that out so it can be quickly fixed is
>> much better done via a private poke that we'll see quickly rather than a
>> public mailing list post that we may not see until after hours or until
>> somebody lets us know about it. Obviously if we ignore your emails or
>> refuse to fix it, then the math changes, and a post to this list makes more
>> sense. I do not, however, think breakage (or overlooking notes about
>> breakage) has been a frequent problem over the past couple years (though we
>> have certainly had a couple breakages).
>> 
>> The public sheet is up to date to the internal version of the data (which
>> is done automatically). However, the automated data collection is better at
>> “adding new” than “removing old.” A member of the team does annual audits
>> of the data to ensure that defunct entries are removed and that everything
>> else matches reality. The time for the next one is coming up.
>> 
>> James
>> 
>> *James Alexander*
>> Manager, Trust & Safety
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>> 
>> PS: I also fixed the weird date thing you were seeing on some of them...
>> not sure what caused that (was just a format display thing).
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Vandenberg
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 

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

2017-02-18 Thread Adrian Raddatz
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
weeks or months to build, and that's with full-time staff working on them.
How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

Sorry, but your comments seem quite out of touch. You say that the current
system is broken, because... why? The community doesn't deal with it?
That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with this stuff.
It's a blessing, not a curse. It might be worth explaining some more of the
bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that it's
just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.

As to the appeals process proposed above, that is not useful either in my
opinion. Nor is there any relation between being a bureaucrat, AffCom
member, etc. and having the time, knowledge, and competence to deal with
these cases.

Adrian Raddatz

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Pine W  wrote:

> 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 based on that
> evidence. I would disagree with a notion that community members who have
> passed a reasonable community vetting process are untrustworthy or
> incompetent by default (there is ample evidence to the contrary), and that
> WMF employees are always super-humanly trustworthy and competent by virtue
> of their office (remember the previous WMF executive director?). Also note
> that people with good intentions sometimes make mistakes, and that
> groupthink can be a serious problem. All of these factors should be taken
> into consideration when designing a system for global bans.
>
> I don't expect to come up with a system that is 100% transparent (I don't
> think that would be legal in some cases), 100% run by the community (that
> would put too much of a burden on already overworked volunteers), and 100%
> reliable (which is unrealistic). But I'm sure that we can design a system
> that is much better than the one that we have today.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Pine W
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 based on that
evidence. I would disagree with a notion that community members who have
passed a reasonable community vetting process are untrustworthy or
incompetent by default (there is ample evidence to the contrary), and that
WMF employees are always super-humanly trustworthy and competent by virtue
of their office (remember the previous WMF executive director?). Also note
that people with good intentions sometimes make mistakes, and that
groupthink can be a serious problem. All of these factors should be taken
into consideration when designing a system for global bans.

I don't expect to come up with a system that is 100% transparent (I don't
think that would be legal in some cases), 100% run by the community (that
would put too much of a burden on already overworked volunteers), and 100%
reliable (which is unrealistic). But I'm sure that we can design a system
that is much better than the one that we have today.

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Vi to
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 one, am bound to
confidentiality by CA and policies, but it's such a vague bind compared to
employees).

Both aspects might be criticized but they are part of the definition of
WMF-ban. Removing one of them would result in something which wouldn't
longer be a WMF-ban. Basically changing one of these two aspects would
imply replacing WMF-ban with something else.

Vito

2017-02-18 15:47 GMT+01:00 Gnangarra :

> 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 community and who has already
> agreed to WMF privacy requirements
>
> they can be selected by the community and the WMF through any method,
>
> of course some people will appeal but the process gives the community the
> input being demanded here while not preventing the WMF from acting.  A WMF
> global ban isnt a frivolous decision nor would a review be one.  Yes your
> right it could never be a whole of community decision thats why we look to
> people who have the communities trust just like we do many other processes,
> even local blocks/bans arent whole of community either but rather those who
> happen to pass by or specifically haunt such process and then closed by
> someone the community has already expressed trust in.
>
> On 18 February 2017 at 22:15, Vi to  wrote:
>
> > 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 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
> > > appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF
> > Staff
> > > (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM
> > from
> > > the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Isaac
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Gnangarra 
> > > Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date:
> > Sat,
> > > 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > > Subject: 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
> > >wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> > > solve
> > >rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on
> > Meta.
> > >- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,
> > though
> > >the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
> > >- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where
> the
> > >person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> > > could
> > >be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate
> representatives(appropriate
> > >language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project
> > where
> > >the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> > > appeal
> > >it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.
> > It
> > >could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> > > their
> > >behalf.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 

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

2017-02-18 Thread Gnangarra
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 community and who has already
agreed to WMF privacy requirements

they can be selected by the community and the WMF through any method,

of course some people will appeal but the process gives the community the
input being demanded here while not preventing the WMF from acting.  A WMF
global ban isnt a frivolous decision nor would a review be one.  Yes your
right it could never be a whole of community decision thats why we look to
people who have the communities trust just like we do many other processes,
even local blocks/bans arent whole of community either but rather those who
happen to pass by or specifically haunt such process and then closed by
someone the community has already expressed trust in.

On 18 February 2017 at 22:15, Vi to  wrote:

> 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 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
> > appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF
> Staff
> > (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM
> from
> > the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Isaac
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gnangarra 
> > Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date:
> Sat,
> > 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: 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.
> >
> >
> >- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
> >wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> > solve
> >rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on
> Meta.
> >- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,
> though
> >the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
> >- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
> >person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> > could
> >be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
> >language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project
> where
> >the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> > appeal
> >it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.
> It
> >could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> > their
> >behalf.
> >
> >
> > On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: 

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

2017-02-18 Thread John Erling Blad
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 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 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
> > appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF
> Staff
> > (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM
> from
> > the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Isaac
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gnangarra 
> > Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date:
> Sat,
> > 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> > Subject: 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.
> >
> >
> >- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
> >wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> > solve
> >rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on
> Meta.
> >- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,
> though
> >the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
> >- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
> >person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> > could
> >be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
> >language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project
> where
> >the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> > appeal
> >it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.
> It
> >could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> > their
> >behalf.
> >
> >
> > On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: 

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

2017-02-18 Thread Vi to
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 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
> appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF Staff
> (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM from
> the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gnangarra 
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Sat,
> 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: 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.
>
>
>- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
>wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> solve
>rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on Meta.
>- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that, though
>the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
>- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
>person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> could
>be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
>language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project where
>the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> appeal
>it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.  It
>could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> their
>behalf.
>
>
> On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt 
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Olatunde Isaac
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 appeal. They could set 
up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF Staff (maybe those from WMF 
legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM from the project where the 
incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above. 

Best,

Isaac
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.

-Original Message-
From: Gnangarra 
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" Date: Sat, 18 
Feb 2017 21:20:16 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: 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.


   - Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
   wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and solve
   rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on Meta.
   - the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that, though
   the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
   - Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
   person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee could
   be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
   language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project where
   the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action appeal
   it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.  It
   could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on their
   behalf.


On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Gnangarra
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.


   - Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
   wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and solve
   rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on Meta.
   - the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that, though
   the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
   - Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
   person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee could
   be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
   language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project where
   the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action appeal
   it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.  It
   could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on their
   behalf.


On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt 
wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Tim Landscheidt
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


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Gerard Meijssen
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 involved so this is often the
only optoom.
Thanks,
 GerardM


Op za 18 feb. 2017 om 12:11 schreef Tim Landscheidt 

> 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 issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> > should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has
> nothing
> > to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues
> and
> > should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.
>
> > […]
>
> No, they should be handled by law enforcement.  What other-
> wise can happen can be currently seen by looking at the
> Catholic Church in Australian, or the USA Gymnastics team,
> or the British soccer teams, or, or, or.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread
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:

> […]

> 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 issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has
nothing
> to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues
and
> should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.

> […]

No, they should be handled by law enforcement.  What other-
wise can happen can be currently seen by looking at the
Catholic Church in Australian, or the USA Gymnastics team,
or the British soccer teams, or, or, or.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-02-18 Thread Tim Landscheidt
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 issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has nothing
> to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues and
> should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.

> […]

No, they should be handled by law enforcement.  What other-
wise can happen can be currently seen by looking at the
Catholic Church in Australian, or the USA Gymnastics team,
or the British soccer teams, or, or, or.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,