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 ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On 20 January 2015 at 17:23, Federico Leva (Nemo) 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 of

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

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 openne

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 cr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

20.01.2015, 18:06, "geni" : > 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 inf

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. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On 20 January 2015 at 19:05, Yaroslav M. Blanter 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, > Doubtful. Judging by events on commons

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 looki

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 th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage 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 > compromis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On 20 January 2015 at 18:23, Trillium Corsage 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 accus

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On 20 January 2015 at 17:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter 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 r

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On 20 January 2015 at 17:19, Trillium Corsage 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 dis

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 P

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 trans

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 an

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride 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 a

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, specifi

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating : > 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 substant

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 wrote: > Dariusz, keep in mind that not all of the "functionaries of high > trust" you give as example

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

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 co

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak : > 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).

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

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 - b

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 s

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 : > 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 b

[Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

It is now clear that the superprotect affair was only a preliminary move. Now they hide themselves behind a collective account issuing batches of global locks