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

As with most things around here, this is more complicated than it may appear on the surface. I increasingly think that there are cultural differences between WMF and some parts of the community that are difficult to bridge, that influence a variety of the decisions that get made in WMF (such as

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

* Crickets * If you were expecting a reply to the suggested "Agreement from the WMF to reform the system", perhaps it needs to be raised in a more formal fashion somewhere where WMF Legal or the CEO might feel they need to answer? Fae On 20 February 2017 at 08:55, Pine W

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

I'm glad that we're having this discussion, as there are several points being made that should be considered in the documentation and design of the global bans system. I'm trying to think of what next steps would look like for reforming this system. I'd suggest something like the following: 0.

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

Based on this email discussion there are a number of factual issues: 1. Though there is a page on Meta about WMF global bans, it includes no explanation of the procedure that is followed by WMF employees. More about this has been said by informal email and published here. A key benefit of setting

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

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

> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> > > > Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: > > Sat, >

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

gt; > > > -Original Message- > > From: Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> > > Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org>Date: > Sat, > > 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikime

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

0:16 > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees > > > > what this discussion reveals is that;

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

ly-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > 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 wh

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

ists.wikimedia.org> 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 balanc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

Thanks James. Was the procedure always like this? We know that there was one person banned by WMF in 2012, two in 2014, 8 in 2015, and 6 in 2016. Did they all go through this procedure? Cheers Yaroslav On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:15 AM, James Alexander wrote: > On Thu,

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

> > This is correct, all global bans (after a complaint has been made) go > through: > > >- Investigation by Support & Safety team member --> >- Review and Recommendation by the Manager of Trust & Safety (myself) >--> >- Approval by the Director of Support & Safety and the Chief of

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

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Craig Franklin wrote: > I agree completely with both Robert and Marc. > > James, it is my understanding that every global ban must be signed off by > the Legal department. Is this correct? If so, not only would this provide > a check

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

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 PM, 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

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

I agree completely with both Robert and Marc. James, it is my understanding that every global ban must be signed off by the Legal department. Is this correct? If so, not only would this provide a check against the hypothetical situation of someone being globally banned in a fit of pique, but it

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

On 2017-02-16 14:01, Robert Fernandez wrote: If WMF staff members are blocking volunteers out of revenge{{cn}} We would indeed [have bigger problems]. Thankfully, there is absolutely no indication that this ever happened beyond vague musings and specious allegations made on the basis of "I

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

If WMF staff members are blocking volunteers out of revenge, we have much larger problems than transparency. On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Yaroslav Blanter wrote: > Still, in some cases the WMF global ban sounds like a revenge to an > individual, and when (understandably)

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

Pine > * Thank you for trying to get and maintain a public list of WMF accounts > with special permissions. I think that this is helpful for the community to > know. I also think that WMF should actively maintain the list of WMF > accounts with special permissions, and the reasons for granting

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

Hi Fae, I don't think the argument was that you were a "predatory individual victimizing underage editors", but that the rules and practices should recognize that such people exist and our projects need protection from them. This is at least my reading of this. best, dariusz On Thu, Feb 16,

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

Were I a "predatory individuals victimizing underage editors" there would be a reason to threaten me with a ban for replying to questions from other editors on my home talk page. But I am not. James' bad faith is unacceptable. Fae On 16 Feb 2017 14:22, "Robert Fernandez"

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

Still, in some cases the WMF global ban sounds like a revenge to an individual, and when (understandably) WMF refuses to elaborate what was the motivation for a global ban this impression gets even stronger. Cheers Yaroslav On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Robert Fernandez

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

I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of professional expertise. Transparency, due process, and community governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need to bring to bear when it comes

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

2017-02-16 5:57 GMT+01:00 Pine W : > Hi Fae, > > A few points: > > * Thank you for trying to get and maintain a public list of WMF accounts > with special permissions. I think that this is helpful for the community to > know. I also think that WMF should actively maintain the

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

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

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

Hi Fae, A few points: * Thank you for trying to get and maintain a public list of WMF accounts with special permissions. I think that this is helpful for the community to know. I also think that WMF should actively maintain the list of WMF accounts with special permissions, and the reasons for

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

On 15 February 2017 at 06:21, Pine W wrote: ... > Is it possible to have the records moved from the > spreadsheet to Meta? I thought I once saw a record of these actions on > Meta, but can't remember exactly where. The unmaintained old wikitable is at:

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

James, The reason why I have no intention of entering into private correspondence was made obvious last year based on your statements [1]. I have no wish to put myself at risk of becoming globally banned with no chance of appeal, and with no right to examine evidence, based on bad faith

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

Hi James, Thanks for the explanation. I am less on edge now that I see the specificity of the use cases that are outlined in that spreadsheet. (I have rather strong memories of Superprotect and am keen to deter anything resembling a repeat.) Is it possible to have the records moved from the

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

Hi Pine, I know we’ve touched on this in past discussions related to this list. Staff frequently need on wiki user rights to do their work, which can range all over the map from Meta admin/translate admin to central notice admin or Checkuser/Oversight and everything in between. Many of these

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

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

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

Not for any wiki; only Meta had wmf staff with admin rights, and only for use within their specific work-related areas. I am totally unconcerned with WMF staff having the necessary permissions to do their job. They can easily be held accountable as paid employees. On Feb 14, 2017 11:53 AM, "Fæ"

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

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

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

I'm curious about what is meant by "advanced permissions" here. If that refers to translation administrator permissions, I have fewer concerns about that than I would about admin or CU/OS permissions. In general, I'm wary of WMF encroachment on Meta. Placing resources on Meta that the community

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

I missed the link, for those wanting to refer to it, I suggest you keep a bookmark as it's very non-obvious and cannot be found by normal on-wiki searching. Link 1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DruVc7T9ZqTcfGwFAlxQrBMR4QBSD_DtjpDtGqMAAi0/pub On 14 February 2017 at 13:11, Fæ

[Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

The WMF grants special rights to employees on a case-by-case basis, by-passing the normal community driven process to grant admin, developer and other rights. A few years ago the WMF officially committed to making this process transparent, and maintains a public Google Spreadsheet [1] so that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

Re: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions I notice that User:Fabrice Florin (WMF) is in the report as having staff rights, which is obviously incorrect. I have not checked other accounts, nor checked if there are employees with advanced permissions that have yet to be reported.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

On 25 September 2015 at 08:52, Fæ wrote: ... > Thanks for your commitment to get this up to date. For anyone following the transparent and open publication of the allocation and rationales for necessary WMF staff project account rights (i.e. not community managed), the wiki

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:52 AM, Fæ wrote: > For anyone following the transparent and open publication of the > allocation and rationales for necessary WMF staff project account > rights (i.e. not community managed), the wiki table on meta was > updated this week, see [1] and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

Aha, this is what I get for missing office hours. For the record: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2015-09-18 On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:34 PM, John Lewis wrote: > I believe they already filled the position as they hired Karen about a week >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

On 25 September 2015 at 05:46, James Alexander wrote: > Hey Fae, > > As you know that I'm responsible for the spreadsheet that your bot is copying > to make that spreadsheet (since you're one of the ones who asked me to make > the process more transparent) I would have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

Hey Fae, As you know that I'm responsible for the spreadsheet that your bot is copying to make that spreadsheet (since you're one of the ones who asked me to make the process more transparent) I would have really appreciated a more private email before this public one. That said, yes there

[Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

Hi, I notice that the table on Meta of specially granted project rights for WMF employees has not been updated since June 2015.[1] Last year it was being amended at least a couple of times a month. Is this down to a technical problem or was there no need to change any employee rights on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Advanced Permissions

Speaking of Trust and Safety, is there going to be a back-filled position in CA in light of Philippe's departure and Maggie's promotion? ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines