[Wikimedia-l] WMF has lost its path

2015-01-20 Thread 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 batches of 
global locks 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALogtype=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 
and writing boilerplate replies 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMFOfficediff=10982297.
As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I 
do not object global locks at all.
What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the 
community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project 
and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of 
the site and users, actually at their sole discretion.
The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me 
from leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Cristian Consonni
2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
 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, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
 behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
 the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.

Strong +1.

2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org:
 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 some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list), some
 of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to
 openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the
 reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for
 something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the user,
 their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a
 quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real
 physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very
 strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans.
 It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon -
 by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of
 action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January
 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process
i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban
infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation
from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility.

If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do
such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms
that the legal department consider adeguate.

Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board
of external, indipendent experts for this.
(say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs).

C

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread rubin.happy
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
- believe that there is positive feedback and results from existing
annoying banners for fundraising.

I don't want to believe, I want to have transparency.

rubin

2015-01-20 15:11 GMT+03:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org:

 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 some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the
 list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
 dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
 tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty
 clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could
 endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
 could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
 placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies
 - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason
 for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by -
 and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that
 executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia

 Chris


 On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:

  Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.

 rubin

 2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org:

  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 batches of
 global
 locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog;
 type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing
 boilerplate
 replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
 WMFOfficediff=10982297.
 As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
 do not object global locks at all.
 What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
 community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
 They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
 and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of
 the
 site and users, actually at their sole discretion.
 The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
 leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe


 
 Chris McKenna

 cmcke...@sucs.org
 www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


 The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
 but with the heart

 Antoine de Saint Exupery



 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread 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). However, I definitely understand that we, as a
community, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.

best,

Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. pundit

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:19 PM, rubin.happy rubin.ha...@gmail.com wrote:

 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
 - believe that there is positive feedback and results from existing
 annoying banners for fundraising.

 I don't want to believe, I want to have transparency.

 rubin

 2015-01-20 15:11 GMT+03:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org:

  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 some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the
  list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite
  dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and
  tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is
 pretty
  clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could
  endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and
  could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being
  placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet
 companies
  - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason
  for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by -
  and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that
  executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation
  (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 
  from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia
 
  Chris
 
 
  On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:
 
   Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.
 
  rubin
 
  2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org:
 
   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 batches of
  global
  locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog;
  type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing
  boilerplate
  replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
  WMFOfficediff=10982297.
  As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that
 I
  do not object global locks at all.
  What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
  community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
  They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
  and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of
  the
  site and users, actually at their sole discretion.
  The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me
 from
  leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
  wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
  wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 
  
  Chris McKenna
 
  cmcke...@sucs.org
  www.sucs.org/~cmckenna
 
 
  The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
  but with the heart
 
  Antoine de Saint Exupery
 
 
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
  wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 

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

2015-01-20 Thread Chris McKenna
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 some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the 
list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite 
dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and 
tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty 
clearly for something really bad, and open knowledge of that could 
endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and 
could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being 
placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet 
companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on 
the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's 
followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible 
company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia 
Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Ban_to_Russavia

Chris

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, rubin.happy wrote:


Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.

rubin

2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org:


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 batches of global
locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog;
type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate
replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
WMFOfficediff=10982297.
As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
do not object global locks at all.
What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the
site and users, actually at their sole discretion.
The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



Chris McKenna

cmcke...@sucs.org
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread rubin.happy
Bans without explanations are certainly not acceptible.

rubin

2015-01-20 14:18 GMT+03:00 Ricordisamoa ricordisa...@openmailbox.org:

 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 batches of global
 locks https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog;
 type=globalauthuser=WMFOfficeyear=2015month=1 and writing boilerplate
 replies https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:
 WMFOfficediff=10982297.
 As with the superprotect, the how is to blame, not the what. Note that I
 do not object global locks at all.
 What I object is the lack of a published reason for them, and the
 community interaction that Lila called so deeply for.
 They can play with the Terms Of Use, protecting any page on any project
 and global-locking any account to protect the integrity and safety of the
 site and users, actually at their sole discretion.
 The breach of trust is complete now. The only thing that may stop me from
 leaving the projects for good is my loyalty to the volunteer community.
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
 wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread MZMcBride
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, 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 and move on. That's basically all we
can do and this newly documented process is really no different. I'm not
sure creating a shrine to the super-bad is prudent or helpful,
particularly when it means degrading community autonomy.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
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 fae...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
 procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
 called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
 global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
 governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
 Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
 members with a power of veto.

 Fae

 On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
  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, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
 reasoning
  behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
  the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
 
  best,
 
  Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. pundit

 --
 fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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
in more advanced step.

He has been clear: if something is responsibility of WMF (and the term
responsibility has a well defined meaning), it is responsibility of the
board except the cases where the board has assigned this responsibility to
another body.

It does not mean in charge of.

Regards

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com
wrote:

 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com:
  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 substantial proof of the fact
 that the board is aware about  these decisions, with the more
 substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.

 --
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread
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 be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
members with a power of veto.

Fae

On 20 January 2015 at 13:03, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
 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, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of reasoning
 behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
 the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.

 best,

 Dariusz Jemielniak a.k.a. pundit

-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread 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.

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. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer
group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth
thinking about.
Chris

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com
wrote:

 2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
  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, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
 reasoning
  behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such as
  the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.

 Strong +1.

 2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org:
  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 some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list),
 some
  of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous
 to
  openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the
  reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for
  something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the
 user,
  their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a
  quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real
  physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a
 very
  strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global
 bans.
  It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted
 upon -
  by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type
 of
  action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January
  2015 (UTC)

 Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process
 i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban
 infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation
 from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility.

 If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do
 such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms
 that the legal department consider adeguate.

 Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board
 of external, indipendent experts for this.
 (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs).

 C

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Cristian Consonni
2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com:
 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 substantial proof of the fact
that the board is aware about  these decisions, with the more
substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.

Of course there are other possible solutions.

2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
 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 be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
 procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
 called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
 global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
 governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
 Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
 members with a power of veto.

The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or
discussing the *merit* of such bans.
The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal
department and tollows from the projects' terms of use.
This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that -
indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided
by the ToS.

With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this
committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts,
with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be
more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.

Cristian

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Ilario Valdelli
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 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
wrote:

 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 community is particularly
 well-equipped to deal with. However, Dariusz's idea of creating a volunteer
 group of some description to review these actions is definitely worth
 thinking about.
 Chris

 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Cristian Consonni 
 kikkocrist...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  2015-01-20 14:03 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
   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, may have a need to externally confirm the solidity of
  reasoning
   behind bans. I think we already have functionaries of high trust (such
 as
   the Board and/or the stewards) who could oversee the process.
 
  Strong +1.
 
  2015-01-20 13:11 GMT+01:00 Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org:
   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 some examples - and no, provoking Jimbo is not on the list),
  some
   of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous
  to
   openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the
   reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly
 for
   something really bad, and open knowledge of that could endanger the
  user,
   their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a
   quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real
   physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a
  very
   strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global
  bans.
   It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted
  upon -
   by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type
  of
   action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18
 January
   2015 (UTC)
 
  Fair enough, then we should ask the board to oversight the process
  i.e., in the end, being able to take responsability for the global ban
  infliction. I would not take this as far as require a deliberation
  from the BoT for global bans but it my well be a possibility.
 
  If this is too demanding in terms of time to create a commission to do
  such a task. These people can be bound by any confidentiality terms
  that the legal department consider adeguate.
 
  Don't want to go through community election? Create an appointed board
  of external, indipendent experts for this.
  (say ask somebody from EFF or similar orgs).
 
  C
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Wikipedia: Ilario https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ilario
Skype: valdelli
Facebook: Ilario Valdelli https://www.facebook.com/ivaldelli
Twitter: Ilario Valdelli https://twitter.com/ilariovaldelli
Linkedin: Ilario Valdelli http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=6724469
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

2015-01-20 Thread David Gerard
On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com 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 and move on.


As I noted, this is a legal stick, not a computer security one.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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 transparency: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#Transparency_reports


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Sydney Poore
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 another volunteer committee or adding more
responsibilities to existing committees that's to do this type of
professional level work, we need to think in terms of the budget for proper
training and their staff support. If these committees are to function
properly they need to have a sound process and adequate resources.

I'm not convinced that I've seen a case made for creating another group (
beyond the normal oversight of the BoT) to oversee the work done by the
Legal and  Community Advocacy Departments in enforcing the ToS by globally
banning and locking accounts.

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 Poore



Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com
wrote:

 2015-01-20 14:23 GMT+01:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com:
  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 substantial proof of the fact
 that the board is aware about  these decisions, with the more
 substantial responsability towards the community that this implies.

 Of course there are other possible solutions.

 2015-01-20 14:13 GMT+01:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
  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 be a selected governance mechanism to oversee the
  procedures for the exercise of WMF global bans (or whatever they get
  called) which may have the power to commute these to a community run
  global ban, with the benefit of potential appeal and reform, then that
  governance board needs to be credibly elected by the community.
  Unelected officials should be welcome as advisers but not controlling
  members with a power of veto.

 The said committee would not be the one deciding the bans or
 discussing the *merit* of such bans.
 The merit, as far as I understand it, lies within the WMF legal
 department and tollows from the projects' terms of use.
 This committee would simply oversee the process and verify that -
 indeed - the action was legitimate and within the boundaries provided
 by the ToS.

 With this premise, I do not necessarily see the need for this
 committee to be community elected. I think that independent experts,
 with a clear (professional) grasp of what our ToU provide, would be
 more helpful, but maybe I am wrong.

 Cristian

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Anders Wennersten
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 quality is so rotten it represent  a major risk for our global 
brand (when and if these are made commonly known).


And we cannot accept sysops working as mad despots. Eiither re-election 
should be made mandatory or a WMF/steward/BoT controlled body should 
monitor misuse of sysoprights.


And in this perspective I am of the opinion that we must also treat bad 
user more strict. So I welcome this initiative as a very minor first 
step, even if it surely can be improved


Anders





David Gerard skrev den 2015-01-20 15:38:

On 20 January 2015 at 14:33, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com 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 and move on.


As I noted, this is a legal stick, not a computer security one.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread geni
On 20 January 2015 at 18:23, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
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 accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why
 the WMF acted. Do some homework and figure it out yourself is no answer
 for an 100 million dollar organization with scores of employees to say.


I'm not a 100 million dollar organisation but in any case we have further
established that your interest is not in fact openness.



 You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise
 the editor of all that privately,


No. Your problem is that you are assuming internal WMF communications are
privileged (note this term has a very precise legal meaning and that is the
way I'm using it).

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Dariusz Jemielniak
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
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
 compromised my privacy complaint basis for the individual.


It is my understanding that the banned users are informed of the reasons
(and possibly also warned prior to ban, but of course this should not
always be the case - I can imagine scenarios in which immediate action is
needed).

best,

dariusz pundit


-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

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 Poore



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 really was trusted by active part of the 
community (though there was vocal opposition as well). At some point, 
WMF will need to get volunteer support for some of its actions, and it 
will be extremely difficult to achieve on Commons. And this is just one 
of a series of moves they continue to alienate the community with. For 
me personally, the last straw was not the ban of Russavia, but the 
accident of I guess last year, when a number of users (not me, I was 
completely unrelated) were just duly desysopped on WMF internal wiki, 
because a staffer decided she can manage everything herself (she turned 
out to be wrong), and no apologies were ever offered, quite the 
opposite. Community blocks can be (and are sometimes) reversed if 
needed, but trust and reputation are extremely difficult to recover. I 
am sorry to write this, but this is how I see the situation.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread geni
On 20 January 2015 at 17:19, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
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 disclosed to the *banned individual*. It's simple fairness
 and common decency to tell somebody why he or she has been banned.

 Consider a user like Russavia who has done a great deal of positive
 editing, contributed great value, to the WMF projects. He shouldn't just be
 banned without telling *him* specifically why. Personally I feel he was
 pushed around at English Wikipedia a lot, that one of his maligned and
 deleted focus projects Poland Ball was for years worthy of its own
 article, and that had to be vindicated by its articles in like a dozen of
 the non-English Wikipedias before, after years, the English Wikipedia
 administrative bullies finally backed down (
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polandball, now #3 in Google results).


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. Given that this does not satisfy you there
would appear to be little point in paying attention to any demands you make
for openness.




 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
 compromised my privacy complaint basis for the individual.


Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely
hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a
CC network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has
two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can
give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and
legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which
one do you think it is going to do?



-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread geni
On 20 January 2015 at 17:47, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru 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 really was trusted by active part of the community (though there
 was vocal opposition as well). At some point, WMF will need to get
 volunteer support for some of its actions, and it will be extremely
 difficult to achieve on Commons.


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 that anti WMF commons
people onside. Partly because they are pretty set on their current position
and partly because in most cases it is an extension of being anti-english
wikipedia and that is frankly even less fixable.

-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread David Gerard
On 20 January 2015 at 17:23, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com 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
off into a world of assumption and speculation.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Thomas Goldammer
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.
If the owner of the website banned Russavia from editing it, Russavia must
have violated the rules. Or does anyone really suspect WMF of banning
people for fun? I don't and I hope nobody else does, either.

m2c,
Th.

2015-01-20 19:49 GMT+01:00 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:

 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Trillium Corsage trillium2...@yandex.com
 
 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
  compromised my privacy complaint basis for the individual.
 

 It is my understanding that the banned users are informed of the reasons
 (and possibly also warned prior to ban, but of course this should not
 always be the case - I can imagine scenarios in which immediate action is
 needed).

 best,

 dariusz pundit


 --

 __
 prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
 kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
 i centrum badawczego CROW
 Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
 http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

 członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
 członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

 Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii Common Knowledge? An
 Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
 autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

 Recenzje
 Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
 Pacific Standard:
 http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
 Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
 The Wikipedian:
 http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

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 create good.



I think if you're looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of 
someone

the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue.
___


This is the framework suggested by geni, not by me.

Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

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 openness and transparency. The rules are 
transparent.
If the owner of the website banned Russavia from editing it, Russavia 
must

have violated the rules. Or does anyone really suspect WMF of banning
people for fun? I don't and I hope nobody else does, either.

m2c,
Th.



He claims he got only a standard notice that he was banned for TOU 
violation.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

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 that anti WMF commons
people onside. Partly because they are pretty set on their current 
position
and partly because in most cases it is an extension of being 
anti-english

wikipedia and that is frankly even less fixable.


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.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Chris Keating


 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 looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of someone
the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread geni
On 20 January 2015 at 19:05, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru 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 however this appears not to be the
case.




-- 
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Trillium Corsage


20.01.2015, 18:06, geni email clipped:

 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 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 
accusers and drama mongers, but won't tell one why the WMF acted. Do some 
homework and figure it out yourself is no answer for an 100 million dollar 
organization with scores of employees to say.

 Sigh. Okey consider the following (which I wish to make clear is entirely
 hypothetical). The WMF is 99% sure that an editor is using Wikipedia as a
 CC network for a bot net (yes in theory this could be done). Now it has
 two options. It can either ban the editor without giving a reason or it can
 give its reasoning and face a 1% risk of significant libel damages and
 legal costs (falsely accusing someone of running a botnet is libel). Which
 one do you think it is going to do?

You seem to have misread what I said. In such a case, the WMF could advise the 
editor of all that privately, say publicly because of privacy or legal 
implications, we won't be specific, but we advised the individual privately, 
and that would be reasonable as far as I'm concerned.

Trillium Corsage

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-01-20 Thread Chris Keating


  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 looking at this mainly as a way of getting rid of
 someone
 the WMF didn't like, then you have the wrong approach to the issue.
 ___


 This is the framework suggested by geni, not by me.


Ah - I see it was - thanks.

It is however a view that I've seen expressed in other discussions on this
topic, so it's probably still a point worth making.

Personally I think this step will be quite good for the health of the
community on Commons.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe