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

[Pine W]

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 global ban
practices, and which emails get responses and which don't), and which may
seem obvious from certain perspectives but are more subtle when looking at
them from other angles.

Previous attempts from me and others to align WMF more with the community
have had limited success. I'm more sad than frustrated; there have been
some successes, but fewer than I hoped.

I can't realistically push on every issue that I would like WMF to address,
so I'm not going to push this issue further in the foreseeable future,
though I'm likely to mention it periodically. Hopefully, at some point, WMF
will agree to support community design of a global ban system.

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

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

[Fæ]

* 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  wrote:
> 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. Agreement from WMF to reform the system, and a timeline for doing so.
> For example, perhaps there would be agreement to start a "consultation" on
> this matter in Q4. The consultation could be designed jointly by
> representatives from WMF Legal, WMF SuSa, and community volunteers
> (preferably representing a variety of roles and content projects). Note
> that for this to work, the designers will need to cooperate with each
> other, or the process could descend into protracted disagreements that
> would make further progress be very difficult.
>
> 1. After the consultation is designed, it can be published for public
> input. (That includes input from WMF employees and contractors, individuals
> who are associated with Wikimedia affiliate organizations, and individual
> community members.)
>
> 2. Based on that consultation, the group that was assembled for part 1 can
> work together to design a new system. While unanimity is unlikely,
> consensus would be preferable. Where the group is uncertain or has internal
> disagreements, multiple options can be drafted for the community to
> consider in the following phase.
>
> 3. Based on the results from phase 2, a community RFC can be conducted. The
> RFC should be closed by one or more community stewards.
>
> The biggest downside that I see to this process is that the community
> members who volunteer to participate in the consultation design and system
> design phases will need to commit dozens of hours of their time, and many
> community members who are highly qualified for this kind of work are
> already busy with countless other tasks, problems, and projects. So there
> will need to be some consideration of how to provide volunteers some relief
> from their other responsibilities while they participate in the design
> process.
>
> Pine
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



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

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

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

[Pine W]

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. Agreement from WMF to reform the system, and a timeline for doing so.
For example, perhaps there would be agreement to start a "consultation" on
this matter in Q4. The consultation could be designed jointly by
representatives from WMF Legal, WMF SuSa, and community volunteers
(preferably representing a variety of roles and content projects). Note
that for this to work, the designers will need to cooperate with each
other, or the process could descend into protracted disagreements that
would make further progress be very difficult.

1. After the consultation is designed, it can be published for public
input. (That includes input from WMF employees and contractors, individuals
who are associated with Wikimedia affiliate organizations, and individual
community members.)

2. Based on that consultation, the group that was assembled for part 1 can
work together to design a new system. While unanimity is unlikely,
consensus would be preferable. Where the group is uncertain or has internal
disagreements, multiple options can be drafted for the community to
consider in the following phase.

3. Based on the results from phase 2, a community RFC can be conducted. The
RFC should be closed by one or more community stewards.

The biggest downside that I see to this process is that the community
members who volunteer to participate in the consultation design and system
design phases will need to commit dozens of hours of their time, and many
community members who are highly qualified for this kind of work are
already busy with countless other tasks, problems, and projects. So there
will need to be some consideration of how to provide volunteers some relief
from their other responsibilities while they participate in the design
process.

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

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

[Fæ]

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 out the procedure and the required reviews, is that the WMF can be
held accountable against that procedure, whether or not the community
supports it.

2. It has been confirmed on this email list that a number of volunteers,
not under contract to the WMF, have been given access to details and
evidence behind WMF global bans. There is no policy or procedure that
explains how volunteers are allowed access, a level of access to evidence
that is not granted for the banned user, nor even their attorney.

3. As there is no published process, it is not possible for volunteers or
previously WMF globally banned users to work out if past bans lacked the
same level of independent review, or consultations with selected volunteers.

4. There is no clarification of how WMF employees are required to report
criminal acts to the police, yet for past bans the understanding of
volunteers is that part or all of the justification for an unexplained WMF
global ban was due to serious criminal acts. The impression given is that
at the moment the WMF chooses to avoid providing reports to the police, and
actively does the legal minimum, and insists on supoenas to share any data
with the police. From past cases we are aware that evidence used to justify
a WMF global ban is not provided to direct victims of harassment, or their
local police.

It seems sensible and ethical for the WMF to publish a process that
addresses these issues. There is no benefit in keeping the procedure itself
a secret, and in practice the secrecy around bans looks increasingly
dubious and unhelpful for victims of harassment, confusing for banned users
or those (like myself) subject to bad-faith threats of bans and a snub for
the Wikimedia community.

Fae


On 19 Feb 2017 04:16, "Pine W"  wrote:

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

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

[FRED BAUDER]

Volunteers who have access to advanced tools are required to identify 
themselves.


The problem with volunteers dealing with extremely sensitive matters 
is that they have to answer to a committee. When the committee starts 
demanding pre-approval it becomes impossible for a volunteer to 
function because the procedure is too cumbersome and punishing. Which 
is why certain matters have gradually shifted to staff who can make 
quick decisions and have clear authority to do so. Some things are 
done by, or at the direction of, the legal department, for example.


Fred Bauder

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:02:13 -0800
 Adrian Raddatz  wrote:
I don't lack faith in the community, I just recognize that not 
everything
needs to be dealt with by us. Building an encyclopedia and dealing 
with
these sensitive cases are very different things, and community 
volunteers

lack both the resources and the responsibility to deal with them.
Volunteers with the most advanced permissions on the site only need 
to sign
an agreement - the WMF doesn't know who they are, and there is no 
way to
hold them accountable for properly using the information they have 
access
to beyond removing their access. Staff, on the other hand, are known 
and
can have legal action taken against them beyond their termination in 
cases

of abuse. Simple as that.

Adrian Raddatz

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


AJ,

> "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with 
something

doesn't
> mean that they should be."

Can you clarify that, please?

> "Again, the difference here is between these
> sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally
accountable
> professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best."

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

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

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

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

could clarify that point.

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

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

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

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

regarding whether to ban a member of the community.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

the decision-making process.

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

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


I agree with you.

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

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

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

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

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




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

I don't lack faith in the community, I just recognize that not everything
needs to be dealt with by us. Building an encyclopedia and dealing with
these sensitive cases are very different things, and community volunteers
lack both the resources and the responsibility to deal with them.
Volunteers with the most advanced permissions on the site only need to sign
an agreement - the WMF doesn't know who they are, and there is no way to
hold them accountable for properly using the information they have access
to beyond removing their access. Staff, on the other hand, are known and
can have legal action taken against them beyond their termination in cases
of abuse. Simple as that.

Adrian Raddatz

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

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

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

[Pine W]

AJ,

> "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something
doesn't
> mean that they should be."

Can you clarify that, please?

> "Again, the difference here is between these
> sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally accountable
> professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you.

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

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

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

[Michael Peel]

Hi all,

I've written a short Python script that fetches the spreadsheet using the CSV 
link (as John suggested), and now updates the page at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions 


The code is at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Peel/WMF_permissions_script 


Hope that helps!

Thanks,
Mike

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

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

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something doesn't
mean that they should be. Again, the difference here is between these
sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally accountable
professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best. These cases take
weeks or months to build, and that's with full-time staff working on them.
How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

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

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

Adrian Raddatz

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

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

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

[Pine W]

As compared to the current system, I'd be much more comfortable with a
hybrid model, where WMF and community representatives share authority for
making a global ban decision.

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

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

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

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

[Vi to]

Bureaucrats aren't mean to be sort of a supreme court neither, same for
chapters.

The central aspects of WMF-bans are:
*bans issued out of usual community-driven process
*bans not implying sharing info, usually collected off wiki, with people
not strictly legally bound to confidentiality (I, for one, am bound to
confidentiality by CA and policies, but it's such a vague bind compared to
employees).

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

Vito

2017-02-18 15:47 GMT+01:00 Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>:

> someone from the affiliates, who is also a native speaker of the person
> language and someone with whom there is a level of community trust through
> being in elected positions.
>
> ARBCOM or a bureaucrat from the project where the incidents takes place,
> someone with a high level of trust in the community and who has already
> agreed to WMF privacy requirements
>
> they can be selected by the community and the WMF through any method,
>
> of course some people will appeal but the process gives the community the
> input being demanded here while not preventing the WMF from acting.  A WMF
> global ban isnt a frivolous decision nor would a review be one.  Yes your
> right it could never be a whole of community decision thats why we look to
> people who have the communities trust just like we do many other processes,
> even local blocks/bans arent whole of community either but rather those who
> happen to pass by or specifically haunt such process and then closed by
> someone the community has already expressed trust in.
>
> On 18 February 2017 at 22:15, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most of projects have
> no
> > arbcoms, Finally, anyone would appeal, turning WMF-issued ban into a [how
> > to call this group?]-issued ban.
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't
> > > have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long
> as
> > > there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent
> process.
> > > Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful
> > > appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF
> > Staff
> > > (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM
> > from
> > > the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Isaac
> > > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Gnangarra <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.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;
> > >
> > >1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions,
> > and
> > >a when why they were granted
> > >2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances,
> > >3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of
> > >Global bans.
> > >
> > >
> > >- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
> > >wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> > > solve
> > >rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on
> > Meta.
> > >- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,
> > though
> > >the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
> > >- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where
> the
> > >person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> > > could
> > >be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate
> representatives(appropriate
> > >language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project
> > where
> > >the person was active or the event took place.  With an af

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

[Gnangarra]

someone from the affiliates, who is also a native speaker of the person
language and someone with whom there is a level of community trust through
being in elected positions.

ARBCOM or a bureaucrat from the project where the incidents takes place,
someone with a high level of trust in the community and who has already
agreed to WMF privacy requirements

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

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

On 18 February 2017 at 22:15, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most of projects have no
> arbcoms, Finally, anyone would appeal, turning WMF-issued ban into a [how
> to call this group?]-issued ban.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't
> > have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long as
> > there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent process.
> > Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful
> > appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF
> Staff
> > (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM
> from
> > the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Isaac
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gnangarra <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.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;
> >
> >1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions,
> and
> >a when why they were granted
> >2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances,
> >3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of
> >Global bans.
> >
> >
> >- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
> >wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> > solve
> >rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on
> Meta.
> >- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,
> though
> >the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
> >- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
> >person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> > could
> >be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
> >language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project
> where
> >the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> > appeal
> >it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.
> It
> >could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> > their
> >behalf.
> >
> >
> > On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It
> is
> > > not
> > > > obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> > > > jurisdiction is appropriate.
> > >
> > > > […]
> > >
> > > That's easy: The victim's.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-

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

[John Erling Blad]

Add WMF-straff to a specific category, and make it possible to filter out
users with a specific group within a category.
Then forget the whole spreadsheet. Case closed.

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most of projects have no
> arbcoms, Finally, anyone would appeal, turning WMF-issued ban into a [how
> to call this group?]-issued ban.
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't
> > have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long as
> > there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent process.
> > Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful
> > appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF
> Staff
> > (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM
> from
> > the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Isaac
> > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gnangarra <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.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;
> >
> >1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions,
> and
> >a when why they were granted
> >2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances,
> >3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of
> >Global bans.
> >
> >
> >- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
> >wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> > solve
> >rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on
> Meta.
> >- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,
> though
> >the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
> >- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
> >person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> > could
> >be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
> >language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project
> where
> >the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> > appeal
> >it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.
> It
> >could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> > their
> >behalf.
> >
> >
> > On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It
> is
> > > not
> > > > obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> > > > jurisdiction is appropriate.
> > >
> > > > […]
> > >
> > > That's easy: The victim's.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo

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

[Vi to]

AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most of projects have no
arbcoms, Finally, anyone would appeal, turning WMF-issued ban into a [how
to call this group?]-issued ban.

Vito

2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac <reachout2is...@gmail.com>:

> Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't
> have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long as
> there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent process.
> Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful
> appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF Staff
> (maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM from
> the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.
>
> Best,
>
> Isaac
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Gnangarra <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.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;
>
>1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions, and
>a when why they were granted
>2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances,
>3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of
>Global bans.
>
>
>- Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation
>wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and
> solve
>rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on Meta.
>- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that, though
>the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook
>- Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the
>person affected can email the committee for a review.  The committee
> could
>be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate
>language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project where
>the person was active or the event took place.  With an after action
> appeal
>it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.  It
>could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on
> their
>behalf.
>
>
> On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is
> > not
> > > obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> > > jurisdiction is appropriate.
> >
> > > […]
> >
> > That's easy: The victim's.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> President Wikimedia Australia
> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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

[Olatunde Isaac]

Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't have 
problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long as there is a 
significant reason to do so and through a transparent process. Nonetheless, I 
think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful appeal. They could set 
up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF Staff (maybe those from WMF 
legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM from the project where the 
incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above. 

Best,

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

-Original Message-
From: Gnangarra <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.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;

   1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions, and
   a when why they were granted
   2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances,
   3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of
   Global bans.


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


On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt <t...@tim-landscheidt.de>
wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is
> not
> > obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> > jurisdiction is appropriate.
>
> > […]
>
> That's easy: The victim's.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



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

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

[Gnangarra]

what this discussion reveals is that;

   1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions, and
   a when why they were granted
   2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances,
   3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of
   Global bans.


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


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

> Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is
> not
> > obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> > jurisdiction is appropriate.
>
> > […]
>
> That's easy: The victim's.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



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

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

[Tim Landscheidt]

Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is not
> obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> jurisdiction is appropriate.

> […]

That's easy: The victim's.

Tim


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

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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is not
obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
jurisdiction is appropriate.

Not easy and often not actionable. So imho we neef to assess a situation
first and do what works. Chapters cannot be involved so this is often the
only optoom.
Thanks,
 GerardM


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

> Robert Fernandez  wrote:
>
> > […]
>
> > And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
> > at all.   The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
> > like policy issues regarding article content, etc.  But when we are
> talking
> > about issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> > should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has
> nothing
> > to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues
> and
> > should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.
>
> > […]
>
> No, they should be handled by law enforcement.  What other-
> wise can happen can be currently seen by looking at the
> Catholic Church in Australian, or the USA Gymnastics team,
> or the British soccer teams, or, or, or.
>
> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

Spot on. If it is a criminal act, remember that WMF legal are paid to
protect the WMF, the police are there to handle crime, which includes
protection of a victim.

Fae


On 18 Feb 2017 11:11, "Tim Landscheidt"  wrote:

Robert Fernandez  wrote:

> […]

> And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
> at all.   The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
> like policy issues regarding article content, etc.  But when we are
talking
> about issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has
nothing
> to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues
and
> should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.

> […]

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

Tim


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

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

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

[Tim Landscheidt]

Robert Fernandez  wrote:

> […]

> And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
> at all.   The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
> like policy issues regarding article content, etc.  But when we are talking
> about issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
> should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has nothing
> to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues and
> should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.

> […]

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

Tim


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

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

[Robert Fernandez]

There is actually quite a bit of community involvement in the process.
They repeatedly respond to community requests for information about
processes and are open to community feedback regarding them.  What they
won't do is give you specific information about specific cases, and so the
demands for extreme transparency will never be satisfied.   I would support
a call for an independent professional audit, from inside or outside the
WMF, of cases or processes, but these details should never be revealed to
volunteers who do not possess the training to deal with these sensitive
issues or have any professional or legal accountability if they screw up or
release personal information, as has happened numerous times when community
volunteers were entrusted with these tasks.

Personally I have completely lost faith in the clown car of community
governance, but I understand that to many in our community it is an
important value.  But as Nathan said, community governance is not always
the best tool.  Why do we believe that the same tools can deal with the
problems of deciding what to put on the front page and what to do about a
victimized child?

And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
at all.   The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
like policy issues regarding article content, etc.  But when we are talking
about issues regarding off-wiki harassment, sexual predators, etc., why
should this fall under the banner of community governance as it has nothing
to do with writing an encyclopedia?  These are legal, real world issues and
should be handled by professionals and/or law enforcement.



On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> 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 should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a trial
> by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it is
> both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
> process.
>
> I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have been
> made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose letting
> "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Nathan]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
> community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that
> is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free
> from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
> grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility
> with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but
> I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community
> governance.
>
>
>
> Pine
>
>

Community governance is a tool. It is not the point. It is also not always
the best tool. It's been an urge for years in some parts to treat the
Wikimedia movement (or pieces of it) like a governance experiment to play
out their personally ideal model for the distribution of power. But in this
case, the responsibility of the WMF to fundamentally control access to
project sites cannot be completely cleaved away to the community. If you
would like to experiment with power dynamics, there are other better forums
I'm sure.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pete Forsyth]

I want to chime in briefly, since I have direct personal experience in 
WMF0-initiated bans.


Not long ago, Support & Safety took an action to exclude somebody for 
whom I, as a volunteer, felt some responsibility. Initially, I felt that 
there was inadequate communication with me, and as a result the action 
put me in a difficult position. I brought the issue to James Alexander's 
attention. He took the time to discuss the issue in some depth; he 
acknowledged that it should have been handled better by WMF, and assured 
me that the experience would inform future efforts. If we're going to be 
using letter grades, I would James and his colleagues an "A" on the 
debrief, and I am confident that he and his colleagues have done/will do 
better after the fact.


There are good reasons for some bans to be handled by volunteers, and 
good reasons for some bans to be handled entirely by professionals. 
There are also some incidents that clearly fall into a grey area where 
cooperation is needed, and it's important that such incidents be handled 
with a sensitivity to their unique qualities, which requires trust in 
the various people involved to judge how much public communication is 
appropriate.


Final point -- all of this is now very much a departure from the subject 
line and the original topic, which were about permissions *for WMF 
staff*. If discussion on bans continues, I'd suggest introducing a new 
subject line.


-Pete

[[User:Peteforsyth]]


On 02/17/2017 11:49 AM, Adrian Raddatz wrote:

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, or
to assist in preventing prohibited behavior". The last two reasons should
not be dealt with by the community; our volunteers do not have the
resources, qualifications, or liability required to deal with them. But
perhaps "multi-project misconduct" could be handled by the WMF differently.
Instead of imposing a WMF ban, they could build a case for a community ban,
and follow that process instead. As I said though, I'm not convinced that
there is a problem with how things are done currently. Some things
shouldn't be handled by community governance.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, 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 free
from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility
with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but
I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community
governance.



Pine


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz 
wrote:


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 going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd

that

seems to dominate this list in a fuss.

It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with

disclosure,

it's with mass disclosure.

On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:


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 should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a

trial

by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
(which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it

is

both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in

the

process.

I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have

been

made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose

letting

"the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

I'm not convinced of the problem. The WMF global bans are designed to step
in where community processes would not be appropriate. From their page on
Meta: "global bans are carried out ... to address multi-project misconduct,
to help ensure the trust and safety of the users of all Wikimedia sites, or
to assist in preventing prohibited behavior". The last two reasons should
not be dealt with by the community; our volunteers do not have the
resources, qualifications, or liability required to deal with them. But
perhaps "multi-project misconduct" could be handled by the WMF differently.
Instead of imposing a WMF ban, they could build a case for a community ban,
and follow that process instead. As I said though, I'm not convinced that
there is a problem with how things are done currently. Some things
shouldn't be handled by community governance.

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, 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 free
> from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
> grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility
> with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but
> I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community
> governance.
>
>
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
> > ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd
> that
> > seems to dominate this list in a fuss.
> >
> > It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
> > bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with
> disclosure,
> > it's with mass disclosure.
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
> >
> > > 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 should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a
> > trial
> > > by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> > > (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it
> > is
> > > both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> > > decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in
> the
> > > process.
> > >
> > > I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> > > enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have
> > been
> > > made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose
> > letting
> > > "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that
is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free
from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility
with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but
I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community
governance.



Pine


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz 
wrote:

> 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 going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
> ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd that
> seems to dominate this list in a fuss.
>
> It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
> bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with disclosure,
> it's with mass disclosure.
>
> On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:
>
> > 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 should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a
> trial
> > by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> > (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it
> is
> > both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> > decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
> > process.
> >
> > I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> > enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have
> been
> > made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose
> letting
> > "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment
are going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the
ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd that
seems to dominate this list in a fuss.

It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global
bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with disclosure,
it's with mass disclosure.

On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W"  wrote:

> 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 should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a trial
> by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
> (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it is
> both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
> decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
> process.
>
> I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
> enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have been
> made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose letting
> "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Pine W]

I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the US
we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a trial
by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance
(which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it is
both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these
decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the
process.

I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in
enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have been
made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose letting
"the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Antoine Musso]

Le 16/02/2017 à 11:31, Vi to a écrit :
> Dealing with staffs they are way so close to more serious stuffs than the
> mediawiki user interface, so I wouldn't care about their on site accesses.
> Root access to db, squid data, mailman, physical access to residuals of old
> identification system, subpoena etc (even random paper sheets left on the
> top of a desktop) is, to me, way more serious than being able to make some
> noise in a fairly controlled environment
> 
> .

Hello,

I have some of the access you describe and had them for more than a
decade. Partly as a volunteer in the early days, nowadays as a
contractor to the WMF.   I have been following the whole thread, let me
highlight a bit about the technical side of it since you mention site
accesses.


Those accesses are granted solely for technical reasons. It has always
be made clear to me that technical people should NOT use their rights to
mess with the sites community. All the rest is the role of Support &
Safety, Community Liaisons, Legal, ArbCom or whatever else. They are way
better than us to gauge how to interact with people, and heck it is
their job!



In the very early days there were no staff and I eventually got granted
access after lot of online discussion and ultimately with an half an
hour phone call from France to Australia. (hello Jeronim). I guess it
was a matter of trust.

Nowadays that is legally enforced with Non Disclosure Agreement, Server
Access Responsabilities. For contractors a commercial contract, for
staff with an employment contact and all the associated laws.

A standard in the industry is that people only have a slice of rights
granted to them.  They should be limited to the sub set of accesses that
let them do their work. Any requests for more has to be justified and
goes via a quarantine period to make sure it is properly endorsed.


* I do not have access to mailman , cache logs nor I have root on
databases. When I need informations from such systems, I ask them to
people who have the access. They will either deny my request or get the
informations and deliver them back to me.

* I do have access to the databases of the public wikis. So I can for
example help a user to recover access to their account (there is a
process for that) or do the equivalent of CheckUser when one script bot
is threatening the infrastructure.


Only a few people do have all the technical accesses. They have process
and follow them. So if we have a process to revoke someone access, they
will make sure the requirements have been fulfilled (eg: signed by Legal
or C-level) and do their duty.  Their job is not to question whether the
revocation is justified, their role is to make sure that it is the
proper person asking for the revocation and then just do it.  They might
have personal feeling, might do the revocation against their own will.
In the end they act.  And having witnessed that first hand a couple
times, it is not fun at all, but that is the part of the job.


As a side note, all the people I know having such accesses are heavy
defender of privacy. Up to a point we end up all being very paranoid.


-- 
Antoine "hashar" Musso
"dont forget: be bold!"


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

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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, 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 against the hypothetical situation of someone being globally
> banned
> > in a fit of pique, but it would also confirm the seriousness of whatever
> it
> > was that got them banned.  Obviously knowingly proxying for a user whose
> > conduct has been so reprehensible as to require the intervention of
> > multiple departments in the WMF is pretty serious business and would lead
> > to consequences of some sort, and that appears to be the scenario that
> > James is referring to in the link that Fae provided.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
>
>
> 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
>Community Engagement (currently both Maggie) -->
>- Approval by General Counsel (currently Michelle) or designee.
>
> It then comes back to us to actually press the buttons. Global Bans (as
> well as Event Bans which are done via the same process) have been
> incredibly rare for that very reason, we don't take them lightly and go
> through a lot of review before we make the decision.
>
> *James Alexander*
> Manager, Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

>
> 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
>Community Engagement (currently both Maggie) -->
>- Approval by General Counsel (currently Michelle) or designee.
>
> It then comes back to us to actually press the buttons. Global Bans (as
> well as Event Bans which are done via the same process) have been
> incredibly rare for that very reason, we don't take them lightly and go
> through a lot of review before we make the decision.


Just out of interest, is the prospective banned person involved in this in
any way?  You know, those quaint old deas of natural justice, hearing both
sides, and so on, which we were so keen on in the Old World.

More cogently, how will this interact with the process mandated by WMF
Legal under the Code of Conduct for Technical Spaces, which require all
complaints involving a WMF staff member to be referred to WMF Legal?  Will
thy adjudicate on, or issue directives to, the Code of Conduct Committee?
Or are we in the situation where two separate investigations may be held
leading to two divergent and inconsistent sets of actions?  Is an
unwarranted ban or threat thereof by a staff member a fit subject for a
complaint under the Code?

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

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

[James Alexander]

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 against the hypothetical situation of someone being globally banned
> in a fit of pique, but it would also confirm the seriousness of whatever it
> was that got them banned.  Obviously knowingly proxying for a user whose
> conduct has been so reprehensible as to require the intervention of
> multiple departments in the WMF is pretty serious business and would lead
> to consequences of some sort, and that appears to be the scenario that
> James is referring to in the link that Fae provided.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig


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
   Community Engagement (currently both Maggie) -->
   - Approval by General Counsel (currently Michelle) or designee.

It then comes back to us to actually press the buttons. Global Bans (as
well as Event Bans which are done via the same process) have been
incredibly rare for that very reason, we don't take them lightly and go
through a lot of review before we make the decision.

*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[James Alexander]

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 which can be used to alert the relevant
> team to any future breakages, in the first instance?
>
> Or can this be managed through Phabricator? an existing tag?
>

Aye, I think on wiki or Phabricator could work well. Phabricator may
actually be best because it can make tracking of the issue much easier. The
best spot on wiki is likely my meta talk page for ping purposes. While I
can't think of a more specific tag on Phabricator that would work there is
a Support & Safety project that would work perfectly and the whole team is
subscribed :).

*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Craig Franklin]

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 would also confirm the seriousness of whatever it
was that got them banned.  Obviously knowingly proxying for a user whose
conduct has been so reprehensible as to require the intervention of
multiple departments in the WMF is pretty serious business and would lead
to consequences of some sort, and that appears to be the scenario that
James is referring to in the link that Fae provided.

Cheers,
Craig



On 17 February 2017 at 05:55, marc  wrote:

> 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 don't know why that person was banned,
> so it must be because WMF is Evil".
>
> -- Coren / Marc
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[marc]

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 don't know why that 
person was banned, so it must be because WMF is Evil".


-- Coren / Marc


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

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

[Robert Fernandez]

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) 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 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 to issues such as, for example,
> > predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
> > sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
> > untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
> > attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
> > thought of what passes for community governance on the English
> > Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
> > has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
> > opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to
> > site-ban
> > > individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
> > particularly
> > > when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> > > incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance
> of
> > > Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Rogol Domedonfors]

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 those
> permissions, on Meta.
>

I am all in favour of transparency.  But in what way will this be helpful
to the community?  Do you really expect WMF staff accounts to have their
advanced permissions removed by the community if they do not agree with the
reasons advanced?

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

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

[Dariusz Jemielniak]

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, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> 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"  wrote:
>
> 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 to issues such as, for example,
> predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
> sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
> untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
> attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
> thought of what passes for community governance on the English
> Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
> has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
> opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> >
> > * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to
> site-ban
> > individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
> particularly
> > when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> > incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> > Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 

__
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i grupy badawczej NeRDS
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://n wrds.kozminski.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk

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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

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"  wrote:

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 to issues such as, for example,
predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
thought of what passes for community governance on the English
Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban
> individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
particularly
> when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).

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

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

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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 
wrote:

> 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 to issues such as, for example,
> predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
> sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
> untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
> attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
> thought of what passes for community governance on the English
> Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
> has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
> opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
> >
> > * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to
> site-ban
> > individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
> particularly
> > when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> > incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> > Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Robert Fernandez]

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 to issues such as, for example,
predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
thought of what passes for community governance on the English
Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W  wrote:

>
> * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban
> individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community, particularly
> when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).

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

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

[Vi to]

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 list of WMF
> accounts with special permissions, and the reasons for granting those
> permissions, on Meta.
>
>
I concur, this should be WMF's full responsibility.


> * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban
> individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community, particularly
> when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
>

From a legal perspective WMF is the sole owner of these webspaces, then WMF
can ban anyone at any time for any (or no) reason. On the other hand WMF
without an active community is just a non-profit owning four small
datacenters and (dunno, maybe) a floor in a building in SF. So no ban would
be issued on a whim but still WMF must "prove" this.

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, subpoena etc (even random paper sheets left on the
top of a desktop) is, to me, way more serious than being able to make some
noise in a fairly controlled environment

.

Vito


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

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

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Hi James,

I agree these types of breakages, if unintentional and not regular,
should be raised elsewhere first.

Given Fae's reluctance to use private correspondence,...

Is there a public wiki page which can be used to alert the relevant
team to any future breakages, in the first instance?

Or can this be managed through Phabricator? an existing tag?

Fae, you said you have your own scripts, which you are no longer
maintaining due to changes by Google.
Is your code in a public repository somewhere?
We do not need to use the Google apis for accessing this data.
Google allows spreadsheets to be exported as csv.
here is the CSV link for the Advanced Permissions data.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DruVc7T9ZqTcfGwFAlxQrBMR4QBSD_DtjpDtGqMAAi0/pub?output=csv

With a small script, we could re-publish this dataset as csv into a
git repository, and then another script could read the csv and
re-publish the data as wikitext onto a Wikimedia site.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, James Alexander
 wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
> narrow column so hard to read.
>
> Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
> JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
> August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
> October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
> was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
> November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
> please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
> understand?
>
> Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
> rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
>
> Fae
>
>
> Hi Fae,
>
> As I’ve mentioned on previous occasions when you’ve brought up this
> spreadsheet on the mailing list, it occasionally breaks. That was the case
> here. If you send me a quick note if you see the issues, we can fix it, as
> we did today with the use case query (including make sure that it’s
> multiple columns again.) Pointing that out so it can be quickly fixed is
> much better done via a private poke that we'll see quickly rather than a
> public mailing list post that we may not see until after hours or until
> somebody lets us know about it. Obviously if we ignore your emails or
> refuse to fix it, then the math changes, and a post to this list makes more
> sense. I do not, however, think breakage (or overlooking notes about
> breakage) has been a frequent problem over the past couple years (though we
> have certainly had a couple breakages).
>
> The public sheet is up to date to the internal version of the data (which
> is done automatically). However, the automated data collection is better at
> “adding new” than “removing old.” A member of the team does annual audits
> of the data to ensure that defunct entries are removed and that everything
> else matches reality. The time for the next one is coming up.
>
> James
>
> *James Alexander*
> Manager, Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> PS: I also fixed the weird date thing you were seeing on some of them...
> not sure what caused that (was just a format display thing).
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
John Vandenberg

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

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

[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 list of WMF
accounts with special permissions, and the reasons for granting those
permissions, on Meta.

* Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban
individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community, particularly
when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).

* I understand that you are cautious about taking actions that you feel put
you at risk of being banned by WMF, particularly given WMF's current
practices. At the same time, while I have views that differ from James
Alexander's on some points (sometimes strongly so), there's an important
distinction between good-faith disagreements and bad-faith actions. I would
guess that if anyone in SuSa wanted you banned for any reason and was
willing to act in bad faith or vindictively, then they would have already
found a justification and made a ban. Since you are still here, I tend to
think that people in SuSa are trying to do their jobs properly. I can be
persuaded that there is a problem, but at this point my impression that an
allegation that anyone at SuSa is acting in bad faith isn't supported by
the evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to hear you
out (preferably not in this thread with the topic "WMF advanced permissions
for employees"), but I'm going to assume good faith of everyone in SuSa
unless I become aware of persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Thanks again for your work on bringing transparency to the permissions of
WMF staff.

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

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

[Fæ]

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:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions

The process broke due to WMF staff edits changing the naming/format of
the table and the underlying copying script having no flexibility to
cater for this. For this reason I decided to stop investing my
volunteer time maintaining the transfer using my own scripts.

The Google API can be used, but someone would need to take on longer
term maintenance as the API has a history of changing -
https://developers.google.com/sheets/. As far as I am aware there is
not much appetite to produce tools to integrate the use of Google
products into the way Wikimedians work. It would be great if the WMF
could avoid the temptation of relying on Google, rather than
encouraging employees to use WMF developed software that can do the
same job; in this case using the Visual Editor to maintain a wikitable
directly on Meta would be a pretty easy alternative.

Fae

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

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

[Fæ]

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 presumptions of one WMF employee who has this unelected
power over volunteer contributors. I feel I have more protection from
this happening by always sticking 100% to open public discussion
rather than indulging your requests for private and unaccountable
correspondence. I take the same approach with "banned users" who I
also avoid any private correspondence with, out of fear of their use
of free speech becoming grounds for a WMF ban against my accounts.
Until this situation changes, I see no benefit to the community or
myself in changing this approach taken to protect my interests.

Links
1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Working_with_banned_users

Fae

On 14 February 2017 at 23:44, James Alexander  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ  wrote:
>
> Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
> narrow column so hard to read.
>
> Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
> JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
> August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
> October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
> was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
> November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
> please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
> understand?
>
> Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
> rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
>
> Fae
>
>
> Hi Fae,
>
> As I’ve mentioned on previous occasions when you’ve brought up this
> spreadsheet on the mailing list, it occasionally breaks. That was the case
> here. If you send me a quick note if you see the issues, we can fix it, as
> we did today with the use case query (including make sure that it’s
> multiple columns again.) Pointing that out so it can be quickly fixed is
> much better done via a private poke that we'll see quickly rather than a
> public mailing list post that we may not see until after hours or until
> somebody lets us know about it. Obviously if we ignore your emails or
> refuse to fix it, then the math changes, and a post to this list makes more
> sense. I do not, however, think breakage (or overlooking notes about
> breakage) has been a frequent problem over the past couple years (though we
> have certainly had a couple breakages).
>
> The public sheet is up to date to the internal version of the data (which
> is done automatically). However, the automated data collection is better at
> “adding new” than “removing old.” A member of the team does annual audits
> of the data to ensure that defunct entries are removed and that everything
> else matches reality. The time for the next one is coming up.
>
> James
>
> *James Alexander*
> Manager, Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> PS: I also fixed the weird date thing you were seeing on some of them...
> not sure what caused that (was just a format display thing).
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



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

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

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

[Pine W]

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
spreadsheet to Meta? I thought I once saw a record of these actions on
Meta, but can't remember exactly where.

Thanks,

Pine


On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:46 PM, James Alexander 
wrote:

> 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 rights are
> sensitive in their nature (for example I could make an argument that
> central notice admin and its raw crosswiki javascript capabilities are on
> par with Checkuser in some cases), and we work to ensure that users only
> have rights they need for the time they need it.
>
> Given that these tools are being used on the public wikis, it is natural
> (and expected) that the community keeps an eye out and alerts us to issues,
> but in the end the staff needs and requirements for those rights are
> different and separate from the community ones and they have to be overseen
> by staff. As part of that we ensure they go through a multistep (and
> multi-person) process involving reaching out to SuSa with a use case,
> seeking written approval from their manager, and then getting approval from
> a SuSa Manager (and the Director for especially sensitive user rights).
> Given the natural oversight and review we have before hiring staff, along
> with the ongoing oversight from both their managers and SuSa, we believe
> this strikes the right balance.
>
> James
>
> *James Alexander*
> Manager, Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:48 PM Adrian Raddatz 
> wrote:
>
> > 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"  wrote:
> >
> > > Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
> > > narrow column so hard to read.
> > >
> > > Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
> > > JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
> > > August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
> > > October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
> > > was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
> > > November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
> > > please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
> > > understand?
> > >
> > > Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
> > > rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2017 at 17:48, Pine W  wrote:
> > > > 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 will use is fine and good, but WMF taking
> unilateral
> > > > actions that circumvent community processes may be inappropriate. For
> > > that
> > > > reason, I would like to see most requests for WMF accounts to get
> > > > permissions of admin or higher for community wikis go through the
> same
> > > > community vetting process as community members do.
> > > >
> > > > Pine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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 anyone can check exactly when rights
> > > >> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
> > > >> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
> > > >> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
> > > >>
> > > >> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
> > > >> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons
> why
> > > >> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
> > > >> explain why, or restore the use cases to 

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

[James Alexander]

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 rights are
sensitive in their nature (for example I could make an argument that
central notice admin and its raw crosswiki javascript capabilities are on
par with Checkuser in some cases), and we work to ensure that users only
have rights they need for the time they need it.

Given that these tools are being used on the public wikis, it is natural
(and expected) that the community keeps an eye out and alerts us to issues,
but in the end the staff needs and requirements for those rights are
different and separate from the community ones and they have to be overseen
by staff. As part of that we ensure they go through a multistep (and
multi-person) process involving reaching out to SuSa with a use case,
seeking written approval from their manager, and then getting approval from
a SuSa Manager (and the Director for especially sensitive user rights).
Given the natural oversight and review we have before hiring staff, along
with the ongoing oversight from both their managers and SuSa, we believe
this strikes the right balance.

James

*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:48 PM Adrian Raddatz  wrote:

> 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"  wrote:
>
> > Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
> > narrow column so hard to read.
> >
> > Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
> > JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
> > August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
> > October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
> > was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
> > November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
> > please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
> > understand?
> >
> > Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
> > rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
> >
> > Fae
> >
> > On 14 February 2017 at 17:48, Pine W  wrote:
> > > 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 will use is fine and good, but WMF taking unilateral
> > > actions that circumvent community processes may be inappropriate. For
> > that
> > > reason, I would like to see most requests for WMF accounts to get
> > > permissions of admin or higher for community wikis go through the same
> > > community vetting process as community members do.
> > >
> > > Pine
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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 anyone can check exactly when rights
> > >> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
> > >> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
> > >> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
> > >>
> > >> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
> > >> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
> > >> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
> > >> explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Fae
> > >> --
> > >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >>
> > >> ___
> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> ,
> > >> 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 

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

[James Alexander]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ  wrote:

Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
narrow column so hard to read.

Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
understand?

Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.

Fae


Hi Fae,

As I’ve mentioned on previous occasions when you’ve brought up this
spreadsheet on the mailing list, it occasionally breaks. That was the case
here. If you send me a quick note if you see the issues, we can fix it, as
we did today with the use case query (including make sure that it’s
multiple columns again.) Pointing that out so it can be quickly fixed is
much better done via a private poke that we'll see quickly rather than a
public mailing list post that we may not see until after hours or until
somebody lets us know about it. Obviously if we ignore your emails or
refuse to fix it, then the math changes, and a post to this list makes more
sense. I do not, however, think breakage (or overlooking notes about
breakage) has been a frequent problem over the past couple years (though we
have certainly had a couple breakages).

The public sheet is up to date to the internal version of the data (which
is done automatically). However, the automated data collection is better at
“adding new” than “removing old.” A member of the team does annual audits
of the data to ensure that defunct entries are removed and that everything
else matches reality. The time for the next one is coming up.

James

*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation

PS: I also fixed the weird date thing you were seeing on some of them...
not sure what caused that (was just a format display thing).
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Adrian Raddatz]

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"  wrote:

> Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
> narrow column so hard to read.
>
> Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
> JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
> August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
> October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
> was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
> November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
> please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
> understand?
>
> Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
> rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.
>
> Fae
>
> On 14 February 2017 at 17:48, Pine W  wrote:
> > 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 will use is fine and good, but WMF taking unilateral
> > actions that circumvent community processes may be inappropriate. For
> that
> > reason, I would like to see most requests for WMF accounts to get
> > permissions of admin or higher for community wikis go through the same
> > community vetting process as community members do.
> >
> > Pine
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:
> >
> >> 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 anyone can check exactly when rights
> >> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
> >> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
> >> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
> >>
> >> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
> >> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
> >> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
> >> explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Fae
> >> --
> >> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

Usecases are appearing, thanks to whomever is intervening, though in a
narrow column so hard to read.

Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date. As a test sample, I
JethroBT (WMF) was granted m:admin rights in June, these expired by
August 2016 and were eventually removed by a volunteer steward in
October 2016. Though I JethroBT is an admin on meta right now, this
was via a separate use case dated "42676", which I presume is
November. Could the spreadsheet be properly reviewed and updated
please, including reformatting the date field so it's easy to
understand?

Pine - yes this process of "WMF Advanced Permissions" includes admin
rights for any WMF website and so by-passes the community procedures.

Fae

On 14 February 2017 at 17:48, Pine W  wrote:
> 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 will use is fine and good, but WMF taking unilateral
> actions that circumvent community processes may be inappropriate. For that
> reason, I would like to see most requests for WMF accounts to get
> permissions of admin or higher for community wikis go through the same
> community vetting process as community members do.
>
> Pine
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> 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 anyone can check exactly when rights
>> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
>> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
>> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
>>
>> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
>> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
>> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
>> explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fae
>> --
>> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

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

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

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

[Pine W]

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 will use is fine and good, but WMF taking unilateral
actions that circumvent community processes may be inappropriate. For that
reason, I would like to see most requests for WMF accounts to get
permissions of admin or higher for community wikis go through the same
community vetting process as community members do.

Pine


On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> 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 anyone can check exactly when rights
> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
>
> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
> explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Fæ]

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  wrote:
> 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 anyone can check exactly when rights
> are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
> Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
> Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.
>
> Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
> have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
> special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
> explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?
>
> Thanks,
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

[Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

[Fæ]

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 anyone can check exactly when rights
are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.
Previously these were mirrored on-wiki but this process broke due to
Google changing its proprietary spreadsheet code.

Checking the latest version of the Google spreadsheet, the use cases
have been hidden, so non-employees no longer can read the reasons why
special rights have been granted. Can a WMF representative please
explain why, or restore the use cases to public view?

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

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