WMF advanced permissions for employees

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Using WMF employee accounts and...

proposal for regular surveys of...

Fæ

14 Feb 2017 14 Feb '17

1:11 p.m.

Show replies by date

Fæ

14 Feb 14 Feb

1:31 p.m.

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_DtjpD… On 14 February 2017 at 13:11, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Pine W

5:48 p.m.

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 <faewik(a)gmail.com> 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Google Spreadsheet [1] so that anyone can check exactly when rights are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.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 -- faewik(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ

7:52 p.m.

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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

_______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Adrian Raddatz

9:48 p.m.

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" <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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 <faewik(a)gmail.com> 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 >> -- >> faewik(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Pine W

15 Feb 15 Feb

6:21 a.m.

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 <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org> 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

do their job. They can easily be held accountable as paid employees. On Feb 14, 2017 11:53 AM, "Fæ" <faewik(a)gmail.com> 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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> 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

> 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 <faewik(a)gmail.com> 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 > >> -- > >> faewik(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ

12:40 p.m.

On 15 February 2017 at 06:21, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> 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

James Alexander

14 Feb 14 Feb

11:44 p.m.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> 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).

Fæ

15 Feb 15 Feb

11:18 a.m.

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_use… Fae On 14 February 2017 at 23:44, James Alexander <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Pine W

16 Feb 16 Feb

4:57 a.m.

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

Vi to

10:31 a.m.

2017-02-16 5:57 GMT+01:00 Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3APreilly&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1> . Vito Vito

Antoine Musso

17 Feb 17 Feb

10:23 a.m.

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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=User%3APreilly&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_thanks_log=1&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1> .

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!"

Pine W

7:08 p.m.

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.

Adrian Raddatz

7:21 p.m.

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" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Pine W

7:40 p.m.

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 <ajraddatz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Adrian Raddatz

7:49 p.m.

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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pete Forsyth

8:56 p.m.

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:

...

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" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Nathan

11:10 p.m.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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.

Robert Fernandez

18 Feb 18 Feb

12:22 a.m.

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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Tim Landscheidt

11:10 a.m.

Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com> 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.

...

[…]

Fæ

11:22 a.m.

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" <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> wrote: Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

[…]

...

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gerard Meijssen

11:48 a.m.

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 <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de>

...

Robert Fernandez <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[…]

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Tim Landscheidt

11:59 a.m.

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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

Gnangarra

1:20 p.m.

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 <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:

...

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Olatunde Isaac

2:05 p.m.

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 <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Datet;Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)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 <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:

...

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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.

[…]

Vi to

2:15 p.m.

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 <reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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.

[…]

-- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

John Erling Blad

2:38 p.m.

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.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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 <gnangarra(a)gmail.com> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Datet;Date:

Sat,

18 Feb 2017 21:20:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing List<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)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.

could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on their behalf. On 18 February 2017 at 19:59, Tim Landscheidt <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> wrote: > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It

not

obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what jurisdiction is appropriate.

[…]

_______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Gnangarra

2:47 p.m.

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.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Staff

(maybe those from WMF legal team), AffCom member, and member of ARBCOM

from

Sat,

and

Meta.

- the process described by James Alexander appears to meet that,

though

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.

not

obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what jurisdiction is appropriate.

[…]

_______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

-- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com

Vi to

3:07 p.m.

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 <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

AffCom has nothing to do with this kind of issue, most of projects have

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 <reachout2isaac(a)gmail.com>om>: > Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't > have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long

> 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

Sat,

and

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 <tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de> > wrote: > > > Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Pine W

6:45 p.m.

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

Adrian Raddatz

8:18 p.m.

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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Pine W

19 Feb 19 Feb

4:15 a.m.

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.

Adrian Raddatz

5:02 a.m.

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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> 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."

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

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.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

FRED BAUDER

5:18 a.m.

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 <ajraddatz(a)gmail.com> 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."

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

put in

here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

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. 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Fæ

1:59 p.m.

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" <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> 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."

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

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.

Pine W

20 Feb 20 Feb

8:55 a.m.

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

Fæ

27 Feb 27 Feb

6:04 p.m.

* 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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

-- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

Pine W

9:34 p.m.

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

Robert Fernandez

16 Feb 16 Feb

2:21 p.m.

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 <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Yaroslav Blanter

2:57 p.m.

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 <wikigamaliel(a)gmail.com> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Robert Fernandez

7:01 p.m.

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 <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> 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

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

marc

7:55 p.m.

On 2017-02-16 14:01, Robert Fernandez wrote:

...

If WMF staff members are blocking volunteers out of revenge{{cn}}

Craig Franklin

11:40 p.m.

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 <marc(a)uberbox.org> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

James Alexander

17 Feb 17 Feb

1:15 a.m.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net> wrote:

...

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

Rogol Domedonfors

7:15 a.m.

...

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"

Yaroslav Blanter

7:36 a.m.

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 <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Craig Franklin <cfranklin(a)halonetwork.net

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Rogol Domedonfors

16 Feb 16 Feb

5:22 p.m.

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"

John Mark Vandenberg

7:58 a.m.

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_DtjpD… 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 <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

...

-- John Vandenberg

James Alexander

17 Feb 17 Feb

1:03 a.m.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

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

Michael Peel

18 Feb 18 Feb

8:44 p.m.

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 <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions> The code is at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Peel/WMF_permissions_script <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 <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> 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_DtjpD… 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 <jalexander(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

-- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

2657

days inactive

2670

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

50 comments

21 participants

tags (0)

participants (21)

Adrian Raddatz
Antoine Musso
Craig Franklin
FRED BAUDER
Fæ
Gerard Meijssen
Gnangarra
James Alexander
John Erling Blad
John Mark Vandenberg
marc
Michael Peel
Nathan
Olatunde Isaac
Pete Forsyth
Pine W
Robert Fernandez
Rogol Domedonfors
Tim Landscheidt
Vi to
Yaroslav Blanter