Just to follow up, the WMF has now responded. I appreciate them taking time to review these concerns.
your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF
Legal.
Been and done, also involvement from C-levels, although that was some time ago
a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost
certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal intervention
If this is necessary, we should not shrink from it. If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone -- your students, your employees, or someone like Bassel Khartabil. The arbitrators should not be using dox as a tool to silence voices for diversity or as an arbitration outcome.
The foundation lost social capital during the media viewer/visual editor/flow controversies, because the community went to a great deal of effort to document the problems with those products, and was not listened to. But that was a long time ago, and the community has now lost the high ground, largely because of the gender issue. 640 people voted in the 2014 arbcom election, but after this GGTF case, 2674 people voted in the 2015 election. Is there any doubt that the arbcom is out of touch with the community, and that the community process is failing? The arbitration committee was not established by the community, it was established by Jimmy Wales. Is there any doubt the foundation has the capability and the resources to step in and protect the long term interests of the movement if the arbcom and the community process can not?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I don't think there is much more I can do here. Based on what you wrote, I think that your best course of action is to discuss the PII situation with WMF Legal. There are a few other remedies which could come into play, but they would almost certainly take longer and be more politically problematic than a minimal intervention in which WMF Legal clarifies to the Ombuds and Arbcom what is required under WMF's interpretation of its privacy policy.
Pine
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The privacy policy as written certainly leads users to expect their PII is safe. There is nothing I can find in the written policy that would back the idea that the ombuds should refuse to remove PII if they think it might have been posted in good faith. If it could be used to identify someone, it should just be removed. That's just basic safety. Maybe they are not allowed to go against arbitrators I also don't understand why arbitrators would insist on posting PII over and over. We have seen too much what that can lead to. In all fairness, the gamergate sub-reddit was very professional and removed the dox within an hour of my request.
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. I'd like to take a closer look at this, but unfortunately I'm already backlogged with other projects. I wish I knew what to suggest here. If you have already been to the Ombudsman Commission and you disagree with their interpretation of WMF policies, then you might try to contact WMF Legal, although I don't know to what extent they will want to involve themselves.
For what it's worth, if I had my way the OC would (1) have significantly more independence from the WMF Board and staff and (2) be issuing monthly or quarterly reports about its activities, but realistically the current setup is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Pine
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap