Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing. After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the non-response is not deliberate.
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Sta...
On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing. After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the non-response is not deliberate.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails, although some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me while I was writing the arbitration report for the Signpost. Would you like screenshots of the bounce notifications? In addition, four arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_ Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing. After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the non-response is not deliberate.
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
If Arbcom members actually posted information which could be considered "outing" in violation of WMF policies, please take that information to the Ombudsmen Commission. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
Pine
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails, although some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me while I was writing the arbitration report for the Signpost. Would you like screenshots of the bounce notifications? In addition, four arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing. After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the non-response is not deliberate.
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
Pine, yes without a doubt a violation of WP:Privacy policy, WP:OUTING, and WP:WHEEL for starters, since dox was removed by one admin and reinstated by another, at the direction of yet another arbitrator whose edit history will show nothing. At this point I don't remember any more all the people I took it to, they determined that the privacy policy had been violated but declined to take any action. The point I think is not about any particular individuals, because there were just so many; but that PII does not belong in the hands of untrained volunteers, but rather with professionals who have signed a meaningful NDA.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
If Arbcom members actually posted information which could be considered "outing" in violation of WMF policies, please take that information to the Ombudsmen Commission. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
Pine
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails, although some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me while I was writing the arbitration report for the Signpost. Would you like screenshots of the bounce notifications? In addition, four arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing. After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the non-response is not deliberate.
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
All right, I have found my correspondence with the ombudsman commission and this is how I understand their position.
According to WP:DOX "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." So the standard here is "voluntarily posted".
But it appears that "voluntarily posted" is not the standard used by the ombudsman commission. According to the ombudsman commission, anyone can publish non-public information about someone as long as it is "based on simple guesses". The burden of proof is on the person being doxed to prove there was a chain of transmission. So I can say "Foo is gay", "Foo is Jewish" or "Foo's real name is John Smith", or "Foo lives in Hill Valley", and as long as I say it was just a lucky guess, this is not a problem, Foo just has to live with the information being public. Likewise if Boo finds out that Foo is gay and suddenly Boo's best friend Fee, as well as Fie, Foe, and Fum, who all belong to a private WMF mailing list, all start posting to Wikipedia that Foo is gay, or Jewish, or their real name or whatever, this is not a problem to the WMF because Foo is not able to prove where the information came from.
Likewise with IP addresses. If you edit logged out, revealing your IP address, or if there is a bug in the program that logs you out and then allows you to make an edit without notifying you that you are editing logged out, as the beta version of HHVM (Hip Hop Virtual Machine) used to do, this edit is considered to be "information that is publicly available on the projects", even if the edit is immediately suppressed. Someone can then write a program to stalk a particular person, and collect these suppressed edits, then post the Wikipedia user's geographical location to eternal websites, and the ombudsman commission does not consider this to be problem.
The instructions for dealing with a dox, according to English Wikipedia WP:DOX, are "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, *do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information,*" where with the ombudsman commission you are required to provide proof that the personally identifying information is accurate and find the website or email the information came from before they will consider suppressing it.
So apparently the WMF privacy policy standards are quite lax, at least in practice, compared to the standards of the English Wikipedia. However the arbitrators of the English Wikipedia are not willing to enforce, or even abide by the WP:PRIVACY policy (which is a policy, not a guideline). And once the arbitration committee gets rid of someone, they are not concerned with whether they are doxed, either on wiki or off, and any user's expectation of privacy can be de facto revoked, retroactively, simply by banning them.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
If Arbcom members actually posted information which could be considered "outing" in violation of WMF policies, please take that information to the Ombudsmen Commission. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman_commission
Pine
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Neotarf neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
The arbitration committee has never responded to any of my emails, although some individual arbitrators were willing to communicate with me while I was writing the arbitration report for the Signpost. Would you like screenshots of the bounce notifications? In addition, four arbitrators posted personally identifying information about me and did not respond to my requests to remove it.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
"I emailed the WMF in relation to my enwiki arbcom case"
You're getting ignored because the WMF doesn't want to get involved in community processes. Sorry to be blunt, but you should try emailing ArbCom before making this type of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committe e/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications
On 09 Jul 2017 1:47 AM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, this is to let everyone know that I have submitted an appeal to the GGTF case.
It has been very difficult to try to respond to the accusations in this arbitration case, because I don't understand them. Everyone who has looked at the diffs has found nothing. Kevin Gorman called them "flimsy". Even Wikipediocracy, which has no particular love for me, could find nothing. After having had time to go through some of the histories, I found that half of the diffs were from someone who wrote a program specifically to collect diffs of my edits in order to sift through them and who was able to use the program to discover IP addresses as well. The other half of the diffs were added to the case by one of the arbitrators after the evidence phase of the case had closed and included edits made by Jimmy Wales and one of the admins--not even my edits. I don't want to say a lot about this on a public mailing list, but at this point it is pretty obvious that this is a false conviction.
I understand I was eligible to appeal this after one year, however I have waited more than two years. My initial inquiry to the WMF was on 11/17/16. I was assigned a member of the WMF staff and told I could expect to hear something in mid-January. Since then, I have made three followup queries, asking for an update to the expected timeline, but have been unable to get any response at all. At this point, there is no reason to believe the non-response is not deliberate.
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
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
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
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
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
How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I believe because the ArbCom case regards the 'Gender Gap Task Force'
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:24 PM, JJ Marr jjmarr@gmail.com wrote:
How does this relate to the gender gap on Wikimedia again?
On 15 Jul 2017 6:00 PM, "Neotarf" neotarf@gmail.com wrote:
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
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