Hi Steven,
OK. I have a few more inquiries.
1. Let me make sure that I understand a few things correctly.
* A "global lock" is a technical action that is currently effective only against SUL-linked accounts.
* A "global block" is a technical action that is currently effective only against IPs. Development is in progress to make this effective against registered accounts on all projects.
* A "global ban" is a wikijudicial action taken against an account that is enforced by a global block or a global lock.
Are those right?
2. May I ask what the rationale is for proposing that global bans be decided via global community consensus on Meta, instead what appears to be the status quo of stewards making decisions about global bans based on requests at SRG?
3. I would appreciate hearing your response to the concerns that I raised in my previous email and appear to be shared in part by AFBorchert, about Meta’s suitability to serve as a battleground.
4. I would like to ask if you are aware of the RFC at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_commit…, which appears to be a third possible way of handling global bans and other types of decisions which Stewards feel would be best reviewed by more than one individual Steward. I would appreciate hearing your comments about the merits of that RFC. The proposal appears to have become inactive, but it may be worth reviving if there is a consensus that there is need to change the status quo of stewards making decisions about global bans.
5. My understanding is that in the recent past, WMF globally locked an account and feels that it should not publicly discuss the reasons for that global lock. Quoting Philippe: “ And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.” If a situation arises in the future where another account is accused of the same undisclosed type of conduct, is there any way in which the community could handle that situation instead of having WMF handle that situation? It seems to me that handling confidential information is an inherent part of the work of stewards when they perform oversight and checkuser functions, so I would like to think that stewards could also be trusted to make global locks based on whatever information the office had that led to its decision to impose a global lock on the account in question. I hope that whatever process emerges for global bans will have the capability and trustworthiness to handle this type of event in the future. It seems unlikely to me that a global and public community discussion on Meta would be a good way for WMF to ask for a global ban if the evidence and accusation are confidential, but individual stewards or the proposed Global Requests Committee should be able to handle a case where the evidence and accusation are confidential. I would appreciate hearing comments from you or Philippe on this issue.
Thank you,
Pine
> On Jul 6, 2012 2:48 AM, "Deryck Chan" <deryckchan at wikimedia.hk> wrote:
> >
> > Short answer as I understand it:
> > Global blocks are the technical feature and refer to the accounts, the IPs
> > and the software capability; global bans are the policy and refer to the
> > people who are unwelcome.
>
> Deryck has got it right here. The situation is made more complex by the
> fact there currently is no technical mechanism for a global block. In lieu
> of that, Stewards etc. have been resorting to locking people out of their
> accounts using SUL, which is known as a global lock. A global lock is the
> usual way of enforcing a ban, according to the current state of the policy.
>
> Steven
>
> >
> > On 6 July 2012 10:44, ENWP Pine <deyntestiss at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steven,
> > >
> > > Could you explain the distinctions between https://meta.wikimedia.org/**
> > > wiki/Global_locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks>,
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_blocks<
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks>,
> > > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_bans<
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans>?
> > > These look to me like they have some redundancy and some areas where
> > > they
> > > diverge. A chart which compares these three side-by-side would be
> > > helpful.
> > >
> > > Also, if Global Bans are decided by an RFC on Meta, that gives me
> > > pause. I
> > > can envision sockpuppets and meatpuppets attempting to sabotage the
> > > process
> > > and giving Meta checkusers more work to do, potentially much more work,
> > > especially if WP:DUCK behaviors need to be evaluated on multiple
> > > projects
> > > in multiple languages and/or coordination is needed with checkusers from
> > > projects in other languages. I'm a bit more supportive of the process at
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_locks<
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks>which seems to involve
> > > Stewards making the decision to take a global action
> > > based on multiple local projects taking local actions, rather than
> > > because
> > > there was a global community RFC at Meta. I agree with AFBorchert's
> > > comment
> > > at the RFC, "Meta is working great for non-controversial project
> > > coordination, requests to stewards etc. But Meta is in no way prepared
> > > to
> > > serve as a battleground for a large-scale global ban discussion which
> > > would
> > > tend to revive previous debates at other projects."
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm thinking that global locks and
> > > global blocks would be the best two of the three options to deal with a
> > > user who is problematic enough to be unwelcome on all wikis.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Pine
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, the Global Requests Committee proposal is more sophisticated and
getting consensus for its implementation might be challenging, but I think
the GRC or something like it would be a reasonable option if global bans are
to be implemented.
I anticipate that the current RFC for global bans will close as "no
consensus". If you feel that it's possible to get community consensus for
some alternative form of global ban, please ping me if you'd like to
collaborate on a subsequent RFC. Perhaps we could simplify the current draft
of the GRC to make it focus mostly on global bans if you feel that would be
helpful.
Cheers,
Pine
Hi Steven,
I agree with you that there should be a “fair and consistent way” for enacting a global block of an account. My concerns are about the process and circumstances under which this may happen.
I think that https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_commit… proposal has good potential. The committee could handle confidential information, and would be less vulnerable to battlefield conduct and sockpuppet manipulation than a global RFC for a global block of a user. The committee would be able to handle cases that individual stewards feel uncomfortable with handling, and it would hopefully any prevent any wheel-warring. I think that the committee wisely isn’t structured as a global arbcom, although I might suggest a different name such as “Global Coordination Committee” because its scope is broader than locally initiated requests. I chatted briefly with steward Matanya who gave me permission to say that from his personal perspective he thinks that a committee that is separate from the stewards would be “a good approach”, although he suggested that stewards-l would be appropriate to contact for comment on this issue.
With that in mind, and since the current state of the RFC on your proposal, roughly nine days after commenting began, is about 50% for and 50% against in its current form, I would like to offer to work with you on revitalizing the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_commit… proposal for a successor RFC, taking into account the comments on that page and at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans, any comments from Philippe about how this committee might be structured in such a way that WMF would trust it to handle ban requests from the office, and comments from anyone else who’d like to give input.
Thank you,
Pine
Heya folks,
I just wanted to let you know that the next Wikidata office hours will
be on soon. Denny and I will be around on IRC in #wikimedia-wikidata
to answer any question you might have and discuss. Logs will be
published afterwards.
English: July 18 at 22:00 UTC
(http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=22&min=00&sec=0&d…)
German: July 23 at 16:30 UTC
(http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=16&min=30&sec=0&d…)
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentrautstr. 72
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Ward Cunningham, the inventor of wiki, has implemented "Smallest Federated Wiki".
The most important change is that it is not only easy to
edit the content, also forking is considered a natural
part of the workflow.
Besides, I really like the user interface:
Videos:
http://wardcunningham.github.com/
The code:
https://github.com/WardCunningham/Smallest-Federated-Wiki
Not very difficult to install if your Ruby packaging works.
//Marcin
saper@plwiki
Date: 2012-07-18
Time: 16.30 UTC
Venue: #wikimedia-office
You are invited to a Wikimedia Foundation IRC Offfice Hours in Wednesday
July 18, 2012 at 16:30 UTC (time zone information: http://hexm.de/j6).
The Wikimedia Foundation features, product, design and legal teams want to
discuss with the community how they see they use of e-mail in the future,
as development of new features will increasingly make more use of e-mail as
a way to contact and engage new, current and previously active users.
Please mark this date in your calendar if you wish to participate in the
discussion. We will send a reminder a few days before the meeting.
--
Siebrand Mazeland
Product Manager Localisation
Wikimedia Foundation
M: +31 6 50 69 1239
Skype: siebrand
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Dear all,
I am happy to announce that the Board of Trustees has now *unanimously*
approved this resolution [1] rescinding our previous direction to the
Executive Director to develop a personal image hiding feature.
At our in-person board meeting of 11 July 2012, the vote on this was
provisionally recorded at 9-1, with Jimmy voting against. Jimmy has since
changed his vote to a yes, on reviewing an FAQ accompanying this resolution
which notes that the board is willing to approve a plan broadly backed by
the community.
Thus the vote on this has now been changed to 10-0.
The FAQ accompanying the board resolution on this has been published at:
Talk:Personal_image_hiding_feature<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Talk:Resolution:Personal_image_hiding_f…>
The resolution remains at: [1]
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:_Personal_Image_Hiding_Featu…
Best
Bishakha
PS - I will be on a 24-hour plane ride in a few hours, so please excuse any
delayed responses.
Greetings to all and thanks for the support of our initiative. I am one of the three ru-wikipedia users, who signed the decision under the poll to blackout ru-wiki. We have a really nasty bill, that is already passed by the Russian parliament. The bill contains a real and an unequivocal clauses, that can lead to an ip-ban of Wikimedia projects in Russia. After the strike we managed to gain a big media-impact and massive support from the public opinion and internet users, but the influence on the legislative process is more than moderate. Actually we have rather appearance of concessions from the authorities, than real effective gains. Though the clear and public acknowledgment from the authorities, that Wikipedia will not be banned, is a sort of a gain. And besides that we have established some links with the authorities and MPs, that can help us in our future work of promoting new provisions to the passed bill. Without the strike that would be impossible.
Within the wiki-community now we have a discussion about the past strike. Though the overwhelming majority do not question the strike itself, some editors, including senior and those of an authority, question the organization process and the procedure of taking solutions within the community of the strike. As one of two main organizers of the strike I get a lot off feedback and criticisms of how and by what means the strike took place. That criticism is very important. The organization was really not good. Actually it could not be worse. The main reason for that is extreme lack of time we had to organize. The bill was passed in an utmost haste without even a shadow of public discussion. Actually the community, including myself, got to know of bill hearing only day before its planned time. Therefore we had to act in even bigger haste. Everything, including organizing the strike, conducting of a poll, informing the media and third parties, was made in several hours. It is not a surprise, that within the given circumstances we made much less, than could be done. That is also true for the process of taking decisions within the community. Though we had an overwhelming majority of supporters, the decision had to be taken on consensus, as all the decisions within the community should be based on the consensus of its participants. But the utmost lack of time gave us no opportunity to analyze all the opinions, all the important remarks and views, present in the poll. Therefore the decision was taken upon votes. As a consequence now we have an arbcom case against the organizers, including me, stating that the decision was not taken according to all rules of taking such decisions.
I think, that in the crucial point of conducting the strike the taken decision was the only possible one within the given circumstances and utmost lack of time. Though it was a bad decision in terms of traditions of discussion and consensus, any other would be worse. As one of the organizers I take the full responsibility on myself and have tried to do my best in the circumstances.
All the mistakes should be avoided in the future; all the criticisms should be taken into consideration. But what is the most important now, is that Wikipedia can act, gain achievements in public space and stand for its interests in an open and clear way.
Thanks again for all the comrades for expressed support,
Abiyoyo.
Hi.
Following the re-vote on rescinding the controversial content directive,
Jimmy is giving a good college try to developing a personal image filter:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Personal_Image_Filter>.
List participants may be interested. Jimmy's approach seems to somewhat
ignore previous discussions about ways to implement such a filter (e.g.,
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki//Brainstorming>), but perhaps that isn't
such a bad thing.
MZMcBride