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Now I can read it, I see that it is out of date.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@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 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@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Google Spreadsheet [1] so that anyone can check exactly when rights are granted, why they are given and when they are withdrawn.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@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Hi Pine,

I know we’ve touched on this in past discussions related to this list. Staff frequently need on wiki user rights to do their work, which can range all over the map from Meta admin/translate admin to central notice admin or Checkuser/Oversight and everything in between. Many of these rights are sensitive in their nature (for example I could make an argument that central notice admin and its raw crosswiki javascript capabilities are on par with Checkuser in some cases), and we work to ensure that users only have rights they need for the time they need it.

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

James

*James Alexander* Manager, Trust & Safety Wikimedia Foundation

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:48 PM Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:

Not for any wiki; only Meta had wmf staff with admin rights, and only for use within their specific work-related areas.

I am totally unconcerned with WMF staff having the necessary permissions to do their job. They can easily be held accountable as paid employees.

On Feb 14, 2017 11:53 AM, "Fæ" faewik@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@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 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@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@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

---

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

,

...

...

...

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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On 15 February 2017 at 06:21, Pine W wiki.pine@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,

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_user...

Fae

On 14 February 2017 at 23:44, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ faewik@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). _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

2017-02-16 5:57 GMT+01:00 Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com:

Hi Fae,

A few points:

• Thank you for trying to get and maintain a public list of WMF accounts

with special permissions. I think that this is helpful for the community to know. I also think that WMF should actively maintain the list of WMF accounts with special permissions, and the reasons for granting those permissions, on Meta.

I concur, this should be WMF's full responsibility.

• Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to site-ban

individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community, particularly when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).

From a legal perspective WMF is the sole owner of these webspaces, then WMF

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

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

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.

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@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the

US

...

we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a

trial

...

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

is

...

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

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

been

...

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

letting

...

"the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

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

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

-Pete

[[User:Peteforsyth]]

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

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

Adrian Raddatz

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

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

Pine

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz ajraddatz@gmail.com wrote:

...

Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without

comment

...

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

that

...

seems to dominate this list in a fuss.

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

disclosure,

...

it's with mass disclosure.

On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W" wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:

...

I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the

US

...

we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a

trial

...

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

is

...

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

the

...

...

process.

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

been

...

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

letting

...

"the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

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@tim-landscheidt.de wrote:

Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@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.

[…]

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

Tim

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@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 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@gmail.com Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

what this discussion reveals is that;

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

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

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

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is

not

...

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

...

[…]

That's easy: The victim's.

Tim

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@gmail.com wrote:

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

Vito

2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com:

...

Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long as there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent process. Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF

Staff

...

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

from

...

the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.

Best,

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

-----Original Message----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate:

Sat,

...

18 Feb 2017 21:20:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

what this discussion reveals is that;

1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions,

and

...

a when why they were granted 2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances, 3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of Global bans.

• Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation

wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and solve rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on

Meta.

...

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

though

...

the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook

• Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where the

person affected can email the committee for a review. The committee could be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate representatives(appropriate language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project

where

...

the person was active or the event took place. With an after action appeal it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.

It

...

could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on their behalf.

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

...

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It

is

...

...

not

...

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

...

[…]

That's easy: The victim's.

Tim

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@gmail.com:

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

no

...

arbcoms, Finally, anyone would appeal, turning WMF-issued ban into a [how to call this group?]-issued ban.

Vito

2017-02-18 15:05 GMT+01:00 Olatunde Isaac reachout2isaac@gmail.com:

...

Gnangarra raised some valid and interesting points here. Well, I don't have problems with WMF banning anyone from Wikimedia projects as long

as

...

...

there is a significant reason to do so and through a transparent

process.

...

...

Nonetheless, I think WMF ban should be revocable following a successful appeal. They could set up a form of appeal committee comprises of WMF

Staff

...

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

from

...

the project where the incident occur as suggested by Gnangarra above.

Best,

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

-----Original Message----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Sender: "Wikimedia-l" wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgDate:

Sat,

...

18 Feb 2017 21:20:16 To: Wikimedia Mailing Listwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

what this discussion reveals is that;

1. the people here want to know who at the WMF has what permissions,

and

...

a when why they were granted 2. they want a system thats has good checks and balances, 3. there is want to be able to be "consulted' during the process of Global bans.

• Number 1 is just a maintenance issue, an on Meta(maybe Foundation

wiki) table of employee access would be the simplest to operate and solve rather than using a google spread sheet with a bot updating the on

Meta.

...

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

though

...

the duel role currently occurring isnt an ideal long term outlook

• Create a High Court, or Supreme court type appeal process where

the

...

...

person affected can email the committee for a review. The committee could be comprise of WMF Legal person, Affiliate

representatives(appropriate

...

...

language speaker), and bureaucrats(ARBCOM member) from the project

where

...

the person was active or the event took place. With an after action appeal it doesnt impinge on any potential urgency or immediate imperative.

It

...

could even allow for the person affected to have someone advocate on their behalf.

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

...

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:

...

Hoi, The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally.

It

...

is

...

...

not

...

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

...

[…]

That's easy: The victim's.

Tim

---

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

mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

...

...

...

mailto:wikimedia-l-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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-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@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@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 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

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

Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@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."

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

stuff.

...

It's a blessing, not a curse.

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

...

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

it's

...

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

I agree with you.

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

Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@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."

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

stuff.

...

It's a blessing, not a curse.

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

...

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

it's

...

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

I agree with you.

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

Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

* 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@gmail.com wrote:

I'm glad that we're having this discussion, as there are several points being made that should be considered in the documentation and design of the global bans system.

I'm trying to think of what next steps would look like for reforming this system. I'd suggest something like the following:

0. Agreement from WMF to reform the system, and a timeline for doing so.

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

1. After the consultation is designed, it can be published for public

input. (That includes input from WMF employees and contractors, individuals who are associated with Wikimedia affiliate organizations, and individual community members.)

2. Based on that consultation, the group that was assembled for part 1 can

work together to design a new system. While unanimity is unlikely, consensus would be preferable. Where the group is uncertain or has internal disagreements, multiple options can be drafted for the community to consider in the following phase.

3. Based on the results from phase 2, a community RFC can be conducted. The

RFC should be closed by one or more community stewards.

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

Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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@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).

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@gmail.com wrote:

Still, in some cases the WMF global ban sounds like a revenge to an individual, and when (understandably) WMF refuses to elaborate what was the motivation for a global ban this impression gets even stronger.

Cheers Yaroslav

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Robert Fernandez wikigamaliel@gmail.com wrote:

...

I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of professional expertise. Transparency, due process, and community governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need to bring to bear when it comes to issues such as, for example, predatory individuals victimizing underage editors. I know this sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are, attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the thought of what passes for community governance on the English Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling. It has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W wiki.pine@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

This is correct, all global bans (after a complaint has been made) go through:

• Investigation by Support & Safety team member -->
• Review and Recommendation by the Manager of Trust & Safety (myself)

-->

• Approval by the Director of Support & Safety and the Chief of

Community Engagement (currently both Maggie) -->

• Approval by General Counsel (currently Michelle) or designee.

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

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

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

"Rogol"

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"

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@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?

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