All,
In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence, let's look at one of the aspects that is made public. When the WMF issues a WMF Global Ban in line with https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it has been in the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List
This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in, but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed against an individual instead of against a specific username") but applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real name.
Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under their real names, where known? In answer to one likely objection: this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the Wikimedia community. People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").
The Turnip
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this will serve? Well, I don't think WMF would log global banned users by their real for a number of reasons and I don't see any reason why they should start doing that.
Regards,
Isaac
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help assure the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project development and expansion". Identifying those persons banned as fully as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the community.
The Turnip.
I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot stress this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE. It doesn't matter how good our intentions are. It doesn't matter how bad these people are. We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not globally, the accounts of people we deem unable to contribute. We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a contributor. And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It may get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions. That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things. Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all of them, really.
Alphos
[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com a écrit :
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help assure the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project development and expansion". Identifying those persons banned as fully as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the community.
The Turnip.
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
Alphos
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
The Turnip
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:12, Alphos OGame alphos.ogame@gmail.com wrote:
I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot stress this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE. It doesn't matter how good our intentions are. It doesn't matter how bad these people are. We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not globally, the accounts of people we deem unable to contribute. We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a contributor. And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It may get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions. That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things. Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all of them, really.
Alphos
[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com a écrit :
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help assure the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project development and expansion". Identifying those persons banned as fully as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the community.
The Turnip.
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
- and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
Thyge - Sir48
Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend <homesec1783@gmail.com
:
Alphos
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
The Turnip
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:12, Alphos OGame alphos.ogame@gmail.com wrote:
I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot
stress this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE.
It doesn't matter how good our intentions are. It doesn't matter how bad these people are. We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not globally,
the accounts of people we deem unable to contribute.
We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a
contributor. And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It may get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions.
That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things. Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all of
them, really.
Alphos
[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com a
écrit :
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think
this
will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help assure the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project development and expansion". Identifying those persons banned as fully as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the community.
The Turnip.
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
Doxing means to reveal personal data about someone against their wishes. So if you found out my address and telephone number and posted it to this thread, that would be doxing me.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:26 AM Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
- and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
Thyge - Sir48
Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend < homesec1783@gmail.com
:
Alphos
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
The Turnip
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:12, Alphos OGame alphos.ogame@gmail.com
wrote:
I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot
stress this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE.
It doesn't matter how good our intentions are. It doesn't matter how bad these people are. We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not globally,
the accounts of people we deem unable to contribute.
We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a
contributor. And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It
may
get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions.
That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things. Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all
of
them, really.
Alphos
[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com a
écrit :
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you
think
this
will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help assure the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project development and expansion". Identifying those persons banned as
fully
as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the
community.
The Turnip.
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
Doxxing is often considered as harassment. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_infor...
Isaac
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 12:30 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Doxing means to reveal personal data about someone against their wishes. So if you found out my address and telephone number and posted it to this thread, that would be doxing me.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:26 AM Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
- and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
Thyge - Sir48
Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend < homesec1783@gmail.com
:
Alphos
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
The Turnip
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:12, Alphos OGame alphos.ogame@gmail.com
wrote:
I was doxxed by someone in the movement a few years ago, and I cannot
stress this enough : WE MUST NOT DOXX PEOPLE.
It doesn't matter how good our intentions are. It doesn't matter how bad these people are. We as a community choose to block, ban, lock, whether or not
globally,
the accounts of people we deem unable to contribute.
We must not disclose unilaterally after the fact the identity of a
contributor. And not only because we may well have no clue about it. It
may
get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions.
That MUST NOT (rfc2119 [1]) be how we handle things. Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all
of
them, really.
Alphos
[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
Le 2 juil. 2019 à 08:17, Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com a
écrit :
Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you
think
this
will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help
assure
the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project development and expansion". Identifying those persons banned as
fully
as possible helps to achieve that assurance and protect the
community.
The Turnip.
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
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
Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend <homesec1783@gmail.com
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
I lost my wallet to a pickpocket last week. Do I now need to give reasons why this was a bad thing?
Quite apart from the fact that you ignore the text "It may get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions."
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 12:25, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
- and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
If only there was some sort of free online encyclopedia, where such things could be looked up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
Putting it simple WMF/functionaries/the community itself should take the less invasive actions needed to protect themselves.
A public list of "persona non grata" for events is needed for sure, but I don't see any practical need to have it publicly shared.
Vito
Il giorno ven 5 lug 2019 alle ore 13:41 Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:
Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend <
homesec1783@gmail.com
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
I lost my wallet to a pickpocket last week. Do I now need to give reasons why this was a bad thing?
Quite apart from the fact that you ignore the text "It may get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions."
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 12:25, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
- and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
If only there was some sort of free online encyclopedia, where such things could be looked up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Well, considering my life was already kind of in shambles beforehand, there wasn't much more to be done, and I didn't risk much, but still, I valued my privacy then - and still do.
I live in France with french citizenship, where I enjoy a rather comfortable freedom of expression, but I'm also thinking of contributors in less free countries who, despite being potentially despicable by potentially deserving global bans, are also potentially being targets from local authorities or groups of other sorts should their real identities be ever divulged, not because of their global bans or the reasons thereof, but because of their legitimate contributions to free culture and knowledge (you know, what we *usually* do on the Wikimedia projects, other than bicker on these mailing lists about whether or not the Wikimedia Foundation should have done things differently).
The least information we give publicly about (current and former) members of the community, the better. No matter whether we like them or not, even if we absolutely despise them, even if they "deserve it" : they don't. Even if they were one of my harassers, even if they lived in a free country, I'd be sternly, strongly, and strictly against it.
Alphos
Le ven. 5 juil. 2019 à 13:52, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com a écrit :
Putting it simple WMF/functionaries/the community itself should take the less invasive actions needed to protect themselves.
A public list of "persona non grata" for events is needed for sure, but I don't see any practical need to have it publicly shared.
Vito
Il giorno ven 5 lug 2019 alle ore 13:41 Andy Mabbett < andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> ha scritto:
Den fre. 5. jul. 2019 kl. 11.53 skrev Thomas Townsend <
homesec1783@gmail.com
You don;t explain why being "doxxed" was a bad thing for you, or indeed what the downside is for anyone, You simply assert that it is a Bad Thing and must not happen. Would you like to give your reasons for those assertions?
I lost my wallet to a pickpocket last week. Do I now need to give reasons why this was a bad thing?
Quite apart from the fact that you ignore the text "It may get them jailed for the wrong reasons. It may get them harmed for their genuine contributions."
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 at 12:25, Thyge ltl.privat@gmail.com wrote:
- and please explain the meaning of 'doxxed" as well. Is that US slang?
If only there was some sort of free online encyclopedia, where such things could be looked up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
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
Well, first off, there's no guarantee that anyone even knows their real name. They could find mine, sure, but then I've never made an attempt to keep it secret. I suspect many editors never have given out their real name, and publishing a guess would be unethical beyond belief.
But just no, in any case. That seems a purely punitive measure. Certainly, if the person's real identity is known, they might want to inform, for example, site security staff at WMF events, as that's a "need to know" type situation. But I see absolutely no reason to release it to the general public. That's just doxing as a punishment, and I think that's absolutely unethical and we're a lot better than that.
Even if we must ban someone from our communities, we should do everything possible (and everything as far as they'll allow) to let them go in peace and with dignity, and, again if they will, to make a clean break of it. We shouldn't take the opportunity to kick them while they're down, even if the ban was richly deserved.
Todd
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:10 PM Thomas Townsend homesec1783@gmail.com wrote:
All,
In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence, let's look at one of the aspects that is made public. When the WMF issues a WMF Global Ban in line with https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy it has been in the habit of doing so by login identity or pseudonym as at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy/List
This makes perfect sense in terms of blocking users from logging in, but the bans are not only issued against individuals personally rather than specific account names ("A Foundation global ban is placed against an individual instead of against a specific username") but applies to real-world activities such as events and meetings ("as well as any in-person events hosted, sponsored or funded by the Foundation") for which people tyoically register and pay under a real name.
Has the time not come to for WMF Global Bans to name people under their real names, where known? In answer to one likely objection: this is not outing, since that applies only to members of the Wikimedia community. People subject to WMF Global Bans are no longer members of that community: the ban pernamentaly and irrevocably removes them from membership ("Foundation global bans are final; they are not appealable, not negotiable and not reversible.").
The Turnip
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@lists.wikimedia.org