[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

[Richard Symonds]

>
> is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior or even criminal past, grounds
> for a block?


In my opinion, yes. I have carried out many blocks (and bans) based partly
on the off-wiki behaviour of an editor. It's really only necessary in very
serious cases involving violence, stalking, child protection etc - although
it can also involve other things - there are many situations! If an editor
was, for example, a young child (8 years old) who was posting their
personal information again and again, and not listening to warnings not to,
I would block them for their own safety. If an editor puts another editor,
or themselves, in danger, I would have no qualms about blocking them
immediately. I would probably block them if I thought that there was a
strong, or even medium chance that people would be harmed. Looking after
our younger or more vulnerable users is really, really important.

As to privacy, yes: people (even criminals) do have the expectation (but
maybe not the right? I don't know) of privacy. That is why so many of these
blocks are only discussed by advanced permissions users and the office. If
they were discussed by the community, the discussion would rapidly turn
into a lynch-mob or a "slander factory".

Richard Symonds


On 3 July 2012 20:23, Theo10011 <de10011 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> <philippe at wikimedia.org>wrote:
>
> > To the best of my knowledge, no.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Thanks Pb.
>
> Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the
> issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a
> criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are
> expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on
> this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this
> case.
>
> I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior
> or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here,
> and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But
> what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy?
> if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or
> behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse
> making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own
> communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make
> a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under
> the aegis of OFFICE action.
>
> If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be
> fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on
> Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff.
>
> Regards
> Theo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>