[Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Craig Franklin
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

James Alexander-4
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <[hidden email]>
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
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

James Alexander-4
In reply to this post by Craig Franklin
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> 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


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.

*James Alexander*
Manager, Trust & Safety
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Rogol Domedonfors
>
> 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"
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Yaroslav Blanter
In reply to this post by James Alexander-4
Thanks James.

Was the procedure always like this? We know that there was one person
banned by WMF in 2012, two in 2014, 8 in 2015, and 6 in 2016. Did they all
go through this procedure?

Cheers
Yaroslav

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:15 AM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Craig Franklin <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
> 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.
>
> *James Alexander*
> Manager, Trust & Safety
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Antoine Musso-3
In reply to this post by Vi to
Le 16/02/2017 à 11:31, Vi to a écrit :
> 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>
> .

Hello,

I have some of the access you describe and had them for more than a
decade. Partly as a volunteer in the early days, nowadays as a
contractor to the WMF.   I have been following the whole thread, let me
highlight a bit about the technical side of it since you mention site
accesses.


Those accesses are granted solely for technical reasons. It has always
be made clear to me that technical people should NOT use their rights to
mess with the sites community. All the rest is the role of Support &
Safety, Community Liaisons, Legal, ArbCom or whatever else. They are way
better than us to gauge how to interact with people, and heck it is
their job!



In the very early days there were no staff and I eventually got granted
access after lot of online discussion and ultimately with an half an
hour phone call from France to Australia. (hello Jeronim). I guess it
was a matter of trust.

Nowadays that is legally enforced with Non Disclosure Agreement, Server
Access Responsabilities. For contractors a commercial contract, for
staff with an employment contact and all the associated laws.

A standard in the industry is that people only have a slice of rights
granted to them.  They should be limited to the sub set of accesses that
let them do their work. Any requests for more has to be justified and
goes via a quarantine period to make sure it is properly endorsed.


* I do not have access to mailman , cache logs nor I have root on
databases. When I need informations from such systems, I ask them to
people who have the access. They will either deny my request or get the
informations and deliver them back to me.

* I do have access to the databases of the public wikis. So I can for
example help a user to recover access to their account (there is a
process for that) or do the equivalent of CheckUser when one script bot
is threatening the infrastructure.


Only a few people do have all the technical accesses. They have process
and follow them. So if we have a process to revoke someone access, they
will make sure the requirements have been fulfilled (eg: signed by Legal
or C-level) and do their duty.  Their job is not to question whether the
revocation is justified, their role is to make sure that it is the
proper person asking for the revocation and then just do it.  They might
have personal feeling, might do the revocation against their own will.
In the end they act.  And having witnessed that first hand a couple
times, it is not fun at all, but that is the part of the job.


As a side note, all the people I know having such accesses are heavy
defender of privacy. Up to a point we end up all being very paranoid.


--
Antoine "hashar" Musso
"dont forget: be bold!"


_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Pine W
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Adrian Raddatz
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" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Pine W
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 <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Adrian Raddatz
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Pete Forsyth-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>> 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" <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Pine W
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W <[hidden email]> 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
>
>

Community governance is a tool. It is not the point. It is also not always
the best tool. It's been an urge for years in some parts to treat the
Wikimedia movement (or pieces of it) like a governance experiment to play
out their personally ideal model for the distribution of power. But in this
case, the responsibility of the WMF to fundamentally control access to
project sites cannot be completely cleaved away to the community. If you
would like to experiment with power dynamics, there are other better forums
I'm sure.
_______________________________________________
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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Robert Fernandez
In reply to this post by Pine W
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Tim Landscheidt
Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Fæ
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" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Tim Landscheidt
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.

Not easy and often not actionable. So imho we neef to assess a situation
first and do what works. Chapters cannot be involved so this is often the
only optoom.
Thanks,
     GerardM


Op za 18 feb. 2017 om 12:11 schreef Tim Landscheidt <[hidden email]>

> Robert Fernandez <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Tim Landscheidt
Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Gnangarra
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Isaac Olatunde
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 <[hidden email]>
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <[hidden email]>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16
To: Wikimedia Mailing List<[hidden email]>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Vi to
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]>
> Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <[hidden email]>Date: Sat,
> 18 Feb 2017 21:20:16
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List<[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
> 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 <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123