[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

John Erling Blad
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[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>
>
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by Vi to
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[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>
>



--
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

Vi to
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 <[hidden email]>:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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

Pine W
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: [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
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 <[hidden email]> 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: [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

Michael Peel-2
In reply to this post by John Mark Vandenberg
Hi all,

I've written a short Python script that fetches the spreadsheet using the CSV link (as John suggested), and now updates the page at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Advanced_Permissions>

The code is at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Peel/WMF_permissions_script <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mike_Peel/WMF_permissions_script>

Hope that helps!

Thanks,
Mike

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 05:58, 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?
>
> Fae, you said you have your own scripts, which you are no longer
> maintaining due to changes by Google.
> Is your code in a public repository somewhere?
> We do not need to use the Google apis for accessing this data.
> Google allows spreadsheets to be exported as csv.
> here is the CSV link for the Advanced Permissions data.
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DruVc7T9ZqTcfGwFAlxQrBMR4QBSD_DtjpDtGqMAAi0/pub?output=csv
>
> With a small script, we could re-publish this dataset as csv into a
> git repository, and then another script could read the csv and
> re-publish the data as wikitext onto a Wikimedia site.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, James Alexander
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:53 AM Fæ <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
In reply to this post by Adrian Raddatz
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: [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 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [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

Fred Bauder-2
Volunteers who have access to advanced tools are required to identify
themselves.

The problem with volunteers dealing with extremely sensitive matters
is that they have to answer to a committee. When the committee starts
demanding pre-approval it becomes impossible for a volunteer to
function because the procedure is too cumbersome and punishing. Which
is why certain matters have gradually shifted to staff who can make
quick decisions and have clear authority to do so. Some things are
done by, or at the direction of, the legal department, for example.

Fred Bauder

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:02:13 -0800
  Adrian Raddatz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [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

Fæ
In reply to this post by Pine W
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" <[hidden email]> 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: [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
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: [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
* 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 <[hidden email]> 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: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
[hidden email] 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: [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
As with most things around here, this is more complicated than it may
appear on the surface.

I increasingly think that there are cultural differences between WMF and
some parts of the community that are difficult to bridge, that influence a
variety of the decisions that get made in WMF (such as global ban
practices, and which emails get responses and which don't), and which may
seem obvious from certain perspectives but are more subtle when looking at
them from other angles.

Previous attempts from me and others to align WMF more with the community
have had limited success. I'm more sad than frustrated; there have been
some successes, but fewer than I hoped.

I can't realistically push on every issue that I would like WMF to address,
so I'm not going to push this issue further in the foreseeable future,
though I'm likely to mention it periodically. Hopefully, at some point, WMF
will agree to support community design of a global ban system.

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: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
123