Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

de10011 at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 10:52 AM

Post #1 of 20 (219 views)
Permalink

[Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging

Hi

I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up
elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging
images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken
by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The
issue is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in secret.
And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is several
places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff
has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the
entire offered explanation.

Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the
current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global
bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for
office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first
usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The
RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
used on commons?

Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes
contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different
ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a
user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have
known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old user
with no explanation beyond, "OFFICE ACTION" it is going to do more than
just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but
banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely
accepted.

Regards
Theo

[1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF
[2]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F
[3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions
[4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions
[5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans
[6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

nawrich at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 11:08 AM

Post #2 of 20 (212 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being
blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom.

Following the yellow brick road, however, leads you to discover that this
is about a global ban of user Beta_M, performed by the WMF as an office
action seemingly in March of this year. Phillipe, Maggie Dennis, Jimbo and
Sue have all weighed in on the issue, saying that they are unable to
disclose specifics for this case but that the decision was made by Sue in
consultation with the WMF general counsel.

So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in
July?

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up
> elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging
> images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken
> by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The
> issue is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in secret.
> And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is several
> places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff
> has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the
> entire offered explanation.
>
> Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the
> current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global
> bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for
> office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
> discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first
> usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The
> RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
> used on commons?
>
> Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes
> contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different
> ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a
> user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have
> known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old user
> with no explanation beyond, "OFFICE ACTION" it is going to do more than
> just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but
> banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely
> accepted.
>
> Regards
> Theo
>
> [1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF
> [2]
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F
> [3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions
> [4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions
> [5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans
> [6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

de10011 at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 11:11 AM

Post #3 of 20 (213 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in
> July?

I heard about this issue fairly recently, on a private list. So, you
probably already know more than I do.

I really don't care about the specifics of the issue to be honest, my
question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone,
globally or locally? The policy pages I read on Meta, make no mention of it
beyond it being used to blank or delete pages without an explanation.

Regards
Theo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

deryckchan at wikimedia

Jul 3, 2012, 11:13 AM

Post #4 of 20 (214 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
> refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
> read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being
> blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom.
>

That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't
properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the
original "office action" decision really knows why, when, or by whose
authority was the office action taken out.

>
> Following the yellow brick road, however, leads you to discover that this
> is about a global ban of user Beta_M, performed by the WMF as an office
> action seemingly in March of this year. Phillipe, Maggie Dennis, Jimbo and
> Sue have all weighed in on the issue, saying that they are unable to
> disclose specifics for this case but that the decision was made by Sue in
> consultation with the WMF general counsel.
>
> So, can you say what it is about this that made you bring it up now, in
> July?
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I would like to bring up an issue with office actions that was brought up
> > elsewhere. There has been an issue on commons with User:Saibo tagging
> > images from WMF staff. He disagreed with a particular office action taken
> > by WMF staff. He gives an explanation with relevant diffs here[1]. The
> > issue is rather complicated, and the specifics of it seem to be in
> secret.
> > And that is mostly the problem here. He asked for an explanation is
> several
> > places, but so far, the response from Philippe, and the rest of the staff
> > has been that office actions are not explained - that is the crux of the
> > entire offered explanation.
> >
> > Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the
> > current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global
> > bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for
> > office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
> > discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its
> first
> > usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet.
> The
> > RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
> > used on commons?
> >
> > Office actions, have been limited to blanking pages, though sometimes
> > contentious, they have been exercised with caution. It is a different
> > ball-game when it goes from just blanking a page, to instantly blocking a
> > user globally, and giving no explanation to community members who have
> > known that user for years. if it is stretched to banning a 2 year old
> user
> > with no explanation beyond, "OFFICE ACTION" it is going to do more than
> > just raise eyebrows. I understand the specifics of the issue here, but
> > banning users with absolutely no explanation can not be this widely
> > accepted.
> >
> > Regards
> > Theo
> >
> > [1]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saibo/WMF
> > [2]
> >
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#Why_did_you_block_a_user_without_a_reason.3F
> > [3]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions
> > [4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions
> > [5]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans
> > [6]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Request_for_comment/Global_bans
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

steven.walling at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 11:14 AM

Post #5 of 20 (211 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:

> Office actions have historically been used to blank or delete pages, the
> current listed policy on Meta and commons[3][4] make no mention of Global
> bans or blocking a user locally, or even globally. I have not known for
> office actions to extend to users and global bans, the last I know was a
> discussion going on with Steven on Meta about this. This might be its first
> usage. The proposed policy[5] and open RfC[6], have not concluded yet. The
> RfC received comments just today. Is that proposed policy already being
> used on commons?
>

To answer in a word: no. The proposed global bans policy is not related to
that situation at all, and has not been applied yet. The policy is one
where any banning decision is made in public via a cross-wiki discussion,
and as such is very different than office actions.

Steven
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

nawrich at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 11:40 AM

Post #6 of 20 (214 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
> > refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
> > read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being
> > blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom.
> >
>
> That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't
> properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the
> original "office action" decision really knows why, when, or by whose
> authority was the office action taken out.
>
>
>
Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done
at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after
Jimbo weighed in. Several other WMF staffers then commented about its
status as an office action and their inability to publicly justify it. I
understand why people will have a problem with that reply, it's just
irritating to get a discussion prompt with vague allusions that you then
have to go digging through in order to understand what the heck is going on
:-P
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

de10011 at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 11:58 AM

Post #7 of 20 (214 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done
> at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after
> Jimbo weighed in. Several other WMF staffers then commented about its
> status as an office action and their inability to publicly justify it. I
> understand why people will have a problem with that reply, it's just
> irritating to get a discussion prompt with vague allusions that you then
> have to go digging through in order to understand what the heck is going on
> :-P

I might have completely missed this discussion Nathan, would you mind
linking me to where this block was discussed? The discussion on commons
doesn't reach a conclusion among the community, and several people oppose
it.

So far, what I have seen is the discussion on Jimmy's page where he said,
"If he's still not banned in 3 days time, I'll eat my words."[1]. 2 Days
later, he is blocked as an office action [2]. There is lengthy discussion
on commons about this issue.

The response from Sue, Philippe and Maggie on commons (provided by
Philippe), all mention its an office action and we don't talk about office
actions.-

From Sue:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FUser_problems%2FGeni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=68383175&oldid=68383137
From Philippe:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29&diff=68382760&oldid=68382707
From Maggie:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FUser_problems%2FGeni%27s_allegations_against_Beta_M&diff=68412785&oldid=68412270

Again, the specifics of the issue aside, has WMF blocked anyone globally
prior to this? Can anyone be blocked tomorrow after years of being on the
projects with "OFFICE action" as the sole reason?

Regards
Theo

[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=481915964&oldid=481915874#Global_policy_on_child_protectiion
[2]http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=WMFOffice
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

philippe at wikimedia

Jul 3, 2012, 12:05 PM

Post #8 of 20 (214 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:

> my
> question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone,
> globally or locally?
>

To the best of my knowledge, no.

And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.

pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe [at] wikimedia
<philippe [at] wikimedia>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

berialima at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:09 PM

Post #9 of 20 (211 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

Phillipe, a global ban, even by the policy proposed, requires more than 2
communities agreeing that the ban is necessary, as far as I know, even if
we count the office staff as one "community" that is only one.

At least the guy know why he was blocked? And what is the guarantee we have
that tomorrow you (you here as "staff") won't block me or anyone else using
"office action" as reason?
_____
*B�ria Lima*

*Imagine um mundo onde � dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somat�rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*

On 3 July 2012 16:05, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > my
> > question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone,
> > globally or locally?
> >
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, no.
>
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
>
> pb
> ___________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Director, Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>
> 415-839-6885, x 6643
>
> philippe [at] wikimedia
> <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

nawrich at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:11 PM

Post #10 of 20 (216 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe [at] wikimedia>wrote:

>
> To the best of my knowledge, no.
>
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
>
> pb
>

Here's a question. If what this person did is so egregious that it required
an out of process block, and it was based on something that you believe the
community should be able to handle via a global ban process, how does he or
she retain such privacy rights to his or her presumably public actions that
you can't discuss in general terms the basis of the block?

Drawing from history on en.wp and its zero tolerance policies for certain
things, there was a time when it pasted big "BANNED FOR PEDOPHILIA
ADVOCACY" templates on userpages or referred to the same in block logs.
Lists of such people were kept on wiki, mentioned on LTA, tracked by
checkusers and SPI with the attendant evidence, etc. While other cases
were handled more privately by ArbCom, it was common at the time to ignore
the supposed privacy interests that pseudonyms might have with respect to
their misdeeds on-wiki.

~Nathan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

nemowiki at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:12 PM

Post #11 of 20 (215 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

Nathan, 03/07/2012 20:40:
> Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done
> at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after
> Jimbo weighed in.

This is exactly why nobody is deemed responsible except an anonymous
OTRS queue, legal [at] wikimedia (according to the lock reason). Tough
decisions are not necessarily something bad as long as someone is
evaluated for them.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Jul 3, 2012, 12:13 PM

Post #12 of 20 (213 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

I should say that I was involved in some discussion as an
admin/functionary, in the block of this user on en-wp, before the office
action happened. I've seen some of the evidence independently of the
office, and based on evidence I've seen as a volunteer, I support the
global lock. Beta M was not a user I was comfortable with having on en-wp,
or indeed on any project. I can't go into details any more than the office
can, but I hope that, as a volunteer (and sort of a trusted one), you can
trust me.

I can, I think, say that there was a very, very good reason that this user
was blocked. Very, very good.

Richard
(User: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry) as a volunteer

On 3 July 2012 19:40, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan <deryckchan [at] wikimedia>
> wrote:
>
> > On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan <nawrich [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> > > I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
> > > refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have
> to
> > > read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being
> > > blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom.
> > >
> >
> > That's precisely the crux of the problem: office actions often aren't
> > properly explained and documented. No one who wasn't involved in the
> > original "office action" decision really knows why, when, or by whose
> > authority was the office action taken out.
> >
> >
> >
> Except as I then described, in fact the specifics are known - it was done
> at Sue's request, in mid-March, after she consulted with the GC and after
> Jimbo weighed in. Several other WMF staffers then commented about its
> status as an office action and their inability to publicly justify it. I
> understand why people will have a problem with that reply, it's just
> irritating to get a discussion prompt with vague allusions that you then
> have to go digging through in order to understand what the heck is going on
> :-P
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:14 PM

Post #13 of 20 (214 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On 3 July 2012 20:05, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.

How will a community-monitored process deal with cases where the
specifics can't be published due to privacy reasons?

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

tarc at hotmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:20 PM

Post #14 of 20 (211 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

IMO Office staff do not "count" in that way. An Office Action is by definition something directed from on high to resolve a matter that a local community is either unable or (in this particular case) unwilling to do i na timely manner. Issues of legality take precedence over sometimes-byzantine bylaws of an internet consortium.

I am no admin or Wiki authority figure, but I was involved in this situation. In this case, the dots were connected between a Wikimedia user and a real-life person convicted of certain crimes. This person needed to be shut out of the project immediately. Commons would not do it, so it was done above them. It reflects poorly on the Commons that one of their administrators still carries this story like a gruge, even linking to their grievance list in their signature line.

-t

> From: berialima [at] gmail
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:09:39 -0300
> To: wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
>
> Phillipe, a global ban, even by the policy proposed, requires more than 2
> communities agreeing that the ban is necessary, as far as I know, even if
> we count the office staff as one "community" that is only one.
>
> At least the guy know why he was blocked? And what is the guarantee we have
> that tomorrow you (you here as "staff") won't block me or anyone else using
> "office action" as reason?
> _____
> *B�ria Lima*
>
> *Imagine um mundo onde � dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
> livre acesso ao somat�rio de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a
> construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>*
>
>
> On 3 July 2012 16:05, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:
> >
> > > my
> > > question was simple was OFFICE action used before to block someone,
> > > globally or locally?
> > >
> >
> >
> > To the best of my knowledge, no.
> >
> > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> > to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> > wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> > can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> > Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
> >
> > pb
> > ___________________
> > Philippe Beaudette
> > Director, Community Advocacy
> > Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> >
> > 415-839-6885, x 6643
> >
> > philippe [at] wikimedia
> > <philippe [at] wikimedia>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

martijnhoekstra at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:20 PM

Post #15 of 20 (214 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 20:05, Philippe Beaudette <philippe [at] wikimedia> wrote:
>> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
>> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
>> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
>> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
>> can't). �Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
>> Office actions policy. �I hope we never have to use that again.
>
> How will a community-monitored process deal with cases where the
> specifics can't be published due to privacy reasons?
>

Would it be possible for the Ombudsman commission to take a look and
take an official stance? It's not what they signed up for, but it's
closeish.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

nemowiki at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:21 PM

Post #16 of 20 (196 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

Philippe Beaudette, 03/07/2012 21:05:
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.

Unless the current draft is completely off track, what you're saying
here is that the proposed system could have been used here, which
implies the specifics *could* be discussed publicly, as the proposed
system requires a public RfC.
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban>

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

philippe at wikimedia

Jul 3, 2012, 12:22 PM

Post #17 of 20 (202 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

No, that was clumsy wording. I did not mean that it could have been used
in THIS instance; I meant that in future instances, I can see circumstances
where it could be used.
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

415-839-6885, x 6643

philippe [at] wikimedia

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki [at] gmail>wrote:

> Philippe Beaudette, 03/07/2012 21:05:
>
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
>> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
>> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed;
>> I
>> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
>> can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
>> Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
>>
>
> Unless the current draft is completely off track, what you're saying here
> is that the proposed system could have been used here, which implies the
> specifics *could* be discussed publicly, as the proposed system requires a
> public RfC. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_**
> consensus_for_a_global_ban<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban>
> >
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

de10011 at gmail

Jul 3, 2012, 12:23 PM

Post #18 of 20 (195 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette
<philippe [at] wikimedia>wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, no.
>
> And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We
> would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I
> wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
>

Thanks Pb.

Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the
issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a
criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are
expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on
this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this
case.

I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior
or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here,
and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But
what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy?
if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or
behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse
making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own
communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make
a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under
the aegis of OFFICE action.

If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be
fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on
Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff.

Regards
Theo
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Jul 3, 2012, 2:32 PM

Post #19 of 20 (196 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

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

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

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

Richard Symonds

On 3 July 2012 20:23, Theo10011 <de10011 [at] gmail> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette
> <philippe [at] wikimedia>wrote:
>
> > To the best of my knowledge, no.
> >
> > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented.
> We
> > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn
> > to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was
> needed; I
> > wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just
> > can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the
> > Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again.
> >
>
> Thanks Pb.
>
> Most of the discussion archived on Jimmy's page reveals majority of the
> issue. I have more to say I suppose, about crime being separate from a
> criminal. There is something to be said about privacy also, how there are
> expectations that re-affirm anonymity. But everyone I know and trust on
> this issue, is saying that it was justified, so I won't talk about this
> case.
>
> I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or behavior
> or even criminal past, grounds for a block? There are Arbcomm members here,
> and I have known of cases of harassment following editors off-wiki. But
> what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of privacy?
> if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to off-wiki opinion or
> behavior. The only exception, would be ongoing abuse or on-wiki abuse
> making its way off-wiki. The projects are fragmented with their own
> communities and policies, this is exactly why sweeping global actions make
> a bold general statement, especially so, when they are done by staff under
> the aegis of OFFICE action.
>
> If this is global block policy is going to stand, I hope this can be
> fleshed out more, like the work Steven has been doing and discussing on
> Meta, with some oversight or community based body to balance the staff.
>
> Regards
> Theo
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

marc at uberbox

Jul 3, 2012, 2:51 PM

Post #20 of 20 (198 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging [In reply to]

On 03/07/2012 3:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or
> behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block?

It may well be. Both for our protection and that of other editors.
There are cases of real, dangerous persons using Wikipedia to pursue
criminal harrasment, that we cannot allow. There are also cases of
illness and threats of harm for which the best action is to exclude the
person from participating.

> But what about privacy rights? doesn't someone has the expectation of
> privacy? if so, then no action on wiki can be directly linked to
> off-wiki opinion or behavior.

Which is exactly why those cases are not discussed in public, or debated
by the community in the first place. WP:CHILDPROTECT is a good example
where we necessarily err on the side of caution yet make no public note
of our actions exactly because of privacy concerns (especially since a
mistake is always possible: erroneously "disapearing" someone innocent
is unpleasant, but erroneously discussing whether someone is or is not a
child abuser in a public venue can very well ruin someone's life!)

-- Coren / Marc

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads