[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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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 de10...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote: On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
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? _ *Béria Lima* *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos* On 3 July 2012 16:05, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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 phili...@wikimedia.org phili...@wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
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 phili...@wikimedia.org On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: 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_banhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban Nemo __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
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 de10...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote: 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] OFFICE actions and WMF image tagging
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
