User talk:WMFOffice/Archives/2016

Welcome to Meta!

Hello WMFOffice/Archives/2016, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

 :) - Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban to Russavia ‎

Hello,

may I know, why user:Russavia, was banned from editing and contributing to WMF sites? From your edit summary you left on Commons, it is not clear. Thanks for answer.--Juandev (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as a matter of policy, the Wikimedia Foundation does not comment on the reason for Global Bans, other than to say that the action was taken to protect the integrity and safety of the site and users. WMFOffice (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of which policy?--Juandev (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

(sorry to intrude, but since i'm here) : WMF Global Ban Policy. DarkoNeko (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been becoming an increasingly common practice. Place secret reason to supposedly protect the user, is when minimum absurd. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you expect from an account named "WMFOffice"? Boilerplate replies, of course. It seems that we've a lot of bad users at Commons, given that two former admin were locked globally and one of them was blocked on a mailing list. Russavia must have been silly enough to provoke Jimbo and engage in something the WMF considers worth a global lock. Or the former is interpreted as the latter (which I even would agree with, given how Russavia behaved against Jimbo). Whatever... Makes me just sick to see people locked with whom I often times saw in IRC and who did a lot for the project for secret reasons. If WMF Global Ban Policy would have been cited and at least state who is carrying out decision about bans [this could be a link to a body or a group of people], I could decide whether I would trust these people. Sorry for my naive writing, most of the time I was interested in contents and not how the WMF is organized but it seems to become increasingly important to know. Puzzled -- Rillke (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A plea for exercising measured, common sense: Extraordinary measures require extraordinary explanations. Clamming up behind the veil of "legal reasons" to "protect privacy" may work as a formula in the real world of corporations and financial dealings, but you -- the Foundation -- are alienating a lot of volunteers with these measures, and the way you use them without accounting to the community. Scott, all his warts and transgressions notwithstanding, has amassed 888 and a half thousands of edits, and has contributed without parallel to creating the vast collection of aviation media The Wikimedia Foundation is serving to the planet, both through his own actions as well as engineering the good will of a multitude of others. And he has done so over the course of years. This move will only hasten the exodus of graybeards still editing. I urge you to reconsider the way you do your banning, globally and in the hood. Respectfully, --Mareklug (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Russavia knows by whom he was globally banned, but I'll say it here as well. I signed the letter myself. In all things, the WMF tries very hard to be as open and transparent as possible. But there are times when - for the safety of users of this site - we simply must draw the line and ask that you either trust us or don't. This is one of those times. There is appropriate supervision to be sure that global bans do not get abused, and we have an extremely high standard that must be met before we authorize one. We ensure appropriate checks and balances - no one person can authorize a global ban, and there must be an okay from the legal team. My view is that it should be a tool that's used very rarely and with a great deal of care. But yes, to protect the safety and integrity of our site and its users, we will occasionally be forced to use it. And in those times, we will not talk about why. It's the only responsible way to handle this.

Believe it or not, there's a sensible reason behind our refusal to comment: we can execute global bans for a wide variety of things (see the Terms of Use for some examples - and no, "provoking Jimbo" is not on the list), some of which - including child protection issues - could be quite dangerous to openly divulge. Let's say we execute five global bans, and tell you the reason behind four of them. Well, the remaining one is pretty clearly for something "really bad", and open knowledge of that could endanger the user, their family, any potential law enforcement case, and could result in a quite real miscarriage of justice and/or someone being placed in real physical danger. So no, we - as with most internet companies - have a very strict policy that we do not comment publicly on the reason for global bans. It's a common sense policy and one that's followed by - and insisted upon - by almost every reasonable, responsible company that executes this type of action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I for one am glad to see this particular action done. If the community is unable to relieve itself of a deeply problematic user, then it will be done for them. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't believe. After the severe anti-community actions by the WMF in regard of the MediaViewer, where SuperPutsch was introduced in a similar manner as a nuclear weapon against the communities, this seems to be on the same level. The WMF has no trust any longer, it doesn't deserve any trust, because it has proven it's anti-community stance several times. This was another dictatorial measure taken in shady back-rooms by people on a power trip in the ivory tower of SF, that have lost all connection to their real employers, the communities. The WMF exists only because of the communities, you have to community-vet everything, or it's simply not legitimate.

Can you show me where this extreme measures were discussed in detail in all relevant communities beforehand? Without such discussions, this has absolutely no legitimation. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 21:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You ask to trust you. But trust you on what? That the sky is blue? The above statement says absolutely nothing.

You can say something concrete without saying anything specific, but you chose not to. Examples of something concrete: "We received a request from law enforcement"; "The WMF was at imminent risk of legal action"; "We acted upon a complaint submitted by an user who reported breach of the terms of use"; "The breach of the terms of use happened on XYZ.wikABC.org"; etc. etc. --Nemo 21:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The only thing they could say is what they have said: "The user violated the terms of use". It is entirely irrelevant how this came to the WMF's attention and entirely irrelevant where it happened. WMF employ a team of highly qualified lawyers, it is more than reasonable that their advice is taken when it comes to what can and cannot be revealed publicly. As a user of WMF sites you have exactly three options: (1) comply with the terms of use, (2) voluntarily stop using the sites, (3) be involuntarily stopped from using the sites. Thryduulf (en.wikt,en.wp,commons) 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

But this is missing the point, that WMF is a service organisation, not directorial organisation.--Juandev (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the WMF policy, there are only three circumstances in which the WMF can impose a global ban:

1. Significant harassment of users on multiple Wikimedia projects
2. Significant harassment outside of Wikimedia sites which constitute a genuine threat to the emotional or physical well-being of other users
3. Other circumstances in which Wikimedia users or employees are placed in danger or have been significantly compromised or threatened

These may sound broad, but they are actually quite strict in laying out the conditions in which the WMF can act. I would contend that there is really only one very rigid criterion in which a WMF global ban is permitted — the user in question has engaged in activities that have placed the safety or well-being of one or more Wikimedian community members at serious risk.

Russavia was banned globally alongside three other users: Amorrow, Poetlister (who was already under a community imposed global ban), and Leucosticte (also known as Sarsaparilla). Although the WMF is under legal obligation to refrain from discussing any of these, there is little doubt as to why they decided to ban the other three users. I don't feel that Russavia's actions exhibit the same level of malice as those individuals have shown. With the information that is currently available to the general public, would the Wikimedia community by and large support a global ban for Russavia? Some would, and some wouldn't. I trust Philippe and the other members of the WMF that I am aware of, so I'll assume for the time being that this action was carried out in full accordance with the global ban policy, and not as a means of circumventing the Wikimedia community by removing someone they see as an overall liability based on publicly available information. If Russavia were banned for any reason other than the ones outlined above, it would constitute a very serious abuse of power. Kurtis (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• This talk page should be merged and redirected to User_talk:Philippe_(WMF) per its status quo antea and his recent statement on the Wikimedia_Forum. It's a technical account, almost the same idea as a bot account, only with more than one associated accountable human user, but sorting that out would be a part of his job.
• it would constitute a very serious abuse of power is a hardcore weasel, unless you have a plan to figure it out. So far the to be renamed wannabe-"policy" supports does instead of would. See below. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

–Be..anyone (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, I'm pretty sure my assessment of the hypothetical situation where Russavia was banned for non-permissible reasons does not constitute WP:WEASEL, at all. You may want to reread that page to get a better understanding of what weasel wording entails; it's the usage of collective language (e.g. "some people say", "critics suggest that", "it has been speculated", etc) to assert a specific point of view as having widespread support, and is particularly problematic if it is not fully borne out by the citations provided. I think my initial comment might have been a bit misleading as to where I stand on this (I've stricken "for the time being" in my above comment; it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence for me to be swayed into believing otherwise). My observation is simple: let's say that Russavia was banned by the WMF because he brought the whole movement into disrepute for his activities on en.wiki and Commons, rather than for specific offenses that cannot be discussed for privacy reasons. This would mean that the WMF has acted to circumvent the Wikimedia community by banning Russavia without any external input, all while using the guise of a WMF global ban to give the impression that it was for something more serious than anything we're aware of — in essence, a secret trial. They have the legal right to do as they please, given that Wikimedia is privately owned, but it would still be unethical. I'd be uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia site if this were the case. Like I said, I do trust Philippe and the rest of the WMF, and I strongly doubt they'd do something like that. Kurtis (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, striking "weasel", the article doesn't mention anything remotely related to undecidable. Somebody with merge rights should really get rid of this page. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: For the record I would be against redirecting this talk page to Philippe's talk page or any specific persons talk page. As Philippe mentioned it is designed to ensure that actions are consolidated under one account instead of spread out amongst different staff members logs. As that hints at, it isn't just him who uses the account (in fact for the past 6 global bans most of the technical actions with the account have been done by me) and there are multiple others involved in the research and approvals part of the process. Because of that I don't think it would makes sense (and could be very confusing) to have this all sit on any one persons user discussion page (just like it doesn't make sense for him to be the only 'fall guy' despite him signing the letters that went out since, while he's the Director, others were involved). While I tend to think that here is as good a place as any for the discussion if people feel it should be somewhere else I think it would be better to think about where else that should be, for example the ban policy talk page (though not all actions taken by the account would necessarily be bans), the Office Action page (though the bans are separate from traditional office actions which generally target content) or the Wikimedia Forum. Jalexander--WMF 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, for the record. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

More dialogue, less drama

I'm not interested in the details of individual cases (which is why I am asking in a separate section). I fully understand why you haven't broadcast the reasons for any bans, but it is clear that bans have caused concern in some quieter corners of the Wikiverse, particularly as 6 of the 7 WMF bans have been in the last few weeks. In comparison, the community has banned one person ever, since the hallowed days of lore. Since the WMF bans are mean't to supplement the community bans, I think a lot of user concerns would be addressed if future bans involved some level of cooperation between WMFOffice and the stewards. Is there any possibility of this happening, ever never? Green Giant (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Without committing to any outcomes, process or timelines, I'm willing to explore such a possibility. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Without any explanation, and with regard of the massive loss of trust because of hostile actions against the communities by the WMF, you are in need of a lot of explanation to those people, that generate your income, i.e. the communities. Currently you behave like any dictator and proclaim to be a "Good Dictator", we should trust you, you know better than us unwashed masses. That's something from a completely different planet than the Wikiverse should work. You owe us explanations, it's your duty to explain to the communities, so that they understand and accept. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Philippe, thank you for your response. I think it is very encouraging that you are open to discussion. Green Giant (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanger, I have to disagree with the label. There was only ever one dictator on Wikimedia, Admiral-General James Wales, and for all his "purported failings", he was always open to new ideas and eventually ceded his absolute powers to the community. He could have carried on as the sole decision-maker, but today we have the Wikimedia Foundation, the stewards, sysops, bureaucrats, ArbComs, ombudspeople and endless community decisions. Certainly I don't think Philippe or the WMF Office are "dictators" or else they would have locked and blocked anyone who dared question them, as has happened on this talk page and elsewhere. If I'm wrong, I look forward to a long, quiet off-wiki exile :P Green Giant (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Global users and e-mail

I asked this over at the policy page, but perhaps it would have been better to direct it here. Wehn you have a moment, could someone here opine on Talk:WMF Global Ban Policy#Global bans and e-mail access? Tarc (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Solidpoop2

What is the main account of this user? See en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solidpoop2--GZWDer (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Philippe (WMF): There's a talkback at that page. --GZWDer (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. @Jalexander-WMF: can you evaluate and determine whether we can disclose the sockmaster in this case? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Russavia sock block

FYI, a Commons admin undid your block of Commons:Special:Contributions/58.7.136.251. And he has switched IPs to Commons:Special:Contributions/106.69.128.124 --B (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)