Meta-Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20

2020-01-23T21:12:46Z

Tinz: /* “Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure” */ re

{{tmbox|text=Please don't hesitate to add comments or ask questions on this page. Your input will be noticed. On behalf of the strategy teams, [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|talk]]) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC) The ''a-c/q'' alliteration is accidental :)}}

== Beeing the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge means that you need readers who like what they see ==

My understanding is that Wikipedia is used by Goggle to produce the Google Search Infobox
That means that Wikipedia is shown at the top of Googles search pages a place that if you should pay for it as an paid advertisement would cost 100 millions of dollar.

My understanding since wikipedia has got this location and 3/4 lines of Wikipedia text is shown the number of people clicking on the link to Wikipedia is {{Red|'''significantly decreased'''}} my conclusion '''3 lines of Wikipedia''' is "enough" for the average reader.... they are not interested in Wikipedias free knowledge and instead prefer other sources

=== Good or bad that 3 lines Wikipedia is enough? ===
I miss
# a discussion/analyse why?
# that Wikipedia actively
## ask the user was this a good article?
## did it meet your expectations?
### something like this could be anonymous and just a scale 1-10

The lack of interest in Wikipedia when you have 3-4 lines of Wikipedia I guess could be
# People dont trust the content in Wikipedia
# Wikipedia has a format/design that is not the prefered
## As most users are not logged in we have a problem customize the user interface for different target groups maybe Wikipedia should be designed to adress different target groups and tell users if you log in you wil get a more rich user interface with maps links to xxx etc.. based on Wikidata data....
# Wikipedia often lacks multimedia like videos
# Some editors of Wikipedia are "afraid" of external links and count the numbers of links displayed instead of thinking what is the target group interested in
## Compare Google trying to understand what the user is looking for and just present the best links and rank them according to the knowkedge they have about the user and his/hers location
# Should Wikipedia better use the resources in Wikidata to link to external sources?

What I miss is tools and feedbacks mechanism in Wikipedia to learn more how to make Wikipedia the preferred place to consume free knowledge. To often I see on the swedish Wikipedia that people who are active editors and discuss just focus on there own wishes/needs and miss the consumer part of Wıkipedia - [[User:Salgo60|Salgo60]] ([[User talk:Salgo60|talk]]) 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
: Thanks for your thoughts. When working groups are ready for work, they will be notified about your questions. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|talk]]) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

== training ==

what are the necessary skills to implement the action items to get to the strategic goals ? Where is the training program, for the necessary skills for employees, community functionaries, and editors ? What are the metrics to measure the effectiveness of training ? [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ([[User talk:Slowking4|talk]]) 22:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] , is the training they are talking about similar to the new editor training vids and manuals we already provide. [[User:Geraldshields11|Geraldshields11]] ([[User talk:Geraldshields11|talk]]) 22:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:yes, but more - building on the GLAM camp experience, we should be training everyone in best practices in how to use tools. and we should be training everyone in the soft skills necessary for a collaborative project. we should be training chapter officers, and board members in best practices for non-profit governance. it may be review for some, but it will provide a skill improvement across the board. [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ([[User talk:Slowking4|talk]]) 00:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

== [[Different Forms of Knowledge for the skeptical Wikipedian]] ==

Hi. For a while, I've had a feeling that we should try to find better answers for Wikipedians asking about what "different forms of knowledge" can mean for Wikipedia. For that end, I've created the page [[Different Forms of Knowledge for the skeptical Wikipedian]] and would love to have your support in completing it. Thanks, --[[User:Gnom|Gnom]] ([[User talk:Gnom|talk]]) [[Environmental impact|Let's make Wikipedia green!]] 16:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
: {{re|Gnom}} I think basic problem is that it's difficult to find out what was discussed last year. (Because it's already written down and linked to!) But we don't disseminate knowledge about us among us well enough. Few read Meta-Wiki and even fewer read the strategic reports. Few read documentation whatsoever. For me, finding such better answers could mean just creating video on YouTube where someone could explain ideas (that have come from the community!) like multiple versions of the same article (a.k.a. content adjusted to reader's stage of development), "moar interactivity", etc. Maybe I'm biased, but I often point at the documentation reception issue. [[user:Tar Lócesilion|Tar Lócesilion]] ([[user talk:Tar Lócesilion|queta]]) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

== Proposed additional questions ==

Are there any objections to including the proposals at [https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2018-July/090697.html] in the Working Groups' question sections? [[User:James Salsman|James Salsman]] ([[User talk:James Salsman|talk]]) 08:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
: {{ping|THasan (WMF)}}? [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|talk]]) 09:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
{{done}} [[User:James Salsman|James Salsman]] ([[User talk:James Salsman|talk]]) 06:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No [[User:FoundMe|FoundMe]] ([[User talk:FoundMe|talk]]) 22:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

== "Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope" ==

Is there any substantial difference between the template "Areas of inquiry" and "Why this scope" headers that would prevent deleting one of the two when empty? [[User:James Salsman|James Salsman]] ([[User talk:James Salsman|talk]]) 06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

== Your email ==

The email address listed on [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe3xu_RumehNNn_VXBWASYwN25VVfBezTd4I-543qp7jISIvA/viewform] is returning undeliverable. Please can someone drop me an email. [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 16:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|RhinosF1}} Sorry for this, we linked the wrong email address, it's fixed now. :-) Best, [[User:Philip Kopetzky|Philip Kopetzky]] ([[User talk:Philip Kopetzky|talk]]) 14:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Phillip Kopetzky}} {{Not Done|email still failed}} [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 14:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Phillip Kopetzky}} 15:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Philip Kopetzky}} [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 15:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
::::{{ping|RhinosF1}} Yeah, as always with this when there are several people involved in setting up an email address, my addition was also incorrect. Did you try it again a few days later? [[User:Philip Kopetzky|Philip Kopetzky]] ([[User talk:Philip Kopetzky|talk]]) 09:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Philip Kopetzky}} Look now [[User:RhinosF1|RhinosF1]] ([[User talk:RhinosF1|talk]]) 11:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

== Stakeholders ==

I notice a lot of use of "stakeholders" in recommendations. Is there a definition of that word regarding it's use here? Thank you, [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 22:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
: {{u|Vermont}}, I personally believe that it depends on the context. Stakeholders in IT might (and I suppose they do) differ from the ones in, say, GLAM, or education, or policy. Additionally, various Wikimedia projects have different audiences (both on the sides of authors and "consumers"). Plus, international diversity: somebody else is a stakeholder in the developed countries and somebody else on emerging markets. Therefore, there's no universal wiki-definition of stakeholders, and that's due to the basic definition that you may read in a dictionary. What I suppose the authors wish to say is that various groups benefit from Wikimedia and we should be aware of that diversity when making any plans. [[User:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|SGrabarczuk (WMF)]] ([[User talk:SGrabarczuk (WMF)|talk]]) 23:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
::Thank you for the quick response. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 23:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

=="Activism" or promoting diversity as a goal==
I'm not sure if i'm at the right place to put this comment... But anyway.. (Note: my comments referring to the case of the French-language wikipedia because that is where I mostly contributed .)

To achieve the desired objectives, it should be noted that the rules for the eligibility of sources are biased; for example, for cultures where Press or writing is not as common the rule can be discriminatory. These rules should take into account cultural differences.

It should also be clear for all contributors that this "activism" (as they call it when we talk about being more respectful of the diversity) is indeed desirable and valued in the fundamental principles. For the moment, too often, we see violent struggles over questions of respect for, by example, trans people, non-binary, women, etc. Linked to this, social sciences are too often seen as "activism", not knowledge.

Wikipedia is progressive and open to diversity. It should be clear for all chapters : It's against the spirit of the project to be opposed to respect diversity, by for example (again) being opposite to gender-inclusive language.

Finally, yes, it is important to promote diversity, for the sake of all Wikimedia projects, because a community with a very high network density, (Ronald Burt, Structural Hole) is detrimental to innovation and encourages toxic social dynamics, closed on themselves; overprotected the structure and neglecting the goal of free knowledge from every where, everybody). --[[User:Idéalités|Idéalités]] ([[User talk:Idéalités|talk]]) 22:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
:[[User:Idéalités|Idéalités]]: How do you think this would or should be implemented? For example, German-language Wikipedia just voted on genderneutral language. A [[:de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Geschlechtergerechte_Sprache#Ergebnis|vast majority]] rejected the proposal. The use of generic masculine remains the status quo. So how exactly would Wikimedia enforce the use of gender-neutral language in that Wikipedia project? I am not trying to argue about the use of genderneutral versus gender-biased language; I am simply interested in how people who support the recommendations think the process of ''enforcing'' the new guidelines and rules would look like. --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 02:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::I don't know, WMF have to find a way to be really clear about he's point of view and PROMOTE IT!! Often peoples said "Wikipedia have to be conservative"... NO. No where it's question of conservatism, it's the opposite. Wikimedia is a progressive project. It's the foundation who have the responsibility to promote open minded ideology ! WMF should show his love for diversity, for LGBT friendly space, with banners on wikipedia and stuff like that. Every redactors should be conscious of it, and if they don't like to see so much diversity, they can leave : the essential is to have more diversity on all project, it an emergency.--[[User:Idéalités|Idéalités]] ([[User talk:Idéalités|talk]]) 11:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::WMF pushing diversity against the desires of the individual Wikipedia communities is likely going to create more push-back and turn votes on various policies in the opposite direction from what you desire. [[User:ChristianKl|'''ChristianKl''']] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 14:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

== Knowledge Equity ==

Cite: "''As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege.''" 
Such a statement from the dominant player in the field smells, sounds and feels like patronizing. Seen from the outside, the WMF is essentially synonymous with "the body who runs wikipedia". For obvious reasons Wikipedia is perceived as a mainstream project by the global north. This image will rub off on any initiative the WMF might start. Unfortunately, this means that the efforts envisioned by the strategy will fail to catch on. They will fail to activate those who they try to target. The underlying reason being that very few people like to feel being patronized. Projects will be started, money will be spent, reports will be written. But in the long run nothing self-sustaining will remain. --[[User:KaiMartin|-<(kmk)>-]] ([[User talk:KaiMartin|talk]]) 20:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

== Global Gouvernance Body !? ==

I don't like to imagine Wiki.m.p.edia becoming THE "[[Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20|essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us]]". So ? What's about the others ? Are they competitors ?

Like Tim Berners-Lee, I'm afraid to see [https://www.banklesstimes.com/2018/10/23/the-founder-of-the-web-believes-centralization-has-gone-too-far/ how far goes the centralization of the Web]. And I wonder : Does the Wikimedia movement really aspire to « welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities » by creating a new [[w:Criticism of the United Nations|global Governance Body]] of knowledge ? Is the cultural diversity really possible in a global organization ? [[User:Lionel Scheepmans|Lionel Scheepmans]] <big>✉ </big> [[User talk:Lionel Scheepmans|Contact]] French native speaker, sorry for my [[w:dysorthography|dysorthography]] 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

::Neither do I like this vision. I see a big problem for knowledge, too. Wikipedia should ''not'' be THE essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge but ''one'' source among many others. It is a good thing that there are diverse sources of knowledge, independent of each other. This independency should be promoted. Even today I often find wrong data from Wikidata or Wikipedia in any number of other databases/publications, usually without indicating the source. It becomes more and more difficult to find independent knowledge sources. Wikipedia, and more so Wikidata, tends to disrupt or sometimes even corrupt other databases. The reason is this cursed competition issue.[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

== Code of Conduct ==

The [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Create_Cultural_Change_for_Inclusive_Communities recommendations] include a "Code of Conduct". Last year, the Foundation initiated a [[Universal Code of Conduct|pre-consultation]] on a "Universal Code of Conduct". The comments were overwhelmingly rejecting a universal code of conduct for Wikimedia projects. How did the community feedback to the pre-consultation influence the strategy process and decision making? --[[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]] ([[User talk:Martina Nolte|talk]]) 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Martina Nolte|Martina Nolte]], Thanks for bringing this up and asking a great question. The community feedback varies based upon where it is provided. The platform and setting matters greatly. Some folks don’t feel comfortable interacting in certain areas or platforms due to harassment or other forms of targeted behavior. People participating in the pre-consultation were a rather small group compared to the whole.

:During the consultation process, working group members heard a lot from community members in varying formats. This sometimes was voicing the need for a universal code of conduct. Much of the time it was expressing concern or frustration with the symptoms of not having a universal code of conduct. This could be situations like harassment, marginalization, or stress from emerging communities trying to establish community norms.

:I know it’s hard to see the logic behind something that was opposed in the place where you saw it. Since we’re passionate about Wikipedia, let me put it in terms to remove the Wikipedia from the equation. Imagine there are loads of car accidents on a road. People complain to the city that there are too many car accidents and say something must be done. The city council decides putting a speed limit on that road or perhaps a stop sign might be a good idea. They do this to change behavior on that road to result in fewer car accidents. Sure, some people might be frustrated by having to drive more slowly or stop at a new stop sign, but the road will (if all goes to plan) be safer and result in fewer car accidents. Basically, we’re trying to make this road of Wikipedia safer and more enjoyable for everyone! Best, [[User:Jackiekoerner|Jackiekoerner]] ([[User talk:Jackiekoerner|talk]]) 15:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

::I disagree. This is not at all like putting a speed limit on a road to prevent accidents, it is rather like creating a penal law against individuals. But not in a way how such laws usually come into being. Not by a legitimate elected gremium, not openly discussed, without any regard to [[:en:Rule of law]], let alone civil rights. The haziness and obscurity of your legitimation ("working group members heard a lot", "this sometimes was voicing", etc. pp.) is tell-tale language.[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 16:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:: Your analogy is that the WMF is like the city council and that the role of setting policy is not with the democratic processes of the community? It seems a very silly analogy given that the nature of a city government is that it makes decision that are not made at state or national level.
:: That's basically the complete opposite of the values of allowing more people to participate in decision making that this document proposes.
:: <blockquote>A more distributed leadership, based upon the principles of subsidiarity and self-management, allowing those affected by decisions to participate and make decisions (particularly about governance and resources), will redistribute power throughout the Movement.
:: This sentence in the change narrative calls for decision not being made the way you try to push through the universal code of conduct. </blockquote>[[User:ChristianKl|'''ChristianKl''']] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 16:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Jackiekoerner}}, that's not a valid analogy at all. It's more like the city council soliciting feedback on whether the speed limit should be changed, and the response being overwhelmingly "No, leave it alone." Then the city council puts forth a proposal to change it anyway, and when people ask "Uh, didn't you see where we said 'Leave it alone'?", the council handwaves at some backchannel process where, trust us, a bunch of anonymous people really do want it changed. We handle on-wiki business on the wiki, not via backchannels. If some people wanted to join the discussion in regards to the matter, they should have been pointed to the page where they could do so. If you're going to continue down this road, the indication won't be that we need a new speed limit. It will be that we need a new city council. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Jackiekoerner}}: In no way is a code of conduct like adding a speed limit sign to an unregulated street. Local communities ''already have'' speed limit signs, people to enforce them, and with few exceptions it has been working very well. The UCoC seeks to abolish local autonomy and establish a global WMF governance, probably, as we really can't be certain of it's actual goals when most of the terminology in the UCoC's page makes absolutely no sense to any volunteer and is quite contradictory, being apparently heavily worked on by someone whose volunteer account has under 20 edits globally and was created after he was hired by the WMF. From everywhere I've seen, this UCoC has had extreme criticism. It is not a valid argument to ignore all of that criticism by stating that there are people too afraid of voicing their support for it. If people want to enact change, they shouldn't expect to do so without actually coming forward about it. We had a lot of discussions about the UCoC, which were overwhelmingly negative, and if someone wants to voice their support for it, there is the chance. You make it seem like people who are in favor of it could be hounded or harassed, where I have not seen any evidence or instance of that. If that is someone's experience, however, we have local community processes to deal with such harassment, and we don't need a UCoC for that. As you reference users who have complained that they feared harassment, if there actually was any harassment towards them about contributing to the discussions on meta, please contact myself or another administrator and we will handle it. If there wasn't, drop the talking point. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 11:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

:::Hi all! Sure, people can disagree with the speed limit changes, but the fact of the matter is accidents are still happening. What is in place on the road (road=Wikipedia) is not working. People are still getting hurt. People are leaving the projects. People are being excluded. Inclusion is happening in very biased and inauthentic ways.

::: <blockquote>"A more distributed leadership, based upon the principles of subsidiarity and self-management, allowing those affected by decisions to participate and make decisions (particularly about governance and resources), will redistribute power throughout the Movement." </blockquote>

:::What is being said here is we need a new City Council. One that accurately represents the world and the world's knowledge. We need to mix up existing power structures that have been built on societal practices of power and privilege. Wikipedia should aim to be better than the biased practices present in our society which favors white, Western males. I totally agree with this proposed language. This is exactly what all these recommendations, Universal Code of Conduct recommendation included, are saying. Wikipedia is excluding folks from participating and if we are aiming for knowledge equity, this isn't it. We need to mix things up a bit, considering Wikipedia has been developed from a largely white, male perspective. This isn't a slight on anyone. It's simply a fact.

:::<blockquote>"It is not a valid argument to ignore all of that criticism by stating that there are people too afraid of voicing their support for it."</blockquote>
:::'''It is not a valid argument to ignore community voices because they're not communicating on a platform [meta] where you are comfortable.'''

:::Thank you [[user:Vermont|Vermont]] for offering up yourself or another admin as a resource for people who feel harassed. I am glad you feel strongly about people feeling welcome and included. Some communities have a handle on harassment, but unfortunately, this has not been before people are alienated. We need to institute some supports to be sure there are agreed upon community norms in all communities (like not harassing folks). Harassment can be a sneaky thing and is viewed differently by each person and each culture. This is exactly why we need ways in which we can establish leadership and resources for the leadership to grow a healthy Wikipedia community. Best, [[User:Jackiekoerner|Jackiekoerner]] ([[User talk:Jackiekoerner|talk]]) 17:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::::Meta is the place designated by the WMF for global discussions. Thus, that is where the pre-consultation took place. It's results were overwhelmingly negative. If not there, where did people discuss it? Have you seen or heard of any instances of people being harassed over supporting a UCoC? Further, we can't address this as a societal problem. There is no invisible force called "harassment" walking around bothering people. It's individual editors acting in their individual capacity who are causing issues, and we have methods for managing those individuals when they are reported to the community members appointed to respond to such issues. Further, your answer implies that this focuses on the English Wikipedia, with the "our society" bit. Please take a look at the list of stewards. Please take a look at the list of meta admins, global sysops, and other users with advanced rights on meta and globally. We are an incredibly diverse group, with the exception of gender. If there are editors who fear harassment participating in this discussion and others, and they talked to you about it, they should know that harassment is taken seriously here. It is not, however, a valid argument to use the possibility of these people facing harassment as a reason to ignore everyone else. And I recognize your issue with the discussion medium; if they are not comfortable here, where I do not see any reason why they should not be, where would a consultation be better placed so that your argument to ignore everyone who participated cannot stand? [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

::::Hi [[user:Vermont|Vermont]], I can tell we are both on the same page about inclusive and healthy communities. You're right. Some communities are diverse and that's great, but at the same time, some aren't. Also, you're right. Harassment isn't the cause of harassment. People harass. And, you're right again, harassment isn't the only issue - I just mentioned it to simplify the discussion. If we listed every reason why there isn't already equal representation on Wikipedia, we'd be here a long, long time. The whole strategy process aimed to design recommendations to address these issues and that took years. Sorry if I wasn't clear with the "our society" piece. I am not only referring to English Wikipedia. Social norms and actions bleed into other communities and cultures. Unfortunately, one of the largest exports and influences is dominate culture. This is true for society globally, and also true on Wikipedia. I really hope these recommendations help us change some things so we really can be diverse and inclusive so everyone can feel the way you do about your community of admins. Best, [[User:Jackiekoerner|Jackiekoerner]] ([[User talk:Jackiekoerner|talk]]) 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::::A City Council that accurately represents the world? City Councils never represent "the world", let alone "accurately".[[User:Mautpreller|Mautpreller]] ([[User talk:Mautpreller|talk]]) 18:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::I know, right? I really hope these recommendations help us get closer to true representation. Best, [[User:Jackiekoerner|Jackiekoerner]] ([[User talk:Jackiekoerner|talk]]) 21:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::Well, the "city council" was just from the speeding analogy, and all analogies break down at some point. Really, meta ''isn't'' where I'm comfortable, and I only learned of all this stuff by accident. ''I'' had to go tell the communities about the last round of it; the WMF didn't do anything but send out a very anodyne mailing list post about it, without any indication that they were discussing such massive items. It rather looked like they were trying to actively discourage input, and then pull the Hitchhiker's Guide "But the plans were on display...". If we're going to make changes to the English Wikipedia, we discuss that in one place: On the English Wikipedia. Changes discussed elsewhere, ''especially'' via backchanneling, are not valid and will not be accepted. On these projects, changes are to be discussed publicly. We've rejected such things before, and if need be we'll do it again. But I hope that won't be necessary, as it's been disruptive and damaging to do so every time. But rest assured, it ''will'' happen. If the community does not wish a change, it will not be shoved down our throats. Any "Universal Code of Conduct" will just be ignored, and we'll carry on using our own standards, which work just fine. Any attempt at enforcement by WMF, well, [[en:WP:FRAM|that doesn't end well either]]. So far as the rest, well, I don't even ''know'' the race, gender, etc., of 99% of the editors I deal with. That also indicates that there is no "excluding", since no one is required to state their race, gender, or a single other thing about themselves. Even if I were the world's worst racist and sexist, I cannot act on that if I don't ''know'' your race or gender! (Of course in my case, even if I do know it, I don't care. But even if there were some kind of horrible ingrained racism or sexism, not that I agree to that mind you, one could sidestep that by just not disclosing it!) But really, no one's being excluded. Anyone can come along and edit. So, if someone feels they're being "excluded", well, what are they waiting for? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::Hi [[user:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]], Thank you for joining the discussion. I am sorry to hear meta is not where you feel comfortable contributing. Sorry to hear you didn't know about the strategy process at the different phases. There is always room to improve communication. I'm glad to hear you work in a way to not exclude people. Sometimes exclusion is not done by an individual but can be done by power structures or other barriers. These recommendations are aiming to encourage us to be better. We're already a great bunch of folks doing great work. Now we just need to make sure everyone else is on board with us wanting to do the best work we can for free knowledge. Best, [[User:Jackiekoerner|Jackiekoerner]] ([[User talk:Jackiekoerner|talk]]) 21:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::I think you're aiming at the wrong issues here. All actions, whether they be exclusion or inclusion, are done by individuals, for everything we do on-wiki is created and setup and maintained by individuals. If there is sexism, it is the result of individuals. If there is racism, it is the result of individuals. If there is inclusion, exclusion, harassment, or anything done on-wiki, it is the result of individuals making choices that they deemed to be most beneficial to them and/or provided them with the most utility. The collectivist approach to this is not going to work to actually fix anything; what will work is by permitting local projects to decide how they should manage issues on their project, within the current guidelines put out in the ToS. Seeking to eliminate local autonomy will do nothing but further normalize dissent against the WMF and, by connection, creating more conflict between the editors you refer to as being uncomfortable participating and those who opposed it's integration. It's a situation where some editors percieve that other editors, in this case people entirely unknown to them who refuse to engage in onwiki conversation, are attempting to remove their autonomy and self-governance. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 22:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly what Vermont said. They seem to be intent on yet again picking a fight. The rest of us are left to stare in amazement, wondering how many times that must happen. The autonomy of the communities is ''not negotiable''. Period. Now, we'd be happy to hear suggestions, but try it as a mandate, and it will be rejected, just like every time prior. I don't want that. The communities should see the WMF as a partner, not an adversary. But WMF once again seems hell bent on ensuring that will not happen. What must be done to get them to stop? [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 00:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
*The above issues with both the UCOC and the idea that the sole and only platform specifically designated for that purpose is not the one that should make the decision. If you want to add an additional format (say, meetings at a conference), then per your own accessibility rules and recommendations, it should be made aware to the full Community, and it should be equally possible for any editor to attend an equivalent venue. Meta is the only channel I have been made aware of, and I put a major amount of effort into not missing WMF policy changes. {{ping|Jackiekoerner}}, exactly how many people have supported, and how many opposed, the creation of a UCOC in every non-meta forum? Please can you, or a WMF staff account, '''provide evidence of that'' - '''transparency''' was specifically stated as a key part of several recommendations and the WMF's general statements. That will let us know how the majority viewpoint stands. It's worth noting that as the UCOC recommendation hasn't changed substantially, the two prior consultations on meta should be included in the figures, except where that would cause a duplicate "!vote". [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 12:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]], thanks for discussing the Universal CoC. I don’t have any number of votes because the process didn’t run that way. The number of ways in which people could share their thoughts was diverse and did not involved yes or no votes. You can certainly view the working group documents and other strategy resources on the meta page. There you will find links to full documents of outcomes from Working Group efforts, emerging recommendations throughout the process, and suggestions from community conversations, consultations, interviews, and fact finding. Best, [[User:Jackiekoerner|Jackiekoerner]] ([[User talk:Jackiekoerner|talk]]) 15:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Jackiekoerner}} - that's a fairly substantive limitation - all it would tell us is a number of sessions, which is fine for user recommendations, but doesn't help at all for actually working out consensus on the Recommendations, so it would have to be entirely discounted - no reliable level of "weight" could be given, both through numbers and through discounting duplicate participation, since I imagine a reasonable number would not unreasonably attend more than 1 platform/sessions/event. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

== “Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure” ==

Quote: “By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge”. It is remarkable that this strategic direction is about '''the''' “essential infrastructure” and not just '''an''' “essential infrastructure”. We know that Wikipedia is popular and one of the top sites on the Internet. But as you state “Wikimedia will become [..]” you obviously expect more. Hence, this sounds like a missionary zeal where we have to cover anything in regard to free knowledge or a competition which we have to win. How important is it to be more essential than others? This gives the impression that growth and quantity are more important than quality. Shouldn't we focus on free knowledge projects which benefit from collaborative wiki processes and work on improving these processes and supporting those contributing to it? --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|talk]]) 19:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

*It's particularly concerning, as it suggests that should Wikimedia ever fall, there will be '''no''' free knowledge, at all. After all, if we're essential, no-one else could go-on without us. The arrogance. [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

:: It's also very unclear what the goal actually means, i.e. what are the essential parts of the infrastrucure that are not Wikimedia today, but should be in the future? With a narrow definition of "free knowledge", Wikimedia' projects have been the essential infrastructure for many years, so the goal would seem extremely unambitious. With broader definitions of "free knowledge" there are other projects (I use Stack Overflow, Quora, SciHub) that are important to today's infrastructure. I would hate it if they would vanish or be swallowed by Wikimedia in the next 10 years. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

== Strategy 2030 in One Page ==

[[File:In_Brief_-_Wikimedia_Strategy_2030_-_One_Pager_-_January_2020.pdf|thumb|300px|PDF uploaded to Commons in one A4 sheet]]

The Wikimedia Strategy 2030 recommendations were published on January 20, 2020, but the language, size, and complexity can be a intimidating, even for native English speakers.

I've attempted to summarize the recommendations into ONE PAGE, highlighting key concepts, structures and processes mentioned in the 68 page document.

It's a work in progress, but I hope it helps to provide easier entry into the full document.

Feel free to provide suggestions, feedback and reflections. -- [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] ([[User talk:Fuzheado|talk]]) 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
{{clear}}

Talk:Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/09 2019

2019-09-30T22:54:05Z

Tinz: /* How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset? */ opinion

== How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset? ==
* Wikimedia projects are unique in their community driven approaches. WMF is ill equipped to interfere with the communities. As long as there are established methods of dealing with community issues, WMF should abstain from interfering. If WMF is concerned, that the community methods are insufficient to deal with serious issues, WMF may discuss their concerns with the community at large and/or community based teams such as an arbcom. Only if WMF is convinced that the community in question is fundamentally unable to resolve continuing problems on its own, WMF may act directly. This statement does not cover legal obligations of WMF as site owner under DMCA and other law. --[[User:H-stt|h-stt]] [[User_talk:H-stt|!?]] 13:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

*T&S exists to supplement, not replace, local processes. The original intention was to deal with the cases that local processes cannot handle, not to usurp the authority of those processes. Partial and temporary bans should be made when requested by and done for the benefit of local functionaries, should follow a transparent process for the banee and community at large, and should be based on a more specific set of behavioural expectation (defined by the community, not unilaterally by the Foundation) than the incredibly vague ToU. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 13:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* WMF has plenary authority to ban any user, at any time, for any cause or none. However, this should happen only when action cannot appropriately be delegated to local communities. If a project has a functional process for handling serious complaints which may include nonpublic data (such as the English Wikipedia's ArbCom) then that process must be used for any issues localised to that project. Foundation bans should be used for (a) cross-project abuse; (b) verified violations of the terms of use (e.g. paid editing); (c) complaints involving nonpublic data on smaller projects where local processes cannot handle nonpublic data; (d) complaints about projects too small to have any substantive process; (e) actions requested or advised by legal counsel. The Office ban was originally introduced, if I recall correctly, for egregious BLP violations. What would we do if a biography subject sent a legal complaint to the Foundation and they saw someone editing the biography with plainly malicious intent? I don't think we'd jump through hoops to allow a ban, even if it was Lord Gom himself. There's an element of writing a policy to prevent the stupid thing Bob did once, but there's also a good case for a clear set of rules that people can get behind. [[User:JzG|JzG]] ([[User talk:JzG|talk]]) 15:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* I think T&S has already gotten a fairly clear answer to this question from the largest project in the WMF: don't. I know, having been on the En.WP ArbCom in 2014, tha we practically ''begged'' the office to start handling some cases for us. What we wanted, then and now, was for the office to take on the worst of the worst types of cases. The kind of people who make death threats, who groom children for abuse, who make viscous off-wiki attacks and try to dox users, that sort of truly awful thing can be handled by the paid staff and they can assume the legal and other risks associated with it. That is entirely appropriate as the foundation should be supporting the projects, but it becomes a problem when they start ''supplanting them'' instead. So, what would have been strongly preferable in a case like the recent one, where there was nothing in evidence that wasn't viewable on-wiki and nothing that the local ArbCom couldn't deal with themselves, simply refer the complainant back down the the robust volunteer-driven dispute resolution systems we already have in place. I think we can understand that there are smaller wikis where they don't have such processes and the office may feel the need to intervene more often, but if and when they do, if it isn't a "worst of the worst" case as described above it should be a more transparent process. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]])
*On one hand, we have [[:w:en:WP:FRAM]], which was a gross overreach and ultimately something the enwiki community and ArbCom should have been able to handle. On the other, we have broken wikis like [[Requests for comment/Administrator abuse on the Croatian Wikipedia]], [[Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki]], [[Requests for comment/Vote of confidence on sysops and unblock for user Deu on kawiki]], [[Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews]], and a lot of other situations that both smaller communities and the Meta community struggles to handle. WMF should focus their efforts (read: donation dollars) on what the community actually cannot handle, rather than on what the community can. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*The correct answer to this can be summed up in a question: ''Does the community have adequate processes and a functional Arbitration Committee/arbitration policy in place?'' If the answer is yes, then WMF has no business interfering in their business outside of the usual necessary "these people need to go away now and forever" bans for child protection and other serious misuse. ''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|Couriano]]'' ([[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]) 18:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Wenn es rechtlich zwingend ist; ja. Ansonsten ist die Frage was die WMF superior zu der Community macht? Ihr Wissen rund um die Wikipedia (& Co ) ist es Sicherlich nicht. ...[[User:Sicherlich|Sicherlich]] [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* Before anything else: It's ''not'' the appropriate process, to discuss this topic on a central meta-site, so that people from some projects give opinions, what you should do on others (e.g.: I'm fine, if you ban everyone in en-wp, not my problem, because I work on de-wp). If you want to support the local communities, you have to go to every one of them and discuss the topic on their local platforms. Only this will give you an impression, if the project and its community appreciate your help or if your actions seen as an unwelcome interference in the local processes. When you only talk on meta with meta-people, you are not talking to the communities. --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 19:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
**+1 ...[[User:Sicherlich|Sicherlich]] [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
** -1, this is one of the core purposes for Meta. People from local communities are able to go to a different subdomain within the same network to comment on something. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:::and speak in your native language of course. --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 20:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
** -1. Meta is the right place to discuss this as the central community coordination wiki. Fragmenting discussions do not help. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 20:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

*I can see a case for bans based on conduct on a single project, but not single project bans. A community should be able to refer an already community banned user to the WMF for banning if they continue to engage in harassment, paid advocacy or any other contravention of the Terms of Use. The WMF should then take all means available (including abuse reports to ISPs, legal action, etc.) to remove that user from the community. If they engage in this conduct on one project, they are unfit for all projects. I also agree with the above commentators that Arbcom exists and has the confidence of the local community => no WMF involvement. To T&S: there are plenty of long term abusers, spammers and broken communities for you to deal with. Fix those problems, then we can talk. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 19:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

* ''{{w|If and only if|Iff}}'' partial/temporary bans are to be used at all (and the Foundation has discretionary authority to ban with or without cause as per the current Terms of Use fwiw) I see no point on allowing them on a set of projects and exclude some others. That being said, yes, I think partial and/or temporary Foundation bans should exist and apply only to cases where blatant violation of policies exists and where the local community is not able to address the issue or is unwilling to do so and knowingly allows such behaviour against policies or terms of use. That should narrow the scope pretty well to avoid dramatic outcomes such as the recent one. Given that stewards are not a global disciplinary or arbitration committee, and [[RfC]] is broken and useless for most cases, something should exist. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|MarcoAurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|talk]]) 20:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*Concurring with {{U|H-stt}} and {{U|Ajraddatz}}, while {{U|Beeblebrox}} puts it best above so there is no need for me to repeat it. It's up to the individual projects to decide on the extent and level of intervention by the WMF. For the large and mature projects, the WMF should strictly confine itself to core function such as corporate, legal, and financial matters, and software development and server maintenance. Other policies should be the prerogative and mandate of the individual projects through whatever mechanisms they have in place such as community discussion (RfC) and Arbitration Committee (or similar). Under [[:en:SUL]], users blocked and/or banned or desysoped on one project have demonstrated their unsuitability for collaboration on all projects ({{U|MER-C}}) and should therefore be globally blocked and/or banned on all projects. This includes for WMF staff and contractors and all of their accounts (volunteer and WMF). [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 21:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

*I think that is not really a question of big, middle or small but rather a question how the wiki is dealing with such issues. I don't have an overview which wikis do have ArbComs or equivalent solutions but believe that alos small wikis can react
# in appropriate time
# appropriately using a hoc procedures
so I rather would ask wether those communities are willing and capable to react and solve complaints. Which wikis with an ArbCom equivalent certainly do. I also thoroughly believe that the WMF proposal indeed contains a risk. I ANAL, so can't elaborate further, but there's an EU regulation and some court findings saying basically, that Internet providers cannot be held responsible for what their users write and do as long as the provider does not fulfill the function of an editor-in-chief. I believe that with the new policy under circumstances the WMF could be seen as such an editor-in-chief. The WMF should doublecheck with some EU internet right experts and possibly resonsider to not doing harm on itself. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] ([[User talk:Matthiasb|talk]]) 21:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* Agree with H-stt. Temporary bans or project-specific bans should have no place at all because if an issue is not serious enough to justify a permanent site-wide ban, the WMF shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. Most communities have been essentially self-governing for >15 years, and as a result of that they consist mostly of the type of people who will never accept a community engagement team of WMF employees such as T&S as an authority. This is a fundamental difference to managed communities as they exist, for example, in online gaming. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 22:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

== Can the Office Actions policy on partial and temporary bans, as written (circa June 2019), be used? If not, what changes need to be made to its text? ==
* The title "purpose and scope" claims that it applies only "where actions on local community governance level are either insufficient or not possible". The following terms are in contradiction to that, as particularly the "Secondary office actions" do not mention the restriction cited above. As long as there are community remedies, WMF should abstain from interfering. The terms are to reflect that in the directly relevant clauses, not just in the preamble. --[[User:H-stt|h-stt]] [[User_talk:H-stt|!?]] 13:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

*No. There needs to be a clear link-in with existing community governance structures. Partial and temporary office actions are fine, but only if they are done with/on behalf of local functionaries and existing processes. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*No, and I'm fairly certain the whole Fram situation was exacerbated by it, because the prevalence towards privacy of the complainint combined with conspiracy-mongering from external sites to create a ''massive'' [[en:w:Streisand effect|Streisanding]] that anyone with half-a-brain would have seen coming from 20 kilometres away. At the very least, there needs to be an explanation to the target as to what exactly was wrong with their edits. If that is kept vague or secret (as it was with Fram) then how the hell do you expect them to challenge the ban or improve as an editor should the ban expire? ''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|Couriano]]'' ([[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]) 18:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* No, the policy was not discussed with the communities and communicated to the communities. So it became a surprise for everyone, when you first used it (and your first use was not in the en.wp on the Fram-case, it was in de.wp only days after you invented the local bans). Besides that use, the policy is still ''not'' communicated to the community in de.wp. --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 19:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* No, per Jeske and Magiers. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* No. There must be regulations that the policy does apply only when the local wiki is not willing and/or capable to solve an issue. In Wikis with ArbCom equivalents T+S and/or Meta has nothing to do because the local communities can solve their problems without involvement of T+S and/or Meta. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] ([[User talk:Matthiasb|talk]]) 21:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* No. See my comment above in [[#How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset?]]. Deprecate the policy entirely and devolve to the individual projects. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 21:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

== How should partial and temporary Foundation bans ideally be implemented, if they should be? ==
* ideally? Not at all. But as the world is a messy one, there may be issues, with no one else able to react to serious conflicts. WMF should not interfere with operational communities. WMF's action must always be secondary. The terms must be explicit in this. --[[User:H-stt|h-stt]] [[User_talk:H-stt|!?]] 13:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* If at all, the following conditions should be met in every case:
:# The editor under the ban must be given a clear and actionable description of the issues that led to the ban. Absent this, partial / temporary bans are useless, as the editor in question will not know what behaviour they should address, and further perpetuate the issues on projects they are not banned from
:#Contrary to perma-bans for cause, these bans should be appeal-able to local community processes even if these are set up after a such a ban was first enacted. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ([[User talk:MLauba|talk]]) 13:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

* Sounding like a broken record at this point, but they should be implemented to help community governance structures and functionaries. Not "help" in the European imperial sense (the world can't govern itself, so we're gonna help!), but help as in being called in by local functionaries/governance structures to help them address explicitly-defined problems. This can involve letting local groups know about issues they might not be aware of, and can even include conducting investigations in cases of harassment/other situations that demand privacy. But the decision should rest with the community or elected functionaries. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 13:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* Consider [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Office_actions&oldid=38516715 the original rationale for WP:OFFICE]. That is still valid. [[User:JzG|JzG]] ([[User talk:JzG|talk]]) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*It is unclear to me why the Foundation thought this was needed. The advent of global back-office ban was for sure a good thing and has helped remove some truly awful people from WMF websites. But banning a user from one specific project for a set amount of time has traditionally been handled by the local volunteers, through transparent (or at least significantly ''more'' transparent) on-wiki processes such admin noticeboards or ArbCom. I'm just not sure I see the need for this, but if there is a need, it should not continue to be a "black box" where neither the accused nor the community they are involved in is allowed to even know what the problem is or who the accuser is, and where there is no avenue of appeal. I get that this is a website and not a court of law but there should be some kind of due process for anything not meriting a global office ban. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*As transparently as possible. I see no need for the secrecy that goes with a global ban. Plus, this will help other editors understand what conduct was inappropriate and avoid such behavior in the future. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 18:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
*I see a minimum of three requirements to justify a temp/partial ban: (1) The community's dispute resolution processes are moribund or toothless; (2) the editor in question is so badly in breach of his community's policies that he should have already been blocked, if not banned, under them; (3) no active admin on the wiki in question is willing or able to take action to sanction them. It goes without saying that if all three criterion are met, there's likely already some serious governance issues with the project in question, and issuing a partial ban may open up a rabbit hole that the WMF might wish it left alone. ''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|Couriano]]'' ([[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]) 19:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

* Wenn es einen rechtlich zwingenden Grund gibt. Alles andere kann die Gemeinschaft IMO besser lösen. Nichtzuletzt, da das Vertrauen in WMF m.E. nach super schwach ist. Man erinnere sich an ein völlig überzogenes superprotect welches defacto bis heute schwebt, aber auch Doc James war wohl eher eine merkwürdige begebenheit. Auch habe ich nicht den Eindruck, dass WMF bzw. ihre Mitarbeiter wirklich noch wissen was "an der Basis" passiert. Ohne Vertrauen und ohne Ahnung aber irgendwelche Bans zu verteilen; ehm ja klar ...[[User:Sicherlich|Sicherlich]] [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] 18:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
* There are minimun requirements in every penal procedure in civilized countries: 1. the defendant has to be informed about the accusations. 2. the defendant has the right to defend himself or have a defender. 3. the judges are identifiable individuals and not a collective pseudonym. 4. they have to meet standards and can be refused (e.g. in case of conflict of interests) 5. the process is as open to the public as possible (of course, there can be matters of privacy and victim protection, but they are the exception, not the standard case). 6. the verdict has to have a reasoning. 7. there has to be a process of appeal. By the way, none of this was the case in the local ban 2/2019 in de.wp. So I expect this ban would also have to be revised. --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

*If the WMF banned the long term abusers and spammers the community is sick of seeing and kept on top of their subsequent block evasion, T&S wouldn't have time to contemplate this question or impose partial/temporary bans. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 19:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

*They should not be. Per {{U|H-stt}}: {{tq|ideally? Not at all. But as the world is a messy one, there may be issues, with no one else able to react to serious conflicts. WMF should not interfere with operational communities. WMF's action must always be secondary. The terms must be explicit in this.}} [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 21:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

== General questions and comments ==

=== Conflicts of Interest and Recusals ===

One of the most concerning aspects of the Fram case was the fact that the spouse of the WMF Board Chair filed the initial complaint. When a WMF Board member or a another member of his/her immediate family becomes involved in a T&S complaint, the Executive Director and the WMF Staff are placed in an impossible position. (The Executive Director reports to the Board through the Chair, and all Office Actions must ultimately be approved by the Executive Director.)

The response to this concern has been that the Chair notified the Board and Legal of her recusal. The problem is that both the name of the complainant and the scope and date of the recusal were kept confidential. (But for the complainant posting a highly visible public notice on her talk page, the community may have never known of this conflict.) Staff were put in the difficult position of having the complainant '''publicly naming the involved T&S staff members''' without a corresponding public recusal by the spouse. Even if there was an early and publicly disclosed recusal of a proper scope, how could a staff member be confident that the WMF Board member would not extract a future price on the staff member's career? It seems to me that possible solutions would be to exclude WMF Board members and their immediate families from filing T&S complaints or to have a more comprehensive and public recusal process for cases where a family member files a T&S complaint. Thank you for your careful consideration of this problem. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 14:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

:None of the board members are involved in the day-to-day operations of the Foundation. They meet three-four times per year and set strategic direction. It is not clear to me that one trustee would have any sort of influence over what T&S does, and really this seems like the smallest issue here. But a statement from T&S or the board to that effect would be nice if it is a common concern. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 14:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
::I agree broadly that the board is unlikely to be directly involved in day-to-day decisions, but there is the idea that the best way to avoid scandal is to avoid even the ''appearance'' of impropriety. (If New York Brad pops in I'm sure he could elaborate and provide some Latin name for it) I think what we do know strongly suggests that, unfortunately for T&S, they got played on their first-ever deployment of this new tool by a complainant who knew they could not make their case on wiki and decided to use backchannels to get what they wanted. There is also the matter of T&S doing something that would normally be handled by ArbCom when a member of T&S paid staff has a real-world relationship with a member of En.Wp ArbCom. I'm not saying or even suggesting that anything untoward actually happened, but I feel like the office shoud've been in front of this, not scrambling to keep up with it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:I would like to see the evidence you have that the complaint was filed by her, as opposed to just regurgitating Wikipediocracy theories. (I hesitate to call them "conspiracy theories" because in this case it may very well be possible, but right now it assumes facts not in evidence; Raystorm's responce to the entire situation was ''after'' Hale had already been more-or-less harassed by more zealous Fram defenders for a week or two.) ''[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|Couriano]]'' ([[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]) 19:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Please read this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vanished_user_adhmfdfmykrdyrv&oldid=824761727 diff from Feb. 9, 2018] carefully. It refers to specific T&S staff members. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 19:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:::: ...and? Nobody denies that the user in question knew what T&S does, and contacted them prior to the advent of partial bans. This is not evidence of a conspiracy. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::And there is nothing in the public record as of the date of that "notice" or better yet, as of the date of the first complaint, that the Chair of the WMF Board publicly recused herself from any discussion of that matter. If the only people receiving notice of the recusal are Legal and the other Board members, how would T&S know that she had recused herself? Further, assuming that the T&S investigation dates back to 2017, how could someone run for election to the WMF Board without disclosing that a member of her immediate family was involved in a T&S investigation? There is a problem if we craft rules to protect the confidentiality of all the parties and then one party makes aggressive public statements about the matter. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
::I was being careful not to name names myself, and you are right that we don't know and most likely never will know for a certainty who exactly did what, but I am reasonably convinced it is what it looked like. (who complained, or at least who one of them was, not necessarily that "the fix was in") [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 19:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

=== Policy for a tool that does not work? ===

This will be a policy for use of a specific tool against rogue users, but the tool itself will only work if the users in question play nice. Rogue users does not play nice, that is why the tool are used against them. The tool itself can be easily circumvented, especially for clever rogue users that don't play nice.

I don't believe we need a policy for use of the tool, we need a proof that the tool actually work for rogue users. I'm not sure it is possible to make such a proof, because we don't have any means to track users without using the same features (aka “tools”) used for the temporary and partial bans. If we use the same features, then we will find that the tools are 100% effective, while in reality they are far less effective.

To rephrase: We end up defining a policy that will be failing due to inadequate tools, and due to the inadequate tools it will seemingly work flawlessly.

It is a waste of time to write a policy without a better tool. — ''[[User:Jeblad|Jeblad]]'' 18:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
:There has been much discussion of "unblockable users" and "harassment." Allegedly this policy is designed to address both problems, but in fact, it can be (and many people would argue has already been) misused by an "unblockable user" to harass her political opponents. As designed, there is nothing to prevent a rogue user from targeting good rule-abiding users or administrators. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 20:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

=== Hay algunas cosas que querría decir sobre esto ===

1ª Tened en cuenta que no todos los proyectos son la Wikipedia en inglés.

2ª Tened en cuenta que hay proyectos en los que la comunidad de editores y la comunidad de hablantes es muy reducida y que la capacidad de gestionar una queja o incluso una amenaza dentro de la propia comunidad es muy compleja. Hay comunidades que se desarrollan en una lengua que se habla en un único país o en una zona y que hay veces que cuando dicen que “sé donde vives” quieren decir que lo saben y que en veinte minutos están en la puerta de tu casa. Y a lo mejor si llamas a la policía, en jefe de la policía es el hermano o la prima del que te ha amenazado.

3ª Hay grupos grandes con problemas similares para quejarse. En general cualquier lengua que se hable sólo en un país puede –potencialmente- tener ese problema. El problema del que hablo es tener la comunidad controlada directamente o por coacción por un grupo. Por ejemplo, en el caso de la Alemania de 1938, ¿qué probabilidades habría tenido una queja por el borrado de una cita contra el NSDAP dirigida a través de la comunidad? Cualquier editor en alemán (bueno, sólo el 95%) sabría que era mejor no tocar el tema o no oír la queja. Sin ser tan sangrante, ya alguien ha mencionado las “wikis rotas”.

4ª No veo mucho sentido a las expulsiones globales temporales. Si algo es lo bastante grave para requerir una acción administrativa de ese nivel –veo que se ha usado la expresión “lo peor de lo peor”- será porque es muy serio. No se envía a los Cascos Azules a cobrar multas de aparcamiento.

5ª La debida transparencia ha de ser usada en estos procedimientos, incluyendo una cierta capacidad de defensa del acusado. También ha de estar claro qué instancia interviene y por qué. No se trata de sustituir organismos operativos, como el Comité de Arbitraje, sino de suplementar los que no existen o sustituir los que no pueden operar.

[[User:B25es|B25es]] ([[User talk:B25es|talk]]) 19:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Roles & Responsibilities/1-7

2019-08-14T11:07:24Z

Tinz: /* A new charter? */ re

Hi, the format of the recommendations of the Roles & Responsibilities working group differs from the recommendations of the other working groups. What is the rationale for this difference? What assumptions are you making about the future context that led you to make these recommendations? What will change because of your recommendations? Who specifically will be influenced by these recommendations? Could these recommendations have a negative impact/change? What could be done to mitigate these risks? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 08:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:It's pretty simple, we just didn't fill in the recommendations document provided by the core team at this point, because we've not published anything that doesn't have almost-complete consensus within the group. There is plenty of work continuing within the group about further developing and iterating these recommendations, and all of it will end up being complete before the 'harmonisation' of recommendations across groups in September. [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 19:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
::Obviously, after the public feedback closes ~September 15. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 19:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Are there any Roles and Responsibilities recommendations you actually disagree with, or are concerned about? if so please do say which and why, we would be interested to hear from you :) (Hopefully, there is enough rationale in these recommendations for people to understand them - looking at other groups' recommendations and the responses to them, I am unsure that a much longer document would necessarily help...) [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 19:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
::::I will leave a note, soon. FWIW, I heavily appreciate {{U|The Land|you}} making a genuine attempt to engage with the feedback, in a constructive manner. For reasons unknown to me, folks from other groups are yet to appear and explain/clarify any stuff; despite receiving a barrage of criticism/queries and getting pinged. So, Thank you :-) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 09:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Dealing with opposing interests ==

Decentralizing decision making also has a downside. You don't appear to address that different distributed decision makers can have opposite interests, and how that is dealt with in Power and responsibilities. Or am I misreading/barking up the wrong tree? I could see it related to recommendation #3, but not that explicitly. [[User:Siebrand|Siebrand]] ([[User talk:Siebrand|talk]]) 20:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Also from a more meta-level view, many/most of the recommendations made by other working groups conflict with the core premise of decision-making at the lowest level and empowering individual communities to govern themselves. Most models discussed, particularly relating to community health, have been done from a top-down perspective. – [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 22:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== The starfish or the spider ==

Title of a book about the internet. Positive about Wikipedia for being a model for radical decentralization. Once upon a time everybody knew Wikimedia was about empowering individuals. Somehow the offline side has gotten too centralized, and that can be remedied. However there remains a rift between autonomous online communities and offline organizations. How will this movement strategy process ever gonna ompact online communities? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 19:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Welcome... caution... concern ==

Here are my responses as I read through the "recommendations":
*I broadly welcomed 1&2, as they acknowledge part of the problem with the WMF and indicate a move away from the centralisation of power and decision-making.
*Welcoming became caution at 3, which introduces the notion of a "charter", without addressing the key question: what would the status of this charter be? Would it be binding, like the terms of use? Would it be advisory? Something else?
*Caution had turned to concern by 6, which states: "expectations with respect to diversity will be one of the principles that will be included in the charter". This sounds a lot like the '40% female, 40% male, 20% various' proposal at Diversity/Recommendations/4, which is both a bad idea and unenforceable.
*After reading the whole thing, and having read most of the other working groups' "recommendations", my overall feeling about the Roles & Responsibilities "recommendations" is confusion. The other working groups largely advocate greater centralisation of power, less subsidiarity, more top-down enforcement. This working group starts by seeming to oppose that (1&2), then, as a little more detail is revealed, it appears to support greater centralisation (not explicitly, but the proposals would require it). Overall, these "recommendations" are the most level-headed of the ones that I've read, as they appear to be based on the 2030 strategy without having been hijacked by special interest groups pushing an agenda... but their contradictions and lack of clarity make me at least cautious, and leaning towards concerned. Expanding on the ''nature'', not just the ''scope'', of the proposed charter is necessary. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 11:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
*Broadly, I agree with EddieHugh. I'm really not sure what even ''is'' being proposed here, or what things would look like afterwards if this proposal were to be implemented. It could do with a great deal more detail. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 12:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::Hi @EddieHugh! Thank you for the comments. Broadly, our recommendations are shaped by the observations that organisations which have a high level of trust and independence for individual actors also have a common shared understanding of values, principles and expected behaviours, and that everyone in this kinds of organisations holds everyone else accountable for how well they comply with those values, principles and behaviours. At present there is not really a shared statement of those values and principles, let alone a shared understanding or an active commitment to them, within the movement - which underpins many of the tensions within the movement at the moment. Hence the need for the charter.
::Re point 6: There is some overlap here - what we are saying is that we as a movement should expect that any movement organisation should take steps to ensure that its governing body (or equivalent) is diverse and representative of the communities it seeks to serve. We haven't gone as far as the Diversity recommendation you refer to, because there will be many different entities with a range of size and maturity, and operating in very different contexts where diversity means different things. Speaking personally, I think something like a guideline that mature movement organisations (the size of the WMF or larger chapters) should aim to have at least 40% women on their boards would be helpful, as part of an overall set of expectations - but the recommendation as drafted is simply that these kinds of expectations should be created and mutually agreed on. And our recommendation is more limited in scope as it does not apply to online communities, only movement organisations. [I mean, I'd also encourage people to think about how to encourage more diverse groups of administrators and functionaries, but that isn't among the R&R draft recommendations]
::And @Seraphimblade - yes, our current work is developing this in more detail. [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 12:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::The Land: thank you for responding. I noticed that you didn't mention the nature of the charter, so assume that there is no agreement on that within the working group. A question: you say that "our recommendation ... does not apply to online communities, only movement organisations"... does that apply to the whole set of "recommendations" here? If so, I suggest making that clear and spelling out what "movement organisations" covers. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 20:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::When you say "nature", can you expand on what you mean? I'm not quite clear. And Recommendation 6 is the only one we have explicitly limited in scope to movement organisations, though I think it's fair to say our thinking is that many of the other recommendations have different meanings (or at least different influence on) project communities as compared to organisations. [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 21:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::"Nature"... as I wrote above: "what would the status of this charter be? Would it be binding, like the terms of use? Would it be advisory? Something else?" In other words, would everyone be obliged to follow it, with repercussions for not doing so? This looks like the crux that will show whether you're really going down the subsidiarity/local autonomy path, or the centralisation of power path. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 22:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Ah, thanks. In short, it would be a deeply embedded, guiding document - think the equivalent of a constitution, or the Pillars of Wikipedia. What we have in mind is something with sufficiently broad acceptance that anyone taking part in the movement can hold anyone else to account if they aren't reflecting it. It would then provide the framework to enable the level of trust that decentralising decision-making requires. Some corollaries of this are that - firstly the document will be written at a very high level, secondly, that the process of creating it might well need to be another step broader and more collaborative than the whole strategy process already is. [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 07:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

== A new charter? ==

I was under the impression that the Wikipedia projects have already fundamental principles which can be considered as a charter: [[:en:Wikipedia:Five pillars|five pillars]] (en:wp, goes back to 2005 when they were announced as {{tq|five unchangeable pillars}} – which in turn were based on the [[:en:User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles|statement of principles]] which was first published on 27 October 2001), [[:de:Wikipedia:Grundprinzipien|Grundprinzipien]] (de:wp, goes back to [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Grundprinzipien&oldid=142385 27 May 2003] as translation from en:wp), [[:fr:Wikipédia:Principes fondateurs|principes fondateurs]] (fr:wp, goes back to 16 April 2004), and [[:d:Q4656249|many more]]. These foundations are universally accepted among all Wikipedia projects, they are easy to read, to understand, and to communicate. They are the foundations which not only made the tremendous success of the Wikipedia projects possible but where also the volunteers trust that they remain indeed ''unchangeable''. Please do not attempt to replace this. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|talk]]) 15:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:Personally I see the movement charter as probably supplementing, rather than replacing, those statements of principles. For example, the Pillars of Wikipedia don't provide much guidance about how to handle a discussion between the WMF and the English Wikipedia, or between the English Wikipedia and Wikidata, or between the Foundation and the affiliates. IT's no accident that these are the conversations that are often difficult and sometimes verging on catastrophic. So the need for something at a broader and deeper level. (Also, I find it very hard to think that Civility is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, or that Wikipedia has no fixed rules.... really? I had not really seen Jimbo's original 8 principles, thank you for sharing them - also I don't believe the English Wikipedia currently follows his principles 1,2,3, 7 or 8 at the moment and 4 has scarcely been widely observed either...) [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::It is quite natural that the fundamental principles or a charter do not address everything. They provide something like a constitution where changes are hard or impossible. The {{w|Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany}}, for example, includes an {{w|eternity clause}} (article 79 (3)) according to which articles 1 to 20 must never be touched in any way. I think that we should treat the five pillars in a similar fashion and we must make sure that any recommendation which is possibly to be introduced as policy will not be in conflict to these pillars. Statements like {{tq|[t]he classic notion of an encyclopaedia and ‘universal knowledge’ needs to be discarded}} ([[Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/2|recommendation # 2 of the diversity WG]]) let many volunteers wonder in which direction we are heading here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&oldid=910650971#%22The_classic_notion_of_an_encyclopaedia_and_'universal_knowledge'_needs_to_be_discarded%22.], [https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier&oldid=191308960#Strategy_2018-20:_Ein_WMF-Komitee_empfiehlt,_die_Enzyklop%C3%A4die_abzuschaffen]). It is surely helpful to consider how to handle the relationship between WMF and the individual projects. A [[Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9#Terms of Use for the WMF|proposal]] was made by [[User:Tinz|Tinz]] beginning with {{tq|[t]he WMF must respect the fundamental principles of the projects}} which found a lot of support so far. The civility pillar titled {{tq|Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility}} should provide the foundation for strategy discussions in regard to [[Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Community Health|community health]] and [[Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity|diversity]]. I really wonder why the role of these pillars appears nowhere to be recognized in these recommendations (beside the infamous recommendation to discard the ''classic notion of an encyclopaedia''). The pillar {{tq|Wikipedia has no firm rules}} – or more traditionally {{w|WP:IAR|''ignore all rules''}} makes sure that we stay pragmatic (we are not wiki lawyers) and have no problem with beginner's mistakes. This is an important part of the welcoming culture where we help but do not bite newcomers. I still think that from Jimbo's old list 3 should still apply even if this has been restricted in the past (IPs and beginners can no longer create articles at en:wp, reviewing of pending changes at de:wp, protected pages) but [[Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/1|this recommendation]] would effectively kill this principle if every edit by an IP has to begin with the formal acceptence of a lengthy code of conduct. This would put the principles of our pillars upside down. Until now, we raise as few barriers as possible for newcomers and provide an explanation or warning if a policy is violated with a reference to it. This practice follows IAR and Jimbo's principles #3 and #4. The recommendation would raise the barrier (by having to read, to understand, and to accept the whole CoC) and provides a different background in case of violations: “You did this despite having formally accepted the CoC before.” I do not think that this helps in the regard of a more welcoming environment and I do not think that we should transfer ''safe space'' rules which are important for real-life meetings to our virtual collaboration. I agree that Jimbo's principles 7 and 8 should indeed find more consideration than lately. --[[User:AFBorchert|AFBorchert]] ([[User talk:AFBorchert|talk]]) 16:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I think this risks straying off the topic a little. I did see the proposal that there ought to be "terms of use" for the WMF or whatever, and am sort of scratching my head about it. I (speaking personally and not at all for the working group) would certainly agree that the Foundation has often not been great at working with the community. But also I do not see a future where different Wikimedia projects continue to work in this kind of splendid isolation where they never talk to each other or to the WMF or whatever replaces it. I think what everyone should be aiming to work for is a kind of active, mutually respectful partnership.
:::Also I have to say I really do not recognise anything in the English Wikipedia at the moment that is welcoming to newcomers, and I do not see very much of anyone being treated with respect or civility, and only the faintest hints of Ignore All Rules in amongst tonnes of bureaucracy and wikilawyering. I would treat the argument that we should use the five pillars of Wikipedia as a starting point much more compelling if the English Wikipedia collectively seemed to be paying much attention to them. But, as someone who's edited the English Wikipedia for over 15 years, one after the other seems just to have been forgotten. [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 19:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::: Sorry for straying further off, but not talking to each other is not at all what I meant. Interwiki communication is hard, not everyone can and wants to discuss in english. Reading something like [https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen/Arkiv_2019-03#Dutch_Wikipedians_think_sv.wikipedia_has_a_friendly_climate this] is really interesting, but in svwiki and nlwiki most people speak english very well.
::::: I would love it if the WMF would invest some resources (especially translators) into some kind of major community survey where regular editors (not so much the people active in the chapters) of say the largest 30 Wikipedias are asked to describe their communities, what they think is special about them, what do they perceive as their largest problems, what were important moments in their history, how do they rate the level of civility in their Wikipedia, maybe also some fun stuff like the weirdest editwar in their history. If the results would be consolidated on meta that would be extremely interesting for many people to read, maybe even for the community teams at WMF. And this could trigger change, which I do think has to come from within the communities, not in the form of rules imposed by the WMF. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 11:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/1

2019-08-13T19:56:36Z

Tinz: /* Irony */

== Comment ==

Thanks for the idea of a CoC aka paper tiger as recommendation 1. The emptiness of the recommendation is amplified by the lack of a draft or outline CoC. Could you give us an outline of what you envision to be part of the CoC? How will you secure that everybody will live up to your CoC? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

== zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior ==

Hi. Your working groups wants the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior. They imposed a one year ban on someone who showed unacceptable behavior. This has led to some dialogue (I wish there was dialogue). Please share your reflection on ways to maintain zero-tolerance, for example in the light of recent events. This relates as well to community health, which has a separate working group. This relates as well to roles and responsibilities (the English Wikipedia community, or at least a very vocal group of editors) defy interference by the Wikimedia Foundation. What have the talks of your working group with these two other working groups led to? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

==Comment==
Once again, calls for undermining (or in this case, essentially destroying) local project autonomy, and a global solution to things which should be decided locally. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Surely this is not in line with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_12#Board_statement Board statement in the Fram Case] ("we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing"), so I wonder where such a proposal is now coming from? Is this proposal deliberately taking a stance against the Board position? --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 08:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1).--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1...billion. OK, just +1[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* It seems like ‘local autonomy’ became in some quarters a phrase akin to ‘states’ rights’. There was never a promise of total local autonomy: if some project is way out of line with our different guiding principles, they will get reprimanded no matter how much fuss the community will make about it. Otherwise, we would never be able to bring order to some extremely toxic communities. Surely we don’t want to stomp on the local autonomy of Islamic extremists, do we? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Irony ==

Have you noticed the irony of trying to promote diversity by imposing a universal, one-rule-for-everyone system? Further centralising of power through a take-it-or-leave-it, one-size-fits-all approach would not promote diversity. You would be driving away anyone whose personal or cultural beliefs did not match those of the WMF, which, as we have seen, has proved to be far from infallible in its judgement. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) The irony is so strong...--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:MGChecker|MGChecker]] ([[User talk:MGChecker|talk]]) 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 05:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1. The language in this proposal is Orwellian. [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* You should explain with less euphemisms what personal or cultural beliefs are being ‘discriminated’ against in [[mw:Code of Conduct|already existing Wikimedia code of conducts]]. Is it belief that you can be disrespectful to LGBT colleagues? Is it anything else? As to one-size-fits-all approaches, pretty much all Wikipedias derive their basic policies from English Wikipedia’s older versions of the same policies, so the reality is that you’ve already imposed one code of conduct on other projects and now are just essentially arguing against a (potentially) better version of it. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
** A couple of years ago there was a user in german ArbCom who turned out to be a low-level functionary of the german far-right party [[:en:Alternative_for_Germany|AfD]]. His onwiki editing was not really problematic otherwise. There was a lot of drama about this, with many other Arbs resigning because they wouldn't work together with him. Are neo-nazis and followers of right-wing parties underpresented in dewiki? I think so and hope so. Was he discriminated against? Well, maybe. So the Code of Conduct you cite may well have been breached back then. At the same time, something like this might have been a non-issue on enwiki. Many communities have sensitivities of their own, based on their culture and history. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
*** It is so absurd to suggest that any code of conduct adopted by this measure would protect Neo-Nazis and far-righters as a marginalised group that I am, frankly, impressed that you decided to leave this comment. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 17:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: the page you cited doesn't differ between groups that rightfully and wrongfully underrepresented. I think it is naïve to assume that such a policy will magically only benefit the "good guys". --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
stjn, I think your questions were directed at me, so I'll respond. Thank you for linking to the "code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces", which I was not aware of. I don't see any euphemisms in my post, so can't expand on that; it looks direct and blunt to me. If other Wikipedias feel that their policies have been imposed on them by the English one (I note that you use "derive", which implies that they were adapted and changed, not imposed), then they can, as far as I am aware, change them. And that's very different from the "recommendations" we're discussing, which would impose the same CoC on everyone, would be written by the WMF, and could not be altered by any group except the WMF (please correct me if these final clauses are wrong). [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
: agree. dewiki, for example, hast "lost" the 5th pillar very early along the way, doesn't really have the notion of "[[:en:Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus]]" similar to enwiki and prefers to vote on most things instead, has much more restrictive checkuser rules, has an ArbCom which afaik has never decided to de-admin someone, but introduced an admin recall procedure instead. I am sure that many other communities have deviated from enwiki policies in the last 15 years, and this is a really interesting aspect of diversity in the Wikimedia universe that is under threat by the centralisation attempts of the WMF. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 19:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The way forward... ==

...is not this. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be mandating a code of conduct across all projects without consent of and deciding input by those projects. Yes, toxic behavior is a problem, and yes, the WMF should most definitely have some role in managing it, but this seems like a solution that will cause further and possible irreparable conflict between the Wikimedia Foundation and volunteer editors with little benefit. The ability of local projects to decide their own civility policies (provided they conform to the ToU) is something that cannot be stripped away without damaging every existing community. Granted that, per this page, what you want to do is make editors on all projects sign a civility/harassment/conduct agreement of some sort, I honestly don't see what the point is. All editors are already required to abide by the TOU simply by using Wikimedia sites, and that has a civility component which applies on all projects. Individual projects' civility policies expand on that and decide enforcement. If I'm reading the recommendations correctly, which I may not be since they're quite vague, this would amount to little de facto change and cause a substantially large amount of conflict amongst editors. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:Agree, for once. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 on Vermont. --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 also how is such a method supposed to aplly to unregistered editors/IPs. One major) attraction of the WP was/is the ability to be able to contribute quickly and spontaneously without much or any bureacratic hassle or requirements.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Support ==

I strongly support this recommendation. [[User:Libcub|Libcub]] ([[User talk:Libcub|talk]]) 05:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Libcub}} May you please explain why? Thanks. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: +1. ‘Local autonomy’ will not protect the most vulnerable in many cases, and libertarian bro view on the world that this is not important has failed us already. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The lack of self-criticism ==

You can see the issues with this half-baked proposal simply from the sections talking about risks and possible negative results from implementing these ideas. If someone asks you what your weaknesses are and you first say "I have no weaknesses" and follow it up with "Well, maybe one of my weaknesses is that I'm too awesome," there's a serious lack of self-reflection in play. It doesn't seem as if the group even considered issues of local autonomy, varying cultural norms, or the possibility that managing a useful encyclopedia requires different rules for interactions than a kindergarten class. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Harassment survey 2015 ==

was [[Research talk:Harassment survey 2015|gold standard rubbish]]. Any semi-respectable company would have fired it's crop of statisticians/survey-designers post that mess but this is We-Make-Failures, after all. I reject any report, derived thereof. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Question. ==

Who gets to decide what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable? What criteria will be used? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Model Code of Conduct rather than Universal Code of Conduct ==

A Code of Conduct will only be effective if it has "buy in" from the community that it governs. Also, behavioral expectation are different on different communities. The same situation occurs in the United States where each state adopts its own laws. Because states want to develop best practices and be consistent when practical, a system of "Model Laws" have developed. A set of legal scholars draft Model Laws and then recommend them to all of the state legislatures for adoption. The Wikimedia movement could do the same thing with a Code of Conduct. A process could draft a Model Code of Conduct that would be sent to all of the projects to consider, amend and adopt. This has the advantage of allowing local adaptations to reflect unique community expectations as well as to engage a much wider section of each community than participates in this strategic consultation. Many members of the community have already said that they would view a "top down" imposition of a universal code of conduct to be an unwarranted intrusion on the internal management of their communities. A Model Code avoid this problem. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 13:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
* ‘Model laws’ you are probably talking about are adopted on extremely partisan basis with no regard for what’s really best for the people living in those states, is this really a thing the Wikimedia movement is supposed to model? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Q4a and Q4b Risk Assessment ==

The people who structured this strategy consultation wisely included Questions 4a and 4b to consider the downsides of each recommendation. The Working Group has not given this point the thought that it deserves. To me, the major risk is that people will use a Code of Conduct or "civility" in general to game the system. Suppose that two users are in a content dispute or are competing in the WikiCup or some other competition. User A is the aggressor, and frustrates User B to the point that User B expresses displeasure in the form of a swear word. It could be that User A's language was far more hurtful than a swear word. Now if User A goes running to the "civility police" to file a complaint against User B ("weaponizing the Code of Conduct") it is important that the decisionmaker look at the full context and not just at who used the swear word first.

The issue of "harassment" is more difficult to apply than the black and white test of whether a swear word was used. There are a few wikipoliticians who have misused their identity as a member of a "disadvantaged group" to attack other users who are working to enforce the rules in good faith without regard to identity group status. These wikipoliticians view any criticism of their on-wiki work as identity group based harassment, and "weaponized their identity status" to bully the other users.

When third party bystandards see such misconduct, they become demoralized and community health rapidly declines. So the risk is that the Code of Conduct will be drafted imperfectly or enforced unfairly or that toxic users will hide behind their identity group status.

There is also a danger that people will deliberately mis-identify their identity group status to receive favorable treatment by the WMF and the community. Finally, there is a danger that the community will accidentally back away from its important commitment to treat '''everyone''' with respect and equality without regard to identity group status.

The Working Group should modify its answers to Question 4a and 4b to acknowledge these risks and explain how to mitigate them. Thank you. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Two problems ==

Commenting on a recommendation that there should ''exist'' a code of conduct is pretty vacuous without an actual code to consider. Anyone supporting is just ''imaging'' it would what they want it to say. And of course criticism is criticism of what it might say. The Foundation is always free to draft a code of conduct to propose to the community. But any code of conduct won't actually work unless the community broadly supports with the actual text. Anyone who thinks that the Foundation can impose an ''effective'' code of conduct by some force of authority clearly has little grasp of the how things work out there.

The recommendation says quote: {{tq|the policy must be drafted by experts and vetted by the legal department... To leave dealing with behavioral issues to policy designed by non-experts (untrained volunteers/staff) runs the risk of jeopardizing...}}

The community ''are the experts''. Banning the experts from the process, and assigning the task in people who are entirely ignorant of the issues we deal with, is not going to work. In fact it will fail catastrophically. You're basically proposing to put [[en:Jared_Kushner|Jared Kushner]] in charge of bringing peace to the Middle East, when he knows nothing about the conflict in the Middle East. You're ''literally'' proposing to bring peace to (articles on) the Middle East by putting in charge people who literally know nothing about conflict in (articles on) the Middle East. The community will certainly welcome any outside-experts who might be able to bring ideas or insights. However it is absurd and ignorant to suggest that a solution is going to be designed by people who have no experience in how editing conflicts arise, no experience in how to handle or resolve them, to suggest that the "solution" will then be imposed and enforced by other people who also have no experience in how these conflicts arise nor in how to resolve them. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:+1 on the whole comment --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:It's almost as if these recommendations were drafted by people without the slightest idea about how the projects work. *sigh* --[[User:Millbart|Millbart]] ([[User talk:Millbart|talk]]) 18:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Feels like Childhood ==

This feels like my childhood in East Germany. You had to follow, or you will be kiked out of the community. Terrible idea. Inhuman. -- [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Response ==

I have a hard time taking this recommendation seriously given its extreme magnitude because there wasn't enough proofreading to catch the fact that Q4A refers to Q6 but the links appear to be part of Q5 - and from my look at the edit history have always been part of Q5. However, I will set that aside for a moment. I would like to echo the concerns expressed by CoffeCrumbs. Further, having done a fair amount of diversity work, the idea of having a common set of expectations and guidelines while doing diversity work is great. It's important and essential in my experience to doing that work successfully. But we're not a part of Wikimedia to do diversity work. We're a part of Wikimedia to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." A diverse user base is essential because it helps us achieve that mission better. That's where our focus should be. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Where is the Code of Conduct? ==

I couldn't find the actual text of the code of conduct. How are we supposed to discuss the pros and cons when we don't even know what we're talking about? Or did I miss something? Where can I find it? --[[User:MatthiasGutfeldt|MatthiasGutfeldt]] ([[User talk:MatthiasGutfeldt|talk]]) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== In principal support for some aspects but struggling with minimal community consultation ==

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:E.3/Networks_of_complicated_rules&veaction=edit I have written a commons essay about inclusion, not sure its worth a ponder.] Mental health inclusionism, neurodiversity in editors, is also important to me, but a separate issue I briefly discussed today. Thanks for your sincere efforts, I in principle support, but this is a little worrisome you need to bridge the gap with the community, IMHO. Thanks --[[User:E.3|E.3]] ([[User talk:E.3|talk]]) 17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/1

2019-08-13T19:55:53Z

Tinz: /* Irony */ answer

== Comment ==

Thanks for the idea of a CoC aka paper tiger as recommendation 1. The emptiness of the recommendation is amplified by the lack of a draft or outline CoC. Could you give us an outline of what you envision to be part of the CoC? How will you secure that everybody will live up to your CoC? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

== zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior ==

Hi. Your working groups wants the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior. They imposed a one year ban on someone who showed unacceptable behavior. This has led to some dialogue (I wish there was dialogue). Please share your reflection on ways to maintain zero-tolerance, for example in the light of recent events. This relates as well to community health, which has a separate working group. This relates as well to roles and responsibilities (the English Wikipedia community, or at least a very vocal group of editors) defy interference by the Wikimedia Foundation. What have the talks of your working group with these two other working groups led to? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

==Comment==
Once again, calls for undermining (or in this case, essentially destroying) local project autonomy, and a global solution to things which should be decided locally. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Surely this is not in line with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_12#Board_statement Board statement in the Fram Case] ("we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing"), so I wonder where such a proposal is now coming from? Is this proposal deliberately taking a stance against the Board position? --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 08:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1).--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1...billion. OK, just +1[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* It seems like ‘local autonomy’ became in some quarters a phrase akin to ‘states’ rights’. There was never a promise of total local autonomy: if some project is way out of line with our different guiding principles, they will get reprimanded no matter how much fuss the community will make about it. Otherwise, we would never be able to bring order to some extremely toxic communities. Surely we don’t want to stomp on the local autonomy of Islamic extremists, do we? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Irony ==

Have you noticed the irony of trying to promote diversity by imposing a universal, one-rule-for-everyone system? Further centralising of power through a take-it-or-leave-it, one-size-fits-all approach would not promote diversity. You would be driving away anyone whose personal or cultural beliefs did not match those of the WMF, which, as we have seen, has proved to be far from infallible in its judgement. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) The irony is so strong...--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:MGChecker|MGChecker]] ([[User talk:MGChecker|talk]]) 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 05:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1. The language in this proposal is Orwellian. [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* You should explain with less euphemisms what personal or cultural beliefs are being ‘discriminated’ against in [[mw:Code of Conduct|already existing Wikimedia code of conducts]]. Is it belief that you can be disrespectful to LGBT colleagues? Is it anything else? As to one-size-fits-all approaches, pretty much all Wikipedias derive their basic policies from English Wikipedia’s older versions of the same policies, so the reality is that you’ve already imposed one code of conduct on other projects and now are just essentially arguing against a (potentially) better version of it. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
** A couple of years ago there was a user in german ArbCom who turned out to be a low-level functionary of the german far-right party [[:en:Alternative_for_Germany|AfD]]. His onwiki editing was not really problematic otherwise. There was a lot of drama about this, with many other Arbs resigning because they wouldn't work together with him. Are neo-nazis and followers of right-wing parties underpresented in dewiki? I think so and hope so. Was he discriminated against? Well, maybe. So the Code of Conduct you cite may well have been breached back then. At the same time, something like this might have been a non-issue on enwiki. Many communities have sensitivities of their own, based on their culture and history. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
*** It is so absurd to suggest that any code of conduct adopted by this measure would protect Neo-Nazis and far-righters as a marginalised group that I am, frankly, impressed that you decided to leave this comment. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 17:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: the page you cited doesn't differ between groups that rightfully and wrongfully underrepresented. I think it is naïve to assume that such a policy will magically only benefit the "good guys". --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
stjn, I think your questions were directed at me, so I'll respond. Thank you for linking to the "code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces", which I was not aware of. I don't see any euphemisms in my post, so can't expand on that; it looks direct and blunt to me. If other Wikipedias feel that their policies have been imposed on them by the English one (I note that you use "derive", which implies that they were adapted and changed, not imposed), then they can, as far as I am aware, change them. And that's very different from the "recommendations" we're discussing, which would impose the same CoC on everyone, would be written by the WMF, and could not be altered by any group except the WMF (please correct me if these final clauses are wrong). [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
: agree. dewiki, for example, hast "lost" the 5th pillar very early along the way, doesn't really have the notion of "[[:en:Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus]]" similar to enwiki and prefers to vote on most things instead, has much more restrictive checkuser rules, has an ArbCom which afaik has never decided to de-admin someone, but introduced an admin recall procedure instead. I am sure that many other communities have deviated from enwiki policies in the last 15 years, and this is a really interesting aspect of diversity in the Wikimedia universe that is under threat by the centralisation attempts by the WMF. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 19:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The way forward... ==

...is not this. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be mandating a code of conduct across all projects without consent of and deciding input by those projects. Yes, toxic behavior is a problem, and yes, the WMF should most definitely have some role in managing it, but this seems like a solution that will cause further and possible irreparable conflict between the Wikimedia Foundation and volunteer editors with little benefit. The ability of local projects to decide their own civility policies (provided they conform to the ToU) is something that cannot be stripped away without damaging every existing community. Granted that, per this page, what you want to do is make editors on all projects sign a civility/harassment/conduct agreement of some sort, I honestly don't see what the point is. All editors are already required to abide by the TOU simply by using Wikimedia sites, and that has a civility component which applies on all projects. Individual projects' civility policies expand on that and decide enforcement. If I'm reading the recommendations correctly, which I may not be since they're quite vague, this would amount to little de facto change and cause a substantially large amount of conflict amongst editors. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:Agree, for once. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 on Vermont. --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 also how is such a method supposed to aplly to unregistered editors/IPs. One major) attraction of the WP was/is the ability to be able to contribute quickly and spontaneously without much or any bureacratic hassle or requirements.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Support ==

I strongly support this recommendation. [[User:Libcub|Libcub]] ([[User talk:Libcub|talk]]) 05:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Libcub}} May you please explain why? Thanks. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: +1. ‘Local autonomy’ will not protect the most vulnerable in many cases, and libertarian bro view on the world that this is not important has failed us already. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The lack of self-criticism ==

You can see the issues with this half-baked proposal simply from the sections talking about risks and possible negative results from implementing these ideas. If someone asks you what your weaknesses are and you first say "I have no weaknesses" and follow it up with "Well, maybe one of my weaknesses is that I'm too awesome," there's a serious lack of self-reflection in play. It doesn't seem as if the group even considered issues of local autonomy, varying cultural norms, or the possibility that managing a useful encyclopedia requires different rules for interactions than a kindergarten class. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Harassment survey 2015 ==

was [[Research talk:Harassment survey 2015|gold standard rubbish]]. Any semi-respectable company would have fired it's crop of statisticians/survey-designers post that mess but this is We-Make-Failures, after all. I reject any report, derived thereof. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Question. ==

Who gets to decide what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable? What criteria will be used? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Model Code of Conduct rather than Universal Code of Conduct ==

A Code of Conduct will only be effective if it has "buy in" from the community that it governs. Also, behavioral expectation are different on different communities. The same situation occurs in the United States where each state adopts its own laws. Because states want to develop best practices and be consistent when practical, a system of "Model Laws" have developed. A set of legal scholars draft Model Laws and then recommend them to all of the state legislatures for adoption. The Wikimedia movement could do the same thing with a Code of Conduct. A process could draft a Model Code of Conduct that would be sent to all of the projects to consider, amend and adopt. This has the advantage of allowing local adaptations to reflect unique community expectations as well as to engage a much wider section of each community than participates in this strategic consultation. Many members of the community have already said that they would view a "top down" imposition of a universal code of conduct to be an unwarranted intrusion on the internal management of their communities. A Model Code avoid this problem. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 13:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
* ‘Model laws’ you are probably talking about are adopted on extremely partisan basis with no regard for what’s really best for the people living in those states, is this really a thing the Wikimedia movement is supposed to model? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Q4a and Q4b Risk Assessment ==

The people who structured this strategy consultation wisely included Questions 4a and 4b to consider the downsides of each recommendation. The Working Group has not given this point the thought that it deserves. To me, the major risk is that people will use a Code of Conduct or "civility" in general to game the system. Suppose that two users are in a content dispute or are competing in the WikiCup or some other competition. User A is the aggressor, and frustrates User B to the point that User B expresses displeasure in the form of a swear word. It could be that User A's language was far more hurtful than a swear word. Now if User A goes running to the "civility police" to file a complaint against User B ("weaponizing the Code of Conduct") it is important that the decisionmaker look at the full context and not just at who used the swear word first.

The issue of "harassment" is more difficult to apply than the black and white test of whether a swear word was used. There are a few wikipoliticians who have misused their identity as a member of a "disadvantaged group" to attack other users who are working to enforce the rules in good faith without regard to identity group status. These wikipoliticians view any criticism of their on-wiki work as identity group based harassment, and "weaponized their identity status" to bully the other users.

When third party bystandards see such misconduct, they become demoralized and community health rapidly declines. So the risk is that the Code of Conduct will be drafted imperfectly or enforced unfairly or that toxic users will hide behind their identity group status.

There is also a danger that people will deliberately mis-identify their identity group status to receive favorable treatment by the WMF and the community. Finally, there is a danger that the community will accidentally back away from its important commitment to treat '''everyone''' with respect and equality without regard to identity group status.

The Working Group should modify its answers to Question 4a and 4b to acknowledge these risks and explain how to mitigate them. Thank you. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Two problems ==

Commenting on a recommendation that there should ''exist'' a code of conduct is pretty vacuous without an actual code to consider. Anyone supporting is just ''imaging'' it would what they want it to say. And of course criticism is criticism of what it might say. The Foundation is always free to draft a code of conduct to propose to the community. But any code of conduct won't actually work unless the community broadly supports with the actual text. Anyone who thinks that the Foundation can impose an ''effective'' code of conduct by some force of authority clearly has little grasp of the how things work out there.

The recommendation says quote: {{tq|the policy must be drafted by experts and vetted by the legal department... To leave dealing with behavioral issues to policy designed by non-experts (untrained volunteers/staff) runs the risk of jeopardizing...}}

The community ''are the experts''. Banning the experts from the process, and assigning the task in people who are entirely ignorant of the issues we deal with, is not going to work. In fact it will fail catastrophically. You're basically proposing to put [[en:Jared_Kushner|Jared Kushner]] in charge of bringing peace to the Middle East, when he knows nothing about the conflict in the Middle East. You're ''literally'' proposing to bring peace to (articles on) the Middle East by putting in charge people who literally know nothing about conflict in (articles on) the Middle East. The community will certainly welcome any outside-experts who might be able to bring ideas or insights. However it is absurd and ignorant to suggest that a solution is going to be designed by people who have no experience in how editing conflicts arise, no experience in how to handle or resolve them, to suggest that the "solution" will then be imposed and enforced by other people who also have no experience in how these conflicts arise nor in how to resolve them. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:+1 on the whole comment --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:It's almost as if these recommendations were drafted by people without the slightest idea about how the projects work. *sigh* --[[User:Millbart|Millbart]] ([[User talk:Millbart|talk]]) 18:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Feels like Childhood ==

This feels like my childhood in East Germany. You had to follow, or you will be kiked out of the community. Terrible idea. Inhuman. -- [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Response ==

I have a hard time taking this recommendation seriously given its extreme magnitude because there wasn't enough proofreading to catch the fact that Q4A refers to Q6 but the links appear to be part of Q5 - and from my look at the edit history have always been part of Q5. However, I will set that aside for a moment. I would like to echo the concerns expressed by CoffeCrumbs. Further, having done a fair amount of diversity work, the idea of having a common set of expectations and guidelines while doing diversity work is great. It's important and essential in my experience to doing that work successfully. But we're not a part of Wikimedia to do diversity work. We're a part of Wikimedia to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." A diverse user base is essential because it helps us achieve that mission better. That's where our focus should be. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Where is the Code of Conduct? ==

I couldn't find the actual text of the code of conduct. How are we supposed to discuss the pros and cons when we don't even know what we're talking about? Or did I miss something? Where can I find it? --[[User:MatthiasGutfeldt|MatthiasGutfeldt]] ([[User talk:MatthiasGutfeldt|talk]]) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== In principal support for some aspects but struggling with minimal community consultation ==

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:E.3/Networks_of_complicated_rules&veaction=edit I have written a commons essay about inclusion, not sure its worth a ponder.] Mental health inclusionism, neurodiversity in editors, is also important to me, but a separate issue I briefly discussed today. Thanks for your sincere efforts, I in principle support, but this is a little worrisome you need to bridge the gap with the community, IMHO. Thanks --[[User:E.3|E.3]] ([[User talk:E.3|talk]]) 17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/1

2019-08-13T18:01:06Z

Tinz: /* Irony */ re

== Comment ==

Thanks for the idea of a CoC aka paper tiger as recommendation 1. The emptiness of the recommendation is amplified by the lack of a draft or outline CoC. Could you give us an outline of what you envision to be part of the CoC? How will you secure that everybody will live up to your CoC? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

== zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior ==

Hi. Your working groups wants the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior. They imposed a one year ban on someone who showed unacceptable behavior. This has led to some dialogue (I wish there was dialogue). Please share your reflection on ways to maintain zero-tolerance, for example in the light of recent events. This relates as well to community health, which has a separate working group. This relates as well to roles and responsibilities (the English Wikipedia community, or at least a very vocal group of editors) defy interference by the Wikimedia Foundation. What have the talks of your working group with these two other working groups led to? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

==Comment==
Once again, calls for undermining (or in this case, essentially destroying) local project autonomy, and a global solution to things which should be decided locally. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Surely this is not in line with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_12#Board_statement Board statement in the Fram Case] ("we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing"), so I wonder where such a proposal is now coming from? Is this proposal deliberately taking a stance against the Board position? --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 08:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1).--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1...billion. OK, just +1[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* It seems like ‘local autonomy’ became in some quarters a phrase akin to ‘states’ rights’. There was never a promise of total local autonomy: if some project is way out of line with our different guiding principles, they will get reprimanded no matter how much fuss the community will make about it. Otherwise, we would never be able to bring order to some extremely toxic communities. Surely we don’t want to stomp on the local autonomy of Islamic extremists, do we? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Irony ==

Have you noticed the irony of trying to promote diversity by imposing a universal, one-rule-for-everyone system? Further centralising of power through a take-it-or-leave-it, one-size-fits-all approach would not promote diversity. You would be driving away anyone whose personal or cultural beliefs did not match those of the WMF, which, as we have seen, has proved to be far from infallible in its judgement. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) The irony is so strong...--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:MGChecker|MGChecker]] ([[User talk:MGChecker|talk]]) 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 05:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1. The language in this proposal is Orwellian. [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* You should explain with less euphemisms what personal or cultural beliefs are being ‘discriminated’ against in [[mw:Code of Conduct|already existing Wikimedia code of conducts]]. Is it belief that you can be disrespectful to LGBT colleagues? Is it anything else? As to one-size-fits-all approaches, pretty much all Wikipedias derive their basic policies from English Wikipedia’s older versions of the same policies, so the reality is that you’ve already imposed one code of conduct on other projects and now are just essentially arguing against a (potentially) better version of it. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
** A couple of years ago there was a user in german ArbCom who turned out to be a low-level functionary of the german far-right party [[:en:Alternative_for_Germany|AfD]]. His onwiki editing was not really problematic otherwise. There was a lot of drama about this, with many other Arbs resigning because they wouldn't work together with him. Are neo-nazis and followers of right-wing parties underpresented in dewiki? I think so and hope so. Was he discriminated against? Well, maybe. So the Code of Conduct you cite may well have been breached back then. At the same time, something like this might have been a non-issue on enwiki. Many communities have sensitivities of their own, based on their culture and history. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
*** It is so absurd to suggest that any code of conduct adopted by this measure would protect Neo-Nazis and far-righters as a marginalised group that I am, frankly, impressed that you decided to leave this comment. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 17:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: the page you cited doesn't differ between groups that rightfully and wrongfully underrepresented. I think it is naïve to assume that such a policy will magically only benefit the "good guys". --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 18:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The way forward... ==

...is not this. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be mandating a code of conduct across all projects without consent of and deciding input by those projects. Yes, toxic behavior is a problem, and yes, the WMF should most definitely have some role in managing it, but this seems like a solution that will cause further and possible irreparable conflict between the Wikimedia Foundation and volunteer editors with little benefit. The ability of local projects to decide their own civility policies (provided they conform to the ToU) is something that cannot be stripped away without damaging every existing community. Granted that, per this page, what you want to do is make editors on all projects sign a civility/harassment/conduct agreement of some sort, I honestly don't see what the point is. All editors are already required to abide by the TOU simply by using Wikimedia sites, and that has a civility component which applies on all projects. Individual projects' civility policies expand on that and decide enforcement. If I'm reading the recommendations correctly, which I may not be since they're quite vague, this would amount to little de facto change and cause a substantially large amount of conflict amongst editors. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:Agree, for once. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 on Vermont. --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 also how is such a method supposed to aplly to unregistered editors/IPs. One major) attraction of the WP was/is the ability to be able to contribute quickly and spontaneously without much or any bureacratic hassle or requirements.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Support ==

I strongly support this recommendation. [[User:Libcub|Libcub]] ([[User talk:Libcub|talk]]) 05:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Libcub}} May you please explain why? Thanks. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: +1. ‘Local autonomy’ will not protect the most vulnerable in many cases, and libertarian bro view on the world that this is not important has failed us already. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The lack of self-criticism ==

You can see the issues with this half-baked proposal simply from the sections talking about risks and possible negative results from implementing these ideas. If someone asks you what your weaknesses are and you first say "I have no weaknesses" and follow it up with "Well, maybe one of my weaknesses is that I'm too awesome," there's a serious lack of self-reflection in play. It doesn't seem as if the group even considered issues of local autonomy, varying cultural norms, or the possibility that managing a useful encyclopedia requires different rules for interactions than a kindergarten class. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Harassment survey 2015 ==

was [[Research talk:Harassment survey 2015|gold standard rubbish]]. Any semi-respectable company would have fired it's crop of statisticians/survey-designers post that mess but this is We-Make-Failures, after all. I reject any report, derived thereof. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Question. ==

Who gets to decide what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable? What criteria will be used? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Model Code of Conduct rather than Universal Code of Conduct ==

A Code of Conduct will only be effective if it has "buy in" from the community that it governs. Also, behavioral expectation are different on different communities. The same situation occurs in the United States where each state adopts its own laws. Because states want to develop best practices and be consistent when practical, a system of "Model Laws" have developed. A set of legal scholars draft Model Laws and then recommend them to all of the state legislatures for adoption. The Wikimedia movement could do the same thing with a Code of Conduct. A process could draft a Model Code of Conduct that would be sent to all of the projects to consider, amend and adopt. This has the advantage of allowing local adaptations to reflect unique community expectations as well as to engage a much wider section of each community than participates in this strategic consultation. Many members of the community have already said that they would view a "top down" imposition of a universal code of conduct to be an unwarranted intrusion on the internal management of their communities. A Model Code avoid this problem. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 13:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
* ‘Model laws’ you are probably talking about are adopted on extremely partisan basis with no regard for what’s really best for the people living in those states, is this really a thing the Wikimedia movement is supposed to model? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Q4a and Q4b Risk Assessment ==

The people who structured this strategy consultation wisely included Questions 4a and 4b to consider the downsides of each recommendation. The Working Group has not given this point the thought that it deserves. To me, the major risk is that people will use a Code of Conduct or "civility" in general to game the system. Suppose that two users are in a content dispute or are competing in the WikiCup or some other competition. User A is the aggressor, and frustrates User B to the point that User B expresses displeasure in the form of a swear word. It could be that User A's language was far more hurtful than a swear word. Now if User A goes running to the "civility police" to file a complaint against User B ("weaponizing the Code of Conduct") it is important that the decisionmaker look at the full context and not just at who used the swear word first.

The issue of "harassment" is more difficult to apply than the black and white test of whether a swear word was used. There are a few wikipoliticians who have misused their identity as a member of a "disadvantaged group" to attack other users who are working to enforce the rules in good faith without regard to identity group status. These wikipoliticians view any criticism of their on-wiki work as identity group based harassment, and "weaponized their identity status" to bully the other users.

When third party bystandards see such misconduct, they become demoralized and community health rapidly declines. So the risk is that the Code of Conduct will be drafted imperfectly or enforced unfairly or that toxic users will hide behind their identity group status.

There is also a danger that people will deliberately mis-identify their identity group status to receive favorable treatment by the WMF and the community. Finally, there is a danger that the community will accidentally back away from its important commitment to treat '''everyone''' with respect and equality without regard to identity group status.

The Working Group should modify its answers to Question 4a and 4b to acknowledge these risks and explain how to mitigate them. Thank you. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Two problems ==

Commenting on a recommendation that there should ''exist'' a code of conduct is pretty vacuous without an actual code to consider. Anyone supporting is just ''imaging'' it would what they want it to say. And of course criticism is criticism of what it might say. The Foundation is always free to draft a code of conduct to propose to the community. But any code of conduct won't actually work unless the community broadly supports with the actual text. Anyone who thinks that the Foundation can impose an ''effective'' code of conduct by some force of authority clearly has little grasp of the how things work out there.

The recommendation says quote: {{tq|the policy must be drafted by experts and vetted by the legal department... To leave dealing with behavioral issues to policy designed by non-experts (untrained volunteers/staff) runs the risk of jeopardizing...}}

The community ''are the experts''. Banning the experts from the process, and assigning the task in people who are entirely ignorant of the issues we deal with, is not going to work. In fact it will fail catastrophically. You're basically proposing to put [[en:Jared_Kushner|Jared Kushner]] in charge of bringing peace to the Middle East, when he knows nothing about the conflict in the Middle East. You're ''literally'' proposing to bring peace to (articles on) the Middle East by putting in charge people who literally know nothing about conflict in (articles on) the Middle East. The community will certainly welcome any outside-experts who might be able to bring ideas or insights. However it is absurd and ignorant to suggest that a solution is going to be designed by people who have no experience in how editing conflicts arise, no experience in how to handle or resolve them, to suggest that the "solution" will then be imposed and enforced by other people who also have no experience in how these conflicts arise nor in how to resolve them. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:+1 on the whole comment --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Feels like Childhood ==

This feels like my childhood in East Germany. You had to follow, or you will be kiked out of the community. Terrible idea. Inhuman. -- [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Response ==

I have a hard time taking this recommendation seriously given its extreme magnitude because there wasn't enough proofreading to catch the fact that Q4A refers to Q6 but the links appear to be part of Q5 - and from my look at the edit history have always been part of Q5. However, I will set that aside for a moment. I would like to echo the concerns expressed by CoffeCrumbs. Further, having done a fair amount of diversity work, the idea of having a common set of expectations and guidelines while doing diversity work is great. It's important and essential in my experience to doing that work successfully. But we're not a part of Wikimedia to do diversity work. We're a part of Wikimedia to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." A diverse user base is essential because it helps us achieve that mission better. That's where our focus should be. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Where is the Code of Conduct? ==

I couldn't find the actual text of the code of conduct. How are we supposed to discuss the pros and cons when we don't even know what we're talking about? Or did I miss something? Where can I find it? --[[User:MatthiasGutfeldt|MatthiasGutfeldt]] ([[User talk:MatthiasGutfeldt|talk]]) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== In principal support for some aspects but struggling with minimal community consultation ==

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:E.3/Networks_of_complicated_rules&veaction=edit I have written a commons essay about inclusion, not sure its worth a ponder.] Mental health inclusionism, neurodiversity in editors, is also important to me, but a separate issue I briefly discussed today. Thanks for your sincere efforts, I in principle support, but this is a little worrisome you need to bridge the gap with the community, IMHO. Thanks --[[User:E.3|E.3]] ([[User talk:E.3|talk]]) 17:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/1

2019-08-13T16:36:36Z

Tinz: /* Irony */ linkfix

== Comment ==

Thanks for the idea of a CoC aka paper tiger as recommendation 1. The emptiness of the recommendation is amplified by the lack of a draft or outline CoC. Could you give us an outline of what you envision to be part of the CoC? How will you secure that everybody will live up to your CoC? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

== zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior ==

Hi. Your working groups wants the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior. They imposed a one year ban on someone who showed unacceptable behavior. This has led to some dialogue (I wish there was dialogue). Please share your reflection on ways to maintain zero-tolerance, for example in the light of recent events. This relates as well to community health, which has a separate working group. This relates as well to roles and responsibilities (the English Wikipedia community, or at least a very vocal group of editors) defy interference by the Wikimedia Foundation. What have the talks of your working group with these two other working groups led to? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

==Comment==
Once again, calls for undermining (or in this case, essentially destroying) local project autonomy, and a global solution to things which should be decided locally. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Surely this is not in line with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_12#Board_statement Board statement in the Fram Case] ("we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing"), so I wonder where such a proposal is now coming from? Is this proposal deliberately taking a stance against the Board position? --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 08:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1).--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1...billion. OK, just +1[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* It seems like ‘local autonomy’ became in some quarters a phrase akin to ‘states’ rights’. There was never a promise of total local autonomy: if some project is way out of line with our different guiding principles, they will get reprimanded no matter how much fuss the community will make about it. Otherwise, we would never be able to bring order to some extremely toxic communities. Surely we don’t want to stomp on the local autonomy of Islamic extremists, do we? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Irony ==

Have you noticed the irony of trying to promote diversity by imposing a universal, one-rule-for-everyone system? Further centralising of power through a take-it-or-leave-it, one-size-fits-all approach would not promote diversity. You would be driving away anyone whose personal or cultural beliefs did not match those of the WMF, which, as we have seen, has proved to be far from infallible in its judgement. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) The irony is so strong...--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:MGChecker|MGChecker]] ([[User talk:MGChecker|talk]]) 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 05:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1. The language in this proposal is Orwellian. [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* You should explain with less euphemisms what personal or cultural beliefs are being ‘discriminated’ against in [[mw:Code of Conduct|already existing Wikimedia code of conducts]]. Is it belief that you can be disrespectful to LGBT colleagues? Is it anything else? As to one-size-fits-all approaches, pretty much all Wikipedias derive their basic policies from English Wikipedia’s older versions of the same policies, so the reality is that you’ve already imposed one code of conduct on other projects and now are just essentially arguing against a (potentially) better version of it. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:: A couple of years ago there was a user in german ArbCom who turned out to be a low-level functionary of the german far-right party [[:en:Alternative_for_Germany|AfD]]. His onwiki editing was not really problematic otherwise. There was a lot of drama about this, with many other Arbs resigning because they wouldn't work together with him. Are neo-nazis and followers of right-wing parties underpresented in dewiki? I think so and hope so. Was he discriminated against? Well, maybe. So the Code of Conduct you cite may well have been breached back then. At the same time, something like this might have been a non-issue on enwiki. Many communities have sensitivities of their own, based on their culture and history. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The way forward... ==

...is not this. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be mandating a code of conduct across all projects without consent of and deciding input by those projects. Yes, toxic behavior is a problem, and yes, the WMF should most definitely have some role in managing it, but this seems like a solution that will cause further and possible irreparable conflict between the Wikimedia Foundation and volunteer editors with little benefit. The ability of local projects to decide their own civility policies (provided they conform to the ToU) is something that cannot be stripped away without damaging every existing community. Granted that, per this page, what you want to do is make editors on all projects sign a civility/harassment/conduct agreement of some sort, I honestly don't see what the point is. All editors are already required to abide by the TOU simply by using Wikimedia sites, and that has a civility component which applies on all projects. Individual projects' civility policies expand on that and decide enforcement. If I'm reading the recommendations correctly, which I may not be since they're quite vague, this would amount to little de facto change and cause a substantially large amount of conflict amongst editors. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:Agree, for once. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 on Vermont. --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 also how is such a method supposed to aplly to unregistered editors/IPs. One major) attraction of the WP was/is the ability to be able to contribute quickly and spontaneously without much or any bureacratic hassle or requirements.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Support ==

I strongly support this recommendation. [[User:Libcub|Libcub]] ([[User talk:Libcub|talk]]) 05:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Libcub}} May you please explain why? Thanks. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: +1. ‘Local autonomy’ will not protect the most vulnerable in many cases, and libertarian bro view on the world that this is not important has failed us already. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The lack of self-criticism ==

You can see the issues with this half-baked proposal simply from the sections talking about risks and possible negative results from implementing these ideas. If someone asks you what your weaknesses are and you first say "I have no weaknesses" and follow it up with "Well, maybe one of my weaknesses is that I'm too awesome," there's a serious lack of self-reflection in play. It doesn't seem as if the group even considered issues of local autonomy, varying cultural norms, or the possibility that managing a useful encyclopedia requires different rules for interactions than a kindergarten class. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Harassment survey 2015 ==

was [[Research talk:Harassment survey 2015|gold standard rubbish]]. Any semi-respectable company would have fired it's crop of statisticians/survey-designers post that mess but this is We-Make-Failures, after all. I reject any report, derived thereof. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Question. ==

Who gets to decide what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable? What criteria will be used? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Model Code of Conduct rather than Universal Code of Conduct ==

A Code of Conduct will only be effective if it has "buy in" from the community that it governs. Also, behavioral expectation are different on different communities. The same situation occurs in the United States where each state adopts its own laws. Because states want to develop best practices and be consistent when practical, a system of "Model Laws" have developed. A set of legal scholars draft Model Laws and then recommend them to all of the state legislatures for adoption. The Wikimedia movement could do the same thing with a Code of Conduct. A process could draft a Model Code of Conduct that would be sent to all of the projects to consider, amend and adopt. This has the advantage of allowing local adaptations to reflect unique community expectations as well as to engage a much wider section of each community than participates in this strategic consultation. Many members of the community have already said that they would view a "top down" imposition of a universal code of conduct to be an unwarranted intrusion on the internal management of their communities. A Model Code avoid this problem. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 13:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
* ‘Model laws’ you are probably talking about are adopted on extremely partisan basis with no regard for what’s really best for the people living in those states, is this really a thing the Wikimedia movement is supposed to model? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Q4a and Q4b Risk Assessment ==

The people who structured this strategy consultation wisely included Questions 4a and 4b to consider the downsides of each recommendation. The Working Group has not given this point the thought that it deserves. To me, the major risk is that people will use a Code of Conduct or "civility" in general to game the system. Suppose that two users are in a content dispute or are competing in the WikiCup or some other competition. User A is the aggressor, and frustrates User B to the point that User B expresses displeasure in the form of a swear word. It could be that User A's language was far more hurtful than a swear word. Now if User A goes running to the "civility police" to file a complaint against User B ("weaponizing the Code of Conduct") it is important that the decisionmaker look at the full context and not just at who used the swear word first.

The issue of "harassment" is more difficult to apply than the black and white test of whether a swear word was used. There are a few wikipoliticians who have misused their identity as a member of a "disadvantaged group" to attack other users who are working to enforce the rules in good faith without regard to identity group status. These wikipoliticians view any criticism of their on-wiki work as identity group based harassment, and "weaponized their identity status" to bully the other users.

When third party bystandards see such misconduct, they become demoralized and community health rapidly declines. So the risk is that the Code of Conduct will be drafted imperfectly or enforced unfairly or that toxic users will hide behind their identity group status.

There is also a danger that people will deliberately mis-identify their identity group status to receive favorable treatment by the WMF and the community. Finally, there is a danger that the community will accidentally back away from its important commitment to treat '''everyone''' with respect and equality without regard to identity group status.

The Working Group should modify its answers to Question 4a and 4b to acknowledge these risks and explain how to mitigate them. Thank you. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Two problems ==

Commenting on a recommendation that there should ''exist'' a code of conduct is pretty vacuous without an actual code to consider. Anyone supporting is just ''imaging'' it would what they want it to say. And of course criticism is criticism of what it might say. The Foundation is always free to draft a code of conduct to propose to the community. But any code of conduct won't actually work unless the community broadly supports with the actual text. Anyone who thinks that the Foundation can impose an ''effective'' code of conduct by some force of authority clearly has little grasp of the how things work out there.

The recommendation says quote: {{tq|the policy must be drafted by experts and vetted by the legal department... To leave dealing with behavioral issues to policy designed by non-experts (untrained volunteers/staff) runs the risk of jeopardizing...}}

The community ''are the experts''. Banning the experts from the process, and assigning the task in people who are entirely ignorant of the issues we deal with, is not going to work. In fact it will fail catastrophically. You're basically proposing to put [[en:Jared_Kushner|Jared Kushner]] in charge of bringing peace to the Middle East, when he knows nothing about the conflict in the Middle East. You're ''literally'' proposing to bring peace to (articles on) the Middle East by putting in charge people who literally know nothing about conflict in (articles on) the Middle East. The community will certainly welcome any outside-experts who might be able to bring ideas or insights. However it is absurd and ignorant to suggest that a solution is going to be designed by people who have no experience in how editing conflicts arise, no experience in how to handle or resolve them, to suggest that the "solution" will then be imposed and enforced by other people who also have no experience in how these conflicts arise nor in how to resolve them. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:+1 on the whole comment --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Feels like Childhood ==

This feels like my childhood in East Germany. You had to follow, or you will be kiked out of the community. Terrible idea. Inhuman. -- [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Response ==

I have a hard time taking this recommendation seriously given its extreme magnitude because there wasn't enough proofreading to catch the fact that Q4A refers to Q6 but the links appear to be part of Q5 - and from my look at the edit history have always been part of Q5. However, I will set that aside for a moment. I would like to echo the concerns expressed by CoffeCrumbs. Further, having done a fair amount of diversity work, the idea of having a common set of expectations and guidelines while doing diversity work is great. It's important and essential in my experience to doing that work successfully. But we're not a part of Wikimedia to do diversity work. We're a part of Wikimedia to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." A diverse user base is essential because it helps us achieve that mission better. That's where our focus should be. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Where is the Code of Conduct? ==

I couldn't find the actual text of the code of conduct. How are we supposed to discuss the pros and cons when we don't even know what we're talking about? Or did I miss something? Where can I find it? --[[User:MatthiasGutfeldt|MatthiasGutfeldt]] ([[User talk:MatthiasGutfeldt|talk]]) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/1

2019-08-13T16:35:27Z

Tinz: /* Irony */ re

== Comment ==

Thanks for the idea of a CoC aka paper tiger as recommendation 1. The emptiness of the recommendation is amplified by the lack of a draft or outline CoC. Could you give us an outline of what you envision to be part of the CoC? How will you secure that everybody will live up to your CoC? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

== zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior ==

Hi. Your working groups wants the Wikimedia Foundation to maintain zero-tolerance for unacceptable behavior. They imposed a one year ban on someone who showed unacceptable behavior. This has led to some dialogue (I wish there was dialogue). Please share your reflection on ways to maintain zero-tolerance, for example in the light of recent events. This relates as well to community health, which has a separate working group. This relates as well to roles and responsibilities (the English Wikipedia community, or at least a very vocal group of editors) defy interference by the Wikimedia Foundation. What have the talks of your working group with these two other working groups led to? [[User:Ad Huikeshoven|Ad Huikeshoven]] ([[User talk:Ad Huikeshoven|talk]]) 09:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

==Comment==
Once again, calls for undermining (or in this case, essentially destroying) local project autonomy, and a global solution to things which should be decided locally. '''Strong oppose'''. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Surely this is not in line with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Archive_12#Board_statement Board statement in the Fram Case] ("we also recognize the critical importance of allowing communities to be self-governing"), so I wonder where such a proposal is now coming from? Is this proposal deliberately taking a stance against the Board position? --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 08:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:(+1).--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1...billion. OK, just +1[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* It seems like ‘local autonomy’ became in some quarters a phrase akin to ‘states’ rights’. There was never a promise of total local autonomy: if some project is way out of line with our different guiding principles, they will get reprimanded no matter how much fuss the community will make about it. Otherwise, we would never be able to bring order to some extremely toxic communities. Surely we don’t want to stomp on the local autonomy of Islamic extremists, do we? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Irony ==

Have you noticed the irony of trying to promote diversity by imposing a universal, one-rule-for-everyone system? Further centralising of power through a take-it-or-leave-it, one-size-fits-all approach would not promote diversity. You would be driving away anyone whose personal or cultural beliefs did not match those of the WMF, which, as we have seen, has proved to be far from infallible in its judgement. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:Hear hear. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: (+1) The irony is so strong...--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 09:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:MGChecker|MGChecker]] ([[User talk:MGChecker|talk]]) 02:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 [[User:Benjaminikuta|Benjamin]] ([[User talk:Benjaminikuta|talk]]) 05:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1. The language in this proposal is Orwellian. [[User:Shoy|Shoy]] ([[User talk:Shoy|talk]]) 12:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
* You should explain with less euphemisms what personal or cultural beliefs are being ‘discriminated’ against in [[mw:Code of Conduct|already existing Wikimedia code of conducts]]. Is it belief that you can be disrespectful to LGBT colleagues? Is it anything else? As to one-size-fits-all approaches, pretty much all Wikipedias derive their basic policies from English Wikipedia’s older versions of the same policies, so the reality is that you’ve already imposed one code of conduct on other projects and now are just essentially arguing against a (potentially) better version of it. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:: A couple of years ago there was a user in german ArbCom who turned out to be a low-level functionary of the german far-right party [[:en:AfD]]. His onwiki editing was not really problematic otherwise. There was a lot of drama about this, with many other Arbs resigning because they wouldn't work together with him. Are neo-nazis and followers of right-wing parties underpresented in dewiki? I think so and hope so. Was he discriminated against? Well, maybe. So the Code of Conduct you cite may well have been breached back then. At the same time, something like this might have been a non-issue on enwiki. Many communities have sensitivities of their own, based on their culture and history. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 16:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The way forward... ==

...is not this. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be mandating a code of conduct across all projects without consent of and deciding input by those projects. Yes, toxic behavior is a problem, and yes, the WMF should most definitely have some role in managing it, but this seems like a solution that will cause further and possible irreparable conflict between the Wikimedia Foundation and volunteer editors with little benefit. The ability of local projects to decide their own civility policies (provided they conform to the ToU) is something that cannot be stripped away without damaging every existing community. Granted that, per this page, what you want to do is make editors on all projects sign a civility/harassment/conduct agreement of some sort, I honestly don't see what the point is. All editors are already required to abide by the TOU simply by using Wikimedia sites, and that has a civility component which applies on all projects. Individual projects' civility policies expand on that and decide enforcement. If I'm reading the recommendations correctly, which I may not be since they're quite vague, this would amount to little de facto change and cause a substantially large amount of conflict amongst editors. [[User:Vermont|Vermont]] ([[User talk:Vermont|talk]]) 20:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:Agree, for once. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 12:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 on Vermont. --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 also how is such a method supposed to aplly to unregistered editors/IPs. One major) attraction of the WP was/is the ability to be able to contribute quickly and spontaneously without much or any bureacratic hassle or requirements.--[[User:Kmhkmh|Kmhkmh]] ([[User talk:Kmhkmh|talk]]) 17:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1 --[[User:Voyager|voyager]] ([[User talk:Voyager|talk]]) 06:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Support ==

I strongly support this recommendation. [[User:Libcub|Libcub]] ([[User talk:Libcub|talk]]) 05:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: {{Ping|Libcub}} May you please explain why? Thanks. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 05:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
: +1. ‘Local autonomy’ will not protect the most vulnerable in many cases, and libertarian bro view on the world that this is not important has failed us already. [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== The lack of self-criticism ==

You can see the issues with this half-baked proposal simply from the sections talking about risks and possible negative results from implementing these ideas. If someone asks you what your weaknesses are and you first say "I have no weaknesses" and follow it up with "Well, maybe one of my weaknesses is that I'm too awesome," there's a serious lack of self-reflection in play. It doesn't seem as if the group even considered issues of local autonomy, varying cultural norms, or the possibility that managing a useful encyclopedia requires different rules for interactions than a kindergarten class. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Harassment survey 2015 ==

was [[Research talk:Harassment survey 2015|gold standard rubbish]]. Any semi-respectable company would have fired it's crop of statisticians/survey-designers post that mess but this is We-Make-Failures, after all. I reject any report, derived thereof. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 18:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Question. ==

Who gets to decide what behaviour is acceptable and what is unacceptable? What criteria will be used? · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Model Code of Conduct rather than Universal Code of Conduct ==

A Code of Conduct will only be effective if it has "buy in" from the community that it governs. Also, behavioral expectation are different on different communities. The same situation occurs in the United States where each state adopts its own laws. Because states want to develop best practices and be consistent when practical, a system of "Model Laws" have developed. A set of legal scholars draft Model Laws and then recommend them to all of the state legislatures for adoption. The Wikimedia movement could do the same thing with a Code of Conduct. A process could draft a Model Code of Conduct that would be sent to all of the projects to consider, amend and adopt. This has the advantage of allowing local adaptations to reflect unique community expectations as well as to engage a much wider section of each community than participates in this strategic consultation. Many members of the community have already said that they would view a "top down" imposition of a universal code of conduct to be an unwarranted intrusion on the internal management of their communities. A Model Code avoid this problem. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 13:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
* ‘Model laws’ you are probably talking about are adopted on extremely partisan basis with no regard for what’s really best for the people living in those states, is this really a thing the Wikimedia movement is supposed to model? [[user:stjn|stjn]][[:ru:user:stjn|[ru]]] 15:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Q4a and Q4b Risk Assessment ==

The people who structured this strategy consultation wisely included Questions 4a and 4b to consider the downsides of each recommendation. The Working Group has not given this point the thought that it deserves. To me, the major risk is that people will use a Code of Conduct or "civility" in general to game the system. Suppose that two users are in a content dispute or are competing in the WikiCup or some other competition. User A is the aggressor, and frustrates User B to the point that User B expresses displeasure in the form of a swear word. It could be that User A's language was far more hurtful than a swear word. Now if User A goes running to the "civility police" to file a complaint against User B ("weaponizing the Code of Conduct") it is important that the decisionmaker look at the full context and not just at who used the swear word first.

The issue of "harassment" is more difficult to apply than the black and white test of whether a swear word was used. There are a few wikipoliticians who have misused their identity as a member of a "disadvantaged group" to attack other users who are working to enforce the rules in good faith without regard to identity group status. These wikipoliticians view any criticism of their on-wiki work as identity group based harassment, and "weaponized their identity status" to bully the other users.

When third party bystandards see such misconduct, they become demoralized and community health rapidly declines. So the risk is that the Code of Conduct will be drafted imperfectly or enforced unfairly or that toxic users will hide behind their identity group status.

There is also a danger that people will deliberately mis-identify their identity group status to receive favorable treatment by the WMF and the community. Finally, there is a danger that the community will accidentally back away from its important commitment to treat '''everyone''' with respect and equality without regard to identity group status.

The Working Group should modify its answers to Question 4a and 4b to acknowledge these risks and explain how to mitigate them. Thank you. [[User:Hlevy2|Hlevy2]] ([[User talk:Hlevy2|talk]]) 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Two problems ==

Commenting on a recommendation that there should ''exist'' a code of conduct is pretty vacuous without an actual code to consider. Anyone supporting is just ''imaging'' it would what they want it to say. And of course criticism is criticism of what it might say. The Foundation is always free to draft a code of conduct to propose to the community. But any code of conduct won't actually work unless the community broadly supports with the actual text. Anyone who thinks that the Foundation can impose an ''effective'' code of conduct by some force of authority clearly has little grasp of the how things work out there.

The recommendation says quote: {{tq|the policy must be drafted by experts and vetted by the legal department... To leave dealing with behavioral issues to policy designed by non-experts (untrained volunteers/staff) runs the risk of jeopardizing...}}

The community ''are the experts''. Banning the experts from the process, and assigning the task in people who are entirely ignorant of the issues we deal with, is not going to work. In fact it will fail catastrophically. You're basically proposing to put [[en:Jared_Kushner|Jared Kushner]] in charge of bringing peace to the Middle East, when he knows nothing about the conflict in the Middle East. You're ''literally'' proposing to bring peace to (articles on) the Middle East by putting in charge people who literally know nothing about conflict in (articles on) the Middle East. The community will certainly welcome any outside-experts who might be able to bring ideas or insights. However it is absurd and ignorant to suggest that a solution is going to be designed by people who have no experience in how editing conflicts arise, no experience in how to handle or resolve them, to suggest that the "solution" will then be imposed and enforced by other people who also have no experience in how these conflicts arise nor in how to resolve them. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 15:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

:+1 on the whole comment --[[User:Sannita|Sannita]] - ''[[User talk:Sannita|not just another it.wiki sysop]]'' 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Feels like Childhood ==

This feels like my childhood in East Germany. You had to follow, or you will be kiked out of the community. Terrible idea. Inhuman. -- [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 17:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Response ==

I have a hard time taking this recommendation seriously given its extreme magnitude because there wasn't enough proofreading to catch the fact that Q4A refers to Q6 but the links appear to be part of Q5 - and from my look at the edit history have always been part of Q5. However, I will set that aside for a moment. I would like to echo the concerns expressed by CoffeCrumbs. Further, having done a fair amount of diversity work, the idea of having a common set of expectations and guidelines while doing diversity work is great. It's important and essential in my experience to doing that work successfully. But we're not a part of Wikimedia to do diversity work. We're a part of Wikimedia to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." A diverse user base is essential because it helps us achieve that mission better. That's where our focus should be. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

== Where is the Code of Conduct? ==

I couldn't find the actual text of the code of conduct. How are we supposed to discuss the pros and cons when we don't even know what we're talking about? Or did I miss something? Where can I find it? --[[User:MatthiasGutfeldt|MatthiasGutfeldt]] ([[User talk:MatthiasGutfeldt|talk]]) 10:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Diversity/9

2019-08-12T17:37:35Z

Tinz: Terms of Use for the WMF

==Comment==
*'''Not just no but hell no'''. Wikimedia projects are, and always should be, free content. We absolutely should not permit NC and/or ND licensing; this would destroy that aspect of our movement. It is in the very motto of the Wikipedias: "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." "Free" in that sense means "libre", not just "gratis". The fact that you have buried a proposal to undermine the fundamental nature of our projects in an area like this is totally unacceptable (as is proposing to do it to begin with). [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] ([[User talk:Seraphimblade|talk]]) 16:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Not just no but hell no'''. Aside from the licencing issue, the Foundation can expect an angry mob with torches and pitchforks storming the castle if you attempt to destroy the Reliable Source rules (referred to as {{tq|Western-idea of academic-based knowledge}}) or other core policies and guidelines. In regard to the text {{tq|All change has negative connotations to some members of the community}}, that is all well and good up until opposition constitutes a '''majority consensus'''. A community consensus could place banners on every article telling readers to stop donating. Criticism should not be causally dismissed without consideration of whether that criticism is a majority or even catastrophic. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 21:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Not just no but hell no'''
*:The two cited pieces are self-describedly into uncharted territories and unless WMF is prepared to fight scores of such novel battles, it shall expect to be sued left and right; you don't fuck about in these areas under the pretext of righting great wrongs.
*:{{tq|As an example, for an article in which an indigenous historian/scholar has provided “authoritative” input and marked with distribute only through GNU, it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections marked.}} goes against the fundamental tenet of hosting free editable content and I also doubt that contents can be mixed from different licenses (all are not compatible) w/o getting entangled in a mess . We can easily paraphrase that input, ''if'' it is there at the first place and fulfilling that 'if' shall be your task.
*:Wikimedia projects are and always should host free content. We shall not permit NC and/or ND licensing. This is a holy grail. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
*::Having certain content being uneditable by the majority would make Wikipedia so much more complicated. I get requests from potential partners asking for this fairly often. It is not a good idea. Even though I am an expert in my topic area I would never request greater "rights" than others. [[User:Doc James|'''Doc James''']] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 07:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*:::Absolutely agree with {{U|Doc James|you}}. Experts are always welcome ''but'' collaboration supersedes that. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 08:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely not'''. There is absolutely no good reason to allow NC or ND material. Wikimedia should stay part of the Free Content movement, this is fundamental. It suggests such a grave misunderstanding of the nature of this project that I suggest to ignore the entire output of this workgroup and start from scratch. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 13:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

*Per the above points, the two points above are sufficient to imply that the entire proposal is entirely without merit. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] ([[User talk:MER-C|talk]]) 15:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

*Paging {{U|SusunW}}. Any engagement, after writing such utter trash? [[User:Winged Blades of Godric|Winged Blades of Godric]] ([[User talk:Winged Blades of Godric|talk]]) 15:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

*'''No''' There's a lot in this recommendation that sounds interesting but represents significant changes from the original principles of Wikipedia. Allowing alternate licenses (ND / NC as mentioned) is something that's not that far off from some projects allowing fair-use, but at the Project level? No way. Free and open means exactly that - free for others to use and re-use as they wish, not based on your preferences. Open to new ideas and new ways of using what you originally created. The "it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections marked" comment basically means no more IP editing. I won't even touch the line just before that one, it's just so insanely contrary to everything that is Wikipedia. [[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]] ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 04:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*:Not too sure what you mean by “at the Project level” − I think the recommendation is indeed about project-level, ie en.wp or ca.wb or else (per {{tq|If this cannot be applied across the board, we need to evaluate project specific use for multimedia such as the “fair use” policy on English Wikipedia.)}}). It is a fact that many projects already allow [[Non-free content]] (Not that I personnally [[Special:Diff/71931854|agree with this]]). [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|talk]]) 10:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely not'''. ND/NC licence is restrictive and should never be utilised for a free/libre project like Wikimedia.--[[User:Vulphere|Vulp]][[User talk:Vulphere|here]] 08:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*{{o}} This would destroy the whole purpose of Wikimedia Commons, which is to provide free media for the whole world. [[User:Rodhullandemu|Rodhullandemu]] ([[User talk:Rodhullandemu|talk]]) 09:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely not.''' The notion that the freedom to use, modify and redistribute content for any purpose constitutes re-colonisation and oppression(!) is so wrongheaded it boggles the mind. If you want to fail at liberating the world through non-free content, you can always fork the Wikimedia projects. The tendency to hide [[:en:Rider (legislation)|rider]] provisions for completely unrelated power grabbing measures in the recommendation's excess verbiage is also deeply concerning. Everyone involved should be utterly ashamed of themselves. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 09:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''Widening the inclusion of non-open content is contrary to the entire ethos of the Wikimedia movement'''. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] (Pigsonthewing); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]] 11:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

{{od}}
As votes about Commons policies ''should happen on Commons'', I have created [[c:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_introduce_Non-Commercial_media_on_Wikimedia_Commons]] where you may wish to vote and discuss the NC license change specifically. If there is a need, we can create another proposal for the ND license change.
Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
*'''yes''' to the extent that fair use is not used when it could be, it harms open scholarship. time has passed by the "live free or die" ideology. outsiders are astonished by the license purity tests. google is already front running images on knowledge graph results, resulting on fewer clicks to content. when a rich media fork comes along, it will be a serious competitor. [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ([[User talk:Slowking4|talk]]) 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== "On a governance level"... ==

...{{tq|"the community has the responsibility to carry out its work in a manner consistent with the mission of the Foundation and strategic plan of our movement. This secondary responsibility is currently missing from the ToU and should be added, as it’s omission has created conflict when the WMF has acted to enforce such things as office actions."}} No. What has caused conflict is the WMF grabbing power for itself and failing to consult or communicate adequately. The solution to this is not (as appears to be suggested in this "Recommendation") to oblige volunteers and projects to accept whatever the WMF decrees. This 'WMF knows what's best for you and for everyone else' attitude is what needs to change – people will follow a strategic plan if they have been involved in its development and believe in it, not because a legal document technically compels them to. Don't double down by seeking to codify this attitude in the ToU. [[User:EddieHugh|EddieHugh]] ([[User talk:EddieHugh|talk]]) 19:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
:This is getting into [[:w:en:Die Lösung|Die Lösung]] territory. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
::Thank you for that link, It says it all. · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 16:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Motivation for ND/NC recommendations ==

Hello, I try to understand the sometimes quite difficult text. I am struggling also with understanding why the authors think that ND and NC is necessary for minorities. The argument give is "misappropriation", and there are two links: one to the NY Times about the modern use or abuse of pictures about slaves in the 19th century, the other one about a fashion company using names and iconic props of Native Americans. I wonder what those two cases have to do with ND and NC. Pictures from the 19th century are usually in the Public Domain.

[[Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Reports/March-April Community Conversations Monthly Report|As I have said elsewhere]]: I am open to discuss ND and NC, although personally I am not very fond of them. But if you don't give us substantial arguments, a meaningful discussion is not possible.

Also, I wonder about this section: "Q4a. Could this Recommendation have a negative impact/change? - All change has negative connotations to some members of the community." The question is very important: If you make such a proposal that would fundamentally alter our understanding of "free content", you must think through the possible consequences. This generalistic "answer" is totally inappropriate. I actually find it rather disrespectful to the members of the community. [[User:Ziko|Ziko]] ([[User talk:Ziko|talk]]) 13:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:+1. If the Working Group wants to engage with local communities, dismissing all possible negative feedback before even asking for any, is counter productive verging on being openly hostile. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
::you should be aware that certain communities do not trust your intellectual property licenses. they are accustomed to being disrespected by the colonizing powers that be. they reserve the right to control their indigenous knowledge. to the extent you cram down or blackball those communities , you are an impediment to the sharing of the sum of all knowledge. [[User:Slowking4|Slowking4]] ([[User talk:Slowking4|talk]]) 16:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Request for explicit sources with respect to "re-colonizing" ==

The following statement is the first paragraph of Q2:
* {{tq|In spite of research from numerous internal and external studies and community feedback reports over decades,([[Gender equity report 2018]], [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06310.pdf Schellekensa, Holstegeb and Yasseri 2019], [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68675/1/Wajcman_Anyone%20can%20edit_Final_2017.pdf Ford and Wajcman 2017], [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023118823946 Adams, Brückner and Naslund 2019]) general policy change is rarely implemented in Wikimedia. Multiple studies have determined that extant movement policies don’t just reflect the systemic biases, they make biases against marginalized communities worse, in effect, re-colonizing and oppressing diverse knowledge(ibid)}}

A careful examination of the four sources given, which includes academic papers, shows that there is no claim about "re-colonizing ... diverse knowledge". Some of the academics do have research areas which include aspects of decolonizing knowledge. Because the sourcing is vague, I may be missing which of the four sources support or make this claim, perhaps using different language but with identical meaning. Could someone please specify how to find it or correct the text to make the sourcing explicit? Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 14:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Case against NC and ND ==
I'm aware that part of the case against allowing NC is that NC has been used, arguably misused by some people who licence their material NC and then catch people out by pointing out that their use is commercial when people thought they'd be OK because they were a charity etc etc. In effect NC is not a free licence. Is the argument against ND the same, people being caught out because they didn't realise that cropping or poor colour fidelity from a cheap printer meant that they had to pay because they hadn't complied with the terms of an ND licence? Should we improve our documentation on Commons of the case against NC and ND rather than just dismiss NC or ND advocacy as a newbie mistake? Clearly part of the mistake on this occasion is by people thinking that ND protects against "culturally significant works marked ND which might suffer from misappropriation." ND does not address the issue of misappropriation, it addresses the rather different issue of derivative works. If you make a faithful copy of an ND image then you can use it for whatever you wish, however appropriate or not the creator of the image might think your use is. What you shouldn't do is create a derivative work, whether by including part of that image in a collage, or by changing the colour scheme. I can understand that some creatives would be unhappy if their images were downloaded from Wikimedia Commons and used for novelty toilet paper or shooting targets, in some cases it would count as insults and misappropriation. But NC might not be violated if no one was being charged for them, and ND would not be violated if it was a faithful reproduction. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 14:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
: Hi WSC, these questions are valid, but I think are starting in the wrong place. The draft recommendations do not read clearly to my eyes with respect of why allowing NC or ND media or text solves a problem. As per the related email list discussion, it would be incredibly helpful if the Working Group were to consider compiling some specific examples to discuss, where the cases are not currently allowed on Wikimedia projects, and by not allowing them, or requiring an "unconstrained" free license, is a colonization issue or re-enforces existing systemic bias.
: Proposing to allow NC media rears its head every few years, and especially in that historical context, it makes discussion much easier if we look at cases rather than repeating rhetoric or pointing to academic views which of themselves are opinions rather than verifiable facts. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 15:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Do not contaminate Wikipedias with pseudo-free licences, start alternative projects. ==

If the WMF wish to start new projects using NC, ND and similar licences, and to remove requirements for reliable sourcing, they can create new projects to do this, but should not under any circumstances call them Wikipedias. Wikivoyage does not require references, and it encourages original research. That is not a problem, it does not pretend to be Wikipedia. (I work on both, both are fit for purpose, but should not be confused, they are very different.) There may be a good niche for projects with the relaxed requirements for free use and reliable sourcing, but this must be done in a way that does not contaminate Wikipedia or destroy the credibility we work so hard to achieve. It may work. If it does, great, we have an alternative educational site - Hooray! Wikipedias can reuse the content which is good enough and free enough. If it fails disastrously it must not drag down the Wikipedias. ''That is not negotiable''. People will work on the sites of their choice. An alternative site may become a spam and woo magnet, and a place to write an article on every non-notable topic that can be imagined if the policies allow it and there are not sufficient volunteers to do the maintenance, so it may be necessary for WMF to provide staff to look after it. This does not bother me in the least, they can experiment with their top-down social engineering to their heart's content, and we on the Wikipedias can adopt anything that actually works after we see it work, and the rough edges have been worn off. Wikipedias can continue as a control group. I would really like to see this experiment in action, and would be quite happy to see it work marvellously, but it is not worth the risk to the Wikipedias or their communities to play around with them in this way as there is no guarantee. At the worst such an alternative set of projects could take some of the load of vandalism fixing and similar drudgery from the Wikipedians for a while and let them concentrate on building the encyclopedia. If WMF and the strategy theorists really think this could work, let them put their money where their mouth is. Similar conditions apply to Commons, It must remain closed to unfree and pseudo-free media.
Cheers, · · · [[User:Pbsouthwood|Peter (Southwood)]] [[User talk:Pbsouthwood|(talk)]]: 15:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Suggestion: sources to support NC and ND licensing ==

The 2 articles ([https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/us/slave-photographs-harvard.html 1], [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0043945-852b-4d7e-94ad-1859f91ba418 2]) portray the issue well.
I suggest the proposal should explain how NC and ND licenses will benefit this issue. If possible, give more sources, that address the doubts.

The main premise of the proposal ({{tq|"we assume that it would be necessary to modify the “Terms of Use” especially to address community health, foster diversity and address systemic biases"}}) is welcome, independent of the licensing question. — [[User:Aron Manning|Aron Manning]] ([[User talk:Aron Manning|talk]]) 17:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== better idea! ==

I have a better idea! We disintigrate this repressive organization "Wikimedia Foundation"! Tenthusand of authors over 18 years do so much work and now we shoud well-behaved everything the Foundation wants? Are you really so short-sighted that you did not realize, that you can't act in this way with the volunteers, who are working for the money that this systems keeps running? -- [[User:Marcus Cyron|Marcus Cyron]] ([[User talk:Marcus Cyron|talk]]) 17:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

== Terms of Use for the WMF ==
I think that the recommendations regarding the role between the WMF and the communities are completely backwards. It is not time to extend the terms of use. To the contrary, the board should create "terms of use" that the foundation has to comply with in their dealings with the communities. These should, in my opinion, entail the following rules:
* The WMF must respect the fundamental principles of the projects ([[:en:Wikipedia:Five_pillars]], [[:fr:Wikipédia:Principes_fondateurs]], [[:de:Wikipedia:Grundprinzipien]],...). It will not attempt to change them against the will of the communities or act against their spirit.
* The WMF has the role of a facilitator, not a leader. There are many independent projects that are self-governed, only restricted by a limited set of global policies. In particular, each project is free to independently decide whether to implement strategic goals set by the WMF or ignore them. This is necessary to sustain diversity among the different projects.
* The WMF will not interfere with the decision processes of the local projects unless this is required by law or to enforce a restricted set of rules that does not considerably exceed the current set of global policies.
* The WMF recognizes that it is, by far, less diverse than the different communities representing all cultures of the world. It will not attempt to impose their notions of civility upon the communities with very diverse cultural backgrounds in the form of a central "code of conduct".
--[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 17:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Global message delivery/Targets/Signpost

2016-03-17T19:48:47Z

Tinz: /* Users */ removed page of my second account, no longer needed.

{{noise|<center>Hi! Add your name (or a page title) below to receive a weekly copy of the global edition of ''[[w:WP:POST|The Signpost]]''. For subscriptions on the English Wikipedia, see the [[en:w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|subscription page]].</center>}}
== Community page ==
# {{target | page = Incubator:Wikimedia news | site = incubator.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Wikipedia:Signpost | site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Wikipedia:Signpost | site = sv.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = ვიკიპედია:Signpost | site = ka.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Commons:Signpost | site = commons.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | page = 위키백과:소식지 | site = ko.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Wikipedia:Uutiskirjeet | site = fi.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Wikipedia:Signpost | site = ml.wikipedia.org}}

== Users ==
# {{target | user = 분당선M | site = www.wikidata.org}}
# {{target | user = ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ | site = or.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = 분당선M | site = ko.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Јованвб | site = sr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Aalfons | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ace111/Signpost | site = ru.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Achim Raschka| site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Acscosta| site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User:Agruwie/Highlights | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Alberto79 | site= pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = AlessioMela| site = it.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Algazel | site= ms.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = AnnaS.aus I.| site= de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User:Altsprachenfreund/Briefkasten| site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = ArdWar | site= id.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Aschmidt | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Conversa usuario:Banjo/Signpost | site = gl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = B25es | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Bennó | site = hu.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = BonifaceFR | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Discussion utilisateur:Buster Keaton/Signpost | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ca$e | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Cgt/Nyhedsbreve | site = da.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Chenzw | site = simple.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Cherubino | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Chicocvenancio| site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Cocu | site =no.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Consulnico | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Cornelispieter | site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Cyfraw | site = commons.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Dick Bos | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Dr.mbl | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Dynamicwork | site = ko.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Edorfbir | site = no.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Elisardojm | site = gl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Elvaube | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Feedintm/Signspots {{CURRENTYEAR}} | site = commons.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Foxie001 | site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Francisco Leandro | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:frhdkazan | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ggenellina |site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:Gianfranco/News | site = it.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Gloria sah |site = it.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:Graphium/Signpost | site= commons.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Gz260 | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hannibal| site = sv.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Haxpett | site = sv.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Helmoony | site = ar.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hephaion |site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hispalois | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Housterdam | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hrhr2 | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ickx6 | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Igna |site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ijon/Newsletters | site = meta.wikimedia.org }}
# {{target | user = Jackentasche/Inbox | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jaideraf | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jbribeiro1 | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jeblad | site = nn.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jihaim | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jo Lorib |site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jon Harald Søby | site = no.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Leitoxx | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Lijealso |site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Like tears in rain | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Limojoe | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hypothalamus | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kenrick95 | site = id.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kirananils | site = ml.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Klipe | site= fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kontoreg | site = da.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = KurtR | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kuvaly | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kwj2772 | site = commons.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Lgtrapp | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Lukas²³ | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Maddox | site= pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Martin1978 | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Matthias Süßen | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Mikhailov Kusserow |site = id.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Mikhailov Kusserow |site = ms.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Moumou82 | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = MrBlueSky | site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Nakinn | site= pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Netopyr | site= de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Odisha1 | site = or.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Önni | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User:Okino/Newsletters | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Olaf Kosinsky | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = OrsolyaVirág | site = hu.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Palnatoke | site = da.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Paramecium | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Perditax | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = pixeltoo | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = PMG| site = pl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Pmlineditor | site =meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Putnik | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Rjclaudio | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Roll-Morton | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Romaine | site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Rubin16 | site = ru.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Rubpe19 | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = RadiX | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ryuch | site = ko.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Salsero35 | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Saint-Louis | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Seewolf| site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Skull33 | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Muhraz | site = min.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User:Steef389/Signpost | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Steenth | site= dk.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Svenski | site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tatasport | site= id.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tchoř | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Teodor605 | site = no.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = texaner_ | site = hu.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Thibaut120094 | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tjorim | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tomás de Sousa Athayde e Noronha | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Toter Alter Mann | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Trace | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Turíbio Branco | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Vitorvicentevalente | site= pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Vogone | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Wagino 20100516 | site = id.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Xavier Combelle | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Zache | site = fi.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Zinneke | site = lb.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = PigeonIP | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = GastelEtzwane | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Froztbyte | site = da.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = -revi | site = www.wikidata.org}}
# {{target | user = GWNews | site = kk.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Benutzer:Troubled asset/Newsletter | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Curtaintoad | site = simple.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Reception123 | site = simple.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Shangkuanlc | site = zh.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Schwatzwutz | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = SamanthaPuckettIndo | site = id.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Shizhao | site = zh.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Stefan2 | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Theklan | site = eu.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:Davey2010/Archive Signpost| site = simple.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Brugerdiskussion:Patchfinder/nyhedsbreve | site = da.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Asger | site = meta.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Enzaiklopedia | site = eu.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tinoterramus | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Totemkin | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tar Lócesilion | site = pl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Nemissimo | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:Auntof6/Newsletters| site = simple.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Guinness | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Martin E. Walder | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Akadians/News | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Randolph33 | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = George.Edward.C | site = www.wikidata.org}}
# {{target | user = Hsarrazin | site = www.wikidata.org}}
# {{target | user = Mega-buses | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = viswaprabha | site = ml.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ixocactus | site= pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Torana | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Ltrlg | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Obelix/Signpost | site= sv.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jarould | site= es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kenraiz | site= pl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Herr X | site= sv.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Vachovec1 | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = LuizM | site= pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hegerchang | site = zh.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Обсуждение участника:Meiræ/s | site= ru.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = TomT0m | site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jean70000 | site= es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Xabier Cañas | site = eu.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Dalībnieka diskusija:Silraks/Pastkaste | site = lv.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Whitetabor | site = fi.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tramullas | site = es.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jordeň | site = pt.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Jan Kovář BK | site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = MatthiasGutfeldt| site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hamnico| site = nl.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Kimsaka| site = no.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Tinm| site = fr.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Hugo| site = cs.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = SucreRouge | site = el.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | user = KPFC/Newsletter | site = de.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:John123521/News | site = zh.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:John123521/News | site = ja.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:John123521/News | site = simple.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = Uzanto-Diskuto:John123521/News | site = eo.wikipedia.org}}
# {{target | page = User talk:John123521/News | site = outreach.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = Revent | site=commons.wikimedia.org}}
# {{target | user = ProfesorFavalli | site = es.wikipedia.org}}

Requests for comment/Superprotect rights

2014-08-10T22:38:27Z

Tinz: /* Really a WMF Office Action? */ re

{{Rfc subpage}}

== Background ==
The WMF has [[gerrit:153302|added]] a 'superprotect' right – [{{fullurl:Special:Log|dir=prev&offset=20140810134614&limit=1&type=gblrights}} granted] to the 'Staff' global user group – which can be used to prevent sysops from modifying site-wide infrastructure pages (such as default javascript/css pages). There are [[mailarchive:wikitech-l/2014-August/078089.html|suggestions]] that this new right would allow introduction of better version control to these very important files to prevent undesirable effects.

The first [{{fullurl:de:MediaWiki:Common.js|offset=2014081019&action=history}} use] of 'superprotect' was to prevent German Wikipedia sysops from using Common.js to deactivate the [[mw:MediaViewer]]. Like on English Wikipedia, community consensus was to turn off this feature.

Rather than put this feature back into Beta, so that users can optionally enable it if they find it beneficial, WMF has enforced its deployment of this software to all readers, with threats of desysop-ing on English Wikipedia, and now preventing this interface message from being altered by sysops on German Wikipedia.

Please comment on the options below.

== Comments ==

=== Freedom and working together ===

I have started this RFC because for many years I have run workshops where I talk about the different kinds of 'free' that Wikimedia stands for. 1) No cost : Our collaborative work is given to readers at no cost, like beer. 2) Libre : The reader can do whatever they want with it, including profit! 3) Open : And the reader can become an editor, without roadblocks or permission. And finally, 4) Free-form : The software provide building blocks, which the community decides to use, how to use, and can customise (i.e. what was 'shell requests'), and even 'abuse' them to great effect - the wiki is ours to make into a Wikipedia, or a Wikisource, or a WikiWhatver, and we collectively continually redefine what each of those things are.

Over the last year especially, but also before that, I feel guilty about that last item in my slide, because it is no longer free in that respect. We now have a hosting provider who feels they should decide how the projects should look and feel and operate and, worse, they have the right to deploy alpha quality software onto the projects to achieve that objective (and that is being generous for some of the software).

I request the removal of the 'superprotect' right, until there is consensus for it. It could be beneficial, but what good is a superprotected Common.js when all your sysops have left in disgust. If the software deployed was fit for purpose, there wouldn't be a need for superprotection of it.

While sysops editing Common.js do at times break certain features, the sysops of our wikis have often done an amazing job for 10 years, fixing problems quickly - and they are continually improving practises on their wikis. The WMF also deploy broken code onto the wikis and the community doesnt have a superprotect right to prevent that, do we? We need to work together. If there is a need to change the edit access control over these wiki pages, that should be done as an outcome of an RFC.

[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 17:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this usage of the superprotect right is unwanted, the foundation should not use such high-handed measures in a conflict with a large proportion of its users. However, I do think that there are other situations in which it would be appropriate. I am in particular thinking of office actions, where it is found that a valid complaint of libel or such is received by the foundation, and superprotection could be used at least temporarily to ensure that material that the foundation feels legally obliged to remove will indeed not only be removed, but also remain removed. Because of that, I would not necessarily call for the removal of superprotection rights, but just for the removal of this single superprotection usage. - [[User:Andre Engels|Andre Engels]] ([[User talk:Andre Engels|talk]]) 17:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

::The WMF has managed with [[w:WP:OFFICE|Office actions]] being performed as needed, for a very long time. ''If'' there is a need for a better system for managing content control for legal reasons, it should be well thought out as a replacement to the existing system, and then implemented in a well communicated manner. This new superprotect 'right' should be removed in the interim, as it is poorly thought out, and isnt for office actions. It was initially communicated as part of a to-be-established (read: vapourware) code review process. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] ([[User talk:John Vandenberg|talk]]) 18:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The worst is that it was justified as part of a future «[[mailarchive:wikitech-l/2014-August/078089.html|code review process]]» (sic). --[[User:Ricordisamoa|Ricordi]][[User talk:Ricordisamoa|samoa]] 17:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:While it's being misused to ignore community consensus on multiple projects.. --'''[[User:Wiki13|Wiki13]]''' [[User talk:Wiki13|'''talk''']] 17:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

:Andre: It wasn´t about legal issues creating superprotection rights, it was implemented by Erik to use it für a single purpose: To overrule a majority of more than 75% users in a clear vote of the german-speaking community against opt-out. This is a matter of non-communication or worse, using cold-blooded the technical opportunity to do so. Sorry to say but I fear the mutual trust with the WMF (especially the developpers) and the de:WP is deeply ruined after these actions tonight. --[[User:Gleiberg|Gleiberg]] ([[User talk:Gleiberg|talk]]) 17:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::And here a link to the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Special:GlobalUsers/Staff Staff group changelog]. It was added by developer Reedy to the group and was initially requested by [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153302/1/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php Erik Möller]. I think that right should be removed for the Staff group for the time being, until this problem is sorted out. --'''[[User:Wiki13|Wiki13]]''' [[User talk:Wiki13|'''talk''']] 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It was added by Reedy to the global group, because the Staff group has not the needed <code>globalgrouppermissions</code> right to do it self, but the comment in log shows, that it was not done from it own. [[Special:Contributions/84.182.115.30|84.182.115.30]] 19:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw the mail describing this new superprotect right was immediately "The WMF is going to use it to push things against community will, as they tried to do it with VE deployment and other things". Well, it wasn't just an unfounded fear, as this superprotect right has already been used to do exactly that on dewiki. I'm 100% against this superprotect right, as it clearly serves only the purpose of going against community wish (and the given reason of doing "code reviews" is purely laughable). No surprise that distrust against WMF is ever increasing. --[[User:NicoV|NicoV]] ([[User talk:NicoV|talk]]) 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record; I agree with the right addition and the current usage. We as a community have twice abused privileges to site-wide functions and twice caused unnecessary wars against the WMF. The Foundstion have said if we as a community continue to abuse the privilege, they will revoke it. We continued to abuse it, ignoring what they said and so they revoked it. I see no issue. We continued to implemented hacky JavaScript against warnings and community consensus as a matter of fact therefore we do not have access to the function anymore. All seems fine. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 18:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John Lewis in the comment directly above this. Sooner or later people will stop challenging the Foundation when they've made specific mandates or rules, despite some being contrary to "community consensus". They could have de-sysoped the users ignoring the office actions as an alternative - but I would imagine people would be even more upset about that. I think this was their best possible way to achieve the goals given that it was becoming more and more apparent that the "community" was not going to listen. [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:The special value of Wikipedia is the group of users which (have) spend their free time building something amazing. The projects have always been very community driven, and initialy WMF mainly had a facilitating role. More and more WMF is stepping away from purely facilitating and more and more into the role of making the decisions, even if this means completely ignoring community wishes. This is yet another show of the problems which arise with this change. WMF should focus on facilitating (hosting, improving software if wished) and less on everything around that. Another example is the fact that every year more money is "needed", the average donator thinks this money is given to facilitate Wikipedia, and it would otherwise seize to exist. This however, is not true, althought the costs on these issues slowly increase the increase in the money asked for yearly does not compare. In 2007/08 WMF could be run with only 3.5 million, in 2014/15 we would need 50.3 million? Last week we've lost a valued admin on the Dutch Wikipedia because the Foundation chose to go on the political tour and protest against the "Right to Forget". Please go back to the core of what Wikimedia has been in the starting days: a facilitator. Mvg, [[User:Basvb|Basvb]] ([[User talk:Basvb|talk]]) 18:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::You ask for two contradicting things here. You ask the foundation goes back to the core of Wikimedia; free open data with no censorship yet you say it is bad thing they protest against the 'right to forget' initiative which is, censorship. Do you want the Foundation to protest or endorse censorship? [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 18:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I find it complete utter nonsense to say "it was becoming more and more apparent that the "community" was not going to listen". Why in earth should the community listen to what the Staff likes best? As far I know, Wikimedia and it's projects are collaborative, content wise and software wise (e.g. creating the software needed to run the projects). Discissions should be made by the community and not be overruled by the Staff, because they think it's better. If that's the way WMF staff likes to go, then I'll reconsider if this is the project I want to help. --'''[[User:Wiki13|Wiki13]]''' [[User talk:Wiki13|'''talk''']] 18:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::::@Lewis: My post is not about censorship, my post is about Wikimedia turning back to its old role. I ask Wikimedia not to protest for or against anything. Censorship is never a black/white issue (It's good that child pornography is "censored", it's not good when newspapers are (completely) censored). I've not said anything about Wikimedia censoring, I've said they should not make these kind of decisions against community wishes. Mvg, [[User:Basvb|Basvb]] ([[User talk:Basvb|talk]]) 18:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I essentially agree with John F. Lewis, as well. Certainly the WMF wins no sensitivity awards for how they're deploying this, but I'm not really sure what else they could do when at least some communities are making a show of deploying code to entirely break mediawiki features to spite the WMF's optional deployment of them. When talking about changes to features didn't work, "don't touch that" didn't work, and "you could lose your admin rights" didn't work, there was very little else left other than "no, seriously, now we're making it so you can't mess with that." I'm convinced that these kinds of confrontations could be headed off without software wars in the vast majority of cases if the WMF and the communities didn't send basically their least people-skilled users to the forefront of these clashes, but as long as both seem determined to let that keep happening, something had to give, and I'm pretty comfortable with it being "only those who won't break things can edit these pages that will royally screw up the entire software system/legal status of the projects/whatever if you edit them wrong." [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 18:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
: I'm curious why you seem to be viewing this as a "don't touch this" scenario, which is a symptom, rather than examining the underlying problem: a supplementary media viewer feature being forced upon the German Wikipedia. If a wiki community evaluates a particular piece of supplementary software and decides against it, we've traditionally accepted that consensus (e.g., one or two Wikimedia wikis opted out of making Vector the default skin). The JavaScript hacks are hacks, of course. There's now been an investment of developer, system administrator, and translator resources creating a new layer of bureaucracy rather than taking far less time to simply disable this silly extension on the German Wikipedia, as requested. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::Well, here we get more into the realm of opinion, but my sense is that the WMF doesn't wander around writing new features because they're bored, but rather they create them to address a (perceived) need on the part of either the editing or reading communities. So all other things being equal, I tend to favor the WMF's right to say "that thing is there for a reason, please don't remove it abruptly" over a community's right to say "we hate new things and you can't tell us what to do". I would favor even ''more'' a detente in which the WMF was willing to compromise more on features and deployment schedules, and the communities didn't automatically try to disable anything the WMF put forth because raeg, but right now it seems we can't have everything. [[User:Fluffernutter|Fluffernutter]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 19:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::: Doesn't it make you wonder that the communities so often disagree with the Foundation if there are certain needs? Why isn't the Foundation communicating before and then mediating their new features between the wishes of the existing communities, the readers and the Foundation's own interests? Why do they use totaliterian methods to put features on projects? This is not how you treat people who spend much free time, effort and even money on the projects while getting not a single cent paid, while the Foundations consists of paid workers whose salary is generated by teh work of the volunteers. Here is something tipping the boat over. --[[User:Julius1990|Julius1990]] ([[User talk:Julius1990|talk]]) 19:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC) PS: And truth be told: Why get hacks used? Because the Foundation doesn't react to the community wishes. And again the communities are the core of the project, not the Foundation.

::: The German Wikipedia held a community discussion. What's abrupt about them then implementing the consensus from that discussion? Again, this is a completely supplementary feature. It's not needed for reading or editing (and in fact it makes editing more difficult).
::: Erik has decided to take a "might makes right" approach and I'm concerned to see responsible and clueful users like yourself endorsing his actions here. What do Erik's unilateral actions on the English and German Wikipedias say about him? What does it say about the features he's forcing on users? Users should want new features. Erik shouldn't be coercing employees to try to ensure that new features are active everywhere. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Don't you think that the community would be in a better position to see what editors and readers want or need than the foundation? And if so, why do you still favor the foundation saying "This is our shiny new feature and you must have it" over the community's right to say "we dislike this feature for a reason and we'd rather do without it at the moment"? - [[User:Andre Engels|Andre Engels]] ([[User talk:Andre Engels|talk]]) 19:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems like an unfortunate escalation on the WMF's part. Both sides have a responsibility to try to work together, but as a practical matter, the community does not answer to a single person, and the WMF staff do: it's likely that the first olive branch is going to need to come from the WMF side. [[User:Emufarmers|Emufarmers]] ([[User talk:Emufarmers|talk]]) 18:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

If there are technical steps that help clarify what the WMF are controlling directly and what they aren't, that's helpful in my view. Taking a step back from the issue - ultimately the movement's mission supercedes community consensus on any given project. Erik has articulated pretty well why the WMF believes this feature is important for readers and why it supports the mission. I haven't heard much from the other side of the debate about why it isn't, or what alternative model of deploying new technical infrastructure might actually work. [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]] ([[User talk:The Land|talk]]) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

:As an admin on my own wikiversion nl-wikipedia as well as a global sysop frankly I am a wee bit shocked to put it mildly. WMF-employees are around to help and assist. Not to interfere with admins and limit their rights they have been entrusted with by the communities. To protect without consensus and place admins aside shows no respect for the nature and essence of the wikimedia projects at all and is very detrimental to the communities as well as the project as a whole. I trust this will in the end be a singular incident that can be learnt from by people employed as helpers only. The person(s) responsible should be held accountable as well. Kind regards, [[User:MoiraMoira|MoiraMoira]] ([[User talk:MoiraMoira|talk]]) 19:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

: [[User:The Land|Chris Keating (The Land)]]: [citation needed] re: "Erik has articulated pretty well why the WMF believes this feature is important for readers and why it supports the mission." :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] ([[User talk:MZMcBride|talk]]) 19:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

:: Ironic is that the editors and admins active in the projects contribute much more to the goal of spreasing free knowledge than anyone else in the Foundation. The Foundation should help them doing so, not infere with them, creating tensions, unnecessary conflicts, making energy lose from working for the goals we share. Since the Foundation decided to turn from supporting the movement to ruling it, the tensions rose too much. I secretly hope press will see such actions and create some bad mood about Wikimedia affecting the donors in the end of the year. On the one hand protesting against censorship, on the other using surpressive methods on own communities ... double moral standards. --[[User:Julius1990|Julius1990]] ([[User talk:Julius1990|talk]]) 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The Foundation are not suppressing the community, much rather preventing hacks, performance killers and a small subset of users preventing a feature being active. The community is suppressing things here. [[User:John F. Lewis|John F. Lewis]] ([[User talk:John F. Lewis|talk]]) 20:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::::hacks? that were normal edits. no hacks, no performance killing or such things ... and by the way; the community are the ones why people come to WP. They are the reason the developers and all the other staff gets paid! .. and the community is the critical point as WMF does not get tired to repeat; its getting smaller and smaller. ...[[User:Sicherlich|Sicherlich]] [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] 20:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::Furthermore: it was not "a small subset of users". It was a majority decision after long and extended debate on de-wiki. A Foundation not respecting its communities (i.e. the ones who are actually writing the encyclopedia) is not worth much respect itself. [[User:CaAl|CaAl]] ([[User talk:CaAl|talk]]) 20:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:I wonder; why was this Superprotect so suddenly necessary?
* is it the first wheel war WP ist experiencing?
* is it such a endless Editwar that it was needed? (3 reverts)
* was de-WP not able to handle wheel wars/editwars in the past?
:IMO this action, regardless if pro or con the mediaviewer, is one of the many unnesscary steps to annoy community members. ... WMF is looking for ways to find new autors; maybe learing to communitcate with the existing ones to avoid such mess would be a better first step.
:...[[User:Sicherlich|Sicherlich]] [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] 20:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not think it wise to share my opinion about this particular incident at this time, but I am concerned about the precedent that the deployment of this right sets, and what that means going forward. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 20:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll share my opinion then. The access and usage of this page has pretty much been an AGF towards sysops and that was violated and thus taken away. The community has every right to protest the foundation, but this was technical abuse and was 100% predictable consequence. Apparently we now need review on these pages and perhaps there are other forms of review that might be implement able, but this was one of the few implementable quickly. [[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]]) 22:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

===Establish the preeminence of the mission===

# [[Assume good faith|Hopefully]], WMF caused this absurd drama in the hope to generate some productive discussion: on average, users care so little about WMF software development that WMF is left completely unaided in its wandering. Eloquence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media_Viewer_RfC/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=618635951 said some days ago] «that the policy governing software development and deployments on our projects needs to be clarified».
# I can't believe WMF really cares so much about the media viewer; they're just making a [[w:WP:POINT|point]] that they hold the money and the power to use it, because they were looking for a ''casus belli''. For instance, WMF didn't even bother claiming that overriding consensus in this case was related to the strategic goals. (The [[c:Commons:Requests_for_comment/Media_Viewer_software_feature|Commons RfC did]].)
# Some things can be done. Just throwing some ideas.
#* The users need to find a way to help the developers find out, [[mw:Talk:Wikimedia_Engineering#Identifying_when_it.27s_too_late|early enough]], when some idea doesn't fit the Wikimedia mission. How I don't know, but we can affirm the principle. This will allow cutting losses on hopeless investments, on which we share fault.
#* As a goal, not using the latest software development must not be a big deal (big features get undeployed all the time): developers must not feel their work is being wasted and the WMF must not feel it "lost" (or won) a battle. A possibility is to eliminate the battle: we could vote and establish a global policy that a wiki's consensus is enough to get any feature (i.e. extensions) disabled. Breach of the policy will be considered a [[wmf:Bylaws#ARTICLE_II_-_STATEMENT_OF_PURPOSE|violation of WMF bylaws]] and any on-wiki attempt to breach the policy will be reversed by using all existing on-wiki powers (and any nonviolent offline action); this will restore the traditional [[Wikipedia power structure]].
#* In the interest of the [[mission]], we can vote and establish a global policy that [[Limits to configuration changes]] can only be found in the mission itself. The mission can be clarified by strategic documents approved by the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees ''and'' jointly by the community (at least by ratifying them); this will also reinforce a renewed strategic thinking. Of course there will always be a gray area, but both the WMF and the community can't childishly take decisions out of the whim of a moment.
--[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 20:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:@2 - I think (yes, my POV), its a personal thing. The MV is the baby of someone at the WMF and he got pissed. why else such sudden action to create the new right and use it within hours. for such a side issue what the MV is for users. ...[[User:Sicherlich|Sicherlich]] [[de:Benutzer Diskussion:Sicherlich|Post]] 20:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC) 

A little guideline for future new feature developments:
# get an idea for a new feature
# find out if the communities think this feature could be worth programming
# if so, program it
# make an extensive beta test on the labs
# actively seek community input permanently during the beta test
# inform the communities that you plan to change something
# switch the feature on on all wikis and make it opt-in for logged-in contributors (and default for readers if it is something they can use), but inform the communities that it now exists and explain them what it is for and how it is used, and have a little poll for readers to give feedback about the new feature
# if a decent number of active users have opted in, ask the community if they want the feature as default
# if so, make it default. If not, leave it as an opt-in feature, and improve it after seeking community input and continue with #3

And don't you ever skip any of the points or else the communities will react as they did already several times now. (Too bad, WMF didn't learn from the image filter mess. Too bad, really.) --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] ([[User talk:Thogo|D]]) 20:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

: That's the way i imagine things to work ideally. Much less possibility for confrontation, but an enforced cooperation. It would save energies on both sides. --[[User:Julius1990|Julius1990]] ([[User talk:Julius1990|talk]]) 22:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

===Things and the way they are used===
I think we should distinguish between the superprotect right and the "de.wiki-affair". 
While a superprotect right might be useful dealing with de.wiki WMF acted like an elephant in a China shop. We spend so much time dealing with user retention just to see such those bright example of Taliban diplomacy. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 20:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:You cannot differentiate the Superprotect-Right from the way it was used in de-wp. It was developed especially for the purpose to win there an Edit-War and overrule the community decision. It was used immediately, when it was available (ironically a so called "community advocate" was chosen, to force this feature on the de-wp-Community). So let's make clear we don't talk here about an abstract right and the possible good or bad ways to use it. We talk here about a process, where a technical feature was hastily developed, to win a non-technical dispute. This is contrary to any rule how a collaborative project should handle dissents. --[[User:Magiers|Magiers]] ([[User talk:Magiers|talk]]) 21:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::WMF thinks it can administrate the communities, but that does not work at all. Community administration must come from within the community, otherwise the community will feel ignored/misunderstood and will run away. So, if such a right has to exist, give it to the bureaucrats, not to WMF staff. WMF staff should not have any rights, they should tell their wishes to the communities and if they think the community does something wrong, they could still communicate with them instead of simply clicking a few buttons and forget about the fact that the community still exists and still has a different opinion. You guys know that community and communicate start with the same word root? It comes from Latin communis - which means together! --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] ([[User talk:Thogo|D]]) 21:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I'm slightly in a COI being a steward but, for example, a quick superprotection would be a lighter way to handle a wheel war until it's managed by the relevant local community (if any). On very small wikis it would be also useful to prevent "unwatched" damages. In short, it's a tool which cannot be "responsible" for its misuse. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 21:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Well, I'm a steward too. :p Yes, maybe we should have this, too, for such cases. --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] ([[User talk:Thogo|D]]) 22:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::@თოგო: Hear hear. If any admin on any larger WMF project would use their rights in the way the WMF has "handled" the de:wiki MV affair, they would - and rightly so - almost certainly be desysoped for having abused those rights to unilaterally override community consensus. This really, ''really'' is not the way things like these should be decided. [[User:Wutsje|Wutsje]] ([[User talk:Wutsje|talk]]) 22:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Yes, indeed, like I said. --[[User:Thogo|თოგო]] ([[User talk:Thogo|D]]) 22:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

=== Really a WMF Office Action? ===
The socalled "de.wiki-affair" is IMHO more central to the superprotect rights. Reading all the logs and the discussions about the implementation of these rights make me loose my ability to assume good faith. It looks like these rights were fast implemented to give a speacial wmf-staff-member a new weapon in the MMORPG called Wikipedia. How can we ever trust the WMF again? What will be next? Right removal for critic sysops? Sysop rights for WMF-moles? Abolition of sysop-elections? I really can't see the superprotect right apart from the de.wiki-affair. A lot of trust has been destroyed between the WMF and the community through this. --[[User:Emergency doc|Emergency doc]] ([[User talk:Emergency doc|talk]]) 21:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
: Officially, it was an "[https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.js&diff=132951390&oldid=132946679 WMF Edit]". Now one might think that all edits made by WMF employees with their official accounts would be WMF edits, but something tells me this one was special. There is also a thing called "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteforsyth&diff=prev&oldid=616427707 WMF action]". I have no idea if there are any differences between ''WMF actions'', ''WMF edits'' and ''Office Actions''. But I really hope that next time the term "''Office Edit''" will be used, if only for completion. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 22:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Data retention guidelines

2014-06-08T12:05:38Z

Tinz: Data of logged-out visitors

<div style="float:right">{{autotranslate|base=Privacy policy navbox}}</div>
{{Archive box non-auto|[[/Archives/2014|2014]]}}

== Comments from //Shell ==
{{closed|Archiving whole section now as they all appear resolved/set, please reopen if not. Will archive soon if still closed. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC) | text=
=== Introduction ===
** ''"Data is important. It is how we can learn and grow as an organization and a movement..."'' It's not the only way to learn and grow. Is there a way to rephrase it to say that it's an (important) way to learn and grow?
**:What about simply "Data is important. It is one of the ways we can learn and grow as an organization and a movement..."? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**::This is much better! Sounds less extreme, while essentially saying the same thing. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:::Great, done! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
** ''"for the shortest possible time that is consistent with maintenance, understanding, and improving the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable U.S. law"'' This exact text is not (any longer?) in the privacy policy, though two very similar sections are there. You might want to have the two sections actually say the same thing also in the privacy policy.
**:Good catch! I have corrected this sentence. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:: Good. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

=== How long do we retain non-public data? ===
** ''"After no more than 90 days..."'' I had to think twice about what it means. Would it be possible to say "After at most 90 days..."?
**:Good suggestion. I've made the change. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**::Nice. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
** ''"Anonymized"'' What does this mean? Does it mean that it becomes very difficult to associate the data to a specific user, or that it's completely impossible? (Clarification: Especially for small projects, say 5 editors a normal day)
:::Hi [[User:Skalman|//Shell]], we have added some additional definitions and examples to the [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_retention_guidelines#Definitions definitions] section of the guidelines. Thanks for the comment! [[User:RPatel (WMF)|RPatel (WMF)]] ([[User talk:RPatel (WMF)|talk]]) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
** ''"Email address in account settings: Indefinitely"'' Does this mean that if I remove or change my email address, the old address will still be kept? Is that the meaning? Is it desirable? Not sure how to rephrase it to only be about the current email address.
::: I've explained how this happened, and proposed a solution, [[#Indefinite_retention_of_emails|below]]. —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 00:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
** ''"Non-personal information associated with a user account: Collected from user: Indefinitely"'' While the given examples seem okay, this category seems broad and that's particularly bad since the data is kept indefinitely. The given examples seem okay, since they're ''almost'' already public data (first edit, when a user has verified email, and whether the user edits through mobile are public data). E.g. the list of read articles is not public, but could be covered by this category.
**: That's a fair point. It's hard to draw a line and nail down what ''almost public'' data means, but the goal of this section and the list of examples we provided is to try and characterize this category of data as much as possible, without providing an exhaustive list (which we can't do, as Michelle notes below). The bottom line is that we want to commit to retaining indefinitely the same kind of data about individual users that we would be comfortable sharing publicly. What makes this data subject to different terms than metadata collected and published when saving an edit is that it's ''passively collected'' and not explicitly released under Wikimedia's terms of use. So, in short: while [[Schema:ServerSideAccountCreation|user X registered an account on a mobile device]] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?namespace=&tagfilter=visualeditor&title=Special%3ARecentChanges user X edited a page via Visual Editor] or [[Schema:Echo|user X was thanked by user Y for an edit s/he made]] could all be considered examples of ''almost public data'', as they don't disclose anything that falls within the definition of PII, "list of articles read by user X" definitely does: we can't and we won't retain or release this data, unless the user intentionally decides to do so). Maybe the best way to frame this distinction is to say that deciding whether ''almost public data'' could be publicly released is not a question settled on legal grounds but on whether it's appropriate and desirable (if needed, a decision could be made via a community consultation or an RFC). Michelle, is that an appropriate distinction? Hope this helps clarify what we're trying to do here, any suggestion to improve the language and terminology is welcome. [[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
**:: [[User:DarTar|DarTar]]: A list of read articles is ''not'' explicitly listed as "personal information", nor is it explicit in the "How long do we retain public data?" table. I realize that the reason for this might be that it's simply not saved and thus not relevant, but I'd like to see it mentioned somewhere what WMF considers a list of read articles to be. If you wish you could add a note like "currently not kept at all", but things may change, and this seems like a basic piece of information. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 06:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
**:::Hi Shell! We talked about it a bit after Dario responded to you and decided to add it specifically to the table, so people would be clear about how long we retain that type of information. Hope that helps! [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
**::::Great! [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 06:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
** ''"Non-personal information associated with a user account: Optionally provided by a user: Logs of terms entered into the site's search box"'' I realize that "optional" here means that not every WM site visitor must search, but since it's a key part of any wiki it doesn't feel like I "optionally provided" it - I ''must'' do it to see the article I'm interested in (ignoring other search engines). No biggie, but feels a bit weird.
**:I see your point here, Shell. We weren't sure how to best phrase the differentiation between information collected from the user and information provided by the user. We're open to suggestions though if you or anyone else has one. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 01:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:: Would it be possible to remove "optionally" and just say "Provided by a user"? [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:::I would be fine with doing that. I think we originally added "optionally" to more clearly distinguish that kind of data from data that is collected either automatically or actively by us. But obviously, if it makes it less clear rather than helping, we can remove it. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 14:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:::: I was confused about ''search terms'' being optional, since they feel necessary to use the site, while the email address is ''usually'' mandatory, but in the Wikimedia case it's optional. So, I wouldn't mind adding back "optional" to the "personal information" one, but it's more consistent not to. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
** Do you intend to have most common data in this table, in the form of examples? It would be nice to see a ''complete'' list somewhere (though that might be asking too much).
**:The table is meant to address broad categories of data so that we address the treatment of as much data as we can in these guidelines. That said, we are going to try to improve the table (and the exceptions section) with more examples over time as we refine our practices. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 01:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:: It would be nice to have as many examples as possible, so I could imagine that there was a long list in this table, but collapsed by default. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:::I agree. The hope is that we will gradually expand the guidelines with more examples over time. I will talk to people internally and see what additional examples (if any) we can add now though. I imagine if the table gets unwieldy, we'll experiment with formatting so that it's as easy-to-read as we can make it. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**:::: Great. Since there are already examples that feel representative, it's not a big deal, but it'd be nice to eventually have an almost complete list. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Definition of personal information (good job!) ===
** I can think of a couple more items to put in (b), though I'm not sure if it's necessary: (current) city ''(clarification: which is different/broader than address)'', marital status, family ties
**::I added "marital and familial status" to the definition. I'm checking internally whether it makes sense to add current city. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**::: I was thinking about city, since that something you can "easily" get from an IP address, but street address is not.
**::: Of course there's lots of other private information, but maybe it's unnecessary to add that, since I don't see how Wikimedia would get the info: income level/economic situation, level of education, profession, current job situation, hobbies/interests (though interests could be gleaned from what pages a user visits).
**::: There's also the user-agent info: OS/browser version, browser language(s), screen size etc. which websites almost never make public, but which could potentially uniquely identify a user over multiple websites[https://panopticlick.eff.org/]. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
**::::We have added user-agent string to the definition of personal information, so that should be covered now. As for the other "private information" you mentioned earlier, I don't think that level of detail is necessary as the categories in (b) are meant to be illustrative examples of what we consider to be "sensitive information". [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 22:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Exceptions to these guidelines ===
** ''"Data may be retained in system backups for longer periods of time."'' Is there any restriction on how long those backups can exist? Would it be possible, for instance, to delete, aggregate, or anonymize them after at most 5 years?
**:Hi Shell. We have talked internally about your proposal in a significant fashion and agree that it's a good idea. I will be adding corresponding language to the guidelines. Thank you so much for your suggestion. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
**::Good. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 06:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

=== Design of new systems ===
** ''"inclusion of privacy considerations in the code review process"''. Would this be added to some checklist, or is it just a general guideline?

Great to see this stuff be explicit. [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 00:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
: Hi, [[User:Skalman|//Shell]]: The idea was "both", I think - we'd like all Mediawiki developers to be generally careful/sensitive about this, but Engineering would also like to add it to the formal code review guidelines the Mediawiki community has. You can see some [[:MW:Talk:Gerrit/Code_review#Adding_a_.22privacy.22_section|discussion about what text to add to the guidelines over on mediawiki.org]]. —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 18:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

:: Ok. I'm just interested on an overview level regarding this issue and won't be following what exact protocols you decide on. Anyway, good! [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 06:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

=== General comment/response to Shell ===
:Hi Shell! Thank you for taking the time to comment and help us improve these guidelines. Your suggestions are always helpful and greatly appreciated. We will respond in-line to your comments as we work through them. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

:: I've responded to your comments. (and clarified a couple of things) [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 09:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)a
}}

== Indefinite retention of emails ==
{{closed|closing as it looks resolved/set, please reopen if not. Will archive soon if still closed. [[User:Jalexander|Jalexander]]--[[:w:Wikimedia Foundation|WMF]] 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)|text=
Why would emails be retained indefinitely? I would have expected that if an account gets "officially" closed, the user identifies under a new account and declares the old one as discontinued, or exercises their Right to Vanish, these are all scenarios where an email would not be kept on record forever. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
: That was because of a misunderstanding on my part; it does work as you'd expect and I had it wrong while drafting. I'm working on figuring out how to make the table more accurate (probably a new row for things that will be deleted when users delete them, like email) and will post above in Shell's thread when we've figured that out. —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 01:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
: After trying to find the specific sub-section in Shell's list above, I realized it was just easier to post here and reopen this one :)
: This category was always intended primarily for account settings. Since we aren't currently aware of other examples that would fit in this category as it was designed, we propose removing it and adding this row instead:

<table class="wikitable">
<tr>
<th> Data type </th><th> Origin </th><th> Examples </th><th> Maximum Retention Period</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> Personal information </td><td> Account settings </td><td> * Email address </td><td> Until user deletes/changes the account setting.
</table>
: Does that work/make sense? —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 00:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

:: Sounds good to me. :-) [[User:Skalman|//Shell]] 06:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
}}

== Non-personal information associated with a user account (server logs) ==
This should include the contents of some HTTP headers, which ''may'' have privacy concerns, including:
* '''Referer:''' the previous page visited, which may be on any other site (in my opinion if this is from another site, it is strictly private and can only be used as analytic data, only in aggregated forms by origin domain). Almost all browsers send this information by default (unless the user has installed a filtering plugin).
* '''Accept-Language:''' the default language of the browser used, or the list of prefered languages defined in browser preferences; some combinations of prefered languages may be very user-specific, and notably if this/these languages are very uncommon in the country or region associated to the géolocalized IP (e.g. Icelandic or Wolof selected by a user currently in locations like Monaco, Addis Abheba or Harbin, China).
* '''User-Agent:''' and '''Accept:''' which identify precisely the type and version of the browser, and of its supported or installed plugins. These indormations are used by ''CheckUser'' admins teying to identify a user given its past navigation with the same browser installation when IP only is not enough to assert that this is the same user. The exact configation of these combinations of software versions may be very unique to a user; notably when the user has installed some uncommon plugin (this includes media player extensions, or localized versions of security tools) or uses an uncommon browser for a specific platform.
* '''X-Chrome-*:''' and similar custom HTTP headers defined by browsers or plugins (including antivirus tools), some of these headers contain user id's (associated to registration of the plugin or browser; this is very common for media players, or custom browsers embedded within game softwares, or within game consoles, or in some smart TV sets or set top boxes, or in some brands of mobile devices).
* '''Via:''' and similar HTTP headers defined by proxies relaying the user navigation. Some of these headers identify the origin user behind a non-anomizing proxy. Frequently, they contain personal information such as an authorized user name registered on the proxy, or the IP address of the connected user, or some hardware identifier of a mobile device using a public hotspot, or some user id associated internally by the proxy or hotspot (for example in a McDonald restaurant or in a train station), or session identifiers generated on those proxies or hotspots locally associated to an identified user whose account there may persist there for long, and will be sent again each time the same user returns to the same location to use the hotspot with the same device or same local user account). Generally these identifiers (and the full set of HTTP headers) may be requested by admins of these proxies or hotspot, when they receive an alert that one of its users is using their service to abuse external sites such as Wikimedia.

There are also:
* '''Cookies:''' but they are defined by the visited site itself and should be subject to the policy about permanent or session cookies defined by the visited wikimedia sites (this includes cookies generated once the user logs on any Wikimedia site with SUL).
* Data collected by javascript (or scripted plugins such as Flash and media codecs), which can collect other capabilities of the device (such as as the display resolution), or its settings, and data sent to servers by dynamic HTTP requests generated by these scripts. Some of these scripts may also send regular "ping" events to show that the user is still connected to the same page. It could even track what the user is reading specifically in the page (for example when the user interacts with it to inhide a "rolled" box, or when he clicks on visible tabs to see other tabs. Some browser-side scripts may also respond to servers, in response to an incoming event from the server. This allows a site to know that the user is active for long on one specific page; however these data perform separate HTTP requests, in the background, which are not always on the same site as the visited site, and that are logged separately on the queried server).
* Data collected by media players for tracking the quality of connections for the delivery of streams. In some cases the media players will switch to use another stream.
* Some medias such as video and audio include timecodes that also allows the site to track which part of the media has been played, and how many times by the user. When the user pauses the media, rollbacks to repeat it, or skips some parts, the media server may know it.
* DNS resolution requests and similar "site info" requests, including for getting TXT records checked by security tools, of "finger" and "whois" info: not all of them are coming from an ISP but may be performed directly to Wikimedia DNS servers from a plugin in the browser or from the browser itself (trying to assess the site). Some of these requests may be very user-specific if they test some aliased subdomain names within Wikmedia domains, or if they perform queries that are typically only performed by ISPs. Users may perform direct DNS requests to Wikimedia domains. In some cases the ISP may reveal information about the user for which it forwards the DNS resolution request, as part of the DNS query itself in timely reproducible patterns of events. These requests are not reaching a webserver but an infrastructure server managed by Wikimedia (but possibly hosted by a third party domain hosting provider, operating with their own data retention and privacy policies).

More generally, this data includes everything that is stored by the webserver in the server logs, and it is much more than just the IP or the URL visited with its query parameters (some webserver logs may add query parameters not present in the URL but added in POST data (and that may be converted by one of the front proxies used by Wikimedia sites into GET parameters present in the URL submitted to the backend server).

Note that there are logs stored in front proxies (including instances the various Squid instances connected to the public IP address) and logs stored by backend webservers. There may be filters in front proxies, and front proxes may anonymize part of these requests (notably requests whose cacheable results will be delivered to multiple users).

Server logs are concerned by US laws, when they require that the sites in US retain these logs for some period of time. All these logs are also used by ''CheckUser'' admins.
[[User:Verdy p|verdy_p]] ([[User talk:Verdy p|talk]]) 00:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

: Hi, Verdy:
: Thanks for your detailed thinking on this. There are many different parts to this; let me try to respond in pieces:
: '''User Agent information''': We agree that UAs should be treated as personal information, and covered by this policy; that is why it is in the definition of PI :) We're already working on this, for example by filtering UAs in Labs and by [[:mw:EventLogging/UserAgentAnonymization|working to sanitize them in Event Logging]].
: '''Other HTTP headers''': I see your point about putting this in PI. We’re talking with analytics and ops about how best to handle them.
: '''Cookies''': These aren’t data stored on our servers so they aren't appropriate for this policy. They are instead addressed in the general privacy policy.
: '''Other examples from site users''': You listed a lot of other examples, such as data collected through javascript methods, and from hypothetical future media servers. Some of these we implicitly mention (EventLogging is a javascript-based tool); others are not. We’ll try to expand the list of examples over time, but ultimately, the examples are examples - they can’t be, and aren’t intended to be, a complete list. Instead, we’ll apply the general principles described here as situations come up.
: '''Examples from outside the sites''': DNS logs would be covered by this policy, since they are “services” as defined in the Privacy Policy, and don’t currently have a separate privacy policy. You’re correct to point out that in some circumstances those logs could be identifying.
: '''US law and log retention''': There may be some unusual circumstances where we're required to stop deleting logs (i.e., if we're sued and the logs have some data relevant to that) but as a general matter there are no US laws (federal or state) that require log retention.
: Hope that helps clarify. —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:: Further followup on DNS: the DNS tool we use doesn't log requests at all, only aggregate counts. Hope that helps. —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 20:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Verdy p}} Final point on other HTTP headers: we talked about this after your question, and we realized that our approach was not quite right. As a oresult, we've made changes to the data retention policy and the privacy policy. I've discussed the changes in a lot more detail [[Talk:Privacy_policy#Slight_changes_to_definition_of_PII.2C_this_policy.2C_and_data_retention_policy_as_a_result_of_question_about_headers_from_Verdy_p|on the main privacy policy talk page]]. Thanks for raising the issue! —[[User:LVilla (WMF)|LVilla (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LVilla (WMF)|talk]]) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
::: Thanks a lot for taking note about these issues and revisiting a few missing/unclear items.
::: However this subject of meta-data in server requests; as well as the integration of active components (like multimedia plugins) is not closed. As techologies will continue to evolve; and browsers as well (or security suites) performing some hidden background requests to many other third parties, we'll needto track it for a long time. The issue is more sever with components that are mandatory parts of the Internet architecture itself (notably DNS, IP routing data exchanges, finger, the PKI architecture and secure authentication key exchanges) and other technologies supposed to mitigate this risk (such as DNT protocols). DNS is now the most attacked protocol (in terms of global network neutrality) by ISPs themselves (and all their thrd-party service providers).
::: I'm not even sure that the use of HTTPS now on Wikimedia will really improve the privacy, or if it will not just help those that want to identify and track users... Even users of The Onion Network may also find problems in terms of being tracked (even if the exchanged contents are encrypted! It will still be easy to track recent changes occuring in MediaWiki projects to correlate them with traffic initiated from one "anonymous site" whose authentication key may be indexed at its source and correlated to trafics reaching the public sites).
::: '''May be we publish too many things on Wikimedia public logs''' (we could mitigate this risk by reducing the precision of timestamps to only 5 minutes, and shuffling entries from multiple users so that they won't have a deduced order of occurences; also we should probably hide part of IP addresses for non-logged in users, to only about 20 bits; we could also assign better "anonymous user names" for these IPs, for example by hashing these addresses with the time of creation of the user name and some secret data used at that time for a limited period and changed regularly: the server would issue new randomized data for each new period of time, for example once every week; by encrypting the start time of that period, with an encryption key owned only by the WMF, and then using that ''time-key'' as additional data to the IP address for generating a string hash used as the "public user name"). '''We should better protect the privacy of IP users''' (notably because they may be not logged in by accident (by expiration of their current login session); ans so we should not reveal these IP publicly (let's leave that possibility only to ''CheckUsers'' using server logs.)
:::: Note that the public ''username'' assigned for ''IP-only users'' (connected with IPv4 or IPv6), the encrypted user id generated as above (a unique but temporary id not lasting more than one week; so that admins can still block most abusers easily for one week), may take the form of a 128-bit IPv6 address allocated in a private IPv6 address block: It will not be routable on the Internet (except possibly via Wikimedia servers offering some routing to these users, using the privately stored secure mappings). This form would work with existing tools that expect to parse IP users as those using a username looking like an IP address.
::: And this should be investigated to make sure that there are not "black hats" expliting them to track users up to their source even if these black hats don't know exactly the route followed by this trafic).
::: For this I would advocate the development or support of very secure browsers which could hide the user's trafic directly from its source (TOR has this in its specific version of the Mozilla browser; but users are at risk when using any mobile device from famous brands, except possibly the rare mobile devices built on top of Linux OSes, such as Ubuntu Mobile) [[User:Verdy p|verdy_p]] ([[User talk:Verdy p|talk]]) 14:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
:::: Thanks for continuing the discussion, Verdy. Let me respond briefly:
:::: '''Server-request metadata''': I agree that there will be a lot of changes in the future. That's why I like the change we made in response to your earlier comments - instead of using a precise, defined list, we gave ourselves some flexibility so that we can do the right thing when new technologies arise. Thank you again for raising that - it is probably one of the most important changes we made in response to community feedback.
:::: '''Public information''': We do publish a lot of information, like precise timestamps. As we've discussed extensively in the main privacy policy discussion, changing these would be a huge change that would break many third-party tools that are quite important to the functioning of the site. So these changes could be made, but the discussion must be had at a technical and social level, with participation from WMF engineering, bot authors, and checkusers (among many other people). The privacy policy has had a lot of positive impact (ops, for example, is starting to improve logging already) but this is only a starting point - more extensive changes of that sort really have to happen separately.
:::: '''Protecting IP users''': I agree that this is important, but it will require deep technological changes to the site. It has to be discussed as a technical issue first, with a good strategy to address it, before we can write it into the privacy policy.
:::: '''Browsers''': I agree that it would be good if browsers and other related tools took privacy more seriously, but that's well outside the scope of what the Foundation can do at this time - we need to focus on what we can control.
::::: That's why I also suggested the possibility of hosting some authenticated users on trusted anonymizing proxies offered to them by local chapters acting on behalf of the Foundation to control these users (it could be better than just asking to these users to go to using oly TOR, when they can't predict if their TOR exit node will not be looged. The TOR Browser is anyway an existing solution that can be proposed to these users, as long as the Foundation allows these authenticated users to choose the trusted chapter on whiich they will connect (via TOR for their originating trafic, where they are) to visit wikimedia sites. proxies offered by chapters could use a technical solution developed in partnership betwene the Foudantion and the candidated chapters (or related parters, like privacy protection groups or NGO's those partners will limit the number os users they will accept to proxy; and these trusted proxies will be identified by the Foundation servers as such, without them knowing anything else than which partner is in charge of controling these proxied users). I'm convinced that TOR connections are not bad for the Wikimedia projects, as long as users are associated to a registered account, even if that account is not associated to a real user name known directly by the Foundation (and accessible to the US law or by the NSA and other "Big Ears" elsewhere in the world). [[User:Verdy p|verdy_p]] ([[User talk:Verdy p|talk]]) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
:::: Hope that helps explain the situation - thanks again for your serious comments on these important issues. -[[User:LuisV (WMF)|LuisV (WMF)]] ([[User talk:LuisV (WMF)|talk]]) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

== Advertising on projects ==

This discussion is open since the 10th of January, and due to close on 4 days. However, it seems that no advertising of its existence as been made (since today) on the french wikipedia (correct me if I'm wrong). I see that as a problem, since those guidelines will affect all users of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation...

[[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]] ([[User talk:Pleclown|talk]]) 10:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:Hi [[User:Pleclown|Pleclown]]. You are correct that the only notifications that went out were to wikimedia-l/WikimediaAnnounce and on the talk pages for the privacy policy and access policy. However, the Data Retention Guidelines are just that-- guidelines. Unlike a Policy, guidelines do not require a vote from the Board and can be amended at any time. We intend for it to be a living document and we welcome discussion about it even after the consultation period ends. Thanks for the input! [[User:RPatel (WMF)|RPatel (WMF)]] ([[User talk:RPatel (WMF)|talk]]) 23:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

== Location information ==

This is part of the personal information definition, and it needs to be more specific. First, please revise to "...location information (if you have not posted it publicly)". In other words, personal information voluntarily provided on a WMF project by an individual can't really be treated in the same way as personal information that has not been publicly provided. With respect again to location, when wearing my checkuser hat, I think we might need to be a bit more clear as to what would or would not fall into the "location" issue. Is naming the country giving away location? This comes up regularly when addressing sockpuppetry issues. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 16:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
:Hi Risker! That's a good call. I've added your suggested phrasing accordingly. With regards to location, the privacy policy permits public disclosure of location information as long as it's properly aggregated or anonymized. Most of the time, a country-level identification would be sufficient to protect a user's identity. However, there may be rare cases where there is such a small community in a particular country that we would not feel comfortable releasing even country-level information. Does that make sense? [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 19:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

==Closing of the Consultation Period for the Data Retention Guidelines==
The community consultation for the Data Retention Guidelines has closed as of 14 February 2014. We thank the community members who have participated in this discussion since the opening of the consultation on 09 January 2014 and have helped make the Guidelines better as a result. Although we are closing the community consultation, we welcome community members to continue the discussion. The Guidelines are intended to evolve and expand over time. You can read more about the consultation on the [//blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/14/a-proposal-for-wikimedias-new-privacy-policy/ Wikimedia blog]. [[User:Mpaulson (WMF)|Mpaulson (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mpaulson (WMF)|talk]]) 00:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

== CheckUser ==

If I read this correctly, it means that after 90 days IP info is not retained, meaning someone with the CheckUser permission will not be able to go back more than 3 months to investigate a possible sockpuppet situation? That seems unfortunate. [[User:I'm Tony Ahn|I'm Tony Ahn]] ([[User talk:I'm Tony Ahn|talk]]) 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

: It's been 90 days for quite a while now, and represents the balance point between protecting user privacy and allowing us to effectively investigate abuse. While it can make investigating long-term abuse more difficult, it is ultimately a good thing. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|talk]]) 06:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

: Considering that check user rights are used without a clear policy to govern their use, the rights are handed out on a popularity vote rather than measurable evidence of competence or maturity, and without any independent transparent accountability, including the fact that users being investigated may never be informed either that they have been subject to this process or why they were under suspicion, then putting a limit on how far back users can be pursued in this way is probably a good thing even if there were not legal reasons for doing so. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 07:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:: That is incorrect Fæ, there is a clear policy that governs its purpose, use, assignation, etc. and how it ties into the policy with regard to privacy; please see it at [[Checkuser policy]]. Your reflections on the assignation reflect your general unhappiness that you share across multiple forums within the whole of WMF. If you believe that there is a better process to undertake, then I look forward to your solid proposals in the RFCs, rather than your plaintive snipes across these forums.  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 16:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

::: Thanks for your response. My statement appears entirely correct against the policy you have linked to, please explain which of these statements is not correct.
:::# On Commons CUs rights are given out on a simple popularity vote. There is no other check of competence or maturity.
:::# Though there is a system of raising complaints, there is no transparent system of accountability as to do CUs there is no requirement to lay out a public justification, nor even inform those parties that CU has been run on their account. If you don't know it happened and you don't see a justification, how could the parties ever raise a complaint and supply the "links and proofs of bad behavior" that are required by policy in order to complain?
::: You refer to RFCs, I would welcome a link to any.
::: As for "plaintive snipes", that appears a value judgement about my character that you have not bothered to support with any evidence, and so it is not possible to defend against; I would appreciate it if you avoided haphazard personal attacks and focused on the issue in hand. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:::: A nomination, an ability to ask and answer questions, and a vote (>80%, 25+ votes) is not a popularity contest, no matter how much you may not like it. Checkusers are identified to WMF and there is an age requirement. Clearly covered in the policy. If you wish for a change then put it forward to the community on the appropriate page. It is not relevant to data retention period.
:::: Raising complaints, OC, and minimum number of checkusers is accountability. If you wish for more, then put forward a proposal to the community on the appropriate page. It is not relevant to data retention period.
:::: It was a statement about your comments, not your character. That you made the comments, and the manner that you made them, on a discussion about duration of retention should have been sufficiently indicative.  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 03:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

::::: ''"your general unhappiness that you share across multiple forums within the whole of WMF"'' and ''"your plaintive snipes across these forums"'' are unambiguously not a statement about my comments in this discussion, please do not argue that black is white. A comment about another editor's "general unhappiness" is a comment intentionally about the person, not the the matter at hand. I find your response colours the discussion, taking it on a tangent as a personal attack, when my original comment here was ''entirely'' non-personal but about the systems we have in place. I have no idea why this is such a sensitive or fragile issue that you would want to put me off expressing my point of view on meta.
::::: However, well done, you 'win', if that was your objective. I cannot see the point in discussing the issue further on this thread if it is just going to be an excuse for you to have a series of jibes at my character rather than taking my points seriously. I'll go focus on some content creation issues and leave this discussion to more worthy people. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 05:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

: Already above one week, most dynamic IP are no longer valid and cannot be associated to a user. Dynamic IP is the standard, even more with mobile users and users of proxies.
: And most abuses will be made from mobile networks or proxies. So there's little need to keep that data as we can't investigate them at the ISP to match them with a user.
: If we need to keep data for 90 days, this would mean that we cannot take any action against massive abusers in a considerable time and need other tools to detect massive abusers.
: For the rest, its is only a question of individual problematic edits in specific topics: do we really need to keep this dangerous and massive data for so long? It's like a hammer to kill a mosquito and we increase the risks of having this data seized and reused for something else against many users (not abusers) by correlating this data against other data collected privately and abusively.
: My opinion is that keeping logs should be reduced to the strict miminimum required by laws applicable to the location where are the servers collecting these data (and in US, not moved to another state or juridiction when there are multiple servers or local frontal proxies, except possibly as offsite backups with strong encryption).
: The personal data used by CheckUser is extremely dangerous for the vast majority of legitimate users. [[User:Verdy p|verdy_p]] ([[User talk:Verdy p|talk]]) 08:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Verdy p}} The data is more than just real people's edits, it is also for spambots which are quite prolific across the systems.Three months data is about the right length to get a consistency of pattern for abuse. To remember that we are not looking at the straight raw data, the process is to run a check on either an IP, a range of IPs, or a username, so it is targeted with the vast bulk of data not being seen. Re your reflections, they are opinions, broad sweeping statements, and not supported by evidence, and they don't align with what I see. While some of what you say may align with some nations, and some providers, it is not universal. While there is validity for general users, it is not accurate where we see spambots. Re abused open proxies, they are far more predominantly {{sc|not}} dynamic addresses.Rhetorical statements and opinions not supported by fact are problematic in this situation, especially where the stream is opinion that follows hypothesis by more opinion to your predetermined conclusion. Then outlandish statements like <code>personal data used by CheckUser is extremely dangerous for the vast majority of legitimate users</code> is quite provocative. 1) Checkusers don't '''use''' personal data especially not for legitimate users, and would rarely see personal data for legitimate users and when seen would hardly be pursuing it and not publishing it. 2) How can the viewing of data be extremely dangerous? What is the basis for such a careless statement? The truth is that the vast bulk of our users are making occasional edits, and that the data is completely innocuous, and puts them in no danger as they edit their article on One Direction, Kylie Minogue, their favourite footballer, etc. The fact that it is not searched, is never viewed, and is not shared should set your mind to rest that the vast majority of our users are not exposed to danger. Your hyperbole is unhelpful.  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 17:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

::: I was certainly not provocative and rhetotical as you state here. You seem to overvalue your own work in this area. My comments are general considerations and I maintain that these logs are dangerous, including legally, to keep for too long. If they were not, we would not have specific CheckUser rights and a strongs policy for usng this tool, and any limit to their housekeeping. In fact you are using your own opinion that is going completly against th existing policy. I maintain that long retention times are more a problem than a solution. Even against spambots. 1 month is far enough against them, which should be used by a much larger army of normal users. Extending this time will not solve the problem better, we can work wth the general comunity of reviewers and should better work on tools allowing them to handle most of the spambot traffic
::: I've seen recently someone being banned for 1 full year for only 1 single edit, only because of that edit caused problem, and he was logged off at this time. Unfortunately this was a dynamic IP and this bloc kmeans that any other user dring one year using this IP will be forbidden from editing (this IP is sued by a major ISP in US that can assign it to any user in a very large region (and this block was made by an admin that did not even check the status of this IP and did not even request CheckUser. And this was just for a stange comment posted in a talk page (not the correct one) by someone visibly new wanting to comment his way for the first time (and that short message was not even spam (i.e. not massive, not repeated anywhere else, not advertizing, not insulting or harassing anyone, it was politically neutral; all that should have been done is to revert that comment and alert that user that this was not the right place to post that and direct him to some other place explaing things). And it was also not sent from an open proxy. just a dynamic IP. The user just forgot to sign (or most probably did not even had the time to add the signature as he was banned completely including against his own user alk page and agasint any attempt to recreate an account. Such bans are nefast for the project, we forget the mission of the project to be educative and teach best practices to users.
::: At the same time I've been victim of personal harassment by someone that also damaged lot of pages and refised to hear anyone for a long time. It took considerable time to have that user blocked even after that user used letal threats. Spambots are not so much a problem that we need to develop and maintain huge hammers to kill these mosquitos, their behavior is highly predictive, what they post is reproduced consistently with minor variation because their automated brain has limited choices and have no imagination and they are slow to adapt. Spambots have clearly identifiable patterns, may be they don(t care about their personal images, they just insist in postng their spew and not changing it. If the content is too much identifiable they introduce some limtied typos or use encoding quirks that no humane would even type on their keyboard (such that replacing characters by others similar in other scripts or posting in "1347" / "LEAT" style, frequently also with abuse of capitals to get heard)..
::: So please calm yourself, even if spambots irritate you. We cannot do good job by precipitation and when overreacting nervouly. If you feel too nervous, it's time for you to take some wikibreak to apease your mind: you are not alone, don't take this task too personnaly if you participate to it. One good thing about the existing policies is that admin should never worl alone and decide everything alone and CheckUser admins should also work in cooperation with other users addressing most issues. [[User:Verdy p|verdy_p]] ([[User talk:Verdy p|talk]]) 18:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:::: Your commentary was both [[wikt:provocative]] and [[wikt:rhetorical]]. I provided my opinion of the general usefulness of three months ''versus'' one month. I also commented that from my experience at looking at checkuser data, that your examples of dynamic IPs encompassed a subset of the situations that I see from the data. I believe that the provision of an opinion of the medium of checkuser data based on experience is relevant to the conversation. I don't see how the rest of your commentary, nor your blocking example, is relevant to the data retention guideline.To your disparaging comments to me. Meh! Ill-informed and unnecessary, but whatever rocks your boat. Shoot the messenger!  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 04:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

::::: Please read the definitions you cite. I have not provoked anyone in the initial message I posted (and certainly not against you because when I posted it above, you had never said anything here (you've changed the order of discussion: I had posted here before you in this thread above when you insterted a reply to someone else above my own posted one day before).
::::: You just started to accuse me of being provocative (against who? why?) and prookayive even though my message was short enough (your message was longer and only targetted against me, so yes it is your message that was provocative and rhetorical. I gave some personal opinion without forcing anyone to have the same like what you are ding. I also asked you to remain calm,but apparently you are nervous since the begining and cannot hear that.
::::: I gave arguments explinaing my poisiton by the simple existence of the limitation of length in the policy. Thunk about it: there are reasons why many people are getting nervous about keeping logs of personal data. IT is not just the question of the individual actions that can be taken by CheckUSers, but more about the risk taken if this data is disclosedn even accidentally or because someone would like to attack it and make intrusive usage of this data, notably someone that also has some large amounts of other data. For this reason this data must have a minimum lifetime needed for technical or legal reasons but nothing more. And this is true even if these are static IP or dynamic IP assignments or other sensitive data. Notably this data is tracking everyone, not just the few spambots you're wanting to find and block. That's the definition of a "hammer to kill mosquitos", a wellknown expression that is decriptive enough without being considerd "rhetorical" or "provocative".
::::: May be Ive used some terms that you feel are more irritating than I think, so sorry, English is not my native tongue. But it was definitely not personal like what you did and the general spirit was fairly understandablen don't infer subtle interpretations that I did not imply. You started replying to me that "data is more than people edits". I perfectly know that becuse edits in Wikiemdia are all visible to everyone and the policy is definitely not about these edits but oher personal data collected that people are sending only by their presence or by the technical communication mean they use with little thing they can really do to avoid it (the only solution against that is to use anonymizing proxies, but they are slow and in fact we know that they are used by abusers. So you're proposing to extend the retention time to personal data that essentially contains data from legitimate users only to try discovering a few tracks left by a few spambots or abusers. I maintain that this retention log is dangerous (and probably even more than spambots themselves that can't really do lot of irreversible damages). On the opposite, damages caused due to intrusion to personal data is almost always irreversible, think about it seriously : and the longer we keep this personal data, the more we are all exposed to these risks. In addition the actions taken by admins based on a few tracks collected and kept a bit abusively, are rarely definitive profs. They have known side effects that can affect any one at any time, even when they didn't do anything in Wikiemdia sites (e.g. tracking IPs that have been used in some past time by a few abusers). [[User:Verdy p|verdy_p]] ([[User talk:Verdy p|talk]]) 05:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

== If there is any cases of retaining data longer than stated in this guideline... ==

Though I suppose this guideline is only about ''What WMF will do to retain original data on its servers'' but not what people who has access rights will do after seeing the data, I am concerned about this issue:

It is [[Ombudsman_commission/2013/Report_Jul-Dec|suggested by Ombudsman commission]] and [[Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2014-02#A_question_about_CU_data_more_than_three_months_old.28stale.29|a current practice]] to retain stale checkuser data in case long term abuse is involved and for the purpose of explaining some checkuser actions. Does retaining data on checkuser wiki count as "retaining non-public data"? Should we mention those aspects in this guideline as well? Do we have to notify related parties when there is a need to retain data longer than it should be retained?--[[User:朝鲜的轮子|朝鲜的轮子]] ([[User talk:朝鲜的轮子|talk]]) 05:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

== Data of logged-out visitors ==
Under "Articles viewed by a particular user" the table only mentions logged-in users as an example. Do you retain a complete history including logged-out page views? For example, would it be possible for you to create a list of all IP-adresses who watched a given article in the last 15 days? --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 12:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Steward requests/Permissions

2014-01-23T23:00:16Z

Tinz: /* Tinz@de.wikipedia */ ok

{{/Header}}

== Requests ==

<div style="display:none">

COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below:
<pre>
==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain =
|user name =
|discussion=
}}
</pre>
</div>
=== Administrator access ===
{{/Sysop-header}}

==== Hkjacksonhk@zhwikivoyage ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = zh.wikivoyage
|user name = Hkjacksonhk
|discussion= [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk]]
}}
For doing translate on mediawik and the link on different languages.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:Do you know that interface translations are to be done on [[:translatewiki:]], in principle? --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 13:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
::I mean that the zh-hans and zh-hant.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 14:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
::And also I request to being the admin for picking up this new website.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 14:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:::The temporary requests granted so far have been for very short periods to clean up after the import. If you are asking to be an admin beyond that period then you will need to begin a discussion on zh.wikivoyage to get the support of the new community. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 08:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your ideas, the disscussion has been start at [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk]].--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{onhold}} until <s>30</s> 22 January. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::Re Trijnstel:now Wv/zh has made a decision that a admin vote only last for 7 days([[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#管理員投票截止時間]]), so please any admin can check my Requests on 22/1/14, thank you.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ok, but still on hold until then. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::::The vote will end at 09:52 UTC. Now 5/0/0.--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 07:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thank you.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Voting on [[zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk]] closed as 5 support, no oppose or neutral. --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 10:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Vituzzu}} May you have a look at these two requests?--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 10:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Billinghurst}} May you have a look at these two requests?--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::: {{Done}}. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Gabrielchihonglee@zhwikivoyage ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = zh.wikivoyage
|user name = Gabrielchihonglee
|discussion= [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee]]
}}
Gabrielchihonglee nominated himself as a sysop in [[voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#申請做Sysop]]. He says he will request other's advice and suggestion. Local discussion is continuing.--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:Moved to [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee]] --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 09:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{onhold}} until <s>31</s> 22 January. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Trijnstel}} Same as what hkjacksonhk has said, Wv/zh has made a decision that a admin vote only last for 7 days(voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#管理員投票截止時間), so please any admin can check my Requests on 22/1/14, thank you.--[[User:Gabrielchihonglee|Gabrielchihonglee]] ([[User talk:Gabrielchihonglee|talk]]) 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ok, but still on hold until then. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Voting on [[:zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee]] closed as 8 support, no oppose or neutral. --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 06:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|zhuyifei1999}}, thanks! {{ping|trijnstel}}please handle, thanks! --[[User:Gabrielchihonglee|Gabrielchihonglee]] ([[User talk:Gabrielchihonglee|talk]]) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
: Done. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 06:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Great Brightstar@zhwikivoyage====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain =zh.wikivoyage
|user name =Great Brightstar
|discussion= [[voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Great Brightstar]]
}}
The vote will end at 09:55 UTC. Now 1/0/4.[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 07:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Voting on [[:zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Great_Brightstar]] closed as 1 support, 4 neutral and no oppose. I guess I'd better leave the final decision to stewards. --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 10:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|QuiteUnusual}} What about this?--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 14:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:::It seems like nobody of those who opined neutrally indicated any reasons on the page? --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

==== 분당선M@ko.wikinews ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain =ko.wikinews
|user name =분당선M
|discussion=[[:n:ko:위키뉴스:관리자 선거/분당선M/재신임]]
}}
Almost all community member voted. 3 {{s}}, 1 {{oppose}}. Thanks, —[[User:Hym411|레비]][[User talk:Hym411|Revi]] 11:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{TempSysop|3|2014|04|30||}}. Unexpired, so no action needed. Extended three more months. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 14:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
::I removed and re-added the rights per the usual practice, so that the extension of temporary rights is also logged in Special:Log itself, not only in these request pages. --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks, didn't realise that was the usual practice. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 16:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Bureaucrat access ===
{{/Crat-header}}

=== CheckUser access ===
{{/CU-header}}
==== Pallerti@huwiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = hu.wikipedia
|user name = Pallerti
|discussion= [[:hu:Wikipédia:Javaslat tisztségviselők megválasztására/Pallerti (IP-ellenőr)]]
}} --[[user:Pallerti|Pallerti]][[File:Lapin.svg|16px]][[User talk:Pallerti|Rabbit Hole]] 09:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{onhold}} pending identification. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{done}}. I will also arrange the other stuff (cu-l etc). [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 10:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Bedankt voor je hulp! --[[user:Pallerti|Pallerti]][[File:Lapin.svg|16px]][[User talk:Pallerti|Rabbit Hole]] 17:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Aratal@frwiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = fr.wikipedia
|user name =Aratal
|discussion= [[:fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Renouvellement#Résultat]]
}}
The French Arbcom has appointed Aratal as a CU. For the French Arbcom, — '''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish| Tk ]] 12:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
: Waiting to be listed [[Identification noticeboard|here]]. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{done}}. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 18:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Oversight access ===
{{/OS-header}}


=== Removal of access ===
{{/Removal-header}}

==== Urdutext@ur.wikipedia ====
Removal of access '''[[:ur:User:Urdutext]]''' from '''ur''' Urdu Wikipedia Administrator to normal user.

{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = ur.wikipedia
|user name = Urdutext
|discussion= [https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%88%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%DB%92_%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C/Urdutext consensus on the local wiki]
}}

I convey my regards to all the users, I hope you are doing well and are enjoying good health. The subject matter of this topic must have been clear by now as you go by page title (i.e. removal of adminship from user:Urdutext).
Before stating the disputed matter, I would like to draw your attention towards the brief wiki introduction of the subjected admin.
Mr. Urdutext is a senior user and admin of this encyclopedia, moreover the oldest in this present active admin panel. His contributions towards this wikipedia, especially in the field of mathematics have been worthwhile (although this is an altogether a different aspect, as to his use of self created language and terms are so painfully abstruse that most users tended to avoid them). To crystallize the picture as clearly as possible, I would like to inform you that when at the time he was chosen as an admin for his services, the users were few and very little in number. As the conditions were, back then, he was given away the adminship without much considerations and voting; and as well because uptil then the rules and regulations regarding the adminship were not completely compiled on Urdu Wikipedia.
This was the brief introduction of his previous activities and role; now here on Urdu Wikipedia, from quite some time (after having remained inactive for a long period) he has been engaging himself in anti-wiki activities, like:
Instead of guiding new users on proper use and referring them to the guideline pages and wiki directives, he has been sabotaging their rights with the baton of rules.
Unjust in using his authority by taking unfair steps against the active users.
Being scornful and making personal attacks on users (e.g. he commented on this talk page attacking one of the respected wiki user as:
جن اصحاب نے سائنس پر سرے سے کچھ لکھا ہی نہ ہو، یا سائنس کی الف بے سےبھی واقف نہ ہوں، اور صرف لمبی لمبی بحث کرنے کے شوقین ہوں، ان کو کیا جواب دیا جائے؟
those who never wrote anything on science or do not have even a faintest idea of its basics and fundamentals, but like to propagate their conjectures through never-ending debates, what would be an answer that should be given to them?
While that user keeps writing articles in one of the most prominent urdu scientific journal).
Use of self created scientific terminology and abstruse language in the wiki articles and their titles and moreover forcefully imposing on others the same.
Most of the users have shown their discontent with him for his rough and rude behavior! Etc.

'''[[:ur:ویکیپیڈیا:معزولی/رائے شماری/Urdutext#Verdict in English|Verdict in English]]'''

* In favor of removal of adminship: 19
* In opposition: 6

--[[User:Tahir mq|Tahir mq]] ([[User talk:Tahir mq|talk]]) 12:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:Hello, is there a policy on ur.wiki that covers the removal of admin rights? That is, can you provide a link to a policy that says (for example) an admin will lose their rights if x% of editors vote to remove them? If not, we will act on the consensus, but it would be helpful if there is a formal policy. Thanks. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:: '''Policy''' [[:ur:ویکیپیڈیا:منتظمین#معزولی|معزولی - Deposition]]

::'''معزولی - Deposition'''

::'''''Translation'''''

::Those Administrators who are not active for a year can be ousted from the administrative post. Non active administrator will be contacted on their talk page and E-mail (if available) and will be informed that you can be nominated for the ouster of administrative post because you are not active for a long period.

::A Poll to deposition an administrators can be started only by an bureaucrat. Option to deposition an administrator is with Wikimedia Steward. After ouster vote a Wikimedia Steward on Meta-Wiki is contacted, and as per the result of the voting Steward is requested to demote the administrator from his position.

::Note: In this case [[:ur:User:محمد شعیب]] has started the voting, who is a bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia.

::--[[User:Tahir mq|Tahir mq]] ([[User talk:Tahir mq|talk]]) 05:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::{{done}}. Sorry that took some time as I needed to read and understand the policy and all the votes. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Sasquatch21@es.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = Not done
|domain = es.wikipedia
|user name = Sasquatch21
|discussion= 
}}
This user don't have contributions in this wiki since 2012 (and don't make administrative actions) . He says <<Usuario ausente>> in his userpage. I request remove his sysop permission. Thanks, [[User:Geógrafo23|Geo]][[User talk:Geógrafo23|23]][[w:es:Usuario:Geógrafo23|wp]]-[[w:es:Usuario discusión:Geógrafo23|es]] 18:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:Exactly as per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=7099248&oldid=7099219 same reason]. Please avoid making further removal requests without understanding and following instructions. Thank you, [[User:M7|M/]] ([[User talk:M7|talk]]) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:Ok, grazie. [[User:Geógrafo23|Geo]][[User talk:Geógrafo23|23]][[w:es:Usuario:Geógrafo23|wp]]-[[w:es:Usuario discusión:Geógrafo23|es]] 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Siechfred@de.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = de.wikipedia
|user name = Siechfred
|discussion= 
}}
Please remove my sysop rights, thanks. --[[User:Siechfred|Siechfred]] ([[User talk:Siechfred|talk]]) 07:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{on hold}} for 24 hours per standard practice. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 10:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:: oh yes, please, wait 24 h at least, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] 14:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Even 48 if needed. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::No, it's not needed. Thanks in advance, [[User:Siechfred|Siechfred]] ([[User talk:Siechfred|talk]]) 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{done}}, thank you for your efforts as an administrator at dewiki. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
==== Draffix@cswiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain = cs.wikipedia
|user name = Draffix
|discussion= Per local policy, sysop rights of inactive users can be removed after half year without sysop activity. This user is as sysop inactive 11 months [https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:Protokolovac%C3%AD_z%C3%A1znamy/Draffix] , as user about half year. User was informed in november, but no response.
}}--[[User:JAn Dudík|JAn Dudík]] ([[User talk:JAn Dudík|talk]]) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Actually I don't see anything on talkpage, maybe did you send an email? --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::Talkpage notification from 19/11/2013 is [https://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:Draffix&diff=prev&oldid=9318942 here]. --[[User:Vachovec1|Vachovec1]] ([[User talk:Vachovec1|talk]]) 11:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Err, both of you said "201'''3'''" while that's "201'''2'''" and Draffix was active before Nov '12. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

====Piku@frwiki====
{{sr-request
|status=done
|domain=fr.wikipedia
|username=Piku
|discussion= Piku did not apply for a renewal of his CU rights and was therefore not renewed as a CU. Local discussion is [[fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Renouvellement#Renouvellement de décembre 2013|here]]. For the French Arbcom,— '''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish| Tk ]] 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)}}
: {{Done}}. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

====Gribeco@frwiki====
{{sr-request
|status=done
|domain=fr.wikipedia
|username=Gribeco
|discussion= Gribeco did not apply for a renewal of his CU rights and was therefore not renewed as a CU. Local discussion is [[fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Renouvellement#Renouvellement de décembre 2013|here]]. For the French Arbcom,— '''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish| Tk ]] 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)}}
: {{Done}}. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== TBloemink@mediawiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = mediawikiwiki
|user name = TBloemink
|discussion= Own request
}}
Please remove my sysop status on mediawikiwiki as I am not active enough in my opinion to keep it. Also keeping in mind that this wiki is a global sysop wiki. --— [[User:TBloemink|TBloemink]] [[User talk:TBloemink|'''talk''']] 13:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}}--[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
==== Gobbler@it.wikivoyage ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain =it.wikivoyage
|user name = Gobbler
|discussion= own request
}}
Please remove my bureaucrat and admin status on the above wiki, per my own request, as I have been in some unsolved conflicts that deterred me from further helping. Local stewart seems too busy to fulfill my removal request. Thanks. --[[User:Gobbler|Gobbler]] ([[User talk:Gobbler|talk]]) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Already {{done}} two weeks ago based upon your onwiki request. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Tinz@de.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = on hold
|domain = de.wikipedia
|user name = Tinz
|discussion= own request
}}
Please remove my Admin flag since I don't want to do any admin work for the forseeable future. Thank you, --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{on hold}} for 24 hours per standard practice. [[User:Snowolf|Snowolf]] [[User talk:Snowolf|How can I help?]] 22:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
::ok, <strike>time to go on a banning spree</strike> I can wait that long. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 23:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Miscellaneous requests ===
{{/Misc-header}}
==== Northamerica1000@en.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = local
|domain =en.wikipedia
|user name =Northamerica1000
|discussion=
}}
I am requesting permission for [[MassMessage]] sender rights. I intend to utilize the tool on English Wikipedia. I have been involved in the formulation of WikiProject newsletters, messages and invitations for WikiProject Food and drink, WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, WikiProject Breakfast, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Cleanup, WikiProject Invention, WikiProject Hotels and other projects.

As an example, when I sent the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Newsletter_September_2013 September 2013] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Newsletter_October_2013 October 2013] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink WikiProject Food and drink] newsletters to project members, I had to do so manually, which is tedious and time-consuming. This also inhibits one's desire to create new newsletters, due to the time involved in sending them manually. With this tool, I can focus much more upon formulation of the newsletters with other project members, and much less time sending them.

Therefore, I respectfully submit my request for MassMessage sender permission, and thank you for your consideration. [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]] ([[User talk:Northamerica1000|talk]]) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Done as a local en.wikipedia admin, but usually this is requested locally. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Rschen7754]]: thanks so much for the prompt response. [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]] ([[User talk:Northamerica1000|talk]]) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Locally handled.--[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==See also==
{{/Footer}}

Steward requests/Permissions

2014-01-23T22:45:34Z

Tinz: /* Removal of access */ +me

{{/Header}}

== Requests ==

<div style="display:none">

COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below:
<pre>
==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain =
|user name =
|discussion=
}}
</pre>
</div>
=== Administrator access ===
{{/Sysop-header}}

==== Hkjacksonhk@zhwikivoyage ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = zh.wikivoyage
|user name = Hkjacksonhk
|discussion= [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk]]
}}
For doing translate on mediawik and the link on different languages.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:Do you know that interface translations are to be done on [[:translatewiki:]], in principle? --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 13:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
::I mean that the zh-hans and zh-hant.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 14:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
::And also I request to being the admin for picking up this new website.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 14:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:::The temporary requests granted so far have been for very short periods to clean up after the import. If you are asking to be an admin beyond that period then you will need to begin a discussion on zh.wikivoyage to get the support of the new community. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 08:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your ideas, the disscussion has been start at [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk]].--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{onhold}} until <s>30</s> 22 January. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::Re Trijnstel:now Wv/zh has made a decision that a admin vote only last for 7 days([[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#管理員投票截止時間]]), so please any admin can check my Requests on 22/1/14, thank you.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ok, but still on hold until then. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::::The vote will end at 09:52 UTC. Now 5/0/0.--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 07:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thank you.--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Voting on [[zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk]] closed as 5 support, no oppose or neutral. --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 10:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Vituzzu}} May you have a look at these two requests?--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 10:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Billinghurst}} May you have a look at these two requests?--[[User:Hkjacksonhk|Hkjacksonhk]] ([[User talk:Hkjacksonhk|talk]]) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::: {{Done}}. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Gabrielchihonglee@zhwikivoyage ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = zh.wikivoyage
|user name = Gabrielchihonglee
|discussion= [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee]]
}}
Gabrielchihonglee nominated himself as a sysop in [[voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#申請做Sysop]]. He says he will request other's advice and suggestion. Local discussion is continuing.--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:Moved to [[:voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee]] --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 09:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{onhold}} until <s>31</s> 22 January. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|Trijnstel}} Same as what hkjacksonhk has said, Wv/zh has made a decision that a admin vote only last for 7 days(voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#管理員投票截止時間), so please any admin can check my Requests on 22/1/14, thank you.--[[User:Gabrielchihonglee|Gabrielchihonglee]] ([[User talk:Gabrielchihonglee|talk]]) 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Ok, but still on hold until then. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Voting on [[:zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee]] closed as 8 support, no oppose or neutral. --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 06:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|zhuyifei1999}}, thanks! {{ping|trijnstel}}please handle, thanks! --[[User:Gabrielchihonglee|Gabrielchihonglee]] ([[User talk:Gabrielchihonglee|talk]]) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
: Done. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 06:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Great Brightstar@zhwikivoyage====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain =zh.wikivoyage
|user name =Great Brightstar
|discussion= [[voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Great Brightstar]]
}}
The vote will end at 09:55 UTC. Now 1/0/4.[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 07:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Voting on [[:zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Great_Brightstar]] closed as 1 support, 4 neutral and no oppose. I guess I'd better leave the final decision to stewards. --[[User:Zhuyifei1999|Zhuyifei1999]] ([[User talk:Zhuyifei1999|talk]]) 10:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{ping|QuiteUnusual}} What about this?--[[User:GZWDer|GZWDer]] ([[User talk:GZWDer|talk]]) 14:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:::It seems like nobody of those who opined neutrally indicated any reasons on the page? --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

==== 분당선M@ko.wikinews ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain =ko.wikinews
|user name =분당선M
|discussion=[[:n:ko:위키뉴스:관리자 선거/분당선M/재신임]]
}}
Almost all community member voted. 3 {{s}}, 1 {{oppose}}. Thanks, —[[User:Hym411|레비]][[User talk:Hym411|Revi]] 11:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{TempSysop|3|2014|04|30||}}. Unexpired, so no action needed. Extended three more months. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 14:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
::I removed and re-added the rights per the usual practice, so that the extension of temporary rights is also logged in Special:Log itself, not only in these request pages. --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Thanks, didn't realise that was the usual practice. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 16:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Bureaucrat access ===
{{/Crat-header}}

=== CheckUser access ===
{{/CU-header}}
==== Pallerti@huwiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = hu.wikipedia
|user name = Pallerti
|discussion= [[:hu:Wikipédia:Javaslat tisztségviselők megválasztására/Pallerti (IP-ellenőr)]]
}} --[[user:Pallerti|Pallerti]][[File:Lapin.svg|16px]][[User talk:Pallerti|Rabbit Hole]] 09:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{onhold}} pending identification. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{done}}. I will also arrange the other stuff (cu-l etc). [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 10:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Bedankt voor je hulp! --[[user:Pallerti|Pallerti]][[File:Lapin.svg|16px]][[User talk:Pallerti|Rabbit Hole]] 17:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Aratal@frwiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = fr.wikipedia
|user name =Aratal
|discussion= [[:fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Renouvellement#Résultat]]
}}
The French Arbcom has appointed Aratal as a CU. For the French Arbcom, — '''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish| Tk ]] 12:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
: Waiting to be listed [[Identification noticeboard|here]]. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{done}}. [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]][[User talk:Trijnstel|talk]] 18:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Oversight access ===
{{/OS-header}}


=== Removal of access ===
{{/Removal-header}}

==== Urdutext@ur.wikipedia ====
Removal of access '''[[:ur:User:Urdutext]]''' from '''ur''' Urdu Wikipedia Administrator to normal user.

{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = ur.wikipedia
|user name = Urdutext
|discussion= [https://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%D9%BE%DB%8C%DA%88%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%88%D9%84%DB%8C/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%DB%92_%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C/Urdutext consensus on the local wiki]
}}

I convey my regards to all the users, I hope you are doing well and are enjoying good health. The subject matter of this topic must have been clear by now as you go by page title (i.e. removal of adminship from user:Urdutext).
Before stating the disputed matter, I would like to draw your attention towards the brief wiki introduction of the subjected admin.
Mr. Urdutext is a senior user and admin of this encyclopedia, moreover the oldest in this present active admin panel. His contributions towards this wikipedia, especially in the field of mathematics have been worthwhile (although this is an altogether a different aspect, as to his use of self created language and terms are so painfully abstruse that most users tended to avoid them). To crystallize the picture as clearly as possible, I would like to inform you that when at the time he was chosen as an admin for his services, the users were few and very little in number. As the conditions were, back then, he was given away the adminship without much considerations and voting; and as well because uptil then the rules and regulations regarding the adminship were not completely compiled on Urdu Wikipedia.
This was the brief introduction of his previous activities and role; now here on Urdu Wikipedia, from quite some time (after having remained inactive for a long period) he has been engaging himself in anti-wiki activities, like:
Instead of guiding new users on proper use and referring them to the guideline pages and wiki directives, he has been sabotaging their rights with the baton of rules.
Unjust in using his authority by taking unfair steps against the active users.
Being scornful and making personal attacks on users (e.g. he commented on this talk page attacking one of the respected wiki user as:
جن اصحاب نے سائنس پر سرے سے کچھ لکھا ہی نہ ہو، یا سائنس کی الف بے سےبھی واقف نہ ہوں، اور صرف لمبی لمبی بحث کرنے کے شوقین ہوں، ان کو کیا جواب دیا جائے؟
those who never wrote anything on science or do not have even a faintest idea of its basics and fundamentals, but like to propagate their conjectures through never-ending debates, what would be an answer that should be given to them?
While that user keeps writing articles in one of the most prominent urdu scientific journal).
Use of self created scientific terminology and abstruse language in the wiki articles and their titles and moreover forcefully imposing on others the same.
Most of the users have shown their discontent with him for his rough and rude behavior! Etc.

'''[[:ur:ویکیپیڈیا:معزولی/رائے شماری/Urdutext#Verdict in English|Verdict in English]]'''

* In favor of removal of adminship: 19
* In opposition: 6

--[[User:Tahir mq|Tahir mq]] ([[User talk:Tahir mq|talk]]) 12:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:Hello, is there a policy on ur.wiki that covers the removal of admin rights? That is, can you provide a link to a policy that says (for example) an admin will lose their rights if x% of editors vote to remove them? If not, we will act on the consensus, but it would be helpful if there is a formal policy. Thanks. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

:: '''Policy''' [[:ur:ویکیپیڈیا:منتظمین#معزولی|معزولی - Deposition]]

::'''معزولی - Deposition'''

::'''''Translation'''''

::Those Administrators who are not active for a year can be ousted from the administrative post. Non active administrator will be contacted on their talk page and E-mail (if available) and will be informed that you can be nominated for the ouster of administrative post because you are not active for a long period.

::A Poll to deposition an administrators can be started only by an bureaucrat. Option to deposition an administrator is with Wikimedia Steward. After ouster vote a Wikimedia Steward on Meta-Wiki is contacted, and as per the result of the voting Steward is requested to demote the administrator from his position.

::Note: In this case [[:ur:User:محمد شعیب]] has started the voting, who is a bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia.

::--[[User:Tahir mq|Tahir mq]] ([[User talk:Tahir mq|talk]]) 05:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::{{done}}. Sorry that took some time as I needed to read and understand the policy and all the votes. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Sasquatch21@es.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = Not done
|domain = es.wikipedia
|user name = Sasquatch21
|discussion= 
}}
This user don't have contributions in this wiki since 2012 (and don't make administrative actions) . He says <<Usuario ausente>> in his userpage. I request remove his sysop permission. Thanks, [[User:Geógrafo23|Geo]][[User talk:Geógrafo23|23]][[w:es:Usuario:Geógrafo23|wp]]-[[w:es:Usuario discusión:Geógrafo23|es]] 18:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:Exactly as per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests%2FPermissions&diff=7099248&oldid=7099219 same reason]. Please avoid making further removal requests without understanding and following instructions. Thank you, [[User:M7|M/]] ([[User talk:M7|talk]]) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
:Ok, grazie. [[User:Geógrafo23|Geo]][[User talk:Geógrafo23|23]][[w:es:Usuario:Geógrafo23|wp]]-[[w:es:Usuario discusión:Geógrafo23|es]] 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Siechfred@de.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = de.wikipedia
|user name = Siechfred
|discussion= 
}}
Please remove my sysop rights, thanks. --[[User:Siechfred|Siechfred]] ([[User talk:Siechfred|talk]]) 07:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{on hold}} for 24 hours per standard practice. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 10:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:: oh yes, please, wait 24 h at least, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] 14:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Even 48 if needed. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::::No, it's not needed. Thanks in advance, [[User:Siechfred|Siechfred]] ([[User talk:Siechfred|talk]]) 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{done}}, thank you for your efforts as an administrator at dewiki. [[User:QuiteUnusual|QuiteUnusual]] ([[User talk:QuiteUnusual|talk]]) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
==== Draffix@cswiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain = cs.wikipedia
|user name = Draffix
|discussion= Per local policy, sysop rights of inactive users can be removed after half year without sysop activity. This user is as sysop inactive 11 months [https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:Protokolovac%C3%AD_z%C3%A1znamy/Draffix] , as user about half year. User was informed in november, but no response.
}}--[[User:JAn Dudík|JAn Dudík]] ([[User talk:JAn Dudík|talk]]) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Actually I don't see anything on talkpage, maybe did you send an email? --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::Talkpage notification from 19/11/2013 is [https://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:Draffix&diff=prev&oldid=9318942 here]. --[[User:Vachovec1|Vachovec1]] ([[User talk:Vachovec1|talk]]) 11:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Err, both of you said "201'''3'''" while that's "201'''2'''" and Draffix was active before Nov '12. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

====Piku@frwiki====
{{sr-request
|status=done
|domain=fr.wikipedia
|username=Piku
|discussion= Piku did not apply for a renewal of his CU rights and was therefore not renewed as a CU. Local discussion is [[fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Renouvellement#Renouvellement de décembre 2013|here]]. For the French Arbcom,— '''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish| Tk ]] 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)}}
: {{Done}}. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

====Gribeco@frwiki====
{{sr-request
|status=done
|domain=fr.wikipedia
|username=Gribeco
|discussion= Gribeco did not apply for a renewal of his CU rights and was therefore not renewed as a CU. Local discussion is [[fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur d'adresses IP/Renouvellement#Renouvellement de décembre 2013|here]]. For the French Arbcom,— '''[[User:Racconish|Racconish]]'''[[User talk:Racconish| Tk ]] 12:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)}}
: {{Done}}. — [[User:Wikitanvir|T.]] 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== TBloemink@mediawiki ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain = mediawikiwiki
|user name = TBloemink
|discussion= Own request
}}
Please remove my sysop status on mediawikiwiki as I am not active enough in my opinion to keep it. Also keeping in mind that this wiki is a global sysop wiki. --— [[User:TBloemink|TBloemink]] [[User talk:TBloemink|'''talk''']] 13:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}}--[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
==== Gobbler@it.wikivoyage ====
{{sr-request
|status = done
|domain =it.wikivoyage
|user name = Gobbler
|discussion= own request
}}
Please remove my bureaucrat and admin status on the above wiki, per my own request, as I have been in some unsolved conflicts that deterred me from further helping. Local stewart seems too busy to fulfill my removal request. Thanks. --[[User:Gobbler|Gobbler]] ([[User talk:Gobbler|talk]]) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Already {{done}} two weeks ago based upon your onwiki request. --[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==== Tinz@de.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = 
|domain = de.wikipedia
|user name = Tinz
|discussion= own request
}}
Please remove my Admin flag since I don't want to do any admin work for the forseeable future. Thank you, --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

=== Miscellaneous requests ===
{{/Misc-header}}
==== Northamerica1000@en.wikipedia ====
{{sr-request
|status = local
|domain =en.wikipedia
|user name =Northamerica1000
|discussion=
}}
I am requesting permission for [[MassMessage]] sender rights. I intend to utilize the tool on English Wikipedia. I have been involved in the formulation of WikiProject newsletters, messages and invitations for WikiProject Food and drink, WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, WikiProject Breakfast, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Cleanup, WikiProject Invention, WikiProject Hotels and other projects.

As an example, when I sent the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Newsletter_September_2013 September 2013] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink/Newsletter_October_2013 October 2013] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Food_and_drink WikiProject Food and drink] newsletters to project members, I had to do so manually, which is tedious and time-consuming. This also inhibits one's desire to create new newsletters, due to the time involved in sending them manually. With this tool, I can focus much more upon formulation of the newsletters with other project members, and much less time sending them.

Therefore, I respectfully submit my request for MassMessage sender permission, and thank you for your consideration. [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]] ([[User talk:Northamerica1000|talk]]) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:Done as a local en.wikipedia admin, but usually this is requested locally. --'''[[User:Rschen7754|Rs]][[User talk:Rschen7754|chen]][[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|7754]]''' 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
::[[User:Rschen7754]]: thanks so much for the prompt response. [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]] ([[User talk:Northamerica1000|talk]]) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Locally handled.--[[User:Vituzzu|Vituzzu]] ([[User talk:Vituzzu|talk]]) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

==See also==
{{/Footer}}

Requests for comment/Legal Fees Assistance Program/Option1

2012-09-03T14:16:38Z

Tinz: /* Option 1 */ +1

==Option 1==
*Option 1: The Wikimedia Foundation '''should''' implement the Legal Fees Assistance Program

''Note: Please allow me to clarify that support of Option 1 is support of the proposed program as written. This is in part because the proposed program has been closely reviewed legally and financially. That said, we are reading all comments, and, if there is a recommended improvement that makes sense, we may incorporate that improvement in the final version presented to the Board. Any changes to the proposed program will be discussed [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program here]. Many thanks to all for taking the time to read, discuss, and comment.'' [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] ([[User talk:Geoffbrigham|talk]]) 23:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

# [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 22:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
#: Qualified and tentative possible, "in principle only" at present. Needs discussion. Comments:
#: Criteria are too lose. At a minimum, unsorted, these thoughts:
#::# '''Local resource primacy'''. Must have made best use of resources both publicly provided, pro bono, or reasonably accessible ''(Persons with access to local legal resources, should expect to use them)''
#::# '''Significance of case'''. Cases require a de minimis or else must be such as to set precedent in an area that will affect the project ''(Cases that are not large sum or precedent-setting such as low courts, may have lower priority)''
#::# '''Behavior of defendant'''. Do we want a policy that appears to stand behind any user's actions, whether agreeable or condemned? Discretion is in there, but should "user's own conduct" be explicitly stated as an example of something it may depend on?
#::# '''Impact of assistance if given'''. Case must be such that 1/ a reasonable chance of difficulty in defence if assistance is not provided, 2/ significantly improved chance of defense if provided ''(users not needing help don't need us, users needing help but unlikely to greatly benefit in reality would be spending for no gain, sad but not a sensible choice)''
#::# '''Assistance kept to that needed'''. Assistance may be limited to that required, for example an expert opinion, or supportive testimony, or other evidence upward. ''(If moving of heavens isn't needed, don't do it; see what can be done for low cost or essentials only as a principle)''
#::# '''Explicit attention to unsustainability potential'''. Criteria are more than "not a guarantee". The Foundation cannot/should not commit to an open ended bill for costs that may be incurred in any future multiplicity of cases, for example if the legal environment or litigation expectations change. If that happens then clearly WMF will have to find other solutions and mitigations, not accept a role like this, but once committed withdrawal is hard and seen very negatively - so it is by far best '''not''' to commit in any way to the apprearance that this is some kind of enduring promise. This "good intention" policy is sustainable only on a reasonable and relatively quite tiny scale. If the scale changes, the expectation expressed and understood by good-faith users may cease to be appropriate, compared to other responses. Users must not be given any illusion as to this position or that this policy is at all likely sustainable (though we hope it may be).
#::# '''Explicit review and withdrawal - (permanently temporary!)'''. Ideally this policy will have a requirement to be renewed every 1 - 2 years, and may be withdrawn at any of those times or on 3 months notice, in addition. Even that may not deal with the ''expectation'' (well founded or not) that "WMF will protect us" because that's how people's minds work. So regardless, that expectation '''must not be allowed to become other than transient, however enduring we may luckily manage, because permanence has significant harm potential in a context of future sea-change'''.
#:: '''(Later, for discussion):''' 1/ Should support, in matters that are not very time-urgent, have provision to solicit community views, or for a community to ask WMF to intervene, or is this well intentioned but likely to lead to controversy or distraction from editing (or that it's not needed as a norm, and "if it's urgent it'll get said anyway")? 2/ Conversely on the principle of wide help if able, should there be more leeway for help in the first 24-48 hours if a matter is very urgent, to discuss a case with WMF legal team for a limited period? This could help at a time it's most needed where people may be in shock. 3? Should WMF try to put together some kind of "pro bono" network with a tightly defined remit and perhaps a contribution on some items as its "first line"? (This has huge advantages: it scales, it's more likely local/internationalized, it reduces WMF costs allowing WMF to help a little longer indirectly, and there is more visibility of lowered restrictions. Legally skilled non-editors supportive of Wikimedia might also be very open to contribute on this instead, in view of the light/minimal load , ulterior motive need and value and thereby brought closer). 4/ Is there future scope for synergistic external application for such a network/group, that encompasses this agenda, and for which it might become wider known and gain ints own sources of independent funding, thus widening our ability to help mission agendas and avoiding a fiscal drain? (Ie is there a case that after initial smooth setup, it's worth having at the back of WMF minds, a bigger picture, that seeing this in a wider context of "legal matters directly relevant to our mission", might actually be a better and more funded one too?)
# Well. FT2 has done an incredibly impressive job at defining requirements for an ideal program. I can't think of anything to add and would support that program as written. — <tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt> 08:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# I think it is important to formally note down and transparently publish the terms of legal assistance for volunteers, and so I believe this is a good step. This is especially important so that expectations are not ''too'' high. FT2 has done a good job working on a draft for criteria of those terms. I think however, that they are somewhat too strict. For example, #2 suggests that the terms exclude low courts. As appeal from a higher court is often the result of a verdict of a lower court, I think lower courts should also be covered. Also, since there is no legally binding agreement, I wonder if a three month period (mentioned in #7) is required for changing these terms. --[[User:Church of emacs|Tobias]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Church of emacs|contrib]] 10:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# I think this is a good idea. Requirements: the legal assistance is required for actions that are forthcoming from Supportrole activities: example a party is starting a lawsuit because of Dataprotection issues against a Checkuser Supporter is fine but if the lawsuit is about "normal" edits created by the Checkuser Supporter, this should not be covered. --[[User:Neozoon|Neozoon]] ([[User talk:Neozoon|talk]]) 12:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
#:Just wanted to confirm, that is the intention: "The Legal Fees Assistance Program is intended to help with the costs of a legal defense arising from a support role in the unlikely event that a user should face legal action for their actions in such a role" and it further notes that the person must "Have acted within his or her capacity and parameters as a user in the support role listed above". :) --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# Good idea, support.--[[User:Szilas|Szilas]] ([[User talk:Szilas|talk]]) 13:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# Support. One of my deeper criticisms of Wikipedia and similar is "risk-shifting", where costs are shifted from the organization onto the individual contributors, typically unpaid and completely unable to effectively deal with legal issues. I'm glad to see the Foundation making any effort to redress this issue. I have some worries about how it could be corrupted in practice. But as proposed it seems highly praiseworthy. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] ([[User talk:Seth Finkelstein|talk]]) 13:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
#Support. I've read the proposal, and it makes good sense to me, and I say this as someone who would not be covered by it, because I do not have any of those advanced permissions. I've thought about the concerns expressed in WJBscribe's thoughtful comment in the Option 2 section, below, and I'm actually quite comfortable with not extending the program to regular editors like me. I'm saying that after reading what the proposal says about the limitations of how it applies, and how it is expected to apply only in rare circumstances, and I have trouble justifying extending its provisions to matters of general content editing. I see edits by users almost every day that go against community consensus, and I am not bothered if, on rare occasion, people take responsibility for themselves on matters of content, as opposed to matters of administration. For example, a user on the English Wikipedia who violates that project's policy on biographies of living people seems to me much less entitled to consideration for this kind of assistance than does a user with advanced permissions acting in accordance with their role on administrative matters. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}} I think this is a very good idea. Of course the details need a bit of discussion. --[[User:Reinhard Kraasch|Reinhard Kraasch]] ([[User talk:Reinhard Kraasch|talk]]) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}} --[[User:Joeyline|Joeyline]] ([[User talk:Joeyline|talk]]) 19:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}} [[User:Tony1|'''Tony''']] [[User talk:Tony1|(talk)]] 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}}. I think it is a great move. I tend to disagree with FT2 suggestions. They tend to make things more complex unecessarily since the proposed program makes it clear in the text that decision to fund or not will be "At WMF sole discretion" [[User:Anthere|Anthere]] ([[User talk:Anthere|talk]]) 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}}. I think Maggie's clarification is enough, and covers FT2's points which unnecessarily complicate things. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]) 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# '''Qualified support''' I'm not sure yet that I agree with all of the details but I support this in principle. [[User:Pine|Pine]][[User talk:Pine|✉]] 07:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} completely in my personal, volunteer, capacity. Nothing is perfect but I think this is an incredibly good policy that serves as the great start for a safety blanket. Hopefully it never gets used but it's good to have around. [[User:Jamesofur|Jamesofur]] ([[User talk:Jamesofur|talk]]) 08:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# I think that every reasonable case should be covered by WMF, not just some of them, depending on significance. Editors are editing for common good and WMF and chapters have responsibility to support them when things go wrong. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] ([[User talk:Millosh|talk]]) 11:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#Support, in my personal capacity. I think it would be ''nice'' if we covered every action - but I also recognise that that may cause difficulties with the Foundation's role in relation to our content, and that it would (whether problematic or not) vastly increase the scope and cost of such a programme. In the meantime, before Congress/our donors/delete as applicable pull their thumb out and make a wider programme possible, this is a fantastic starting point. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 12:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}} -- Let's hope this fund stays unused, though! As Wikimedia are a global endeavour, there should be routines as how to implement such legal help "abroad" (wherever that may be). Should local chapters be involved, for example? You can't expect WMF to be familiar with all the niceties of every national legislation. [[User:Asav|Asav]] ([[User talk:Asav|talk]]) 12:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}} -- and I've informed the WMF that I will be willing to donate pro bono legal time in support of this, where I am ethically allowed to do so. Also note that I disagree with FT2's criteria, which over-complicate this. The WMF should simply have discretion whether or not to do this; beyond that the details of implementation ought to be by necessity determined between counsel and client and are no longer the community's concern as a matter of confidentiality. [[User:Swatjester|⇒]][[User_talk:Swatjester|SWATJester]] [[en:WP:DC|Son of the Defender]] 12:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' [[User:AGK|'''AGK''']] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} The proposed policy recognized that WMF is s/w unique in the way that it shares administration of the Wikimedia projects with volunteers as the first actors in most situations and now offers the volunteers support for their good work is legal assistance is needed. I agree with Anthere that the wording now is fine and loads of tweaks are not needed. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] ([[User talk:FloNight|talk]]) 12:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} --[[User:Joe Decker|Joe Decker]] ([[User talk:Joe Decker|talk]]) 14:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{support}} However, I would recommend that the WMF be willing to extend this, on a discretionary basis, to established, long-term contributors. '''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]''' ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]])'' 14:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#Certainly, this has been needed for a long time. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] ([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]]) 14:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} Hope, and plan to never need it. That said, I handle a number of OTRS requests, and I can imagine one going badly, and some enterprising lawyer deciding their client was financially harmed because I didn't act fast enough. I wouldn't expect them to prevail, but they might push for a modest settlement on the assumption I cannot afford the legal fees to defend. The mere existence of the fund might be enough to persuade them not to bother.--[[User:Sphilbrick|Sphilbrick]] ([[User talk:Sphilbrick|talk]]) 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} may it be needed as rarely as possible. [[User:Pundit|Pundit]] ([[User talk:Pundit|talk]]) 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} Having this protection in place will not only protect the volunteers who perform these support roles, but as important, will ensure that editors who are thinking of applying for one of these roles aren't deterred by the prospect of potentially having to incur legal fees to defend onself in a lawsuit—a lawsuit that might also be brought in another country or on another continent, where the defendant might have no idea even how to find a lawyer, before even worrying about paying for one. As an attorney myself, I can attest that being named as a defendant in a litigation is stressful for most people, even if the claim lacks merit, and that being well-represented by counsel experienced in the local courts and with the relevant legal issues is enormously reassuring. I share the hope that the proposed Legal Fees Assistance Program would need to be utilized rarely, or even better not at all, but there would be value to having it in place and ready to be called on if and when it is needed. (I am not in agreement with several of FT2's suggestions above, but as needed, those can be addressed on the talkpage or elsewhere after consensus in favor of the proposal hopefully becomes clear.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 19:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} Hope it's never needed. I don't think it needs a great raft of rules - rules are useful for a rationing situation, but hopefully this will be as rare as hens' teeth, and "at WMF discretion" is adequate. Concur also with Sphilbrick that it may deter chancers who manage to cobble something up for a small claims court. [[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} If they are acting on behalf of Wiki, they should have wiki support. [[User:PumpkinSky|PumpkinSky]] ([[User talk:PumpkinSky|talk]]) 02:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}}, largely per the comments made by Newyorkbrad. [[User:Steven Zhang|Steven Zhang]] ([[User talk:Steven Zhang|talk]]) 05:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}}. I agree with the proposal as written, much the same as Newyorkbrad. As one of the English Wikipedia arbitrators who has worked extensively to try to encourage knowledgeable, well–respected candidates to consider roles in addition to their work as editors, I can say categorically that the concern about potential lawsuits has been a frequently–identified barrier for many Wikipedians. It is good to see that the WMF has elected to extend this program to any advanced permission, including adminship. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} [[User:Ched Davis|Ched Davis]] ([[User talk:Ched Davis|talk]]) 07:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
#{{Support}} the proposal in general (the details of implementation don't need to be decided here, & I am confident they will be reasonable). [[User:Andrew Gray|Andrew Gray]] ([[User talk:Andrew Gray|talk]]) 10:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
# {{Support}}. I expect the symbolic benefit of such a program to be even higher than the monetary one, because in most cases, legal threats aim to intimidate and are not followed through. These threats will lose some of their power when the potential defendant will potentially be supported by a large organization such as the foundation. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global bans

2012-04-27T21:05:28Z

Tinz: /* What is the problem this will solve? */ fix

{{Archive box non-auto|[[Talk:Global bans/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}
== Restarting the conversation on global bans ==
Hi everyone! As you are probably aware, WMF General Counsel Geoff Brigham has been working with the community on an update to the [[terms of use]]. That’s still in progress, but there are some other policies to which the new terms refer which need creation and polishing. To be specific, I’m referring the policy referred to in Section 10...

:“In the interests of our users and the Projects, in the extreme circumstance that any individual has had his or her account terminated under this provision, he or she is prohibited from creating or using another account on the Project for which he or she was terminated, unless we provide explicit permission. Additionally, especially problematic Users who have had accounts terminated on multiple Projects may be subject to a ban from all of the Projects, in accordance with the Global Ban Policy.”

The basic gist here is that the new terms of use entail that you may have your editing privileges revoked if you’re using your account for abusive purposes, but declares that this is decision is normally up to the community unless the community asks the Foundation to intervene. (Which naturally is very, very rare. It's not really our job.)

Current local policies on blocking/banning cover almost all the relevant bases, and the terms support those existing community policies with no change. But in some rare cases of cross-wiki abuse that aren’t just spam/vandalism, the terms refer to a community-owned policy about global bans. This doesn’t really exist yet, although there were bits and pieces around.

I’ve worked up a version of a standalone global bans policy which is ready for further edits and comments or questions. I based it partially on the existing notes on Meta about global blocks/bans and partially on the process that actually worked for the only two existing global bans ([[Requests for comment/Ban User:PauloHelene globally]] and [[Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister]]).

If things change -- such as if the community creates a [[global requests committee]] or [[global arbitration committee]] to handle this kind of thing -- then the policy can of course be amended accordingly. That flexibility and control by the community is the big advantage of having a separate policy rather than putting details on any bans or blocks into the terms themselves, as the following passage from the terms points out...

:“In contrast to Board resolutions or this Agreement, policies established by the community, which may cover a single Project or multiple Projects (like the Global Ban Policy), may be modified by the relevant community according to its own procedures.”

In addition to general wordsmithing etc. from all, I’d especially love to hear feedback from...

* Stewards, whose input is absolutely essential.
* Folks like Arbitrators, who have experience dealing with this kind of thing
* Editors from projects other than Wikipedia
* Editors from non-English projects (I am thinking it’d be nice to make translations happen sooner instead of later?)

It’s easier for me to consider how staff and English Wikipedians think about these things, as I am both. :) While myself and the legal team would like to hear from everyone, the groups I listed above should definitely chime in too.

Thanks for your help! [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
* Make the software more transparent! It must be possible to implement global bans in a form that the people in the projects the user was active get a notice in Special:Contributions and/or the userpage. Global Locks in their current form are "stealth bans", usually nobody will notice that the user account is locked if he was not blocked earlier on that project.
* All affected projects in which the user has made a certain number of contributions and is unblocked should be informed about the RFC, not only about a resulting block - only few people check meta regularly.
* The critical question is what happens if single projects don't agree with global consensus concerning the ban. Do they have the right to opt out and allow that user to edit locally? If not, that would mean a big step away from the principle of self-sufficiency that most projects adhere to. Currently, an opt-out is possible afaik only if a 'crat renames the user, so that the account is no longer connected to the global account. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

*I concur with Tinz about the need to find a way to "communicate" global blocks/bans/locks when checking user contribs on other projects (just as a local block is visible on their contribs page).
*On the point of having projects "opt out" of global bans, one of the issues that has been encountered is users banned on multiple projects is that they used those other projects to continue their disruptive behaviour on the initial projects: emailing users they'd harassed on other projects, etc. In some cases, they persuaded admins or other respected users on other projects to "allow" them to create a new account which they then SUL'd to the projects they'd been banned on and returned to old disruptive behaviours. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

::Hey Tinz, Risker. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. To address your points...
::* On transparency: my understanding is that there are some tools (such as [[Special:CentralAuth]]) to see the global SUL account of a user on all projects, as well as whether they're locked. Perhaps we should link to that tool from this page, which would be useful for people needing to see where a user is banned or active?
::* Under "Obtaining consensus for a global ban" steps 3, 4, and 5 include notifying any wikis where the editor is active. If you want, I think it's a good idea to make that language clear that it's mandatory; if you try to sneak a global ban in through the backdoor without notification that's not valid.
::* On the topic of opting out... the basic point here is that Geoff and I are thinking that because the Terms of Use specifically refer to the global bans policy, this means that people who edit despite being globally banned are technically violating the Terms of Use, which is not negotiable on a per-wiki basis. So, to be concise, I don't think we imagine local communities being able to opt out of a global ban. If someone really is editing in a positive fashion on one wiki but needs to be banned on another, then a global ban is not required. There is one contrary case I can think of: when a community where the editor is active was not properly notified, and comes to object to a global ban after a discussion is closed. Perhaps we should write that case into the appeals section?
::Anyway, I'd like to say that the current draft is just my thoughts on what should be covered with a little input from others, and if you think there's a viable way to deal with any unaddressed issues you should go ahead and add some new language. :) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Since opt-out is discussed below, just an answer to the first point: I don't think that the toolserver tool is sufficient in the long run. Once you suspect that a user is globally blocked and know that global locks exist, that works, but what if you want to contact him on an unrelated topic? In such a case I would look at his talkpage and contributions, but I wouldn't even suspect him to be globally blocked because global bans are very rare. For my homewiki (dewiki) I have created a [[:de:Vorlage:Global gesperrter Benutzer|template]] a while ago, but that is not a perfect solution either because I can't monitor all meta locks regularly. I would really appreciate an improvement of the software here. (Is it hard to implement a box with a notice similar to the one for local bans, from a purely technical point of view?). --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 09:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Well sounds like we need to spec exactly what we'd need then, if we're going to make a request of tech resources. I'm wondering if it's easier to make global locks more clear, or actually create a global blocking mechanism? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: Yes, a new mechanism for global blocking might be optimal, but I'd be already happy with a quick fix that generates local messages for globally locked users. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 19:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

*If a user is productively contributing to one wiki, then there shouldn't be a global ban solely based on past editing behaviour. If and when the user starts to be disruptive on that project, then a global ban is warranted because it is clear that they have not changed and some action is needed to prevent further abuse. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
*:Poetlister was "constructively" editing on a Wiki and has a history of doing that - mostly to try and get his other accounts unblocked while operating sock puppets. It isn't always so easy to know if someone is honestly be "constructive" or is just good at hiding their bad behavior. Such a user like Poetlister has been proven too dangerous to allow to edit. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

== Opt-out ==

The issue of opting out is a much more complicated one than what is being considered. We had 3 cases this year of interesting cross-wiki blocks on Meta-
*1.A user from enwp, who was blocked indef. by arbcom. Then started contributing on Meta and was subsequently blocked temporarily twice and unblocked both time after discussion. A very similar block log on commons and another project. But this user currently edits productively on all those wikis except enwp. At one point he might have had blocks on multiple wikis, would that alone have justified a global ban? if so, then we might have lost a productive community member.

*2.A user from pt wiki who had intimidating behavior on wiki and was subsequently blocked on 2 wikis, one was a content project. Followed by a temporary block on Meta for intimidating behavior and than on another non-content project. His block on Meta at the time was turned into an indef. per request from a steward. This user also stalked several editors from pt wiki, publicly listing their names, pictures and private information off-wiki, even violating some European privacy laws. This person's block was finally turned into a global lock months later randomly by a steward after looking at the cross-wiki history. No one noticed.

*3.A user from nl wiki, who had admin rights and a very high standing within the community was found to be socking across projects. The issue went cross-wiki again, and things got more complicated. The the blocks went cross-wiki on commons, meta, nl wiki and nvwiki. Last appeal was from Langcom to only restore editing privileges on Meta which was rejected by the community.

Those are 3 very distinct cases of cross-wiki blocks. My questions are
*Where do we draw the threshold for global bans? 3, 4, 5 wikis?
*Will there be a deliberation process?
*opting-out might be necessary in cases of local arbcoms? how would that work?

These were complicated issues, the users went cross-wiki, a couple were really productive contributors and still are. Global lock without a proper procedure risks steam-rolling over their good contributions. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 08:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

:Just to answer quickly, with mostly just my personal thoughts...
::*1.A: The policy specifically says in two different places that just because a user is blocked/banned on two projects does not mean they must be banned. Simply that it's the minimum. So no, someone editing productively somewhere probably doesn't merit a global ban, in my opinion. In general, the point of requiring an RFC and cross-wiki notification is so that points like that would be brought up and unnecessary bans could be avoided.
::*2.A: Sounds to me like no one really objected to that lock, or else it would have been overturned. In any case, the process described currently says that a group discussion, cross-wiki notification, and a clear consensus is required before asking Stewards to make such a lock. So that case would not be really acceptable or ideal if this becomes a policy.
::*3.A: I don't really know in that case, but my personal opinion would be that it sounds like a global ban would be overkill and unnecessary if it's already being handled. A ban exists to prevent harm, so if it's being handled without a permanent ban, then there's no need for one.
:For your other questions:
::* ''Where do we draw the threshold for global bans? 3, 4, 5 wikis?'' The current version of the draft says two is the minimum threshold, but that just because there are two bans doesn't mean a global ban is required.
::* ''Will there be a deliberation process?'' The current version says that you can't have a global ban without an RFC and cross-wiki notifications, so yeah, there should be a deliberation process.
::* ''opting-out might be necessary in cases of local arbcoms? how would that work?'' If a local ArbCom wants to lift it's ban on an editor, then the global ban should probably just be overturned in favor of selective local bans/blocks. It's overcomplicated to retain a global ban but allow opt-outs. If someone is acting in good faith and is trustworthy enough that an ArbCom unbans/unblocks, then there shouldn't be a global ban in the first place.
:Anyway, I think there are some answers for your questions already other than the more complicated opt-out issue. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::It has already been demonstrated regarding Thekohser's account that a project can technically "opt out" by renaming the account and then renaming it back, thus "breaking" the global lock. Whether this is acceptable or not is another matter (Thekohser was not banned by consensus but through Founder action, so that is another matter all together). [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I completely disagree with setting 2 as a threshold for global bans. If so, Ottava would qualify for it, multiple times in the last year. I believe 3+ should be the ideal threshold, there are a lot of small projects where admins are trigger happy, two blocks are not that hard to accumulate in 5-6 years. I still think you need to clarify the details when it comes to local arbcom over-ruling the ban and how would the two work. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Hey hey hey, only -one- of those blocks was a ban. The others were just blocks. I'm not -that- awful. :P :) And by the way, about 50% of the admin here consider me global bannable. It is a shock to everyone that I'm still around. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I really don't want to set some arbitrary number, common sense should prevail. I don't want some rule to prevent beneficial action from being taken, as I could easily see this becoming (let's see, they've only been banned on two wikis, let's just wait for the third...) [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Heya Ottava, that's my point, if someone looks at one of those temporary blocks and considers a global ones, we might risk losing people for just being opinionated or local issues on much smaller or non-content projects. I would be much more satisfied with this on a case by case basis. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 03:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::To be honest, I expect the Wikis to ban people and global bans shouldn't be a problem. There is very little actual encyclopedia or anything like that. Instead, there is a culture and community that exists on its own. As any culture or community, they would want to get rid of those who interfere with that. Why not let them? It is kind of a farce to pretend otherwise. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I thought about the example you gave you Theo -- local ArbCom deciding a local ban of a globally banned user wants to be overturned -- and I realized that the way the requirements for a global ban are formed means there is no way a local ArbCom could be unaware of a global ban in a way that wouldn't leave room for them to object if there is the possibility they would want to unban in the future. The current draft states that you ''must'' notify all local communities where the editor is active or been banned/indef blocked. If say, someone banned on English and Russian is up for a global ban, then both ArbComs could comment during the RFC and say that they don't think a permanent global ban is merited. If a global ban is actually necessary -- these are people who are so dangerous to Wikimedia communities that we agree they should not ever edit, anywhere -- then creating an opt-out for a community that had plenty of time to comment and object to a ban is overly bureaucractic. There shouldn't be a global ban in the first place for a user who is likely to ever be unbanned locally by an ArbCom. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
: There was a case like this in Russian Wikipedia. A user with a large contribution went wild and was blocked for vandalism, then banned. He went to French Wikipedia and somehow managed to get banned globally for vandalism. After a year, he asked the Arbcom in Russian Wikipedia for a clean start. It was clear that it was easier to either grant a clean start or to rename a local account (I am not sure what was done in the end) than to ask stewards to globally unban him. He was locally unblocked and, last time I checked, he was working fine.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Sounds to me like a case where a global lock/ban is overkill. FR should just stick with their decision and Russian should be free to make its decision too. Do you feel like it's important to write in something about overturning based on local community consensus Yaroslav? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Generally I would be against straight overrule of a global ban by a local community consensus: we had a number of users who behaved disruptively and then found a resort in a smaller project. Having said that we may wish to leave some windows open: for instance, only let the decision to overruled locally by an arbcom decision (which pretty much excludes small project), or to introduce community / arbcom appeal to the stewards which would have more veight than just an individual appeal. Probably more options are possible, I have not thought about this deeply.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 19:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, based on this conversation, I am thinking of adding some language such as this:
<blockquote>While banned users may not appeal a global ban, overturning a global ban (and subsequent global lock) may be considered if a community where the editor was previously active can demonstrate a strong consensus for un-banning the user locally. Requesting an unlock is preferred to local Bureaucrats breaking a lock on the account via renaming. Examples of sufficient consensus to overturn a global ban in favor of local blocks include a local Arbitration Committee decision or a request for comment with greater than 80% support from more than 50 active editors on a project.</blockquote>
What do you think? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:Does it need to be set in stone? Even if someone is able to be unblocked locally while globally banned, there are many times where they are still dangerous to other projects and need to stay banned. It is better that one Wiki suffer from temporary insanity than to have them all fall together because of a few naive users. I say this because those like Poetlister have proved that they can create a bunch of names and worm their way into positions of power quite easily. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::I generally agree with your points, but I think we should avoid creating a policy that encourages local 'crats to break global locks whenever they see fit. We should rather be encouraging communities to talk to eachother and come to a consensus. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Right, but my point went the opposite way as you assume - I say that we shouldn't allow the local crats, who will try to do whatever they want anyway, to affect us. Look at the drama with the Italian Wiki, with the German Wiki, etc., where they let political people dominate and threaten the Wiki. Combine that with Thekohser and others having their locks broken by local crats and we can only assume that Wiki based insanity will exist in the future. What we should do is ensure that local insanity isn't the cause of us unbanning dangerous people. Otherwise, it will give these groups even another way to annoy and harass the Foundation (and thus harm lots of people who are just regular users). [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:I believe that 65% would work better. [[:en:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_constitutes_consensus.3F|enwiki can't even obtain 80% consensus on the Verifiability RfC]]. It's not possible to gain 80% on something as controversial as locally nullifying a global block. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 03:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::I was just trying to provide an example of what is meant by "sufficient consensus". If it seems like that text would be actually suggesting you need to have 80% support in every case, let's just not add it. That's silly and arbitrary. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Eighty percent is an extreme example. It would be best if your example simply said "the majority", and leave it to individual projects to decide what "majority" means. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::::All projects are connected and are not isolated. However, some projects have little activity and they are easy to take over. Tiny projects would be a source for trolls to take over and continue to disrupt other Wikis, as has been proven elsewhere. There shouldn't be any consideration of any opt-out because it will only breed these problems and cause further disruption. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm aware that freedom allows room for dangers, but I don't believe that the existence of risk should mean that freedom must be sacrificed. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::According to Hobbes, once you violate your social requirement to not harm others your protection from harm (as a result of governmental punishment) is valid. It is that simple. Freedom exists only until it meets someone else's freedom, and there is no right to use Wikipedia. If you harm people, you are gone. It is that simple. Any attempt to justify keeping those people around is justification of harming others, and no one has that right. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The goal of Hobbes' social contact is to protect people from anarchy. Do you really believe that Poetlister's mere presence on Wikiversity will result in anarchy? Since we're talking about ''global'' blocks, would Poetlister's presence on Wikiversity result in global anarchy? No, I don't believe so. This is why federalism and states' right exist. Poetlister on Wikiversity is a local affair, and the Wikiversity community is fully capable of handling it on their own. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Hobbes defended a social system that would keep people from taking the law into their own hands or acting without rules. Yes, that is anarchy, but he was focused on individual anarchy and the rights of individuals, as individuals make up the greater bodies. The only group entity that mattered was the sovereign, i.e. those who control the rights to bring harm to others (i.e. punishment of law). No individual had the right to bring about harm to another unless they were granted that right from the sovereign entity. Poetlister, in taking people's personal information, having multiple sock accounts in which he backed them up with stolen personal information and fraud, and waging war against many, many users, violated multiple people in such an extent that his permanent expulsion is the only way to protect anyone. If the world was fair, he would be in prison to protect society as a whole from such a dangerous individual. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
Sorry, I used a bad example. I also just realized that the Wikiversity discussions concerning Poetlister1 have ended. [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action&oldid=827460#Poetlister1 As you can see], the Wikiversity community was perfectly capable of dealing with the issue without interference from the global community. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:That's not really accurate, considering several Wikiversity community members specifically mentioned the global ban consensus as the reason for why their community should block the sockpuppet. Yes, it was their local decision making process. But no, it was not a decision made in a vacuum. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::It's also not accurate that the [[v:Wikiversity:Community Review/Global bans|discussions]] have ended. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If i can just add ,that if someone has a bee in his' or her bonnet, then surely the point in question that makes them angry, then that very point should make it far easier to spot them in future, and so instead of banning ,maybe an alarm of some sort round the very topic of contention of that person, and will make it easier to spot ,because when you start banning people, that must surely be attacking the very principle that Wikipedia is surely setting out to make, by allowing all points of view and all attempts at consensus of opinion around very difficult areas , where opinion might play a very significant part , or maybe all of it.coolpolitealex 17:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Just a note: decisions are taken by majority + one vote; policies are taken by a golden ratio, so the majority and the minority are very clear; two thirds are very difficult to achieve on controversial issues and 80% are impossible to achieve. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

== Selective bans ==

(reposting per comment left on my talk page)

I understand people feel some concerns need to be addressed globally. However I doubt a healthy relationship between projects/communities can develop or become stronger when all or nothing seems to be the only choices available though. Are there other things that can be done that might bring about compromises? For example, would a way to globally disable sending emails from an account or email address, and maintaining at Meta a blacklist of people that cannot have checkuser tools address some problems? I think having more choices can help with cross-project relations. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Technically there is currently no way to disallow only the emailuser function, so you'd have to request that. Anyway, I think it's perfectly reasonable to remind people that selective bans are a possibility, so I've [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_bans&action=historysubmit&diff=3061189&oldid=3029917 added a note] about this to the intro. Personally I think if someone is acting in enough good faith that they merit a selective ban, then a global ban proposal should be rejected outright in favor of acting on a case-by-case basis. But others might disagree depending on the circumstances. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

== Responsibilities of "local" sysops ==

In a now archived but perhaps unfinished discussion, Steven made the following comment:
:"If English Wikiversity doesn't block any local socks of Poetlister, they do so in clear violation of a global community decision in which they were invited to participate. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"
Could you please elaborate on that? I could see describing an ''unblock'' (particularly if tied to a SUL detachment) as violating a policy, but I don't think it's fair to demand that local sysops spend time looking for socks and/or engaging with people they would rather not engage with. Blocking is certainly a form of engagement, and ''requiring'' volunteers to engage seems a bit much to ask. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Good topic. What are sysops to do should local consensus differ from global consensus? Communities are likely to replace sysops who are in clear violation of local consensus with sysops who will uphold local consensus and do so in violation of global consensus. The global community could in turn feel there is a need to remove or replace community sysops who are in clear violation of global consensus with sysops who will uphold global consensus. If a local community and the global community aren't on the same page, sysops and community relations may be strained as a result. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
: This is an unsolved issue. I still remember when we had a quiet discussion here on Meta regarding the global arbcom proposal, and then all of a sudden hundred or so en.wp users with no or little contribution on meta came and voted the proposal down, so that it was instantly dead. I felt like someone probably canvassing on en.wp just imposed his or her personal views in a way that it looked like consensus. On the other hand, we know that in really small projects weird things sometimes happen, with the full support of local community. In my opinion, both extremes are bad, but I do not how to find a balance.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 11:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:: I find that a touch disturbing. "A quiet discussion"? There are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 143,000 active users on the English Wikipedia]; the fact that 100 of them show up on a global issue should not be problematic in the least. Surely there should have been notifications on various projects to get more opinions.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 05:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::: I would not be so sure. If these users would really read what is proposed and leave thoughtful comments, I would not have any problem with this. Especially if they were regular Meta contributors and would understand what it is all about. However, they obviously been solicited somewhere (WR again?), and the majority mostly just voted per xxx and never came back again.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 01:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:Apologies in advance for the wordy reply. I think there's sort of a few questions here:
::First, '''what kind of responsibility do local sysops have?''' I pretty much agree with you here SBJ. There's a reason the policy doesn't explicitly say local sysops/CUs are obligated to hunt down local socks of a banned user and block them. The open nature of the projects makes perfect enforcement of a global ban very hard, if not impossible. However, the reason I responded the way I did is because here a local sock of a globally banned user is confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. If it's obvious there's a bad actor around, I think local sysops should act to protect their projects based on the consensus for a global ban.
::Second, is the question, '''What are sysops to do should local consensus differ from global consensus?''' Short answer: Of course no one here on Meta or at the WMF expects any local sysops to go rogue because of the global ban policy. They would probably just get their rights removed by the community if there really was a strong consensus against a local block. But I think all of you know that consensus is a fuzzy concept with room for admins to use their best judgement. That's your call, as always.
::Third, the issue of participants from a larger project showing up and overwhelming the discussion. This is important. I'll start a new thread on this since I have a couple ideas.
:To make a long story short: I think when a community learns about a sock of a user who was banned via an open, transparent community process to which they were invited, they have a responsibility ''to their own project'' to block. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::may i inquire how exactly you intend to justify this principle and the underlying hierarchical causality? thx in advance for the elaboration, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 23:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I do not accept your assumptions about the principles I just laid out, especially that it implies some kind of immutable hierarchy. What we're talking about here is consensus decision making. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 04:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::i see, thus your notion of having a "responsibility" is not grounded in some sort of "duty" to obey some sort of global decision locally and can be overthrown by everyone at every time for whatever reason at every level (a.k.a. wiki). the trouble with consensus decision-modi without some sort of hierarchical backup is that you can't claim to have reached it in the first place and in an open a.k.a. fluctuating system like ours you can't establish a principle of "responsibility" to be accepted without explaining reasonably _why_ a global decision somewhere down the road should be binding for locals. they may haven't been around as the "consensus" was reached.
::::simply saying that they could have participated in principle is not a good reason (especially since we all know that substantial parts of the community often feel that they cannot take part for all sorts of practical reasons from a lack of information distribution to language barriers), neither practical nor in principle, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: with all due respect to the gibberish (sic) of "consensus talk": may i ask, if you have ever studied the rhetorics of early 20th century later-to-be "communist" apparatchiks? if so: do you see that there are some commonalities with the way you, a paid staff member, treat dissenting unpaid volunteers? [[User:Fossa|Fossa]] 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Fossa, I have been a volunteer for more than [[:en:User:Steven Walling|five years]] and a staff member for one. Let's not play that game of "volunteers vs. staff". [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 16:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::As long as global ban discussions aren´t shown in every wiki in an highly visible place, a global ban does not necessarily mean global consensus. A lot of users don´t partipiciate because they don´t know there is a site for this.--[[User:Müdigkeit|Müdigkeit]] 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::This is absolutely true. Risker and Tinz bring it up in the first thread here too. For now I'll say that the draft requires notice to all communities where an editor is or was active. If you think there should be more or something, please edit or suggest something. Thanks Müdigkeit. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

== Balancing the discussion ==

So Yaroslav and others have brought up the issue that if a global ban is the product of a cross-wiki discussion here on the Meta, there is the potential for people from big projects like English Wikipedia to just overwhelm the request for comment. I have a couple points here:

* Let's not assume that all global bans will be about someone whose primary wiki is/was en.wp.
* A request for comment is a discussion, not a vote. Personally I trust Stewards to close this kind of discussion fairly with more weight for thoughtful, constructive points rather than just sheer numbers. We put editors in these positions of trust with the understanding that they are supposed to make judgement calls, not just tally votes. If we want to point out explicitly that a global ban discussion is not a vote, then let's do that.
* Currently the policy draft requires notification to all projects where it is known that an editor was or has been active. If we want to be strict about this being truly global decision-making, we could also write in a requirement for comment from members of those projects before a decision is made. That would partially prevent a group of Wikipedians alone could decide something for the other projects.
* This is kind of a crazy idea, but we could do a "progressive stack." Sue just talked about this [http://suegardner.org/2011/11/08/three-occupy-wall-street-tactics-the-wikimedia-movement-should-copy/ on her blog]. The basic gist is that we know people from big projects are liable to dominate a discussion, so why not try to tip the scales a little bit? In the context of IRL discussions this just means letting minorities speak first, but it could also mean something like we (visually) note every time a person who's not from English Wikipedia comments and ask the closing admin to pay special attention to them.

Anyway, just some suggestions to get the conversation going. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Extended off-topic replies between Ottava and Seth 04:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)}}
:"there is the potential for people from big projects like English Wikipedia to just overwhelm the request for comment" Anyone who makes such a claim doesn't understand Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or any WMF project. They are not isolated. We all have SUL. You are a member of every project and every community. There is no "overwhelming" from a "big project". There are people. If you are not part of their project, that is you not doing enough to be active there. Letting people think that small projects should be isolated and do their own thing is a violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, which is something no project should be allowed to do. Such a philosophy is cliquish, cabalish, and utterly destructive. We are one global community, and everyone who is in good standing has the right to defend this global community. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::"You are a member of every project and every community." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=next&oldid=3047855 Glad to hear it!] -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Seth, that edit was you saying that you knew how the Wikiversity community would have felt, i.e. the topic of the conversation. That has nothing to do with having the ability to say a banned user should be allowed to edit. One is merely saying you are assuming things without having a background, which is not what the above is discussing. You know that. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::::FYI, I never said such a thing. By the way, to make a significant point, I submit the political reversal above as a piece of evidence to observers (if there are any ...) as to why I believe the Global Ban policy will be gamed into simply heaping further punishment on people who run afoul of a certain group. There's really nothing I can do about this. But as I said elsewhere I believe in formalism to some extent, so I'm noting it. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::You were in a discussion about a very specific situation where everyone else was talking about Wikiversity, and then you started making statements applying to Wikiversity which you lacked the background to make because you never bothered even looking there. If you think the Global Ban policy will be gamed, where is the evidence? You cannot just toss up conspiracy theory. You made a living out of exaggerating things about Wikipedia while ignoring real concerns. If you honestly cared about protecting people, you are focusing on the wrong things. But lets be honest - I've run afoul of every powerful group. Yet I support the ban because the ban is the right thing. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 00:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I dispute your summarization. However, the idea is that "membership" will argued in an exclusive way to marginalize people opposed to bans, but inclusively to increase those in favor of bans. It is easy to see how this can be applied as a clique mechanism to exclude opponents and include supporters. Oh, as a point of personal privilege to respond to an accusation - "made a living out of exaggerating things about Wikipedia"? HA HA HA. Please, let me know of the lavish munificent sums this has brought me, the big-money lecture fees, the consulting gigs, the stock options, the fame and hero-worship - because I seem to have missed it. My freelance writing earnings wouldn't put me near the poverty line! In fact, there's a good case to be made it's an overall negative to my life. You are sadly misinformed on that matter, perhaps as a projection from people who have indeed made a living "exaggerating things about Wikipedia" but in terms of evangelism. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"the idea is that "membership" will argued in an exclusive way to marginalize people opposed to bans, but inclusively to increase those in favor of bans" And I would say that the opposite will be true. Thus, they negate each other. Before, I was saying that you were talking about stuff that had the context of a specific background and history. You could talk about an individual in general, but you are limited to your own experience or philosophy. Acknowledging your experience does not prohibit you from having a say, but it does narrow down what you can use to justify your say. "let me know of the lavish munificent sums this has brought me" - "a living" is a colloquialism that means that you have a habit of doing something. However, you were a journalist/reporter who had attacks on Wikipedia governance published which means that you have a history of focusing on negatives in order to stir up readers. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Umm, I think it's going to be unproductive to continue if you equate critical articles with "in order to stir up readers". In addition to the absurdity, it's quite annoying to see those sorts of personal accusations, since they are so untrue. You apparently have no idea how advantageous it would be, e.g. for me to beat the wiki-porn-porn-porn drums. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::So you are the sole reporter in the world who doesn't wish people to have read his articles? Really? I find that hard to believe. If you can't admit that you sensationalized things for a reader, then that is a little weird. And advantageous to talk about porn? If that was so, Mr. Kohs's already highly detailed articles on the topic would have a lot more hits with out having to bother promoting them at all. Porn on the internet is not something that people care about. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
: Do stewards actually require to close the RfC? I did not count, but my impression is that here on Meta most RfCs do not get closed but just become out-of-date. (Which may also say smth about whether the points addressed in RFCs are valid - but this is a different issue). On the other hand, a global ban RfC has to be closed reasonably soon.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:: No, there is no deadline set in the policy. It just says that consensus is determined after a sysop or Steward closes the discussion, but doesn't say exactly when. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::: I think not having a deadline to close is good. I think a minimal requirement for a valid global ban discussion to remain open should be added though. Maybe a global ban discussion is to be open for 31 days or more. I think that would coincide with the typical time requests to create an entirely new project or close a language edition of a project remain open for at a minimal. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 13:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: That kind of feels like instruction creep to me. If we want a discussion closed (including as no consensus etc. because of time) we can simply bug the Stewards or Meta admins about it. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::RfCs in general on Meta tend to last for more than a few weeks, so it wont really be necessary to worry about them closing "too early". [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
::::: I think people might rush to comment out of some sense of urgency when a project is informed of a global ban discussion if there isn't something in place to reassure people that they have plenty of time to thoughtfully discuss concerns. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Without going to every person in the discussion and checking global contribs, it might be hard to tell if the conversation is even being flooded or not. One rather silly suggestion would be to create a bunch of that simply include a small image of the project logo, and allow people to self identify which projects they consider themselves active on. [[File:Wikibooks-logo.png|20px]][[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (or maybe that should be [[File:Wikibooks-logo.png|20px]][[File:Wikiversity-logo.png|20px]][[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC))
:Not a bad idea. I wonder if we might just also create some kind of tally of participants from each project on the talk page of the RFC. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Not a bad idea, and I can see the appeal. I imagine people might start to feel it comes uncomfortably close to !votes being votes. Of course the tally wouldn't say the views expressed so in that way it should not be a problem, but I will be curious to see what other people think. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 22:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

== Some questions ==
# Why is the WMF board creating the possibility of engaging different communities against each other by introdcuting ''global bans'' which could lead to the situation in which a "mighty" (in terms of numbers) community is trying to oust members of a less numerous community. (Indeed the malheur with the "sibirean language" version is partly a precedent for such a scenaria.) Other potential war fields for that are the balkans and language versions involving states in which speakers of those languages are involved in conflicts between the ethnicities speaking those languagees. (Or, more directly asked: why the WMF does not keep the Wikipedia and sister projects not out of politics?)
# Why the WMF board is creating just another controverse? Why they are so blind-eyed on the real problems regarding several projects? I am utterly irritated by the concentration on creating of more or less unneeded software features (e.g. delivery of cat images, assessment of articles in the English Wikipedia) or on the ongoing incapacitation of local communities (e.g. the boards image filter resolution, now this topic) while on the other side f. ex. the key Wikinews language version, the english language Wikinews, does just crash now or in some days will crash if it hasn't already happened (see [[:n:en:Wikinews:Newsroom]]).
Wikipedia has existed for ten years without "global banning". I don't see the necessaritiy to invent this in its eleventh year. Honestly, I think that people in the WMF should firstly and most fastly reconnect to the Wikipedia communities. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:If we all have SUL, how are the communities different? We are all capable of moving between the projects, have Meta, Commons, etc., and the WMF provides for our basics (servers, etc). We are one community. Everyone can move between the communities. It is silly to think that any single community can exist in isolation or has the right to endanger other communities by hosting really dangerous users and giving them a platform. As for your claim that there was no "global banning" before, that is absurd. 1. SUL is the only way to truly cross ban someone and 2. from the start of SUL, Jimbo and the Stewards marked out certain users who were globally prohibited from access. It is not the same as a global ban, but does set a precedence that there was a global action keeping users from editing. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:: We (most of us) do have an SUL but are active on one, two, or at most three projects, and have no idea about what is going on other projects. The global contribution button usually gives an idea.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

:Hi Matthias, this isn't an initiative of the Board. There is no resolution about it. It's something the Foundation is doing in conjunction with the [[terms of use]] update. I can understand your frustration about all the projects being undertaken, but please understand that we are not a single person: just like the community, there is a lot going on at the WMF. The same people working on this are not the same working on say, WikiLove or the article feedback tool. Thanks, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'll add that as community liaison I have been contacted by a number of users from several projects concerned precisely that there *is* no such mechanism in place. While I am speaking now only as to my own perspective, I don't believe a global ban is pitting communities against each other. I believe it is putting them in position to collaborate more efficiently by sharing information and working together to avoid systematic and insidious abuse of multiple communities. If Projects A & B have dealt with the same individual and know he has a history of stalking and threatening other users, the members of other projects should not have to be needlessly put at risk.

::You raise good points about the possibility of cross-wiki politics, but this may be a matter to work out through the particulars of the policy rather than through having no policy at all. The current language restricts consideration of global bans to users who are blocked on two separate projects, which may help minimize such abuse of global ban procedures; are there other ways to help ensure that this is not misused as a political power play? --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

== Overturning vs. opt-out ==

I rewritten the last section to say more than just not to appeal a ban directly to the Stewards. It now points to the opportunity for overturning a ban entirely if a local community objects after the fact. Let me know what you think, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 01:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:that's a very reasonable move, thx Steven. i proposed a second (but not final) step for this point according to the concerns raised above regarding a global-local balance, please take a look, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 03:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks Jan. I made some copyedits to shorten it a tad, but other than that it looks good to me. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

:::The problem is unsolved. It still means that local sysops are forbidden from opting a globally banned out of the block locally. Disallowing opt-out will serve nothing but lead to further tensions between communities. Think of [[User:Capsot|Capsot]]'s global block in the immediate run-up to the 2011 WMF board elections - he had full support of the Occitan and Catalan projects' communities, but was widely hated on Meta and elsewhere such that he got a global block, and that led to a vastly inflamed war between the communities of different projects. It was bad enough without such policy; I can't imagine how bad such cases would turn out should a global ban policy that disallows local opt-out be in place. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

==Self representation==
Looking at the recent discussion of Poetlister and his case a thought occurs to me. The current page says allows for users to be notified if there is a global ban discussion about them. But in some cases the users may already be blocked or banned on meta and hence unable to take part in the discussion. Perhaps, in such cases, we should suggest provisional unblock at meta under the condition that the user edits only the page related to the discussion. Specifically excluding user talk pages and email. Of course any violation would bring about an immediate block and the user would lose the ability to speak on their own behalf. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
:I like this idea. Self representation is good in that it can reveal another side to the story. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
::Agreed. There is no point in requiring notification to the editor if they cannot participate. <s>Feel free to add something about this in the appropriate section.</s> (Done) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:I am opposed. Most of the people who would be banned used multiple accounts, mass disrupted, etc. To give them -any- unblock on a project after they were blocked for any reason just to give them a voice opens up that project to harassment. A user does not have the right to defend themselves. This is not a court of law. This is a community with standards. If you are egregious enough to have been blocked AND put up for a global ban, then you don't deserve any ability to respond. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:: I agree with you on most points. This is not a court and could never be one. What constitutes "evidence" will always be circumstantial on a wiki, what determines the outcome is consensus, there could not be a "shadow of a doubt" type of standard. It will (sadly) never be innocence or guilt that is being determined. Thankfully the outcome of any decision is usually pretty minor in any person's life. If we banned Jimbo, he could happily edit wikia, give public talks, go on with his life. He would understandably be upset at having to leave behind a project he put alot of work into, but it wouldn't it doesn't carry the same weight of an actual court case either.
:: But, if a global ban process exists, in the decades to come someone will try to abuse it. Consider the (admittedly very unlikely) case of a user who hasn't done worthy of a global ban but who is being considered for a global ban. Allowing someone the chance to speak for themselves here at meta doesn't seem like very serious risk to me, global ban cases will be rare and closely watched. The moment any harassment or abusive behavior appeared a block would immediately follow. But allowing someone to speak in their defense bears a great payoff in how fair the process will seem to everyone involved. If they wanted to sock and continue abusive behavior they can and will do so without much difficulty anyways. This is why I suggested temporarily unblocking just for the discussion, and reblocking at the first sign of any disruptive behavior. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Let's just throw it all out there - we can all agree that if there will be a global ban then chances are I will be up for a ban. It would be in my personal, selfish interest, to water such a process down so that it wont affect me. However, that would endanger the project and mean that it would water down for people like Poetlister. I would '''gladly''' be banned rightfully or abusively if it meant that someone like Poetlister never had access here again. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 22:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::"A user does not have the right to defend themselves."??? As a legal matter, of course. As a matter of what we should strive to do in terms of social fairness and ethical conduct, I disagree. I believe your argument "If you are egregious enough ..." assumes the conclusion. That is, rumors and emotions can run high about people. And I'd say Wikipedia is especially prone to pile-ons and status-based group condemnations. Giving the accused the opportunity to rebut potentially fallacious charges is an important procedural safeguard. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:::"As a matter of what we should strive to do in terms of social fairness and ethical conduct" Nope. We are not a society. Even a society, as I demonstrated, would have everyone follow rules and termination of them for such egregious abuse would be immediate. You don't have rights here, nor are we here to allow for continue harm to the society. If a hand is rotten and gangrenous, one needs to cut it off immediately and not keep it in hopes it will make a persuasive argument on why it should stay. Even in the US, those who are deemed dangerous are remanded or even prevented from re-entering society even after released (the Supreme Court ruled such is acceptable regarding pedophiles). You do not have rights here, so you should not expect even that amount of leeway. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be pushy, but personally I consider this issue resolved. If a Steward or Meta sysop feels comfortable enough to fulfill a temporary unblock request, then that's their call. I don't think the policy should explicitly prevent this, and it might happen anyway even if we don't explicitly support it. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:Given the predominance of the idea that banned-means-banned, I think exceptions do have to be duly written into the policy. Otherwise, anyone who acts to allow an accused to defend themselves risks getting grief over it. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::As someone banned means banned actually applies to, I think it is utterly necessary to actually enforce such a measure. Otherwise, it would just allow access to areas that those who are banned have been shown do not deserve to have '''any''' access. It is merely a flimsy excuse to give dangerous people a way to harm others. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::What sort of access? The edit button? The move button? Aren't these actions reversible? We're not talking about murder here. If such access has been abused (ie. vandalism), then a sysop can justifiably reinstate the block and repair any damage. Can't you give them a chance? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 16:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Access means ability to edit. That should have been obvious. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 17:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I know. You're missing the point. Revisions are revertible and [[mediawikiwiki:Manual:RevisionDelete|hide-able]]. An user who has been unblocked in order to defend himself or herself will be heavily watched and scrutinized. I don't believe that temporary access to the edit button will lead to a catastrophic outcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Merely being revertable does not mean that they are not harassing. Otherwise, "revertable" would excuse every bad behavior out there. There are people who don't deserve '''any''' access no matter what, and giving any is so dangerous and egregious that I would go so far to say those arguing for such people to even be temporarily blocked would deserve to be blocked. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3071202&oldid=3068794 You've mentioned] that this proposal might led to your own global ban. Do you believe that you're a disruptive user? I doubt that you're the only non-disruptive user being threatened by this proposed policies. Although you're willing to sacrifice your access and freedom, do you speak on the behalf of other non-disruptive users being threatened with a global block? Your account isn't the only one at sake. Sacrificing your account is a selfish thing to do if you don't take others into account. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I believe I am less disruptive than you are being, but that doesn't mean I am politically favored or supported in any way. Unlike most people around here (in support or opposition to Wikimedia) I am standing up for logic, reason, and sound governance. I'm not here to take jabs at a system that is working well because it may have personally hindered me in some way. That is petty. But being willing to step on everyone's toes means that I am, by definition, "disruptive". That doesn't mean that people who cause major harm should be let go because I personally may think I didn't cause any harm. We shouldn't let proven murders out of jail because we are afraid of falsely convicting a few thieves. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 15:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps it's important to bear in mind that the 2 already existing cases where bans have been adopted involve people who engaged in the deception, manipulation, and disruption of entire communities, rather than people who simply tend to rub people the wrong way. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

== Clarification please ==

Globally banned editor A is an acknowledged expert in field B and, noticing a factual inaccuracy in the article on this subject on some wiki removes the incorrect information and replaces it with sourced fact.

Editor C reverts editor A, restoring the factual inaccuracy, on the ground that editor A is banned from the project. Is this permissible, since the overriding objective is to provide readers with correct, reliably sourced information, and it is apparent to editor C, from the source provided by A (which of course C has just removed) that in so doing C will be adding false information. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:Removing reliable information is foolish, but does happen. But the situation your describing is really part of the policy of the local wiki's and deciding how they react to the edits from a globally banned user, and it is not really something we are trying to decide here. That being said, I suspect none of the local communities would support this type of reaction. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::Agreed. I think it's totally fine to leave the decision about how to deal with the content from a globally banned user up to each community. There's no reason to make a centralized decision on that one. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thenub314 says "I suspect none of the local communities would support this type of reaction", which is obviously true, but when the reaction is that of administrators who use bans, blocks and page protection to override the community what can the community do about it? Individual editors are frightened to speak up because they fear that if they do it will be their turn next. A single administrator can block an editor indefinitely and a single administrator can cut off her talk page access, which is her last community link.

I will give one example. In this sequence an editor corrects the mis-spelling "describtion" to "description" and is reverted five minutes later by an administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aarhus&diff=prev&oldid=453387539]. Two minutes later, to ensure that nobody else can correct the spelling error, the administrator protects the page until 2012. An editor noticing the mis-spelling is then reduced to posting an edit request on the article talk page which is actioned here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aarhus&diff=next&oldid=456401250]. This is not an isolated lapse either - the same administrator has removed references and restored spelling errors in dozens of articles which he has then protected far into 2012 so as to ensure, as far as he is able, that the articles will remain inacccurate for the forseeable future. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

: I am sure you could inundate this conversation with examples of examples of true administrative insanity from any one of the projects. I could embarrassingly point to my own mistakes as an administrator. Being a volunteer organization there will always be people who obtain any given set of tools who are perhaps not qualified to use them, or people get overheated about some subject and make mistakes. These users should have their tools removed. This is most frequently done within the local community, but occasionally it comes up as RfC's here at meta.
:The matter under discussion here is something of a different flavor. There are also cases of users who abuse, manipulate, harass and disrupt every community they have been part of as an editor at the WMF. These users might have been administrators, CU's, Overnighters, Stewards or had no special tools at all. But given that massive disruption has in the past occurred, there seems to be some wheels in motion to change the terms of use to allow for the possibility of a global ban. If this is the case we would certainly like to have a sensible policy crafted.
: The important thing to keep in mind is that this policy is not meant to override local matters, or even touch upon them. It is about when/how we should try to seek a global consensus to ban users that have been banned from multiple places and who we expect will cause more problems in the future. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But isn't this policy designed precisely to override local matters? Without any forewarning a local wiki is presented with a ''fait accompli''. A lot of the trouble is caused by administrators who are impetuous, inexperienced, incapable of interacting with people in the real world and about twenty years old. We've had thirteen year - old bureaucrats before now. Shouldn't there be a lower age limit for these positions? (I believe the President of the United States has to be at least 35). At least the local wiki knows who its crazy administrators are, even if it can't curb their activities. These global bans are going to be implemented remotely from a place where they are not known, giving them an easy method of wreaking their havoc across hundreds of wikis.

Let me give another example of the problem on English Wikipedia. In this sequence editor A quotes extensively from a source and expands the discussion of another source. Impartial editor D reverts editor A and then restores A's edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=350045539]. Editor C then reverts again, quoting the exact opposite of policy as justification for his intervention [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=350050502]. At this point D, rather than get involved in an edit war with C, simply gives up. If A had then offered moral support to D by restoring D's preferred version C would have continued the edit war by reverting A. The way the crazy administrators handle this situation is to revert so that the page shows C's version (rather than D's) and then lock it indefinitely. Editors shouldn't have to work under this kind of intimidation. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to come out and '''oppose''' this proposal because it's assymetric. It does nothing to address the problems caused by poorly - performing administrators. People talk the talk about solving this but they don't walk the walk. Result - current situation where people like Ottava Rima and Poetlister are banned on some projects and turn up as administrators or bureaucrats on others. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
*There is normally discretion in reverting the edits of banned users, and that makes sense. If someone is banned for off wiki harassment their actual edits may be quite legit. However if we discover someone whose edits include copyvios or the occasional outright hoax then it is probably safest to revert everything they've done even if that means losing some information that would check out as accurate (some copyvios are very accurate copies of reliable sources). Editors who check the sources should of course be free to revert back to edits that they've verified as good edits. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 07:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The objection is not to removing content inserted by banned users unless it's a "shoot first" reversion - i.e. made before an SPI has been filed to determine whether the editor is a sock. It's a commonsense objection to removing correct, sourced information added by a sock and '''at the same time''' reinserting the false, unsourced information which the sock removed. In my view this is a contravention of the Terms of use (see [[Talk:Terms of use#Falsification of content]]). [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:If someone has been banned then we can no longer assume good faith. If they have been banned because some of their edits replace good edits with bad then sometimes it is safest to revert everything they've done, even if in some cases their's was a good edit and reverting it means going back to a worse version. The alternative would be to check each and every one of their edits and only revert the bad ones, and that isn't always a sensible use of time. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 01:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a section in policy (you can read it at [[en:Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement]]) which seems to cover this point. It says

When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons."

If you revert edits without checking them you cannot comply with this part of the policy. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

== Criteria clarification ==

There are 3 criteria, each starting "A user is ..." or "A user has..."

Are these alternative criteria, ie a user meeting any of the 3 is eligible? Or must the user meet all 3 criteria, in which case they should start "The user" not "A user"? The text needs to be clear whether it's any of these or all of these. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 03:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

:Good feedback. I'll try to clarify that you need to meet all of the criteria, not just one or two. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:: If all of these, then it should be "The user" not "A user" in 2 and 3. They're all discussing the same user, not possibly different ones. Compare:
:: "A job is in an office. The job pays $20,000. The job is stressful" and "A job is in an office. A job pays $20,000. A job is stressful".
:: [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 18:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

::: Sounds fine to me. Be Bold my friend. :) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Been bold. Hope you like! If too bold, do revert :) [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

== Previously locked users ==

I brought up previous locked users to a few Stewards and they said that they are treating them in the same was as global bans. Will this be the default approach? Global bans normally require consensus before putting them forth while many locks seem to be based on the decision of only one or two people with no community discussion. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

:No, obviously going forward with the new policy, a ban will be a ban and otherwise it is not. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::Right, but the old locks will still be there. Which means that Stewards could potentially lock when there isn't enough to meet the criteria for a ban. I just want to hash out how we are going to treat the old behavioral locks that don't fit in the standard lock requirements (i.e. spam, bad user name, etc.). [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_unlock_for_User:Proabivouac Here is an example]. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The easiest way to deal with those is to grandfather them IMO. It is hard enough just getting this proposal on its feet; needing to sort through old locks isn't an issue that we should need to focus on. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

== What is the problem this will solve? ==

I do not see that there is a global problem with banned users that this Meta policy will help resolve. On the other hand there is always the possibility that tinkering with the mechanism will actually create new, and totally unforeseen, problems. The rule of thumb advice common among farmers, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'', may apply here also. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:As we do more outreach to get input/comments going forward, I agree there needs to be clear problem statement. To answer your question here in probably too brief way... The problem is that there is an edge case that a few problematic editors have exploited, which is that, even if there is a consensus to do so, there is no process or policy for banning a user globally. Even in the past cases where people managed hack together a consensus of some kind ([[Requests for comment/Ban User:PauloHelene globally|1]], [[Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister|2]]) there is no global agreement on when such a decision is enforceable or not. The broken thing here is that serious trolls, some of whom multiple communities feels are causing offline harm to people, are allowed to slip through the cracks because of a lack of a global policy. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::The problem this will solve is getting rid of disruptive trolls/stalkers who just won't go away. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 05:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::But won't they just turn to using sockpuppets? If they're determined enough to troll that they went to a different project to continue trolling, using sockpuppets after the global ban is a piece of cake for them. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, but that happens locally anyway. There is no such thing as a foolproof block on an open wiki. In any case, the point of creating a policy is to have a decision making process that makes it possible for people from different projects to enforce a ban if that is the consensus. It doesn't solve the fact that we still have technical holes to fill. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::But I think a good point was made for the past two cases of a global ban: if we don't ban them globally, the belligerent users' disruption is likely to be more manageable because that way they're less likely to turn to sockpuppets. Enacting global bans simply shifts the problem from a disruption problem to a sockpuppetry problem, and many on English Wikipedia will know well how this could become a moot and fiasco a few years down the line. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 13:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, it's a possibility ''if'' there are regular global bans that pile up. I don't personally see the number of successful global bans being anywhere near the size that it could create a sockpuppetry problem that we are not capable of handling. The number of users who actually are dangerous enough that we must enact some kind of Wikimedia-wide ban is tiny. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::If the number of expected bans is tiny, we don't need a set policy; the ad-hoc process we have so far would be adequate. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 18:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::There are two reasons not having a policy isn't an option:
# The lack of a policy has been an excuse for not taking action in the past. (And when I mean action, I mean even just figuring out whether there's a consensus to enact a global ban.)
# The new [[terms of use]] that was just endorsed by the Board specifically mentions a community policy about global bans and links here. If the community doesn't make a policy about global bans, then we go back to the previous state of things, where lack of a clear policy lead to inaction and requests to the WMF to step in to enforce bans (which no one wants, including us).
::::::::I would normally agree that creating policies to serve edge cases is a bad idea. But not this time. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent|6}} Steven, unfortunately point 2 above sounds exactly to me as a case of WMF deciding on a community policy, and forcing the community to accept it. As for point 1, I maintain the position that global bans will create an unfair situation in all circumstances except where there is an overwhelming consensus (lack of policy may have been an excuse, but an invalid excuse - this is a wiki). [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a big part of the problem this is intended to solve is that some banned users from the English Wikipedia have moved over to small projects such as en-Wikiversity and started trouble from there. On the other hand, I can't think of a situation in the german-language projects where a global ban process would have been useful (obviously excluding ordinary vandalism accounts, but those hardly require any process). I would find it interesting to know whether users from other non-english communities feel the need for a global ban process. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Cross-wiki outreach ==

Hey talk page watchers... I just wanted to drop a note here and say that since it looks like the majority of translation work is done so far (or at least as much as we're going to get in the short term), I was thinking the next step is delivering messages to the appropriate local equivalents of the Wikimedia Forum/Village Pump/Café etc. with a note about this policy. If anyone would like to help or can write/translate a message in our [https://www.wikipedia.org/ top ten languages], that would be fantastic. Thanks, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
: Thanks for your work on this. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]   15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

== not just editing==
As we don't just restrict people from editing I've broadened the first sentence, I'll also broaden the ban bit to clarify that the appropriate ban should be related to the access that someone has misused - so if c/u abuse or misuse of deleted contributions resulted in a global ban it would normally be a ban from C/U or access to deleted content as appropriate - so someone can be very welcome as an editor even if globally banned from becoming an admin. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 04:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for adding this. Very good point indeed. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

== An alternative relating to overturning vs opt-in ==

I skimmed over the discussions above about what level of power local projects would have to overturn global bans or opt-in to participating in them, and was going to reply above but those threads look a little stale.

The mediawiki software currently has a user right called 'ipblock-exempt' which allows its holder to be exempted from IP address blocks. What about a user right called 'globalblock-exempt'? This would allow a local project to give a specific gban exemption for an editor that applied solely to their own project without needing to fight the global ban itself directly. As a user right it would need to be explicitly assigned, meaning the blocked user would presumably have to apply for it and the local project could set up their own process for assessing and accepting or declining requests. Because action is required on the local project, it would mean the local project also explicitly takes responsibility for the exemption and if the user disrupts that project, they effectively have themselves to blame.

An example could play out as follows: BadUser is active on the wikipedia and wikibooks projects for English and German, and has persistently disrupted enwiki, dewiki and commons, is well-known by admins on those projects, and a decision is made to enact a global ban. BadUser tries to continue his antics at frwiki but can't - frwiki (and every other project) is effectively protected from disruption by the global ban. The enwikibooks project, however, believes BadUser has never disrupted their project and can still contribute constructively there. They're aware of the global ban and the reasons behind it but choose to exempt BadUser from the global ban solely on the enwikibooks project by granting him the globalban-exempt right. They take full responsibility for their decision and if he screws up there, they can simply revoke that right.

This effectively fulfils the goal of the global bans in terms of protecting unwitting projects from highly disruptive editors, but still allows projects in-the-know to make the conscious decision to allow a globally banned user access only to their own project. Good behaviour by a globally banned user on a locally-exempted project could factor in assessing whether the global ban should remain in effect or be lifted.

This would eliminate the opt-in concept by effectively providing local projects with an opt-out instead, applied on a per-user basis. And it may also have the effect of taking some pressure off the overturning process in that it would allow one particularly vocal local project to solve the problem within their own project without exposing all the other projects to potential harm. Overturn discussions would still take place, of course, but would be more likely to involve participants from multiple projects since there would be no need to try to overturn the global ban on behalf of just one project.

Just a thought dump, in any case. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 05:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Giving local projects the ability to exempt any user they like from a global ban before it even happens would totally gut the effectiveness of the policy/practice in the first place. The whole point of the policy is to force a discussion between the projects over whether a global ban is merited – building in the ability to opt-out so easily would not encourage projects to actually participate in the global discussion about a problem user, which is the opposite of what we want. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::Forcing a process like this on every project is going to be controversial to begin with. The 'sovereignty' and independence of the individual projects has been pushed for a while, and the idea that each project has the right to make its own decisions for its own good is entrenched in places like enwiki. Each time the WMF has stepped in, it has created varying degrees of muttering and opposition. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that a change like this would be accepted without considering some degree of compromise.

::The purpose of the Global Ban isn't to bring the projects to the discussion table, that's a desirable side effect. The purpose of the Global Ban is to protect the projects from the persistent disruptive behaviour of particular users. Forcing a project to the negotiation table isn't something that will happen as idealistically as you imagine. More likely, they're going to do what they always do - mutter about WMF overextending its authority and ignore the process altogether. There's some underlying resentment that meta has some of the power over other projects and outside of their self determination as it is already, I just think you're going to butt heads with projects like enwiki if yet another part of their self-determination is offloaded to meta like this without giving them a local 'override' button. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::And just to clarify, my suggestion above wasn't that local projects exempt users from the global ban ''before'' it happens, it's something that would happen ''after'' the global ban is put in effect. I'm not familiar with MediaWiki's codebase but as a developer myself I can't imagine it would be difficult to only allow the flag to be added to accounts that already have a global ban in effect, and remove that flag on any local projects either at the same time the global ban is lifted, or the next time a 'can I log in' check is done locally. The notion is global ban→local exemption→global discussion, not local exemption→global ban→?→profit. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 20:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. There are not many users that deserve a global block, but recently I have seen such a case where it would make sense to me that a project that is willed to keep it's contributer can make an exception. That someone behaves badly on one or more projects but not on another can have various reasons and it's often not the editor alone that makes two sides (opinions, etc.) collide. If a project really wants to keep such an editor because he is productive then it would be to the advantage of the project. We will also have to note that an editor blocked globally would have to ask for the permission on a project itself. That means that a global block would be in full effect until an exemption is made. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|talk]]) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a role for both global blocks and global bans. The software should definitely allow people to make global blocks, and local "globalbockexempt" decisions. Like the ban/block distinction on individual projects, a global ban is simply a global block that by social convention can't be overturned by a single project (conrast w: 'by a single admin' on an individual project). Let's hope we never have cause for a global ban, but let's also define it to keep the terms straight. People ''do'' propose a global ban every few years. (And if I understand WSC's comment above, where one could have 'activity bans' for a contributor, that apparently would also be a sort of ban, not suitable for individual overturn by a single project.) (someone who has abused access to private data might not be allowed such access again on the good faith of a single project). –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]   03:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
:I think distinguishing global blocks (which could potentially be overridden per wiki) from global bans (which are universal) makes sense. If a user has been disruptive enough to warrant a global ban, giving them a potential loophole to exploit will just prolong their disruption. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::I can get behind that too. Sounds like we need to take a stab at solidifying [[Global block]] too, and including a mention here about the more specific differences. Niabot, NULL... does that split make sense to you too? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
:::If i understood correctly then you propose two kind of "blocks". The ''global ban'' without anything to add and the ''global block'' which can be lifted by single projects at own will/risk. But isn't it a bit complicated? Wouldn't be a ''global block'' alone enough to satisfy the needs if local projects can make single exceptions? What would be a good reason to disallow local projects to remove a block/ban? --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|talk]]) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Are there two or three kinds of blocks? You talk about global "blocks" and global "bans" here, but a few weeks ago there was an office action which resulted in a global "lock" of a user account. So do we have three kinds of blocks ("block", "ban" and "lock")? --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::The distinction between a block and a ban are not as stark on some projects (like Commons), but it should be made clear that they are very much different things. A ban is a consensus decision that someone is not welcome on the projects or is banned from certain activities. A block is a technical mechanism for preventing editing, and it can and is often applied without a ban. Slightly complicated, but important in cases like these, because not every block is a ban. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::: If a global block becomes possible, I'm not sure there would be a reason to continue locking accounts. That has always seemed like a hack to me. But it's probably worth pinging the [[stewards' noticeboard]] to see if any of them have a reason to continue locking accounts in that case. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]  18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I can see benefit in the block/ban distinction here, yes. As you stated, Steven, blocks are issued for any number of things, made by individual admins, revoked by individual admins and so on. Bans are decisions by the community that an editor is not welcome. A block is a way of enforcing a ban if it becomes necessary, but blocks are used more broadly than just to enforce bans. I'm imagining a system where an admin from any project could request a global block of an account provided it's blocked on at least 2-3 projects minimum (including their own), but blocks could be overturned either locally with globalblock-exempt or a petition to remove the global block itself. But as with enwiki, blocks enacted because of bans are almost never lifted until the ban itself is lifted. The enwiki admins are mostly pretty good at respecting this, so as long as a global block came with a note saying it was by a global ban decision, I think admins will respect that enough not to give local exemptions. And failing that, it can be codified in policy on the globalblock-exempt user right or something. I agree with others above that with a global block system in place (which is more diverse and perhaps more appropriate than the global lock system) then there should be no need for locking that I can see. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 20:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
* I have an impression that now we are talking about something different from what we were talking before. First, community bans do not exist on all projects, and there have been projects where community bans were explicitly rejected by a vote. Second, I technically do not understand, even if community ban existed, how it could have been implemented technically. By a vote on meta? This is unacceptable, since a typical vote on meta is a couple of dozen users, and on top of that, the votes are very vulnerable to the external influence such as en.wp, WR and God knows what, like we have recently seen on the example of Mbz1. Performing community ban votes on several projects and then ban a user if say three or more projects banned them? Has the same problems as the previous version (for instance, Commons votes are vulnerable as well), in addition, it is unclear which projects would be eligible: I can easily solicit users on a dormat project so that nobody would even know until the ban has been enforced. Honestly, I do not see any way this idea could be implemented. I think we should drop it.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
** Oh god no. A vote is a terrible idea... The process here is described as a Request for Comment, which is explicitly not a vote. As for the rest: yes, all processes are sometimes vulnerable to gaming or influence. But on the other hand, the projects are surprisingly resistent to being forced to ban a user just because another project did. In any case, I would rather see a community decision on bans, rather than one where people try to force the Stewards or the Foundation to intervene without any kind of attempt to gain an honest cross-wiki consensus. Even if we're only talking about less than 10 global bans ever. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 04:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
***I think that in theory, it makes sense for a project to be able to override a global ban. If the WMF wants to force discussion or override the project for other reasons, it still has the power of office action - the only point of the exemption is to create a class of users who are banned by default rather than allowed by default, without choosing to override the projects in every single case. Nonetheless, admittedly, the creation of a new software feature to benefit less than 10 of the most problematic users ever to participate in the projects is, well, not the first priority for any sane developer. If a project wanted to invite one of these users back, they'd need merely invite him to start a new account under a slightly different name, with the agreement that he use it only on that project and that they will oppose any global ban request against it. (note that this proposed policy would prohibit this non-software workaround, but whether this discussion here should override an individual project's consensus to do otherwise seems debatable to me) [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
**** That is basically the situation we already have. For example: with Thekohser, a Steward decided to enact a global ban that ended up being watered down to just a series of individual local blocks across the wikis, and naturally they were all undone just on principle. I think a global ban needs to be all or nothing: if someone really is not enough of a danger to the projects that we can pick and choose which wikis they can be active on, then there's no need for a global ban in the first place and it should be left up to local autonomy entirely. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
*****Whichever way we weigh up arguments on a global ban discussion, it doesn't work. Absolute consensus? If there's absolute consensus I'm sure we don't even need a new policy; the existing global block rules are adequate. Majority rule or "rough consensus"? That would intuitively lead to the scenario in which one or two projects who value the contribution of editor A is forced to accept a ban on A imposed by the consensus between 5 other projects on which A was disruptive. A global ban policy without local opt-out will simply do harm and no good. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Question:''' Earlier in the discussion Niabot made reference to a "recent" case where there a user may have been allowed to edit on one project although globally blocked. I am not sure if we are thinking of the same case, but there was a recent case on Commons where a user had been blocked and unblocked, after much controversy and discussion, only for the account to be globally locked. This same case lead to renewed interest in [[Pedophilia]] and a similar policy proposal being created on Commons. I note that Meta:Pedophila is only a ''proposed'' policy, but if there were to be a WMF policy that covers all projects, how would this be handled by the proposal? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
** Hey. Thanks for the question. The case on Commons was an [[Office actions|office action]], and the way this policy is written would mean that user would not be eligible for a global ban (they were not blocked on multiple independent projects). As for the proposal at [[Pedophilia]], the text says that any such user "...will be indefinitely blocked." Which I take to mean is separate from a formal ban, and because it's a specific reason for indef blocking codified in a policy, would not take a consensus-building discussion like other cases might. If that policy is accepted, then I would definitely amend this one to mention it as an exception. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
***Steven, you say ''"if that policy is accepted"''. I am not very familiar with the workings of Meta, but the policy has been in a "proposed" state for nearly two years now, despite the clear statements from both Jimbo and Sue that this is de facto policy. What will it take to have the policy "accepted"? I fear that the next such incident will be a publicity disaster if this is not policy when that happens. If I were the WMF, I would not like to see some of the comments on [[Talk:Pedophilia]] reprinted in the media. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
****I personally have no answer about how/when/if that page will become a community policy, though the "policies in limbo" problem is something that clearly impacts both pages. The right person to ask is probably [[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|Phillippe]] or legal in general. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
*****I worded my question poorly. Let me try again. How does a proposed or draft policy on Meta become just "policy"? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 02:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
******There is no set process. We're going to have to pick one. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

==Some comments==
Hello all, I'll leave a few comments here. For those that do not know me: I was a steard and did not get re-elected. I do however write this as a normal user. The comment is also not about me, but simply tries to point out possible problems.
*Long term / indefinite bans suffer from the fact that the banned user has no way of "evolving", and that the community on whose decision this ban is based, will change. In such a case, there is a ban, but without community support. In addition, the actions for which the ban is enacted tend to be forgotten rather soon. For the long term users of a project: do you remember the banning discussions/reasons of people banned from your project, say 9-12 months ago? - Can you make sure the community would still support thiese bans, in a vote?
*Wikipedia comprises many projects; in order for the ban to have any legitimation, a majority of users and of projects must support the ban. Of course, I am only talking about short term bans.
*There is no need to introduce this instrument; stewards already have the option of globally locking an account, which will result in the same. As pointed out above, no community is able to meaningfully reach an agreement on banning a user from all projects.
*Just out of curiosity, how much work could have been avoided, say in the last 3 months, if the instrument were available?
Whe you as a community elect representatives, please give them the power to actually make decisions. --[[User:Eptalon|Eptalon]] ([[User talk:Eptalon|talk]]) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

:In regards to: "There is no need to introduce this instrument; stewards already have the option of globally locking an account, which will result in the same. As pointed out above, no community is able to meaningfully reach an agreement on banning a user from all projects."...
:Both of these things are demonstrably untrue. First, as the back-and-forth among Stewards over the request for a global ban of [[User:Thekohser]] demonstrated, Stewards do not currently have a clear mandate for enforcing any request for a global ban. Yes, they have the technical ability for global locks, but no, there is not a set process or policy that covers this. Current Stewards have expressed deep reservations about any request to them for a global ban that isn't backed by a community consensus. Second, we've already proven the cross-wiki consensus model can work with a minimum of drama. Just see the two RFC examples I linked to the section at the top. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
::In order for a ban to be legitimized, it must be possible to "repeat" the discussion / vote that precedes this ban at any time during the duration of the ban; if at some point in time, the result is different, the ban lost its legitimacy, and must be lifted. As to stewards not agreeing on some issue: this is normal. They have been elected to serve a term - how they reach their goals is not the concern of the people who elected them. In addition, we are talking about a multi-lingual project. In the case of a global ban dicussion I would expect all commuication to be localized, so that any user of any wikipedia project can follow it, without the need to understand another language, other than the language of the projects where this user is active. In addition to creatng a problem of legitimacy of a ban, this requires a huge effort of translation, which in my opinion does not outweight the benefits.--[[User:Eptalon|Eptalon]] ([[User talk:Eptalon|talk]]) 20:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:I think Abd's comment on the Poetlister case summarized precisely my worries about this proposal. It doesn't work because it simply forces dedicated trolls into sockpuppetry; and it causes tension between projects by allowing larger projects to gang up and rule over smaller projects. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Some comments (2) ==

Currently with not so much time so I don't expect replies and if there are any I won't be able to get back to you soon for now. That said, I completly oppose this proposal as written for the following reasons: the first one is that it seems that there is an option allowing a project to lift a global ban locally. In my humble opinion that absolutelly wrong. Global means global, all projects. If we allow projects to overturn global bans locally then this policy looses its spirit and efficacy, and has the potential secondary harmful effects. The second one is that the proposal is unclear in regards of which ammount of consensus the request must obtain in order to the ban be implemented as it forces stewards, again, to decice. A formal threshold of support must be set, so all proposals can be treated with the same standards. These are my concerns as of now which I consider serious enough not to support this policy at this current stage. Thanks. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|''Nihil Prius Fide'']]) 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:There is not an option to lift a ban locally. The message is supposed to be that if a local community disagrees with a ban that they should take the disucssion back here where the ban originated. If that's unclear let's rewrite it. :) Thanks for your comments, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== Principle of least restrictive ban==
I didn't think this would be controversial so I boldly added it as principle 4, but as someone objected to it I thought I'd start this thread.
:''4 The Ban is the least restrictive needed to protect the project from similar incidents by the same editor. So, if the ban were due to the misuse of extra userrights, then the user would be banned from having those userrights on any Wikimedia wiki, but might still be welcomed as an editor.''

This proposed principle is different from, but complementary to, the idea of global bans being a last resort. Some people simply can't be trusted with deleted edits or the block button, others are too disruptive even to be allowed to edit. Under this principle it would be entirely appropriate to ban someone from a position of trust whilst still allowing them to edit, providing that was the least restrictive ban needed to prevent similar incidents recurring. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 10:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:There is already language in the lede which calls for the least restrictive measure ("...''should only be sought when the problem cannot be addressed by less restrictive means''..." and "...''may be selective''...") as well as the statement which follows the criteria, "''Please remember that global bans are not a common occurrence, and that merely meeting the above minimum criteria does not mean that a global ban is required''." I think it's unnecessary that we add such a criterion, as the language is quite vague and it's already covered. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 23:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::I disagree. "May be selective" is a long way from the principle of least restriction. As for the "should only be sought when the problem cannot be addressed by less restrictive means" I read that as complementary to the proposal but as more about global bans being a last resort. I think this would benefit from bans being both a last resort and also minimally restrictive, and that would require the proposed 4th principle. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I don't think that the clause works as a prerequisite to considering a ban, which is what it would be ("Global bans are only considered if all of the following criteria are met:"). Making it a prerequisite seems to open up a world of wikilawyering (Example: "We can't discuss this because the contributor never misused talk pages and so the least restrictive ban needed would allow him to edit talk pages; since that wasn't proposed, we have to close this consideration.") Surely discussing the appropriate parameters of a ban would be ''part'' of the consideration? --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
::::WSC, I think a discussion about the principle of least restrictive ban is fundamentally moot here. Global bans are fundamentally about banning a user from using things they've never abused before because of fears that they will abuse them later. (Otherwise what would be issued is a series of local bans.) If you believe in the principle of least restrictive ban, you oppose this proposal outright. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Discussion close by Meta admins ==

I'd be much more comfortable with the policy if only stewards could close these discussions, as I trust stewards much more than I do meta admins. Stewards have a more public and through vetting process, and the most recent two incidents that I've come over to Meta to see have left me very, very unimpressed with Meta admins' judgements. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] ([[User talk:Sven Manguard|talk]]) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
:Issue is that determining consensus on just about anything except global rights requests is outside of the steward scope. Stewards are supposed to implement consensus only, not define it. That being said, with something of this proposal's scope closure by a group of stewards might be best. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 04:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
::Yeah, we really have no set way to approve policy here on Meta. However, if we hold an RFC or something about it to garner wider opinion than the talk page, I would also request that Stewards close the discussion. The other good reason for this is that the policy is a global one which directly involves Steward work, and it has little to do with the usual kind of sysop work here on Meta. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Since you're the one that made the image, you might want to change [[:File:Global-bans-process-workflow.svg]] then; that's the source of the concern that triggered this thread. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] ([[User talk:Sven Manguard|talk]]) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== Where is the Global arbcom ? ==

Where is the Global arbcom that can review and possibly overturn a Global ban ? On the French Wikipedia, any block decision by any admin can be reviewed by the Arbcom. Only the Arbcom has the final authority on disciplinary matters. The admins or stewards, or whoever on meta does not have the power to overturn the supreme authority of the French Arbcom on disciplinary matters on the French wikipedia. If the French Arbcom decides that the accused is innocent and is free to edit the French Wikipedia, no admin or steward or whoever on meta is allowed to overturn that. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== I am against bans as opposed to temporary sanctions ==

This idea of a ban is associated with death penalty, because it is considers that some human beings cannot improve themselves, even years after the event. I am against death penalty. I am opposed to any indefinite blocking on any Wikimedia project. Sanctions against a specific user should never be longer than 10 or 15 years. Blocking a user for more than 10 or 15 years is similar with cruelty. Banning someone forever is always an abuse.

I would not necessarily be so much opposed to a Global block for X years, provided X is less than 15. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 23:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== That system should be opt-in only ==

This system should not be imposed on projects that do not have a policy of banning people. For example, as written on [[:en:French Wikipedia]], the French Wikipedia had no sysop between May 2001 and August 2002. That means that during that period, nobody was banned, and nobody could be banned. Projects that do not have a policy of banning people should not be compelled to taking part into that system. For that reason, it should be opt-in only. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 23:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Meta has no power to impose a decision on local community ==

No vote whatsoever on meta can have the power to overturn policies decided on local projects by their local communities. This is by the same token that a vote at the United Nations does not have the power to amend or abrogate a US law or a French laws or whatever. The United Nations is a place to regulate relations between nations, but it is not a place from where the nations are ruled. Meta is in the same position as regards to Wikimedia projects. A French citizen is allowed to be judged according to French laws. The united nations have no power to overturn a decision taken by a French judge. So by the same token, meta does not have the power to overturn a decision taken by the French wikipedia's arbcom. If the French Wikipedia's arbcom decides that the accused is innocent or should be blocked for 1 year, meta does not have the power to change that into an indefinite ban. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 23:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:Actually, Meta does have that power. It's exercised all the time on the Steward's noticeboard and via global locks of vandals and spammers. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== The Falklands islands dispute example again ==

When discussing the Global blocking in April 2008, I took the example of the Falklands islands dispute, and the possibility to block a user on a different wiki for POV pushing, because that user edits that other wiki in a way that is seen as POV on the blocking party's wiki. I had been given assurances that the tool would not be used that way : ''Right, well it's possible to do so, but that's not what the tool is for; misuse will be handled in the same way as misuse of any other tool. Issues affecting one wiki stay on that wiki, and global blocking is not to be used for disputes of that nature anyway. I think you misunderstand how this tool will be used. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)''. See [[Talk:Global blocking/Archive 1#only for IP addresses, not usernames]]. See also [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/the-problem-with-wikidata/255564/ Mark Graham's article in The Atlantic, 6 April 2012] in which he defends the view that Wikipedia should not unify its communities (in projects such as Wikidata) but provide the possibility for different world views to coexist.

But what is being prepared here includes the possibility of blocking a user on a third wiki (and on all wikis) if he is blocked on two other wikis. If two wikis having the same view on the Falklands Island dispute decide that a user who edits the third wiki in a way which they frown upon, is a POV pusher, then they are allowed to ban that user on the third wiki, by concluding an alliance of their two wikis against the third one. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 00:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:Please read the examples of global bans given in the policy. POV pushing or editorial disputes are not what this policy is for at all: it is to prevent harm to the projects and other users, not solve simple disputes. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== Global bans violate Ne bis in idem ==

''Global bans are exclusively applied where multiple independent communities have previously elected to ban a user for a pattern of abuse'' constitutes to a violation of Ne bis in idem. See [[:en:Ne bis in idem]]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:Even if they do, it hardly matters. Since when have we had a prohibition of double jeopardy on Wikimedia wikis? A user cannot be re-blocked for edit warring a second time?--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 05:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:No it doesn't. It's like moving a case to a higher court which can apply a stronger sanction for the same decision than the lower court can (projects can't ban a user on other projects). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 10:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== Ratification ==

I've proposed a ratification process at [[Global bans/ratification]], where the global policy would go into effect when communities representing 75% of active users of Wikimedia projects endorse it. This process gives us clear steps to get the policy endorsed, namely a series of local discussions which approve it. Failing that, we seem to be stuck in a never-ending limbo. Since this talk page is already confused enough, I suggest the details of the ratification process (eg different thresholds or criteria) be discussed at [[Talk:Global bans/ratification]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 20:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:I think we should put more thought into mapping out our options before there's any movement on any one threshold for ratification. Personally I think individual/local ratification a bunch of separate times is way too inefficient. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::It's not "inefficient" at all. Tapping into existing processes for approving a local policy, in a way which can proceed along parallel tracks in different projects is much more efficient than ... whatever the hell the current non-process for never getting anything decided is. And one or two "super-major" projects aside, any one major project getting stuck in its local process doesn't matter for endorsement of the global policy. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::Incidentally, the threshold and ratification criteria should be part of the policy draft, so it gets approved as part of the ratification process as well. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::: I think this is way to inneficient and complicated too. This is not the General Assembly of UN or a Treaty being subject to the Vienna Convention; this is a proposal for a global policy that the community needs to agree or the Board needs to approve and make it official. The new Terms of Use recognizes [[Global bans]] as policy; so once those Terms of Use come into effect this should enter into effect too at the earliest. I think there's no need to complicate things further. They're already too complicated. Thanks. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|audiencia]]) 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I think it's a perfectly sensible approach to ensuring a large part of the active Wikimedia usersphere actively endorses a new global policy - and really not that difficult to implement, or complicated to understand (legwork is required to get the necessary stats, but that's not ''complicated'' either). If the board is willing to make it policy by fiat, fine, but there's been no indication of that. All I've seen on the issue of how to make this policy is handwaving and helplessness. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 15:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::And what about simply using a vote process like [[Global sysops/Vote]]? --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: (ec) Quoting: ''While the global ban is authorized by the terms of use, it will be implemented by community policy''. I myself am not a fan of complicated procedures, but we need to run some procedure. I would be more in favor of a vote similar to the vote for the Board.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 16:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::: Or, indeed, like for global sysops.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 16:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
{{unindent}} So we have a few ideas so far. I'm going to update the ratification subpage with our options so we can see them all and decide. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
: The global sysops vote example seems reasonable to me. If a bunch of people dislike the result, they can come and try to change it through a similar process. Don't make change hard; make it easy. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]  03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:: I personally favor something more akin to an RFC, just because we don't really have the option to just say "no" now that the Board approved a ToU that mentions the bans policy. I'll post a draft of RFC questions soon, but I was thinking something like, "Yes" and "Not yet, the policy needs work". [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::: This is a sensitive question, and I would recommend the system similar to how it was done recently with the Pending Changes RFC on English Wikipedia: to choose three uninvolved stewards who will in the end sum up the discussion. Their names will be known from the very beginning.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: Agreed. I'll make a request on the Steward's noticeboard today. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Too many processes? ==

The way I understand it, we're now up to five global processes against a user: [[global block]]s, [[global ban]]s, [[global lock]]s, [[office action]]s, and legal actions under the [[terms of service]]. I take it [[w:WP:BURO]] is not Meta policy... [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:AFAIK, locks are a "temporary" (maybe not) way of blocking accounts globally. Global blocks currently only apply to IPs and ranges. Is there a difference between an "office action" and a "legal action"? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 00:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:Global blocks don't actually exist. There literally is no technical mechanism for doing so. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Global bans

2012-04-27T21:03:14Z

Tinz: /* What is the problem this will solve? */

{{Archive box non-auto|[[Talk:Global bans/Archive 1|Archive 1]]}}
== Restarting the conversation on global bans ==
Hi everyone! As you are probably aware, WMF General Counsel Geoff Brigham has been working with the community on an update to the [[terms of use]]. That’s still in progress, but there are some other policies to which the new terms refer which need creation and polishing. To be specific, I’m referring the policy referred to in Section 10...

:“In the interests of our users and the Projects, in the extreme circumstance that any individual has had his or her account terminated under this provision, he or she is prohibited from creating or using another account on the Project for which he or she was terminated, unless we provide explicit permission. Additionally, especially problematic Users who have had accounts terminated on multiple Projects may be subject to a ban from all of the Projects, in accordance with the Global Ban Policy.”

The basic gist here is that the new terms of use entail that you may have your editing privileges revoked if you’re using your account for abusive purposes, but declares that this is decision is normally up to the community unless the community asks the Foundation to intervene. (Which naturally is very, very rare. It's not really our job.)

Current local policies on blocking/banning cover almost all the relevant bases, and the terms support those existing community policies with no change. But in some rare cases of cross-wiki abuse that aren’t just spam/vandalism, the terms refer to a community-owned policy about global bans. This doesn’t really exist yet, although there were bits and pieces around.

I’ve worked up a version of a standalone global bans policy which is ready for further edits and comments or questions. I based it partially on the existing notes on Meta about global blocks/bans and partially on the process that actually worked for the only two existing global bans ([[Requests for comment/Ban User:PauloHelene globally]] and [[Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister]]).

If things change -- such as if the community creates a [[global requests committee]] or [[global arbitration committee]] to handle this kind of thing -- then the policy can of course be amended accordingly. That flexibility and control by the community is the big advantage of having a separate policy rather than putting details on any bans or blocks into the terms themselves, as the following passage from the terms points out...

:“In contrast to Board resolutions or this Agreement, policies established by the community, which may cover a single Project or multiple Projects (like the Global Ban Policy), may be modified by the relevant community according to its own procedures.”

In addition to general wordsmithing etc. from all, I’d especially love to hear feedback from...

* Stewards, whose input is absolutely essential.
* Folks like Arbitrators, who have experience dealing with this kind of thing
* Editors from projects other than Wikipedia
* Editors from non-English projects (I am thinking it’d be nice to make translations happen sooner instead of later?)

It’s easier for me to consider how staff and English Wikipedians think about these things, as I am both. :) While myself and the legal team would like to hear from everyone, the groups I listed above should definitely chime in too.

Thanks for your help! [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
* Make the software more transparent! It must be possible to implement global bans in a form that the people in the projects the user was active get a notice in Special:Contributions and/or the userpage. Global Locks in their current form are "stealth bans", usually nobody will notice that the user account is locked if he was not blocked earlier on that project.
* All affected projects in which the user has made a certain number of contributions and is unblocked should be informed about the RFC, not only about a resulting block - only few people check meta regularly.
* The critical question is what happens if single projects don't agree with global consensus concerning the ban. Do they have the right to opt out and allow that user to edit locally? If not, that would mean a big step away from the principle of self-sufficiency that most projects adhere to. Currently, an opt-out is possible afaik only if a 'crat renames the user, so that the account is no longer connected to the global account. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

*I concur with Tinz about the need to find a way to "communicate" global blocks/bans/locks when checking user contribs on other projects (just as a local block is visible on their contribs page).
*On the point of having projects "opt out" of global bans, one of the issues that has been encountered is users banned on multiple projects is that they used those other projects to continue their disruptive behaviour on the initial projects: emailing users they'd harassed on other projects, etc. In some cases, they persuaded admins or other respected users on other projects to "allow" them to create a new account which they then SUL'd to the projects they'd been banned on and returned to old disruptive behaviours. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

::Hey Tinz, Risker. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. To address your points...
::* On transparency: my understanding is that there are some tools (such as [[Special:CentralAuth]]) to see the global SUL account of a user on all projects, as well as whether they're locked. Perhaps we should link to that tool from this page, which would be useful for people needing to see where a user is banned or active?
::* Under "Obtaining consensus for a global ban" steps 3, 4, and 5 include notifying any wikis where the editor is active. If you want, I think it's a good idea to make that language clear that it's mandatory; if you try to sneak a global ban in through the backdoor without notification that's not valid.
::* On the topic of opting out... the basic point here is that Geoff and I are thinking that because the Terms of Use specifically refer to the global bans policy, this means that people who edit despite being globally banned are technically violating the Terms of Use, which is not negotiable on a per-wiki basis. So, to be concise, I don't think we imagine local communities being able to opt out of a global ban. If someone really is editing in a positive fashion on one wiki but needs to be banned on another, then a global ban is not required. There is one contrary case I can think of: when a community where the editor is active was not properly notified, and comes to object to a global ban after a discussion is closed. Perhaps we should write that case into the appeals section?
::Anyway, I'd like to say that the current draft is just my thoughts on what should be covered with a little input from others, and if you think there's a viable way to deal with any unaddressed issues you should go ahead and add some new language. :) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Since opt-out is discussed below, just an answer to the first point: I don't think that the toolserver tool is sufficient in the long run. Once you suspect that a user is globally blocked and know that global locks exist, that works, but what if you want to contact him on an unrelated topic? In such a case I would look at his talkpage and contributions, but I wouldn't even suspect him to be globally blocked because global bans are very rare. For my homewiki (dewiki) I have created a [[:de:Vorlage:Global gesperrter Benutzer|template]] a while ago, but that is not a perfect solution either because I can't monitor all meta locks regularly. I would really appreciate an improvement of the software here. (Is it hard to implement a box with a notice similar to the one for local bans, from a purely technical point of view?). --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 09:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Well sounds like we need to spec exactly what we'd need then, if we're going to make a request of tech resources. I'm wondering if it's easier to make global locks more clear, or actually create a global blocking mechanism? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: Yes, a new mechanism for global blocking might be optimal, but I'd be already happy with a quick fix that generates local messages for globally locked users. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 19:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

*If a user is productively contributing to one wiki, then there shouldn't be a global ban solely based on past editing behaviour. If and when the user starts to be disruptive on that project, then a global ban is warranted because it is clear that they have not changed and some action is needed to prevent further abuse. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
*:Poetlister was "constructively" editing on a Wiki and has a history of doing that - mostly to try and get his other accounts unblocked while operating sock puppets. It isn't always so easy to know if someone is honestly be "constructive" or is just good at hiding their bad behavior. Such a user like Poetlister has been proven too dangerous to allow to edit. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

== Opt-out ==

The issue of opting out is a much more complicated one than what is being considered. We had 3 cases this year of interesting cross-wiki blocks on Meta-
*1.A user from enwp, who was blocked indef. by arbcom. Then started contributing on Meta and was subsequently blocked temporarily twice and unblocked both time after discussion. A very similar block log on commons and another project. But this user currently edits productively on all those wikis except enwp. At one point he might have had blocks on multiple wikis, would that alone have justified a global ban? if so, then we might have lost a productive community member.

*2.A user from pt wiki who had intimidating behavior on wiki and was subsequently blocked on 2 wikis, one was a content project. Followed by a temporary block on Meta for intimidating behavior and than on another non-content project. His block on Meta at the time was turned into an indef. per request from a steward. This user also stalked several editors from pt wiki, publicly listing their names, pictures and private information off-wiki, even violating some European privacy laws. This person's block was finally turned into a global lock months later randomly by a steward after looking at the cross-wiki history. No one noticed.

*3.A user from nl wiki, who had admin rights and a very high standing within the community was found to be socking across projects. The issue went cross-wiki again, and things got more complicated. The the blocks went cross-wiki on commons, meta, nl wiki and nvwiki. Last appeal was from Langcom to only restore editing privileges on Meta which was rejected by the community.

Those are 3 very distinct cases of cross-wiki blocks. My questions are
*Where do we draw the threshold for global bans? 3, 4, 5 wikis?
*Will there be a deliberation process?
*opting-out might be necessary in cases of local arbcoms? how would that work?

These were complicated issues, the users went cross-wiki, a couple were really productive contributors and still are. Global lock without a proper procedure risks steam-rolling over their good contributions. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 08:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

:Just to answer quickly, with mostly just my personal thoughts...
::*1.A: The policy specifically says in two different places that just because a user is blocked/banned on two projects does not mean they must be banned. Simply that it's the minimum. So no, someone editing productively somewhere probably doesn't merit a global ban, in my opinion. In general, the point of requiring an RFC and cross-wiki notification is so that points like that would be brought up and unnecessary bans could be avoided.
::*2.A: Sounds to me like no one really objected to that lock, or else it would have been overturned. In any case, the process described currently says that a group discussion, cross-wiki notification, and a clear consensus is required before asking Stewards to make such a lock. So that case would not be really acceptable or ideal if this becomes a policy.
::*3.A: I don't really know in that case, but my personal opinion would be that it sounds like a global ban would be overkill and unnecessary if it's already being handled. A ban exists to prevent harm, so if it's being handled without a permanent ban, then there's no need for one.
:For your other questions:
::* ''Where do we draw the threshold for global bans? 3, 4, 5 wikis?'' The current version of the draft says two is the minimum threshold, but that just because there are two bans doesn't mean a global ban is required.
::* ''Will there be a deliberation process?'' The current version says that you can't have a global ban without an RFC and cross-wiki notifications, so yeah, there should be a deliberation process.
::* ''opting-out might be necessary in cases of local arbcoms? how would that work?'' If a local ArbCom wants to lift it's ban on an editor, then the global ban should probably just be overturned in favor of selective local bans/blocks. It's overcomplicated to retain a global ban but allow opt-outs. If someone is acting in good faith and is trustworthy enough that an ArbCom unbans/unblocks, then there shouldn't be a global ban in the first place.
:Anyway, I think there are some answers for your questions already other than the more complicated opt-out issue. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::It has already been demonstrated regarding Thekohser's account that a project can technically "opt out" by renaming the account and then renaming it back, thus "breaking" the global lock. Whether this is acceptable or not is another matter (Thekohser was not banned by consensus but through Founder action, so that is another matter all together). [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I completely disagree with setting 2 as a threshold for global bans. If so, Ottava would qualify for it, multiple times in the last year. I believe 3+ should be the ideal threshold, there are a lot of small projects where admins are trigger happy, two blocks are not that hard to accumulate in 5-6 years. I still think you need to clarify the details when it comes to local arbcom over-ruling the ban and how would the two work. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Hey hey hey, only -one- of those blocks was a ban. The others were just blocks. I'm not -that- awful. :P :) And by the way, about 50% of the admin here consider me global bannable. It is a shock to everyone that I'm still around. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I really don't want to set some arbitrary number, common sense should prevail. I don't want some rule to prevent beneficial action from being taken, as I could easily see this becoming (let's see, they've only been banned on two wikis, let's just wait for the third...) [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Heya Ottava, that's my point, if someone looks at one of those temporary blocks and considers a global ones, we might risk losing people for just being opinionated or local issues on much smaller or non-content projects. I would be much more satisfied with this on a case by case basis. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 03:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::To be honest, I expect the Wikis to ban people and global bans shouldn't be a problem. There is very little actual encyclopedia or anything like that. Instead, there is a culture and community that exists on its own. As any culture or community, they would want to get rid of those who interfere with that. Why not let them? It is kind of a farce to pretend otherwise. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I thought about the example you gave you Theo -- local ArbCom deciding a local ban of a globally banned user wants to be overturned -- and I realized that the way the requirements for a global ban are formed means there is no way a local ArbCom could be unaware of a global ban in a way that wouldn't leave room for them to object if there is the possibility they would want to unban in the future. The current draft states that you ''must'' notify all local communities where the editor is active or been banned/indef blocked. If say, someone banned on English and Russian is up for a global ban, then both ArbComs could comment during the RFC and say that they don't think a permanent global ban is merited. If a global ban is actually necessary -- these are people who are so dangerous to Wikimedia communities that we agree they should not ever edit, anywhere -- then creating an opt-out for a community that had plenty of time to comment and object to a ban is overly bureaucractic. There shouldn't be a global ban in the first place for a user who is likely to ever be unbanned locally by an ArbCom. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
: There was a case like this in Russian Wikipedia. A user with a large contribution went wild and was blocked for vandalism, then banned. He went to French Wikipedia and somehow managed to get banned globally for vandalism. After a year, he asked the Arbcom in Russian Wikipedia for a clean start. It was clear that it was easier to either grant a clean start or to rename a local account (I am not sure what was done in the end) than to ask stewards to globally unban him. He was locally unblocked and, last time I checked, he was working fine.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Sounds to me like a case where a global lock/ban is overkill. FR should just stick with their decision and Russian should be free to make its decision too. Do you feel like it's important to write in something about overturning based on local community consensus Yaroslav? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Generally I would be against straight overrule of a global ban by a local community consensus: we had a number of users who behaved disruptively and then found a resort in a smaller project. Having said that we may wish to leave some windows open: for instance, only let the decision to overruled locally by an arbcom decision (which pretty much excludes small project), or to introduce community / arbcom appeal to the stewards which would have more veight than just an individual appeal. Probably more options are possible, I have not thought about this deeply.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 19:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, based on this conversation, I am thinking of adding some language such as this:
<blockquote>While banned users may not appeal a global ban, overturning a global ban (and subsequent global lock) may be considered if a community where the editor was previously active can demonstrate a strong consensus for un-banning the user locally. Requesting an unlock is preferred to local Bureaucrats breaking a lock on the account via renaming. Examples of sufficient consensus to overturn a global ban in favor of local blocks include a local Arbitration Committee decision or a request for comment with greater than 80% support from more than 50 active editors on a project.</blockquote>
What do you think? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:Does it need to be set in stone? Even if someone is able to be unblocked locally while globally banned, there are many times where they are still dangerous to other projects and need to stay banned. It is better that one Wiki suffer from temporary insanity than to have them all fall together because of a few naive users. I say this because those like Poetlister have proved that they can create a bunch of names and worm their way into positions of power quite easily. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::I generally agree with your points, but I think we should avoid creating a policy that encourages local 'crats to break global locks whenever they see fit. We should rather be encouraging communities to talk to eachother and come to a consensus. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Right, but my point went the opposite way as you assume - I say that we shouldn't allow the local crats, who will try to do whatever they want anyway, to affect us. Look at the drama with the Italian Wiki, with the German Wiki, etc., where they let political people dominate and threaten the Wiki. Combine that with Thekohser and others having their locks broken by local crats and we can only assume that Wiki based insanity will exist in the future. What we should do is ensure that local insanity isn't the cause of us unbanning dangerous people. Otherwise, it will give these groups even another way to annoy and harass the Foundation (and thus harm lots of people who are just regular users). [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:I believe that 65% would work better. [[:en:Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_constitutes_consensus.3F|enwiki can't even obtain 80% consensus on the Verifiability RfC]]. It's not possible to gain 80% on something as controversial as locally nullifying a global block. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 03:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::I was just trying to provide an example of what is meant by "sufficient consensus". If it seems like that text would be actually suggesting you need to have 80% support in every case, let's just not add it. That's silly and arbitrary. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Eighty percent is an extreme example. It would be best if your example simply said "the majority", and leave it to individual projects to decide what "majority" means. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
::::All projects are connected and are not isolated. However, some projects have little activity and they are easy to take over. Tiny projects would be a source for trolls to take over and continue to disrupt other Wikis, as has been proven elsewhere. There shouldn't be any consideration of any opt-out because it will only breed these problems and cause further disruption. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I'm aware that freedom allows room for dangers, but I don't believe that the existence of risk should mean that freedom must be sacrificed. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::According to Hobbes, once you violate your social requirement to not harm others your protection from harm (as a result of governmental punishment) is valid. It is that simple. Freedom exists only until it meets someone else's freedom, and there is no right to use Wikipedia. If you harm people, you are gone. It is that simple. Any attempt to justify keeping those people around is justification of harming others, and no one has that right. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The goal of Hobbes' social contact is to protect people from anarchy. Do you really believe that Poetlister's mere presence on Wikiversity will result in anarchy? Since we're talking about ''global'' blocks, would Poetlister's presence on Wikiversity result in global anarchy? No, I don't believe so. This is why federalism and states' right exist. Poetlister on Wikiversity is a local affair, and the Wikiversity community is fully capable of handling it on their own. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 13:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Hobbes defended a social system that would keep people from taking the law into their own hands or acting without rules. Yes, that is anarchy, but he was focused on individual anarchy and the rights of individuals, as individuals make up the greater bodies. The only group entity that mattered was the sovereign, i.e. those who control the rights to bring harm to others (i.e. punishment of law). No individual had the right to bring about harm to another unless they were granted that right from the sovereign entity. Poetlister, in taking people's personal information, having multiple sock accounts in which he backed them up with stolen personal information and fraud, and waging war against many, many users, violated multiple people in such an extent that his permanent expulsion is the only way to protect anyone. If the world was fair, he would be in prison to protect society as a whole from such a dangerous individual. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
Sorry, I used a bad example. I also just realized that the Wikiversity discussions concerning Poetlister1 have ended. [http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action&oldid=827460#Poetlister1 As you can see], the Wikiversity community was perfectly capable of dealing with the issue without interference from the global community. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:That's not really accurate, considering several Wikiversity community members specifically mentioned the global ban consensus as the reason for why their community should block the sockpuppet. Yes, it was their local decision making process. But no, it was not a decision made in a vacuum. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::It's also not accurate that the [[v:Wikiversity:Community Review/Global bans|discussions]] have ended. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
If i can just add ,that if someone has a bee in his' or her bonnet, then surely the point in question that makes them angry, then that very point should make it far easier to spot them in future, and so instead of banning ,maybe an alarm of some sort round the very topic of contention of that person, and will make it easier to spot ,because when you start banning people, that must surely be attacking the very principle that Wikipedia is surely setting out to make, by allowing all points of view and all attempts at consensus of opinion around very difficult areas , where opinion might play a very significant part , or maybe all of it.coolpolitealex 17:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Just a note: decisions are taken by majority + one vote; policies are taken by a golden ratio, so the majority and the minority are very clear; two thirds are very difficult to achieve on controversial issues and 80% are impossible to achieve. --[[User:Chris.urs-o|Chris.urs-o]] ([[User talk:Chris.urs-o|talk]]) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

== Selective bans ==

(reposting per comment left on my talk page)

I understand people feel some concerns need to be addressed globally. However I doubt a healthy relationship between projects/communities can develop or become stronger when all or nothing seems to be the only choices available though. Are there other things that can be done that might bring about compromises? For example, would a way to globally disable sending emails from an account or email address, and maintaining at Meta a blacklist of people that cannot have checkuser tools address some problems? I think having more choices can help with cross-project relations. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Technically there is currently no way to disallow only the emailuser function, so you'd have to request that. Anyway, I think it's perfectly reasonable to remind people that selective bans are a possibility, so I've [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_bans&action=historysubmit&diff=3061189&oldid=3029917 added a note] about this to the intro. Personally I think if someone is acting in enough good faith that they merit a selective ban, then a global ban proposal should be rejected outright in favor of acting on a case-by-case basis. But others might disagree depending on the circumstances. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

== Responsibilities of "local" sysops ==

In a now archived but perhaps unfinished discussion, Steven made the following comment:
:"If English Wikiversity doesn't block any local socks of Poetlister, they do so in clear violation of a global community decision in which they were invited to participate. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)"
Could you please elaborate on that? I could see describing an ''unblock'' (particularly if tied to a SUL detachment) as violating a policy, but I don't think it's fair to demand that local sysops spend time looking for socks and/or engaging with people they would rather not engage with. Blocking is certainly a form of engagement, and ''requiring'' volunteers to engage seems a bit much to ask. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Good topic. What are sysops to do should local consensus differ from global consensus? Communities are likely to replace sysops who are in clear violation of local consensus with sysops who will uphold local consensus and do so in violation of global consensus. The global community could in turn feel there is a need to remove or replace community sysops who are in clear violation of global consensus with sysops who will uphold global consensus. If a local community and the global community aren't on the same page, sysops and community relations may be strained as a result. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 19:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
: This is an unsolved issue. I still remember when we had a quiet discussion here on Meta regarding the global arbcom proposal, and then all of a sudden hundred or so en.wp users with no or little contribution on meta came and voted the proposal down, so that it was instantly dead. I felt like someone probably canvassing on en.wp just imposed his or her personal views in a way that it looked like consensus. On the other hand, we know that in really small projects weird things sometimes happen, with the full support of local community. In my opinion, both extremes are bad, but I do not how to find a balance.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 11:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:: I find that a touch disturbing. "A quiet discussion"? There are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics 143,000 active users on the English Wikipedia]; the fact that 100 of them show up on a global issue should not be problematic in the least. Surely there should have been notifications on various projects to get more opinions.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 05:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::: I would not be so sure. If these users would really read what is proposed and leave thoughtful comments, I would not have any problem with this. Especially if they were regular Meta contributors and would understand what it is all about. However, they obviously been solicited somewhere (WR again?), and the majority mostly just voted per xxx and never came back again.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 01:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

:Apologies in advance for the wordy reply. I think there's sort of a few questions here:
::First, '''what kind of responsibility do local sysops have?''' I pretty much agree with you here SBJ. There's a reason the policy doesn't explicitly say local sysops/CUs are obligated to hunt down local socks of a banned user and block them. The open nature of the projects makes perfect enforcement of a global ban very hard, if not impossible. However, the reason I responded the way I did is because here a local sock of a globally banned user is confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. If it's obvious there's a bad actor around, I think local sysops should act to protect their projects based on the consensus for a global ban.
::Second, is the question, '''What are sysops to do should local consensus differ from global consensus?''' Short answer: Of course no one here on Meta or at the WMF expects any local sysops to go rogue because of the global ban policy. They would probably just get their rights removed by the community if there really was a strong consensus against a local block. But I think all of you know that consensus is a fuzzy concept with room for admins to use their best judgement. That's your call, as always.
::Third, the issue of participants from a larger project showing up and overwhelming the discussion. This is important. I'll start a new thread on this since I have a couple ideas.
:To make a long story short: I think when a community learns about a sock of a user who was banned via an open, transparent community process to which they were invited, they have a responsibility ''to their own project'' to block. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

::may i inquire how exactly you intend to justify this principle and the underlying hierarchical causality? thx in advance for the elaboration, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 23:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::I do not accept your assumptions about the principles I just laid out, especially that it implies some kind of immutable hierarchy. What we're talking about here is consensus decision making. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 04:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::i see, thus your notion of having a "responsibility" is not grounded in some sort of "duty" to obey some sort of global decision locally and can be overthrown by everyone at every time for whatever reason at every level (a.k.a. wiki). the trouble with consensus decision-modi without some sort of hierarchical backup is that you can't claim to have reached it in the first place and in an open a.k.a. fluctuating system like ours you can't establish a principle of "responsibility" to be accepted without explaining reasonably _why_ a global decision somewhere down the road should be binding for locals. they may haven't been around as the "consensus" was reached.
::::simply saying that they could have participated in principle is not a good reason (especially since we all know that substantial parts of the community often feel that they cannot take part for all sorts of practical reasons from a lack of information distribution to language barriers), neither practical nor in principle, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 09:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: with all due respect to the gibberish (sic) of "consensus talk": may i ask, if you have ever studied the rhetorics of early 20th century later-to-be "communist" apparatchiks? if so: do you see that there are some commonalities with the way you, a paid staff member, treat dissenting unpaid volunteers? [[User:Fossa|Fossa]] 10:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

::::::Fossa, I have been a volunteer for more than [[:en:User:Steven Walling|five years]] and a staff member for one. Let's not play that game of "volunteers vs. staff". [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 16:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::As long as global ban discussions aren´t shown in every wiki in an highly visible place, a global ban does not necessarily mean global consensus. A lot of users don´t partipiciate because they don´t know there is a site for this.--[[User:Müdigkeit|Müdigkeit]] 17:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::This is absolutely true. Risker and Tinz bring it up in the first thread here too. For now I'll say that the draft requires notice to all communities where an editor is or was active. If you think there should be more or something, please edit or suggest something. Thanks Müdigkeit. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

== Balancing the discussion ==

So Yaroslav and others have brought up the issue that if a global ban is the product of a cross-wiki discussion here on the Meta, there is the potential for people from big projects like English Wikipedia to just overwhelm the request for comment. I have a couple points here:

* Let's not assume that all global bans will be about someone whose primary wiki is/was en.wp.
* A request for comment is a discussion, not a vote. Personally I trust Stewards to close this kind of discussion fairly with more weight for thoughtful, constructive points rather than just sheer numbers. We put editors in these positions of trust with the understanding that they are supposed to make judgement calls, not just tally votes. If we want to point out explicitly that a global ban discussion is not a vote, then let's do that.
* Currently the policy draft requires notification to all projects where it is known that an editor was or has been active. If we want to be strict about this being truly global decision-making, we could also write in a requirement for comment from members of those projects before a decision is made. That would partially prevent a group of Wikipedians alone could decide something for the other projects.
* This is kind of a crazy idea, but we could do a "progressive stack." Sue just talked about this [http://suegardner.org/2011/11/08/three-occupy-wall-street-tactics-the-wikimedia-movement-should-copy/ on her blog]. The basic gist is that we know people from big projects are liable to dominate a discussion, so why not try to tip the scales a little bit? In the context of IRL discussions this just means letting minorities speak first, but it could also mean something like we (visually) note every time a person who's not from English Wikipedia comments and ask the closing admin to pay special attention to them.

Anyway, just some suggestions to get the conversation going. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Extended off-topic replies between Ottava and Seth 04:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)}}
:"there is the potential for people from big projects like English Wikipedia to just overwhelm the request for comment" Anyone who makes such a claim doesn't understand Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or any WMF project. They are not isolated. We all have SUL. You are a member of every project and every community. There is no "overwhelming" from a "big project". There are people. If you are not part of their project, that is you not doing enough to be active there. Letting people think that small projects should be isolated and do their own thing is a violation of the spirit of WP:OWN, which is something no project should be allowed to do. Such a philosophy is cliquish, cabalish, and utterly destructive. We are one global community, and everyone who is in good standing has the right to defend this global community. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::"You are a member of every project and every community." [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=next&oldid=3047855 Glad to hear it!] -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Seth, that edit was you saying that you knew how the Wikiversity community would have felt, i.e. the topic of the conversation. That has nothing to do with having the ability to say a banned user should be allowed to edit. One is merely saying you are assuming things without having a background, which is not what the above is discussing. You know that. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::::FYI, I never said such a thing. By the way, to make a significant point, I submit the political reversal above as a piece of evidence to observers (if there are any ...) as to why I believe the Global Ban policy will be gamed into simply heaping further punishment on people who run afoul of a certain group. There's really nothing I can do about this. But as I said elsewhere I believe in formalism to some extent, so I'm noting it. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::You were in a discussion about a very specific situation where everyone else was talking about Wikiversity, and then you started making statements applying to Wikiversity which you lacked the background to make because you never bothered even looking there. If you think the Global Ban policy will be gamed, where is the evidence? You cannot just toss up conspiracy theory. You made a living out of exaggerating things about Wikipedia while ignoring real concerns. If you honestly cared about protecting people, you are focusing on the wrong things. But lets be honest - I've run afoul of every powerful group. Yet I support the ban because the ban is the right thing. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 00:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I dispute your summarization. However, the idea is that "membership" will argued in an exclusive way to marginalize people opposed to bans, but inclusively to increase those in favor of bans. It is easy to see how this can be applied as a clique mechanism to exclude opponents and include supporters. Oh, as a point of personal privilege to respond to an accusation - "made a living out of exaggerating things about Wikipedia"? HA HA HA. Please, let me know of the lavish munificent sums this has brought me, the big-money lecture fees, the consulting gigs, the stock options, the fame and hero-worship - because I seem to have missed it. My freelance writing earnings wouldn't put me near the poverty line! In fact, there's a good case to be made it's an overall negative to my life. You are sadly misinformed on that matter, perhaps as a projection from people who have indeed made a living "exaggerating things about Wikipedia" but in terms of evangelism. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::"the idea is that "membership" will argued in an exclusive way to marginalize people opposed to bans, but inclusively to increase those in favor of bans" And I would say that the opposite will be true. Thus, they negate each other. Before, I was saying that you were talking about stuff that had the context of a specific background and history. You could talk about an individual in general, but you are limited to your own experience or philosophy. Acknowledging your experience does not prohibit you from having a say, but it does narrow down what you can use to justify your say. "let me know of the lavish munificent sums this has brought me" - "a living" is a colloquialism that means that you have a habit of doing something. However, you were a journalist/reporter who had attacks on Wikipedia governance published which means that you have a history of focusing on negatives in order to stir up readers. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Umm, I think it's going to be unproductive to continue if you equate critical articles with "in order to stir up readers". In addition to the absurdity, it's quite annoying to see those sorts of personal accusations, since they are so untrue. You apparently have no idea how advantageous it would be, e.g. for me to beat the wiki-porn-porn-porn drums. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::So you are the sole reporter in the world who doesn't wish people to have read his articles? Really? I find that hard to believe. If you can't admit that you sensationalized things for a reader, then that is a little weird. And advantageous to talk about porn? If that was so, Mr. Kohs's already highly detailed articles on the topic would have a lot more hits with out having to bother promoting them at all. Porn on the internet is not something that people care about. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 01:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
: Do stewards actually require to close the RfC? I did not count, but my impression is that here on Meta most RfCs do not get closed but just become out-of-date. (Which may also say smth about whether the points addressed in RFCs are valid - but this is a different issue). On the other hand, a global ban RfC has to be closed reasonably soon.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 20:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:: No, there is no deadline set in the policy. It just says that consensus is determined after a sysop or Steward closes the discussion, but doesn't say exactly when. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
::: I think not having a deadline to close is good. I think a minimal requirement for a valid global ban discussion to remain open should be added though. Maybe a global ban discussion is to be open for 31 days or more. I think that would coincide with the typical time requests to create an entirely new project or close a language edition of a project remain open for at a minimal. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 13:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: That kind of feels like instruction creep to me. If we want a discussion closed (including as no consensus etc. because of time) we can simply bug the Stewards or Meta admins about it. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::RfCs in general on Meta tend to last for more than a few weeks, so it wont really be necessary to worry about them closing "too early". [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
::::: I think people might rush to comment out of some sense of urgency when a project is informed of a global ban discussion if there isn't something in place to reassure people that they have plenty of time to thoughtfully discuss concerns. --[[User:Darklama|dark]][[User_talk:Darklama|lama]] 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Without going to every person in the discussion and checking global contribs, it might be hard to tell if the conversation is even being flooded or not. One rather silly suggestion would be to create a bunch of that simply include a small image of the project logo, and allow people to self identify which projects they consider themselves active on. [[File:Wikibooks-logo.png|20px]][[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC) (or maybe that should be [[File:Wikibooks-logo.png|20px]][[File:Wikiversity-logo.png|20px]][[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC))
:Not a bad idea. I wonder if we might just also create some kind of tally of participants from each project on the talk page of the RFC. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

:: Not a bad idea, and I can see the appeal. I imagine people might start to feel it comes uncomfortably close to !votes being votes. Of course the tally wouldn't say the views expressed so in that way it should not be a problem, but I will be curious to see what other people think. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 22:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

== Some questions ==
# Why is the WMF board creating the possibility of engaging different communities against each other by introdcuting ''global bans'' which could lead to the situation in which a "mighty" (in terms of numbers) community is trying to oust members of a less numerous community. (Indeed the malheur with the "sibirean language" version is partly a precedent for such a scenaria.) Other potential war fields for that are the balkans and language versions involving states in which speakers of those languages are involved in conflicts between the ethnicities speaking those languagees. (Or, more directly asked: why the WMF does not keep the Wikipedia and sister projects not out of politics?)
# Why the WMF board is creating just another controverse? Why they are so blind-eyed on the real problems regarding several projects? I am utterly irritated by the concentration on creating of more or less unneeded software features (e.g. delivery of cat images, assessment of articles in the English Wikipedia) or on the ongoing incapacitation of local communities (e.g. the boards image filter resolution, now this topic) while on the other side f. ex. the key Wikinews language version, the english language Wikinews, does just crash now or in some days will crash if it hasn't already happened (see [[:n:en:Wikinews:Newsroom]]).
Wikipedia has existed for ten years without "global banning". I don't see the necessaritiy to invent this in its eleventh year. Honestly, I think that people in the WMF should firstly and most fastly reconnect to the Wikipedia communities. --[[User:Matthiasb|Matthiasb]] 14:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:If we all have SUL, how are the communities different? We are all capable of moving between the projects, have Meta, Commons, etc., and the WMF provides for our basics (servers, etc). We are one community. Everyone can move between the communities. It is silly to think that any single community can exist in isolation or has the right to endanger other communities by hosting really dangerous users and giving them a platform. As for your claim that there was no "global banning" before, that is absurd. 1. SUL is the only way to truly cross ban someone and 2. from the start of SUL, Jimbo and the Stewards marked out certain users who were globally prohibited from access. It is not the same as a global ban, but does set a precedence that there was a global action keeping users from editing. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:: We (most of us) do have an SUL but are active on one, two, or at most three projects, and have no idea about what is going on other projects. The global contribution button usually gives an idea.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

:Hi Matthias, this isn't an initiative of the Board. There is no resolution about it. It's something the Foundation is doing in conjunction with the [[terms of use]] update. I can understand your frustration about all the projects being undertaken, but please understand that we are not a single person: just like the community, there is a lot going on at the WMF. The same people working on this are not the same working on say, WikiLove or the article feedback tool. Thanks, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

::I'll add that as community liaison I have been contacted by a number of users from several projects concerned precisely that there *is* no such mechanism in place. While I am speaking now only as to my own perspective, I don't believe a global ban is pitting communities against each other. I believe it is putting them in position to collaborate more efficiently by sharing information and working together to avoid systematic and insidious abuse of multiple communities. If Projects A & B have dealt with the same individual and know he has a history of stalking and threatening other users, the members of other projects should not have to be needlessly put at risk.

::You raise good points about the possibility of cross-wiki politics, but this may be a matter to work out through the particulars of the policy rather than through having no policy at all. The current language restricts consideration of global bans to users who are blocked on two separate projects, which may help minimize such abuse of global ban procedures; are there other ways to help ensure that this is not misused as a political power play? --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 11:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

== Overturning vs. opt-out ==

I rewritten the last section to say more than just not to appeal a ban directly to the Stewards. It now points to the opportunity for overturning a ban entirely if a local community objects after the fact. Let me know what you think, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 01:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:that's a very reasonable move, thx Steven. i proposed a second (but not final) step for this point according to the concerns raised above regarding a global-local balance, please take a look, regards --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 03:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks Jan. I made some copyedits to shorten it a tad, but other than that it looks good to me. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

:::The problem is unsolved. It still means that local sysops are forbidden from opting a globally banned out of the block locally. Disallowing opt-out will serve nothing but lead to further tensions between communities. Think of [[User:Capsot|Capsot]]'s global block in the immediate run-up to the 2011 WMF board elections - he had full support of the Occitan and Catalan projects' communities, but was widely hated on Meta and elsewhere such that he got a global block, and that led to a vastly inflamed war between the communities of different projects. It was bad enough without such policy; I can't imagine how bad such cases would turn out should a global ban policy that disallows local opt-out be in place. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

==Self representation==
Looking at the recent discussion of Poetlister and his case a thought occurs to me. The current page says allows for users to be notified if there is a global ban discussion about them. But in some cases the users may already be blocked or banned on meta and hence unable to take part in the discussion. Perhaps, in such cases, we should suggest provisional unblock at meta under the condition that the user edits only the page related to the discussion. Specifically excluding user talk pages and email. Of course any violation would bring about an immediate block and the user would lose the ability to speak on their own behalf. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
:I like this idea. Self representation is good in that it can reveal another side to the story. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
::Agreed. There is no point in requiring notification to the editor if they cannot participate. <s>Feel free to add something about this in the appropriate section.</s> (Done) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 07:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:I am opposed. Most of the people who would be banned used multiple accounts, mass disrupted, etc. To give them -any- unblock on a project after they were blocked for any reason just to give them a voice opens up that project to harassment. A user does not have the right to defend themselves. This is not a court of law. This is a community with standards. If you are egregious enough to have been blocked AND put up for a global ban, then you don't deserve any ability to respond. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 14:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

:: I agree with you on most points. This is not a court and could never be one. What constitutes "evidence" will always be circumstantial on a wiki, what determines the outcome is consensus, there could not be a "shadow of a doubt" type of standard. It will (sadly) never be innocence or guilt that is being determined. Thankfully the outcome of any decision is usually pretty minor in any person's life. If we banned Jimbo, he could happily edit wikia, give public talks, go on with his life. He would understandably be upset at having to leave behind a project he put alot of work into, but it wouldn't it doesn't carry the same weight of an actual court case either.
:: But, if a global ban process exists, in the decades to come someone will try to abuse it. Consider the (admittedly very unlikely) case of a user who hasn't done worthy of a global ban but who is being considered for a global ban. Allowing someone the chance to speak for themselves here at meta doesn't seem like very serious risk to me, global ban cases will be rare and closely watched. The moment any harassment or abusive behavior appeared a block would immediately follow. But allowing someone to speak in their defense bears a great payoff in how fair the process will seem to everyone involved. If they wanted to sock and continue abusive behavior they can and will do so without much difficulty anyways. This is why I suggested temporarily unblocking just for the discussion, and reblocking at the first sign of any disruptive behavior. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 21:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Let's just throw it all out there - we can all agree that if there will be a global ban then chances are I will be up for a ban. It would be in my personal, selfish interest, to water such a process down so that it wont affect me. However, that would endanger the project and mean that it would water down for people like Poetlister. I would '''gladly''' be banned rightfully or abusively if it meant that someone like Poetlister never had access here again. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 22:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
::"A user does not have the right to defend themselves."??? As a legal matter, of course. As a matter of what we should strive to do in terms of social fairness and ethical conduct, I disagree. I believe your argument "If you are egregious enough ..." assumes the conclusion. That is, rumors and emotions can run high about people. And I'd say Wikipedia is especially prone to pile-ons and status-based group condemnations. Giving the accused the opportunity to rebut potentially fallacious charges is an important procedural safeguard. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
:::"As a matter of what we should strive to do in terms of social fairness and ethical conduct" Nope. We are not a society. Even a society, as I demonstrated, would have everyone follow rules and termination of them for such egregious abuse would be immediate. You don't have rights here, nor are we here to allow for continue harm to the society. If a hand is rotten and gangrenous, one needs to cut it off immediately and not keep it in hopes it will make a persuasive argument on why it should stay. Even in the US, those who are deemed dangerous are remanded or even prevented from re-entering society even after released (the Supreme Court ruled such is acceptable regarding pedophiles). You do not have rights here, so you should not expect even that amount of leeway. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not to be pushy, but personally I consider this issue resolved. If a Steward or Meta sysop feels comfortable enough to fulfill a temporary unblock request, then that's their call. I don't think the policy should explicitly prevent this, and it might happen anyway even if we don't explicitly support it. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:Given the predominance of the idea that banned-means-banned, I think exceptions do have to be duly written into the policy. Otherwise, anyone who acts to allow an accused to defend themselves risks getting grief over it. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::As someone banned means banned actually applies to, I think it is utterly necessary to actually enforce such a measure. Otherwise, it would just allow access to areas that those who are banned have been shown do not deserve to have '''any''' access. It is merely a flimsy excuse to give dangerous people a way to harm others. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::What sort of access? The edit button? The move button? Aren't these actions reversible? We're not talking about murder here. If such access has been abused (ie. vandalism), then a sysop can justifiably reinstate the block and repair any damage. Can't you give them a chance? --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 16:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Access means ability to edit. That should have been obvious. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 17:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I know. You're missing the point. Revisions are revertible and [[mediawikiwiki:Manual:RevisionDelete|hide-able]]. An user who has been unblocked in order to defend himself or herself will be heavily watched and scrutinized. I don't believe that temporary access to the edit button will lead to a catastrophic outcome. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 03:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::Merely being revertable does not mean that they are not harassing. Otherwise, "revertable" would excuse every bad behavior out there. There are people who don't deserve '''any''' access no matter what, and giving any is so dangerous and egregious that I would go so far to say those arguing for such people to even be temporarily blocked would deserve to be blocked. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=3071202&oldid=3068794 You've mentioned] that this proposal might led to your own global ban. Do you believe that you're a disruptive user? I doubt that you're the only non-disruptive user being threatened by this proposed policies. Although you're willing to sacrifice your access and freedom, do you speak on the behalf of other non-disruptive users being threatened with a global block? Your account isn't the only one at sake. Sacrificing your account is a selfish thing to do if you don't take others into account. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I believe I am less disruptive than you are being, but that doesn't mean I am politically favored or supported in any way. Unlike most people around here (in support or opposition to Wikimedia) I am standing up for logic, reason, and sound governance. I'm not here to take jabs at a system that is working well because it may have personally hindered me in some way. That is petty. But being willing to step on everyone's toes means that I am, by definition, "disruptive". That doesn't mean that people who cause major harm should be let go because I personally may think I didn't cause any harm. We shouldn't let proven murders out of jail because we are afraid of falsely convicting a few thieves. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 15:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Perhaps it's important to bear in mind that the 2 already existing cases where bans have been adopted involve people who engaged in the deception, manipulation, and disruption of entire communities, rather than people who simply tend to rub people the wrong way. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 15:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

== Clarification please ==

Globally banned editor A is an acknowledged expert in field B and, noticing a factual inaccuracy in the article on this subject on some wiki removes the incorrect information and replaces it with sourced fact.

Editor C reverts editor A, restoring the factual inaccuracy, on the ground that editor A is banned from the project. Is this permissible, since the overriding objective is to provide readers with correct, reliably sourced information, and it is apparent to editor C, from the source provided by A (which of course C has just removed) that in so doing C will be adding false information. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:Removing reliable information is foolish, but does happen. But the situation your describing is really part of the policy of the local wiki's and deciding how they react to the edits from a globally banned user, and it is not really something we are trying to decide here. That being said, I suspect none of the local communities would support this type of reaction. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

::Agreed. I think it's totally fine to leave the decision about how to deal with the content from a globally banned user up to each community. There's no reason to make a centralized decision on that one. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thenub314 says "I suspect none of the local communities would support this type of reaction", which is obviously true, but when the reaction is that of administrators who use bans, blocks and page protection to override the community what can the community do about it? Individual editors are frightened to speak up because they fear that if they do it will be their turn next. A single administrator can block an editor indefinitely and a single administrator can cut off her talk page access, which is her last community link.

I will give one example. In this sequence an editor corrects the mis-spelling "describtion" to "description" and is reverted five minutes later by an administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aarhus&diff=prev&oldid=453387539]. Two minutes later, to ensure that nobody else can correct the spelling error, the administrator protects the page until 2012. An editor noticing the mis-spelling is then reduced to posting an edit request on the article talk page which is actioned here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aarhus&diff=next&oldid=456401250]. This is not an isolated lapse either - the same administrator has removed references and restored spelling errors in dozens of articles which he has then protected far into 2012 so as to ensure, as far as he is able, that the articles will remain inacccurate for the forseeable future. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

: I am sure you could inundate this conversation with examples of examples of true administrative insanity from any one of the projects. I could embarrassingly point to my own mistakes as an administrator. Being a volunteer organization there will always be people who obtain any given set of tools who are perhaps not qualified to use them, or people get overheated about some subject and make mistakes. These users should have their tools removed. This is most frequently done within the local community, but occasionally it comes up as RfC's here at meta.
:The matter under discussion here is something of a different flavor. There are also cases of users who abuse, manipulate, harass and disrupt every community they have been part of as an editor at the WMF. These users might have been administrators, CU's, Overnighters, Stewards or had no special tools at all. But given that massive disruption has in the past occurred, there seems to be some wheels in motion to change the terms of use to allow for the possibility of a global ban. If this is the case we would certainly like to have a sensible policy crafted.
: The important thing to keep in mind is that this policy is not meant to override local matters, or even touch upon them. It is about when/how we should try to seek a global consensus to ban users that have been banned from multiple places and who we expect will cause more problems in the future. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub314]] 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But isn't this policy designed precisely to override local matters? Without any forewarning a local wiki is presented with a ''fait accompli''. A lot of the trouble is caused by administrators who are impetuous, inexperienced, incapable of interacting with people in the real world and about twenty years old. We've had thirteen year - old bureaucrats before now. Shouldn't there be a lower age limit for these positions? (I believe the President of the United States has to be at least 35). At least the local wiki knows who its crazy administrators are, even if it can't curb their activities. These global bans are going to be implemented remotely from a place where they are not known, giving them an easy method of wreaking their havoc across hundreds of wikis.

Let me give another example of the problem on English Wikipedia. In this sequence editor A quotes extensively from a source and expands the discussion of another source. Impartial editor D reverts editor A and then restores A's edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=350045539]. Editor C then reverts again, quoting the exact opposite of policy as justification for his intervention [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=350050502]. At this point D, rather than get involved in an edit war with C, simply gives up. If A had then offered moral support to D by restoring D's preferred version C would have continued the edit war by reverting A. The way the crazy administrators handle this situation is to revert so that the page shows C's version (rather than D's) and then lock it indefinitely. Editors shouldn't have to work under this kind of intimidation. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 19:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to come out and '''oppose''' this proposal because it's assymetric. It does nothing to address the problems caused by poorly - performing administrators. People talk the talk about solving this but they don't walk the walk. Result - current situation where people like Ottava Rima and Poetlister are banned on some projects and turn up as administrators or bureaucrats on others. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
*There is normally discretion in reverting the edits of banned users, and that makes sense. If someone is banned for off wiki harassment their actual edits may be quite legit. However if we discover someone whose edits include copyvios or the occasional outright hoax then it is probably safest to revert everything they've done even if that means losing some information that would check out as accurate (some copyvios are very accurate copies of reliable sources). Editors who check the sources should of course be free to revert back to edits that they've verified as good edits. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 07:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The objection is not to removing content inserted by banned users unless it's a "shoot first" reversion - i.e. made before an SPI has been filed to determine whether the editor is a sock. It's a commonsense objection to removing correct, sourced information added by a sock and '''at the same time''' reinserting the false, unsourced information which the sock removed. In my view this is a contravention of the Terms of use (see [[Talk:Terms of use#Falsification of content]]). [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:If someone has been banned then we can no longer assume good faith. If they have been banned because some of their edits replace good edits with bad then sometimes it is safest to revert everything they've done, even if in some cases their's was a good edit and reverting it means going back to a worse version. The alternative would be to check each and every one of their edits and only revert the bad ones, and that isn't always a sensible use of time. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 01:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a section in policy (you can read it at [[en:Wikipedia:Banning policy#Evasion and enforcement]]) which seems to cover this point. It says

When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons."

If you revert edits without checking them you cannot comply with this part of the policy. [[Special:Contributions/62.140.210.130|62.140.210.130]] 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

== Criteria clarification ==

There are 3 criteria, each starting "A user is ..." or "A user has..."

Are these alternative criteria, ie a user meeting any of the 3 is eligible? Or must the user meet all 3 criteria, in which case they should start "The user" not "A user"? The text needs to be clear whether it's any of these or all of these. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 03:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

:Good feedback. I'll try to clarify that you need to meet all of the criteria, not just one or two. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:: If all of these, then it should be "The user" not "A user" in 2 and 3. They're all discussing the same user, not possibly different ones. Compare:
:: "A job is in an office. The job pays $20,000. The job is stressful" and "A job is in an office. A job pays $20,000. A job is stressful".
:: [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 18:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

::: Sounds fine to me. Be Bold my friend. :) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Been bold. Hope you like! If too bold, do revert :) [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

== Previously locked users ==

I brought up previous locked users to a few Stewards and they said that they are treating them in the same was as global bans. Will this be the default approach? Global bans normally require consensus before putting them forth while many locks seem to be based on the decision of only one or two people with no community discussion. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

:No, obviously going forward with the new policy, a ban will be a ban and otherwise it is not. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
::Right, but the old locks will still be there. Which means that Stewards could potentially lock when there isn't enough to meet the criteria for a ban. I just want to hash out how we are going to treat the old behavioral locks that don't fit in the standard lock requirements (i.e. spam, bad user name, etc.). [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_unlock_for_User:Proabivouac Here is an example]. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 17:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
:::The easiest way to deal with those is to grandfather them IMO. It is hard enough just getting this proposal on its feet; needing to sort through old locks isn't an issue that we should need to focus on. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

== What is the problem this will solve? ==

I do not see that there is a global problem with banned users that this Meta policy will help resolve. On the other hand there is always the possibility that tinkering with the mechanism will actually create new, and totally unforeseen, problems. The rule of thumb advice common among farmers, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'', may apply here also. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

:As we do more outreach to get input/comments going forward, I agree there needs to be clear problem statement. To answer your question here in probably too brief way... The problem is that there is an edge case that a few problematic editors have exploited, which is that, even if there is a consensus to do so, there is no process or policy for banning a user globally. Even in the past cases where people managed hack together a consensus of some kind ([[Requests for comment/Ban User:PauloHelene globally|1]], [[Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister|2]]) there is no global agreement on when such a decision is enforceable or not. The broken thing here is that serious trolls, some of whom multiple communities feels are causing offline harm to people, are allowed to slip through the cracks because of a lack of a global policy. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::The problem this will solve is getting rid of disruptive trolls/stalkers who just won't go away. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 05:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::But won't they just turn to using sockpuppets? If they're determined enough to troll that they went to a different project to continue trolling, using sockpuppets after the global ban is a piece of cake for them. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, but that happens locally anyway. There is no such thing as a foolproof block on an open wiki. In any case, the point of creating a policy is to have a decision making process that makes it possible for people from different projects to enforce a ban if that is the consensus. It doesn't solve the fact that we still have technical holes to fill. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::But I think a good point was made for the past two cases of a global ban: if we don't ban them globally, the belligerent users' disruption is likely to be more manageable because that way they're less likely to turn to sockpuppets. Enacting global bans simply shifts the problem from a disruption problem to a sockpuppetry problem, and many on English Wikipedia will know well how this could become a moot and fiasco a few years down the line. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 13:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::Yes, it's a possibility ''if'' there are regular global bans that pile up. I don't personally see the number of successful global bans being anywhere near the size that it could create a sockpuppetry problem that we are not capable of handling. The number of users who actually are dangerous enough that we must enact some kind of Wikimedia-wide ban is tiny. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::::If the number of expected bans is tiny, we don't need a set policy; the ad-hoc process we have so far would be adequate. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 18:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::::There are two reasons not having a policy isn't an option:
# The lack of a policy has been an excuse for not taking action in the past. (And when I mean action, I mean even just figuring out whether there's a consensus to enact a global ban.)
# The new [[terms of use]] that was just endorsed by the Board specifically mentions a community policy about global bans and links here. If the community doesn't make a policy about global bans, then we go back to the previous state of things, where lack of a clear policy lead to inaction and requests to the WMF to step in to enforce bans (which no one wants, including us).
::::::::I would normally agree that creating policies to serve edge cases is a bad idea. But not this time. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
{{outdent|6}} Steven, unfortunately point 2 above sounds exactly to me as a case of WMF deciding on a community policy, and forcing the community to accept it. As for point 1, I maintain the position that global bans will create an unfair situation in all circumstances except where there is an overwhelming consensus (lack of policy may have been an excuse, but an invalid excuse - this is a wiki). [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 20:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, a big part of the problem this is intended to solve is that some banned users from the English Wikipedia have moved over to small projects such as en-Wikiversity and started trouble from there. On the other hand, I can't think of a situation in the german-language projects where a global ban process would have been useful (obviously excluding ordinary vandalism accounts, but those hardly require any process). I would find it interesting if users from other non-english communities feel the need for a global ban process. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Cross-wiki outreach ==

Hey talk page watchers... I just wanted to drop a note here and say that since it looks like the majority of translation work is done so far (or at least as much as we're going to get in the short term), I was thinking the next step is delivering messages to the appropriate local equivalents of the Wikimedia Forum/Village Pump/Café etc. with a note about this policy. If anyone would like to help or can write/translate a message in our [https://www.wikipedia.org/ top ten languages], that would be fantastic. Thanks, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
: Thanks for your work on this. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]   15:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

== not just editing==
As we don't just restrict people from editing I've broadened the first sentence, I'll also broaden the ban bit to clarify that the appropriate ban should be related to the access that someone has misused - so if c/u abuse or misuse of deleted contributions resulted in a global ban it would normally be a ban from C/U or access to deleted content as appropriate - so someone can be very welcome as an editor even if globally banned from becoming an admin. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 04:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

:Thank you for adding this. Very good point indeed. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

== An alternative relating to overturning vs opt-in ==

I skimmed over the discussions above about what level of power local projects would have to overturn global bans or opt-in to participating in them, and was going to reply above but those threads look a little stale.

The mediawiki software currently has a user right called 'ipblock-exempt' which allows its holder to be exempted from IP address blocks. What about a user right called 'globalblock-exempt'? This would allow a local project to give a specific gban exemption for an editor that applied solely to their own project without needing to fight the global ban itself directly. As a user right it would need to be explicitly assigned, meaning the blocked user would presumably have to apply for it and the local project could set up their own process for assessing and accepting or declining requests. Because action is required on the local project, it would mean the local project also explicitly takes responsibility for the exemption and if the user disrupts that project, they effectively have themselves to blame.

An example could play out as follows: BadUser is active on the wikipedia and wikibooks projects for English and German, and has persistently disrupted enwiki, dewiki and commons, is well-known by admins on those projects, and a decision is made to enact a global ban. BadUser tries to continue his antics at frwiki but can't - frwiki (and every other project) is effectively protected from disruption by the global ban. The enwikibooks project, however, believes BadUser has never disrupted their project and can still contribute constructively there. They're aware of the global ban and the reasons behind it but choose to exempt BadUser from the global ban solely on the enwikibooks project by granting him the globalban-exempt right. They take full responsibility for their decision and if he screws up there, they can simply revoke that right.

This effectively fulfils the goal of the global bans in terms of protecting unwitting projects from highly disruptive editors, but still allows projects in-the-know to make the conscious decision to allow a globally banned user access only to their own project. Good behaviour by a globally banned user on a locally-exempted project could factor in assessing whether the global ban should remain in effect or be lifted.

This would eliminate the opt-in concept by effectively providing local projects with an opt-out instead, applied on a per-user basis. And it may also have the effect of taking some pressure off the overturning process in that it would allow one particularly vocal local project to solve the problem within their own project without exposing all the other projects to potential harm. Overturn discussions would still take place, of course, but would be more likely to involve participants from multiple projects since there would be no need to try to overturn the global ban on behalf of just one project.

Just a thought dump, in any case. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 05:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

:Giving local projects the ability to exempt any user they like from a global ban before it even happens would totally gut the effectiveness of the policy/practice in the first place. The whole point of the policy is to force a discussion between the projects over whether a global ban is merited – building in the ability to opt-out so easily would not encourage projects to actually participate in the global discussion about a problem user, which is the opposite of what we want. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

::Forcing a process like this on every project is going to be controversial to begin with. The 'sovereignty' and independence of the individual projects has been pushed for a while, and the idea that each project has the right to make its own decisions for its own good is entrenched in places like enwiki. Each time the WMF has stepped in, it has created varying degrees of muttering and opposition. I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that a change like this would be accepted without considering some degree of compromise.

::The purpose of the Global Ban isn't to bring the projects to the discussion table, that's a desirable side effect. The purpose of the Global Ban is to protect the projects from the persistent disruptive behaviour of particular users. Forcing a project to the negotiation table isn't something that will happen as idealistically as you imagine. More likely, they're going to do what they always do - mutter about WMF overextending its authority and ignore the process altogether. There's some underlying resentment that meta has some of the power over other projects and outside of their self determination as it is already, I just think you're going to butt heads with projects like enwiki if yet another part of their self-determination is offloaded to meta like this without giving them a local 'override' button. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
::And just to clarify, my suggestion above wasn't that local projects exempt users from the global ban ''before'' it happens, it's something that would happen ''after'' the global ban is put in effect. I'm not familiar with MediaWiki's codebase but as a developer myself I can't imagine it would be difficult to only allow the flag to be added to accounts that already have a global ban in effect, and remove that flag on any local projects either at the same time the global ban is lifted, or the next time a 'can I log in' check is done locally. The notion is global ban→local exemption→global discussion, not local exemption→global ban→?→profit. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 20:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. There are not many users that deserve a global block, but recently I have seen such a case where it would make sense to me that a project that is willed to keep it's contributer can make an exception. That someone behaves badly on one or more projects but not on another can have various reasons and it's often not the editor alone that makes two sides (opinions, etc.) collide. If a project really wants to keep such an editor because he is productive then it would be to the advantage of the project. We will also have to note that an editor blocked globally would have to ask for the permission on a project itself. That means that a global block would be in full effect until an exemption is made. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|talk]]) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a role for both global blocks and global bans. The software should definitely allow people to make global blocks, and local "globalbockexempt" decisions. Like the ban/block distinction on individual projects, a global ban is simply a global block that by social convention can't be overturned by a single project (conrast w: 'by a single admin' on an individual project). Let's hope we never have cause for a global ban, but let's also define it to keep the terms straight. People ''do'' propose a global ban every few years. (And if I understand WSC's comment above, where one could have 'activity bans' for a contributor, that apparently would also be a sort of ban, not suitable for individual overturn by a single project.) (someone who has abused access to private data might not be allowed such access again on the good faith of a single project). –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]   03:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
:I think distinguishing global blocks (which could potentially be overridden per wiki) from global bans (which are universal) makes sense. If a user has been disruptive enough to warrant a global ban, giving them a potential loophole to exploit will just prolong their disruption. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::I can get behind that too. Sounds like we need to take a stab at solidifying [[Global block]] too, and including a mention here about the more specific differences. Niabot, NULL... does that split make sense to you too? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
:::If i understood correctly then you propose two kind of "blocks". The ''global ban'' without anything to add and the ''global block'' which can be lifted by single projects at own will/risk. But isn't it a bit complicated? Wouldn't be a ''global block'' alone enough to satisfy the needs if local projects can make single exceptions? What would be a good reason to disallow local projects to remove a block/ban? --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] ([[User talk:Niabot|talk]]) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Are there two or three kinds of blocks? You talk about global "blocks" and global "bans" here, but a few weeks ago there was an office action which resulted in a global "lock" of a user account. So do we have three kinds of blocks ("block", "ban" and "lock")? --[[User:Stefan2|Stefan2]] ([[User talk:Stefan2|talk]]) 15:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::The distinction between a block and a ban are not as stark on some projects (like Commons), but it should be made clear that they are very much different things. A ban is a consensus decision that someone is not welcome on the projects or is banned from certain activities. A block is a technical mechanism for preventing editing, and it can and is often applied without a ban. Slightly complicated, but important in cases like these, because not every block is a ban. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::: If a global block becomes possible, I'm not sure there would be a reason to continue locking accounts. That has always seemed like a hack to me. But it's probably worth pinging the [[stewards' noticeboard]] to see if any of them have a reason to continue locking accounts in that case. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]  18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

::::::I can see benefit in the block/ban distinction here, yes. As you stated, Steven, blocks are issued for any number of things, made by individual admins, revoked by individual admins and so on. Bans are decisions by the community that an editor is not welcome. A block is a way of enforcing a ban if it becomes necessary, but blocks are used more broadly than just to enforce bans. I'm imagining a system where an admin from any project could request a global block of an account provided it's blocked on at least 2-3 projects minimum (including their own), but blocks could be overturned either locally with globalblock-exempt or a petition to remove the global block itself. But as with enwiki, blocks enacted because of bans are almost never lifted until the ban itself is lifted. The enwiki admins are mostly pretty good at respecting this, so as long as a global block came with a note saying it was by a global ban decision, I think admins will respect that enough not to give local exemptions. And failing that, it can be codified in policy on the globalblock-exempt user right or something. I agree with others above that with a global block system in place (which is more diverse and perhaps more appropriate than the global lock system) then there should be no need for locking that I can see. [[User:NULL|NULL]] ([[User talk:NULL|talk]]) 20:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
* I have an impression that now we are talking about something different from what we were talking before. First, community bans do not exist on all projects, and there have been projects where community bans were explicitly rejected by a vote. Second, I technically do not understand, even if community ban existed, how it could have been implemented technically. By a vote on meta? This is unacceptable, since a typical vote on meta is a couple of dozen users, and on top of that, the votes are very vulnerable to the external influence such as en.wp, WR and God knows what, like we have recently seen on the example of Mbz1. Performing community ban votes on several projects and then ban a user if say three or more projects banned them? Has the same problems as the previous version (for instance, Commons votes are vulnerable as well), in addition, it is unclear which projects would be eligible: I can easily solicit users on a dormat project so that nobody would even know until the ban has been enforced. Honestly, I do not see any way this idea could be implemented. I think we should drop it.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 23:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
** Oh god no. A vote is a terrible idea... The process here is described as a Request for Comment, which is explicitly not a vote. As for the rest: yes, all processes are sometimes vulnerable to gaming or influence. But on the other hand, the projects are surprisingly resistent to being forced to ban a user just because another project did. In any case, I would rather see a community decision on bans, rather than one where people try to force the Stewards or the Foundation to intervene without any kind of attempt to gain an honest cross-wiki consensus. Even if we're only talking about less than 10 global bans ever. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 04:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
***I think that in theory, it makes sense for a project to be able to override a global ban. If the WMF wants to force discussion or override the project for other reasons, it still has the power of office action - the only point of the exemption is to create a class of users who are banned by default rather than allowed by default, without choosing to override the projects in every single case. Nonetheless, admittedly, the creation of a new software feature to benefit less than 10 of the most problematic users ever to participate in the projects is, well, not the first priority for any sane developer. If a project wanted to invite one of these users back, they'd need merely invite him to start a new account under a slightly different name, with the agreement that he use it only on that project and that they will oppose any global ban request against it. (note that this proposed policy would prohibit this non-software workaround, but whether this discussion here should override an individual project's consensus to do otherwise seems debatable to me) [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
**** That is basically the situation we already have. For example: with Thekohser, a Steward decided to enact a global ban that ended up being watered down to just a series of individual local blocks across the wikis, and naturally they were all undone just on principle. I think a global ban needs to be all or nothing: if someone really is not enough of a danger to the projects that we can pick and choose which wikis they can be active on, then there's no need for a global ban in the first place and it should be left up to local autonomy entirely. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
*****Whichever way we weigh up arguments on a global ban discussion, it doesn't work. Absolute consensus? If there's absolute consensus I'm sure we don't even need a new policy; the existing global block rules are adequate. Majority rule or "rough consensus"? That would intuitively lead to the scenario in which one or two projects who value the contribution of editor A is forced to accept a ban on A imposed by the consensus between 5 other projects on which A was disruptive. A global ban policy without local opt-out will simply do harm and no good. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

*'''Question:''' Earlier in the discussion Niabot made reference to a "recent" case where there a user may have been allowed to edit on one project although globally blocked. I am not sure if we are thinking of the same case, but there was a recent case on Commons where a user had been blocked and unblocked, after much controversy and discussion, only for the account to be globally locked. This same case lead to renewed interest in [[Pedophilia]] and a similar policy proposal being created on Commons. I note that Meta:Pedophila is only a ''proposed'' policy, but if there were to be a WMF policy that covers all projects, how would this be handled by the proposal? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 10:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
** Hey. Thanks for the question. The case on Commons was an [[Office actions|office action]], and the way this policy is written would mean that user would not be eligible for a global ban (they were not blocked on multiple independent projects). As for the proposal at [[Pedophilia]], the text says that any such user "...will be indefinitely blocked." Which I take to mean is separate from a formal ban, and because it's a specific reason for indef blocking codified in a policy, would not take a consensus-building discussion like other cases might. If that policy is accepted, then I would definitely amend this one to mention it as an exception. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
***Steven, you say ''"if that policy is accepted"''. I am not very familiar with the workings of Meta, but the policy has been in a "proposed" state for nearly two years now, despite the clear statements from both Jimbo and Sue that this is de facto policy. What will it take to have the policy "accepted"? I fear that the next such incident will be a publicity disaster if this is not policy when that happens. If I were the WMF, I would not like to see some of the comments on [[Talk:Pedophilia]] reprinted in the media. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
****I personally have no answer about how/when/if that page will become a community policy, though the "policies in limbo" problem is something that clearly impacts both pages. The right person to ask is probably [[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|Phillippe]] or legal in general. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
*****I worded my question poorly. Let me try again. How does a proposed or draft policy on Meta become just "policy"? [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 02:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
******There is no set process. We're going to have to pick one. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

==Some comments==
Hello all, I'll leave a few comments here. For those that do not know me: I was a steard and did not get re-elected. I do however write this as a normal user. The comment is also not about me, but simply tries to point out possible problems.
*Long term / indefinite bans suffer from the fact that the banned user has no way of "evolving", and that the community on whose decision this ban is based, will change. In such a case, there is a ban, but without community support. In addition, the actions for which the ban is enacted tend to be forgotten rather soon. For the long term users of a project: do you remember the banning discussions/reasons of people banned from your project, say 9-12 months ago? - Can you make sure the community would still support thiese bans, in a vote?
*Wikipedia comprises many projects; in order for the ban to have any legitimation, a majority of users and of projects must support the ban. Of course, I am only talking about short term bans.
*There is no need to introduce this instrument; stewards already have the option of globally locking an account, which will result in the same. As pointed out above, no community is able to meaningfully reach an agreement on banning a user from all projects.
*Just out of curiosity, how much work could have been avoided, say in the last 3 months, if the instrument were available?
Whe you as a community elect representatives, please give them the power to actually make decisions. --[[User:Eptalon|Eptalon]] ([[User talk:Eptalon|talk]]) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

:In regards to: "There is no need to introduce this instrument; stewards already have the option of globally locking an account, which will result in the same. As pointed out above, no community is able to meaningfully reach an agreement on banning a user from all projects."...
:Both of these things are demonstrably untrue. First, as the back-and-forth among Stewards over the request for a global ban of [[User:Thekohser]] demonstrated, Stewards do not currently have a clear mandate for enforcing any request for a global ban. Yes, they have the technical ability for global locks, but no, there is not a set process or policy that covers this. Current Stewards have expressed deep reservations about any request to them for a global ban that isn't backed by a community consensus. Second, we've already proven the cross-wiki consensus model can work with a minimum of drama. Just see the two RFC examples I linked to the section at the top. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
::In order for a ban to be legitimized, it must be possible to "repeat" the discussion / vote that precedes this ban at any time during the duration of the ban; if at some point in time, the result is different, the ban lost its legitimacy, and must be lifted. As to stewards not agreeing on some issue: this is normal. They have been elected to serve a term - how they reach their goals is not the concern of the people who elected them. In addition, we are talking about a multi-lingual project. In the case of a global ban dicussion I would expect all commuication to be localized, so that any user of any wikipedia project can follow it, without the need to understand another language, other than the language of the projects where this user is active. In addition to creatng a problem of legitimacy of a ban, this requires a huge effort of translation, which in my opinion does not outweight the benefits.--[[User:Eptalon|Eptalon]] ([[User talk:Eptalon|talk]]) 20:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
:I think Abd's comment on the Poetlister case summarized precisely my worries about this proposal. It doesn't work because it simply forces dedicated trolls into sockpuppetry; and it causes tension between projects by allowing larger projects to gang up and rule over smaller projects. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Some comments (2) ==

Currently with not so much time so I don't expect replies and if there are any I won't be able to get back to you soon for now. That said, I completly oppose this proposal as written for the following reasons: the first one is that it seems that there is an option allowing a project to lift a global ban locally. In my humble opinion that absolutelly wrong. Global means global, all projects. If we allow projects to overturn global bans locally then this policy looses its spirit and efficacy, and has the potential secondary harmful effects. The second one is that the proposal is unclear in regards of which ammount of consensus the request must obtain in order to the ban be implemented as it forces stewards, again, to decice. A formal threshold of support must be set, so all proposals can be treated with the same standards. These are my concerns as of now which I consider serious enough not to support this policy at this current stage. Thanks. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|''Nihil Prius Fide'']]) 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:There is not an option to lift a ban locally. The message is supposed to be that if a local community disagrees with a ban that they should take the disucssion back here where the ban originated. If that's unclear let's rewrite it. :) Thanks for your comments, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

== Principle of least restrictive ban==
I didn't think this would be controversial so I boldly added it as principle 4, but as someone objected to it I thought I'd start this thread.
:''4 The Ban is the least restrictive needed to protect the project from similar incidents by the same editor. So, if the ban were due to the misuse of extra userrights, then the user would be banned from having those userrights on any Wikimedia wiki, but might still be welcomed as an editor.''

This proposed principle is different from, but complementary to, the idea of global bans being a last resort. Some people simply can't be trusted with deleted edits or the block button, others are too disruptive even to be allowed to edit. Under this principle it would be entirely appropriate to ban someone from a position of trust whilst still allowing them to edit, providing that was the least restrictive ban needed to prevent similar incidents recurring. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 10:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:There is already language in the lede which calls for the least restrictive measure ("...''should only be sought when the problem cannot be addressed by less restrictive means''..." and "...''may be selective''...") as well as the statement which follows the criteria, "''Please remember that global bans are not a common occurrence, and that merely meeting the above minimum criteria does not mean that a global ban is required''." I think it's unnecessary that we add such a criterion, as the language is quite vague and it's already covered. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 23:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
::I disagree. "May be selective" is a long way from the principle of least restriction. As for the "should only be sought when the problem cannot be addressed by less restrictive means" I read that as complementary to the proposal but as more about global bans being a last resort. I think this would benefit from bans being both a last resort and also minimally restrictive, and that would require the proposed 4th principle. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] ([[User talk:WereSpielChequers|talk]]) 22:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

:::I don't think that the clause works as a prerequisite to considering a ban, which is what it would be ("Global bans are only considered if all of the following criteria are met:"). Making it a prerequisite seems to open up a world of wikilawyering (Example: "We can't discuss this because the contributor never misused talk pages and so the least restrictive ban needed would allow him to edit talk pages; since that wasn't proposed, we have to close this consideration.") Surely discussing the appropriate parameters of a ban would be ''part'' of the consideration? --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Mdennis (WMF)|talk]]) 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
::::WSC, I think a discussion about the principle of least restrictive ban is fundamentally moot here. Global bans are fundamentally about banning a user from using things they've never abused before because of fears that they will abuse them later. (Otherwise what would be issued is a series of local bans.) If you believe in the principle of least restrictive ban, you oppose this proposal outright. [[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 10:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Discussion close by Meta admins ==

I'd be much more comfortable with the policy if only stewards could close these discussions, as I trust stewards much more than I do meta admins. Stewards have a more public and through vetting process, and the most recent two incidents that I've come over to Meta to see have left me very, very unimpressed with Meta admins' judgements. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] ([[User talk:Sven Manguard|talk]]) 03:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
:Issue is that determining consensus on just about anything except global rights requests is outside of the steward scope. Stewards are supposed to implement consensus only, not define it. That being said, with something of this proposal's scope closure by a group of stewards might be best. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 04:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
::Yeah, we really have no set way to approve policy here on Meta. However, if we hold an RFC or something about it to garner wider opinion than the talk page, I would also request that Stewards close the discussion. The other good reason for this is that the policy is a global one which directly involves Steward work, and it has little to do with the usual kind of sysop work here on Meta. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Since you're the one that made the image, you might want to change [[:File:Global-bans-process-workflow.svg]] then; that's the source of the concern that triggered this thread. [[User:Sven Manguard|Sven Manguard]] ([[User talk:Sven Manguard|talk]]) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

== Where is the Global arbcom ? ==

Where is the Global arbcom that can review and possibly overturn a Global ban ? On the French Wikipedia, any block decision by any admin can be reviewed by the Arbcom. Only the Arbcom has the final authority on disciplinary matters. The admins or stewards, or whoever on meta does not have the power to overturn the supreme authority of the French Arbcom on disciplinary matters on the French wikipedia. If the French Arbcom decides that the accused is innocent and is free to edit the French Wikipedia, no admin or steward or whoever on meta is allowed to overturn that. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 00:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== I am against bans as opposed to temporary sanctions ==

This idea of a ban is associated with death penalty, because it is considers that some human beings cannot improve themselves, even years after the event. I am against death penalty. I am opposed to any indefinite blocking on any Wikimedia project. Sanctions against a specific user should never be longer than 10 or 15 years. Blocking a user for more than 10 or 15 years is similar with cruelty. Banning someone forever is always an abuse.

I would not necessarily be so much opposed to a Global block for X years, provided X is less than 15. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 23:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== That system should be opt-in only ==

This system should not be imposed on projects that do not have a policy of banning people. For example, as written on [[:en:French Wikipedia]], the French Wikipedia had no sysop between May 2001 and August 2002. That means that during that period, nobody was banned, and nobody could be banned. Projects that do not have a policy of banning people should not be compelled to taking part into that system. For that reason, it should be opt-in only. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 23:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

== Meta has no power to impose a decision on local community ==

No vote whatsoever on meta can have the power to overturn policies decided on local projects by their local communities. This is by the same token that a vote at the United Nations does not have the power to amend or abrogate a US law or a French laws or whatever. The United Nations is a place to regulate relations between nations, but it is not a place from where the nations are ruled. Meta is in the same position as regards to Wikimedia projects. A French citizen is allowed to be judged according to French laws. The united nations have no power to overturn a decision taken by a French judge. So by the same token, meta does not have the power to overturn a decision taken by the French wikipedia's arbcom. If the French Wikipedia's arbcom decides that the accused is innocent or should be blocked for 1 year, meta does not have the power to change that into an indefinite ban. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 23:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

:Actually, Meta does have that power. It's exercised all the time on the Steward's noticeboard and via global locks of vandals and spammers. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== The Falklands islands dispute example again ==

When discussing the Global blocking in April 2008, I took the example of the Falklands islands dispute, and the possibility to block a user on a different wiki for POV pushing, because that user edits that other wiki in a way that is seen as POV on the blocking party's wiki. I had been given assurances that the tool would not be used that way : ''Right, well it's possible to do so, but that's not what the tool is for; misuse will be handled in the same way as misuse of any other tool. Issues affecting one wiki stay on that wiki, and global blocking is not to be used for disputes of that nature anyway. I think you misunderstand how this tool will be used. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)''. See [[Talk:Global blocking/Archive 1#only for IP addresses, not usernames]]. See also [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/the-problem-with-wikidata/255564/ Mark Graham's article in The Atlantic, 6 April 2012] in which he defends the view that Wikipedia should not unify its communities (in projects such as Wikidata) but provide the possibility for different world views to coexist.

But what is being prepared here includes the possibility of blocking a user on a third wiki (and on all wikis) if he is blocked on two other wikis. If two wikis having the same view on the Falklands Island dispute decide that a user who edits the third wiki in a way which they frown upon, is a POV pusher, then they are allowed to ban that user on the third wiki, by concluding an alliance of their two wikis against the third one. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 00:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

:Please read the examples of global bans given in the policy. POV pushing or editorial disputes are not what this policy is for at all: it is to prevent harm to the projects and other users, not solve simple disputes. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== Global bans violate Ne bis in idem ==

''Global bans are exclusively applied where multiple independent communities have previously elected to ban a user for a pattern of abuse'' constitutes to a violation of Ne bis in idem. See [[:en:Ne bis in idem]]. [[User:Teofilo|Teofilo]] ([[User talk:Teofilo|talk]]) 03:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:Even if they do, it hardly matters. Since when have we had a prohibition of double jeopardy on Wikimedia wikis? A user cannot be re-blocked for edit warring a second time?--[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 05:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:No it doesn't. It's like moving a case to a higher court which can apply a stronger sanction for the same decision than the lower court can (projects can't ban a user on other projects). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 10:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

== Ratification ==

I've proposed a ratification process at [[Global bans/ratification]], where the global policy would go into effect when communities representing 75% of active users of Wikimedia projects endorse it. This process gives us clear steps to get the policy endorsed, namely a series of local discussions which approve it. Failing that, we seem to be stuck in a never-ending limbo. Since this talk page is already confused enough, I suggest the details of the ratification process (eg different thresholds or criteria) be discussed at [[Talk:Global bans/ratification]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 20:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

:I think we should put more thought into mapping out our options before there's any movement on any one threshold for ratification. Personally I think individual/local ratification a bunch of separate times is way too inefficient. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::It's not "inefficient" at all. Tapping into existing processes for approving a local policy, in a way which can proceed along parallel tracks in different projects is much more efficient than ... whatever the hell the current non-process for never getting anything decided is. And one or two "super-major" projects aside, any one major project getting stuck in its local process doesn't matter for endorsement of the global policy. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::Incidentally, the threshold and ratification criteria should be part of the policy draft, so it gets approved as part of the ratification process as well. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 07:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::: I think this is way to inneficient and complicated too. This is not the General Assembly of UN or a Treaty being subject to the Vienna Convention; this is a proposal for a global policy that the community needs to agree or the Board needs to approve and make it official. The new Terms of Use recognizes [[Global bans]] as policy; so once those Terms of Use come into effect this should enter into effect too at the earliest. I think there's no need to complicate things further. They're already too complicated. Thanks. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|audiencia]]) 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

::::I think it's a perfectly sensible approach to ensuring a large part of the active Wikimedia usersphere actively endorses a new global policy - and really not that difficult to implement, or complicated to understand (legwork is required to get the necessary stats, but that's not ''complicated'' either). If the board is willing to make it policy by fiat, fine, but there's been no indication of that. All I've seen on the issue of how to make this policy is handwaving and helplessness. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|talk]]) 15:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::And what about simply using a vote process like [[Global sysops/Vote]]? --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: (ec) Quoting: ''While the global ban is authorized by the terms of use, it will be implemented by community policy''. I myself am not a fan of complicated procedures, but we need to run some procedure. I would be more in favor of a vote similar to the vote for the Board.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 16:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
::::: Or, indeed, like for global sysops.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 16:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
{{unindent}} So we have a few ideas so far. I'm going to update the ratification subpage with our options so we can see them all and decide. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 17:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
: The global sysops vote example seems reasonable to me. If a bunch of people dislike the result, they can come and try to change it through a similar process. Don't make change hard; make it easy. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]]  03:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:: I personally favor something more akin to an RFC, just because we don't really have the option to just say "no" now that the Board approved a ToU that mentions the bans policy. I'll post a draft of RFC questions soon, but I was thinking something like, "Yes" and "Not yet, the policy needs work". [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
::: This is a sensitive question, and I would recommend the system similar to how it was done recently with the Pending Changes RFC on English Wikipedia: to choose three uninvolved stewards who will in the end sum up the discussion. Their names will be known from the very beginning.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
:::: Agreed. I'll make a request on the Steward's noticeboard today. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Too many processes? ==

The way I understand it, we're now up to five global processes against a user: [[global block]]s, [[global ban]]s, [[global lock]]s, [[office action]]s, and legal actions under the [[terms of service]]. I take it [[w:WP:BURO]] is not Meta policy... [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 00:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:AFAIK, locks are a "temporary" (maybe not) way of blocking accounts globally. Global blocks currently only apply to IPs and ranges. Is there a difference between an "office action" and a "legal action"? [[User:PiRSquared17|PiRSquared17]] ([[User talk:PiRSquared17|talk]]) 00:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
:Global blocks don't actually exist. There literally is no technical mechanism for doing so. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 03:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Wikidata/Technical proposal

2012-03-21T14:19:48Z

Tinz: /* Reconciling Wikidata with Wikipedia expectations :-) */ thoughts

==Microformats==
Changes to infoboxes need to be mindful of those that already emit microformats; I'm happy to advise further if and when needed. [[User:Pigsonthewing|pigsonthewing]] 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
: Thank you. Will come back to you. This will be relevant as soon as phase 2 starts. Please ping me again if I do not come back to you! --[[User:Denny|denny]] 10:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
::You should probably use [[w:en:Microdata (HTML)|Microdata]] and not [[w:en:Microformat|Microformat]], as the former is the W3C standardized version. You should also consider [[w:en:RDFa|RDFa]]. Check also [[w:en:Schema.org|Schema.org]][http://schema.org] and how they organize reuse. — ''[[User:Jeblad|Jeblad]]'' 16:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

==References database==
Since WikiData will be creating an interwiki database, and also database to supply information to infoboxes... I was wondering whether it is also possible to use it to create a reference/citation database? That is, whenever someone adds a citation to a specific book (or journal...) in any Wiki, rather than having to add all the bibliographic details in each separate article, it calls upon the WikiData citation reference. That way there will be ONE canonical/centralised place for a reference that can be updated/corrected once and it will display correctly everywhere that that book is referenced. It helps to avoid linkrot, can be translated and greatly reduces the work in adding additional citations to articles.

An example of this kind of system is in use here: http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Citation:O%27Gorman_T,_MacDonald_N,_Mould_T,_Cutner_A,_Hurley_R,_Olaitan_A_2009 This is the Cancer Council of Australia's Wiki with a new "citation" namespace. See also at the bottom there is a "cited by" section, this is the same effect as the "file usage on other wikis" that we see on Commons files. That way when a new article wishes to use this reference it just adds the reference from the "existing citations" dropdown list. Then it is displayed in the article correctly according to whatever styleguide (and language) that wiki has (here is that example citation displayed http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australia/Clinical_question:What_is_the_evidence_based_surgical_approach_for_hysterectomy_in_low_and_high_risk_apparent_early_stage_endometrial_cancer#References ).

Eventually we would create an amazing ISBN/ISSN database that would be the world's first universal, multi-lingual, up-to-date and freely-accessed bibliographic dataset. This would be a massively cool gift to the world. We could even pre-populate it with the data from the several national libraries that have already released their dataset under CC-0. It would encourage others to do the same by using the share-alike principle.

Is that possible? [[User:Wittylama|Wittylama]] 00:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:There already exists a similar database on the wiki fr ([[:fr:Aide:Espace référence|"Référence"]] - [[:fr:Référence:Histoires (Hérodote)|example]]) [[User:Zorglub|Zorglub]] 01:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::That's very interesting! I was not aware of that system. I particularly like how you can change the display style to show different formats for the same reference (e.g. BibTeX, wikisyntax, list). If I understand how that system works, it is particularly used as a way to clearly identify all the different editions of a book that has been republished multiple times, correct? What I'm particularly hoping New WikiData can be used for is the ability to place code that would look, for example, like <nowiki>{{reference|2-213-02191-0|1988|page 12}}</nowiki> and that would insert, automatically, the footnote that displays correctly according to the local wiki's language and manual of style. In the case of the French Wikipedia that would be (I think): "[[fr:w:Nicolas Grimal|Nicolas Grimal]], Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne, Fayard, Paris, 25 novembre 1988, broché (ISBN 2-213-02191-0) page 12." Instead, if you were on the English wikipedia and you wanted to refer to the later English edition of the same book you would write <nowiki>{{reference|0-631-19396-0|1994|page 12}}</nowiki>, it would give you "[[en:w:Nicolas Grimal|Nicolas Grimal]]l, A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, August 1994 (ISBN 0-631-19396-0) page 12." Do you see what I mean? Obviously I'm just inventing the code to demonstrate the idea, but the concept is to have a multilingual database of publication's metadata that is able to be kept up to date, so if someone adds more information later, that propagates to all the articles that have used that book as a reference. [[User:Wittylama|Wittylama]] 11:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Why people want to have always a specific database for different kind of data ? It is possible to think about a global concept for data storage like that:
::: data.MainName = Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne
::: data.MainClass = Book
::: data.MainID = 145
::: data.Parameter1.Name = Title
::: data.Parameter1.Class = Book
::: data.Parameter1.Value1 = Histoire de l'Égypte ancienne
::: data.Parameter2.Name = Author
::: data.Parameter2.Class = Book
::: data.Parameter2.Value1 = Nicolas
::: data.Parameter2.Value2 = Grimal
::: ...
::: This can be used for scientific or persons data too:
::: data.MainName = Methan
::: data.MainClass = Chemical compound
::: data.MainID = 149
::: data.Parameter1.Name = Molecular mass
::: data.Parameter1.Class = Physical Property
::: data.Parameter1.Value1 = 16
::: data.Parameter1.Value2 = g/mol
::: data.Parameter1.Value3 = <code><nowiki>{{data|146}}</nowiki></code> '''link to another data unit'''
::: data.Parameter2.Name = Heat capacity
::: data.Parameter2.Class = Physical Property
::: data.Parameter2.Value1 = ...
::: or
::: data.MainName = Albert Einstein
::: data.MainClass = Scientist
::: data.MainID = 204
::: data.Parameter1.Name = Name
::: data.Parameter1.Class = Person data
::: data.Parameter1.Value1 = Albert
::: data.Parameter1.Value2 = Einstein
::: data.Parameter2.Name = Birthday
::: data.Parameter2.Class = Person data
::: data.Parameter2.Value1 = 14
::: data.Parameter2.Value2 = Mars
::: data.Parameter2.Value3 = 1879 ...
:::
::: To call the data you have to insert something like <nowiki>{{addData|Albert Einstein|Birthday}}</nowiki> to get 14 mars 1879 in the appropriate wiki format or <nowiki>{{addData|Methan|Molecular mass}}</nowiki> to have 16 g/mol <nowiki><ref>....</ref></nowiki>. [[User:Snipre|Snipre]] 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That is interesting. We will take a closer look at fr.wp and what they are doing, as soon as we start. Commons has also a very elaborate metadata capturing scheme. --[[User:Denny|denny]] 10:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

== Official discussion ==

Will there be a mailing list opened for this project? Where is the "official" discussion going to happen?--[[User:Kozuch|Kozuch]] 14:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:Good question; It's a public project with MediaWiki ? --[[User:Karima Rafes|Karima Rafes]] 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:: There will be a public way to discuss the project. Right now the project did not start yet, but it will be a open and public project. --[[User:Denny|denny]] 10:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Great to hear that. Are there links to public discussions that lead to this project by the way? — [[User:Kennyluck|Kennyluck]] 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
:::: Just as an update and for the sake of completeness: There is now a mailing list at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l --[[User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|talk]]) 16:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

== Sister projects ==

The page mentions only Wikipedia. I assume it's obvious that this needs to work also with sister projects (at least interwikis)... [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 08:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
:Agreed. [[b:pt:User:Helder.wiki|Helder]] 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
:: Agreed. --[[User:Denny|denny]] 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

== Data means storage ==

One big issue according to my experience with data is the integrity of the data and their storage. At least one project on de:Wiki is extracting data from infobox and create a database on the toolserver (I will call this process bottom-up). This is a problem for the reuse because wrong information present in the infobox will be included in the database and then propagated in other wikis.

The alternative is a top-down approach: a database is created outside of Wiki (I mean on a different project that those using the data) and each wiki refers to that database to build his lists or infoboxes.

Then the second problem is the connection to the database: the creation of model which connects to the database every time someone wants to open a article will generate a huge traffic for the servers (I'm not a specialist so this is only an assumption). And As data won't change every day the need for an constant update is not necessary.

My proposition is to avoid the use of a model to link wikis and database but to define bots which will be responsible to update the code in wikis article by using the database. This process already exists: it is possible to find on the toolserver some tools which generate wikicode from a formular. In our case instead of using a formular the tool will use data from the database and generates the wikicode which will be copied in the articles by the bots. [[User:Snipre|Snipre]] 09:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

: However by doing that we centralize data storage and modifications of infobox in every wiki won't be included in the database. A specific procedure will have to be provided in order to add or modify data in the main database. Something to discuss because that is a modification of the Wikipedia spirit. [[User:Snipre|Snipre]] 09:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:: Yes this will be a technical challenge as you said. But we have extremely smart people in the team so I hope they can use all that smarts and be brilliant to make this work ;-) Regarding the workflow changes: Yes there will be some. How exactly that will be is a matter of discussion and trying. We'll start with that in April. Hope that clarifies it a bit. --[[User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|talk]]) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

== Wikispecies ==

Considering that the Wikispecies adds this same type of information (which should be reusable) , there were plans to merger the Wikispecies with wikidata to facilitate the integration of taxonomic information on Wikipedia and related? [[User:Raylton P. Sousa|Raylton P. Sousa]] 23:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

: The idea is to start with interlanguage links and infoboxes on wikipedia, and then see which other wikimedia projects may benefit from wikidata, and in what way. I expect that once we have some experience with the centralized data stores, it will become clearer what kind of interaction with wikidata makes sense for which project. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== Schema.org as a baseline, and some additional notes ==

Its very tempting to propose a structure based upon [[w:en:Schema.org|Schema.org]][http://schema.org] where pages uses a multiple inheritance hierarchy, possibly with something similar to a category system, and some kind of item specifier inside the page. The page could be exported in an API that mimics the fields from Schema.org (possibly with RDF and also as JSON according to [http://schema.rdfs.org/ Schema.rdfs.org]) and then allow easy reuse by any service that follows the common Schema.org definitions.

The pages could then be imported with similar mechanisms as those used in [[mw:InstantCommons|InstantCommons]] and with additional parser functions the DOM can be traversed and the information extracted. Such functions could use simple Xpath-selectors or more complex [[w:en:XSLT|XSL transforms]].

When the information is extracted on the destination page at some external wiki it is although not so simple to reuse the content. Several mechanisms are necessary to build additional descriptive text around the value, even if a localized template is available. It seems like this can be solved with guided rule-based machine translation, even if this is ''BAD'' according to the community at Wikipedia. There are additional notes about this at the page [[mw:Some notes about small projects|Some notes about small projects]].

In some situations there might also be necessary to transform values from one unit system to another. Examples of this is currencies and conversion from metric system to inches.

On the server side one could propose a system of hierarchal categories whereby some of them reflects a Schema, and a page at data.wm then is built by collecting such supercategories during editing, and then those are used to build a set of legal fields for a specific subject. For each subject at data.wm tags could be used as markers for properties on the page as these should be static, while at the individual wp-pages the information could be imported by use of parser functions.

There are some additional notes at [[w:no:Wikipedia:Gjenbruk|Wikipedia:Gjenbruk (Norwegian)]] (also [[w:no:Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Gjenbruk|subpages]]) and [[w:no:Help:Schema|Help:Schema (Norwegian)]] (also [[w:no:Special:Prefixindex/Help:Schema|subpages]]). — ''[[User:Jeblad|Jeblad]]'' 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

P1.1. Focus at a XML-representation, and then especially one that supports [[w:en:Resource Description Framework|RDF]], [[w:en:RDF Schema|RDF Schema]], or [[w:en:Web Ontology Language|OWL]]. In addition make sure to follow the definitions from [[w:en:Schema.org|Schema.org]] if possible. Note also that it is probably not necessary to do any reasoning about OWL, its only about encoding the information as described by this standard. (Phase 2: «We will not provide automatic mappings to external vocabularies and ontologies or use internal reasoning engines.»)

JSON should be available as a transform of the XML-representation, and not used directly.

P1.4. Translation of datasets into localized versions are a good bit more complex than just throwing together some translated strings as the values themselves sometimes needs translation.

O1.2. If some prerequisites exists then editing can be more or less automatic. That is there must be not conflicting entries in any Wikipedia article.

O1.3. A lot of reuse center around national statistics. Those datasets are not identified by unique identificators and the URL to the resource and a Xpath statement to navigate within the resource must be used as an identification.

P2.1. Not only values needs transformation but also units. This kind of transformations are missing. Recalculating the precision might relie on the units used for the value.

There might be diverging values for some properties, and it can be unclear how to handle them. Typical example is location data, where there might be some constraints, some inherit resolutions and some uncertainty for the given value.

A property might have a name, a value and an unit (typed values?). In addition there might also be a realm, which often creates problems in term bases. To further complicate this there might be a limit in time on the correctness of the value.

P2.7. This also influences automatic creation of stub articles. This is very important in small languages. Note that this is about automatic ''generation'' of text in other languages, its not about machine translation of preexisting text. Such guided machine generation of text is somewhat easier than a machine translation.

O2.6. Trust modeling of factoids, there are at least one very interesting trust model.

P3.1. (P3.3.) Generate complex structures and lists from wikidata imply some heavy language rewrites unless it should only be limited to html-structures.

O3.5. Some "flat" queries can be reformulated as hierarchal queries. Most important for Wikipedia is perhaps searches in time and space, where each of the four axis are continuous but can be reformulated as named segments. It is for example possible to split time in years and latitude/longitude in degrees.

O3.6. A visualization can have implications on the article in Wikipedia that goes beyond a simple injection of a widget into the article, it can be the whole article that needs some transformation.

== Status updates ==

How is the project going? Will anyone provide regular status updates? I think a lot of people would be interested. Also, a lot of volunteers might want to help out, but currently there are no "official" instructions what is and will be going on... if help will be needed and wanted.--[[User:Kozuch|Kozuch]] 21:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

: I'm also interested in the status of this. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 21:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

::Me three [[User:Wittylama|Wittylama]] 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
:::Me also. [[User:Tpt|Tpt]] 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Me five. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks. Preparations for the project are coming along nicely, we expect to kick off in early april. The team is almost complete, but we are still in the process of hiring - among others, someone in charge of community communications, who would provide status updates and also coordinate volunteer efforts.

By april, we should have a detailed road map. I suppose there will be some things in there that are suitable for volunteers to work on. However, in my experience, volunteers can best do "stuff that comes up along the way" - because they are not committed to a road map and can react immediately to community demand. I expect this to be especially true for UI-related things. But we'll see.

Cheers -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
: Thank you for the status update. :-) --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 16:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks too. Hope you will give (us) regular updates and will employ community volunteers enough accordingly so that this project will not get doomed like others did (e.g. the Strategy wiki)...--[[User:Kozuch|Kozuch]] 21:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We set up the mailinglist: [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata Wikidata mailing list]. Feel free to join for updates and discussions!

== Hiring ==

Was the hiring successfull? Did you get the people you wanted?--[[User:Kozuch|Kozuch]] 21:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
:[http://wikimedia.de/wiki/Aktivit%C3%A4ten#WikiData This page] announces the team is planned to be completed by March 2012. --[[User:Spischot|Spischot]] 13:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
:: Currently it looks like part of the team will start work in march, and we'll have to full project kickoff in april. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

== Overlapping articles ==

At Phase 1 you write: "Every Wikipedia can only contain one such article." How can this system handle those situations where articles of different Wikipédias overlap, or do not exactly match, or one of them has a common article on two suptopics, of which the other one has separate articles? [[User:Bináris|Bináris]] [[user talk:Bináris|tell me]] 08:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

:There is at least one project that has analyzed alignment between articles at different projects. As I recall there are several problems with this, often because some of the articles focus on different topics (is an article about a church about the congregation or the building) or because a subdomain has the main article ("Plane (aircraft)" is located at "Plane"). — ''[[User:Jeblad|Jeblad]]'' 21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

::It's an interesting (and legitimate) problem but I suspect we'll solve it the way we currently solve interlanguage links that don't precisely match - manually. If any other project tried to do this it would fail because it would need massively clever automation to fix all the errors, but we've got the community who have already done (and will continue to do) the hard work of disambiguating articles/concepts that match up between languages. In fact, by centralising the interlanguage links to one place it will make us faster and more efficient at this task that we already do. [[User:Wittylama|Wittylama]] 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

:::As I recall from the projects paper the misalignments were considerable between the articles, and they did use the language links. — ''[[User:Jeblad|Jeblad]]'' 04:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

::: Wikidata will porovide a centralized interface for managing interwiki links, but will not by itself solve the problems of granularity and misalignment. Initially, the quality of interlanguage links is expected to remain the same as with the current bot-based system. It will hopefully make the problem more managable though. E.g. no more removing a bad interlanguage link only to have it put back two minutes later by a bot. It will also provide a central place for discussiong problems with topic alignment.
::: It would be interesting to provide tools for splitting and merging concepts. I expect Wikidata will need to adress this at some point, but it may not part of the baseline implementation. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 13:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

==Reconciling Wikidata with Wikipedia expectations :-)==

... I seriously wonder however, how the social engineering of Wikidata is expected to work. Important factors for Wikipedia are trust, transparency and shallow hierarchies, and long-term publishing platform - how are these planned to work with Wikidata? Can I, with simple and transparent methods, see who changed which information in a given Wikipedia article (that is, including all the information that in a future comes from Wikidata)? Can I see this over years? I have very high esteem for Daniel and Denny, but fear that presently the design may be too technically focussed. I look forward to a general discussion venue (or just look, it may well exist already :-) ). [[User:G.Hagedorn|G.Hagedorn]] 23:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
: Hi Gregor! I fully understand your concerns. You can be assured that they are on our mind. First of all, there will be an edit history for every data record, exactly like they are for wiki pages. So the situation will not be worse than it is now.
: Currently, changes in templates or images included on a page are not easily visible when looking at the page's history, and they also do not show up for people watching a page. Without firther measures, this problem would be the same with Wikidata. And since the data wopuld typically be essential to the article (more so than an image), this would be quite annoying.
: Because of this, we are considering ways to integrate changes to the data records to the recentchanges of pages that use the data (so thesy show in the watchlist) - or even recording them in the page's history. How that should be done is one of the main engineering challanges, but you can be sure that we are thinking about it. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 10:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:: Hi, Daniel, that certainly sounds good! You are correct, similar problems occur with templates (although in practice templates rarely provide content) and media files. In flagged revisions, this is more or less solved, I believe. The nice solution would perhaps be to have a true, overarching change record as history, regardless which dependency changed, but of course that sounds scary to me as well. - I assumed you would be able to track records in wikidata, but that alone does not provide transparency yet. If it is deeply hidden and fragmented, as in many "database transparency" attempts, it may require forensic effort. -- For Wikidata I wonder what arguments exists against a simple solution, in which at least initially data are not inserted dynamically into a page, but simple bot-like page rewrites (using the job queue) occur with appropriately updated template calls? I see advantages in that it breaks no social expectations, does not reduce transparency (it can enhance it by using a wikidata user plus a comment citing source and update), and works well with the current page caching mechanisms. What, other than "waste of storage" argues against this? -- [[User:G.Hagedorn|G.Hagedorn]] 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
::: Oh, ease of use, clarity about how and where the data can and should be edited, delayed effect of changes, etc.
::: But: Wikidata does not in any way force the local community to transclude the data directly. We will just provide the mechanisms to do so. If a wiki however decides that they would rather use a bot to fetch the data from the API and insert it directly into the article, that's fine with us. -- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:::: (Does the discussion on this happens here, or is there a tradeoff-chart somewhere else?) I think your arguments are valid, but they need to be emeded with priorities. At least the "clarity about how and where the data can and should be edited" can be largely overcome by simply adding a comment "<<nowiki>!-- Do not update, automatically updated by XXX--></nowiki>". This comment is clearly visible in edit mode, it is in line with current practices and works. And delays are non-existent, provided the job queue is resolved immediately (it won't always, but its a separate task to manage computing resources).
:::: Of course it is more primitive than what we may dream of. If your task force could achieve a perfect solution until the end of 2013, it may be worth it, but we all doubt that, or? My argument is less that you never provide more complex forms, but that if you make it a priority, and consider "the community" something alien, it will take forever, or as long as the rich-text editor, whichever is shorter. Nothing usable has come up yet and people are migrating in masses to Drupal (which has all this, plus Drupal-variant of a "Wikidata" already in a very advanced stage). My recommendation: aim at the transparent updating as the first step, get that introduced, offer an advanced "live-inclusion" extension only in the second phase. [[User:G.Hagedorn|G.Hagedorn]] 07:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
::For templates, people can normally use "Related changes", and set the namespace to templates. With Wikidata, I assume that the pages will be on a separate wiki, thus removing that possibility. I think that if pages had something similar to the "Templates used on this page" list for Wikidata data points, it would help improve transparency. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] 12:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata is a really interesting project. The way how the feedback to the projects (e.g. the Wikipedias) is done ist the most crucial point for me. A few thoughts/questions:
* Is it planned that the Wikipedias will ''depend'' on Wikidata on the long run, like they depend on Commons today? I.e., will the information be copied from Wikidata to Wikipedia, or will it be included, such that if Wikdata went down for some reason, Wikipedias would suddenly be missing data?
* What is the best way to transmit data back to the Wikipedias? An instant, silent update seems possible in the "inclusion" scenario of my first point. An instant edit to the Wikipedia history is an option, but that would mean that one edit in Wikidata could lead to hundreds of edits in the local projects, making the system quite vulnerable to vandalism/edit wars. Maybe it would make sense to install a verification system (similar to "flagged revisions") on wikidata or use periodic instead of instant updates.
* There is hardly "one wikimedia community", most Wikipedia language editions are self-sufficient and rather isolated in practice. Different Wikipedias have evolved different standards, e.g. with respect to sourcing data, and it will not be easy to get all communities to agree on one standard. If an edit on Wikidata affects many different projects, this will create a completely new situation. This is maybe not so important for the interwiki links stage 1, but certainly in the later stages.
--[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] ([[User talk:Tinz|talk]]) 14:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

== Wikidata and Wikisource ==

With a lot of contributors of Wikisource I'm very interested by Wikidata project and I've some questions about the relations between Wikidate and Wikisource :
# The project is to store interwiki links on Wikidata. What about interproject links ? By example, many writers have their biography on Wikipedia, the list of their books on Wikisource, some quotations on Wikiquote and pictures on Wikimedia Commons. and there are inter-languages links in all these projects. An example, Dante Alighieri : [[w:Dante_Alighieri|Wikipedia]] [[s:Author:Dante_Alighieri|Wikisource]] [[q:Dante_Alighieri|Wikiquote]] [[commons:Dante_Alighieri|Commons]].
# The author pages on many Wikisources has a template like an infobox on the top with the same information that in in Wikipedia infobox. Can Wikidata provide this information to Wikisource infobox like to Wikipedia ones ? Wikisource can use the extension developed for Wikipedia, I think without major changes.
# Wikisource has a beginning of semantic system with the [[mw:Extension:Proofread Page|Proofread Page extension]] and his Index namespace that provide metadata on books that are shown on main namespace. (an example : [//fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Livre:La_Brière_-_Champollion_inconnu.djvu&action=edit Index], [//fr.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Champollion_inconnu/Champollion_enfant&action=edit A chapter in main]) but these metadata are stored in a template insert into Index pages and can't be get with an api. So, can we imagine to use, in the future, the core of the semantic system created for Wikidata in order to have a great semantic system inside of Wikisource ? I will be very happy to work on it !
[[User:Tpt|Tpt]] ([[User talk:Tpt|talk]]) 20:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

: Hi Tpt, thanks for your comments! Before I reply to your individual questions, let me clarify something: the ''Wikidata software development project'' run by Wikimedia Germany is limited in scope, and has a very tight time frame and well defined deliverables. The goal of this effort is it to provide a foundation for the ''Wikidata community project'' and cover some basic use cases, which can be expanded on later. The Wikidata development team will be focusing on the Wikipedia-related use cases described in the technical proposal, but we will keep other possible use cases in mind, so the system is flexible enough to cover them as well. So, while we are focussing on Wikipedia first, this does not mean other projects are to be left out.
: Now to your questions:
:# yes, we will aim to cover "sister-links" as well as "language-links"
:# yes, that should be no problem at all. the same is true for "creator" pages on commons.
:# yes, I believe so. I envision something similar to become possible for the meta-data about images on commons. However, the details are a bit unclear - one question would be if this data would be stored in the central Wikidata repository, or locally in wikisource, just using Wikidata software components.
: One more thing: Wikidata does ''not'' aim to provide any kind of inference, which is why I try to avoid the label "semantic". Wikidata will provide rich structured data, and perhaps enough semantics can be imposed on that to make some level of inference or reasoning possible using 3rd party tools. But there are currently no plans for Wikidata itself to support this kind of thing.
: HTH -- [[User:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE)|Daniel Kinzler (WMDE)]] ([[User talk:Daniel Kinzler (WMDE)|talk]]) 10:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::For the third question, the data are about a specific edition of a book reproduce in Wikisource. So, I think they can be stored in Wikidata if this project want provide a list of books with their editions like the project openlibrary.org does or in Wikisource if it doesn't. [[User:Tpt|Tpt]] ([[User talk:Tpt|talk]]) 15:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Oversight policy

2012-01-10T18:30:14Z

Tinz: /* Clarity of scope */ re

{{Archive box non-auto|For threads older than 60 days please look at the '''[[/Archives|archives]]'''.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archive-header}}
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Oversight policy/Archives/%(year)d
}}

== Proposed rename ==

Please see [[Meta:Proposed_page_moves#Oversight]]. Thank you. —[[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] ([[User talk:MarcoAurelio|''Nihil Prius Fide'']]) 12:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

== Clarity of scope ==

RFC to get a sense whether the community would endorse an extra sentence added to Oversight policy to clarify the places the tool is capable of being used, due to richer user interactions in the pipeline involving public-created posts that aren't strictly "wiki" posts.

'''Details:'''

[[User:Okeyes (WMF)|Okeyes (WMF)]] in his WMF role [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5&diff=469994100&oldid=469993412 has stated] that the General Counsel "requires" an oversight function for the feedback tool. Oversight might be needed in new types of user interface as novel collaboration tools are developed. Policy wording isn't 100% clear on oversighting such material, although one might assume obviousness since it's user-created content. Conditional on WMF consent, would the community support adding the following sentence at [[Oversight policy#Use|#use]], before the sentence "Local oversighters should...":

: This policy applies to any content posted on public areas of WMF hosted websites or that may be displayed to anyone viewing such public areas, subject to technical provision and activation of a suitable tool.

The expression "public areas" matches the wording of the draft [[Terms of Use]]. The middle clause allows use of oversight on public area content regardless how the content was put on the public websites or who might ever see it. The end clause means oversight is only applicable to content for which an oversight tool is actually provided and activated (at a technical level).

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

:There are instances, for example, troop movements, where oversight must be used regardless of where or how they are published. I use troop movements as an example because they fall in the same category as child pornography; there is a law which explicitly forbids publication of troop movements in time of war. (I recall, I'm not running off to research and confirm it right now.) However, much oversight is of trivial matters, email addresses, phone numbers, etc. The more the software opens itself up to chatter, in terms of volume and variety, the more difficult it is to monitor both serious and trivial problems. At some point, if the system is open enough and the rules broad enough, oversight is no longer sustainable. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::The crime of espionage during war consists of collecting, recording, publishing, or communicating "any information" about troop movements, ships, aircraft, or war materials and any other information" which might be useful to the enemy." Article Source: EzineArticles.com/1989001
::: since the current OS policy only rules in which cases the use of the tool is ''approved'', and not in which cases it is ''mandatory'', I don't think that these concerns are a big problem. If really no longer sustainable, just leave the trivial stuff unoversighted, no policy is broken by that (though it would be better to remove the causes of unsustainability). I think that the suggestion of FT2 makes a lot of sense. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Tinz/vector.css

2011-12-06T21:11:53Z

Tinz: Created page with "#fundraising {display: none; }"

#fundraising {display: none; }

Talk:Global bans

2011-10-30T19:26:20Z

Tinz: /* Restarting the conversation on global bans */

== Restarting the conversation on global bans ==
Hi everyone! As you are probably aware, WMF General Counsel Geoff Brigham has been working with the community on an update to the [[terms of use]]. That’s still in progress, but there are some other policies to which the new terms refer which need creation and polishing. To be specific, I’m referring the policy referred to in Section 10...

:“In the interests of our users and the Projects, in the extreme circumstance that any individual has had his or her account terminated under this provision, he or she is prohibited from creating or using another account on the Project for which he or she was terminated, unless we provide explicit permission. Additionally, especially problematic Users who have had accounts terminated on multiple Projects may be subject to a ban from all of the Projects, in accordance with the Global Ban Policy.”

The basic gist here is that the new terms of use entail that you may have your editing privileges revoked if you’re using your account for abusive purposes, but declares that this is decision is normally up to the community unless the community asks the Foundation to intervene. (Which naturally is very, very rare. It's not really our job.)

Current local policies on blocking/banning cover almost all the relevant bases, and the terms support those existing community policies with no change. But in some rare cases of cross-wiki abuse that aren’t just spam/vandalism, the terms refer to a community-owned policy about global bans. This doesn’t really exist yet, although there were bits and pieces around.

I’ve worked up a version of a standalone global bans policy which is ready for further edits and comments or questions. I based it partially on the existing notes on Meta about global blocks/bans and partially on the process that actually worked for the only two existing global bans ([[Requests for comment/Ban User:PauloHelene globally]] and [[Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister]]).

If things change -- such as if the community creates a [[global requests committee]] or [[global arbitration committee]] to handle this kind of thing -- then the policy can of course be amended accordingly. That flexibility and control by the community is the big advantage of having a separate policy rather than putting details on any bans or blocks into the terms themselves, as the following passage from the terms points out...

:“In contrast to Board resolutions or this Agreement, policies established by the community, which may cover a single Project or multiple Projects (like the Global Ban Policy), may be modified by the relevant community according to its own procedures.”

In addition to general wordsmithing etc. from all, I’d especially love to hear feedback from...

* Stewards, whose input is absolutely essential.
* Folks like Arbitrators, who have experience dealing with this kind of thing
* Editors from projects other than Wikipedia
* Editors from non-English projects (I am thinking it’d be nice to make translations happen sooner instead of later?)

It’s easier for me to consider how staff and English Wikipedians think about these things, as I am both. :) While myself and the legal team would like to hear from everyone, the groups I listed above should definitely chime in too.

Thanks for your help! [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts:
* Make the software more transparent! It must be possible to implement global bans in a form that the people in the projects the user was active get a notice in Special:Contributions and/or the userpage. Global Locks in their current form are "stealth bans", usually nobody will notice that the user account is locked if he was not blocked earlier on that project.
* All affected projects in which the user has made a certain number of contributions and is unblocked should be informed about the RFC, not only about a resulting block - only few people check meta regularly.
* The critical question is what happens if single projects don't agree with global consensus concerning the ban. Do they have the right to opt out and allow that user to edit locally? If not, that would mean a big step away from the principle of self-sufficiency that most projects adhere to. Currently, an opt-out is possible afaik only if a 'crat renames the user, so that the account is no longer connected to the global account. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

*I concur with Tinz about the need to find a way to "communicate" global blocks/bans/locks when checking user contribs on other projects (just as a local block is visible on their contribs page).
*On the point of having projects "opt out" of global bans, one of the issues that has been encountered is users banned on multiple projects is that they used those other projects to continue their disruptive behaviour on the initial projects: emailing users they'd harassed on other projects, etc. In some cases, they persuaded admins or other respected users on other projects to "allow" them to create a new account which they then SUL'd to the projects they'd been banned on and returned to old disruptive behaviours. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

::Hey Tinz, Risker. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. To address your points...
::* On transparency: my understanding is that there are some tools (such as [[Special:CentralAuth]]) to see the global SUL account of a user on all projects, as well as whether they're locked. Perhaps we should link to that tool from this page, which would be useful for people needing to see where a user is banned or active?
::* Under "Obtaining consensus for a global ban" steps 3, 4, and 5 include notifying any wikis where the editor is active. If you want, I think it's a good idea to make that language clear that it's mandatory; if you try to sneak a global ban in through the backdoor without notification that's not valid.
::* On the topic of opting out... the basic point here is that Geoff and I are thinking that because the Terms of Use specifically refer to the global bans policy, this means that people who edit despite being globally banned are technically violating the Terms of Use, which is not negotiable on a per-wiki basis. So, to be concise, I don't think we imagine local communities being able to opt out of a global ban. If someone really is editing in a positive fashion on one wiki but needs to be banned on another, then a global ban is not required. There is one contrary case I can think of: when a community where the editor is active was not properly notified, and comes to object to a global ban after a discussion is closed. Perhaps we should write that case into the appeals section?
::Anyway, I'd like to say that the current draft is just my thoughts on what should be covered with a little input from others, and if you think there's a viable way to deal with any unaddressed issues you should go ahead and add some new language. :) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Since opt-out is discussed below, just an answer to the first point: I don't think that the toolserver tool is sufficient in the long run. Once you suspect that a user is globally blocked and know that global locks exist, that works, but what if you want to contact him on an unrelated topic? In such a case I would look at his talkpage and contributions, but I wouldn't even suspect him to be globally blocked because global bans are very rare. For my homewiki (dewiki) I have created a [[:de:Vorlage:Global gesperrter Benutzer|template]] a while ago, but that is not a perfect solution either because I can't monitor all meta locks regularly. I would really appreciate an improvement of the software here. (Is it hard to implement a box with a notice similar to the one for local bans, from a purely technical point of view?). --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 09:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Well sounds like we need to spec exactly what we'd need then, if we're going to make a request of tech resources. I'm wondering if it's easier to make global locks more clear, or actually create a global blocking mechanism? [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: Yes, a new mechanism for global blocking might be optimal, but I'd be already happy with a quick fix that generates local messages for globally locked users. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 19:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

*If a user is productively contributing to one wiki, then there shouldn't be a global ban solely based on past editing behaviour. If and when the user starts to be disruptive on that project, then a global ban is warranted because it is clear that they have not changed and some action is needed to prevent further abuse. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
*:Poetlister was "constructively" editing on a Wiki and has a history of doing that - mostly to try and get his other accounts unblocked while operating sock puppets. It isn't always so easy to know if someone is honestly be "constructive" or is just good at hiding their bad behavior. Such a user like Poetlister has been proven too dangerous to allow to edit. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

== Opt-out ==

The issue of opting out is a much more complicated one than what is being considered. We had 3 cases this year of interesting cross-wiki blocks on Meta-
*1.A user from enwp, who was blocked indef. by arbcom. Then started contributing on Meta and was subsequently blocked temporarily twice and unblocked both time after discussion. A very similar block log on commons and another project. But this user currently edits productively on all those wikis except enwp. At one point he might have had blocks on multiple wikis, would that alone have justified a global ban? if so, then we might have lost a productive community member.

*2.A user from pt wiki who had intimidating behavior on wiki and was subsequently blocked on 2 wikis, one was a content project. Followed by a temporary block on Meta for intimidating behavior and than on another non-content project. His block on Meta at the time was turned into an indef. per request from a steward. This user also stalked several editors from pt wiki, publicly listing their names, pictures and private information off-wiki, even violating some European privacy laws. This person's block was finally turned into a global lock months later randomly by a steward after looking at the cross-wiki history. No one noticed.

*3.A user from nl wiki, who had admin rights and a very high standing within the community was found to be socking across projects. The issue went cross-wiki again, and things got more complicated. The the blocks went cross-wiki on commons, meta, nl wiki and nvwiki. Last appeal was from Langcom to only restore editing privileges on Meta which was rejected by the community.

Those are 3 very distinct cases of cross-wiki blocks. My questions are
*Where do we draw the threshold for global bans? 3, 4, 5 wikis?
*Will there be a deliberation process?
*opting-out might be necessary in cases of local arbcoms? how would that work?

These were complicated issues, the users went cross-wiki, a couple were really productive contributors and still are. Global lock without a proper procedure risks steam-rolling over their good contributions. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 08:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

:Just to answer quickly, with mostly just my personal thoughts...
::*1.A: The policy specifically says in two different places that just because a user is blocked/banned on two projects does not mean they must be banned. Simply that it's the minimum. So no, someone editing productively somewhere probably doesn't merit a global ban, in my opinion. In general, the point of requiring an RFC and cross-wiki notification is so that points like that would be brought up and unnecessary bans could be avoided.
::*2.A: Sounds to me like no one really objected to that lock, or else it would have been overturned. In any case, the process described currently says that a group discussion, cross-wiki notification, and a clear consensus is required before asking Stewards to make such a lock. So that case would not be really acceptable or ideal if this becomes a policy.
::*3.A: I don't really know in that case, but my personal opinion would be that it sounds like a global ban would be overkill and unnecessary if it's already being handled. A ban exists to prevent harm, so if it's being handled without a permanent ban, then there's no need for one.
:For your other questions:
::* ''Where do we draw the threshold for global bans? 3, 4, 5 wikis?'' The current version of the draft says two is the minimum threshold, but that just because there are two bans doesn't mean a global ban is required.
::* ''Will there be a deliberation process?'' The current version says that you can't have a global ban without an RFC and cross-wiki notifications, so yeah, there should be a deliberation process.
::* ''opting-out might be necessary in cases of local arbcoms? how would that work?'' If a local ArbCom wants to lift it's ban on an editor, then the global ban should probably just be overturned in favor of selective local bans/blocks. It's overcomplicated to retain a global ban but allow opt-outs. If someone is acting in good faith and is trustworthy enough that an ArbCom unbans/unblocks, then there shouldn't be a global ban in the first place.
:Anyway, I think there are some answers for your questions already other than the more complicated opt-out issue. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::It has already been demonstrated regarding Thekohser's account that a project can technically "opt out" by renaming the account and then renaming it back, thus "breaking" the global lock. Whether this is acceptable or not is another matter (Thekohser was not banned by consensus but through Founder action, so that is another matter all together). [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I completely disagree with setting 2 as a threshold for global bans. If so, Ottava would qualify for it, multiple times in the last year. I believe 3+ should be the ideal threshold, there are a lot of small projects where admins are trigger happy, two blocks are not that hard to accumulate in 5-6 years. I still think you need to clarify the details when it comes to local arbcom over-ruling the ban and how would the two work. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Hey hey hey, only -one- of those blocks was a ban. The others were just blocks. I'm not -that- awful. :P :) And by the way, about 50% of the admin here consider me global bannable. It is a shock to everyone that I'm still around. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 02:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I really don't want to set some arbitrary number, common sense should prevail. I don't want some rule to prevent beneficial action from being taken, as I could easily see this becoming (let's see, they've only been banned on two wikis, let's just wait for the third...) [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Heya Ottava, that's my point, if someone looks at one of those temporary blocks and considers a global ones, we might risk losing people for just being opinionated or local issues on much smaller or non-content projects. I would be much more satisfied with this on a case by case basis. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 03:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::To be honest, I expect the Wikis to ban people and global bans shouldn't be a problem. There is very little actual encyclopedia or anything like that. Instead, there is a culture and community that exists on its own. As any culture or community, they would want to get rid of those who interfere with that. Why not let them? It is kind of a farce to pretend otherwise. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 03:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
I thought about the example you gave you Theo -- local ArbCom deciding a local ban of a globally banned user wants to be overturned -- and I realized that the way the requirements for a global ban are formed means there is no way a local ArbCom could be unaware of a global ban in a way that wouldn't leave room for them to object if there is the possibility they would want to unban in the future. The current draft states that you ''must'' notify all local communities where the editor is active or been banned/indef blocked. If say, someone banned on English and Russian is up for a global ban, then both ArbComs could comment during the RFC and say that they don't think a permanent global ban is merited. If a global ban is actually necessary -- these are people who are so dangerous to Wikimedia communities that we agree they should not ever edit, anywhere -- then creating an opt-out for a community that had plenty of time to comment and object to a ban is overly bureaucractic. There shouldn't be a global ban in the first place for a user who is likely to ever be unbanned locally by an ArbCom. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 00:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
: There was a case like this in Russian Wikipedia. A user with a large contribution went wild and was blocked for vandalism, then banned. He went to French Wikipedia and somehow managed to get banned globally for vandalism. After a year, he asked the Arbcom in Russian Wikipedia for a clean start. It was clear that it was easier to either grant a clean start or to rename a local account (I am not sure what was done in the end) than to ask stewards to globally unban him. He was locally unblocked and, last time I checked, he was working fine.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] 19:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Global bans

2011-10-28T09:21:01Z

Tinz: /* Restarting the conversation on global bans */ re

Talk:Global bans

2011-10-28T01:31:24Z

Tinz: /* Restarting the conversation on global bans */ answer

Talk:Terms of use

2011-10-27T10:24:45Z

Tinz: /* Major problem with the new terms of use */ re

{{Archive box non-auto|[[Talk:Terms of use/Archives|Archive index]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-10-06|2011-10-06]], [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-10-11|2011-10-11]]}}
{{TOC right}}
==If you were wondering what this page is about...==
Below is a copy of the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2011-September/000238.html announcement] from the mailing lists by the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel:

----
Hi,

In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a
new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.

* You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use .
* You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.

Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation.

Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor:

* '''Security''': The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising.
*''' Roles and responsibilities''': We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.
* '''Community feedback''': With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes.
* '''Free Licensing''': We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors.
* '''Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues''': The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
* '''Other Legal Provisions''': We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability.

Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable.

Geoff

____________

'''Reasons for the New Terms of Use'''

In the below discussion, some folks have asked me to explain in more detail, beyond my email, why we need a user agreement, which, of course, I’m happy to do. To start, I want to underscore a couple of points. First, a user agreement should serve as a guide to new editors and readers (as well as the rest of the Community). It should help newbies understand the basic rules of the game and their responsibilities. It is only fair notice, and it reflects our commitment to transparency. When people understand the rules, when they understand their responsibilities, the experience is likely to be a better one for the reader and user as well as the Community. To be sure, not everyone reads the user agreement, but many do. And, when there are questions, it is always there as a reference to guide and advise.

Second, a lot of this falls into the category of “an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.” There is a reason that every other website of our size has a (much more extensive and shockingly one-sided) terms of use: a little bit of legal language can go a long way in keeping an organization out of court. Indeed, we see more extensive terms of use than our present one on websites that share values of openness and community. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

These terms of use are useful in preventing the frivolous lawsuits that could otherwise hit hard an organization’s budget; an issue that is especially relevant for a non-profit. Just because a lawsuit lacks basis doesn’t mean we don’t still have to hire a lawyer to go to court to defend us, and, if there’s one thing lawyers are known for, it’s that their costs add up fast.

Wikipedia and our other sites are really big now. This is something to rejoice and be proud of – you, as well as everyone who has contributed over the years, have done a great job building this amazing site while promoting an incredible mission! But being large means you have to protect yourself, your infrastructure, and your Community.

That said, let me take a stab at explaining some of the more specific reasons for the proposed terms of use:

1. A good description of our services (Sec. 1) reinforces to third parties, potential litigants, and courts what is a known and important fact about our operation: Wikimedia is a hosting site, entitled to legal immunity under U.S. and some foreign law. We constantly receive threats of lawsuits, but, after we explain our hosting site immunity, most of those threats go away. If we do go to litigation, and we sometimes do, courts are receptive to our hosting status position. The proposed language in the user agreement is not essential, but it can help persuade a foreign court that we are hosting content where the local law is unclear. In short, it reduces costs: We operate on a small budget, and every time we can persuade a lawyer not to sue us or a court to support us, that means more money to support the Community mission.

2. The user agreement helps new users see comprehensively the most important policies governing our site, like the Privacy Policy (Sec. 2), Board resolutions (Sec. 11), and Community policies (Sec. 11). It becomes more difficult for a user to claim ignorance about these essential guidelines when they are referenced in a user agreement.

3. A user agreement provides helpful notice to new users on issues that govern their very first edit. For example, a new user should know upfront that he or she is responsible for his or her edits (Sec. 1b). That is only fair. A new user should understand what basic behavior is not acceptable on the site (something that we are working to define right now through this discussion process)(Sec. 4). That helps both the user and the Community.

4. The prohibitions also are intended to assist the Community when it enforces its rules against unacceptable conduct (Sec. 4, 10). Indeed, for some of these prohibitions, such as long term abuse, senior members of the Community requested that we address this behavior as aggressively as possible; this user agreement is in partial response to that. Unacceptable conduct that is expressly called out in the user agreement provides backup for all the projects to enforce against violating users. And, if we were challenged in court, clearer rules in the user agreement would render these community actions even easier to defend.

5. The user agreement seeks to put in one place the essential parts of other legal or important documents on our site, many of which would be particularly hard to locate for newer or less familiar editors and readers. For example, the user agreement addresses potentially offensive material (Sec. 3a), non-professional advice (Sec. 3b), use of our trademarks (Sec. 6), and third party websites and resources (Sec. 9). See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking ; http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy .

6. With respect to technical situations like malware attacks on the site, we need to be ready to litigate if necessary. We facilitate that legal option by underscoring our boundaries in the user agreement for purposes of common law trespass and the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] (Sec. 4). We want to be in the best position to protect our infrastructure and pursue all legal avenues, and the user agreement advances those goals.

7. A user agreement should provide helpful information to ensure the experience is a positive one. We do that in the new proposed agreement. See Sec. 5 (telling users to keep their password secure); Sec. 8 (providing advice on how to handle DMCA takedown notices).

8. Like the present user agreement, we need to provide clear guidance on the licensing requirements (Sec. 7). With a new reiteration, we hope we employ even easier-to-understand language (though we could probably do better, and as with everything else, welcome your suggestions to improve it).

9. A user agreement allows us to gather in one place required legal notices and processes which help limit our legal liability, such as the [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html Digital Millennium Copyright Act] (DMCA)(Sec. 8).

10. The crown jewels for the Community and the Foundation are the Wikimedia trademarks. We need to be vigilant in this area, and the agreement puts all users on further notice that the trademarks may be used for only limited purposes that advance our mission (Sec. 6). Part of our ongoing legal responsibility as an organization is to safeguard our marks, and it is surprisingly easy for these trademarks to be lost due to obscure legal pitfalls. Our trademarks are there to protect users, the community, and the general populace by providing a clear method of identifying our services and goods so people are not misled by fraudulent impostors. The proposed user agreement furthers that aim.

11. There are good reasons to limit WMF liability in other ways (Sec. 13-16). WMF works off a limited budget consisting of valued donor money. $30 million sounds like a lot, but it really isn't for a website our size. As noted above, any wording that can persuade a lawyer not to file a lawsuit, saves donors' money - money that can be reinvested to assist the Community in forwarding the Wikimedia movement. I don't want to waste it on outside lawyers.

The above is only a partial list on the reasons for the proposed terms of use, but I hope you find it useful. As I have said below, in the end, this is intended to be a Community document, reflecting its values while reasonably protecting the Foundation. I encourage your feedback and suggestions and thank everyone who has participated so far.

[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 01:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

____________

:As Geoff states above, your comments and questions are definitely desired here, and we'll do our best to answer in a timely fashion. Thanks, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
: I have been impressed by and grateful for the feedback and comments to date. Many comments - albeit challenging - have been quite constructive. I firmly believe that we must have a document that works for the Community, so I believe that, in putting together the next draft, we need to be flexible. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
::"In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement." In keeping with the new WMF policy of making all the decisions, we decided we do, and are now going to consult the community about the detail only.
::Has ''nothing'' been learned from the image filter fiasco? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:24 10 September 2011 (GMT).
:::"Be Bold" ? :-) -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 10:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
::: I hear your points, but, to be honest, it is hard to have a discussion about a user agreement without proposing a draft. This version - as hard as it may be to believe - is actually not as legalistic as other user agreements, though I now see room for improvements based on the comments. I may be wrong but I also see the draft as serving as a tool to facilitate the discussion about a number of points. We may decide to delete certain provisions because they are too controversial or not right for now, but I still think that the discussion they engender is useful for thinking about the issues. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::That leaving real legal work to a bunch of teenagers and wikilawyers is a bad idea? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Undoubtedly. I expect the ''Encyclopedia Judeica'' used professionals when they put the prohibition about "cancelbots" in their ToS. {{Smiley}}
::::But certainly there is no harm in having a qualified professional produce the actual document, and advise as to the content. However the community (or "teenagers and wikilawyers" as you so charmingly call us - I regret I am not the former and I hope I am not the latter) should be capable of producing the requirements spec. If anyone can tell me the practical use of :
::::* "Using the Services in a manner that is inconsistent with any and all applicable laws and regulations."
::::I would be most interested. It is basically like a card game that has a rule saying "no cheating". If that rule is needed then there is another one needed saying "No breaking the rule about no cheating". And so forth. Really we need to decide what the purpose or purposes of the ToS are and build them on that basis, not just put in as many clauses as we can that look good. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 01:27 14 September 2011 (GMT).
::::I think this is a fair point, but here is my view: A list of prohibitions in one spot can be helpful. Many users have not thought through all the possible legal ramifications of their actions, so users may see listed improper conduct - like copyright infringement - and think twice about what they are doing. A cut-and-paste of the list may also be helpful in educating users who ask questions about behavior on the site. Finally, the list of prohibitions in the agreement is helpful legally in making clear to others - including law enforcement, rights owners, regulators, etc. - that we do not support certain activity on our site. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::It looks like a basic catch-all: We will ban you if you break the law, even if the specific example of lawbreaking isn't mentioned above. To give two examples, I see nothing here about prohibiting behaviors that break the insider trading laws or prohibiting you from looking at pictures on Commons while a court has banned you from using the Internet at all, but either of these behaviors might result in the WMF blocking your access to the site. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Why should leaving real legal work to a bunch of teenagers and wikilawyers be a bad idea? After all, what the WMF should be about is letting a bunch of random people, including teenagers and wikilawyers, write an encyclopedia, a dictionary and a bunch of other things. As everybody knows (remember Nupedia or Citizendium?) it is better to leave this to the experts, and using an open wiki model can't possibly work. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::I actually agree with this. I think the Community understands the site better than anyone. Hopefully this is an effort to get the expertise of the "teenagers and wikilawyers." One thing I have learned since joining Wikimedia: The Community is a pretty amazing law firm - really smart people. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

== Is this enforceable? ==

I asked this on foundation-l, but I probably should ask it here: To what extent are terms of use like this actually meaningful? Are there any precedents of them being upheld in court? If so, in what
jurisdictions? Does using a website really constitute acceptance of a contract that everyone knows you haven't read?

If you're not actually going to be able to do anything with these terms of use, then we shouldn't have any.
--[[User:Tango|Tango]] 12:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, though I have followed legal issues. The questions you ask are complicated legal ones, where a full answer would be very detailed and necessitate being familiar with [http://www.licensing-contracts.org/cases_detail.htm many court cases]. But a short answer would be "Yes, at least enough to be problematic". Perhaps the scariest aspect is the recent legal issue concerning making terms of service violations into criminal matters. See, for example, the [http://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew Lori Drew case] - "Federal prosecutors claim that Drew broke federal law by violating MySpace's terms of service ...". Given what Wikimedia Foundation counsel has done in the past - EFF said this, not me - [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- "Wikipedia Threatens Artists for Fair Use"] with [http://wikipediaart.org/legal-history/ nasty legal threats], the sort of threatening WMF lawyering which could be done here is very disturbing (note, please don't reply about good faith - this is simple prudence). -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 12:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

::Hm, whatever happened to "not a bureaucracy"? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:08 10 September 2011 (GMT).

::User agreement are enforceable. Courts will look at a number of factors. Here is a subset of cases that address the issue:

:::Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Services, Inc., 2005 WL 756610, at *2 (N.D. Cal Apr. 1, 2005) (finding that assent to terms is imputed where defendant repeatedly accessed web page displaying notice of “Terms of Use” in underlined, highlighted text that indicated hyperlink to actual terms).

:::Burcham v. Expedia, Inc., 2009 WL 586513, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2009) (holding that express assent to terms not required where notice of terms is “immediately visible” to users)

:::Major v. McCallister, 202 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (upholding “browsewrap” agreement
:::where each web page contained “immediately visible notice of existence of license terms” and
:::a hyperlink to those terms)

:::Snap-on Business Solutions Inc. v. O'Neil & Associates, Inc., 708 F. Supp.2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (denying summary judgment where reasonable jury could find that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of terms and conditions placed on website defendant accessed to submit usernames and passwords)

::[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks for those. I'm not entirely clear on legal citation conventions, but I think those are all US cases. What about the rest of the world? Just as the WMF doesn't really need to worry about lawsuits in non-US jurisdictions, non-US users don't really need to worry about lawsuits in the US. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 13:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Right Tango. I will post some international opinions as well. Apologies for the delay. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::::: The short answer is that online user agreements are enforceable internationally (which comports with my experience as an internet lawyer in Europe as well as advice received from outside international counsel). Generally speaking, in civil law countries, proposal and acceptance do not require a particular form, therefore a contract may also be concluded online. That said, courts will look at different factors. Here are some international cases upholding online agreements:
::::::Italy
:::::::Court of Turin, Punto Affari S.r.l. vs eBay Europe Sàrl, dated March 18, 2011;
:::::::Court of Rome, Onori vs eBay Italia S.r.l. and eBay International AG, dated July 7, 2009;
:::::::Court of Naples, Ponticello vs eBay International AG, dated March 2, 2009;
:::::::Court of Catania, Ariti vs eBay Italia S.r.l., dated December 12, 2008
::::::France
:::::::Tribunal d'instance de Nîmes, dated January 4, 2011, Marilyn S. vs. Price Minister, Lionel M;
:::::::Juridiction de proximité de Castelsarrasin, dated January 13, 2011, Frederic L. vs. Price Minister.
::::::Germany
:::::::BGH, NJW 2006, 2976 on the inclusion of T&Cs in a contract made online.
::::::[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 16:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

==Dispute resolution==
Currently we are handling this discussion in a somewhat technical way, trying to determine what various people want this page to mean and the legal and non-legal messages that we want it to convey. Hopefully that will suffice and eventually a document will emerge that we are all happy with. I know I won't really be able to simplify the page to "Be nice, or we reserve the right to be nasty" but I'm willing to compromise, and I hope everyone else is as well. However it is possible that some of our disputes here will not be about how we phrase this page in a way that is equally clear, succinct, friendly and legally valid. There may be some disputes here where Geoff has been instructed by the Foundation to have these terms contain something even though some editors object. When and if that happens, what is the best way to escalate matters? Should we escalate to Sue Gardner, or to a trustee, or conduct a poll on Meta, or something else? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 12:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

:If the Board has issued orders to do X (or at least something approximating X), then a poll on Meta will be basically useless: no poll changes the Board's orders. Purely from the "normal organization" perspective, the useful choices for getting a directive from the Board (or, more likely, its interpretation and application) changed are:
:# Whoever's doing the work (i.e., Geoff)
:# Whoever that person reports to (i.e., Sue)
:# The Board (whom one contacts through its Secretary).
:As a practical matter (again, purely from the "normal organization" perspective), the further down the list you have to go, the more likely it is that the person has the power to do what you want, but the less likely it is that s/he'll agree to it. As a result, the best approach is to start at the top of the list and proceed further only if necessary. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 19:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
::Interesting opinion, I wonder what the WMF thinks. I think a better option is to identify the board member who is championing a particular change and talk to them. I was hoping that if there are changes that the Foundation has requested which will transfer certain risks from the Foundation to the volunteers, the relevant Board member would step forward. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 19:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

== "The community is the reason" ==

Geoff, I've only got a minute today, but I think you've got a problem with this paragraph:

<blockquote>Importantly, the community - the network of users who are constantly building the Projects - are the reason we have this unique website. The community contributes to and governs our sites. It has primary responsibility for drafting and enforcing policies on their Projects. This user agreement seeks to simply complement these policies and their enforcement and to support the community as it continues to construct this unprecedented respository of free knowledge.</blockquote>

Last I checked, §501(c)(3) did not list "having a community" as a reason for non-profit status or activities. The WMF's purpose is education ("to collect, develop, and disseminate knowledge"). You don't want the IRS to have any excuse at all to define these websites as Unrelated Business. These websites exist—and the community is fostered and supported here—because the Board believes that these websites and this community support leads to education. The community is a means, not an end. (There are a couple of good law firms in SF that specialize in non-profit law if you want a professional opinion.)

Also, the grammar is wrong: "the community is", not "the community are".

The facts are wrong, too: this agreement does not "seek[s] to simply complement these policies". The TOS is primary, and the policies are required to complement it, not the other way around. The WMF is banning child porn and harassment and copyright violations, full stop, no matter what any community at any project chooses to put in its policies. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
: Thanks much WhatamIdoing. I'm trying to respond to the feedback that the community must be acknowledged as primarily in charge of policies and enforcement. If you had the time, I would greatly appreciate your drafting some language that accurately captures that concept. Many thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This page tells you about the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), our services, our
relationship to you as a user, and the rights and responsibilities that guide us
both.

WMF host an incredible quantity of informational content, all of which is
contributed and made possible by volunteers like yourself. The WMF do not
contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exception of policies like
these Terms of Use or legal compliance for DMCA notices). Editorial control is in
the hands of various Projects. The largest of our projects is Wikipedia but WMF host
a number of other project too, each with slightly different obejctives and ways of
working. Each project has a team of volunteers who work together to create and
manage the content on those projects and you are welcome to join these teams and
work with them to improve these projects. The WMF
merely hosts the projects. Additionally, because the WMF are dedicated to making
content freely accessible to the public, we generally require that all content you
contribute is available under a free license or in the public domain.

Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions,
edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States and of
your home country. This means it is important that you use caution when posting
content. In light of this responsibility, we have some rules about what you cannot
post, most of which is either for your own protection or for the protection of other
users like yourself. Please keep in mind that the content we host is for general
informational purposes only, so if you need expert advice for a particular question
(such as medical, legal, or financial issues), you should seek the help of a
licensed professional. We also include other important notices and disclaimers, so
please read the entire agreement.

In a nutshell: The WMF provides websites where groups of volunteers can create
useful content for anyone to read and use. You are welcome to join these volunteers
to help in these projects but you should follow the policies of the individual
projects. The WMF merely hosts this content and if any part of the content is
against the law then the responsibility lies with the contributor of that content
and not with the WMF or the other contributors.

:::As we can't edit the original I've posted the '''Overview''' above for editting here.
:::My comments:
:::In Wikipedia the Overview is included in the lead section above the table of contents. I think that is worth doing here.
:::When you start a sentence "In a nutshell" don't spend the next sentence telling what the terms of Use are for - go straight to a summary of the terms.
:::You define the community as the people who contribute content and state the WMF is here for them. This is a common misconception which the TOU should correct.
:::*As a charity the WMF is here to provide content to readers.
:::*The people who contribute content are here create and curate content for those readers.
:::*The WMF hosts projects to distribute the content created to the readers
:::*The WMF also hosts projects to enable the contributors to collaborate to create new content and manage the projects. (In the case of the MediaWiki software project the creation and the consumption are via different sites)
:::*Republishers help the WMF in the distribution task. When they improve the content they also help the content creation task.
:::This is not an '''Agreement'''. It applies whether the readers agrees or not.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::This is all really helpful. Incorporating the feedback is taking longer than I anticipated, but I will get to this shortly. Thank you! [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 01:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Overview editted again.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 22:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::I think I have captured the spirit of the above suggestions. I took out the "nutshell" paragraph since it appeared repetitive. Many thanks! [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 19:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

:Geoff, I'd leave it out altogether, but there are several things that I think could be safely said, if the goal is to soothe ruffled feathers among people who are just now discovering that they don't own their favorite projects. Among them, you could declare the community of contributors to be a "critical" means through which the Board is accomplishing its educational goals, and its activities are the "primary" method for developing and applying detailed standards for each project, as embodied in their content, behavioral, and other policies. But since the best-case scenario is that this statement has no actual effect, then I'd personally leave it out entirely. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 21:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::This one is a little difficult for me. The above feedback makes clear that we need to underscore the critical role of the community (as opposed to the WMF). I believe that is a valid point for obvious reasons, and I think we need to capture it in the agreement. My couple of attempts appear somewhat subpar, so I remain interested in proposed language or additional proposed wordsmithing that we believe would have community consensus. In the meantime, if OK with everyone, I would like to leave this thread open a little longer to hear views and proposals. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::WhatamIdoing - I definitely understand your point and appreciate it. However, it is not uncommon in contracts to include some limited sentences that describe the environment or facts surrounding the agreement. I would put these comments in that category, and, as I have said, I think it appropriate and wise to acknowledge the principal and important role of the community. I'm still open to comments, but I'm leaning towards leaving this language in. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 22:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

::::If you want something like that, then you might try modifying the original text along these lines:
::::<blockquote>The community—the network of users who are constantly building and using the Projects—are the principal means through which the Foundation is achieving its fundamental educational goals. The community contributes to and helps govern our sites. It has the critical responsibility of creating and enforcing policies on Projects that support and complement this user agreement, the Foundation's policies, and the Foundation's purpose in constructing these unprecedented respositories of free knowledge.</blockquote>
::::You get lots of nice-sounding words, it's all true, it's all in the context of achieving a 501(c)(3)-authorized charitable purpose, and it presents an accurate relationship to the WMF. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::WhatamIdoing, to be honest, I tend to like the language that we have already, but I have taken the liberty of lifting some of your prose and putting it in the "Overview" section. I liked its flow, and it introduces the concept of the community. I'm not sure you will be satisfied though, since I left in the other language. Given the feedback from a number of sources, I do want to emphasize the importance of the community since it takes primary responsibility on policy creation and enforcement. Hopefully this is not a deal breaker for you. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 15:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::Basically, there are no deal-breakers for me. I have never been under the illusion that I control the Foundation. You may freely accept or reject any suggestion I make. In the end, the Board will approve whatever TOU it chooses to approve, and—as a part of the community—my only true choice will be to like it or lump it. They are extremely unlikely to approve anything so irrational that I would feel compelled to stop contributing. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Actually, you have had excellent ideas here, and, because of you, this is a better document. I know you are greatly respected in the community, so I have quite a bit to learn from you. If you think I'm too far off base, let me know. I trust your instincts and wisdom here. Many thanks again. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

----
"The community are" is ordinary British English... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
::Yea, but it looks terrible. [[User:Brya|Brya]] 09:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
----
:I agree that the parts on "community" are problematic. It may sound very fine to say "The community has the critical responsibility of creating and enforcing policies on Projects." but this is not something that is effected here. If the WMF board obligates the community to create and enforce policies, it will first have to define (and create) the judicial body that is this "community" and then enter into legal agreements with this body. At the moment there is not anything that can be pointed to as being this "community", having rights and duties. For example the Dutch Wikipedia does not have a NOR-policy page (just about the most basic thing a Wikipedia should have) and it will never have one, unless the WMF creates one or finds somebody it can obligate into creating one.

: The phrase "submitted community content" is highly mystifying. As a user I have a responsibility for what I write and contribute ("my content"), I have no responsibility for what I did not write. Who is this community that wrote this content, and where can he be sued?

:"and we expect you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community and to act in good faith and cooperate with others for the success of the shared Project." is terribly vague. Is this intended to give a legal base to the often-heard "you have made an edit on Wikipedia and thereby you have sold your soul in slavery"? I think this won't even begin to fly unless it is going to be specified how much of a transfer of money, time, knowledge, etc the "new community member" has contracted to in making an edit. How much does it cost to make a Wikipedia edit? How long a period of indenture has the "contibutor" let himself be trapped into?

:I could go on, but I hope to have made the point that a TOU should be between the individual who agrees to use the site and the body that is legally responsible for the site (the WMF). This mystical "community" (different with everybody who uses the word) that is supposed to have unspecified rights and duties should first be regulated in a separate agreement between the WMF and that "community". [[User:Brya|Brya]] 09:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== Concerns with the present text ==
{{resolved}}
{{collapse top}}
Hi Geoff, I read over the present text and have a few small points of feedback:

# I'm concerned that some points (such as "Modifications or additions to material that you re-use") attempt to both duplicate and augment other legal documents (CC-BY-SA license terms), and accidentally do so in a subtly incompatible way. The requirement that "you agree to clearly indicate that the original work has been modified" is not part of CC-BY-SA, as far as I know, and would result in a new augmented license that prevents us from importing CC-BY-SA content from third parties who have not agreed to the Terms of Use (indeed we already have much content of this sort, so such an augmentation is probably illegal). I would instead specify merely that reusers of textual content must comply with the CC-BY-SA license (or, if you really want, that derivative works of textual content should be licensed as described in the CC-BY-SA license). — [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] {{#if:00:52, 8 October 2011| (00:52, 8 October 2011),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)
#:This is taken from our [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use present terms of use] ("If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified. If you are re-using the page in a wiki, for example, indicating this in the page history is sufficient."). So we have been living with this for some time. And I believe it is consistent with the license: take a look at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode Section 4(c)]("in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author")).[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 05:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
# The term "vandalism" is Wikipedia jargon and should not be used in this document. — [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] {{#if:00:52, 8 October 2011| (00:52, 8 October 2011),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)
#:I would leave it to local Projects to define the term for enforcement purposes if there was a need. It is a serious problem for our admins, so I think we need to mention it in the TOS. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 05:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
# I'm concerned that some terms extend needlessly beyond what is legally required - for example forbidding "exploiting anyone under the age of 18 in a sexual, violent, or other manner," even when both users are located in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is lower than 18, or when both users are under 18. Better to restrict this to things that are actually illegal. — [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] {{#if:00:52, 8 October 2011| (00:52, 8 October 2011),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)
#::I see your point, and others have issues with this provision. I have redrafted with tighter language. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 05:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::I disagree with you both. The Law forbids you from acting this way towards under 18's. We hold all our editors to a much higher standard. We require them to be civil and to work cooperatively with all other editors. We require them to act in good faith and to assume good faith in other editors. This is what the TOU should say.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::I am happy to put language like that into the TOU, though I have read some feedback debating some nuances of the idea. Filceolaire, is it possible for you to draft a sentence that you believe will have community acceptance? If so, I will include it in this draft. Thanks again for the feedback. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::OK. Here is my draft for the opening paragraph of the '''Refraining from certain activities''' section:
#:::::'''The projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation only exist because of the vibrant community of users like you who work together to write, edit and curate the content. We happily welcome your participation in this community but we require you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community and to act in good faith and cooperate with others for the success of their project.
#:::::'''Below are listed certain activities, whether legal or illegal, which may be harmful to other users or which may also subject you to liability. For your own protection and for that of other users, you may not engage in such activities on our sites. This list is however not comprehensive. Any incivility or bad faith editing, working against the ends of the project, may get you banned from editing some or all of our sites. '''--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::::Great. I like it. I wordsmithed a bit and but part of the above paragraph at the bottom of Section 4, but I think I captured your points. Let me know if you disagree. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::::That looks OK except putting the paragraph at the end and starting with "In addition" makes it look like the list above it is the important bit and the ban on Incivility and Bad Faith is an afterthought. If we change "In addition, any" to "The list above is not comprehensive. Any" then I think that makes it clear which is the basic rule and which are illustrative examples.
#:::::::I would rather all sections start with a general statement of policy and what is permitted, before you start the list of what is banned.
#:::::::and I still think sections for different types of user, including Republishers and Projects, would be better than the current layout. --[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I have modified the sentence in Section 4 to read: ''We happily welcome your participation in this community, but we expect you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community and to act in good faith and cooperate with others for the success of the shared Project.'' I have deleted this sentence: ''Any incivility, bad faith editing, or working against the ends of the project, as defined by local Projects, may result in a community ban from editing some or all of our sites.'' I have done so given the discussion in "Politeness and civility." Indeed, the authority of the community to ban such conduct is understood in Section 10, where we stated: ''As noted, authorized members of the Wikimedia community may also take action according to the community policies of individual Projects, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, and/or banning users who violate those policies.'' I believe that Filceolaire is addressing the reorganization issue with the community under the discussion topic of "Terms of Use/Remixed". [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
# Some terms are extremely broad - for example prohibiting knowingly posting content that is merely "misleading" - what editor has ''not'' done this? Many productive contributors have also inadvertently engaged in copyright infringement (for example by paraphrasing too closely, or erroneously assessing the public domain status of a document). Similarly "engaging in automated uses of the site that are [...] disruptive of the services" or "inundating [...] with communications [...] that suggests no serious intent to use the Project website for its stated purpose" could describe a multitude of legitimate uses (e.g. someone may yet invent a novel use for the website that is not among its "stated purposes" but well within the ambit of its mission). In all these cases, I would generally want to see the community deal with the issue, rather than the Foundation. — [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] {{#if:00:52, 8 October 2011| (00:52, 8 October 2011),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)
#:I took out the term "misleading"; your point is well taken there. Not so sure about the infringment argument: It is highly unlikely that we would take enforcement action against a user for a single inadvertent infringement, but we should be allowed to delete the infringing contribution. The primary purpose of the list in Section 4 is to inform people about conduct that they should avoid. I would leave the "inundation" clause as is because it applies only when there is imminent harm to the systems (which WMF is charged with managing); if there is some new purpose, WMF should be consulted so it could prepare its systems for that new purpose. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
# The language "mandatory policies and guidelines" is quite peculiar - at least on En, no guideline is mandatory. Again, I would want to see violations of such policy dealt with by the community, particularly in cases where it is the policy that requires correction. Most perplexingly, it is possible for someone to temporarily make something a policy by merely adding the policy tag to it or to directly edit most policy pages (until they are reverted) - would anyone who violates such a modified policy in the meantime be liable for a contract violation? The open-ended nature of this clause, which effectively extends the terms of use to embrace a huge array of dynamically shifting and openly editable documents, is deeply disturbing to me. — [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] {{#if:00:52, 8 October 2011| (00:52, 8 October 2011),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)
#:I included the word "mandatory" to limit the scope of the sentence; I believe Projects may enforce mandatory policies if they chose. (But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) If a policy is not "mandatory," it is not included within the scope of the sentence. Given your feedback, I will take out the word "guidelines." [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] {{#if:00:52, 8 October 2011| (00:52, 8 October 2011),|,}} — (continues after insertion below.)
#::With regard to [//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_use&curid=659495&diff=2973653&oldid=2973592 this edit], I don't see how it's useful: the point is the "mandatory" part, not how the mandatory rule is called. The distinction policy vs. guideline is not clear in all projects (especially non-English language ones), and a "guideline" can be mandatory. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 08:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::Thanks,Nemo. If we have mandatory guidelines, I'm inclined to put it back in. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 12:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
#:::::My main concern here was actually not limiting it to mandatory community rules, but the idea that a legal contract is effectively encompassing an enormous, dynamic, and poorly-defined set of external documents. A request to follow policies seems acceptable, but the idea of being legally liable for violating a policy that you happen to not know of, even if it lacked consensus and was promptly reverted, seems to fly in the face of the Ignore All Rules pillar and common sense. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 03:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
#::::::I think this comment is important, and goes far beyond this particular point because it's not only a matter of internal community documents but also laws: ''ignorantia legibus non excusat'', but at least one would like to know what jurisdiction is supposed to be followed (see also your point 3 above). With regard to mandatory policies/guidelines, "mandatory" is a tricky adjective in itself. We can have a policy which says "this part of an article must look like this", but it doesn't mean "every user must do it this way", it just means that someone will have to fix it some day if it's not as it should be (and that the fix shouldn't be reverted or cause an edit war and such); in other words, acting in good faith for the good of the project as defined by the project itself is the point. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's probably other stuff but that's what I have so far. Comments welcome. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 00:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
:Great comments. Thanks.[[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

::Dcoetzee, at en.wiki, it is [[:en:WP:IAR|official community policy]] that even policies are not mandatory. But there are many practices described in all sorts of advice pages that are mandatory in practice. [[:en:WP:External links]] is "just" a guideline, but what it says at ELNEVER #2 about never adding links to blacklisted websites is absolutely mandatory, without exception, and instantly enforced by the software. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 21:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually, the blacklist is very easy to get around, though I only recall IARing it once, for a discussion on Jimbo Wales' talk page where Encyclopedia Dramatica had a better article than ours. ;) (they really did, too - something about Internet culture, can't remember what it was now...) [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

::::If you can get a functional link (not just plain text like "http www badsite com") saved onto a page, then I'm sure that the devs will want to hear from you. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I believe that links to Encyclopedia Dramatica should be backed by consensus; not many users will find Ignore All Rules as a satisfactory justification. [[:en:Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica#Providing_closure_for_the_straw_poll]] is an example of consensus-building in progress. Discussions such as that will result in fewer revert wars. If the discussion results in consensus for a link, I'll tell someone at [[:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist]] about that consensus and have add encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page to the whitelist. Since ''"Probing, scanning, or testing the vulnerability of any of our technical systems or networks without authorization"'' will be prohibited under these new Terms of use, anyone wishing to test an exploit should do it on a non-Wikimedia wiki instead. ShoutWiki.com, BluWiki.com, and Wikkii.com use the SpamBlacklist extension, but ShoutWiki is currently locked. Wnt [http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/index.php?title=Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=54459 described an exploit] on ED, and [http://test.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User:Michaeldsuarez&oldid=1297&action=edit it works] to a degree. I say "to a degree" since the page becomes virtually locked from editing until the link is broken. One could get around that by reversing Wnt's "Step 3" in order to break the link, revising the page while the link is broken, and then repeating Wnt's "Step 3" in order to restore the link, but they would be a pain in the ass for most people. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Now here's a problem: "probing, scanning, or testing the vulnerability of a network" to me sounded clearly like a prohibition on hacking into accounts, not evading a blacklist. This is the problem with ''all'' these new WMF policies - they have the ''force'' of policy (or more so) but they don't have a long thought out Wiki page describing what each one of them ''mean''. P.S. The next editor in line had no trouble editing afterward, at least last year. (At least on Wikipedia, no idea about elsewhere) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=368054580] Maybe they upgraded something? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks to all for your feedback. In response to the discussion about "mandatory policies and guidelines," I have deleted the sentence in question entirely. I believe that a number of the above arguments are convincing that the sentence may confuse or misrepresent. I do want to make sure we recognize the authority of community policies, but I think we make that clear in Section 10, where we say: ''Authorized members of the Wikimedia community may also take action according to the community policies of individual Projects, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, and/or banning users who violate those policies.'' I believe this solution works, given the above discussion, but please let me know if I have it wrong. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. [[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 22:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

== Questions about moving enforcement from community to Foundation ==
{{resolved}}
{{collapse top}}
# How many "especially problematic" users exhibiting "significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior" requiring more than community enforcement have there been so far?
# Some examples would be helpful for understanding why this is supposedly necessary. Please list some.
# In particular, is this targeted at Greg Kohs?
# What will happen if the community and the Foundation disagree about enforcement; in particular when the Foundation wants enforcement but the community doesn't?
# How much money and manpower will the Foundation devote to enforcement?
# What checks and balances will be used to temper Foundation enforcement?
# Are there any examples of enforcement actions that the community could not or would not take, but the Foundation wanted to take?
# What steps will be taken to ensure that enforcement will not be used to counter legitimate criticism?
[[User:Dualus|Dualus]] 12:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:I've taken the liberty of numbering your questions, so that you can get responses without people wondering who asked the questions in the first place. Here are my comments:
:# I could name half a dozen off hand
:# But I can't imagine that such a list would be anything other than needlessly embarrassing to the guilty. In particular, long-term abuse by disruptive editors with a "fan club" (a noisy minority of editors screaming about, say, the disruptive person's "constitutional right" to be a jerk online) that result in community paralysis rather than community decision is a problem that might be more cleanly handled by the WMF. Personally, I hope that this will mean more effort at abuse response, e.g., reporting persistent socks to their ISPs. I seriously doubt that they'll want to bother with it, though.
:# Greg ''isn't'' on my list
:# The Foundation wins. Always. This is hard to believe, but the fact is that if the Foundation ''really'' wants someone banned, then the Foundation is 100% able to make it happen. They own all the buttons. If the devs decide that people whose IP addresses contain too many ones in them aren't allowed to edit, then that's how it will be. We hope that there will never be a serious disagreement, but the fact is that they have both the legal right and the practical power to both make and enforce even the most arbitrary of decisions. The reality is that this is a private website, not a public street.
:# I expect the answer will be "very little", i.e., approximately as much as they do now.
:# In theory, there are no checks and balances (See "The Foundation wins. Always." above). In practice, the Foundation has way the heck more important things to do, bothering with enforcement is expensive (as is processing complaints about enforcement), and they want the community to be happy and productive, so I doubt that we will spend much time wishing for ways to restrain them. We're more likely to be wishing for them to be more active.
:# The Foundation has always engaged in [[:en:WP:OFFICE]] actions. Although there have occasionally been some initial complaints, so far as I know, the community has always agreed with the Foundation in the end (occasionally involving a few compromises), so the track record shows something more like the community not taking action because it didn't know about the problem in the first place (e.g., the WMF received a direct complaint about libel on an obscure page) or the WMF simply being quicker to deal with the problem, rather than because the community did not actually want the action taken.
:# None. The TOS technically permits the WMF to be as arbitrary, ham-fisted, and stupid as they happen to feel like being. At some level, you're going to have to trust the Foundation. The Foundation has no legal obligation to encourage legitimate and/or allegedly legitimate criticism, and their incentive to permit it is only their hope of being able to improve by it—which does seem to be a cultural value in the organization, and you might notice that they've ''always'' had the power to suppress criticism, but they have not chosen to use it. Why should they change that now? Also, if they screw up too badly, the community will quit and they'll be stuck with an unmanageable mess. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I've taken similar liberties with the numbering. So, let me add:
:::9. Is the Foundation willing to take steps to ensure that their enforcement actions will not be contrary to community desires (perhaps by community review, excepting "oversight" actions where deletions must be hidden to preserve privacy) or arbitrary (perhaps by explicit definition and examples of what constitutes "especially problematic users" and "significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior"), or counter to legitimate criticism (perhaps by explicit exemption of any critiques of Foundation actions, staff, publications, and practices)? [[User:Dualus|Dualus]] 18:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Even if the language states that legally the Foundation can do what it likes I would like the TOU to also state it has always been WMF policy that the Foundation will consult with affected communities, after the action if neccessary, before if possible and the policy will be reviewed by the board if required. The board is probably the place for the final say (short of a fork).--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 19:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::No matter what the TOS does or doesn't say, '''all''' policies and '''all''' actions by any staff member are subject to review (and possible repudiation) by the Board. That's part of what it means for the Board to be in charge.
:::::Dualus, I have no idea what the answer to your new #9 is. I assume that you are less interested in the practical existence of such steps and the long-standing and rather obvious fact that they do this, and more interested in a written claim that such steps do and will exist.
:::::One thing you might like to consider is how you define "community". Most experienced editors define it as "other active editors like me". The WMF often defines it as "everyone who uses our website, which is 99% non-editor readers." [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. [[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

== linking is still not a crime ==
{{resolved}}
{{collapse top}}
I raised this earlier at [[Talk:Terms_of_use/Archives/2011-10-06#linking_is_not_a_crime]], which was marked as resolved for some strange reason.

Originally it was:
:"Linking to material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation"

It is now:
:"Linking to third party sites when such linking violates applicable law"

That change resolves some of the problem, however it is ignoring the elephant in the room. Wikimedia pages still contain the 'illegal' information. That the TOS says were allowed to link to these wiki pages doesnt make them any less illegal. I personally dont think we need the AACS key on the Wikipedia page, but consensus is that we do. This is partly because it is extremely difficult to ''not'' include, unless we disregard the notability policy and also lock every possible redirect and ban anyone who invents new ways to encode it. There are laws across the globe which the internet pretends doesn't exist, and the law doesnt care to enforce (until politics comes into it). Wikimedia content occasionally conflicts with court gag orders, but the community is able to deal with these situations without this item in the terms of use. (e.g. [[w:Baby P]]) We need good editors; not censorship. I can provide a long list of legally problematic pages if you want ... ;-)

However the change above does not resolve the problem for the external links, for which I provided examples in the earlier discussion. There ''are'' US laws which Wikipedia violates already (DMCA, contributory infringement).

The current wording goes further than compliance with DMCA, and any other law which may have some similar linking/contributory element. The current wording supports WMF-banning people when a DMCA request is received, complied with and not contested. That's chilling.

If this TOS item is retained, the editors that posted 'illegal' links, and support the inclusion of them, will need to be banned. The editors that create pages about notable 'illegal' websites will need to be banned if they include a link to the website. etc.

''Please'' remove this item from the TOS, or provide a very good reason to justify it. If we understand why the WMF believes it needs to be in here, maybe we can help craft a wording that doesnt support censorship. If it is to stop links to malware and child porn sites (as [[user:WhatamIdoing]]'s suggested last time), there are more effective ways to codify them as unacceptable behaviours without creating a tool to censor the project.
[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 11:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:Not addressing the issue beyond your confusion about its being marked resolved, threads have been marked resolved as Geoff has read and considered them and either did or did not see the need for action. That particular thread [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terms_of_use&oldid=2968482#linking_is_not_a_crime sat on this page for several days with a note inviting people to open a new conversation if they had outstanding concerns] and, when no further input was provided, it was archived. This is likely to be our ongoing practice when Geoff has put dedicated time into review, and particularly when a section sits without activity for weeks. :) The purpose is to make it clear to him what remains for him to review as he attempts to incorporate community feedback and to reduce the likelihood that, as might have happened here, somebody will return much later and not realize that Geoff (believing it has been abandoned) is no longer following the thread. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 12:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:: Thanks for your input John. Based on your feedback and some concern of others, I have deleted the provision as causing too much confusion over its applicability. If there is an egregious illegal linking - such as links to child pornography sites - we may remove the link as a general violation of the law. (BTW I don't necessarily agree that Wikipedia violates the DMCA and contributory infringement laws, but we can discuss that another time.) I think this addresses your concern. Thanks again. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 13:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. [[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 11:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks. The Canadian courts have upheld the principle that linking is not a crime. [http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1072362--supreme-court-ruling-big-victory-for-internet-freedom][http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hyperlinking-doesnt-constitute-defamation-supreme-court-rules/article2206256/] [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 23:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::Note, that's libel/defamation, and US law is similar on that point if not stronger. But it doesn't say anything about copyright or DMCA issues, which are treated differently (disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied these topics) -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::The above confirms the decision to delete the specific language about linking. Thanks for the feedback on that. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 15:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

==[[Terms of Use/Remixed]]==
I've had a go at reorganising this by type of user. First is [[Terms of Use/Readers]]. All I've done is take the current TOU and deleted anything that doesn't apply to readers.

Anyone think this is worth pursuing? Next task is to put back all the stuff related to editors in the next section.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 17:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:That looks like a good conceptual division, except ... I see you have a small section "Authors, Editors and Content contributors" followed by another section "Republishing and Distributing our Content". A person reading this might think or say he thought that the later sections - important things such as disclaiming liability for the actions of third parties - were directed only at authors and editors. While the Wiki headings are very good for encyclopedic purposes, I'm not sure that I'd trust them to work out for you in this situation. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 21:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::Guess that needs an extra sentence to make it clear.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Done.I've added the content to the [[Terms of Use/Remixed#Authors, Editors and Content contributors]] and the [[Terms of Use/Remixed#Republishing and Distributing our Content]] sections now as well and changed the name to [[Terms of Use/Remixed]]. I think everything in [[Terms of use]] is now included somewhere but rearranged. I have added 2 new sections. Activities editors should refrain from now includes [[Terms of Use/Remixed#Incivility.]] and [[Terms of Use/Remixed#Bad faith editing, or working against the ends of the project.]]. I have also included lots more sub headings to make it easier to navigate to and link to and edit sections and I have added a paragraph ot the beginning of each main section[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 14:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::redone. '''Incivility''' and '''Bad Faith Editing''' sub subsections changed to Civility and Good Faith editing subsections [[Terms_of_Use/Remixed#Civility_and_Politeness]]--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:I would far rather see one unified TOS than a fragmented series. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::It's still one page just organised according to what users need instead of what lawyers need.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

== Politeness and civility ==

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_use&diff=2977569&oldid=2975406:

<blockquote>The Projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation only exist because of the vibrant community of users like you who '''collaborate together''' to write, edit and curate the content. We happily welcome your participation in this community, but we require you to '''be civil''' and '''polite''' in your interactions with others in the community and to act in good faith and '''cooperate''' with others for the success of the shared Project.</blockquote>

I was afraid of words such as "polite," "civil," "collaborate," and "cooperate" would make their way into this user agreement. Could someone please at least change "require" to "insist"? As good as collaboration is, challenging and disputing is just as good for these projects. I could say confidently from personal experience that editors tend to work ''against'' each other than with each other. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/068184.html Sue Gardener said] that the Terms of Use wouldn't create excuses for kindness enforcement. In addition, it's sometimes difficult to convey ideas concisely to others while submitting to a certain community's definition of "politeness" and "civility". There's a reason political correctness is often compared to Newspeak. I don't have any problems with words such as "good faith" (working with the goals of a project) and "bad faith" (working against the goals of a project), since those words refer to motivations rather than how to communicate. These words weren't in the ToU [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_use&diff=2977569&oldid=2975406 until recently], so I'm sure that they could be modified or removed. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:Michaeldsuarez, your citation to Sue's email is quite appropriate. These changes were in response to some feedback I received in the above discussion topic "Concerns with the present text." I would like to hear other opinions, but I see an argument to delete the language if we cannot find wording that meets consensus. Thanks much. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 03:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::I drafted those words. I agree with Michael D that disagreement and discussion is central to much of the ongoing improvements to our projects, especially Wikipedia, however this only works if it is civil disagreement between parties working in good faith to try and make the article better. If the disagreement descends into name-calling (fascist! racist! communist!) and incivility or even polite intransigence and refusal to work together then that has no place in our projects and I think the Terms of Use needs to make that clear. Some more words about how we expect people to work together to resolve disagreements should be added elsewhere in the TOU.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 13:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Are you saying that you believe polite intransigence should be forbidden on all Foundation projects? [[User:Dualus|Dualus]] 15:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yes. The POV warrior who knows all the rules and keeps politely insisting there is no consensus for any position except the one he supports is more of a threat to Wikipedia than a drive by vandal.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Actually, collaboration isn't really required in practice. How exactly does one "collaborate" on uploading a self-made photograph to Commons? That's a solo activity by its very nature. Are you really "cooperating" with anyone if you write an encyclopedia article by yourself? (That's a common outcome for articles about obscure people and organizations.)
:::Most projects have freely chosen to require civility, but so far as I know, none require politeness, which is a somewhat different concept. And I share Michael's concern about people having different ideas of what those words mean. What was once called "the cut direct"—publicly and directly refusing to acknowledge someone's existence—is officially classified as civil behavior and described in older (Western) etiquette books, but it's not "polite" and is commonly condemned when seen on the English Wikipedia. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

::::None of these "Terms of Use" apply in 99.9% of the edits on our projects. This page is here for the 0.1% of cases where there is a problem. Maybe we should advise that "If you think you might have trouble keeping your cool then you should stay away from hot button issues. There are quiet corners of Wikipedia where you can edit and seldom see another editor." --[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::You're apparently trying to write terms for Wikipedia. The WMF is trying to write terms that apply equally to ALL the projects, including projects that focus on (for example) software development.
:::::As a point of fact, these terms apply to 100% of every use, not just uses that cause disputes between users. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::I don't agree that Civility and Good Faith collaboration only apply on Wikipedia. I think they are pretty central to all the Wkimedia Projects.
::::::While the TOU apply to all users all the time what I meant was that the Terms of use would only come into consideration when there is a problem and when problems happen I think the TOU should require users to work together to solve them. --[[Special:Contributions/93.96.237.210|93.96.237.210]] 00:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Collaboration and interaction with other users, on the other hand, is 100% optional, and if you aren't interacting with other people at all, then there is no possibility of your behavior being either civil or uncivil.
:::::::You '''cannot''' require volunteers to work together, because you cannot require volunteers to work ''at all''. The most we can do is say that if you seriously misbehave, you'll get banned. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

::(<s>Re</s>Un-indenting.) Hi guys. I just wandered by here because I saw this page in RC, but while I'm here I will comment on the politeness and civility issue. Michaeldsuarez was right to quote me as he did, and I can imagine why he raises the issue: one person's incivility is another person's haste, or fatigue, or language barrier, and raising civility to the level of a requirement creates a risk that we will all drown in complaints about each other. But, I also agree with Filceolaire that incivility and intransigence do hurt the projects. I wonder if we could resolve this by just having the TOU *ask* people to be civil and polite. Truth be told, people are going to be rude to each other sometimes, and they will mostly be forgiven or ignored or reasoned with: we would likely never kick anybody out of the projects for simple rudeness. So I think asking might be sufficient, in terms of pointing the way to the kind of behaviour we'd (all) like to see in the projects. Geoff if this is inappropriate in a TOU, or if there are other arguments against it, feel free to ignore me :-)

::Also I will say super-fast: this page is kind of great. I know some of the conversation has gotten a little heated, but I actually think this is a superb process. I'm glad everyone here has been participating, and I'm grateful to Geoff and the other staff here for stickhandling it and incorporating everybody's input. Thanks. [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] 02:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

:::What about "expects" as in "We expect you to work together in a civil etc. etc." I think we should also "ask" editors to assume good faith and to expect the same from other editors[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Because it isn't true. We actually expect, based on the data we have, that most users are non-editor readers who will never "work" ''at all'', much less "together". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 18:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

::::: I ended up putting in the word "expect," so it now reads: ''We happily welcome your participation in this community, but we expect you to be civil and polite in your interactions with others in the community and to act in good faith and cooperate with others for the success of the shared Project.'' I think this works because we always articulate this expectation in the context involving "others," so civility is only expected when working with others. Let me know if this doesn't work. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::"Expect" works for me, Geoff: thank you :-) If I were to be ridiculously nitpicky I would ask us to welcome people's participation AND expect civility and politeness rather than BUT expecting it. It just feels warmer and more positive. But I am definitely absurdly [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_Law_of_Triviality bike-shedding] at this point, so I will stop :-) [[User:Sue Gardner|Sue Gardner]] 18:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Done. I assume others are fine with this, but, if not, let me know. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

== Definitions, examples, and critiques ==

Thanks to those who addressed my concerns about community review above. We still need specific definitions of "especially problematic users" and "significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior" with examples, if those terms are not to be applied subjectively. We also need need to exempt critiques of Foundation or community actions, staff, publications, and practices from the definition of "significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior." [[User:Dualus|Dualus]] 15:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:Do we need these definitions and examples to be permanently carved in stone (that is, in the TOS itself), or do you just want to know what the answers are for your own purposes? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::How do you think these terms are likely to be applied over time if they are not defined in advance? I think the Terms should include both definitions and examples for clarity. Are there any reasons that they should not? [[User:Dualus|Dualus]] 15:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Examples, in particular, tend to produce needless disputes from sea-lawyers. For example, if the rule is "Do not kill people" and you give an example of "Do not shove people in front of moving trains so that they die", someone who is in trouble for killing someone will invariably say that he didn't know that tossing an unconscious person into a river was covered by the rule, because it doesn't involve either shoving people or moving trains.
:::Undefined words in agreements are interpreted according to their dictionary definitions and common sense. There are hundreds of undefined words in this agreement. I see no more need to define "disturbance" than I see to define "servers" or "traffic". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Ah, but for a rule of "Do not kill people", what about - war? self-defense? death-penalty? abortion? risky medical operations? - there's obvious difficulties, which create a whole legal code distinguishing murder from justifiable homicide from accident. Regretfully, the practice for Wikimedia is more along the lines of being interpreted according to the politics of power. I would strongly agree that particularly broad and vague terms like "especially problematic" and "significant Project disturbance" need to be restricted. I can't find the link now, but if I recall correctly, Larry Sanger was blocked on Wikipedia after making his FBI report, with a block reason I think of "disruptive". In my view, that was an example of such spectacularly bad judgment on multiple levels that the blocking administrator should have been immediately desysopped. But since it was a popular action against an unpopular person, nothing was done. To put it simply the difference between "disturbance" versus "servers" and "traffic" is that the latter are technical while the former is social. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Here are some links:
:::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ALarry_Sanger Block log]
:::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive213#Proposed_community_ban_on_LS AN/I discussion]
:::::*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larry_Sanger#Blocked Block message and the subsequent discussion].
:::::*Here are Rodhullandemu's reverts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia&diff=361011010&oldid=361010567], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Wikipedia&diff=361011210&oldid=361010949].
:::::--[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 00:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for those links. I see I was not far off, the reason given was "Disruptive editing". With the new terms-of-service taking this sort of issue to an even higher level (by making it into Foundation and legal material), I submit it's extremely important to guard against possible abuse. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 05:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe a requirement for the admins to '''Assume Good Faith''' is the solution here. I think that is the main fault on the part of '''RodHullandEmu''' - he did not give LS the benefit of the doubt.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 10:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::My attention was called here...anyway, I'll bite: suppose RodHullandEmu had "given me the benefit of the doubt." What does that mean? Does that mean that he would assume that I was, say, not criticizing Wikipedia? After all, of course, I was criticizing Wikipedia. That is within the rules, I believe. "Assume good faith" is nonsense, I say. I was the originator of many of Wikipedia's rules--but not that one. --Larry Sanger 12:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]], unfortunately, there's a logical problem in that the issue is exactly the casting of critical actions as punishment-worthy offenses - i.e. you're asking them to assume something they've already rejected basically by definition. This is one of the dark sides of Wikipedia culture, where in one [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Larry_Sanger#Blocked block discussion] above, the admin literally says "You're either with us or against us". While you can say that admins should not have this attitude, it's clear that some do. So again, I think it important that the phrasing of the terms of service do as much as possible to avoid feeding into that sort of power abuse. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 20:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Seth, if one wishes to permit killing people, then one should not have a rule that says nothing more than "Do not kill people". But if the rule is actually "do not kill people, no matter what", as it is in many pacifist traditions, then specific examples are not useful, because no illustration is necessary for correct understanding, and no example would limit the rule in the way that you wish to see the WMF voluntarily limit itself.
:::::As for LS's block, that was authorized by the English Wikipedia's official guidelines, which several users have demanded be officially supported by this TOS. No possible change to the TOS would have made [[:en:WP:DE]] not be an excuse for an en.wiki admin to block anyone the admin wants, whenever said admin deems it appropriate. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 02:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Hmm? When you say "no example would limit the rule in the way that you wish to see ...", I'm merely agreeing with [[User:Dualus|Dualus]] that "We also need need to exempt critiques of Foundation or community actions, staff, publications, and practices from the definition of "significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior."" . And giving a notorious example. Now, "As for LS's block, that was authorized by the English Wikipedia's official guidelines" - was it? Now, at least one admin thought so. I contend it was an evident abuse. Who is correct? Perhaps that's exactly why it would help to be clear who is correct, and not rely on "common sense", which seems to give no undisputed answer here. Of course no admin can be stopped from calling something "disruptive", in a trivial sense. But it certainly can be made more evident if that admin is engaging in an abuse of power (tedious clarification: This doesn't say all cases can be solved, which would be an absurd claim. The point is that policies can be better verses worse in terms of limiting arbitrary and capricious interpretations) -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 06:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Seth, the rules at en.wiki—for better or worse—are that any admin may block any user whom the individual admin believes is disruptive. Are we agreed thus far?
:::::::Some admin decided LS was "disruptive" and blocked his account. That action is exactly what's authorized in the official en.wiki guidelines and policies. Whether that admin's judgment was appallingly bad is actually irrelevant: the rules in place at en.wiki explicitly permit this action on that basis. The admin broke no rules in making that block.
:::::::Furthermore, you're looking at the wrong actor. Saying "The WMF (staff) will not do this" (what the TOS would say) has zero restrictive effect on the non-WMF admin who actually did this, and the hundreds of en.wiki non-WMF admins who are still explicitly authorized by the en.wiki community to use their judgment to block any users that they personally believe are disruptive. Tying the WMF's hands isn't going to solve the problem you see.
:::::::And if after all these talks about how the WMF needs to officially bow and scrape before the almighty community in the TOS, you think we have even a snowball's chance of getting the TOS to gut the long-standing en.wiki policies and guidelines on blocking disruptive users, then I don't believe we have a rational basis for discussion any longer. Free speech is a lovely thing, but the en.wiki community is never going to accept the WMF shoving a "you may not block users whose disruption can't be classified as 'free speech', especially 'free speech that hates on you'" rule down their throats. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The language at issue is this: ''The community has primary responsibility to address violations of Project policy and other similar issues. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we rarely intervene in community decisions about policy and its enforcement. In an unusual case, the need may arise or the community may ask us to address an especially problematic user because of significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior.'' The purpose of this language is to underscore that the community has the primary responsibilty in enforcement, not WMF. It is intended to be descriptive in nature, and often such language in an agreement is not subject to further definitions. Even if it were, I think inserting such definitions would render the document too complicated (since if we do it here, we would arguably need to do it in other places), and, to be honest, I'm not quite sure how we could define these terms, given how the circumstances vary in each case. On a positive note, this language does appear in the proposed TOS (unlike the present TOS), and it therefore would have weight in community/WMF arguments/discussions if the community believed that WMF overstepped its bounds (which is not the case with the present TOS). In short, I propose not including definitions; however, if people feel they have better descriptive language, I am open to discussion. Cheers. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 22:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, I understand your intent there. However, this connects to the upcoming global ban policy. I am concerned there's an ongoing factional effort by certain people to put in place broad, project-wide, blocking powers for themselves. They may have the best of intentions. However, the history of some past incidents shows that while these powers may be only invoked in "an unusual case" (in a statistical sense), there is substantial evidence to be very wary of the political implications of those cases. Now, philosophically, this is the enumerated-powers vs. Bill-of-Rights argument. While I've become very cynical, I'm still enough of a formalist to believe that there's some value in protective statements. I don't think a sentence of so to guard against abuse would be undue complexity. Something along the lines of "We will not construe extensive criticism or policy disputes as matters for Foundation intervention". This is theoretically what you would want, keeping the Foundation itself from being used in political arguments. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:::The problem is distinguishing between Criticism (allowed) and Disruption (not allowed).--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 06:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::Two points:
::* Nobody is "put[ting] in place broad, project-wide, blocking powers for themselves"; the WMF already has these powers. The only difference is that the fact that these powers exist will be mentioned in the TOS rather than elsewhere. This creates fair warning to the user, not a new power for the WMF.
::* The WMF might legitimately construe "extensive criticism or policy disputes as matters for Foundation intervention" if that criticism or dispute results in significant disruption. The Berkeley city council might decide that destroying public property is "free speech about our parking meter ordinance" rather than "criminal behavior that people go to jail over", but I don't think that we need to follow their example. I see this as having no positive effect in ordinary disputes and as being a gift to people who want to abuse the WMF projects advocate for their political causes. The WMF might very legitimately intervene in a "policy dispute" about whether pedophiles and pedophilia activists should be tolerated on WMF projects, as it has in the past (by adopting a policy that blocks all identified pedophiles). In fact, depending on your definition, many Board resolutions, such as the change to the licenses a couple of years ago, constitute "intervening" in a "policy dispute". The Board has a positive legal duty to oversee policy matters, which includes intervening in policies as often as necessary. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Actually, I disagree with you empirically about who now has "broad, project-wide, blocking powers for themselves". One of the weak constraints that currently keeps certain people in check, is that in fact it's not at all clear if they're operating in a sanctioned way. And they're getting substantial push-back on the matter. I think terms-of-service level push-back is important in this process. Regarding construal, again, we're going around making the perfect the enemy of the good. It's like objecting to freedom of religion on the basis of, what if someone argues that taking illegal drugs is part of their religion? Or that not getting medical care for sick children is part of their religion? Then one would could conclude that since in some cases, the government has a positive duty to act against against freedom of religion, therefore a provision for freedom of religion is "a gift to people who want to abuse". I don't want to be hyperbolic, but the "abuse" argument is perilous close to claiming civil-liberties are only for bad characters. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 12:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::::You believe that the WMF does not currently have the actual power to block anyone it wants? On what basis?
::::Do you believe that the staff members' block buttons are broken, so that only volunteers are capable of blocking someone? Do you believe that the people who control the entire website are incapable of giving themselves whatever privs are necessary to block someone, if that's what they wanted to do? Do you think the devs are incapable of writing whatever code is necessary to make it possible for them to block people, if that's what they wanted to do? Do you think that if the WMF's board passed a resolution declaring that someone was banned, that the staff would wring their hands and say, "Oh, if only there were a way for the staff to block that account"?
::::I'm not talking about whether the WMF "should" do this. I'm talking about whether they have the ''ability'' (=power) to do this. They've got physical access to the servers: they can do anything they want to the WMF websites. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::This is a bit like arguing "You believe that the police do not have the actual power to shoot anyone "dangerous"? Do their guns not work, so only vigilantes can shoot people?". We have been going around and around formalism vs pragmatism. Every time I say I believe that moderate formalism empirically has some value (some - not dispositive, not conclusive, not philosophically unassailable - but some value), you respond by arguing extreme pragmatism. At this point, it's been asked and answered. If you look at the actual global ban discussion, the social process is much more complex than merely who has the guns (servers). -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::There's a significant distinction: The WMF websites are the WMF's property, and it is their legal and moral right to do whatever they want with them. The law enforcement officer's weapons are ''not'' the officer's property, and "we the people" gave those weapons to our officer solely on the strict condition that he (or she) do ''nothing'' with ''our'' weapons except what ''we'' have authorized (through the law). The two situations are not at all comparable. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 16:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::All analogies have points of similarity and points of dissimilarity. In this case, the detail analogy might be that it's sometimes not clear when a specific person is acting with and within the authority of the WMF, and attempts to perhaps arrogate that authority. You're also retreating from pragmatism into formalism in talk of "have authorized" - that's an appeal to procedure, and somewhat infamous in terms of reviews of use of deadly force (i.e. the charge that very little is needed pragmatically). If it required a formal WMF Board resolution to global ban someone, rather than one person possibly lashing out in irritation, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned with the potential for abuse -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::::If the staff member is not acting within the authority of the WMF, then the decision will be overturned. If a WMF staff member bans you, and that staff member's supervisor (or anyone else in that chain of command, going all the way up to the Board) decides it was a mistake, then the decision will be overturned and you would be un-banned. Unlike killing someone, banning is a reversible process. If the staff member bans you again, or if the WMF decided the staff member used bad judgment in the first place, then the WMF can (and would) fire the staff member.
::::::::So where's the problem? Wanting a resolution from the full board for every single decision is both wasteful and leaves the person with no possibility of appeal. Would you have every single legal case decided by the Supreme Court? Isn't one magistrate usually sufficient for run-of-the-mill cases? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 04:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::So the TOS needs to put a duty on the WMF to have an appeals procedure? The TOS doesn't need to define this. The TOS should also state that the Board is the court of final appeal - we don't want people trying to get the law involved in resolving disputes. The appeals process could be something like:
:::::::::* staff action
:::::::::* staff action is reviewed by board member appointed for that sort of thing (everyone has this right?)
:::::::::* final appeal to a Board sub-committee who can (like the U.S.A. supreme court) decide for themselves if they will or will not consider any appeal.
:::::::::There is probably scope for community actions to be appealed to the board too - is the project / branch acting in accordance with their contract with the WMF? This procedure should probably be spelled out in those contracts, not here. Ultimate sanction for project - stop new contributions but allow a fork. Ultimate sanction for branch - withdraw permission to use the trademarks.[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 06:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree that it's unnecessary for the TOS to outline any appeal process.
::::::::::I think the fundamental problem is that Seth believes he has some sort of human right to use the WMF's ''private'' website. In actual practice, Seth's rights to the WMF's website are exactly the same as Seth's rights to my equally private living room: he can use it only when the owner says so, and only in the ways the owner says so, and only so long as the owner continues to say so. The owner has an absolute legal and moral right to revoke that permission, at any time, for any reason or no reason at all. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::I think the fundamental problem is that "WhatamIdoing" is knocking down silly strawmen. I said nothing of the sort, and Libertarian-type knee-jerking like the above is showing there's no more point in this exchange :-(. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::WhatamIdoing: The Wikimedia Foundation is a registered charity working to achieve certain charitable ends. It has invited us to work with them to help achieve those ends. To encourage us to help with this WMF makes certain undertaking to us as to how we will be treated and as to how our contributions will be used. These undertakings are described in the Terms of Use. There are lots of things the system admins could do which the WMF promise (in the TOU) not to do. If they do those things then that is a breach of the TOU and then we have a situation which is not covered by the TOU. As it's not covered by the TOU therefore there is not much point discussing it here. This page only deals with things that are covered by the TOU. [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::: Like the "right to fork," I think the appeal procedure is something for the community to figure out and present to the Board as a proposed resolution. If the Board agrees, this TOS would recognize its authority. Sec. 11. I agree with WhatamIdoing on the power of the community to keep the Foundation in check, and I frankly don't see a need to modify the proposed language. Indeed, in some important ways, Section 10 enables the community more than in the past: with the global ban policy, the community will be able to amend and define the reasons why the community can and cannot ban someone globally, which is a good, community-oriented process. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 18:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::: The problem in the chain of reasoning above is that the people most affected by the new policy cannot plead their case, so it ends up concentrating the flaws of the social process of groupthink. Remember, civil-libertarian ideas are anti-majoritarian. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 18:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::::Geoff: I disagree. A discussion on rewriting the TOU (i.e. this page) is exactly the right context for discussing these issues with the Community and the Board. A discussion is better than a proposal from one side with the other side left to approve or disapprove.
::::::::::::Seth: I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. To put it in concrete terms - what is your proposal for wording to be added to / changed in the TOU to address this?[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Filceolaire, above I suggested "We will not construe extensive criticism or policy disputes as matters for Foundation intervention". Please note also I was agreeing with Dualus at the very top of the subsection about "... not to be applied subjectively. We also need need to exempt critiques of Foundation or community actions, staff, publications, and practices from the definition of "significant Project disturbance or dangerous behavior.". This extremely mild and moderate view (IMHO) seems to have dragged me into a requirement to develop a complete moral theory of governance and to prove it against talk-radio style objections. It just doesn't strike me as so difficult (or at least, it shouldn't be). I hope I don't have to go around again that I don't believe this would solve everything, and I don't propose to nationalize Wikimedia and have it run as a subdepartment of the People's Ministry of Culture. What I'm getting at, is that there's *factions* of the "community" that apply broad and vague views of what constitutes "disturbance", and it would be a good idea to make sure from the start that they don't read the new terms-of-use as a tool for their efforts (even though, sigh, I presume the drafter does not intend to enable them, but I think it would be helpful to make that as clear as possible). -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 12:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Seth, I'm still not getting a useful response to the problem with your proposal. What if the WMF is faced with a user who is simultaneously, through a single action:
# "extensively criticizing" the WMF '''and'''
# disrupting the project to the extent that no one else is able to use it?

Should the WMF ''volunteer'' to "not construe" this extensive criticism as something it needs to deal with? Should the WMF sit idly by while everyone else is locked out of a project because the act of locking everyone was, itself, criticism of the WMF?

Has it ever occurred to you that the "extensive criticism" you (nobly) want to protect could be performed in an project-destroying disruptive manner? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:WhatamIdoing: if the user is doing both of these things then the user can be banned for the disruption. The fact that they are also "extensively criticizing" does not give them a free pass to disrupt the project.
:Seth: I agree with you that users should not be banned for criticising the project where this is done to try and make the project better. I also see someone could confuse "trying to change how the project operates" with "disrupting how the project operates". The Terms of Use need to establish the principles but I'm not sure how to phrase this.[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 22:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

::WhatamIdoing, that issue has been asked and answered already, above, where I noted that analogously, freedom of religion can involve conflicts over illegal acts. Again, we have reached a point where there's no point. Yes indeed, I want to protect e.g. Larry Sanger's right (sigh - tedious defense against strawman, this word is used in an internal, not government, sense) to make an issue over sexual material (without endorsing his views _per se_). And, repeating myself, being deemed blockable "disruptive editing" and outright told "You're either with us or against us" makes it easy to see the potential for abuse at the terms-of-use level.
::Filceolaire, sadly, if the idea itself has been rejected, better phrasing is academic. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 09:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Sorry, Seth, I'm not letting this die so quietly - neither sadly nor academically. You struck my free expression nerve. Just for discussion purposes, one idea - only an idea - is to insert the following sentence in Section 10: "We would never construe good faith criticism or policy disputes by themselves to constitute grounds for a global ban." I know it is qualified ("good faith") and limited ("by themselves" & "global ban"). But it does indicate that simple free speech against Wikipedia is not grounds for a global ban. Now the counter-argument is that we are restricting the community in how they would like to justify a global ban. So I would need to be convinced that we could get consensus with this language. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 00:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== A few new thoughts ==
Geoff and team, I'm glad to see most of my earlier concerns resolved! In several cases, I was especially gratified to see elegant solutions that hadn't occurred to me.

I've spotted just a few others that have arisen due to the changes:

{{done}} §4: ''Knowingly accessing, tampering with, or using any of our non-public areas in our computer systems.''
: If this document applies to all users, that would include functionaries like admins, OTRS volunteers, and checkusers, who routinely look at/edit things that are not publicly viewable. I think "without authorization" needs to be added to this bullet point as well.

: Good point. Change is made. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

{{done}} §6: I think this is just a typo; the final link should be [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects] instead of [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Wikipedia] (which redirects to a section of the former).

: Done. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

{{half-done}} §8: I still think a little bit of guiding language of how to ''find'' the copyrights violation page on another project might be helpful. I'm aware there may not be any fully sufficient language, but another sentence (for instance, suggesting that one ask at the central discussion page, or search for the term "copyright" in the local language) would be helpful, and might mitigate any perception that we are overly preoccupied with English Wikipedia. I'm happy to let this one drop, though, if you don't see any effective way to get at it.

: I see the point, but I can't find the solution. I have looked at non-English sites for consistency, but I can't find it. It may be my own failings here, so, if someone can suggest useful language which does not confuse the situation, I'm open to it. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::In each translated version, you could add a link to the relevant page on that language's Wikipedia (i.e., de.wiki's for the German translation of the TOS). That's still very encyclopedia-centric, but it's better than linking en.wiki for all options. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::We could just put the info-<lang> OTRS address and say that on-wiki solutions are always available (specific request page, general request page, village pump...). Otherwise, [[w:en:Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] at least has more interwikis. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 11:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: Good points. From the interwiki links you mention, Nemo, I have generated a page here on meta: [[Copyright problems]] Thus far, I have included all the relevant Wikipedia and Wikisource pages that were linked via interwikis from the English language editions of those two projects. It seems relatively straightforward to add similar tables for all the Wikimedia projects. I would recommend linking to [[Copyright problems]] from this section of [[Terms of use]]. Even if incomplete, it will be vastly more useful than a single example from enwp. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::: I'm noticing that some projects (like Wikinews and Wikiversity) Don't seem to have pages for listings; rather, they just use templates. Commons is more or less in that camp too. (I've added some items from each of these projects to [[Copyright problems]].) This might suggest further rewording of this item. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 22:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::I will need your help to solve this. After thinking about this more, I have modified the TOS to explain simply that DMCA reports may be made through the legal email address (without mention of informal channels). It is important that we provide an email address where the DMCA report is delivered directly to the legal department, allowing us to respond quickly as required by the statute. We could include another short paragraph afterwards to explain more informal ways of working with the community on copyright issues (as opposed to filing a formal DMCA report), but, in light of this discussion, I would appreciate someone providing some suggested language that I could insert and that would make sense to the community along those lines. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Okay, here is some suggested text, based loosely on what you had before:

{{quote|Our volunteer community seeks to accommodate reasonable requests as part of its normal operation. In most cases, a project's ordinary process is the fastest, most effective option for the removal of improperly published material under copyright. If you find that such material is included on a Wikimedia project, you are advised to first post a notice according to that project's conventions, seeking the intervention of our good faith volunteers, who are generally diligent about adhering to copyright law. For an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of the relevant process for each of our projects, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_problems . (You may also try our volunteer-operated email support system, by mailing info{{@}}wikimedia.org.)
 
If you do not find these processes satisfactory, you may request that the content be removed under the DMCA. To make such a request, please email our designated agent at legal{{@}}wikimedia.org, or mail a request to this listed address.}}
::::::::('''Note:''' The second paragraph is mostly copied from the existing text. I'm not sure what "this listed address" refers to; you may want to edit that, regardless of what you think of my additions.)
::::::::-[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 02:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

{{done}} §10: Third sentence needs some grammatical help (looks like the victim of a copy-paste that didn't quite get resolved).

: Yep. I think I corrected it. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 13:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

=== Overall===
{{half-done}} Formatting detail: bullets, (a/b/c), (i/ii/iii) and so forth -- my earlier suggestion had a small inaccuracy, and there is some general cleanup to be done here. With Geoff's permission, I would be happy to simply make the appropriate edits to make the bullets cleaner. (As an admin, I have the technical ability to edit the page, but it seems unwise without Geoff's explicit agreement.)

{{done}} '''Section numbering:''' If you look at the table of contents, you'll notice that there is some automatic numbering going on that is a single unit off from the intended numbering scheme. One way to straighten this out would be to include the "Overview" above the table of contents, by simply bolding the title '''Overview''' instead of making it a proper section heading. (See above, I'm happy to address this one too.)

-[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 00:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
: Great. Go for it Pete! I appreciate your making the changes. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:: OK, thanks. I made [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_use&action=historysubmit&diff=2993007&oldid=2992569 two edits] which I think resolve both edits as well as possible. There is a minor issue with duplicate section numbering in the Table of Contents; it's not a huge issue, but I believe it is reflects a small shortcoming in the MediaWiki software, so I [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31735 filed a bug] about that. Hopefully that issue will be addressed in a way that permits a slight formatting improvement in the future. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

::: Note: there are some (relatively minor) spacing issues remaining. Hopefully somebody with better wiki skills can put the finishing touches on. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Hi, Pete. Can you be specific about the spacing issues? I'm not sure where you mean. :) I can try to find somebody who can polish it if I can spotlight the problem. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 13:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::::: Hi Maggie, that's really more Steven's issue than mine, you could look at our mini "edit war" from a couple days ago and/or check with him. Essentially, there is room for improvement in the relative amount of line spacing within a bulleted item, and between bulleted items, in §7. I think it's only as important as you guys determine..probably not the most pressing issue :) -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

== Clarity of schedule ==
I think it is really commendable that Geoff and WMF have extended the review period beyond the 30 days required (which would have expired Oct. 8). But I think it would be really helpful if there were a clear new deadline announced. For those participating only as they are able, it would be very helpful (for instance) to know that we're aiming for next Wednesday, or next month, or the end of the year; that would make it much easier to make personal decisions about when and how much time to invest in review. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:I appreciate this comment. To be honest, based on the feedback from the Community, I don't want to rush this process. I originally said a minimum of 30 days, but, as others have suggested to me, we need more time. Some considerations: (1) I believe it is important to get international feedback, and people have told me that they need more time to translate and get the word out; (2) We are waiting for a draft of the global ban policy so people can see how it is intended to integrate with the user agreement; and (3) per feedback, people felt they needed more time to review the user agreement and get comments to me. All that said, I'm now aiming to finalize about the first week of November, unless I hear differently from the Community. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 12:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Excellent, thanks Geoff. I've [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Main_Page/WM_News&diff=prev&oldid=2997562 updated the notice] (in English, anyway) on the front page of Meta accordingly. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 18:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

==Right to Fork==
The TOU talks a lot about what the WMF can, will or may do. The main response open to the editors, if they disagree with the WMF, is the right to fork, i.e. the right to take the content and set up a rival version of a project. WMF devotes some resources to creating database dumps of projects to facilitate and if there ever were a change in policy to stop doing this I believe it should get serious consultation first. I think I firmal mention here is justified.

The software publishing efforts of the WMF are not mentioned either. They should at least get a sentence and a link to a page with more info. --[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 13:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

:I would like a commitment from the WMF that they will continue to provide and improve the data necessary to fork. Maybe it already exists? Is there a resolution from the Board of Trustees about this? The WMF have definitely done a good job of providing dumps, however currently the media files are not easily copied. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 23:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:: I agree this is an important aspect of fulfilling the Wikimedia mission; but is the Terms of Use document an appropriate place to make the commitment? Is there precedent for mission-driven non-profit org making such a commitment via its Terms of Use? -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 23:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

::: The "terms of use" typically cover "no warranties" for readers and "we reserve the right to terminate your account" for contributors. In our case, Wikimedia provides one right to readers and contributors: a complete dump of the content and the right to fork, which is IMO an underlying principle in many of our policies. I think this document is less interested in information for "readers"/"reusers", but it would not hurt to mention the right to fork, if that right has been provided by a board of trustees resolution. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Perhaps the WMF and its projects should have charters filled with user rights similar to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Charter the one Citizendium has]. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::Citizendium does have an interesting agreement, and thank you Michaeldsuarez for bringing it to my attention. I saw the user rights in Article 3 (non-discrimination) and Article 7 (equality), but did not see other significant "user rights" that would make sense for our TOS. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) I could see borrowing some language from Article 3; not sure if the language in Article 7 is how we express the same idea on the Wikimedia projects. I'm open to some positive rights expressed, but those rights need to be universal and well recognized by the community before I would suggest including them into the TOS. Otherwise, I think it should be left to the individual Projects to develop these ideas over time. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 18:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

::@John Vandenberg: Images are probably not included in data dumps in order to avoid having non-free, fair use images included in those dumps. I'm not sure if a dump of free images exists. Since there's a chance that copyrighted, non-free image may be labeled incorrectly as free, creating such a dump may be problematic. Fortunately, you could configure any MediaWiki installation to use the shared image repository at Commons – see [[mw:Manual:$wgUseInstantCommons]]. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 23:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:::A dump of Commons media is what is missing. All free media on the Wikipedia projects should be migrated to Commons in due course. InstantCommons does not help the [[right to fork]] ([[w:right to fork|enwp]]). [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 23:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
::::To any WMF employee considering creating those dumps: Be sure to includes upload logs, file histories, page histories, licensing information, and anything else needed for attribution and reuse. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 00:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it's an open question as to whether forking of Wikipedia is really possible in a practical sense. If Google kills any fork immediately in search rankings for being "duplicate content", then it's a hollow right. I used to think that Google-death would be a certainty for any fork, but these days I'm not so sure. The real threat is not so much forking, but abandonment. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:John, I'm concerned about the unintended consequences. You are, for example, asking the WMF to commit to always existing (because non-existent entities cannot provide anything to anyone) and to always having the resources to provide copies of everything (even if they're going bankrupt or dramatically change their approach).
:I do not believe that the right to fork was ever approved by any Board resolution. It is (as I understand it) only the natural consequence of the licensing agreement. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 02:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:: You have a serious logic problem. If the WMF resolves to always provide dumps that allow the projects to survive it, its last acts should be to ensure those dumps are available, up to date and handed over to an organisation which survives it. It is common for organisations to have very specific rules about winding up. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I don't think you have thought through the request you made: "a commitment from the WMF that they will continue to provide and improve the data necessary to fork."
:::Imagine that the WMF goes away. How can the WMF "continue to provide and improve the data necessary to fork" if they do not exist? You have not requested that "the WMF do their best to ensure that the data necessary to fork is available somehow"; you have requested that the WMF do it themselves. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

::::The data necessary to fork should be maintained ''while'' the WMF exists. The WMF is already undertaking this, which is good management, however it would be nice to point to a winding down clause which makes it mandatory. If the data to fork is not complete when the WMF is heading towards "going away" status, their Board of Trustees would be required to undertake whatever measures are necessary to ensure it is brought up to date and handed to an organisation which will survive them. If, heaven forbid, the WMF does turn off the lights, their role in maintaining it would stop once they had handed the data to someone else. Winding down clauses are thought about and written into charters in advance, to prevent an organisation running itself into the ground or selling off its assets in order to 'survive'. Boards overseeing a dying organisation usually make shithouse decisions if they are not constrained. Anything can be 'justified' in order to save the organisation. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 12:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

:I think this is a very interesting and useful suggestion. It doesn't have to be expressed in terms of things the WMF ''must do'', however. The point is, the WMF should agree not to ''refuse'' to make CC-licensed data in its databases available, provided it is technically possible to do so, and any actual costs are paid -- in other words, a FOIA for WMF. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

::Except that gives people the right to demand stuff. I'd rather leave it up to the WMF to decide how to fulfill this requirement.[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 12:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and informative discussion. Of course, the TOS (sec. 7) requires free licensing, which would help ensure that the content may be used for a fork or new project. As pointed out above, WMF does a pretty good job in practice with consistent data dumps. I think people have the natural right to fork today, and nobody contests it. I hesistate however putting it into the TOS for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it is hard to predict legally how hypothetical future events could play out. I realize this is only my opinion. My suggestion is that, if there is a strong consensus in the community and a belief that this needs to be considered at the highest level, the community petition the Board to address this individually by resolution. Put another way, I believe this issue requires a larger community and WMF discussion before acknowledging a formal "right" to data dumps in the context of unknown future events, if any. Under the TOS (sec. 11), a properly worded Board resolution would be mandatory and so recognized by the TOS. A separate Board resolution also would be more effective to ensure that proper resources and planning take this community concern into account. I know it sounds like I'm punting a bit, but I think this issue should stand on its own in a resolution proposal if indeed that is the community consensus. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 18:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:I agree that this needs a BoT level decision for allocation of resources. However I have just re-read the [[GFDL]] and it requires that publishers provide a machine-readable Transparent copy if they distribute more than 100 Opaque copies. The HTML pages of Wikimedia projects are machine generated, so a machine readable dump is ''required''. Further to this, where it gets interesting is that the license requires that someone can download a ''complete'' Transparent copy for one year after the last Opaque copy is distributed. As a result, I believe the BoT needs to ensure that the dumps are available ''and'' that they can be available for one year after WMF turns of the lights on the core servers (it allows 'agents' to provide this service). As Wikipedia contains images, the images are required to be included. This is similar to the GPL language for “Corresponding Source”, which requires that ''everything'' required to rebuild ''identical'' object code must be made available (which meant UNIX vendors needed to republish their optimisations to [[w:Makefiles]], any prettier bitmaps they wanted end-users to see, etc.) In order to comply with this, I think there needs to be a way to reconstruct the GFDL component of the projects from dumps. I think the currently provided dumps fail this because there isnt an easy way to obtain the images needed. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 02:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::The GFDL was originally make for free software documentation, and Wikipedia was created before the Creative Commons licenses existed. This was a part of the reason for the license change. When Wikipedia was using the UseMod software, it used a simple filesystem instead of MySQL. Wikipedia basically outgrew the GFDL. Perhaps the WMF should've switched to using solely the CC-BY-SA license instead of encumbering itself with complex duel-licensing. Since the window the GNU allotted for switching licenses has passed a long time ago, it's too late to fix any of that now. I hope that copyrighted images may be excluded from such a dump. Otherwise, I recommend that the English Wikipedia follows the example of other Wikipedia's and use only free images. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::John, if it's already "required", then there's no need to mention it ''here''. The TOS isn't meant to be a summary of every single thing associated with the WMF projects. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::::In light of the above discussion, I do not plan to include explicitly the right to fork in the TOS with the understanding that the community can seek an independent resolution from the Board on the subject. I will forward exerpts of the above discussion to the folks at WMF charged with the data dumps. Thanks. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 22:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

== Chat about this ==
'''Online chat "office hour" scheduled:'''
{{Upcoming office hour
| day = Thursday
| date = November 10
| time = {{UTC with local time link|hour=18|minute=00|year=2011|month=11|day=10}}
| with = [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoff Brigham]] (WMF General Counsel)
| topic = Introducing Geoff (it's his first office hours) and his work, focusing on his broad legal strategy for 2011-12. ''See [[IRC office hours]] to learn how to connect.''
}}

Just a heads up that we've scheduled an [[IRC office hours]] on November 10 to discuss this and to introduce Geoff (it'll be his first office hours). [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 20:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:Just wanted to add that even if you don't want to discuss this, you might want to come anyway. Geoff is planning to talk about the Wikimedia Legal Strategy 2011-12. The "terms of use" are only a part of that overall strategy. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::FYI, I find IRC really chaotic and difficult to use for substantial questions. This is particularly applicable to legal issues, where a good query might require several sentences for context. And it may not be fair to have a lawyer trying to answer such a question off the top of his or her head. I don't have a good solution, but I thought I should mention the problem. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 12:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Seth, I think each communication medium has pros and cons. The benefit of IRC is that it will be possible to interactively discuss the Terms of Use rewrite in the context of its broader goals ad the broader strategy. There are many community members who are comfortable with this medium, in addition to those who are not. There have already been mailing list announcements and blog posts, as well as the extensive on-wiki discussion here; I don't get the sense that IRC chat is intended to ''substitute'' for any of that, so much as ''supplement'' it. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 15:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I agree that IRC office hours can be chaotic and difficult at the best of times, though the least unsatisfactory one I've attended so far was a legal one. But it would be a fairly weak way to introduce any document longer than a text message. Assuming that the legal strategy will be long, and it might wind up covering forking, relations with chapters, volunteers representing the movement in real life, bans and persistent vandals, wouldn't it be better to publish a draft on Wiki so that it can be read first and then discussed on IRC? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 10:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

== Stated in writing by who? ==
{{resolved}}
{{collapse top}}
Geoff, you just added:
"You understand that, unless otherwise stated in writing,
you have no expectation of compensation"
Should this be "Stated in writing '''by us'''"? or maybe "'''agreed''' in writing"? Otherwise some smart Alec will send you a letter quoting his rates and then claim that you must have agreed since you didn't bar him from editting.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 15:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
: Filceolaire - you are a better lawyer than I. Good point. Change made [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

This section has been reviewed. If there are new issues or outstanding concerns related to this, please start a new conversation. [[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 13:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

== Licensing ==

In section "7. Licensing of Content", now the sentence:
:"(Re-users may comply with either license.)"
has been added. As far as I remember, "either" can have the meaning of "all of them" or the meaning of "one of them", depending on the context. So at least for me, this sentence in brackets is not a real clarification.

--[[User:Rosenkohl|Rosenkohl]] 13:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Either" in this context means that you have three choices:
* comply with the GFDL,
* comply with CC-BY-SA, or
* comply with both. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 15:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rosenkohl. I have reworded as follows: ''(Re-users may comply with either license or both.)'' Does that help? [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 17:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now the content page has been changed into:
:>>Re-users may comply with either license or both<<,

thank you Geoffbrigham. This is quite similar to the clause on the current http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use:
:>>Re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with.<<

However I now notice that in my opinion this is more than a language problem, since i don't understand how can be correct. At the moment, can't see from http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Terms_of_use&action=history where this old policy has been discussed before, and am not aware if is clause has been discussed on this page [[Talk:Terms of use]] or in the talk archives so far (I just did a quick full text search with "re-use" which gave me no sufficient result).

Suppose someone wants to re-use content which has been published on Wikimedia under GFDL or under CC BY-SA, or both. Both licences require that the re-user is complying with the particular license, that means that he publishes the re-used content under the particular license. That means, content which is under GFDL must be republished under GFDL, and content which is under CC BY-SA must be published under CC BY-SA.

But this clause "re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with seems" (or: "re-users may comply with either license or both") seems to allow to choose one of these licences, and simply leave away the other, or even to re-use content which was first published on Wikimedia under one of these licences under the other license. This means that a re-user could take content published under GFDL on Wikimedia and re-publish it outside Wikimedia under CC BY-SA, or he could take content published under CC BY-SA on Wikimedia and re-publish it outside Wikimedia under GFDL. But this would violate the particular licences it seems.

--[[User:Rosenkohl|Rosenkohl]] 10:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

: Rosenkohl, I greatly appreciate your close reading and feedback here. Under the present user agreement under the subtitle of "Information for text contributors to Wikimedia projects," we state:

::''Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. For compatibility reasons, you are also required to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). '''Re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with.'''''

::http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

:So I don't think we are doing anything new here. The text at issue in the proposed TOS says (Sec. 7(a)):

::''When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under:''
::
:: ''* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and
:: ''* GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).''
::
::''(Re-users may comply with either license or both.)''''''''

:I believe it is clear from this language that, if someone licenses text under CC BY SA and GFDL, the subsequent re-use of that text may be under either CC BY SA or GFDL (or both). This provision on re-use only applies to text that is previously licensed under both licenses. Does this clarify things for you or am I missing something? Cheers. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Geoffbrigham, thanks for your patient answers. In fact, I'm not very familiar with licensing issues of Wikipedia, so am trying to read up now on old policy, talk or frequently asked question pages, some of which I can only find by using google or other full text searches.

a) I do understand that the new draft ("(Re-users may comply with either license or both") is taking a version of the the old statement ("Re-users can choose the license(s) they wish to comply with") from the hitherto Terms of Use, without changing the meaning of this statement. However, I'm not convinced that even the old Terms of User are not without any problem.

To my understanding, for the re-user, GFDL generally is (to some extenxt) more restricitive than CC BY-SA, e.g. since under GFDL the re-user has to fullfill more, or more difficult requirements, including attribution requirements.

Now the proposal says under "7. h. Re-Use":

:"In addition, please be aware that text that originated from external sources and was imported into a Project may be under a license that attaches additional attribution requirements."

Suppose someone is reading this statement, who wants to take content which is on Wikimedia under both CC BY-SA and GFDL, and intends to republish it outside Wikimedia under CC BY-SA. Then they must believe, that GFDL is a kind of "license that attaches additional attribution requirements" (because GFDL is the more restrictive license). And consequently, they must think that the Terms of Use require them to publish the content under both licenses, CC BY-SA and GFDL. But I think this would be a misunderstanding, and seems to run against the original intention, why double licensing had been introduced into Wikimedia in 2008?!

b) The old Terms of Use, and new proposal both contain the expression:

:"* [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License] (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

The four attributes in brackets "unversioned", "with no invariant sections", "front-cover texts", "back-cover texts" are not explained anywhere in the Wikimedia-Terms of Use. It is not clear to what these attributes are meant to apply, to the text of the contributed content, or to the text of the GFDL. The terms "invariant section", "front-cover text" and "back cover-texts" are explained to some extent on http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html, but there it is no mentioning and explanation of what "unversioned" means.

So it is not clear at all for the reader what is meant with this bracket "(unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)" in the context of Wikimedia Terms of Use. Perhaps it could be helpfull to explain it in full sentences?

c) The old Terms of Use in their chapter "Information for re-users" are starting to advise their reader in the section "''Re-use of text''" to re-use Wikimedia content with CC BY-SA. Then, only in a kind of addendum, "''Additional availability of text under the GNU Free Documentation License''" is mentioned. But the explanation there of how to re-use under GFDL is not as extensive as the explanation of how to re-use under CC BY-SA.

However, in the new proposed Terms of Use, parts of the explanation of how to re-use under CC BY SA seem to have been transfered into the section "7. i. Modifications or additions to material that you re-use". Section 7. i. says:
:"When modifying or making additions to text that you have obtained from Project website, you agree to license the modified or added content under CC BY-SA 3.0 or later (or, as explained above, another license when exceptionally required by the local Project or feature)."

But now this reads as if when you make modification or additions to material under the new Terms of Use, the section 7. i. would require you to apply CC BY-SA in any event, and doesn't allow to apply GFDL instead anylonger.

I don't understand this restriction, and it seems to violate the GFDL.

--[[User:Rosenkohl|Rosenkohl]] 11:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

== Prohibited activities ==
:::'''''Note''' This is a continuation of [[Talk:Terms of use/Archives/2011-10-11#Prohibited activities]]; please see that conversation for full context.''

Now the content page reads:
:" These activities include: [...] Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud [...] Intentionally or knowingly posting content that constitutes libel or content that is otherwise false, inaccurate, or defamatory;"

You write:
:"We see daily attempts by people who try to vandalize our sites by introducing false statements, and I want to make clear to users, especially new ones, that this is not acceptable."

I don't see such attempts, and I have never seen attempts of people to introduce false statements in Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia does not contain any false statements or true statements.

There are many attempts to vandalize Wikipedia, but then without "introducing false statment", e.g. by introducing unsourced content, or false representations of sources, or content from irrelevant sources, or tendencious misrepresentations of sources etc.. Or Many new users try to spam an irrelevant book or website which they have just published, or change articles in order to advertise for their own enterprise etc., but this disturbing content is not "false". Or many new users simply try to vandalize by introducing just nonsensical content, which may be discovered and reverted soon by other users in smost cases, or remain undiscovered in few other cases, but this disturbing content is not "false".

However your answer Geoffbrigfham does not address the fact that an encyclopaaedia does not contain true or false content, and makes no claim to be factual true.

The concepts of falseness and truth may make sense in a religious context (e.g. the eighth commandment, that you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour), or in a legal context (e.g. when you are put on oath in front of a court), on in private relationship (e.g. when people expect each other not to betray), or in science (e.g. trying to accurately observe, describe and explain nature), etc.. But an encyclopaedia is neither a religious gathering, nor a court, nor a private relation, nor a research endeavour, and falseness and truth make no sense for an encyclopaedia.

--[[User:Rosenkohl|Rosenkohl]] 11:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

:There may be some linguistic issues here. :) But I wonder, you list as among the possible ways to vandalize Wikipedia "by introducing unsourced content, or false representations of sources, or content from irrelevant sources, or tendencious misrepresentations of sources etc" and then conclude that this (along with behaviors) "is not 'false'." How is it not "false" to introduce a "false representation of sources"? For example, the group of people who created [http://www.enotes.com/topic/Reich_Corps_of_the_Trombone this now deleted article on English Wikipedia] [http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061638&cid=35673726 knowingly and willfully introduced a hoax]. Can you explain what other words you feel would better define knowingly and willfully introducing a hoax? (Sadly, we've got a very incomplete list of them at [[w:Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia]]. :/) Knowing what language you would use might help clarify your objection to the word "false". :) --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 12:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you seem to misrepresent what I wrote. I did not claim that the ''behaviour'' of the users is not "false" from the point of view of an encyclopaedic project. My point is that the ''content itself'' which these user would introduce is not "false". Rather, this content then is incorrectly sourced.

From the point of view of an encyclopaedia, we have to distinguish between the reality itself, and a source which makes a statement about the reality. Of course a written book etc which we use as a source is a part of the reality, too (as the encyclopaedia is part of the reality, too). However for the encyclopaedia, there is a difference between making a statement about reality on the one hand, and representing a source which contains a statement about reality on the other hand.

The [[Neutral point of view]] (NPOV) is considered as the mandatory editorial principle for the Wikimedia projects, according to page [[Founding principles]].

According to (say) [[:en:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], NPOV means:
:>>representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.<<

So from a NPOV, you don't say what is true or false in reality, but you say what reliable sources claim about reality.

The page [[Neutral point of view]] reads:
:>>[[Wikipedia]], [[Wiktionary]], [[Wikibooks]], [[Wikiquote]], [[Wikisource]] and [[Wikinews]]—but not [[Wikiversity]], [[Wikispecies]], [[Wikimedia Commons]], the many [[Template:Sisterprojects|"backstage" projects]], or here at [[Meta]]—have a strict '''neutral point of view''' (NPOV) policy, which states that their missions are best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts — among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist.<<

So in fact, these six projects Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource and Wikinews have adopted the NPOV, while there exist other Wikimedia projects which don't follow the NPOV.

I think it would be acceptable if the Terms of Use would say that the NPOV is mandatory for those Wikimedia projects which have adopted the NPOV, or if the Terms of Use would say that the [[Founding principles]] should be respected.

--[[User:Rosenkohl|Rosenkohl]] 21:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

:Let's try a practical example:
:* If I were to write, "Rosenkohl is a convicted criminal", is that not a truly false statement about you, rather than one merely in need of a source?
:* Since NPOV is '''not mandatory''' right here at WikiMedia, on what grounds would you object to such a false claim here, if merely saying it's false is irrelevant? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
::Why do u get personnel again, @whatamidoing, even if it was meant as an example. Lets try to explain to u in short, what was meant. True and false concerning facts are relative, as u say: The truth always lies in the middle of a subject. Thats why NPOV is important. If u state a fact and someone else poses the exact opposite to that, either u post a false content, or ur opponent does. NPOV means to show both sides of the coin. Thats all.--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 21:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC) PS.: Its a clear difference, if so. shows false behaviour (this one u can define, the content is always to view out of a myriad of possible meanings of specialists - will u define, who of them is right, and who is wrong? That would be TF.)

:::Actually, Angel, Rosenkohl says above that you are wrong: He says that if I state a fact, and someone else poses the exact opposite to that, then ''nobody'' is posting false content, because Rosenkohl believes that false content cannot exist. Rosenkohl says that what you call "false content" is not false, but only "non-neutral" or "incorrectly sourced" content.
:::So I wish to know: Does Rosenkohl really believe that no statement can be false? Is he happy if I write these statements about him, or does he wish the Foundation to prohibit me from writing false statements about him?
:::(The truth does not lie in the middle here: either Rosenkohl really is a convicted criminal, or I would be making a 100% false statement about him.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Counter question: How many errors of justice do u know? Thats factfinding, but those facts can be wrong. There is no security that something is absolute true or false.--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 21:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:::Thanks for this discussion. I guess I might retort that, even if NPOV is the standard (as opposed to truth vs. falsity) for an encyclopedia or other Project, the "intentional[]" "posting [of] content that is otherwise false" is inconsistent with NPOV. The primary purpose of this provision in Section 4 is to enforce against vandalism where persons intentionally leave false statements in what effectively constitutes an attack against the NPOV principle or the integrity of the Project to become a source of credible information (i.e., knowledge). I feel comfortable with this provision as is, but, of course, if consensus is otherwise, please let me know. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:::: It seems to me that a great deal of the confusion here could be avoided by substituting the phrase "intent to deceive or manupulate" for the "intentional". This would resolve all variations wherein the user knowingly posts a falsehood as part of a broader argument or project. For instance, in a [[w:en:Reductio ad absurdum|reductio ad absurdum]] argument, or while transcribing a classic text written prior to a modern scientific discovery. It's the intention ''to decieve one's fellow editors and/or readers'' that poses a problem, not mere intention to post a falsehood. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 23:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I think that "intentional" is okay, since we would interpret it in the context of the whole action in context. Posting a classic text—and correctly labeling it as such—is not a false action. "I faithfully transcribe the classic text about the Earth being flat to Wikisource" is a true and honest action.
:::::"Intentional" means "not by accident", which I think is our limited goal. "With intent to deceive or manipulate" is likely to result in wikilawyering about the impossibility of knowing someone's internal motivations. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I think you and I are in agreement about what needs to be communicated, but not entirely about the best words to do so. I think that "intentional" is as much about "intent" as is "intent to deceive or manipulate," so I'm not sure it's any easier to prove. Also, aren't we concerned with ''actual'' lawyering, not wikilawyering, when composing TOU? It seems to me that courts of law deal with the need to establish intent all the time; it's challenging, but not impossible. Of course, you're the lawyer, not me. But when I read the following statement (from the current draft):
{{quote|Intentionally or knowingly posting … content that is otherwise false, inaccurate…}}
:::::: …that, to me, sounds in plain English like it prohibits perfectly good Wikisource transcription of documents that state "the world is flat." That strikes me as a problem, and I'd like to see it phrased in a way that does not (appear to) prohibit productive work. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 21:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::What u write is not clear to me, @whatamidoing. If in the first sentence I read "would interpret" and in the last one about the "impossibility of knowing someones internal motivations" thats a clear contradiction. What are u trying to say?--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Last question: What has the content to do within the TOU anyhow? In an instruction manual of a washing machine u get advice, how to use that thing, not what to put in it.--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

== [[Terms of use#15. Limitation on Liability]] ==

There should be a specific currency, as USD for the 100$. ~~[[User:ebe123|EBE123]]~~ [[User talk:Ebe123|talk]][[Special:Contributions/Ebe123|Contribs]] 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks Ebel123. I made the change. I also took the liberty of increasing the amount to $1000. My intention with the limitation of liability is to provide some protection of WMF funds. I don't want some big corporation suing our non-profit for unreasonable donor dollars, but I don't want to prevent legitimate claims from the regular user. The $100 USD limit is quite typical in other user agreements, but, in light of other feedback, I'm increasing the limitation to $1000. [[User:Geoffbrigham|Geoffbrigham]] 23:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

== Use page translation for translations? ==

Hi. I propose to use [[User:Siebrand/Pagetranslation_test|Page Translation]] for structured translations of this page. I've already e-mailed Geoff. I'd love to configure it, but as the page is protected, I cannot do that... --[[User:Siebrand|Siebrand]] 22:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
:Have been in contact with Geoff and Philippe in the meantime, and tagged the page for translation using my Foundation account. Structured translation is now active. Please give it a go! --[[User:Siebrand|Siebrand]] 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
:: Ah, so ''this'' is what happens when you have dedicated language people on staff. Most excellent!! -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== Major problem with the new terms of use ==

tl;dr - too much text, no one will really read it except the diehard EULA readers. [[User:AzaToth|AzaToth]] 00:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
: True. But I don't think that the main purpose of these terms of use is to be read. More important seems to be the possibility to tell potential complainants: "We told you so from the beginning in the ToS, but you didn't read them/follow them!". --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 10:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== Minor copyediting and question about section 12 ==

I have the following comments about the new terms of use:
*In the overview section, the word ''different'' in "we host different Projects too" should be replaced by ''other''. ''Other'' has some added meaning that ''different'' lacks.
*In section 7I, "obtained from Project website" should be "obtained from a Project website".
*Section 12: By "terminate this account", do you mean blocking? In that case, it is still possible to access your account and its settings (i.e. user preference, watchlist) when blocked; it is only impossible to edit the project (except for your user talk page, if editing of that page hasn't been disabled). [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] 00:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

== Section 4. / WMF obligation ==

General question to the legal experts: Could this whole section be construed to mean that WMF places itself under the legal obligation to enforce these rules? If so, is that the section's intent? If not, should there be a line stating just that? (e.g. ''"Nothing in this section places the Wikimedia Foundation under the obligation to enforce these rules in all cases."'') [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Identification questions and answers

2011-10-18T20:05:13Z

Tinz: /* Identification of candidates */ re

== Personal thoughts ==
Here are thoughts stemming from today's [[Wikimedia Meetings|open meeting]]. I don't know what led to the recent discussion/decision to reinterpret the policy, and haven't been following the latest discussion closely. When the policy was first passed, I recall a discussion about whether to ask OTRS volunteers to identify, but the idea was dropped.

I would love to see examples in which it matters that a person agreeing to uphold Foundation policies was able to legally bind themselves to such an agreement; or in which we might need to follow up with someone under their real name as a result of their work with nonpublic data.

I wasn't on the Board when the initial [[wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy|policy]] was written, and it hasn't changed since 2007. As far as I know there has been no Board discussion of it since then. It seems to me what matters is:
: someone trusted (to verify the identity of others)
: confirms that a user (identified by username + email (and/or knowledge of the user's password))
: belongs to a person (identified by a real name, contact information, and ???)
: who (is capable of entering into binding agreements? can be held responsible for their actions?)

We gauge whether someone is trusted to carry out certain tasks based on their work and history on the projects, not based on this ID process.

The discussions of the age of majority, and when one can enter into binding agreements, imply that there are such agreements for contributors to sign. Do we have such agreements / have we ever taken that step? –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] 21:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

=== Why identify ===
There are a few different expectations about why this matters. Is this a way to remind people that certain work should be taken seriously? A sanity check for conflicts of interest? A way to get better contact information? A way to hold people personally responsible for their work with private data?

Depending on why one is identifying contributors, a minimum set of information to keep might include:
* A record that the user was ID'ed, a description of what process was followed.
* Contact information
* A copy of any agreements signed.

Beyond this sort of private identification process, for what roles do we need people whose identities are fully, publicly known? For instance, for financial and other transparency it is generally assumed that full identities of staff, contractors, and Trustees will be(come) public. Is there anything in between those levels of identification?

=== Other questions ===
: What is needed beyond a legal full name to identify a person signing a contract or agreement? (What goes in the "???" above?)
: How extensively should the ID process be validated?
: How much information is needed to record that someone has been IDed successfully?
: What sort of agreement should people consciously enter into to be entrusted with private data? (What agreements are currently used?)
: Should all or part of an ID process be renewed periodically? Maintenance of current contact information?

=== Some thought experiments ===
# A prominent athlete becomes a prominent Wikipedian. Or vice-versa. That person enjoys helping out with OTRS. What is the minimum number of people who need to know that this Wikipedian is famous in the real world? Can they be identified simply by their email address and 10-year edit history?
# A prominent Wikipedian is also a Brockhaus writer and maintainer of the satirical website http://wikipediaunendlich.com . She starts helping out with scholarship work. Does she need to highlight these real-world connections to related projects?
# A chapter in a jurisdiction where people can enter into binding agreements at age 17 wants to manage its own identification process. They also don't want any information used to identify their participants to leave their country, to avoid having it potentially cached on servers in other countries. Can the Chapter take responsibility by proxy for the work of such contributors? If the act of taking responsibility involves signing an agreement, how would that work in practice?

== On exceptions ==
Back in 2007 it made sense for the Board to be the source of any exceptions to [[wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy|this policy]]. Now it seems out of place for the Board to be noted explicitly as the source of exceptions -- while the Board could approve an exception to any policy in any specific case, that should be a very rare circumstance indeed. Whoever is managing the ID process (and already trusted to verify these identities and uphold our privacy principles) should be able to make exceptions, if any are needed. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 21:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

== Identification of candidates ==
Since at least 2007, all steward candidates must identify to the foundation before the voting starts. I suspect that this is not a requirement of the board but just tradition?! In any case, it doesn't make sense and should be changed because those candidates who do not get elected haven't fulfilled the criteria of [[wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy]] at any point. The identification process should happen after the elections. (This is something I already remarked on [[Talk:Stewards/elections 2011]], but no one answered there.) --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
:*late ;) but strong! support. (Although - with a view upon the open questions on content page - this page seems to be lost in foundations webspace, not to be watched and edited.) --[[User:Rax|Rax]] 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:::The problem is, that people probably don't want to vote for people when they don't know if they fulfil the criteria. It would be shame and waste of time to translate all statements, ask questions and so on, to then get someone elected who is not or won't identify. -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:::: I don't think that this will be a problem. Any candidate with a remote chance to get elected has put a lot of work into the project and thereby built a reputation for him. There are also technical criteria he must fulfill (must be admin somewhere). Now someone like this could of course write an application, answer questions, confirm that he is 18 and willing to identify in case he gets elected, and then, after the election, say "Haha, I lied earlier, I'm not going to identify". But why should he do this? All of his efforts would have been totally futile, plus he would probably lose a lot of the trust that got him elected in the first place. On the other hand, he has absolutely nothing to gain. This scenario is just not going to happen, as long as you make sure that each candidate puts his <nowiki> ---~~~~ </nowiki> after the statement "I confirm that I am above 18 and willing to identify to the foundation in case I get elected." --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::This is indeed an abandoned page: it was created to ask some questions about the new identification policy and collect/summarise answers which never came. Anyway, I don't understand what "not a requirement of the board but just tradition" means: the rules for election are decided by the board through the election committee and you can find the last ones at [[Board_elections/2011/en#Prerequisites_to_candidacy]]; they're not necessarily legal requirements and the best place to discuss them is the talk of the process itself. I doubt your proposal will be accepted, though, and if you look at the history I think you'll see that this particular requirement actually helped to remove some not serious candidates. [[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 18:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I think that that you misunderstood me, I was talking about Steward elections, not about board elections (for which the identification in advance makes much more sense because applicants don't have to be admins). -[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 20:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Identification questions and answers

2011-10-18T12:51:30Z

Tinz: /* Identification of candidates */ re

Talk:Terms of use

2011-09-16T22:46:42Z

Tinz: /* federal or state law */ re

==If you were wondering what this page is about...==
Below is a copy of the [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2011-September/000238.html announcement] from the mailing lists by the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel:

Hi,

In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a
new terms of use agreement. Given our size and the need to ensure good communication with our users, I think we do, so we’ve put ourselves to drafting a new version with the hopes that we could get your review, comments, and ideas.

* You can find the current version of our terms of use here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use .
* You can view the new draft here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use

As I see it, right now our present terms of use is not much more than a licensing agreement. It does not address a number of other subjects that are normally found in terms of use of other community-driven websites and that are often relevant for both legal and community reasons. See, as examples, the Mozilla Terms of Use (http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Terms%20of%20Service) and Creative Commons Terms of Use (https://creativecommons.org/terms) .

What we would like to do is to invite you to read the draft, reflect on it, and leave your comments and feedback on the discussion page. We plan to leave this version up for at least 30 days; indeed, a 30-day comment period for changes is built into the new draft.

Our plan is to review the comments and feedback, make appropriate changes and edits, return with a revised version, and, if appropriate, propose that draft to the Board of Trustees for adoption and translation.

Generally, we sought to craft a document that is more even-handed, shorter, and easier-to-read than most user agreements. Although we encourage you to read the entire draft, here are some key provisions to give you some flavor:

* '''Security''': The proposed agreement prohibits a number of actions - like malware - that could compromise our systems. We thought we should be clear as to what is unacceptable in this area, though most of these restrictions will not be surprising.
*''' Roles and responsibilities''': We feel we need to be honest with the community on a number of issues, including user liability. We have heard a number of community members asking for guidance on this topic. The proposed agreement also seeks to provide guidelines to help users avoid trouble.
* '''Community feedback''': With this version, and with each major revision afterwards, we want the community to be involved … obviously. So the proposed agreement gives users a 30-day comment period before a major revision goes into effect (with Board approval). There is a 3-day exception for urgent legal and administrative changes.
* '''Free Licensing''': We felt our present agreement is somewhat confusing on the free licensing requirements. The proposed agreement attempts to explain more clearly those requirements for editors.
* '''Harassment, threats, stalking, vandalism, and other long-term issues''': The proposed agreement would make clear that such acts are prohibited. Novel for us, the agreement also raises the possibility of a global ban for extreme cross-wiki violations, a need that we have heard expressed from a number of community members. We will share that policy with the community in draft form shortly. Dealing with such matters is a process that we hope volunteers will continue to lead on a day-to-day basis.
* '''Other Legal Provisions''': We do have other legal provisions...we are lawyers after all. Most notably, the proposed agreement incorporates legal sections that are commonly used to help safeguard a site like ours, such as disclaimers and limitations on liability.

Thank you in advance for your review and comments. Your input will be invaluable.

Geoff

:As Geoff states above, your comments and questions are definitely desired here, and we'll do our best to answer in a timely fashion. Thanks, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

::"In the legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation, we have been examining for some time whether, as the 5th largest website in the world, we need a new terms of use agreement." In keeping with the new WMF policy of making all the decisions, we decided we do, and are now going to consult the community about the detail only.
::Has ''nothing'' been learned from the image filter fiasco? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:24 10 September 2011 (GMT).
:::"Be Bold" ? :-) -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 10:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

:::That leaving real legal work to a bunch of teenagers and wikilawyers is a bad idea? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Undoubtedly. I expect the ''Encyclopedia Judeica'' used professionals when they put the prohibition about "cancelbots" in their ToS. {{Smiley}}
::::But certainly there is no harm in having a qualified professional produce the actual document, and advise as to the content. However the community (or "teenagers and wikilawyers" as you so charmingly call us - I regret I am not the former and I hope I am not the latter) should be capable of producing the requirements spec. If anyone can tell me the practical use of :
::::* "Using the Services in a manner that is inconsistent with any and all applicable laws and regulations."
::::I would be most interested. It is basically like a card game that has a rule saying "no cheating". If that rule is needed then there is another one needed saying "No breaking the rule about no cheating". And so forth. Really we need to decide what the purpose or purposes of the ToS are and build them on that basis, not just put in as many clauses as we can that look good. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 01:27 14 September 2011 (GMT).

:::::It looks like a basic catch-all: We will ban you if you break the law, even if the specific example of lawbreaking isn't mentioned above. To give two examples, I see nothing here about prohibiting behaviors that break the insider trading laws or prohibiting you from looking at pictures on Commons while a court has banned you from using the Internet at all, but either of these behaviors might result in the WMF blocking your access to the site. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Why should leaving real legal work to a bunch of teenagers and wikilawyers be a bad idea? After all, what the WMF should be about is letting a bunch of random people, including teenagers and wikilawyers, write an encyclopedia, a dictionary and a bunch of other things. As everybody knows (remember Nupedia or Citizendium?) it is better to leave this to the experts, and using an open wiki model can't possibly work. [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== Some comments ==

Hi, thanks for posting. Some comments:
* Whoa, that was loooong! Would be great if we can shorten it a bit. It is waaaaay longer than the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use current version].
* Section 4: "(...) will refrain from (...) Linking to material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation;" - this is default behaviour of anyone requesting admin actions or a block. Doesn't seem reasonable in these wordings.
* Same section: "...Soliciting personal information from anyone under the age of 18 (...)" - isn't this a bit too broad defined? How do you know someone is under 18 if you're not allowed to ask personal information? :)
* What I am missing in section 4 is something like "accessing the edit interface when the community has banned you from doing so" (block evasion).
* 7a states Wikinews as example - I believe the language edition should be specified there.
* I do the way things are worded - generally non-legalese and positive. However, I still hope we can get rid of several clauses.
[[User:Effeietsanders|Effeietsanders]] 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
*:P.S.: I do think, re-reading, that most of these clauses are stating the obvious and already arranged by law (harrassment, child pornography, viruses etc) - why is it necessary to make it explicit? Isn't it so that those who will bother because it is written, wouldn't do it anyway, and those who dont care... well, don't care? [[User:Effeietsanders|Effeietsanders]] 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::Geoff will answer, I'm sure, but in the meantime... this gives us additional legal coverage if we need it. If not, it's very easy to say - for instance, if we're in court because someone is mad that we banned them - "but you never told me the standards!" This gives us a very clear time at which we will have told them the standards. It's unarguable. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I guess that depends :) Personally I am no fan of trying to lock everything down that is a minor legal risk (someone suing us because of being banned? If that is really the problem, we should simply tell them that the community has full liberty for that - much simpler), so unless it is a major issue, I would be in favor of leaving it out. Besides that much of it seems to be covered by the laws anyways. Also, but IANAL, I have some doubts if the applicable law will fly in all countries, especially since there is no real signing of the ToU. I think that in the Netherlands for example, that usually makes them rather useless. [[User:Effeietsanders|Effeietsanders]] 22:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:::If you bar a lot of things in the ToS that you plan to ultimately ignore (like admins linking to stuff that violates the ToS, or asking someone about their age because they are running for ArbCom, and subsequently discovering they are under 18, etc.), and doing it purely for legal cover, what happens when in court a plaintiff's attorney lists a thousand times you've declined to enforce the ToS? [[User:Nathan|Nathan]][[User talk:Nathan| T ]] 23:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
::::What happens is they point to the section that says declining to enforce the ToS a thousand times doesn't affect their ability to enforce it in this case - "If in any circumstance we do not apply or enforce any provision of this agreement, it is not a waiver of that provision". This is a well-known issue. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 07:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually if someone wants to sue us for blocking them, then I think ToS would not stop them, moreover it should not. Of course we don't want to see the foundation sued, as supporters of the projects, but neither do we want to see it immune from suit, as decent human beings. Moreover the situation of a few years ago where even talking to an external lawyer would have eaten most of the years budget no longer holds. I think the foundation can, and should say "We prefer to resolve disagreements amicably, and we have no wish to go to court with anyone, however we defend the right to due process, even of those we disagree with." ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:51 11 September 2011 (GMT).
:I agree that the prohibition on soliciting "personal information," whatever that is, from someone under 18 is too broad. Personal information is needed when someone asks for certain roles like steward where we don't want a 17 year old to get the job, and biographical information can be very important when discussing a user's level of knowledge of a subject or copyright license claims. Also, this prohibition assumes that the person who "solicits" whatever that means, "personal information" whatever that means, knows that the person that they're communicating with is under 18. Finally, do you want to prohibit teens from sharing contact information with other teens that they meet on Wikipedia? I suggest removing the under-18 language and replacing it with something more specific that applies to all Wikipedians regardless of age, "requesting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, or violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation." There is a significant difference between "personal information" and "personally identifiable information," and personally identifiable information could be requested for legitimate reasons. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 23:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:: I have additional suggestions. Have a link in the Terms of Use and elsewhere to online safety information that's relevant for teens and everyone else, like "just because X tells you that he's 13 doesn't mean that he is," "just because his photo looks your age doesn't mean that's him", and "don't ever send or accept money from someone on Wikipedia, and report anyone who asks." Send occasional safety reminders, maybe in the Signpost or other places where lots of people will see them. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
::: It might actually be a good idea to have an entirely separate page on wikimediafoundation.org that's about online safety with links etc. Then this policy or anyone on the projects could refer to it as a resource. What do you think Pine? Thanks for the comments, [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: That sounds good, but I hope there's a way to post regular reminders and updates. Methods for fraud constantly evolve. Also, I need to amend my other comments. You could completely prohibit asking for social security numbers, financial account information including credit card numbers, and passwords of any kind, because there is no circumstance when that information would be needed to evaluate someone's contributions or qualifications. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 11:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: Do we really want to take responsibility for our user's on-line safety? We have articles on en:wp - for informational purposes only - that cover phishing, 901 scams, hoaxes, malware etc. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:59 11 September 2011 (GMT).
:::::: Encouraging people to stay safe and providing them helpful information is different than taking responsibility for them, and yes Wikimedia should take some responsibility especially by making reasonable efforts to prevent malware from being hosted or linked from Wikimedia and by protecting User privacy and passwords including warning users of any phishing, fraud, or malware targeted at Wikimedia users. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Absolutely agree that we should do all those things - although "linking to malware" is a bit vague, I'm sure we link or linked to many tools pages, probably including the virus toolkit - and I believe we link to Microsoft. Some of that belongs in the Privacy Policy, some of it in operations, some of it in various bits of user documentation. We are pretty good at password management these days - though an encrypted logon through a java applet might be a good facility. The only thing is, none of this belongs in the ToS. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 01:36 14 September 2011 (GMT).

== Harassment, threat and abuse ==

Hi Geoff, I'm wondering about the need to incorporate harassment, threats etc. in the Terms of use. Is this a new area where WMF will be taking a lead, since this area is reserved for community and internal consensus on projects. I am wondering how far it can go and what is the intention? [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 21:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:I like this section because it spells out that some types of conduct will get an user banned by the community and in some very rare instances it will be enforced by the WMF by using legal means if necessary. I think that section could make it more obvious that bans and blocks happen primarily by the community by putting it earlier in the section. So, it shows that there most likely will be a progression with the community usually dealing with the issue first, and then the WMF. [[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 21:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

:Hey Theo. I'll let Geoff answer as well if he likes, but since I read the draft previously and both Philippe and I are working with legal on these issues I'll take a stab at it: the short answer is that the new provisions do ''not'' mean that the Wikimedia Foundation will be starting up a new system for policing the projects when it comes to harassment, threats, or abuse. The provisions exist to legally reinforce the right of the projects and the volunteers that run them to remove users who violate the terms of use and the community policies/guidelines which it says you must follow (see section 11). [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks Steven, I saw the reply after sending my post to foundation-l. :P sorry about that. Thanks again for the prompt response and explanation, I'll see if Geoff or someone, expands more on the draft of the provision here or elsewhere. Later. [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 01:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I dislike this as currently written. Terms of use should be enforced by the service provider. They are undermined by inclusion of undefined subjective items like harassment, threat and abuse among a multitude of prohibited activities in section 4. There are some very important items in this prohibited activities list. Rather than have a bright line when problems rightly become WMF responsibility, this draft document allows the WMF to take action against many misdemeanors. They will do this, inevitably showing favouritism to those closest to the WMF. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 03:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:"They will do this, inevitably showing favouritism to those closest to the WMF."? How about some Assume Good Faith, John. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 05:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

::Sure, I assume that the WMF wont intentionally show favouritism. :-) And my statement is not a slight on the WMF staff, nor is it even directed at them. I have no qualms saying that people closest to WMF and Jimmy and ArbCom and admins are shown favouritism. It is a feature as much as it is a bug. This is reality. It is human nature. It is also a business reality whenever money is involved. And as the WMF grow, able to push [[:File:WMF_StrategicPlan2011_spreads.pdf|US$50M per annum]] towards endeavours they consider to be strategic, their capacity to show favouritism increases. The remedy for this is to ensure that as much of wikimedia as possible is publicly visible, audit-able and transparent, and there is a culture of constant review and improvement. That keeps in check these unintended side effects of the strong bonds within our community, and the effect of enourmous amounts of money. Much of the internal workings of the WMF are not publicly audit-able. "[[w:WP:OFFICE]]" actions will never be publicly audit-able, so they should be reserved for cases which warrant the cards being played close to the chest, and the terms of use should prohibit activities which are uncontroversially unacceptable. The current laundry list of prohibited activities will mean that people in the community will scream "violation of terms of use" any time they feel harassed, threatened or hurt. It will become another tool to bludgeon each other with. And they will also bludgeon ArbCom and the WMF staff with "you're not enforcing the terms of use". What happens when ArbCom doesn't uphold these terms of use, or ArbCom principles are not as strongly worded as the terms of use; we'll be accused with being weak and supporting the harassers. And these people will turn to the WMF to enforce the terms of use. Good luck. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 06:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

== Immunity issues, plans for enforcement, sensitity to potential abuses ==

Crossed from Foundation-l:

The previous terms contained essentially no behavioral prohibitions. I'm not sure if this was out of concern for Section 230 status, the independence of projects wrt policy making, or some other reason, but this new set of terms is a huge departure. It prohibits a broad range of unwanted activity, which raises the question: how does the WMF intend to enforce it? Would enforcing these terms threaten its immunity as a service provider? If the terms are not consistently enforced, doesn't that present its own set of liability concerns?

I'd also like to see some exceptions to the indemnity terms. The way I read it, an editor could violate a law that itself contradicts international human rights norms, and if the WMF incurred any joint liability as a result, the indemnification attempts to transfer that liability to the editor. I can see unintended consequences coming from this; even if as a practical matter the WMF can make a case-by-case decision, departing from the terms - where the terms allow no flexibility - presents its own problems. If for no other reason, stating a human rights exception to the terms would make clear Wikimedia's intention to be a good corporate citizen (a fact that is otherwise just implied by the folksy writing style.) [[User:Nathan|Nathan]][[User talk:Nathan| T ]] 23:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
:A TOS that prohibits certain actions and permits projects to take a range of actions against those who violate the TOS is actually more supportive of the ability of our communities to establish behavioural policies and enforce them adequately than is one that doesn't mention behaviour at all. There is no positive requirement that those behavioural standards must be upheld by maximum sanction at every turn within the proposed TOS; the appropriate analogy would be that police officers are not obliged to make an arrest every time they observe a violation of a law, but are permitted some degree of discretion. In many of our communities, these discretionary actions could range from someone having a personal discussion with the user through formal warnings, a short-term block, a long-term block or ban, or some other user-specific restriction, dependent on the exact nature of the violation and the response of the individual. Most projects don't ban people at the first copyright violation; they work to educate the user, or to otherwise change the behaviour first. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 03:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::Regarding "how does the WMF intend to enforce it?" - very selectively, I fear. I don't think this is a liability issue, but more a fairness one. There's already many problems with "discretion", and this strikes me as likely to make those problems worse. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 07:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::The old "TOS" had no mention of indemnifying anyone. I am curious: how many users do you think "got away with" not paying Wikimedia an indemnity in the past? More to the point, I can very easily picture a 20/20 news report: ''They call it an encyclopedia that anyone can edit... "Be bold", they said, "don't worry if you make a mistake, your edit can be undone". Tonight we'll be talking to parents who found out the hard way just how expensive a free encyclopedia can be. And we'll talk to experts who advise what your school can do to protect your children and itself from Wikipedia...'' [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

==Please Keep Your Information Secure==
The heading "Please Keep Your Information Secure" would probably make more sense as "Please Keep Your Password Secure". specially as elsewhere in this document you are asking people to release their information via CC-by-SA. Please keep your Personal Information secure might make a little more sense, but would conflict with longstanding policy that encourages editors to share certain personal information such a language proficiencies. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
== Users Authors and Editors==
This document largely refers to us as ''users'', and at least once as ''authors''. Editors and Readers are both longer, and presumably would require an opening sentence that defined those terms. But this is one place where that sort of courtesy would be more appropriate than usual. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

:Good to think about, for sure. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

::The terms of use for Users, Editors, Projects and Reusers (who want to reuse our stuff elsewhere) are quite different and the terms of use should be clearly divided into different sections (or pages) aimed at each of these.
::Users or Readers get the right to download and save stuff to read later for instance - a right not available on other sites.
::Authors and Editors have certain duties to the projects and certain more general duties to the foundation.
::The projects themselves are separate from and clients of the Foundation and have certain duties to the foundation. I think a section of the Terms of Use directed at the projects would be useful - spelling out that the projects have a lot of leeway to manage themselves but are subject to certain restrictions, in accordance with their agreements with WMF (Wikipedias are neutral, all projects use free licenses, all projects allow contributions from the public)
::The TOU for reusers are more general and basicly point to the license terms and the fact that the Foundation doesn't own the copyrights.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 11:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I think "Users" is a good idea, since it covers everyone, and other options don't. For example, a person who uploads a photograph to Commons would probably not describe himself as an "Editor". I imagine that a reader who rates an article with the Article Feedback Tool or who leaves one comment on a talk page would not think of himself as an "Editor" either. But all of these people see themselves as "Users". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

::::But the terms of use are not the same for all users. Terms of use for readers are different from those for authors and editors. I did think of using "Contributors" as a term for authors and editors but I thought that could be confused with donors - people who give money. The Terms of Use for monetary Donors will be very short -

What benefits do I get if I donate money to Wikipedia?
* The satisfaction of knowing you are helping to achieve our Vision
* er...
* That's it.
—''The preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] ([[User talk:Filceolaire|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Filceolaire|contribs]]) .

:And within the US, some donors will receive tax benefits, and possibly some advertising value, if they publish a list of donors.
:On your other point, the terms are the same for all users. The only difference is that only certain terms are applicable for certain situations. This is the same as any other website. For example, CNN.com says that "By submitting User Content to CNN.com, you automatically grant CNN and its parent company, Cable News Network, Inc., the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, publish, reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, translate...". Those are the terms for everyone, but since I've never submitted any user content, that particular paragraph doesn't apply to me. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 23:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Anyone who fixes a typo, categorises an article or uploads a photograph is one of our volunteer contributors, by convention we call them editors, I think contributors might be more accurate - but our terms should use the jargon that we use in the community. Telling a fellow wikimedian that their contributions are such that we are downgrading them from "editor" to "user" is a bad move. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 23:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::I disagree that calling me a "user" rather than an "editor" is a downgrade. But then, I don't buy into the notion that "editors" are better than "readers", either, and I know that some "editors" do believe themselves to be much, much more important than readers. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

==Libel==
The [[:EN:McLibel Case]] is an article about a libel case, it explains amongst other things which of a list of libel charges were found to be true or false. A prohibition on the posting of "defamatory, or libelous content" would require that article to be bowdlerised. I suggest instead that the section be reworded so that wikinews and wikipedia can still cover libel cases appropriately. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 00:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:Geoff knows better of course, but I'm pretty certain that (in the U.S. at least) referring to or even quoting from past legal cases is not treated the same as posting original libelous content. I don't see any reason why articles on past libel cases in the courts would need to be redacted in any way. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
::Well actually you only know definitively that something is libellous ''after'' the court hearings. So unless the WMF is intending to second guess the courts, this is far better left to the stricter and non-legalistic BLP provisions. (Second guessing the courts is a bad idea, firstly you can be suppressing material that you should not, which leads to problems of bias, with all the "-ism" related issues that that entails, secondly you can allow material which you should suppress, which might very well lead you into a liability situation, where without the clause, as a common carrier, you would have (in the US but not in the UK) no liability.) ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 20:41 11 September 2011 (GMT).

::I think Steven is right. Libel under US laws depends on the whole circumstance, not on bits quoted out of context. Courts themselves commonly quote libelous statements in their public decisions, and then go on to say that this bit is libelous because it's false, misleading, or whatever. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::OK so we are all happy with current practice such as the [[:EN:McLibel Case]]. Now how do we reword these terms to reflect that? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

::::I don't believe that any re-wording is necessary. "The defendant's statement that _____ was found to be libel" is ''not'' a libelous statement, so posting that material would not violate this (proposed) agreement. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::No, that's a scenario where one can repeat libellous content without libelling someone. If the terms were about not using the site to commit libel then it would be OK to have defamatory or libellous content such as "X was found guilty of libelling Y by accusing them of Z". But these terms are much broader than that, which wouldn't be a problem except that we have people here trying to write encyclopedia articles, publish original source material on Wikisource and even write news reports, potentially on libel trials. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 19:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== Comments ==

The first part of this is too wordy. Shorten and simplify. For example, most of "Overview..." is duplicated under "A description..." andf its first sentence can be cut right down: ''"This Agreement explains our Services, our relationship to you as a User, and your and our rights and responsibilities."''

Most studies find that simple direct statements work better in formal documents. Title the 2nd section just "Privacy policy", not "Please Look at Our Privacy Policy", and section 3 as "Content policies" or "Hosted content", not "About the Content We Host". Likewise section 7 should be "Licencing and re-use", not "How Content Is Licensed".

Section 4 contains a long preamble and 18 bullet points. Too long to read as it stands. Group them in 5 headings with bullets under each as examples:

:* Harmful, distressing, and defamatory activity
:* Breach of privacy, copyright, trademarks, or other rights
:* Disruptive use, and misuse of websites or facilities, for purposes other than intended
:* Activities that are illegal or relate to minors
:* Soliciting or exploiting personal information

"Termination" is poorly worded (''"In the event of termination, your account may be disabled and you may not be granted access to it, or to any files or other content contained in your account. In such a case, your contributions may remain accessible to other Users."''). Reword: - If your account is terminated for any reason, you and other users will still have access to your public actions and your contributions, but you will not be able to access your account or its settings once disabled.

One thing that's caused occasional headaches from time to time, and would be nice to see addressed: - a provision that third parties who outframe our content on their site, or with adverts or offers, or in books, should state that the original content is available free and without adverts. Is that consistent with CC?

There's others but those are starters. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 01:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

== Disrupting the Services by placing an undue burden on a Project website or the networks or servers connected with a Project website ==

Hello, This really needs clarification. It could easily be misinterpreted. [[User:Yann|Yann]] 06:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

:I'd suggest taking it out. If a bot runs too fast it is easy enough to deflag it. While deliberate denial of service attacks can be treated like any other form of vandalism. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 08:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

::Just recently WMF operations had to deal with a suspicious IP making lots of database queries, which turned out to be a bot running on an [[:en:Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud|Amazon EC2]] node. I believe it ended up killing a db temporarily. The community can't just deflag an account if there's no account there, and the truth is most Internet bots are not the kind that get registered and make edits. So it's important that we state that we have the right to revoke your access if you break the site. :) [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::It's important that we act in such circumstances, but do we need yet another hostile sounding line in the terms? If we took this line out is there any risk that in a future such incident anyone would argue that they did have the right to break our site in this particular way? We don't have lines in there preventing people from using a digger to dig a most round our offices and cut all power lines.... [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 18:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I think Geoff honestly has a better answer based on legal precedent, but of those two examples you gave, bots running wild etc. is something that has happened repeatedly in the past, affects other major websites, and is thus assessed as a real legal risk if we do not explicitly say what is allowed and what isn't. The latter example you gave is totally hypothetical and thus doesn't present enough of a legal risk to include in the document (of course). [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yet ''somehow'' without this TOS in place you still managed to deal with that bot. How is that? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::That's a bit of a red herring, isn't it? Sure, with a spitball I can sometimes stop an invading army. But I can do it better with a cannon or a sniper rifle. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 05:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, but if you're being attacked by misbehaving children, I'd rather you stuck with spitballs. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There's three scenarios here:
# Some kind of error - someone not understanding the impact of their actions (or in the old days when we get "slashdotted").
# Some naive attack - skript kidz if you will, or a special interest group with limited skillz.
# Some more sophisticated attack.

In the first scenario we simply need to resolve the issue, no need to take legal steps.

In the second situation we will probably not even notice the attack (there was one such attempt, by a significant sepcial interest group, that was picked up by chance - I forget the details, but it didn't even blip server response). If we do, then we have the full arsenal of defence measures at our disposal.

In the third scenario, we have the law, the majority of ISPs and the FBI on our side, together with more technical expertise than you can shake a stick at. In this context, we are not going to be worried about telling Mr Big that he will not be allowed to edit from Fulsome.

:''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 20:52 11 September 2011 (GMT).

== Does this duplicate or supersede policy? ==

This is a ''typical-looking'' terms of use for a business run in the standard dictatorial model, actually lenient in a few details like lewd and indecent material. But that covers up the point that Wikipedia already ''has'' a community that has addressed virtually all of these issues, and could address any of them, which is why it lasted so long with a very atypical TOS, which was always a heartening aspect of the project. There are already reams of policy, admins, ArbCom, all kinds of things to throw off users. So why are so many categories of behavior named here, which can be dealt with there? Is it your intent eventually to make the community policy-making process entirely irrelevant? Will administration likewise be done by some WMF employees throwing people out for violating TOS rather than by admins? If you've survived to become the 5th-largest website without this TOS, doesn't that prove you don't need it ever? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 19:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:The relevant quotes here are:
<blockquote>[Section 10] Typically, isolated violations of Project policy and other similar issues will be dealt with by the Wikimedia Community , and will not require our intervention.</blockquote>
<blockquote>[Section 10] ...please be aware that authorized members of the Wikimedia Community may also take action according to the policies of individual Projects, including but not limited to investigating, blocking, and/or banning Users who violate those policies.</blockquote>
<blockquote>[Section 11] You also agree to abide by mandatory policies and guidelines that are developed on an individual Wikimedia Project level, and which can be found at the particular Project websites.</blockquote>
:To answer the questions: "Is it your intent eventually to make the community policy-making process entirely irrelevant? Will administration likewise be done by some WMF employees throwing people out for violating TOS rather than by admins?" the answer is no. I think from the feedback here it's desirable that with Geoff's approval we should make the language about the precedence of existing community policy and governance stronger and/or more prominent in the relevant sections, because the purpose of adding such clauses is that by putting them in an official Terms of Use, it gives the right of the community to deal with problem users legal backing that didn't exist before. What we're not going to do is become Facebook and hire a team of moderators or similar kind of staff people to enforce the terms. The point of the new terms is to support the movement exactly how it functions now, not alter its roles and responsibilities. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::Why would it ''need'' legal backing? Do the policies with legal backing in the TOS have more importance or strength than those not mentioned in the TOS? And if an administrative action has legal backing, doesn't that mean that accusing someone of a policy violation is a legal threat? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 05:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
:::It doesn't. Someone does something bad, they are not allowed to edit - problem solved (pragmatically - we know there are massive difficulties in the implementation, but the egregious cases covered by a ToS are not difficult to deal with). Linking to community policies - including "Ignore all rules" is setting up an unnecessary legal minefield. This is yet another layer of process, and it is beginning to feel like the tail wagging the dog. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:16 10 September 2011 (GMT).

:::Although I am community liaison, I'm offering my own opinion here. I'm not speaking for the WMF. It needs legal backing because there are rare, severe cases that cannot be addressed without legal options. Since I undertook my contract as community liaison in May, I have been contacted by multiple administrators on English Wikipedia frustrated by their inability to actually do anything about long-term egregious vandals, some of whom take their harassment well beyond inserting bad words into articles. This is a huge step forward to assist the communities with problems like that, when all else fails, although I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking I'm trying to suggest that this will be common. Given all factors (not least cost), I'm sure it won't be. In terms of legal threats, not every project ''has'' a policy against legal threats, of course, but those that do seem capable of drafting language to avoid going to extremes. For example, [[:EN:WP:NLT]] recognizes that "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"." I imagine that if there is any confusion language can be drafted in similar manner to clarify that pointing out policy violation is not a legal threat. Again, my opinion. --[[User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]] 14:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== Does this apply to off-site activity? ==

<blockquote style="font-style:italic;">"Using any information obtained from a Project website to harass, abuse, or harm another person."</blockquote>

As a member of Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Wikipedia Review, I'm considered that the implications of this line. I often link to diff's from Wikimedia project to point out mistakes, evidence of abuse, and to document events. For example, I wrote 90% of ED's "Wikipe-tan" article. In this, I include links and quotes, and both of those fit the definition of "information obtained from a Project website." At "Wikipe-tan#Anti-anime_movement", I mock attempts by those wishing to delete enwiki's Wikipe-tan page. Here I include quotes and information I've obtained from Wikipedia. I also wrote an article on the user "Herostratus", yet he didn't complain. In fact, [[:en:MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/04#My_ED_page|he requested that it be whitelisted]].

I enjoy Wikipedia and the other projects the WMF offered. I don't wish for my account to be terminated due to the things I enjoy doing off-site. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:Addendum: Concerning the Wikipedia Review, some people view criticism and scrutiny as harassment. I don't. Wiki are meant to be transparent. You can view page histories and examine who added what and when. Transparency exists to allow scrutiny. In addition, I'm allowed to have an opinion about about others. Everyone has the right to dislike a sysop and express their opinion, yet some users may view these expressions as harassment. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::"Harass" has a very specific legal definition. Legitimate criticism, gentle fun, even mockery to a certain extent can be absolutely okay. I've certainly taken my share of it. When it crosses the line into harassment, well... I don't know how that would be defensible. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 21:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Will the WMF make clear that it is using the legal definition there, rather than a more expansive one? Please note that these terms do have a history of being used expansively in some Wikipedia contexts. Inversely, I've seen very little interest in enforcing such policy when the offenders are "insiders" attacking "outsiders". -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::It seems unlikely that they mean to apply a legal definition of "vandalism" so I'm surprised if other words in there are intended to be interpreted that way. [[Special:Contributions/87.254.77.167|87.254.77.167]] 22:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::The first line of section 4's prohibitions list ''"harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism"''. The first three terms are thrown around widely and loosely by certain cliques in the Wikimedia community, particularly on en.wp). "Spamming" isn't a legal term at all. "Vandalism" might not be legally applicable in an "everyone can edit" environment. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 23:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Even if you ignore the "anyone can edit", the lack of permanence or costly damage seems key to me. Spray painting someone's car (without permission) is vandalism. Writing in the snow that's fallen on their car, or in the mist on the window... I doubt it. If you can click a button to reverse it then I doubt that's vandalism in any legal or commonly understood sense. Not a lawyer though so *shrug*. [[Special:Contributions/87.254.77.167|87.254.77.167]] 23:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::This also struck me as problematic. In particular, Wikipedia has no way to know whether an off-wiki account is really the same as an on-wiki account. And so far as I know Wikipedia has ''very few'' cases in which off-wiki behavior can be counted against someone under policy. So when enforcing this TOS, what standard of evidence applies? What WMF employee says "he probably did it" and bans someone? Is there any recourse? Is there anything to stop him from arbitrarily making charges even if unsupported entirely? [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 05:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::More to the point, there is no real way to know if two on-site identities are the same, barring co-editing patterns. And it has been the position of many of us that if someone "comes back" as a new account that is editing well, then we need not look too closely (I know others disagree, but to me this follows the "punishment" rather than "prevention" theory of blocks and bans, which we specifically repudiate). ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 21:00 11 September 2011 (GMT).

:I think you're worried about the wrong problems, so let me give you a real-world example of why we ought to have had this from the beginning:
:A long-time admin at the English Wikipedia reported a while ago that he had received phone calls at home from someone who was very upset about losing some basic content dispute. In these phone calls, the other editor not only complained about Wikipedia's inconvenient content policies, but also threatened the admin's wife and children by name.
:Naturally, this off-wiki harassment warrants a prompt phone call to the police. But do you really want that other editor at Wikipedia ever again? What would you tell the admin and his family? "Yes, we know the guy ended up in jail for threatening you and your family, but he made those threats over the telephone system rather than on wiki, so we're letting him keep editing." Wouldn't a better response be something like, "We're blocking that account, and he can apply for unblocking when he can provide letters of support from two psychiatrists plus a video of Satan ice-skating to work"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

==Using information==
Re "Using any information obtained from a Project website to harass, abuse, or harm another person" - is adding conditions about how people use the information compatible with the Creative Commons licence? (Not a rhetorical question - genuinely wondering). [[Special:Contributions/87.254.77.167|87.254.77.167]] 23:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
:It is compatible. i.e. I can use information obtained from Wikipedia to harass someone, however doing so will mean that the WMF can terminate my privilege of contributing to WMF projects. This will mean that [[w:WP:BADSITES]] will become a WMF enforced policy. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 04:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
::Compatible (and, I think you suggest, not good), but not enforceable. Most information is mirrored, the WP:BADGUY could simply claim it came from one of those mirrors. I really think that repeating what is already a legal obligation is redundant, what is not is "Whistling Dixie" ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:17 11 September 2011 (GMT).
::incompatible: ''You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License. [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode cc by sa 3.0 legal code]'' [[User:Syrcro|Syrcro]] 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== Miscellaneous comments ==

* "we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exception of legal compliance for DMCA notices, etc.)." Doesn't the Foundation contribute some content in the form of information on Wikimania events?
* "You May Find Some Material Objectionable" - how does this tie in with the proposed image filter?
* "Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights;" add "except where permitted by fair use or other exceptions."
* "Attempting to impersonate another User or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the Username of another User;" add "or any conduct commonly known as sockpuppeting (such as using multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; or creating the illusion of greater support for a position; or circumventing a block or topic ban); or meatpuppeting (such as asking your friends to create accounts to support you)."
* "Accessing, tampering with, or using any of our non-public areas in our computer systems, including shared areas that you have not been invited to;" how are users supposed to know what areas they should not have been invited to?

[[User:Pine|Pine]] 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for the all-around constructive notes. To reply to the first two briefly... No, the WMF does not contribute to the content in any official capacity. Second, the image filter as proposed currently would let people filter images for themselves, but since it wouldn't do any filtering until you tell it to, there is still certainly the ability to find content you may think is objectionable. Plus, content includes text of course, and there are no plans to filter that for anyone. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
::OK thanks. Also, I've edited my suggested wording on sockpuppeting. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On some of those points...

* "we do not contribute, monitor, or delete content (with the rare exception of legal compliance for DMCA notices, etc.)." This is rather vague, firstly it does not define "content" - the example ToS we are discussing is content on Meta. Secondly using the word "rare" - once a day? once a year? Thirdly the word "we" - does this refer to Foundation employees acting aas employees, does it include OTRS responders? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:29 11 September 2011 (GMT).
* "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" does this mean "Sarek of Vulcan" and "Elen of Roads" need to change usernames? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:29 11 September 2011 (GMT).
* "Accessing, tampering with, or using any of our non-public areas in our computer systems, including shared areas that you have not been invited to;" There is I believe a Computer Misuse Act (if that's the UK title, there is an equivalent US statute) that covers this ground much better. The way this is worded anyone accessing test-wiki (for example) could be in trouble. (Well, they probably wouldn't since a court would say the phraseology was over-broad.) And even someone incorrectly writing to an Arbcom or clerking page would find themselves on the wrong end of this clause. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:29 11 September 2011 (GMT).

:Pine's proposal to qualify the prohibition on infringing copyrights, etc. is unnecessary. If the use is fair use or otherwise subject to an exception, then it is by definition not an infringement. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== Incorrectly capitalized letters ==

I find this:
:
==== How Content Is Licensed ====
:
Why not write this in proper English:
:
==== How content is licensed ====
:
Must even the word "is" have a capital initial letter?
:
We provide certain Services. Really? Capital initial "S"? Why?
:
Lawyers often capitalize initial letters that by reasonable standards of usage should be in lower case, but sometimes that's to call attention to them or to impress the reader with the idea that this is important or to create some sort of sense of formality. Overdoing it as much as that is done here is silly.
:
Once upon a time I was summoned for jury duty, and I was handed an informational booklet that referred to '''J'''udges, '''A'''ttorneys, '''C'''ourt '''R'''ooms, '''B'''ailiffs, and all sorts of things with capital initials that should be in lower case by standard usage conventions. One of those was this term: '''J'''ury '''R'''oom. But later it said something about a: '''j'''ury. Really. With a lower-case initial '''j'''. '''J'''ury '''R'''oom requires capital letters. But '''j'''ury doesn't! Could it be that attorneys aren't all that impressed by juries? But want juries to be impressed by '''J'''ury '''R'''ooms? How much respect should I have for people who write like that, for the effect it might have on yokels?
:
This is puerile and undignified. Lawyers should learn to spell properly. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:I agree, this is one of the many stylistic oddities that lawyers learn by osmosis from their senior colleagues and legal texts. In traditional law a contract defining "Judge - a person with a silly wig" then going on to use the word "judge" would have been deemed to have been using the word "judge" in it's usual sense, rather than the defined sense. I believe a more common-sense approach is taken these days - in either case rooted in precedent. Nonetheless, where the definitions have not been given, or if they have been given using a sensible case - A "judge" is a... - then their is no need to use Germanic capitalisation.
:
:Furthermore, their is delight in list phrases, which stem partly from the Anglo/Norman legal days where it was often necessary to name things in both languages - "shall not carry forth in any bucket or pail". So here we see "individual or User", a triple or even quadruple solecism in three words, firstly the capital, secondly the redundant list, thirdly the use of the word individual, and fourthly the exclusion of bodies corporate and others, all resolved by the use of the word "person". ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:42 11 September 2011 (GMT).

::The document uses [[en:Title Case]] for section titles and a few sub-titles like "We Do Not Take an Editorial Role", which is a practice that your English teachers would approve of wholeheartedly. The use of [[en:Sentence case]], which is what the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style prescribes, is a common convention in modern journalism, but it is not the One True Style™.
::Within the text, capital letters are conventionally used in legal documents to indicate that the definition or description in the document (which may be implicit or explicit) overrules the dictionary definition. So, for example, the Agreement is this particular agreement, not any old agreement, and the User is the User defined in the third paragraph, not any old user. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 01:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::: If I write about the University of Wherever, and later in the document refer to the University, with a capital initial "U", that's because the word is being used as an abbreviated form of the name, "University of Wherever". I think what you're talking about when you mention superseding dictionary definitions is similar, e.g. when it refers to the '''P'''roject, but I wonder if you can explain how my comments about a '''J'''ury '''R'''oom and a '''j'''ury fit into that. It would be easier to believe some of your other comments if I didn't see stuff like that. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

::::An informational booklet is not a legal agreement. What you found in the informational booklet was merely appalling style, presumably written by a person who didn't know any better. What you see here is the convention for a legal agreement. The style has meaning here. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, and indeed my point was that the convention has survived, while the legal requirement has, over time faded, as I understand it. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 01:14 14 September 2011 (GMT).
::::You're right: following the conventional style of the legal field is not required by law. But it is also not wrong to do so in a legal agreement. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== global ban policy ==

The draft refer to a [[Global Ban Policy]], which I have now created as a redirect to [[Global blocks and bans]], which is still in draft status. I dont think it is a good idea for the terms of use to refer to a policy which doesnt currently exist as a policy. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 03:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John, and I'd go so far as to say that including this by reference is a bad idea because the policy could be changed more easily and frequently than the main section of the terms of use, so the terms of use shouldn't refer to the global ban policy as if it's included by reference in the terms of use. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 11:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

:The terms also refer to the countless local policies and guidelines which could change at any moment, so that's not really an issue. A link to a policy detailing how one may be globally banned is required because the terms specifically call out the right to revoke someone's access for specific kinds of terms violations (stalking etc.), but it does not say how that works. Since we didn't want to create a full banning policy within the terms that could not easily be changed by the community, we chose to refer to a separate global bans policy. The Foundation really wants the practice of banning anyone under the terms to continue to be in the hands of community members, so we'd prefer that the document spelling out any process for being banned is in a community-owned policy, not a legal document. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 16:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

:Then I suggest saying in the Terms of Use that the Global Ban Policy and other community policies which may be enforced under the Terms of Use are subject to a different change process. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 03:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== linking is not a crime ==

One of the prohibited activities is "Linking to material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation".

This goes further than the law in most countries, and is not settled in the US. See e.g. [[w:DMCA#Linking_to_infringing_content]].

This would mean linking to wikileaks is a WMF-bannable offense, even if wikileaks content has been covered in international news. (e.g. [[w:Special:LinkSearch/*.wikileaks.info]]

This would mean that many editors of [[w:AACS encryption key controversy]] would be WMF-bannable. A lot of links on that page are illegal. The page itself even includes the illegal hex string, so anyone linking to the Wikipedia page is WMF-bannable.

The terms of use should not be prohibiting activities where the law is unsettled. These issues need to be tested in courts. The WMF should be standing up and being counted on the side of the freedoms that Wikipedia editors need in order to discuss and writing about these topics, without fear of stupid laws that mean that some URLs are illegal and without worrying that they might be WMF-banned as a result. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:I don't know how I missed that, but that's outrageous. Let's start with the fact that this is a Terms of Service for '''Wikimedia users'''. So tell me - how can ''anything'' on a third party site violate any provision of this Agreement? Is what they mean is that they're banning links to false and misleading content? So, like, if I link to Fox News I can be banned? (Admittedly, some people might see some justice...) This TOS needs to be round-filed. It will be like most of the TOSes on the Internet, written by a bunch of lawyers, ignored by users, fitfully enforced by managers leading to bad blood and threats of boycotts, until at last Anonymous steps in and enforces the people's justice. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 05:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example is [[w:2010 Senkaku boat collision incident#Links to the leaked video clips]], which include links to youtube videos which (according to Wikipedia) the Japanese government consider to be breaches of security and confidentiality. Would linking to youtube be a "violation of .. any applicable law or regulation"? If the Japanese government considers these videos to be illegal, just like the US considers the wikileaks to be illegal, then linking to these youtube videos would become a WMF-bannable prohibited activity. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 06:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

::On the other hand, I presume that you wouldn't mind having users banned for linking to malware or child porn sites at any WMF project, since standing up for spammers and criminals isn't your idea of standing up for freedom. Can you think of a concise way to communicate the general point that linking can break the law, and doing so can result in a ban? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 02:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't think we need to point out to people that if they break the law they are liable to get a ban - at least in the egregious ways you are implying. We certainly shouldn't be trying to list all the ways that they may break the law by editing or using Wikipedia, firstly because we will omit stuff, creating loopholes, secondly because we will probably be wrong about stuff we include (even if we are lawyers), thirdly because it would be a huge list, and fourthly because [[en:WP:BEANS]]. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 01:11 14 September 2011 (GMT).

:I was coming here to comment on the same line of text, but John Vandenberg and Wnt have already made my point. This line should be altered or removed. [[User:Themfromspace|Themfromspace]] 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== Is this enforceable? ==

I asked this on foundation-l, but I probably should ask it here: To what extent are terms of use like this actually meaningful? Are there any precedents of them being upheld in court? If so, in what
jurisdictions? Does using a website really constitute acceptance of a contract that everyone knows you haven't read?

If you're not actually going to be able to do anything with these terms of use, then we shouldn't have any.
--[[User:Tango|Tango]] 12:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:Disclaimer - I am not a lawyer, though I have followed legal issues. The questions you ask are complicated legal ones, where a full answer would be very detailed and necessitate being familiar with [http://www.licensing-contracts.org/cases_detail.htm many court cases]. But a short answer would be "Yes, at least enough to be problematic". Perhaps the scariest aspect is the recent legal issue concerning making terms of service violations into criminal matters. See, for example, the [http://www.eff.org/cases/united-states-v-drew Lori Drew case] - "Federal prosecutors claim that Drew broke federal law by violating MySpace's terms of service ...". Given what Wikimedia Foundation counsel has done in the past - EFF said this, not me - [http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- "Wikipedia Threatens Artists for Fair Use"] with [http://wikipediaart.org/legal-history/ nasty legal threats], the sort of threatening WMF lawyering which could be done here is very disturbing (note, please don't reply about good faith - this is simple prudence). -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 12:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

::Hm, whatever happened to "not a bureaucracy"? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:08 10 September 2011 (GMT).

==You may not break the law==
What? The government needs "terms of use" to back it up? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:08 10 September 2011 (GMT).

== DMCA ==

I note that this section provides methods for take-down, and sends people off to "find out" about wrongful take-down, rather than providing methods.

We currently have at least one unchallengeable take-down on en:wp, due to WMF's process, and it would be more useful to actually address this broken process than create expensive lawyer fodder. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:20 10 September 2011 (GMT).
:To my knowledge, there are no take-downs that can't be challenged. I could be wrong, but I just looked at the list today and didn't see any... regardless, the WMF's internal processes now include referring the original poster to methods and resources (which are about as far as we can go) that can help them with a counter-notice. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

==5. Please Keep Your Information Secure==

''You are responsible for any actions taken or content contributed under your Username,''

* This is plain wrong. If someone hacks my account, forges my sig or a dev makes changes under my name, or there is a software glitch I am ''not'' responsible.

''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 13:30 10 September 2011 (GMT).

:If someone hacks your account, that would typically mean you weren't using a very good password (someone could try a brute force attack, but I can't see why they would). You are responsible for your passwords. While anyone can forge a sig on a talk page, you can't forge the username next to the edit in a page history, which is what actually matters. It's true that sysops or software glitches could cause problems, though. Perhaps "You are responsible for any actions taken or content contributed under your Username either by you, with your permission or through negligence on your part." would be better. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] 14:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:I heard that not long ago there was an admin account that got hacked. Is the admin financially liable for the actions of the hacker? [[User:Pine|Pine]] 11:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
::Yes several people including some admins have had accounts hacked, and in the days of keyloggers and spyware simply having a secure password isn't enough. A 12 digit random password is hard to crack, but if you've had your PC infected with Spyware, just as easy to copy as a 6 digit one. In practice I'd hope we'd ignore these terms and next time a user has their account hacked we'll welcome them back when they are back in control of their account. Last time I was in a public unencrypted wifi I just edited as an IP and IMHO it would be better to encourage people to do that than to threaten to make them responsible for the actions of the hacker who compromised their account. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

== Trollish suggestion ==

The document as currently worded will actually cause a lot more trouble than it is designed to prevent. I [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|16 px]] '''strongly recommend''' consulting Mike Godwin before adopting this.

Seriously, folks... this is a nightmare just waiting to happen. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']] [[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]] 18:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

:Mike has already spent quite a few hours talking with Geoff about this and other matters that need to be understood as General Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. If he wants to weigh in publicly I hope he does, but he's certainly not been in the dark about the legal department's plans. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

::I assumed SB_Johnny was making a joke in that part. While we're on the topic, though, is there a non-disparagement clause in force? (I don't expect this to be answered, but I've wondered, so I'll ask it). -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
::: I suspect that no-one posting here would know the answer to that question. :) [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 01:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

== "your country" ==

... should be "country where you live" or some such. [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 21:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
:What about an British person living in Jordan and working in Israel? In the last twenty years or so, governments other than the US have started to go with extraterritoriality, retroactive legislation, double jeopardy and so forth. Again we are trying to take responsibility for editors here. What happens when someone gets arrested visiting China for having posted the flag of Tibet on Wikipedia? Is the WMF then civilly liable in Florida for the distress and loss, for saying that they only need consider US (and Florida) law and their own countries'? ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 21:08 11 September 2011 (GMT).

== Grammar ==

Minor nits for someone to fix:

* Section 9: In the title and the first sentence, "third party websites" should be hyphenated.
* Section 10: Stray space before second comma in first sentence should be removed.
* Section 17: In "we will provide at least three (3) days notice", the word ''days'' is possessive and should therefore be followed by an apostrophe.

There may be more, but these are the ones that I made a note of. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== Wrong timing, and probably a bad idea as a whole ==

Please refrain from projects like this one for at least a few months after the filter resolution referendum quagmire has been settled. One controversial issue at a time coming from the foundation is enough. Shelf it until early 2012. We did fine without any detailed TOS for ten years, we can wait for half a year more.

And as I have lost quite some faith into the Foundation over the filter mess, I reply to this new disaster even though I would like to see it postponed: The new parts of this are is standard boilerplate legalese TOS. They do not accommodate for specifics of Wiki[p/m]edia in any way. That's not how we work. All the detailed nonsense in #4 could be removed if the TOS would state that the purpose of each project can be enforced, content that is not compatible can be removed and behavior consistently not constructive to this purpose can result in a ban. That's it. As none of the WMF's projects are about solicitation for gambling or trafficking in obscene content, this boilerplate stuff would automagically be superfluous. WMF does not run a social network, does not have general purpose discussion boards, but all projects follow certain, well defined goals. We don't need the TOS of a social network or a general purpose discussion board. --[[User:H-stt|h-stt]] [[User_talk:H-stt|!?]] 14:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

: Same goes for me. Close one topic then open the other. The first run was quite a disaster and you really should take your time to learn from it. Now is a good opportunity to inform the community what is about to change and most importantly for what reasons, in as most languages as possible. (Who can agree with rules he can't read? I'm not talking about myself, but maybe you if it was written in German) --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 16:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::I'm actually quite sympathetic to what I hope the Foundation is really trying to achieve on the image filter issue, as long as it enables Moslems to choose not to see cartoons of Mohamed and anyone else to choose not to see whatever types of images they'd like to avoid. But I'd agree that the way the Foundation has treated the community over the image filter issue has annoyed a lot of people, and when you also consider the recent chapter funding arguments, now is probably not a good time for the Foundation to be conducting further top down change. Instead I would suggest that the Foundation should be trying to re-engage with the community and maybe put more focus on fulfilling some of the requests coming from the community. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 08:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== Sprachen ==

Angesichts der Tatsache, dass die Nutzungsbedingungen nur in einer englischen Fassung vorliegen und anderssprachige Versionen nicht vorgesehen sind, gehe ich davon aus, dass diese Nutzungsbedingungen nur für die englischen Nutzer bestimmt sind. [[User:Liesel|Liesel]] 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

translation: Users who don´t understand english can '''not''' work as editors.--[[Special:Contributions/89.204.153.212|89.204.153.212]] 17:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::Google translate: Given the fact that the terms, conditions present in only one English version and other language versions are not intended, I assume that these terms are intended only for English users. (by [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 19:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC))
::: Google Translate is useful if used intelligently, but anyone who ''trusts'' Google Translate is an idiot. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: OK, in this case, the translation actually looks reasonable. Usually with fairly long sentences, Google Translate mangles things in absurd ways. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
: ''"Given the facts, that the terms of use are only provided in English language and other language versions are not intended, I have to assume that this terms of use are only directed at English speaking users."'' Rough translation by hand.
: In fact: Who would agree to usage terms that he can't even understand? --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

::90% of the people who have ever bought a home? Most of the people who apply for credit cards? A good deal of the people who have a contract with a cell phone carrier?
::Just like the existing [[foundation:Terms of use]] have been translated into German (see [[foundation:Nutzungsbedingungen]]), the new terms of use will be translated, too. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 23:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Yeah, great answer. The sales contract for my house is in German language, as well as the contract for my credit card and for my mobile phone. The reason simply is that German is my mother tongue and that I live in Germany. WMF wants every editor all over the world to accept Terms of use that they probably could misunderstand or simply do not understand. That's the point. No one except of (nearly) native english speakers can be part of a discussion regarding to the content of this draft. This is really no example of what I think a confidence-building measure should be. [[User:Siechfred|Siechfred]] 07:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Ich möchte hier auch meinen Unmut kundtun. Juristische Fragen zu diskutieren ist schwer genug. Juristische Fragen in einer Fremdsprache zu diskutieren ist für den Laien fast unmöglich, dafür ist Sprache viel zu vieldeutig. Und ich wundere mich schon sehr über die "Diskussionskultur" der Foundation. Meiner Meinung nach sollten angemessene Übersetzungen vorliegen '''bevor''' so eine Diskussion angestoßen wird. Das nächste Mal bitte anders. Vielen Dank. --[[User:Kellerkind|Kellerkind]] 08:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. ''You don't understand this? Your problem!''

:I agree that it would have been nice if the page had been translated in time for discussion, but if it is adopted, it ''will'' be translated ''before'' anyone is required to agree to it.
:P.S. Natürlich verstehe ich Sie. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, if You don't translate this '''now''', You will have serious problems with the German community as You are having now with the picture filter.

The '''regular order''' should be:
# translate proposal in as many as possible languages
# discuss proposal in every available language
# write summary of discussion in english
# translate summary of discussion into every discussed language
# ponder if a final secure poll is necessary
# decide if no poll is necessary
--[[Special:Contributions/79.226.62.194|79.226.62.194]] 11:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== Soliciting personal information ==

The following is to be forbidden:
:
::: Soliciting personal information from anyone under the age of 18
:
So let's say at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities] an 8th-grader says "I'm trying to decide whether I want to major in political science or in French literature." In the ensuing discussion someone asks him "Do you prefer geography to civics?". Is that question forbidden? If so, what are the legal consequences after it's happened? Could it be that this is here for the purpose of making things easier for lawyers after certain abuses happen and they don't care that it covers too much? After all, if there are plenty of violators, there will be plenty of people that they have grounds to do something to if they decide they don't like them (for reasons that will differ from the publicly stated ones). [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 19:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:The passage refers only to [[:w:Personally identifiable information|Personally identifiable information]]. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 19:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
:: How would that be clear from the way the prohibition is phrased? Is it not at best a phrase that admits other interpretations than that? [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Michael please the discussion in the section "Some comments" where I suggested alternatives. I agree this statement as written is awfully vague. [[User:Pine|Pine]] 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

== Medieval armor ==

Transmitting [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_mail chain mail] is forbidden. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 20:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== 7. How Content Is Licensed ==

If one was to interwiki import a text with the hyperlink as a means of attribution and this imported text got worked on further, potential re-users of that second text would have to provide two links, to both of these pages. This is because on the second article's history, the original authors would not get credited in a manner equivalent to the original page history (author names versus page link). Imo this should get addressed in sections (d) and (h).--[[Special:Contributions/141.84.69.20|141.84.69.20]] 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== Do not do this. ==

Use the old Terms Of Use, please. This Terms Of Use are not well made and the idea behind it isn´t good for a free project like Wikipedia.--[[Special:Contributions/89.204.153.212|89.204.153.212]] 20:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

== Re arrange in a more logical manner please ==

This <strike>is</strike> '''should''' not '''be''' a welcome page. This is the terms of use page that people will only look at if they have an issue. Make it less chatty and much easier to navigate.

Start with the vision.

Next the principals behind the TOU - to help us to achieve the vision; especially via massive on line cooperation. Note that we may change the TOU at any time if this is necessary to help us achieve the vision.

'''TOU for Readers'''
* the right to read and all the normal rights under copyright law
* the right save or print out to read off line (plug our collections of articles formatted to read as books)

'''TOU for Authors and Editors'''
* The right to contribute to our projects subject to the various conditions that the projects may apply from time to time
* The obligation to licence your contributions in accordance to the licensing arrangements for that project (CC-BY-SA + GFDL for the Wikipedias, CC-BY for Wikinews, PD for a lot of WikiSource, various licenses for Commons)
* The duty to work together with other authors and editors to achieve the ends of the particular project in accordance with the standards and procedures of that project.
* The duty to ensure your contributions are legal (no copyright, trademark, libel, slander or other....) I would soften this with a suggestion that if in doubt they should ask but I guess a lawyer wouldn't want such language.

'''TOU for Projects'''
* Wikimedia hosts various projects each of which has it's own goals, agreed with Wikimedia and it's own internal procedures and standards for achieving those goals.
* All projects should share under free culture licenses.
* Decision making processes in Projects should be transparent
* Projects should be open to contributions from outside.
* The foundation has the right to close down a project (after consultation) if it feels it is not contributing to the vision (not achieving it's goals or even if it just feels that resources could more usefully be applied elsewhere).

'''TOU for Software projects'''
* Software development is a rather specialised project in that there is a larger element contributed by foundation permanent staff and paid contractors however the the TOU for Users and authors should be the similar at this level with more detailed requirements at the project level.
* Add a note that the foundation may from time to time contribute (in time, money or other resources) to other software projects if that might help the vision and such contributions may be under other license arrangements.

'''TOU for redistributors'''
* Redistribution rights are covered by the licenses which vary from project to project.
* You have the right to copy, print, alter, edit, use as detailed in the licenses (except for a few non-free materials (on certain projects only) which are clearly labelled as such on their details pages).
* Respect trademarks
* No warranties
* How to attribute
* How to license your version (for copyleft licensed materials)

I would suggest the TOU does not go into detailed lists of things people shouldn't do - that just invites Wikilawyering. Instead the site wide TOU should give us the right to ban people for "any action which doesn't further the vision". Leave the detail for elsewhere.
[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

:I believe the community would be horrified if you proposed banning people for "any action which doesn't further the vision". ''Typos'' don't "further the vision". Saying that you disagree with a policy doesn't "further the vision". Complaining about the WMF's image filter plans doesn't "further the vision". I'd far rather have a specific list of warnings than something so vague and subjective as ""any action which doesn't further the vision". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

::You are right. I should have said the TOU should give the foundation the right to 'Take any action they deem necessary to further the vision". Banning people for typos doesn't further the vision so they would not have the right to do that. Each project could then have it's own lists of specific prohibited actions if it wanted. Smaller projects could share a model list. Protection against arbitrary action could be by requiring such actions be approved by a qualified majority of the Board.
::The ultimate protection against misconduct by the Foundation would be the right to fork and I think it would be a good idea to make the right to fork explicit in the TOU, including a duty to prepare database dumps etc and publish these at 'regular' intervals.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::: I like this structure; I believe organizing the document in a way that addresses different use cases in different sections is well worth considering. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== Ban these Terms of use ==

I believe that we will prevent the realisation of these terms of use by the German courts, inclusive the bullshit of DMCA and so on. And also it is my considered opinion that it will become necessary, preconceiving the bold attempt to censorship our project by launching image filtering, to fork the European wikipedias from the christian fundamentalism and other rubbish in the US. -- [[User:Sozi|Sozi]] 07:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
: This anti-american rant is pretty clueless. Freedom of speech is estimated much more in the US ([[:en:First Amendment to the United States Constitution]]) than it is in Germany, see for example [[en:Laws_against_Holocaust_denial]] or the debates around [[:de:Soldaten sind Mörder]] or [[:de:Lebach-Urteil]]. A germany-based Wikipedia would hardly be possible, considering how often the german chapter had to take down its redirect wikipedia.de in the past because of some preliminary injunction. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:: This doesn't make this proposal any better and who had spoken about placing the server inside Germany? At least it should be clear that i will not accept terms of use in English language. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I feel confident that we will be able to set up the infrastructure to fork from this project, the only problem is to decide it and to stay in this decision. -- [[User:Sozi|Sozi]] 16:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

:It is strange to hear someone praise the alleged "free speech" rights in a country where it is actually ''illegal'' to make factual statements like "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber murdered [[en:Walter Sedlmayr]]", despite those two men having been convicted of murder and sent to prison for it. Germany permits speech only if the government believes your speech is suitable for society, and it has decided that saying someone is a convicted murderer is unhelpful to the social goal of helping ex-cons get jobs and make friends. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
::Dear Mr. Tinz. U know exactly as I am that its impossible to win a trial within one (1) year in the States...there is nothing about German vs. American Law. Those terms are prohibiting each and every mourning about anything. If I would agree to that, I would agree to a totalitarian system...--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 17:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
:::It's clear that censors have often been foiled by the ability of people to shift content from one country to the other over the internet, so it is equally clear that Wikimedia should remain multinational. Wherever people can maintain it, they should maintain their freedom to provide all the information that is known. But this current controversy is not between the U.S. and Germany, nor even really about freedom of speech, but between the old noble Wikipedia that became one of the leading sites in the world, and some proposed pusillanimous Wikipedia that reserves the right to turn on its users and control content from the top down. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 18:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Thats what I meant - thank u for ur very clear words. I agree: control content from the top down....--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 18:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
::"You think you have freedom of speech? You can't handle freedom of speech!"
::Having said that most of the restrictions on FoS don't impact (currently) our projects in a major way, with the obvious exceptions of IPRs and China.
::The reason we should not have these terms of use are far more fundamental. We don't need them. Occam's razor applies here in spades. Regardless of the amount of money and time we spend on stuff like this, it is all pretty much going to be either redundant or of dubious enforceability (or both). Additionally it makes us look like a meat-headed corporation run by lawyers and accountants - whose actions are predicated on fear, rather than vision. As things stand contributors are liable for their actions, WMF is liable for it's actions and that's how it should be. And futzing with terms and conditions, is likely to muddy this bright line distinction. In the event, however, that we for some reason decide we absolutely ''must'' have something like this, it would be worth checking if it will make the WMF's projects illegal in the EU under new laws designed to protect the individual from the corporate web sites legal trickery. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 01:00 14 September 2011 (GMT).

:The location of the servers or the headquarter of the Foundation is irrelevant. According to the "principle of national protection" (see [[:de:Schutzlandprinzip]] - unfortunately there is no article about this in any other Wikipedia than the German one) the laws of this country have to be used in which the Wikipedia language version is mostly consulted. Therefore i. e. German Wikipedia is liable to the laws of Germany/Austria/Switzerland and thus i. e. the DMCA is invalid there (and also in all other Wikipedias than the English one; but even there it is disputable because you have also to take account of the UK/Australia/Canada etc.). [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 03:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

::The application of Schutzlandprinzip to websites appears to be based specifically in German and Austrian law, rather than in international treaties, and even in German law it does not appear to be perfectly clear. But even if we accept that principle, the fact is that you are assuming that de.wikipedia.org is a completely separate website from all wikipedia.org. I am not convinced that even a German court would agree with you. I believe the German court would say that de.wikipedia.org is part of wikipedia.org, exactly like news.bbc.co.uk is part of bbc.co.uk. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Well, it's a clear priciple. And it's also not specifically based in German and Austrian law. It's part of the [[:en:Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]], the [[:en:Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]], the [[:en:World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty]] and the [[:en:Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property]].
:::The court would say that de.wikipedia.org is mainly consulted by German-speaking users and thus falls under German jurisdiction. Youtube could write a book about this problem (the [[:en:Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte|GEMA]] enforced them to censor or eben block many videos with copyrighted music tracks for users with a German IP - also official music videos). [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, there are many international conventions about copyright. However, so far, only the German and Austrian courts think that the location of the viewer's computer, rather than the publisher's computer, determines which country's copyright law applies. The WMF has previously told the German courts that the WMF doesn't believe that German laws apply to Wikipedia[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html] (although the German laws presumably apply to individual German citizens who use Wikipedia)—and so far as I can tell, the German courts have not disagreed with the WMF's position that German law is irrelevant to the WMF's actions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 19:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== No right to change the TOU! ==

You, the Wikimedia Foundation, do not have the right to change your terms of use.
As stated in [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use the current terms of use], you '''must not''' change them. Just look at the first bottom sentence. And even if that wouldn´t be there, the current terms of use don´t give you any right to change them without the agreement of all current users, who are part of that. The terms of Use are a treaty with two sides: If you don´t have the right to change it alone because it is stated in it, you need both partner´s agreement. But it states that changes are forbidden, so...--[[Special:Contributions/89.204.137.196|89.204.137.196]] 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:That's not true. The current terms of use are not to be modified—by Wikimedia editors, not by the WMF. The WMF owns the whole enterprise, and they can offer you access to their privately owned websites under any terms ''they'' want. They have the legal right to change the terms every single day of the year, if that's what makes them happy. They can even close the whole thing down with no warning, or ban users based on a random number generator, or blindly delete all of your changes, or charge you for editing.
:Users like you and me have almost no legally enforceable rights here. Our actual substantive rights as editors are two: to [[en:WP:FORK|start our own website]] and to [[en:WP:LEAVE|go away (mad, if necessary)]]. If you don't like the WMF's new terms (assuming they choose to adopt them), then I suggest that you exercise your right to go away. If you choose to use a WMF website, then you must accept their terms of use. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

::Thats exactly why we should move away from the WMF. Creating a fork and ensure by contract that the communities will have veto rights against changes. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Die Foundation ist nichts ohne ihre Autoren. Vielleicht sollte man wirklich einen Fork machen um den Damen und Herren in Frisco zu zeigen auf wessen Arbeitskraft ihre sogenannte Macht beruht. [[User:Liesel|Liesel]] 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

::::I just wanted to jump in here and say that (if I understand the German well enough), that Liesel is correct. The Foundation is nothing without volunteer authors, and it cannot do "whatever it wants" at all times. We're accountable to the community in a very real way, both through the fact that our actions are publicly assessed in places like this, but also legally because we are responsible directly to the Board of Trustees, the majority of which is elected from the community. It ''is'' the express job of the legal department at the Foundation to work on improving our terms of use if they think there are legal risks for the movement. But that doesn't mean we own the projects. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling (WMF)]] • [[User talk:Steven (WMF)|talk]] 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Actually, the WMF ''does'' own the projects. The WMF does not own the volunteers. Volunteers ≠ projects. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 19:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::You should add: It does not own the content - at least not alone. It does not own the authorship and it can't survive without it's authors. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 21:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

[[File:Censored 2.0.png|thumb|Ein Teil dieser Aspekte gedachte ich hier ja bereits festzuhalten]]
::::Darüber sollte man wirklich ernsthaft nachdenken, zumal sich die Foundation vom spendenfinanzierten Verein immer mehr hin zu einem Wirtschaftsunternehmen (zwar lebend von den Spenden und der Arbeitskraft Freiwilliger Sklaven) entwickelt, dem offensichtlich die Grundprinzipien fremd geworden sind, bzw. nicht mehr zu tangieren scheinen, so wie man es entsprechend nebenstehender Karikatur als Kritikpunkt entnehmen kann. Die erste zu klärende Frage wäre die Finanzierung eines solchen Vorhabens. Naheliegend könnte es sein die deutschen Spendengelder in eine entsprechende Alternative zu investieren und nicht mehr der Foundation so großzügig in den Hals zu werfen, der dadurch wohl schon derart verstopft ist, dass es die Hauptschlagadern abdrückt. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::Yes, if volunteers get mad at the WMF, they can leave. Yes, you could create a a competing project. But most volunteers will not object to the new (proposed) terms of use, so most volunteers will not choose to leave. Despite all your talk about leaving, I expect you to still be here next year. [http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/GoodBye Most people who talk about leaving Wikimedia—are just talking, not leaving.] [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 19:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::No, u definitly dont have the right to banish all that volunteer authors have done so far to trash...thats what u are doing. The "right to leave" is getting the "pressure to leave" under those conditions. Means: u want to get rid of certain authors. Critics arent welcome, they have to be thrown out. U r undemocratic, go to Syria...--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC) And btw: ur statement was more than cynical, so I used the same attitude...

== WSJ Op-Ed "Should Faking a Name on Facebook Be a Felony?" ==

For people who may be skeptical about the problem of violations of site Terms Of Use becoming criminal charges, or used for frivolous legal action, there's a current Op-Ed on the issue in the Wall Street Journal by well-known conservative law professor Orin Kerr [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903285704576562294116160896.html "Should Faking a Name on Facebook Be a Felony?"]: "The little-known law at issue is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It was enacted in 1986 to punish computer hacking. But Congress has broadened the law every few years, and today it extends far beyond hacking. The law now criminalizes computer use that "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. Today that violation is a misdemeanor, but the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to meet this morning to vote on making it a felony.". So the potential for abuse is quite relevant. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 13:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
:Note that if breaching the Terms of Use is a felony then any prosecutor can decide to take it on himself to enforce those terms, for example by prosecuting an editor for a good faith edit which the prosecutor doesn't like. Do we need to make it clear that the board is the ultimate arbitor of what does and does not breach the terms of use? This is another reason for making the terms vague. It's easy to launch a prosecution and take someone to court for 'harassment' or 'posting a lie'. You will look a bit silly taking someone to court for 'failing to imagine a world where every human can share in the sum of all knowledge'. Elected prosecutors don't like to look silly.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 21:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::The vaguer the terms, the easier it is to abuse them. If you think that anyone can launch a prosecution for "harassment" because it's so vague, then imagine how easy it would be to prosecute someone for "failing to further the vision". Even refusing to donate money to the WMF could count as "not furthering the vision". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Really? Then we need to make it clear it is up to the Foundation to decide whether your actions do or do not breach the TOU. If the board declare a user has not gone against the WMF vision then any prosecution in a court is much more difficult to prosecute. Harassment is a legal term. Imagining a world is not. The foundation is obviously the authority on what does and does not go against our vision but the courts get to decide what is harassment.--[[User:Filceolaire|Filceolaire]] 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

::::If you are concerned about people being sent to prison for doing online what is perfectly legal when they do it in person or on a piece of paper, then you need to fix the laws that pretend using a fake name on Facebook could be a felony when using a fake name in every other social circumstance is 100% protected free speech. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

==federal or state law==
As well as repetition there is an inconsistency and even contradiction, with multiple references to:
# "the laws of the United States and of your home country"
# "the laws of the United States, where we are based, and the laws of your home country and jurisdiction."
# "the laws of the United States or your own country or jurisdiction"
# "any applicable law or regulation"
# "U.S. federal or state law concerning child pornography"
# "any federal or state law otherwise intended to protect the health or well-being of minors"
# "the laws of the State of California and, to the extent applicable, the laws of the United States of America"

In my opinion shortest is usually best, and "any applicable law or regulation" is the only one that covers the not uncommon eventuality of editing whilst travelling abroad (I've edited Wikimedia sites from computers in at least four different countries, as well as the one I live in). I'm assuming that the omission of "U.S." from "any federal or state law otherwise intended to protect the health or well-being of minors" was simply a typo, and we don't have to try and comply with the Federal laws of some countries that for example criminalise homosexuality. I'd suggest removing the redundancy and if you must spell out which laws apply ask your lawyers to concoct some legalese to the effect of:

''As we are based in the US state of California, your editing of and downloading from our sites must comply with the law here, as well as wherever you are when you edit.'' (I'm hoping that as I type this the only laws I have to comply with are those here in London where I'm typing and over in San Francisco. Nigerian Federal law, Alaskan state law and indeed the state and Federal law of Dafur state in Sudan are hopefully as irrelevant to my editing as English law would be to editors in Dafur, Lagos or Alaska. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Basically, it works like this:
:* Because the WMF is in California, USA, everybody has to comply with the laws that affect the WMF.
:* If (and only if) you aren't also an American national, then you must ''additionally'' comply with your own nation's laws
:* If (and only if) you aren't also located in California, USA, then you must ''additionally'' comply with any and all local laws that you are subject to.
:* The set of "laws that apply to the WMF because the WMF is in California, USA" and "laws that apply to you because of your nationality or location" are what is indicated above. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
::Next - u dont know what u r doing? This means in reverse, if the WMF has complaints, each author of a world wide project has to go to California to make that case? U know exactly, what u r doing!--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 22:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Each word u write is an abysmal infamy, in ur opinion the not donating people are hindering the progress of WMF? To donate means, to give sth. freely...if I had the money, I really would publish those sentences of narrow-minded people in twenty of the biggest newspapers worldwide, to hinder that people donate money than help such OTT people like u.--[[User:Angel54 5|Angel54 5]] 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:::What makes you think that a donation benefits me?
:::My relationship to the WMF is exactly the same as yours: I'm a volunteer editor. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: Just that Angel 54 is indefinitely blocked account at his home wiki, [[:de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Auskunftsersuchen_Sperrender_Admin_S1_zu_Angel54|confirmed]] by de-ArbCom. It is probably wisest to ignore him. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 22:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== Do You really want to collect huge amounts of personal data for obscure purposes? ==

The euphemism ''keep only a limited amount of information'' at „[[Terms_of_use#2._Please_Look_at_Our_Privacy_Policy|2. Please Look at Our Privacy Policy]]“ very poorly disguises the ongoing of the current attempt to collect huge amounts of personal data of editors for uncountable and unforseeable purposes.

If You wanted to strengthen the community You would have bound Yourself by writing:
:''"We keep only as much data as necessary to write an encyclopedia. We only use Your data for the purpose it was given for"''.

If You will not do this You will get in rough trouble with European data privacy legislation and judiciary. In Germany currently it is seriously doubted that commercial Wikipedia mirrors are legal because the history of article pages hast to show full IP-adresses. This ten years of unshortened IP-adresses with exact to the second edit-times allow to generate detailed user-profiles which in addition is made far easier by the toolserver. But I'm sure: A ten years old dynamic IP-adress isnt't necessary either for vandal hunting or for copyright purposes.

So please stop data mining, start freedom of personal data. --[[Special:Contributions/79.226.62.194|79.226.62.194]] 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:The licenses (GFDL and CC-BY-SA) require some sort of identifying information for the person making a change. For people who do not choose to create an account, their IP address is the designated identifier. The IP address is retained solely for the purpose of complying with the legal requirements of the license, and only to the extent that is necessary for that purpose. Under all other circumstances, identifying information (which includes not only your IP information, but also things like what sort of computer browser you're using) is normally retained by the WMF only for a few months. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== A few thoughts ==
I've read through Section 6, and am generally impressed. I have listed some important issues below though:
* In "Overview of this Agreement," the terms "our" and "we" are used without being defined in that section. I realize it is defined in the lead, but this is such a critical point that I believe it should be repeated in the overview. In so many places on our site, "we" is used to refer to the community. I think it's essential this distinction be very clearly expressed in the overview.
* Capitalizing words that are not proper nouns -- for instance "Community" in the lead section -- seems very odd to me, and for whatever it's worth, is certainly out of step with the English Wikipedia's [[w:en:WP:MOS|Manual of Style]]. I think in legal documents maybe it's commonplace to capitalize terms that have specific, defined meaning in the current document; but I'd suggest taking a closer look at this before publishing. Perhaps if caps are used to indicate legal significance, a short glossary of capitalized terms would be useful.
* For a legal document, it seems dubious to link to a Wikipedia page without linking a specific revision -- even for the description of a general concept. For the [[w:en:DMCA]], it seems especially important; but I think it's important for [[w:en:Free culture]] and others too. I would suggest finding a recent revision that is accurate, and linking directly to that revision.
* "you should seek the help of a licensed professional" strikes me as a very U.S.-centric phrase. Surely we have many users in countries that lack licensing bodies for these professions? I think some careful rephrasing may be needed. The phrasing in Section 3: "Licensed '''''or''''' knowledgeable" (emphasis added) seems much more appropriate.
* "we do not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any submitted content." This strikes me as strange in its all-encompassing language, as there are certainly Foundation reports, financial statements, etc. where the Foundation has an important role in endorsing the accuracy.
* § 4: "Linking to material that violates any provision of this Agreement or any applicable law or regulation" seems excessive. If an editor links to copyright content, how can he or she be expected to know whether or not the copyright holder has granted permission for it to be posted? It is very common, for instance, for users to make citations to Google Books, where there are current, important legal questions making their way through the courts. I would hate to think that these productive, good faith Wikipedians are violating our terms of use simply by providing high quality references.
* § 6, on Trademarks: examples of trademarks would be helpful; there is so much confusion about trademark and copyright in our community, I think a little extra clarity here would go a long way.
-[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete F]] 17:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

:On the point about licensed professionals, I believe that every country (or nearly every country) licenses both physicians and attorneys. Where they differ is in the extent to which providing medical or legal services without a license is illegal. "Qualified" might be a suitable substitute that encompasses both formal licensing and appropriate knowledge. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 17:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

''continued''

* §7a: Big problem here, this fails to clarify the one example it puts forward. I have never been clear on this, and it's vitally important. When I contribute to Wikinews, am I only required to release it under CC-BY-2.5, or am I required to multi-license it CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, and GFDL? The present language is unclear.
* §7a: Grammar: "Text that you hold the copyright to" should be "Text to which you hold the copyright" (two instances)
* §7b: If we're going to explain, we should explain fully. Those who are not highly familiar with wikis will be confused by the concept that a link ''to the article'' constituted ''attribution'', because our articles do NOT attribute authors in the ways traditional media does. If I understand correctly, the "attribution" that is accomplished by linking to the article is by virtue of the presence of the "history" tab, which lists all contributors. If this is what's going on, it needs to be explained. Otherwise it looks like we're arbitrarily redefining a perfectly good English word, to unknown purpose.
* §7b (and others) - for the final version, I suggest the following syntax: <nowiki><OL STYLE="list-style: lower-roman inside"></nowiki>, which will produce much cleaner-looking output:

<OL STYLE="list-style: lower-roman inside">
<li> item
<li> item
<li>item
</OL>

* §7c: Grammar, this conditional is mismatched: "If you import text under a CC BY-SA compatible license that requires attribution, you agree to credit the author(s)."
# alternative:
** "You agree that if you import text under…, you will credit the author(s)." '''''or'''''
* §7c: Does the word "unfortunately" belong in a legal agreement? Can it simply be cut?
* §7F: "You will not… '''''seek''''' invalidation…" This phrasing sends a chill down my spine. Prohibiting unilateral revokation makes perfect sense. But prohibiting good faith inquiry in a case where somebody may not have understood the consequences of their decision, and where the complexity or harm of removing the content is minimal, just seems like dirty pool. We are founded on principles of good faith collaboration; and sometimes there is a need to discuss complex issues. It's a rare occurrance, but it should not be prohibited in this way. For an example, read this discussion: [[w:en:Talk:Tonya Harding/#Michael G. Halle image]].
*§7g: This needs to be clarified, it stands in stark contrast to the rest of the document's specificity. On Commons and Wikisource, there are extensive debates every day about what constitutes "public domain" in what country. This needs to be placed in an international context in which different countries have different policies on different kinds of media, and recognize one another's policies in some cases but not others.
* §7h Here and in other places, CC-BY-SA is listed without a version number; but above, in the Wikinews example, CC-BY 2.5 is referenced. Can this be more consistent?
*§7h: grammar: "text … may attach additional attribution requirements" Text doesn't attach requirements, people do.
* §7i: Grammar: "For instance, if you are re-using text content in a wiki, it is sufficient to indicate in the page history that you made a change to the imported text."

Talk:Terms of use

2011-09-13T14:41:51Z

Tinz: /* Ban these Terms of use */ re

Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en

2011-09-05T01:39:18Z

Tinz: /* FYI: German-language Wikipedia users reject image filter */ re

==Interim message==
(The message below was posted on the [[Image filter referendum/Results/en]] page on September 2, to advise the community of a delay in releasing results. It is placed here for future reference now that the preliminary report has been posted. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Due to the very high vote count, and the need to review comments manually, the results of this voting will be delayed. The committee regrets this, but wants to be certain that the results are error-free and the comments are accurately portrayed.

We expect to release totals on 3 September, 2011.

There were more than 24,000 votes and almost 7,000 comments submitted. While the committee will not review each comment before publication of the results, they will all be reviewed before the committee disbands and a representative sample (nearly 2,000) will have been reviewed by publication of the results.

We thank the community for its patience, and for the outpouring of opinion.

For the [[Image filter referendum/Committee/en|Image filter referendum Committee]],

[[User:Risker|Risker]] 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

== When are results coming out? ==
It's September 1. And? {{unsigned|Patio|2:23, 1 September 2011}}

:... ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 16:13 1 September 2011 (GMT).

Are the answers that bad that the foundation is shaking?--[[Special:Contributions/91.10.49.253|91.10.49.253]] 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:No, but when the timeline was developed nobody expected there would be over 24,000 votes and almost 7,000 comments that would have to be manually reviewed; the last Board election had fewer votes than there were comments in this one, and this plebiscite has had a larger response than any other in Wikimedia history. We're working as quickly as we can, but it's very important to be able to provide a genuinely representative sample of the comments. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::I assure you, the "Foundation" isn't shaking. :) I am the only Foundation employee with access to the full results so far, and I'm not shaking. I'm a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume, that's all. But I've read and collated nearly 1000 comments in the last 24 hours so I suppose that's natural. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 05:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::This is most disconcerting: if only one person has access, there are no checks and balances. Combine this with the biased setup of this referendum, the canvassing spam mails, and the hiding of negative comments.... I'd like to Assume Goof Faith, but it is made exeedingly difficult. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: He said the only WMF employee, not the only person :) The full committee is [[Image_filter_referendum/Committee/en|here]]. Results very soon, we hope! -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | [[user_talk:phoebe|talk]] 01:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::We really want to see the raw data and also the PGP to verify that all votes are counted. Otherwise you could tell us a fairytale, insert "random" votes, and so on. I usually assume good faith. But in this case I'm very concerned, since so many facts make the whole thing very biased.
:::# A report from a single person is the source (No other organization e.g. the ALA was involved, Sue worked for the same company, all coincidental?)
:::# The questioning itself is very biased (No "no" option. "I don't care" is no "No!")
:::# Spam mails that where filtered before sending them (For example: No user with "bot" in his name was informed)
:::# The whole proposal is obviously ignoring the five pillars.
:::# ...
::: How can you still expect us to trust you? If i assume good faith, than i must admit that you made one stupid mistake after the other. If i don't assume good faith, then most parts are fitting together. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 13:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
::We sent out 700,000 emails and put a banner notice on every project page for a couple of weeks.... How many responses ''were'' expected? {{smiley}} ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 22:01 3 September 2011 (GMT).
::: Good question, Rich. I think it's just too rare for us to have these sorts of actively-promoted community discussions, so we have to think back to the relicensing proposal to find a similar one. We should be doing this sort of outreach and mutual communication all the time - say at the 1% level of banner-promotion if not the 100% level. Then we would have a finger on the pulse of the community, what sorts of topics interest readers and editors, and would not be surprised. [we would also get many more good ideas or offers of help that way!]
::: To Niabot: there is no conspiracy afoot. (not even in the filtering of email recipients, though that is embarrassing!) As with all community votes, raw data will be made available. I'm not sure what you mean by "no other organization was involved" -- the vote was administered by [[w:Software in the Public Interest|Software in the Public Interest]] precisely to avoid such concerns. Many good things develop 'one mistake after another', and the history of the wiki and of Wikimedia is no exception. If we are afraid to make mistakes we can't learn. Please don't shame people into not making mistakes: help them learn from them. Let's make sure we have more (and more meaningful) community polls, including real referenda ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/04/government-e-petition-website-crashes open referendum] tools are becoming [http://gov20.govfresh.com/white-house-offers-we-the-people-online-petitions-at-whitehouse-gov/ popular]). Let's make sure we have rules of thumb for releasing data. Someone has been unhappy about data-release being too slow after '''every''' public vote I can recall. Assume raw data includes dupes, socks, and identifying information. What subset of that can and should be availalbe immediately? How soon should the rest be available, and in what formats? –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We want the immediate release of the numerical results. We are not patient anymore. If you have nothing to hide, you would have published this part in the first minutes of September 1st. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 19:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Release raw data first? ===

Is it so difficult to represent the raw data of the result, or will we only see the interpretation by the WMF? I'm curious what takes so long to represent a plain table with the plain results. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 06:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:With the comments, we must ensure that there is no publicly identifiable information present (and there is). The committee has chosen to release both pieces (comments and the vote info) at the same time, rather than release an incomplete picture. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Then release the poll results first and the comments later on. Can't be so hard. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 13:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please release the incomplete picture now: only the raw and anonymous vote data. Release the interpretation separately, including (filtered) comments. That would be much more transparent. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 11:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:Why has no one responsible for organizing this 'referendum' not responded to this very sensible suggestion to explain why it hasn't been implemented? If you're busy reading comments, you can do that later. Just publish the damn results and we can all pick over their implications together! [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Didn't the mail go out? I thought there was notice that we wanted to delay a day to release graphs of the data as well? At any rate, it will be posted soon. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | [[user_talk:phoebe|talk]] 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This 'referendum', which was nothing of the sort given that the decision to introduce a filter has already been made, was a train wreck already. It's now descending into farce. The results of an electronically conducted ballot can be released immediately in raw form at the close of polls. There is no excuse for any delay in doing this. If you're concerned that people's comments will compromise their anonymity you can just filter comments out and publish every part of each submission except the comment for now, stating where applicable that a comment was left and will appear later when it has been checked for personally identifying information. In future, it would be strongly advisable to have a warning on the voting page stating that anything people write in the comments section will be made public, making it their responsibility to stay anonymous if they so desire. I cannot understand what the hold-up is with these results. Transparency in Wikimedia governance is already shot to pieces. Don't make the situation even worse! [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
: Agree with all the people who say you could publish the results as we're supposed to be a free (as in open) community. So many people took the time to vote and have the right to know what we all want A.S.A.P. Please, WMF. There is no reason to wait. You can apparently, but we have more things to do... [[User:Patio|S.I. 'Patio' Oliantigna]] 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

::I have to agree that the delay is becoming suspicious, especially when the ''reason'' given is to read comments before providing a "random sample". The combination of having someone take time to read over what the comments say ''and'' decide which ones to release gives the impression that someone might be taking the time to put a spin on the results. Also, I think I saw someone make a comment about ''translating'' comments, which seems extraordinarily dubious, considering that people were still trying to get translations of the poll ready a few days before it closed. Translating comments from every country on Earth is a process I'd expect to take months, not weeks. As far as personal information is concerned, I simply don't care - I hope we had the proper disclaimers on Meta - you submit something, it gets published. If people really want to redact such information they can do so ''post facto'', as I've often seen at the Wikipedia Refdesk. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 01:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::WMF committed to not publicly releasing identifiable information about voters. Do you really expect them to say, "Oops, Wnt's impatient, and you didn't write your comment in English, so we couldn't tell what it said and we released it anyway. Sorry about that: our confidentiality guarantee only applies to English speakers."
:::Or did you think that when they said "random sample of comments" they meant "random sample of English-language comments"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::In the future, we should make it clear that submitting a comment in a poll is just like submitting an edit to Wikipedia - that it becomes public and immediately available (and make that happen). [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 08:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Why? Please explain your reasoning in detail, because I really don't get this suggestion. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 16:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Congratulation ==

Regardless of whether the release is slow or is it not, I want to congratulate to the committee, the board and to the community in general, for such an big response. I remember the sorrow of the organizers for small participation in the board election. I took extra here some care to participate this time.

I hope, that the results will move the Wikipedia (and other projects) bit forward too :). Have a good time and thank you for your hard work. [[User:Reo On|'''''Reo''''' On]]|[[User talk:Reo On|+]]|[[:cs:Wikipedista diskuse:Reo On|+]] 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
: Thank you for sharing, Reo On. I hope to see proper referendums that originate with the community in the future as well. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== Results now released ==
Please see the page for the preliminary report. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Disappointing result. From the results it seems support for this ridiculous thing is pretty clear. I wonder what kind of influence the biased questions and spammail have had: we will never know, so the Foundation has been legitimized to push this waste of resources forward. Congratulations. I hope the :nl:wikipedia community will decide to disable this. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 06:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Interesting - I actually read the result as 'no consensus', which on Wikipedia would typically mean it doesn't go forward. The key number being the "Average of those with a preference" for "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers.", which is 57% - i.e. it's slightly favoured, but not strongly favoured (if you turn it into a black-and-white yes-no, then I'd say it's the analogy of less than 2/3 saying yes). [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]]
::: Perhaps another key question ought to have been worded, "Should image filtering be added (yes or no)?" Voters' assessment of the importance of the feature is significant, of course, but so, too, is other voters' assessment of the importance of ''not doing it''. Focusing only on the former, and then on the various characteristics the feature would need when added, suggests a bit of bias in favor of image filtering. But in any case I think you are correct, Mike, that the numerical results of even this ''apparently'' slanted poll suggest that there is '''no consensus''' that image filtering is a good idea. It will be interesting to see if the Foundation will implement the feature anyway. If so, perhaps other considerations are in play. [[User:Jonathan Lane Studeman|Jonathan Lane Studeman]] 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it is important to realise that the result actually is '''no concensus'''. No consensus usually means that things are kept as they are, i.e. there will be no filter. / [[User:Achird|Achird]] 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: This ''wasn't'' a yes/no vote, but a sort of market analysis. The result is that there is in fact, alas, some "market" for such a function. We can't make this fact go away, but we do have to draw limits as to what it means and what it doesn't mean. This vote, for example, is ''not'' a vote that ''"editors who add images to articles without rating them, or without rating them in a way that is popular, shall be blocked"''. It is ''not'' a vote that image hiding code needs to appear in the Wiki source of articles. This market can be reached in many ways, including by allowing offended users to circulate their own personalized lists of files they don't like, which are "tagged" in the articles only by having a filename. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Disappointing for who? Given the premise was that this was a "how do we" survey, I'd say the result shows a very strong message that the community ''does not want to have this system''. The survey materials were not encouraging people who did not want the system at all to make their feelings clearly known , or even to vote. And yet all that could be achieved was a luke-warm response to the "importance" problem. And this is thrown into high contrast by the definitive answer to the "culturally neutral" question - which is a key focus for the hard questions the proposal generates. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:35 4 September 2011 (GMT).

== Requests for further results or visualizations ==

=== Table formatting ===
{{collapse top|Done. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}}
{| {{table2}}
|
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' ?
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 0
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 1
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 2
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 3
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 4
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 5
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 6
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 7
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 8
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 9
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 10
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Votes'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Votes with a preference'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Average of those with a preference'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Median'''
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Total || 269||3763||790||1163||978||715||2819||1800||2670||2957||1308||4791||24023||23754||5.7||6
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| % || 1.12%||15.66%||3.29%||4.84%||4.07%||2.98%||11.73%||7.49%||11.11%||12.31%||5.44%||19.94%|| || ||
|}

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total #
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''%
|-
| ? (Abstain)
| 269 || 1.12%
|-
| 0
| 3763 || 15.66%
|-
| 1
| 790 || 3.29%
|-
|2
| 1163 || 4.84%
|-
|3
| 978 || 4.07%
|-
|4
| 715 || 2.98%
|-
|5
| 2819 || 11.73%
|-
|6
| 1800 || 7.49%
|-
|7
| 2670 || 11.11%
|-
|8
| 2957 || 12.31%
|-
|9
| 1308 || 5.44%
|-
|10
| 4791 || 19.94%
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| All votes
| 24023
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Votes with a preference
| 23754
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Average (Mean)
| 5.7
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Median
| 6
|
|}

Would anyone mind if we moved to a different format for the table, like one of my examples above? I personally prefer the first, because it takes less work to make this change. The existing one is hard to scan for trends and runs off the end of the display on all but the widest computer screens. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 03:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::No objection from me. :) [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Nor me, making the tables more user-friendly and readable is a *good* thing. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 03:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Results by project? ===
Since the votes were cast separately according to the user's principal project, it would be valuable to see a tabulation by project, to see if there Is particularly strong or weak support by any one project's users? [[User:DGG|DGG]] 04:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I was actually interested in this information, too. Was it stored when users took the poll? [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Project-voted-on information is part of the non-public information linked to the vote, so this will need to be worked on by someone who is cleared for private information. For some smaller projects (which make up the majority of projects, although they do not account for the majority of wikimedians), the numbers of active users are so small that a public release of project by project data for these groups may be sufficient to identify editors to their votes. However, for larger projects that have a significant number of editors who participated in this plebiscite (say, 350 or more voters or roughly 1.5% of total votes), it might well be reasonable to provide this information publicly, with a collective figure for projects with less than that number of votes. From my own perspective as an administrator of this election, I agree that this could bring some useful insight to the results, and I have personally recommended that such a study be done. However, something else to keep in mind is that editors were able to vote from just about any project they wanted, so there is no guarantee that the data will be attributable to the user's principal project. Since this is the first plebiscite of its kind within the Wikimedia family, we're still working out some of these sorts of details for analysing the data while protecting user privacy, and resources weren't allocated for anything more than the data that's already been provided. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Please also add the overall percentage (number of votes) per project to see the overall distribution of participation. One interesting question is how language centric the poll was. This can also be done for smaller projects without risking a leak of personal data.
:::It would also be interesting to know the number of invitation mails that where send per project/language. Don't know if you can still do this, but would be a very nice addition to the statistic. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Result by date? ===
Can you release date and viting-project data for the full set of results? I'd also like to see a comparison of results by date as the vote progressed. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   05:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:If you mean number of votes on each date during the election, this is public information that's available in the voter list. I suspect that an enterprising coder could probably come up with a script to gather that data fairly quickly without needing the committee to do this. They would just have to ensure that their script doesn't include the "greyed-out" votes that represent votes cancelled when the user revisited their vote. Having said that, there was an enormous increase in voting in the 72 hours after the emails went out. I've commented above with respect to the voting-project data. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::There should be a way to compare the results before the e-mail to results after: I speculate regular users vs. incidental users and the biased nature of the spam mail will have had some influence. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Well,you can look at it yourself, the voters list with time stamps on the votes is publicly available. The emails notifying wikimedians of the plebiscite went out starting late on August 18th. It's pretty clear that people will speculate all kinds of things. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Would there be a hyperlinklink to these data? [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::From any project, go to [[Special:SecurePoll]]. The Image filter referendum is the bottom vote listed; click on the link to the list, which lists all of the voters with a timestamp to their votes. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::The list is empty for me. Can't see any result. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::: http://wikimedia.amellus.net/index.php/Special:SecurePoll/list/230 -- [[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] 15:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, thanks MarcoAurelio. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Not very informative. At least we can see that the vote count increased drastically on August 19th. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::As I've noted above, I have no doubt that we have a huge supply of script-writing editors who could produce a nice graphic representation of the daily vote counts based on this public information. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I must say that this is not the only data I'm interested in. Thats why i said that it isn't very informative. Results/Attendance per language/wiki would be much more interesting. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::You can see which voters voted but not what. I'd rather have the reverse data: see when/what but not who. This is useless. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to try to get you vote count by day today. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 17:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

; Day by day
[[File:Daily votes.png|thumb|Rough vote distribution]]
{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Voted'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total Votes'''
|-
| 16-Aug||1509||1509
|-
| 17-Aug||1137||2646
|-
| 18-Aug||1126||3772
|-
| 19-Aug||8198||11970
|-
| 20-Aug||4650||16620
|-
| 21-Aug||2359||18979
|-
| 22-Aug||1738||20717
|-
| 23-Aug||955||21672
|-
| 24-Aug||597||22269
|-
| 25-Aug||482||22751
|-
| 26-Aug||363||23114
|-
| 27-Aug||284||23398
|-
| 28-Aug||316||23714
|-
| 29-Aug||415||24129
|-
| 30-Aug||326||24455
|-
|
|}

=== curious ===

At the moment vote 84% of the germans wikipedians in a real poll against this filer.
Other wikis have to love filter for these result. Maybe there are other reasons (kind of questions,...)? [[User:An-d|An-d]] 07:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Correction: 84% of the active parts of the German community who voted in an open poll. You're likely not attracting a lot of casual editors or readers with a poll like that. :) I'm not saying it's bad, just that we have to state clearly what it means. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 08:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your specification. I believe in the [[en:Law of large numbers|Law of large numbers]] [[User:An-d|An-d]] 08:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Well, WMF polls are not likely to be that attractive for casual editors either. -- [[User:O.Koslowski|O.Koslowski]] 08:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Actually, I hope that we CAN do the analysis on these numbers to see how effective this one was in reaching casual editors. Our experience in vote checking showed that it might have actually done okay at that, but that's anecdotal and highly skewed by the fact that we were looking for particular trends associated with multiple voting. I hope we can get some analysis done to tell us if that's correct or not. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::An-d, I believe in the law of large numbers, too. And I believe that 250 editors, out of the thousands of editors at de.wiki, is what we call "a small number".
::Furthermore, I believe in [[en:Groupthink]], and I know that the first few comments in an open poll tend to bias all subsequent responses. Consequently, the law of large numbers operates best when the later participants have no idea how the previous people responded. In this respect, the referendum (with its far larger numbers and correct use of a secret ballot) produces far more reliable results that one page at de.wiki. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::: From the tone of the comments on the poll page, I'd hoped for a very strong rejection of the filter. But what we need to remember that a poll about importance of one issue needs to be ''compared'' to feelings about the importance of other issues. This outcome is a collective lukewarm "huh maybe" to one idea about how the devs can spend their time. Maybe other features, if put to such a poll, would get 90% of voters saying that they're important. I'd expect ''any'' proposed feature with a weak consensus behind it to do at least as well as this, probably better. So I'm still suggesting the WMF should look at the commentary on the talk page, understand how appalled editors are about the idea of people trying to form consensus about which images to annotate for special hiding, and rethink whether there is a way to allow independent groups of editors to make their own ratings ''without'' needing to patrol and enforce their "consensus" categories against all other opinions. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::: I know that an open poll like this (asking for importance, without questioning deficits) and a project internal poll (asking for acceptance, stating pros and cons) is quite different. Overall this is not so surprising to me. I could guess that this kind of questioning would provoke such a result. Asking for importance is something very relative. Asking the people if "nice weather" is important and asking them if "being able to breath" would be important, would both easily receive a majority. But if you would ask them if "nice weather" is more important than "being able to breath" would give a complete different picture. Like Wnt already said. This must be accounted for. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 08:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: ''You're likely not attracting a lot of casual editors or readers with a poll like that.'' This is my biggest concern - on first blush the image filter is a great idea (barring, if I may be so rude, knee jerk reactions), it is only on reasonably close analysis, and with some technical knowledge that the significant problems begin to show. Reading between the lines, or explicitly, some of these had been apparent to Harris, the board or the designers, it is unfortunate that they weren't collated and either presented as part of the information on the poll, or indeed used to inform the construction of the poll itself. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:10 4 September 2011 (GMT).
''The committee was interested in a particular subset of those who used a positive tone in their comments'' We have known that from the start of this farce. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Interested in *why* they used a positive tone, and what they expected. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 14:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Request for more analysis ===
From Tim Starling's post to Foundation-l: He requests a correlation analysis of some kind. For example, it would be interesting to know whether those who support the filter have differing views on cultural neutrality to those who oppose it. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 01:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

== word frequency ==

First lets eliminate words like "the", "do", "a", ... "some", "there", that will be found in any text in english language.
And then single letters with no meaning at all like "n" and "s".

Lets concentrate on the keywords:
{|
|-
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| images||4274
|-
| wikipedia||2523
|-
| image||2190
|-
| feature||2155
|-
| users||1678
|-
| filter||1476
|-
| content||1462
|}

|width="2%" valign="top"|  
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| important||1157
|-
| controversial||1143
|-
| censorship||1127
|-
| user||987
|-
| categories||874
|-
| neutral||865
|-
| wikimedia||817
|-
| pictures||773
|}

|width="2%" valign="top"|  
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| offensive||724
|-
| view||720
|-
| culturally||648
|-
| cultural||647
|-
| default||603
|-
| children||593
|-
| sexual||577
|-
| filtering||533
|-
| wiki||524
|-
| question||519
|-
| option||502
|}
|}

Some of these words were part of the query so its not a surprise to find them here. But there is one word, that was not intended to be used by the users, but is relatively high on the list. Think about that single word. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 10:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I don't see how. If I remember correctly, I commented something like "This is not about censorship". Single words don't mean anything. --[[User:Elitre|Elitre]] 12:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Quoting from the document itself: ''Note that differences using modifiers such as “not” were analyzed as well. For instance, the word “controversial” appears 1143 times in the comments, with 19 instances of “non-controversial”, 11 instances of “uncontroversial”, 2 of “noncontroversial”, 1 of “not-controversial”, 1 of “not-so-controversial”, and 7 of “not controversial”. These numbers are representative of other modifiers sampled. These modifiers make up a small but significant percent of the words and should be evaluated more fully for the committee’s final report.''. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::What's the word that was used 8,908 times? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 12:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Great question. I just checked the raw log I was sent, and it's blank. I'm going to ask the guy who ran the query. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Torchwood. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:10 4 September 2011 (GMT).
::::Interesting one, actually - I just heard back from the guy who did the graph... the missing word is " ' ". Just a single apostrophe. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
@Elitre - you are right in saying that single words mean nothing. They just document that certain questions around single words were discussed. So this list is just another way to throw sand in the eyes of the users. 
More important are the 41.2% "negative" versus the 29.8% "positive" - which means that no mayority to introduce filters was reached. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 19:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::I'm fairly certain that if I'd removed single words (I thought about it) you'd have come back at me with allegations that we were witholding information. I chose to over-disclose, and - of course - I'm throwing sand in your eyes. This is getting really sad. :( [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:Please, please, never do a frequency analysis or word cloud again. This is an embarrassment. Just read the comments and categorize them. I know it's seductive for a coder to go and write a frequency analyzer but this is much worse than ignoring all the text field comments. [[User:Comet Tuttle|Comet Tuttle]] 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

== Talk about "burying the lead"! ==

What's the gist of it all? In puzzlement, I am your friend, [[User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]] 11:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== FYI: German-language Wikipedia users reject image filter ==

I would like to draw your attention to a [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Pers.C3.B6nliche_Bildfilter_und_Filterkategorien_k.C3.B6nnen_in_der_deutschsprachigen_Wikipedia_eingef.C3.BChrt_werden_.28Status_quo.29 voting] in German-language Wikipedia that at this point of time '''strongly rejects''' the introduction of image filters. Above all, the community deeply deplores that the Foundation did not ask ''whether'' to introduce a filter, only ''what kind of filter'' would be preferred. Voting runs through September 15, 2011. The toll now stands at 230 against/ 43 in favour of the filter/ 14 abstentions.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 12:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I doubt the legitimacy of the poll from a single local wiki project would have the power to revoke the decision of Foundation. But this would be a shame if DE.WP bureaucrats have the power to prevent its local users from using the filter once it's implemented. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 14:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::This is a precedent. The Foundation will not be able to neglect the opinion of a vast majority of users on German-language Wikipedia. We just say no, it seems.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::If the DE Wikipedians vote on that poll, that means they're already well aware of this referendum. That means they could express their opinion through the referendum rather than in their home Wiki, so that local poll is totally unnecessary. And please don't give me that "this referendum is a fraud" crap, it's no more than a cheap excuse and insult to reject something you don't like. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I gather your strong language indicates we have got it right.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::That poll is not democracy, the "majority" just want to prevent the local proponents from using the filter in DE.WP that WMF intends to offer. Stripping the freedom they should have. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::Quite the opposite. They have the freedom already. ;-) --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::That poll asks one question. A question that was absent inside this referendumm (sic!). --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Sameboat, what restricts freedom is the foundation proposal. The freedom deWP should have is the freedom to accept of reject the filter for their WP. If there is anyone having the priviledge to control the way the deWP chooses to have material and the way it chooses to display it, should it not be the consensus of the people who work on that WP? This is just the same as deWP having the right to use Proposed changes,, which they have done, rather than making it a WMF decision that every project must have it (or must not have it) . [[User:DGG|DGG]] 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::I don't see the point of WMF proposal restricting freedom. And the opinion of having the filter should be based on readers themselves, not the constant contributor group of 1 particular local Wiki. I'm trying not to use that ideology to describe that poll, but it's a very close one in this case. And what if user from other Wiki who have already set the filter switches to DE.WP and suddenly find that the image should be hidden actually appears right before them? I directly refer to that [[w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-22/News and notes|problematic image once on the DE.WP main page]]. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::The reason why the editors get to choose what goes on their wiki is this: it is the editors that are charges with the maintenance, not the readers. The editors are the ones who will need to keep the POV-pushing ideologues at bay. The readers are important, don't get me wrong; but if they are allowed to vote, they might not have a deep concern for the logistics of the proposal. This is one reason why wikis have voting eligibility policies. Case in point: [[wikt:Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian|unified Serbo-Croatian]] on en.wikt, where the votes were 40-50 but it was closed as 30-21 (this was before the voting policy). — '''[[User:Internoob|Internoob]]''' ([[wiktionary:User:Internoob|Wikt.]] | [[User talk:Internoob|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Internoob|Cont.]]) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, editors can decide thing that is related to editing. But the filter proposal is directly about READERS' preference, not just editors. That's why the opposition disgusts me, they attempt to use their own power to control the readers' preference for satisfying their own philosophy like a tyrant. I do not advocate non-contributors' right to vote, but we contributors should be more comprehensive on the readers' side, not just ourselves. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I for one reject introducing the filter because we were not asked if we wanted it in the first place. Period. This is no way to run a wiki or indeed any community these days. And then, if the problem is in the content you find on Commons, please go and solve in on Commons, i.e., delete the problematic content there and do not hold users responsible for their filter settings if they encounter something they don't want to see. No education project relies on explicit material in any way. Never. I repeat, the Foundation will not be able to deny the German community's voting. If we say no to this filter we mean it this way.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:This is clearly not the point, you're denying other readers' preference to hide the image which is essential to the topic and is subjectively accepted by another group of users. The filter is here to solve this dilemma. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::On the contrary, the filter is to be introduced to hide the dilemma. If hides the content rather than removing it altogether. I don't want anyone to filter anything in Wikipedia. Every user should be delivered the same content. Apart from that, I wonder why you are against democracy in our projects? It is a precedent to announce far-reaching decisions like this without asking for the community's consent in the first place. This was a big mistake, as we now can see.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I just repeat, it's not democracy. And the DE sysops just act like a supremacy to control its visitors' option to hide the image. Obviously you've no right to force someone to accept the image that may disgust them. And that Vulva image once on the de.wp main page is the perfect explanation why this filter is proposed. The issues about the process of the proposal, ask WMF, not me. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Wait a second, please, you are responsible for your opinion, not the Foundation, right? And then, of course, it's not democracy, that's just what we are claiming.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I am not representing the WMF, so the problem for not asking de.wp community's consent about the proposal is not of my concern. The referendum is already sufficient for me to express my opinion on that matter. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::There is no "forcing" people to see images. Any more than we are "forcing" them to read stuff they may find unacceptable. Bad editorial decisions should not be used as an excuse for more bad decisions. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:18 4 September 2011 (GMT).
:::::This is enforcement. When WMF offers the tool to hide image, the de.wp sysops just use their power to ban it, preventing anyone from using it. Who did ask to see the Vulva image on the de.wp main page? Are you that desperate to let everyone see the Vulva image to satisfy your educational purpose? This is far over the line. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

*The significance here is that the de: project feels strongly enough about this to suggest forking. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:22 4 September 2011 (GMT).
::This is not about forking, but rather about pointing out to the foundation it has made a mistake that has to be corrected now.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 17:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: But it may be about forking if the foundation doesn’t change their mind. -- [[User:Carbidfischer|Carbidfischer]]
:::: Wikimedia is a global projekt - let find us together a way out of this trouble. Forking is no serious option. [[User:An-d|An-d]] 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::@Carbidfischer: Yes, if they don't change their mind. It would be the next stept, and it would be a logic one. I expect the foundation to move toward the German-language community.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 17:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::In theory, the foundation could fork from the community, just like Oracle did it with the Open Office community. --[[User:Liberaler Humanist|Liberaler Humanist]] 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that anyone would seriously consider forking because of an opt-in filter. What might happen is that dewiki ignores the filter by creating local copies of the filtered files, thus removing them from the influence of commons categorization. But that's about it. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
: This is far too cumbersome considering the amount of labeled images to be transferred. That's why they start that poll to justify the ban on the filter. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 01:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
::Only images that are included in articles would have to be considered. But ok, even if you are right, the important thing would be to set an example. This could easily be achieved by transferring just a few sexually explicit images and images of Mohammed that are included in the high-traffic articles. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 01:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

== CentralNotice ==

Is it translatable somewhere? {{User:Liangent/Signature}} 12:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, see [[Image filter referendum/CentralNotice]]. [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 14:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Comments ==

The results for some questions are polarized, with higher levels of 0 and 10's rather than middle values. This happens quite a lot (think "pending changes") so we need to anticipate this and try to design feature surveys to be more useful in the face of polarized replies.

In this case, there is no data so far how replies vary by community/language. For example, if hypothetically we found (for illustration and ignoring the cultural stereotype) that most US respondents rejected filtering and most middle east respondents supported it, that suggests a possible solution of developing it, then enabling on some wikis and not on others, would leave more people feeling fairly satisfied. While nothing will be that stereotyped, perhaps a breakdown by region or language will be revealing as to attitude/preference/readers' principles.

There is no data so far showing why supporters support it, or why rejecters reject it. It might be that some reasons are not incompatible, or can be worked around. Similarly, the principles drawn on in comments could be important and revealing. A user who feels "Wikipedia should respect cultural views" or "Wikipedia should be uncensored" is expressing a different kind of view (one related to global use) than one whose objection is based on "waste of time" or "no value to me" but has no other strong objection.

Future surveys of this kind should aim to allow this kind of data, if it's practical.

What I'd like to see in further analysis:

* How did responses relate to project/culture/geographical region?
* For those replying 0-1 (or 0-2) out of 10, and those replying 9-10 (or 8-10) out of 10, '''and''' left comments - what were the principles/reasons they gave that appeared to be their main reason for their strongly held positive or negative views?

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:1 - 10 is too fine for people to judge. This probably contributes to the polarisation. 1 - 5 is plenty enough choice. [[Special:Contributions/86.181.174.161|86.181.174.161]] 14:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:It will also will be hard to distinguish people who said "It is important" meaning "It is important and it would be terrible" as opposed to "It is important and it would be great"''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:15 4 September 2011 (GMT).

::And it is hard to tell what people thought voting 0 or 1. Did they mean "totally unimportant but harmless" or "I want to express my opposition"? So FT2s Question ist quite interesting. What did those people with strong oppinions comment? [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 14:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I think it comes down to the fact that we didn't ask whether people support the filter or oppose it (or present arguments on each side of that question), so we simply don't have that data. To try and derive it from what was asked does a disservice to the referendum process, which was about ''how'', not ''whether'', to implement a filter.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] 15:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:What irks ''me'' is that the vast majority of victims of this "feature" – the ''readers'' – were disenfranchised entirely. That's more than a little odd for a fundamental shift in the project's philosophy. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 18:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Given that 99.5% of readers are not editors, I would like to see one other analysis: whether the few users who have many edits responded differently from the many who have few or no edits. The problem being that discussion of the issue is by those who are engaged in Wikimedia which is a tiny minority. If it turns out that of the 24,000 responses, 12,000 are by people with few or no edits, then those are more likely to be representative of responses of the 99.5% of non-editors. In other words, ''the debate here may be self-defeating because it's a debate between people in the tiny minority of engaged users''. What I'd like to know is whether responses by people with very few or no edits, differ qualitatively from those by people with many edits. If so, which set of responses probably matters more...? [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 21:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Or might have been were the methodology in this survey not hopelessly broken. A first year stat student could have told you that you don't give such a large scale, or provide a middle value; and the questions were framed by begging the implementation as a forgone conclusion. The first could be salvaged, the latter not so much. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: What I'm looking for is what we can get from the data we have. For example examination of strong views v. reasons in comments is possible, and if IP or account data was kept to detect or prevent multiple votes (and is still available), then analysis by geography/language/region and qualitative differences between respondents with very few or no edits v. the rest might be possible. They might give useful information even after the limitations in the survey. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::It may have been better to ask the "end users" too. But nobody will be a "victim" of this new feature because it's opt-in and nobody who doesn't want to will get images filtered. [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::You're making the presumption that nobody will be "opted in" against their will, or by social pressure. Or by whoever provides their sole 'net access; much of the non-occidental world can only access our projects through public terminals (cafe, libraries, etc). Do you really believe they won't put rules mandating such filters in place?). You're also presuming that the oh-so-convenient infrastructure we'll gleefully provide will not be used by anyone else. If there is in-band signalling "classifying" images (as ''must'' be if there is code to hide them), then it becomes trivial for anyone holding a mandatory proxy to filter them – user preference be damned.Neither of the presumptions are valid in the real world. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 19:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

: Re comments: I'm disappointed that the first response to the comments people left was to put them thru a pattern-crunching program & create a [[:File:Referendum comments from Personal Image Filter referendum.png|pretty picture]] of which words were used the most. After looking at this image, I felt that I would have had more impact in this plebiscite had I simply wrote "censorship" repeatedly until I used all of the space allotted, than what I did write.What this "plebiscite" is asking is an ideological question, which means the opposing schools of thought are not going to find a common ground to agree on. (By "opposing schools of thought", I mean each side believe that the other is a bunch of ill-informed scumbags who are subverting the ideals of the projects. We're arguing over religious beliefs here, people. When the Christians, Jews, Moslems & Atheists all agree on who Jesus Christ was, then ''maybe'' we'll have a consensus on this issue.) Unless someone can produce a solid reason why this would benefit any Wikimedia project, then the Foundation is simply pissing away finite resources that would be better spent on something else -- such as US$50/€50 gift cards to established editors to help them buy research materials to create content.As for the issue of knowing what the users of our content actually wanted, the best way to have obtained that knowledge would have been to contract with a polling firm, who would find a large enough population of Wikipedia/Wikimedia users for an accurate sample, & '''ask them'''. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== The problem ==

As previously mentioned in a reply, this survey had a fairly significant problem: the questions were about how to implement the filter, without asking a more basic question of if there should be a filter at all. I ask that, at minimum, an informal vote be held to determine community consensus on that issue. Additional useful information would be for support of an option to disable all article images, rather than a category-based filter. If the Foundation has unilaterally decided that there will be a category-based image filter and damn what the community thinks, I believe the community has a right to a transcript of the discussion and vote at which that decision was made. {{unsigned|98.230.51.109}}

:The first question was already asking: "it is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers." -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 15:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:I'm quite sure Wikipedians are intelligent enough to vote 0 (totally unimportant) to express their opposition to the filter. A "I don't want a filter"-Option would have been better though. [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::When I first encountered the survey, my sentiments were very similar to those of 98.230.51.109; I was disappointed that such a major decision had been unilaterally decided without seeking community consensus or even input. Moreover, I personally recall the thought process of "if I answer 0/10 to voice objection, will my other responses and text input be methodologically disregarded as partisan or irrelevant?" going through my mind, which indeed resulted in a considerable artificial deviation in my case. [[User:CMBJ|CMBJ]] 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:The intoduction of the filter has already been decided by the Board of Trustees ([[Image filter referendum#Background]]). Purpose of this referendum was explicitly not to decide wheter we want the filter or not but only how it should look like.
:@Adornix: It's not the same to ask "how important is such a filter" or "do we want such a filter" (even though both questions sound similar they aren't equal)... [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 16:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::The assumption that the board is incapable of changing it's mind, is one that I find staggering. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:14 4 September 2011 (GMT).

:::I didn't assume this. I only said what the referendum was about. [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::as can be seen from the voters list, I waited until the last day to vote, because i had some difficulty deciding whether to vote at all--whether to participate in such a referendum was acceptance that the WMF had the moral right to pass such a resolution, and whether even voting on a referendum presented as how to implement as issue was legitimate. Should I vote on questions of what way to facilitate censorship?There is a considerable difference indeed between saying, "it is not important that we have such a filter" and "it is very important that we not have such a filter". The skewed distribution of votes on the first question (the very few 1,2, and 3 votes as compared to the number of 7, 8 and 9 votes), indicates that those who opposed it felt very passionately about it. Risker said above that the examination of the comments indicated that also. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I am actually not strongly opposed to this feature, but IMO the process left a great deal to be desired. First it was misleadingly called a "referendum", and then there was this confused question about how "important" it is to implement the feature, which seems to me like a weasly way of giving people the impression that they could oppose the feature, while allowing a get-out to implement the fait accompli anyway, even if most people said it wasn't "important". [[Special:Contributions/86.160.217.239|86.160.217.239]] 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

: There is also another issue that has been overlooked here: every dollar, euro, &c. spent on this proposal is a unit of currency that could have been spent on something else. Something that the communities who support the Wikimedia projects could agree needed to be done. Even the act to consider whether to filter images was an unbelievably stupid decision; the entire Board ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing it to be put on their agenda. I am glad to say I did not vote for any of the successful candidates for the Board in the last election, & I hope we get some fresh blood on the Board immediately. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en

2011-09-05T00:06:19Z

Tinz: /* FYI: German-language Wikipedia users reject image filter */ typo

==Interim message==
(The message below was posted on the [[Image filter referendum/Results/en]] page on September 2, to advise the community of a delay in releasing results. It is placed here for future reference now that the preliminary report has been posted. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Due to the very high vote count, and the need to review comments manually, the results of this voting will be delayed. The committee regrets this, but wants to be certain that the results are error-free and the comments are accurately portrayed.

We expect to release totals on 3 September, 2011.

There were more than 24,000 votes and almost 7,000 comments submitted. While the committee will not review each comment before publication of the results, they will all be reviewed before the committee disbands and a representative sample (nearly 2,000) will have been reviewed by publication of the results.

We thank the community for its patience, and for the outpouring of opinion.

For the [[Image filter referendum/Committee/en|Image filter referendum Committee]],

[[User:Risker|Risker]] 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

== When are results coming out? ==
It's September 1. And? {{unsigned|Patio|2:23, 1 September 2011}}

:... ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 16:13 1 September 2011 (GMT).

Are the answers that bad that the foundation is shaking?--[[Special:Contributions/91.10.49.253|91.10.49.253]] 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:No, but when the timeline was developed nobody expected there would be over 24,000 votes and almost 7,000 comments that would have to be manually reviewed; the last Board election had fewer votes than there were comments in this one, and this plebiscite has had a larger response than any other in Wikimedia history. We're working as quickly as we can, but it's very important to be able to provide a genuinely representative sample of the comments. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::I assure you, the "Foundation" isn't shaking. :) I am the only Foundation employee with access to the full results so far, and I'm not shaking. I'm a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume, that's all. But I've read and collated nearly 1000 comments in the last 24 hours so I suppose that's natural. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 05:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::This is most disconcerting: if only one person has access, there are no checks and balances. Combine this with the biased setup of this referendum, the canvassing spam mails, and the hiding of negative comments.... I'd like to Assume Goof Faith, but it is made exeedingly difficult. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: He said the only WMF employee, not the only person :) The full committee is [[Image_filter_referendum/Committee/en|here]]. Results very soon, we hope! -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | [[user_talk:phoebe|talk]] 01:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::We really want to see the raw data and also the PGP to verify that all votes are counted. Otherwise you could tell us a fairytale, insert "random" votes, and so on. I usually assume good faith. But in this case I'm very concerned, since so many facts make the whole thing very biased.
:::# A report from a single person is the source (No other organization e.g. the ALA was involved, Sue worked for the same company, all coincidental?)
:::# The questioning itself is very biased (No "no" option. "I don't care" is no "No!")
:::# Spam mails that where filtered before sending them (For example: No user with "bot" in his name was informed)
:::# The whole proposal is obviously ignoring the five pillars.
:::# ...
::: How can you still expect us to trust you? If i assume good faith, than i must admit that you made one stupid mistake after the other. If i don't assume good faith, then most parts are fitting together. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 13:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
::We sent out 700,000 emails and put a banner notice on every project page for a couple of weeks.... How many responses ''were'' expected? {{smiley}} ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 22:01 3 September 2011 (GMT).
::: Good question, Rich. I think it's just too rare for us to have these sorts of actively-promoted community discussions, so we have to think back to the relicensing proposal to find a similar one. We should be doing this sort of outreach and mutual communication all the time - say at the 1% level of banner-promotion if not the 100% level. Then we would have a finger on the pulse of the community, what sorts of topics interest readers and editors, and would not be surprised. [we would also get many more good ideas or offers of help that way!]
::: To Niabot: there is no conspiracy afoot. (not even in the filtering of email recipients, though that is embarrassing!) As with all community votes, raw data will be made available. I'm not sure what you mean by "no other organization was involved" -- the vote was administered by [[w:Software in the Public Interest|Software in the Public Interest]] precisely to avoid such concerns. Many good things develop 'one mistake after another', and the history of the wiki and of Wikimedia is no exception. If we are afraid to make mistakes we can't learn. Please don't shame people into not making mistakes: help them learn from them. Let's make sure we have more (and more meaningful) community polls, including real referenda ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/04/government-e-petition-website-crashes open referendum] tools are becoming [http://gov20.govfresh.com/white-house-offers-we-the-people-online-petitions-at-whitehouse-gov/ popular]). Let's make sure we have rules of thumb for releasing data. Someone has been unhappy about data-release being too slow after '''every''' public vote I can recall. Assume raw data includes dupes, socks, and identifying information. What subset of that can and should be availalbe immediately? How soon should the rest be available, and in what formats? –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We want the immediate release of the numerical results. We are not patient anymore. If you have nothing to hide, you would have published this part in the first minutes of September 1st. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 19:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Release raw data first? ===

Is it so difficult to represent the raw data of the result, or will we only see the interpretation by the WMF? I'm curious what takes so long to represent a plain table with the plain results. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 06:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:With the comments, we must ensure that there is no publicly identifiable information present (and there is). The committee has chosen to release both pieces (comments and the vote info) at the same time, rather than release an incomplete picture. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Then release the poll results first and the comments later on. Can't be so hard. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 13:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please release the incomplete picture now: only the raw and anonymous vote data. Release the interpretation separately, including (filtered) comments. That would be much more transparent. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 11:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:Why has no one responsible for organizing this 'referendum' not responded to this very sensible suggestion to explain why it hasn't been implemented? If you're busy reading comments, you can do that later. Just publish the damn results and we can all pick over their implications together! [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Didn't the mail go out? I thought there was notice that we wanted to delay a day to release graphs of the data as well? At any rate, it will be posted soon. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | [[user_talk:phoebe|talk]] 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This 'referendum', which was nothing of the sort given that the decision to introduce a filter has already been made, was a train wreck already. It's now descending into farce. The results of an electronically conducted ballot can be released immediately in raw form at the close of polls. There is no excuse for any delay in doing this. If you're concerned that people's comments will compromise their anonymity you can just filter comments out and publish every part of each submission except the comment for now, stating where applicable that a comment was left and will appear later when it has been checked for personally identifying information. In future, it would be strongly advisable to have a warning on the voting page stating that anything people write in the comments section will be made public, making it their responsibility to stay anonymous if they so desire. I cannot understand what the hold-up is with these results. Transparency in Wikimedia governance is already shot to pieces. Don't make the situation even worse! [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
: Agree with all the people who say you could publish the results as we're supposed to be a free (as in open) community. So many people took the time to vote and have the right to know what we all want A.S.A.P. Please, WMF. There is no reason to wait. You can apparently, but we have more things to do... [[User:Patio|S.I. 'Patio' Oliantigna]] 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

::I have to agree that the delay is becoming suspicious, especially when the ''reason'' given is to read comments before providing a "random sample". The combination of having someone take time to read over what the comments say ''and'' decide which ones to release gives the impression that someone might be taking the time to put a spin on the results. Also, I think I saw someone make a comment about ''translating'' comments, which seems extraordinarily dubious, considering that people were still trying to get translations of the poll ready a few days before it closed. Translating comments from every country on Earth is a process I'd expect to take months, not weeks. As far as personal information is concerned, I simply don't care - I hope we had the proper disclaimers on Meta - you submit something, it gets published. If people really want to redact such information they can do so ''post facto'', as I've often seen at the Wikipedia Refdesk. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 01:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::WMF committed to not publicly releasing identifiable information about voters. Do you really expect them to say, "Oops, Wnt's impatient, and you didn't write your comment in English, so we couldn't tell what it said and we released it anyway. Sorry about that: our confidentiality guarantee only applies to English speakers."
:::Or did you think that when they said "random sample of comments" they meant "random sample of English-language comments"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::In the future, we should make it clear that submitting a comment in a poll is just like submitting an edit to Wikipedia - that it becomes public and immediately available (and make that happen). [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 08:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Why? Please explain your reasoning in detail, because I really don't get this suggestion. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 16:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Congratulation ==

Regardless of whether the release is slow or is it not, I want to congratulate to the committee, the board and to the community in general, for such an big response. I remember the sorrow of the organizers for small participation in the board election. I took extra here some care to participate this time.

I hope, that the results will move the Wikipedia (and other projects) bit forward too :). Have a good time and thank you for your hard work. [[User:Reo On|'''''Reo''''' On]]|[[User talk:Reo On|+]]|[[:cs:Wikipedista diskuse:Reo On|+]] 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
: Thank you for sharing, Reo On. I hope to see proper referendums that originate with the community in the future as well. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== Results now released ==
Please see the page for the preliminary report. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Disappointing result. From the results it seems support for this ridiculous thing is pretty clear. I wonder what kind of influence the biased questions and spammail have had: we will never know, so the Foundation has been legitimized to push this waste of resources forward. Congratulations. I hope the :nl:wikipedia community will decide to disable this. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 06:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Interesting - I actually read the result as 'no consensus', which on Wikipedia would typically mean it doesn't go forward. The key number being the "Average of those with a preference" for "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers.", which is 57% - i.e. it's slightly favoured, but not strongly favoured (if you turn it into a black-and-white yes-no, then I'd say it's the analogy of less than 2/3 saying yes). [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]]
::: Perhaps another key question ought to have been worded, "Should image filtering be added (yes or no)?" Voters' assessment of the importance of the feature is significant, of course, but so, too, is other voters' assessment of the importance of ''not doing it''. Focusing only on the former, and then on the various characteristics the feature would need when added, suggests a bit of bias in favor of image filtering. But in any case I think you are correct, Mike, that the numerical results of even this ''apparently'' slanted poll suggest that there is '''no consensus''' that image filtering is a good idea. It will be interesting to see if the Foundation will implement the feature anyway. If so, perhaps other considerations are in play. [[User:Jonathan Lane Studeman|Jonathan Lane Studeman]] 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it is important to realise that the result actually is '''no concensus'''. No consensus usually means that things are kept as they are, i.e. there will be no filter. / [[User:Achird|Achird]] 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: This ''wasn't'' a yes/no vote, but a sort of market analysis. The result is that there is in fact, alas, some "market" for such a function. We can't make this fact go away, but we do have to draw limits as to what it means and what it doesn't mean. This vote, for example, is ''not'' a vote that ''"editors who add images to articles without rating them, or without rating them in a way that is popular, shall be blocked"''. It is ''not'' a vote that image hiding code needs to appear in the Wiki source of articles. This market can be reached in many ways, including by allowing offended users to circulate their own personalized lists of files they don't like, which are "tagged" in the articles only by having a filename. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Disappointing for who? Given the premise was that this was a "how do we" survey, I'd say the result shows a very strong message that the community ''does not want to have this system''. The survey materials were not encouraging people who did not want the system at all to make their feelings clearly known , or even to vote. And yet all that could be achieved was a luke-warm response to the "importance" problem. And this is thrown into high contrast by the definitive answer to the "culturally neutral" question - which is a key focus for the hard questions the proposal generates. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:35 4 September 2011 (GMT).

== Requests for further results or visualizations ==

=== Table formatting ===
{{collapse top|Done. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}}
{| {{table2}}
|
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' ?
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 0
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 1
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 2
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 3
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 4
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 5
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 6
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 7
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 8
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 9
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 10
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Votes'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Votes with a preference'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Average of those with a preference'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Median'''
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Total || 269||3763||790||1163||978||715||2819||1800||2670||2957||1308||4791||24023||23754||5.7||6
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| % || 1.12%||15.66%||3.29%||4.84%||4.07%||2.98%||11.73%||7.49%||11.11%||12.31%||5.44%||19.94%|| || ||
|}

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total #
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''%
|-
| ? (Abstain)
| 269 || 1.12%
|-
| 0
| 3763 || 15.66%
|-
| 1
| 790 || 3.29%
|-
|2
| 1163 || 4.84%
|-
|3
| 978 || 4.07%
|-
|4
| 715 || 2.98%
|-
|5
| 2819 || 11.73%
|-
|6
| 1800 || 7.49%
|-
|7
| 2670 || 11.11%
|-
|8
| 2957 || 12.31%
|-
|9
| 1308 || 5.44%
|-
|10
| 4791 || 19.94%
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| All votes
| 24023
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Votes with a preference
| 23754
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Average (Mean)
| 5.7
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Median
| 6
|
|}

Would anyone mind if we moved to a different format for the table, like one of my examples above? I personally prefer the first, because it takes less work to make this change. The existing one is hard to scan for trends and runs off the end of the display on all but the widest computer screens. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 03:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::No objection from me. :) [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Nor me, making the tables more user-friendly and readable is a *good* thing. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 03:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Results by project? ===
Since the votes were cast separately according to the user's principal project, it would be valuable to see a tabulation by project, to see if there Is particularly strong or weak support by any one project's users? [[User:DGG|DGG]] 04:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I was actually interested in this information, too. Was it stored when users took the poll? [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Project-voted-on information is part of the non-public information linked to the vote, so this will need to be worked on by someone who is cleared for private information. For some smaller projects (which make up the majority of projects, although they do not account for the majority of wikimedians), the numbers of active users are so small that a public release of project by project data for these groups may be sufficient to identify editors to their votes. However, for larger projects that have a significant number of editors who participated in this plebiscite (say, 350 or more voters or roughly 1.5% of total votes), it might well be reasonable to provide this information publicly, with a collective figure for projects with less than that number of votes. From my own perspective as an administrator of this election, I agree that this could bring some useful insight to the results, and I have personally recommended that such a study be done. However, something else to keep in mind is that editors were able to vote from just about any project they wanted, so there is no guarantee that the data will be attributable to the user's principal project. Since this is the first plebiscite of its kind within the Wikimedia family, we're still working out some of these sorts of details for analysing the data while protecting user privacy, and resources weren't allocated for anything more than the data that's already been provided. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Please also add the overall percentage (number of votes) per project to see the overall distribution of participation. One interesting question is how language centric the poll was. This can also be done for smaller projects without risking a leak of personal data.
:::It would also be interesting to know the number of invitation mails that where send per project/language. Don't know if you can still do this, but would be a very nice addition to the statistic. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Result by date? ===
Can you release date and viting-project data for the full set of results? I'd also like to see a comparison of results by date as the vote progressed. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   05:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:If you mean number of votes on each date during the election, this is public information that's available in the voter list. I suspect that an enterprising coder could probably come up with a script to gather that data fairly quickly without needing the committee to do this. They would just have to ensure that their script doesn't include the "greyed-out" votes that represent votes cancelled when the user revisited their vote. Having said that, there was an enormous increase in voting in the 72 hours after the emails went out. I've commented above with respect to the voting-project data. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::There should be a way to compare the results before the e-mail to results after: I speculate regular users vs. incidental users and the biased nature of the spam mail will have had some influence. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Well,you can look at it yourself, the voters list with time stamps on the votes is publicly available. The emails notifying wikimedians of the plebiscite went out starting late on August 18th. It's pretty clear that people will speculate all kinds of things. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Would there be a hyperlinklink to these data? [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::From any project, go to [[Special:SecurePoll]]. The Image filter referendum is the bottom vote listed; click on the link to the list, which lists all of the voters with a timestamp to their votes. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::The list is empty for me. Can't see any result. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::: http://wikimedia.amellus.net/index.php/Special:SecurePoll/list/230 -- [[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] 15:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, thanks MarcoAurelio. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Not very informative. At least we can see that the vote count increased drastically on August 19th. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::As I've noted above, I have no doubt that we have a huge supply of script-writing editors who could produce a nice graphic representation of the daily vote counts based on this public information. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I must say that this is not the only data I'm interested in. Thats why i said that it isn't very informative. Results/Attendance per language/wiki would be much more interesting. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::You can see which voters voted but not what. I'd rather have the reverse data: see when/what but not who. This is useless. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to try to get you vote count by day today. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 17:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

; Day by day
[[File:Daily votes.png|thumb|Rough vote distribution]]
{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Voted'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total Votes'''
|-
| 16-Aug||1509||1509
|-
| 17-Aug||1137||2646
|-
| 18-Aug||1126||3772
|-
| 19-Aug||8198||11970
|-
| 20-Aug||4650||16620
|-
| 21-Aug||2359||18979
|-
| 22-Aug||1738||20717
|-
| 23-Aug||955||21672
|-
| 24-Aug||597||22269
|-
| 25-Aug||482||22751
|-
| 26-Aug||363||23114
|-
| 27-Aug||284||23398
|-
| 28-Aug||316||23714
|-
| 29-Aug||415||24129
|-
| 30-Aug||326||24455
|-
|
|}

=== curious ===

At the moment vote 84% of the germans wikipedians in a real poll against this filer.
Other wikis have to love filter for these result. Maybe there are other reasons (kind of questions,...)? [[User:An-d|An-d]] 07:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Correction: 84% of the active parts of the German community who voted in an open poll. You're likely not attracting a lot of casual editors or readers with a poll like that. :) I'm not saying it's bad, just that we have to state clearly what it means. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 08:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your specification. I believe in the [[en:Law of large numbers|Law of large numbers]] [[User:An-d|An-d]] 08:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Well, WMF polls are not likely to be that attractive for casual editors either. -- [[User:O.Koslowski|O.Koslowski]] 08:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::An-d, I believe in the law of large numbers, too. And I believe that 250 editors, out of the thousands of editors at de.wiki, is what we call "a small number".
::Furthermore, I believe in [[en:Groupthink]], and I know that the first few comments in an open poll tend to bias all subsequent responses. Consequently, the law of large numbers operates best when the later participants have no idea how the previous people responded. In this respect, the referendum (with its far larger numbers and correct use of a secret ballot) produces far more reliable results that one page at de.wiki. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::: Actually, I hope that we CAN do the analysis on these numbers to see how effective this one was in reaching casual editors. Our experience in vote checking showed that it might have actually done okay at that, but that's anecdotal and highly skewed by the fact that we were looking for particular trends associated with multiple voting. I hope we can get some analysis done to tell us if that's correct or not. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: From the tone of the comments on the poll page, I'd hoped for a very strong rejection of the filter. But what we need to remember that a poll about importance of one issue needs to be ''compared'' to feelings about the importance of other issues. This outcome is a collective lukewarm "huh maybe" to one idea about how the devs can spend their time. Maybe other features, if put to such a poll, would get 90% of voters saying that they're important. I'd expect ''any'' proposed feature with a weak consensus behind it to do at least as well as this, probably better. So I'm still suggesting the WMF should look at the commentary on the talk page, understand how appalled editors are about the idea of people trying to form consensus about which images to annotate for special hiding, and rethink whether there is a way to allow independent groups of editors to make their own ratings ''without'' needing to patrol and enforce their "consensus" categories against all other opinions. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::: I know that an open poll like this (asking for importance, without questioning deficits) and a project internal poll (asking for acceptance, stating pros and cons) is quite different. Overall this is not so surprising to me. I could guess that this kind of questioning would provoke such a result. Asking for importance is something very relative. Asking the people if "nice weather" is important and asking them if "being able to breath" would be important, would both easily receive a majority. But if you would ask them if "nice weather" is more important than "being able to breath" would give a complete different picture. Like Wnt already said. This must be accounted for. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 08:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: ''You're likely not attracting a lot of casual editors or readers with a poll like that.'' This is my biggest concern - on first blush the image filter is a great idea (barring, if I may be so rude, knee jerk reactions), it is only on reasonably close analysis, and with some technical knowledge that the significant problems begin to show. Reading between the lines, or explicitly, some of these had been apparent to Harris, the board or the designers, it is unfortunate that they weren't collated and either presented as part of the information on the poll, or indeed used to inform the construction of the poll itself. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:10 4 September 2011 (GMT).
''The committee was interested in a particular subset of those who used a positive tone in their comments'' We have known that from the start of this farce. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Interested in *why* they used a positive tone, and what they expected. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 14:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== word frequency ==

First lets eliminate words like "the", "do", "a", ... "some", "there", that will be found in any text in english language.
And then single letters with no meaning at all like "n" and "s".

Lets concentrate on the keywords:
{|
|-
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| images||4274
|-
| wikipedia||2523
|-
| image||2190
|-
| feature||2155
|-
| users||1678
|-
| filter||1476
|-
| content||1462
|}

|width="2%" valign="top"|  
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| important||1157
|-
| controversial||1143
|-
| censorship||1127
|-
| user||987
|-
| categories||874
|-
| neutral||865
|-
| wikimedia||817
|-
| pictures||773
|}

|width="2%" valign="top"|  
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| offensive||724
|-
| view||720
|-
| culturally||648
|-
| cultural||647
|-
| default||603
|-
| children||593
|-
| sexual||577
|-
| filtering||533
|-
| wiki||524
|-
| question||519
|-
| option||502
|}
|}

Some of these words were part of the query so its not a surprise to find them here. But there is one word, that was not intended to be used by the users, but is relatively high on the list. Think about that single word. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 10:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I don't see how. If I remember correctly, I commented something like "This is not about censorship". Single words don't mean anything. --[[User:Elitre|Elitre]] 12:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Quoting from the document itself: ''Note that differences using modifiers such as “not” were analyzed as well. For instance, the word “controversial” appears 1143 times in the comments, with 19 instances of “non-controversial”, 11 instances of “uncontroversial”, 2 of “noncontroversial”, 1 of “not-controversial”, 1 of “not-so-controversial”, and 7 of “not controversial”. These numbers are representative of other modifiers sampled. These modifiers make up a small but significant percent of the words and should be evaluated more fully for the committee’s final report.''. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::What's the word that was used 8,908 times? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 12:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Great question. I just checked the raw log I was sent, and it's blank. I'm going to ask the guy who ran the query. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Torchwood. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:10 4 September 2011 (GMT).
::::Interesting one, actually - I just heard back from the guy who did the graph... the missing word is " ' ". Just a single apostrophe. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
@Elitre - you are right in saying that single words mean nothing. They just document that certain questions around single words were discussed. So this list is just another way to throw sand in the eyes of the users. 
More important are the 41.2% "negative" versus the 29.8% "positive" - which means that no mayority to introduce filters was reached. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 19:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::I'm fairly certain that if I'd removed single words (I thought about it) you'd have come back at me with allegations that we were witholding information. I chose to over-disclose, and - of course - I'm throwing sand in your eyes. This is getting really sad. :( [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Talk about "burying the lead"! ==

What's the gist of it all? In puzzlement, I am your friend, [[User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]] 11:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== FYI: German-language Wikipedia users reject image filter ==

I would like to draw your attention to a [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Pers.C3.B6nliche_Bildfilter_und_Filterkategorien_k.C3.B6nnen_in_der_deutschsprachigen_Wikipedia_eingef.C3.BChrt_werden_.28Status_quo.29 voting] in German-language Wikipedia that at this point of time '''strongly rejects''' the introduction of image filters. Above all, the community deeply deplores that the Foundation did not ask ''whether'' to introduce a filter, only ''what kind of filter'' would be preferred. Voting runs through September 15, 2011. The toll now stands at 230 against/ 43 in favour of the filter/ 14 abstentions.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 12:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I doubt the legitimacy of the poll from a single local wiki project would have the power to revoke the decision of Foundation. But this would be a shame if DE.WP bureaucrats have the power to prevent its local users from using the filter once it's implemented. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 14:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::This is a precedent. The Foundation will not be able to neglect the opinion of a vast majority of users on German-language Wikipedia. We just say no, it seems.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::If the DE Wikipedians vote on that poll, that means they're already well aware of this referendum. That means they could express their opinion through the referendum rather than in their home Wiki, so that local poll is totally unnecessary. And please don't give me that "this referendum is a fraud" crap, it's no more than a cheap excuse and insult to reject something you don't like. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I gather your strong language indicates we have got it right.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::That poll is not democracy, the "majority" just want to prevent the local proponents from using the filter in DE.WP that WMF intends to offer. Stripping the freedom they should have. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::Quite the opposite. They have the freedom already. ;-) --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::That poll asks one question. A question that was absent inside this referendumm (sic!). --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Sameboat, what restricts freedom is the foundation proposal. The freedom deWP should have is the freedom to accept of reject the filter for their WP. If there is anyone having the priviledge to control the way the deWP chooses to have material and the way it chooses to display it, should it not be the consensus of the people who work on that WP? This is just the same as deWP having the right to use Proposed changes,, which they have done, rather than making it a WMF decision that every project must have it (or must not have it) . [[User:DGG|DGG]] 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::I don't see the point of WMF proposal restricting freedom. And the opinion of having the filter should be based on readers themselves, not the constant contributor group of 1 particular local Wiki. I'm trying not to use that ideology to describe that poll, but it's a very close one in this case. And what if user from other Wiki who have already set the filter switches to DE.WP and suddenly find that the image should be hidden actually appears right before them? I directly refer to that [[w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-22/News and notes|problematic image once on the DE.WP main page]]. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::The reason why the editors get to choose what goes on their wiki is this: it is the editors that are charges with the maintenance, not the readers. The editors are the ones who will need to keep the POV-pushing ideologues at bay. The readers are important, don't get me wrong; but if they are allowed to vote, they might not have a deep concern for the logistics of the proposal. This is one reason why wikis have voting eligibility policies. Case in point: [[wikt:Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian|unified Serbo-Croatian]] on en.wikt, where the votes were 40-50 but it was closed as 30-21 (this was before the voting policy). — '''[[User:Internoob|Internoob]]''' ([[wiktionary:User:Internoob|Wikt.]] | [[User talk:Internoob|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Internoob|Cont.]]) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, editors can decide thing that is related to editing. But the filter proposal is directly about READERS' preference, not just editors. That's why the opposition disgusts me, they attempt to use their own power to control the readers' preference for satisfying their own philosophy like a tyrant. I do not advocate non-contributors' right to vote, but we contributors should be more comprehensive on the readers' side, not just ourselves. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I for one reject introducing the filter because we were not asked if we wanted it in the first place. Period. This is no way to run a wiki or indeed any community these days. And then, if the problem is in the content you find on Commons, please go and solve in on Commons, i.e., delete the problematic content there and do not hold users responsible for their filter settings if they encounter something they don't want to see. No education project relies on explicit material in any way. Never. I repeat, the Foundation will not be able to deny the German community's voting. If we say no to this filter we mean it this way.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:This is clearly not the point, you're denying other readers' preference to hide the image which is essential to the topic and is subjectively accepted by another group of users. The filter is here to solve this dilemma. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::On the contrary, the filter is to be introduced to hide the dilemma. If hides the content rather than removing it altogether. I don't want anyone to filter anything in Wikipedia. Every user should be delivered the same content. Apart from that, I wonder why you are against democracy in our projects? It is a precedent to announce far-reaching decisions like this without asking for the community's consent in the first place. This was a big mistake, as we now can see.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I just repeat, it's not democracy. And the DE sysops just act like a supremacy to control its visitors' option to hide the image. Obviously you've no right to force someone to accept the image that may disgust them. And that Vulva image once on the de.wp main page is the perfect explanation why this filter is proposed. The issues about the process of the proposal, ask WMF, not me. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Wait a second, please, you are responsible for your opinion, not the Foundation, right? And then, of course, it's not democracy, that's just what we are claiming.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I am not representing the WMF, so the problem for not asking de.wp community's consent about the proposal is not of my concern. The referendum is already sufficient for me to express my opinion on that matter. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::There is no "forcing" people to see images. Any more than we are "forcing" them to read stuff they may find unacceptable. Bad editorial decisions should not be used as an excuse for more bad decisions. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:18 4 September 2011 (GMT).
:::::This is enforcement. When WMF offers the tool to hide image, the de.wp sysops just use their power to ban it, preventing anyone from using it. Who did ask to see the Vulva image on the de.wp main page? Are you that desperate to let everyone see the Vulva image to satisfy your educational purpose? This is far over the line. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

*The significance here is that the de: project feels strongly enough about this to suggest forking. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:22 4 September 2011 (GMT).
::This is not about forking, but rather about pointing out to the foundation it has made a mistake that has to be corrected now.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 17:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: But it may be about forking if the foundation doesn’t change their mind. -- [[User:Carbidfischer|Carbidfischer]]
:::: Wikimedia is a global projekt - let find us together a way out of this trouble. Forking is no serious option. [[User:An-d|An-d]] 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::@Carbidfischer: Yes, if they don't change their mind. It would be the next stept, and it would be a logic one. I expect the foundation to move toward the German-language community.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 17:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::In theory, the foundation could fork from the community, just like Oracle did it with the Open Office community. --[[User:Liberaler Humanist|Liberaler Humanist]] 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that anyone would seriously consider forking because of an opt-in filter. What might happen is that dewiki ignores the filter by creating local copies of the filtered files, thus removing them from the influence of commons categorization. But that's about it. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

== CentralNotice ==

Is it translatable somewhere? {{User:Liangent/Signature}} 12:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, see [[Image filter referendum/CentralNotice]]. [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 14:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Comments ==

The results for some questions are polarized, with higher levels of 0 and 10's rather than middle values. This happens quite a lot (think "pending changes") so we need to anticipate this and try to design feature surveys to be more useful in the face of polarized replies.

In this case, there is no data so far how replies vary by community/language. For example, if hypothetically we found (for illustration and ignoring the cultural stereotype) that most US respondents rejected filtering and most middle east respondents supported it, that suggests a possible solution of developing it, then enabling on some wikis and not on others, would leave more people feeling fairly satisfied. While nothing will be that stereotyped, perhaps a breakdown by region or language will be revealing as to attitude/preference/readers' principles.

There is no data so far showing why supporters support it, or why rejecters reject it. It might be that some reasons are not incompatible, or can be worked around. Similarly, the principles drawn on in comments could be important and revealing. A user who feels "Wikipedia should respect cultural views" or "Wikipedia should be uncensored" is expressing a different kind of view (one related to global use) than one whose objection is based on "waste of time" or "no value to me" but has no other strong objection.

Future surveys of this kind should aim to allow this kind of data, if it's practical.

What I'd like to see in further analysis:

* How did responses relate to project/culture/geographical region?
* For those replying 0-1 (or 0-2) out of 10, and those replying 9-10 (or 8-10) out of 10, '''and''' left comments - what were the principles/reasons they gave that appeared to be their main reason for their strongly held positive or negative views?

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:1 - 10 is too fine for people to judge. This probably contributes to the polarisation. 1 - 5 is plenty enough choice. [[Special:Contributions/86.181.174.161|86.181.174.161]] 14:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:It will also will be hard to distinguish people who said "It is important" meaning "It is important and it would be terrible" as opposed to "It is important and it would be great"''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:15 4 September 2011 (GMT).

::And it is hard to tell what people thought voting 0 or 1. Did they mean "totally unimportant but harmless" or "I want to express my opposition"? So FT2s Question ist quite interesting. What did those people with strong oppinions comment? [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 14:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I think it comes down to the fact that we didn't ask whether people support the filter or oppose it (or present arguments on each side of that question), so we simply don't have that data. To try and derive it from what was asked does a disservice to the referendum process, which was about ''how'', not ''whether'', to implement a filter.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] 15:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:What irks ''me'' is that the vast majority of victims of this "feature" – the ''readers'' – were disenfranchised entirely. That's more than a little odd for a fundamental shift in the project's philosophy. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 18:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Given that 99.5% of readers are not editors, I would like to see one other analysis: whether the few users who have many edits responded differently from the many who have few or no edits. The problem being that discussion of the issue is by those who are engaged in Wikimedia which is a tiny minority. If it turns out that of the 24,000 responses, 12,000 are by people with few or no edits, then those are more likely to be representative of responses of the 99.5% of non-editors. In other words, ''the debate here may be self-defeating because it's a debate between people in the tiny minority of engaged users''. What I'd like to know is whether responses by people with very few or no edits, differ qualitatively from those by people with many edits. If so, which set of responses probably matters more...? [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 21:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Or might have been were the methodology in this survey not hopelessly broken. A first year stat student could have told you that you don't give such a large scale, or provide a middle value; and the questions were framed by begging the implementation as a forgone conclusion. The first could be salvaged, the latter not so much. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: What I'm looking for is what we can get from the data we have. For example examination of strong views v. reasons in comments is possible, and if IP or account data was kept to detect or prevent multiple votes (and is still available), then analysis by geography/language/region and qualitative differences between respondents with very few or no edits v. the rest might be possible. They might give useful information even after the limitations in the survey. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::It may have been better to ask the "end users" too. But nobody will be a "victim" of this new feature because it's opt-in and nobody who doesn't want to will get images filtered. [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::You're making the presumption that nobody will be "opted in" against their will, or by social pressure. Or by whoever provides their sole 'net access; much of the non-occidental world can only access our projects through public terminals (cafe, libraries, etc). Do you really believe they won't put rules mandating such filters in place?). You're also presuming that the oh-so-convenient infrastructure we'll gleefully provide will not be used by anyone else. If there is in-band signalling "classifying" images (as ''must'' be if there is code to hide them), then it becomes trivial for anyone holding a mandatory proxy to filter them – user preference be damned.Neither of the presumptions are valid in the real world. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 19:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

: Re comments: I'm disappointed that the first response to the comments people left was to put them thru a pattern-crunching program & create a [[:File:Referendum comments from Personal Image Filter referendum.png|pretty picture]] of which words were used the most. After looking at this image, I felt that I would have had more impact in this plebiscite had I simply wrote "censorship" repeatedly until I used all of the space allotted, than what I did write.What this "plebiscite" is asking is an ideological question, which means the opposing schools of thought are not going to find a common ground to agree on. (By "opposing schools of thought", I mean each side believe that the other is a bunch of ill-informed scumbags who are subverting the ideals of the projects. We're arguing over religious beliefs here, people. When the Christians, Jews, Moslems & Atheists all agree on who Jesus Christ was, then ''maybe'' we'll have a consensus on this issue.) Unless someone can produce a solid reason why this would benefit any Wikimedia project, then the Foundation is simply pissing away finite resources that would be better spent on something else -- such as US$50/€50 gift cards to established editors to help them buy research materials to create content.As for the issue of knowing what the users of our content actually wanted, the best way to have obtained that knowledge would have been to contract with a polling firm, who would find a large enough population of Wikipedia/Wikimedia users for an accurate sample, & '''ask them'''. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== The problem ==

As previously mentioned in a reply, this survey had a fairly significant problem: the questions were about how to implement the filter, without asking a more basic question of if there should be a filter at all. I ask that, at minimum, an informal vote be held to determine community consensus on that issue. Additional useful information would be for support of an option to disable all article images, rather than a category-based filter. If the Foundation has unilaterally decided that there will be a category-based image filter and damn what the community thinks, I believe the community has a right to a transcript of the discussion and vote at which that decision was made. {{unsigned|98.230.51.109}}

:The first question was already asking: "it is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers." -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 15:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:I'm quite sure Wikipedians are intelligent enough to vote 0 (totally unimportant) to express their opposition to the filter. A "I don't want a filter"-Option would have been better though. [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::When I first encountered the survey, my sentiments were very similar to those of 98.230.51.109; I was disappointed that such a major decision had been unilaterally decided without seeking community consensus or even input. I personally oppose implementation of any such feature unless certain conditions are met, in which case I may be willing to support the proposal. Moreover, I personally recall the thought process of "if I answer 0/10 to voice objection, will my other input be categorized and disregarded as blatantly partisan or irrelevant?" going through my mind, which indeed resulted in a considerable artificial deviation in my case. [[User:CMBJ|CMBJ]] 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:The intoduction of the filter has already been decided by the Board of Trustees ([[Image filter referendum#Background]]). Purpose of this referendum was explicitly not to decide wheter we want the filter or not but only how it should look like.
:@Adornix: It's not the same to ask "how important is such a filter" or "do we want such a filter" (even though both questions sound similar they aren't equal)... [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 16:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::The assumption that the board is incapable of changing it's mind, is one that I find staggering. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:14 4 September 2011 (GMT).

:::I didn't assume this. I only said what the referendum was about. [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::as can be seen from the voters list, I waited until the last day to vote, because i had some difficulty deciding whether to vote at all--whether to participate in such a referendum was acceptance that the WMF had the moral right to pass such a resolution, and whether even voting on a referendum presented as how to implement as issue was legitimate. Should I vote on questions of what way to facilitate censorship?There is a considerable difference indeed between saying, "it is not important that we have such a filter" and "it is very important that we not have such a filter". The skewed distribution of votes on the first question (the very few 1,2, and 3 votes as compared to the number of 7, 8 and 9 votes), indicates that those who opposed it felt very passionately about it. Risker said above that the examination of the comments indicated that also. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I am actually not strongly opposed to this feature, but IMO the process left a great deal to be desired. First it was misleadingly called a "referendum", and then there was this confused question about how "important" it is to implement the feature, which seems to me like a weasly way of giving people the impression that they could oppose the feature, while allowing a get-out to implement the fait accompli anyway, even if most people said it wasn't "important". [[Special:Contributions/86.160.217.239|86.160.217.239]] 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

: There is also another issue that has been overlooked here: every dollar, euro, &c. spent on this proposal is a unit of currency that could have been spent on something else. Something that the communities who support the Wikimedia projects could agree needed to be done. Even the act to consider whether to filter images was an unbelievably stupid decision; the entire Board ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing it to be put on their agenda. I am glad to say I did not vote for any of the successful candidates for the Board in the last election, & I hope we get some fresh blood on the Board immediately. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Image filter referendum/Results/en

2011-09-05T00:04:27Z

Tinz: /* FYI: German-language Wikipedia users reject image filter */ not gonna happen

==Interim message==
(The message below was posted on the [[Image filter referendum/Results/en]] page on September 2, to advise the community of a delay in releasing results. It is placed here for future reference now that the preliminary report has been posted. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC))

Due to the very high vote count, and the need to review comments manually, the results of this voting will be delayed. The committee regrets this, but wants to be certain that the results are error-free and the comments are accurately portrayed.

We expect to release totals on 3 September, 2011.

There were more than 24,000 votes and almost 7,000 comments submitted. While the committee will not review each comment before publication of the results, they will all be reviewed before the committee disbands and a representative sample (nearly 2,000) will have been reviewed by publication of the results.

We thank the community for its patience, and for the outpouring of opinion.

For the [[Image filter referendum/Committee/en|Image filter referendum Committee]],

[[User:Risker|Risker]] 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

== When are results coming out? ==
It's September 1. And? {{unsigned|Patio|2:23, 1 September 2011}}

:... ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 16:13 1 September 2011 (GMT).

Are the answers that bad that the foundation is shaking?--[[Special:Contributions/91.10.49.253|91.10.49.253]] 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:No, but when the timeline was developed nobody expected there would be over 24,000 votes and almost 7,000 comments that would have to be manually reviewed; the last Board election had fewer votes than there were comments in this one, and this plebiscite has had a larger response than any other in Wikimedia history. We're working as quickly as we can, but it's very important to be able to provide a genuinely representative sample of the comments. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::I assure you, the "Foundation" isn't shaking. :) I am the only Foundation employee with access to the full results so far, and I'm not shaking. I'm a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume, that's all. But I've read and collated nearly 1000 comments in the last 24 hours so I suppose that's natural. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 05:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:::This is most disconcerting: if only one person has access, there are no checks and balances. Combine this with the biased setup of this referendum, the canvassing spam mails, and the hiding of negative comments.... I'd like to Assume Goof Faith, but it is made exeedingly difficult. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: He said the only WMF employee, not the only person :) The full committee is [[Image_filter_referendum/Committee/en|here]]. Results very soon, we hope! -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | [[user_talk:phoebe|talk]] 01:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::We really want to see the raw data and also the PGP to verify that all votes are counted. Otherwise you could tell us a fairytale, insert "random" votes, and so on. I usually assume good faith. But in this case I'm very concerned, since so many facts make the whole thing very biased.
:::# A report from a single person is the source (No other organization e.g. the ALA was involved, Sue worked for the same company, all coincidental?)
:::# The questioning itself is very biased (No "no" option. "I don't care" is no "No!")
:::# Spam mails that where filtered before sending them (For example: No user with "bot" in his name was informed)
:::# The whole proposal is obviously ignoring the five pillars.
:::# ...
::: How can you still expect us to trust you? If i assume good faith, than i must admit that you made one stupid mistake after the other. If i don't assume good faith, then most parts are fitting together. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 13:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
::We sent out 700,000 emails and put a banner notice on every project page for a couple of weeks.... How many responses ''were'' expected? {{smiley}} ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 22:01 3 September 2011 (GMT).
::: Good question, Rich. I think it's just too rare for us to have these sorts of actively-promoted community discussions, so we have to think back to the relicensing proposal to find a similar one. We should be doing this sort of outreach and mutual communication all the time - say at the 1% level of banner-promotion if not the 100% level. Then we would have a finger on the pulse of the community, what sorts of topics interest readers and editors, and would not be surprised. [we would also get many more good ideas or offers of help that way!]
::: To Niabot: there is no conspiracy afoot. (not even in the filtering of email recipients, though that is embarrassing!) As with all community votes, raw data will be made available. I'm not sure what you mean by "no other organization was involved" -- the vote was administered by [[w:Software in the Public Interest|Software in the Public Interest]] precisely to avoid such concerns. Many good things develop 'one mistake after another', and the history of the wiki and of Wikimedia is no exception. If we are afraid to make mistakes we can't learn. Please don't shame people into not making mistakes: help them learn from them. Let's make sure we have more (and more meaningful) community polls, including real referenda ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/04/government-e-petition-website-crashes open referendum] tools are becoming [http://gov20.govfresh.com/white-house-offers-we-the-people-online-petitions-at-whitehouse-gov/ popular]). Let's make sure we have rules of thumb for releasing data. Someone has been unhappy about data-release being too slow after '''every''' public vote I can recall. Assume raw data includes dupes, socks, and identifying information. What subset of that can and should be availalbe immediately? How soon should the rest be available, and in what formats? –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   22:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We want the immediate release of the numerical results. We are not patient anymore. If you have nothing to hide, you would have published this part in the first minutes of September 1st. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 19:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Release raw data first? ===

Is it so difficult to represent the raw data of the result, or will we only see the interpretation by the WMF? I'm curious what takes so long to represent a plain table with the plain results. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 06:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:With the comments, we must ensure that there is no publicly identifiable information present (and there is). The committee has chosen to release both pieces (comments and the vote info) at the same time, rather than release an incomplete picture. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 06:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Then release the poll results first and the comments later on. Can't be so hard. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 13:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please release the incomplete picture now: only the raw and anonymous vote data. Release the interpretation separately, including (filtered) comments. That would be much more transparent. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 11:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:Why has no one responsible for organizing this 'referendum' not responded to this very sensible suggestion to explain why it hasn't been implemented? If you're busy reading comments, you can do that later. Just publish the damn results and we can all pick over their implications together! [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Didn't the mail go out? I thought there was notice that we wanted to delay a day to release graphs of the data as well? At any rate, it will be posted soon. -- [[user:phoebe|phoebe]] | [[user_talk:phoebe|talk]] 01:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This 'referendum', which was nothing of the sort given that the decision to introduce a filter has already been made, was a train wreck already. It's now descending into farce. The results of an electronically conducted ballot can be released immediately in raw form at the close of polls. There is no excuse for any delay in doing this. If you're concerned that people's comments will compromise their anonymity you can just filter comments out and publish every part of each submission except the comment for now, stating where applicable that a comment was left and will appear later when it has been checked for personally identifying information. In future, it would be strongly advisable to have a warning on the voting page stating that anything people write in the comments section will be made public, making it their responsibility to stay anonymous if they so desire. I cannot understand what the hold-up is with these results. Transparency in Wikimedia governance is already shot to pieces. Don't make the situation even worse! [[User:Trilobite|Trilobite]] 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
: Agree with all the people who say you could publish the results as we're supposed to be a free (as in open) community. So many people took the time to vote and have the right to know what we all want A.S.A.P. Please, WMF. There is no reason to wait. You can apparently, but we have more things to do... [[User:Patio|S.I. 'Patio' Oliantigna]] 10:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

::I have to agree that the delay is becoming suspicious, especially when the ''reason'' given is to read comments before providing a "random sample". The combination of having someone take time to read over what the comments say ''and'' decide which ones to release gives the impression that someone might be taking the time to put a spin on the results. Also, I think I saw someone make a comment about ''translating'' comments, which seems extraordinarily dubious, considering that people were still trying to get translations of the poll ready a few days before it closed. Translating comments from every country on Earth is a process I'd expect to take months, not weeks. As far as personal information is concerned, I simply don't care - I hope we had the proper disclaimers on Meta - you submit something, it gets published. If people really want to redact such information they can do so ''post facto'', as I've often seen at the Wikipedia Refdesk. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 01:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::WMF committed to not publicly releasing identifiable information about voters. Do you really expect them to say, "Oops, Wnt's impatient, and you didn't write your comment in English, so we couldn't tell what it said and we released it anyway. Sorry about that: our confidentiality guarantee only applies to English speakers."
:::Or did you think that when they said "random sample of comments" they meant "random sample of English-language comments"? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 02:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::In the future, we should make it clear that submitting a comment in a poll is just like submitting an edit to Wikipedia - that it becomes public and immediately available (and make that happen). [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 08:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::Why? Please explain your reasoning in detail, because I really don't get this suggestion. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 16:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Congratulation ==

Regardless of whether the release is slow or is it not, I want to congratulate to the committee, the board and to the community in general, for such an big response. I remember the sorrow of the organizers for small participation in the board election. I took extra here some care to participate this time.

I hope, that the results will move the Wikipedia (and other projects) bit forward too :). Have a good time and thank you for your hard work. [[User:Reo On|'''''Reo''''' On]]|[[User talk:Reo On|+]]|[[:cs:Wikipedista diskuse:Reo On|+]] 15:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
: Thank you for sharing, Reo On. I hope to see proper referendums that originate with the community in the future as well. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

== Results now released ==
Please see the page for the preliminary report. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Disappointing result. From the results it seems support for this ridiculous thing is pretty clear. I wonder what kind of influence the biased questions and spammail have had: we will never know, so the Foundation has been legitimized to push this waste of resources forward. Congratulations. I hope the :nl:wikipedia community will decide to disable this. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 06:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Interesting - I actually read the result as 'no consensus', which on Wikipedia would typically mean it doesn't go forward. The key number being the "Average of those with a preference" for "It is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers.", which is 57% - i.e. it's slightly favoured, but not strongly favoured (if you turn it into a black-and-white yes-no, then I'd say it's the analogy of less than 2/3 saying yes). [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]]
::: Perhaps another key question ought to have been worded, "Should image filtering be added (yes or no)?" Voters' assessment of the importance of the feature is significant, of course, but so, too, is other voters' assessment of the importance of ''not doing it''. Focusing only on the former, and then on the various characteristics the feature would need when added, suggests a bit of bias in favor of image filtering. But in any case I think you are correct, Mike, that the numerical results of even this ''apparently'' slanted poll suggest that there is '''no consensus''' that image filtering is a good idea. It will be interesting to see if the Foundation will implement the feature anyway. If so, perhaps other considerations are in play. [[User:Jonathan Lane Studeman|Jonathan Lane Studeman]] 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it is important to realise that the result actually is '''no concensus'''. No consensus usually means that things are kept as they are, i.e. there will be no filter. / [[User:Achird|Achird]] 10:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: This ''wasn't'' a yes/no vote, but a sort of market analysis. The result is that there is in fact, alas, some "market" for such a function. We can't make this fact go away, but we do have to draw limits as to what it means and what it doesn't mean. This vote, for example, is ''not'' a vote that ''"editors who add images to articles without rating them, or without rating them in a way that is popular, shall be blocked"''. It is ''not'' a vote that image hiding code needs to appear in the Wiki source of articles. This market can be reached in many ways, including by allowing offended users to circulate their own personalized lists of files they don't like, which are "tagged" in the articles only by having a filename. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 15:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Disappointing for who? Given the premise was that this was a "how do we" survey, I'd say the result shows a very strong message that the community ''does not want to have this system''. The survey materials were not encouraging people who did not want the system at all to make their feelings clearly known , or even to vote. And yet all that could be achieved was a luke-warm response to the "importance" problem. And this is thrown into high contrast by the definitive answer to the "culturally neutral" question - which is a key focus for the hard questions the proposal generates. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:35 4 September 2011 (GMT).

== Requests for further results or visualizations ==

=== Table formatting ===
{{collapse top|Done. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 18:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}}
{| {{table2}}
|
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' ?
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 0
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 1
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 2
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 3
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 4
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 5
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 6
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 7
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 8
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 9
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''' 10
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Votes'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Votes with a preference'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Average of those with a preference'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Median'''
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Total || 269||3763||790||1163||978||715||2819||1800||2670||2957||1308||4791||24023||23754||5.7||6
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| % || 1.12%||15.66%||3.29%||4.84%||4.07%||2.98%||11.73%||7.49%||11.11%||12.31%||5.44%||19.94%|| || ||
|}

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total #
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''%
|-
| ? (Abstain)
| 269 || 1.12%
|-
| 0
| 3763 || 15.66%
|-
| 1
| 790 || 3.29%
|-
|2
| 1163 || 4.84%
|-
|3
| 978 || 4.07%
|-
|4
| 715 || 2.98%
|-
|5
| 2819 || 11.73%
|-
|6
| 1800 || 7.49%
|-
|7
| 2670 || 11.11%
|-
|8
| 2957 || 12.31%
|-
|9
| 1308 || 5.44%
|-
|10
| 4791 || 19.94%
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| All votes
| 24023
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Votes with a preference
| 23754
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Average (Mean)
| 5.7
|
|-
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"| Median
| 6
|
|}

Would anyone mind if we moved to a different format for the table, like one of my examples above? I personally prefer the first, because it takes less work to make this change. The existing one is hard to scan for trends and runs off the end of the display on all but the widest computer screens. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] 03:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::No objection from me. :) [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 03:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Nor me, making the tables more user-friendly and readable is a *good* thing. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 03:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Results by project? ===
Since the votes were cast separately according to the user's principal project, it would be valuable to see a tabulation by project, to see if there Is particularly strong or weak support by any one project's users? [[User:DGG|DGG]] 04:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I was actually interested in this information, too. Was it stored when users took the poll? [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Project-voted-on information is part of the non-public information linked to the vote, so this will need to be worked on by someone who is cleared for private information. For some smaller projects (which make up the majority of projects, although they do not account for the majority of wikimedians), the numbers of active users are so small that a public release of project by project data for these groups may be sufficient to identify editors to their votes. However, for larger projects that have a significant number of editors who participated in this plebiscite (say, 350 or more voters or roughly 1.5% of total votes), it might well be reasonable to provide this information publicly, with a collective figure for projects with less than that number of votes. From my own perspective as an administrator of this election, I agree that this could bring some useful insight to the results, and I have personally recommended that such a study be done. However, something else to keep in mind is that editors were able to vote from just about any project they wanted, so there is no guarantee that the data will be attributable to the user's principal project. Since this is the first plebiscite of its kind within the Wikimedia family, we're still working out some of these sorts of details for analysing the data while protecting user privacy, and resources weren't allocated for anything more than the data that's already been provided. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Please also add the overall percentage (number of votes) per project to see the overall distribution of participation. One interesting question is how language centric the poll was. This can also be done for smaller projects without risking a leak of personal data.
:::It would also be interesting to know the number of invitation mails that where send per project/language. Don't know if you can still do this, but would be a very nice addition to the statistic. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

=== Result by date? ===
Can you release date and viting-project data for the full set of results? I'd also like to see a comparison of results by date as the vote progressed. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   05:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:If you mean number of votes on each date during the election, this is public information that's available in the voter list. I suspect that an enterprising coder could probably come up with a script to gather that data fairly quickly without needing the committee to do this. They would just have to ensure that their script doesn't include the "greyed-out" votes that represent votes cancelled when the user revisited their vote. Having said that, there was an enormous increase in voting in the 72 hours after the emails went out. I've commented above with respect to the voting-project data. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 05:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::There should be a way to compare the results before the e-mail to results after: I speculate regular users vs. incidental users and the biased nature of the spam mail will have had some influence. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 06:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Well,you can look at it yourself, the voters list with time stamps on the votes is publicly available. The emails notifying wikimedians of the plebiscite went out starting late on August 18th. It's pretty clear that people will speculate all kinds of things. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Would there be a hyperlinklink to these data? [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::From any project, go to [[Special:SecurePoll]]. The Image filter referendum is the bottom vote listed; click on the link to the list, which lists all of the voters with a timestamp to their votes. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::The list is empty for me. Can't see any result. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::: http://wikimedia.amellus.net/index.php/Special:SecurePoll/list/230 -- [[User:MarcoAurelio|Marco Aurelio]] 15:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Ah, thanks MarcoAurelio. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Not very informative. At least we can see that the vote count increased drastically on August 19th. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::As I've noted above, I have no doubt that we have a huge supply of script-writing editors who could produce a nice graphic representation of the daily vote counts based on this public information. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 15:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I must say that this is not the only data I'm interested in. Thats why i said that it isn't very informative. Results/Attendance per language/wiki would be much more interesting. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::You can see which voters voted but not what. I'd rather have the reverse data: see when/what but not who. This is useless. [[User:Zanaq|Zanaq]] 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to try to get you vote count by day today. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 17:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

; Day by day
[[File:Daily votes.png|thumb|Rough vote distribution]]
{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|''''''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Voted'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total Votes'''
|-
| 16-Aug||1509||1509
|-
| 17-Aug||1137||2646
|-
| 18-Aug||1126||3772
|-
| 19-Aug||8198||11970
|-
| 20-Aug||4650||16620
|-
| 21-Aug||2359||18979
|-
| 22-Aug||1738||20717
|-
| 23-Aug||955||21672
|-
| 24-Aug||597||22269
|-
| 25-Aug||482||22751
|-
| 26-Aug||363||23114
|-
| 27-Aug||284||23398
|-
| 28-Aug||316||23714
|-
| 29-Aug||415||24129
|-
| 30-Aug||326||24455
|-
|
|}

=== curious ===

At the moment vote 84% of the germans wikipedians in a real poll against this filer.
Other wikis have to love filter for these result. Maybe there are other reasons (kind of questions,...)? [[User:An-d|An-d]] 07:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Correction: 84% of the active parts of the German community who voted in an open poll. You're likely not attracting a lot of casual editors or readers with a poll like that. :) I'm not saying it's bad, just that we have to state clearly what it means. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 08:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you for your specification. I believe in the [[en:Law of large numbers|Law of large numbers]] [[User:An-d|An-d]] 08:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: Well, WMF polls are not likely to be that attractive for casual editors either. -- [[User:O.Koslowski|O.Koslowski]] 08:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Actually, I hope that we CAN do the analysis on these numbers to see how effective this one was in reaching casual editors. Our experience in vote checking showed that it might have actually done okay at that, but that's anecdotal and highly skewed by the fact that we were looking for particular trends associated with multiple voting. I hope we can get some analysis done to tell us if that's correct or not. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: From the tone of the comments on the poll page, I'd hoped for a very strong rejection of the filter. But what we need to remember that a poll about importance of one issue needs to be ''compared'' to feelings about the importance of other issues. This outcome is a collective lukewarm "huh maybe" to one idea about how the devs can spend their time. Maybe other features, if put to such a poll, would get 90% of voters saying that they're important. I'd expect ''any'' proposed feature with a weak consensus behind it to do at least as well as this, probably better. So I'm still suggesting the WMF should look at the commentary on the talk page, understand how appalled editors are about the idea of people trying to form consensus about which images to annotate for special hiding, and rethink whether there is a way to allow independent groups of editors to make their own ratings ''without'' needing to patrol and enforce their "consensus" categories against all other opinions. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] 08:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::: I know that an open poll like this (asking for importance, without questioning deficits) and a project internal poll (asking for acceptance, stating pros and cons) is quite different. Overall this is not so surprising to me. I could guess that this kind of questioning would provoke such a result. Asking for importance is something very relative. Asking the people if "nice weather" is important and asking them if "being able to breath" would be important, would both easily receive a majority. But if you would ask them if "nice weather" is more important than "being able to breath" would give a complete different picture. Like Wnt already said. This must be accounted for. --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 08:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:: ''You're likely not attracting a lot of casual editors or readers with a poll like that.'' This is my biggest concern - on first blush the image filter is a great idea (barring, if I may be so rude, knee jerk reactions), it is only on reasonably close analysis, and with some technical knowledge that the significant problems begin to show. Reading between the lines, or explicitly, some of these had been apparent to Harris, the board or the designers, it is unfortunate that they weren't collated and either presented as part of the information on the poll, or indeed used to inform the construction of the poll itself. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:10 4 September 2011 (GMT).
''The committee was interested in a particular subset of those who used a positive tone in their comments'' We have known that from the start of this farce. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::Interested in *why* they used a positive tone, and what they expected. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 14:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== word frequency ==

First lets eliminate words like "the", "do", "a", ... "some", "there", that will be found in any text in english language.
And then single letters with no meaning at all like "n" and "s".

Lets concentrate on the keywords:
{|
|-
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| images||4274
|-
| wikipedia||2523
|-
| image||2190
|-
| feature||2155
|-
| users||1678
|-
| filter||1476
|-
| content||1462
|}

|width="2%" valign="top"|  
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| important||1157
|-
| controversial||1143
|-
| censorship||1127
|-
| user||987
|-
| categories||874
|-
| neutral||865
|-
| wikimedia||817
|-
| pictures||773
|}

|width="2%" valign="top"|  
|width="32%" valign="top"|

{| {{table2}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Word'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Frequency'''
|-
| offensive||724
|-
| view||720
|-
| culturally||648
|-
| cultural||647
|-
| default||603
|-
| children||593
|-
| sexual||577
|-
| filtering||533
|-
| wiki||524
|-
| question||519
|-
| option||502
|}
|}

Some of these words were part of the query so its not a surprise to find them here. But there is one word, that was not intended to be used by the users, but is relatively high on the list. Think about that single word. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 10:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I don't see how. If I remember correctly, I commented something like "This is not about censorship". Single words don't mean anything. --[[User:Elitre|Elitre]] 12:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Quoting from the document itself: ''Note that differences using modifiers such as “not” were analyzed as well. For instance, the word “controversial” appears 1143 times in the comments, with 19 instances of “non-controversial”, 11 instances of “uncontroversial”, 2 of “noncontroversial”, 1 of “not-controversial”, 1 of “not-so-controversial”, and 7 of “not controversial”. These numbers are representative of other modifiers sampled. These modifiers make up a small but significant percent of the words and should be evaluated more fully for the committee’s final report.''. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::What's the word that was used 8,908 times? [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] 12:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Great question. I just checked the raw log I was sent, and it's blank. I'm going to ask the guy who ran the query. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::Torchwood. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:10 4 September 2011 (GMT).
::::Interesting one, actually - I just heard back from the guy who did the graph... the missing word is " ' ". Just a single apostrophe. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 18:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
@Elitre - you are right in saying that single words mean nothing. They just document that certain questions around single words were discussed. So this list is just another way to throw sand in the eyes of the users. 
More important are the 41.2% "negative" versus the 29.8% "positive" - which means that no mayority to introduce filters was reached. --[[User:Eingangskontrolle|Eingangskontrolle]] 19:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::I'm fairly certain that if I'd removed single words (I thought about it) you'd have come back at me with allegations that we were witholding information. I chose to over-disclose, and - of course - I'm throwing sand in your eyes. This is getting really sad. :( [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Talk about "burying the lead"! ==

What's the gist of it all? In puzzlement, I am your friend, [[User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]] 11:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== FYI: German-language Wikipedia users reject image filter ==

I would like to draw your attention to a [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Pers.C3.B6nliche_Bildfilter_und_Filterkategorien_k.C3.B6nnen_in_der_deutschsprachigen_Wikipedia_eingef.C3.BChrt_werden_.28Status_quo.29 voting] in German-language Wikipedia that at this point of time '''strongly rejects''' the introduction of image filters. Above all, the community deeply deplores that the Foundation did not ask ''whether'' to introduce a filter, only ''what kind of filter'' would be preferred. Voting runs through September 15, 2011. The toll now stands at 230 against/ 43 in favour of the filter/ 14 abstentions.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 12:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:I doubt the legitimacy of the poll from a single local wiki project would have the power to revoke the decision of Foundation. But this would be a shame if DE.WP bureaucrats have the power to prevent its local users from using the filter once it's implemented. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 14:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::This is a precedent. The Foundation will not be able to neglect the opinion of a vast majority of users on German-language Wikipedia. We just say no, it seems.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 14:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::If the DE Wikipedians vote on that poll, that means they're already well aware of this referendum. That means they could express their opinion through the referendum rather than in their home Wiki, so that local poll is totally unnecessary. And please don't give me that "this referendum is a fraud" crap, it's no more than a cheap excuse and insult to reject something you don't like. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 14:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I gather your strong language indicates we have got it right.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 15:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::That poll is not democracy, the "majority" just want to prevent the local proponents from using the filter in DE.WP that WMF intends to offer. Stripping the freedom they should have. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::::Quite the opposite. They have the freedom already. ;-) --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::That poll asks one question. A question that was absent inside this referendumm (sic!). --[[User:Niabot|Niabot]] 15:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Sameboat, what restricts freedom is the foundation proposal. The freedom deWP should have is the freedom to accept of reject the filter for their WP. If there is anyone having the priviledge to control the way the deWP chooses to have material and the way it chooses to display it, should it not be the consensus of the people who work on that WP? This is just the same as deWP having the right to use Proposed changes,, which they have done, rather than making it a WMF decision that every project must have it (or must not have it) . [[User:DGG|DGG]] 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::I don't see the point of WMF proposal restricting freedom. And the opinion of having the filter should be based on readers themselves, not the constant contributor group of 1 particular local Wiki. I'm trying not to use that ideology to describe that poll, but it's a very close one in this case. And what if user from other Wiki who have already set the filter switches to DE.WP and suddenly find that the image should be hidden actually appears right before them? I directly refer to that [[w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-22/News and notes|problematic image once on the DE.WP main page]]. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::The reason why the editors get to choose what goes on their wiki is this: it is the editors that are charges with the maintenance, not the readers. The editors are the ones who will need to keep the POV-pushing ideologues at bay. The readers are important, don't get me wrong; but if they are allowed to vote, they might not have a deep concern for the logistics of the proposal. This is one reason why wikis have voting eligibility policies. Case in point: [[wikt:Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian|unified Serbo-Croatian]] on en.wikt, where the votes were 40-50 but it was closed as 30-21 (this was before the voting policy). — '''[[User:Internoob|Internoob]]''' ([[wiktionary:User:Internoob|Wikt.]] | [[User talk:Internoob|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Internoob|Cont.]]) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, editors can decide thing that is related to editing. But the filter proposal is directly about READERS' preference, not just editors. That's why the opposition disgusts me, they attempt to use their own power to control the readers' preference for satisfying their own philosophy like a tyrant. I do not advocate non-contributors' right to vote, but we contributors should be more comprehensive on the readers' side, not just ourselves. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I for one reject introducing the filter because we were not asked if we wanted it in the first place. Period. This is no way to run a wiki or indeed any community these days. And then, if the problem is in the content you find on Commons, please go and solve in on Commons, i.e., delete the problematic content there and do not hold users responsible for their filter settings if they encounter something they don't want to see. No education project relies on explicit material in any way. Never. I repeat, the Foundation will not be able to deny the German community's voting. If we say no to this filter we mean it this way.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:This is clearly not the point, you're denying other readers' preference to hide the image which is essential to the topic and is subjectively accepted by another group of users. The filter is here to solve this dilemma. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::On the contrary, the filter is to be introduced to hide the dilemma. If hides the content rather than removing it altogether. I don't want anyone to filter anything in Wikipedia. Every user should be delivered the same content. Apart from that, I wonder why you are against democracy in our projects? It is a precedent to announce far-reaching decisions like this without asking for the community's consent in the first place. This was a big mistake, as we now can see.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::I just repeat, it's not democracy. And the DE sysops just act like a supremacy to control its visitors' option to hide the image. Obviously you've no right to force someone to accept the image that may disgust them. And that Vulva image once on the de.wp main page is the perfect explanation why this filter is proposed. The issues about the process of the proposal, ask WMF, not me. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Wait a second, please, you are responsible for your opinion, not the Foundation, right? And then, of course, it's not democracy, that's just what we are claiming.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::I am not representing the WMF, so the problem for not asking de.wp community's consent about the proposal is not of my concern. The referendum is already sufficient for me to express my opinion on that matter. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 17:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::There is no "forcing" people to see images. Any more than we are "forcing" them to read stuff they may find unacceptable. Bad editorial decisions should not be used as an excuse for more bad decisions. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:18 4 September 2011 (GMT).
:::::This is enforcement. When WMF offers the tool to hide image, the de.wp sysops just use their power to ban it, preventing anyone from using it. Who did ask to see the Vulva image on the de.wp main page? Are you that desperate to let everyone see the Vulva image to satisfy your educational purpose? This is far over the line. -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

*The significance here is that the de: project feels strongly enough about this to suggest forking. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:22 4 September 2011 (GMT).
::This is not about forking, but rather about pointing out to the foundation it has made a mistake that has to be corrected now.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 17:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: But it may be about forking if the foundation doesn’t change their mind. -- [[User:Carbidfischer|Carbidfischer]]
:::: Wikimedia is a global projekt - let find us together a way out of this trouble. Forking is no serious option. [[User:An-d|An-d]] 17:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::@Carbidfischer: Yes, if they don't change their mind. It would be the next stept, and it would be a logic one. I expect the foundation to move toward the German-language community.--[[User:Aschmidt|Aschmidt]] 17:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::In theory, the foundation could fork from the community, just like Oracle did it with the Open Office community. --[[User:Liberaler Humanist|Liberaler Humanist]] 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that anyone would seriously consider forking because of an opt-in filter. What might happen is that dewiki ignores the filter by creating local copies of the filtered files and thus removing them from the influence of commons categorization. But that's about it. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

== CentralNotice ==

Is it translatable somewhere? {{User:Liangent/Signature}} 12:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, see [[Image filter referendum/CentralNotice]]. [[User:Mathonius|Mathonius]] 14:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== Comments ==

The results for some questions are polarized, with higher levels of 0 and 10's rather than middle values. This happens quite a lot (think "pending changes") so we need to anticipate this and try to design feature surveys to be more useful in the face of polarized replies.

In this case, there is no data so far how replies vary by community/language. For example, if hypothetically we found (for illustration and ignoring the cultural stereotype) that most US respondents rejected filtering and most middle east respondents supported it, that suggests a possible solution of developing it, then enabling on some wikis and not on others, would leave more people feeling fairly satisfied. While nothing will be that stereotyped, perhaps a breakdown by region or language will be revealing as to attitude/preference/readers' principles.

There is no data so far showing why supporters support it, or why rejecters reject it. It might be that some reasons are not incompatible, or can be worked around. Similarly, the principles drawn on in comments could be important and revealing. A user who feels "Wikipedia should respect cultural views" or "Wikipedia should be uncensored" is expressing a different kind of view (one related to global use) than one whose objection is based on "waste of time" or "no value to me" but has no other strong objection.

Future surveys of this kind should aim to allow this kind of data, if it's practical.

What I'd like to see in further analysis:

* How did responses relate to project/culture/geographical region?
* For those replying 0-1 (or 0-2) out of 10, and those replying 9-10 (or 8-10) out of 10, '''and''' left comments - what were the principles/reasons they gave that appeared to be their main reason for their strongly held positive or negative views?

[[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 13:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:1 - 10 is too fine for people to judge. This probably contributes to the polarisation. 1 - 5 is plenty enough choice. [[Special:Contributions/86.181.174.161|86.181.174.161]] 14:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:It will also will be hard to distinguish people who said "It is important" meaning "It is important and it would be terrible" as opposed to "It is important and it would be great"''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 14:15 4 September 2011 (GMT).

::And it is hard to tell what people thought voting 0 or 1. Did they mean "totally unimportant but harmless" or "I want to express my opposition"? So FT2s Question ist quite interesting. What did those people with strong oppinions comment? [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 14:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I think it comes down to the fact that we didn't ask whether people support the filter or oppose it (or present arguments on each side of that question), so we simply don't have that data. To try and derive it from what was asked does a disservice to the referendum process, which was about ''how'', not ''whether'', to implement a filter.--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] 15:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:What irks ''me'' is that the vast majority of victims of this "feature" – the ''readers'' – were disenfranchised entirely. That's more than a little odd for a fundamental shift in the project's philosophy. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 18:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::: Given that 99.5% of readers are not editors, I would like to see one other analysis: whether the few users who have many edits responded differently from the many who have few or no edits. The problem being that discussion of the issue is by those who are engaged in Wikimedia which is a tiny minority. If it turns out that of the 24,000 responses, 12,000 are by people with few or no edits, then those are more likely to be representative of responses of the 99.5% of non-editors. In other words, ''the debate here may be self-defeating because it's a debate between people in the tiny minority of engaged users''. What I'd like to know is whether responses by people with very few or no edits, differ qualitatively from those by people with many edits. If so, which set of responses probably matters more...? [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 21:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Or might have been were the methodology in this survey not hopelessly broken. A first year stat student could have told you that you don't give such a large scale, or provide a middle value; and the questions were framed by begging the implementation as a forgone conclusion. The first could be salvaged, the latter not so much. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 22:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::::: What I'm looking for is what we can get from the data we have. For example examination of strong views v. reasons in comments is possible, and if IP or account data was kept to detect or prevent multiple votes (and is still available), then analysis by geography/language/region and qualitative differences between respondents with very few or no edits v. the rest might be possible. They might give useful information even after the limitations in the survey. [[user:FT2|FT2]] ([[User_talk:FT2|Talk]] | [[Special:Emailuser/FT2|email]]) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
::It may have been better to ask the "end users" too. But nobody will be a "victim" of this new feature because it's opt-in and nobody who doesn't want to will get images filtered. [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
:::You're making the presumption that nobody will be "opted in" against their will, or by social pressure. Or by whoever provides their sole 'net access; much of the non-occidental world can only access our projects through public terminals (cafe, libraries, etc). Do you really believe they won't put rules mandating such filters in place?). You're also presuming that the oh-so-convenient infrastructure we'll gleefully provide will not be used by anyone else. If there is in-band signalling "classifying" images (as ''must'' be if there is code to hide them), then it becomes trivial for anyone holding a mandatory proxy to filter them – user preference be damned.Neither of the presumptions are valid in the real world. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] [[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]] / [[en:User Talk:Coren|(en-wiki)]] 19:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

: Re comments: I'm disappointed that the first response to the comments people left was to put them thru a pattern-crunching program & create a [[:File:Referendum comments from Personal Image Filter referendum.png|pretty picture]] of which words were used the most. After looking at this image, I felt that I would have had more impact in this plebiscite had I simply wrote "censorship" repeatedly until I used all of the space allotted, than what I did write.What this "plebiscite" is asking is an ideological question, which means the opposing schools of thought are not going to find a common ground to agree on. (By "opposing schools of thought", I mean each side believe that the other is a bunch of ill-informed scumbags who are subverting the ideals of the projects. We're arguing over religious beliefs here, people. When the Christians, Jews, Moslems & Atheists all agree on who Jesus Christ was, then ''maybe'' we'll have a consensus on this issue.) Unless someone can produce a solid reason why this would benefit any Wikimedia project, then the Foundation is simply pissing away finite resources that would be better spent on something else -- such as US$50/€50 gift cards to established editors to help them buy research materials to create content.As for the issue of knowing what the users of our content actually wanted, the best way to have obtained that knowledge would have been to contract with a polling firm, who would find a large enough population of Wikipedia/Wikimedia users for an accurate sample, & '''ask them'''. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

== The problem ==

As previously mentioned in a reply, this survey had a fairly significant problem: the questions were about how to implement the filter, without asking a more basic question of if there should be a filter at all. I ask that, at minimum, an informal vote be held to determine community consensus on that issue. Additional useful information would be for support of an option to disable all article images, rather than a category-based filter. If the Foundation has unilaterally decided that there will be a category-based image filter and damn what the community thinks, I believe the community has a right to a transcript of the discussion and vote at which that decision was made. {{unsigned|98.230.51.109}}

:The first question was already asking: "it is important for the Wikimedia projects to offer this feature to readers." -- [[User:Sameboat|Sameboat]] ([[User talk:Sameboat|talk]]) 15:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:I'm quite sure Wikipedians are intelligent enough to vote 0 (totally unimportant) to express their opposition to the filter. A "I don't want a filter"-Option would have been better though. [[User:Adornix|Adornix]] 15:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::When I first encountered the survey, my sentiments were very similar to those of 98.230.51.109; I was disappointed that such a major decision had been unilaterally decided without seeking community consensus or even input. I personally oppose implementation of any such feature unless certain conditions are met, in which case I may be willing to support the proposal. Moreover, I personally recall the thought process of "if I answer 0/10 to voice objection, will my other input be categorized and disregarded as blatantly partisan or irrelevant?" going through my mind, which indeed resulted in a considerable artificial deviation in my case. [[User:CMBJ|CMBJ]] 16:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:The intoduction of the filter has already been decided by the Board of Trustees ([[Image filter referendum#Background]]). Purpose of this referendum was explicitly not to decide wheter we want the filter or not but only how it should look like.
:@Adornix: It's not the same to ask "how important is such a filter" or "do we want such a filter" (even though both questions sound similar they aren't equal)... [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 16:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::The assumption that the board is incapable of changing it's mind, is one that I find staggering. ''[[en:User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[en:User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 17:14 4 September 2011 (GMT).

:::I didn't assume this. I only said what the referendum was about. [[User:Chaddy|Chaddy]] 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

::as can be seen from the voters list, I waited until the last day to vote, because i had some difficulty deciding whether to vote at all--whether to participate in such a referendum was acceptance that the WMF had the moral right to pass such a resolution, and whether even voting on a referendum presented as how to implement as issue was legitimate. Should I vote on questions of what way to facilitate censorship?There is a considerable difference indeed between saying, "it is not important that we have such a filter" and "it is very important that we not have such a filter". The skewed distribution of votes on the first question (the very few 1,2, and 3 votes as compared to the number of 7, 8 and 9 votes), indicates that those who opposed it felt very passionately about it. Risker said above that the examination of the comments indicated that also. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I am actually not strongly opposed to this feature, but IMO the process left a great deal to be desired. First it was misleadingly called a "referendum", and then there was this confused question about how "important" it is to implement the feature, which seems to me like a weasly way of giving people the impression that they could oppose the feature, while allowing a get-out to implement the fait accompli anyway, even if most people said it wasn't "important". [[Special:Contributions/86.160.217.239|86.160.217.239]] 21:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

: There is also another issue that has been overlooked here: every dollar, euro, &c. spent on this proposal is a unit of currency that could have been spent on something else. Something that the communities who support the Wikimedia projects could agree needed to be done. Even the act to consider whether to filter images was an unbelievably stupid decision; the entire Board ought to be ashamed of themselves for allowing it to be put on their agenda. I am glad to say I did not vote for any of the successful candidates for the Board in the last election, & I hope we get some fresh blood on the Board immediately. -- [[User:Llywrch|Llywrch]] 22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Global blocks and bans/Archive 1

2011-07-05T11:24:07Z

Tinz: /* On global bans */ opinion

== On global bans ==
If you're wondering what inspired the creation of this page, please see [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-June/066047.html this thread]. I focused on open questions rather than a draft of policy or procedure, but feel free to edit boldly. Thanks! [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:I personally do not see global bans as something that are needed. When it comes to crosswiki stuff like the example of that mailing list, the said user could just be blocked - their behaviour has become disruptive, block them to prevent further abusing behaviour. I really don't see a need to enact another bureaucratic global ban system, with some sort of cabal ruling on these cases which could be quite easily solved with a block. That's just my opinion, though. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:Also, should this become policy here, I strongly disagree with global sysops having anything to do with this. It is quite clearly out of the gs scope. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, just for the sake of stating the obvious, I pointed out in the question list that such activity is not what global sysop rights are for. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 23:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. I think on the whole this would create a system where the downsides of abusing it against gadflies and critics as a way for insiders to show in-group disdain for them, far outweighs the current specific problem under discussion. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:I have to agree. I think there is a need for a very small set of people to be banned from all projects, and the specific problem being discussed on foundation-l is one of them. The need is worth discussing here on meta, but I would rather that Seth be the sole holder of the global ban button rather than allow it to become another tool that gradually becomes used for varying purposes. I'm being a bit flippant there, but the need for this is rare, and it is merely a token measure to globally ban someone unless something is done to ensure it is enforced, and therein lies the problem. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::What purpose would these serve other than just further extending unneeded drama? If a user is being disruptive crosswiki, lock the account. This still seems to me to be an overly bureaucratic solution for a very easily solved problem. I'd also like to add to my above points that I don't feel that it is right for a decision to be globally applied to all wikis by someone here - surely that is for local communities to do anyways? [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::: The current burst of energy around this topic is because [[user:Poetlister]] has been banned from most English projects due to some very serious concerns over a long time, but they are quietly [[v:Special:Contributions/Poetlister|working away]] rather peacefully on English Wikiversity. People from the English 'global' community want to impose a global ban which would preempt or overrule the English Wikiversity decision (or lack thereof). At some level all projects are part of a unified community, with a set of common values, or at least the expectation that we have common values. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: If the English Wikiversity decides to take no action, that is their choice. No global action is meant to overrule any local one - if there is no consensus to ban locally, the global ban would be overruled anyways. All projects are part of a unified community, but by no means is that global community meant to overpower the local one. If they are doing good stuff on Wikiversity, I'd treat that as a ''good'' thing, not be attempting to globally ban them. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 01:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::::: What is the price for 'good' stuff? If WikiEditorA murders WikiEditorB on Wikipedia, is it OK if WikiEditorA edits peacefully on Wikiversity? That is intentionally a 'worst case' hypothetical, to which I hope the answer is 'no'. (Poetlister hasn't killed anyone) There are some activities that we can all agree are worthy of a global ban. If one project was to documented the problem completely, each local community might enact a ban. However, in a more nuanced case, describing the problem extensively in public can cause legal issues or might exacerbate the problem by harming/distressing the victim. The Poetlister case can be mostly documented in public, so a [[Request for comment]] is likely to be the appropriate place to discuss a global ban for [[user:poetlister]]. Steward may be able to provide examples of bans like this in the past. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::No, if WikiEditorA did that they would be in jail and unable to edit Wikiversity anyways. I really don't understand why you are so adamant on restricting the actions of someone who seems to have no calmed down and started editing productively. If userA vandalizes on one wiki, then goes and productively helps another, his account shouldn't be locked. He should be blocked on the one wiki that he disrupted, and left alone to do good things on the other. But that's just my view, obviously some people are more intent on some sort of revenge for past wrongs than I am. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::: And after they come out of jail? This isnt about mere vandalism. This is about conduct issues that strike deep into our expectations. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::It's obvious that we have a difference of opinion, and I don't think that continuing to argue it out will help either of us in the end. Regardless, I still think that actions on one, two, three wikis should not affect someone if they are contributing well on another. Granted, they'll never become a trusted member of the community there because of it, but there is no reason to stop them from editing. I see this as a huge step backwards, and an unnecessary one at that. As I said above, if they are vandalizing crosswiki lock the account. If not, don't. Simple as that, no need for extra bureaucracy and drama. Regards, [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 03:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As John described, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. The concept of a ban is mostly just prevalent on the English Wikipedia; many other wikis only utilize blocks (which is the only technical measure applicable in any circumstance). There is a reason why stewards only handle clear-cut blatant cases of vandalism and disruption: we cannot impose our will on local communities, we are only there to help them when needed. That is sensible, because as outsiders we do not really understand the dynamics of every wiki (and I imagine it would be quite difficult if anyone attempted to do so) and since we are essentially not part of the mass of contributors for whatever reason (language, projects we aren't interested in) it would be, at least, impolite if we made decisions regular users do normally.

As Wikimedia wikis weren't created to support the WMF (the latter was created subsequently, so it could only be vice versa), we cannot create support infrastructures for everything outside enwiki only to turn around and claim ownership. Just like dewiki once understandably rejected pressure to alter its main page - authoritarianism does not work. Every wiki is independent, and only discussions may lead to consensus for a decision, whether that's for a ban or merely changing the interface.

Also, on the mailing list there's only talk of another English wiki - what happens when it concerns other languages? Are we really going to try to convince them that, since enwiki had difficulties with some users, they are absolutely compelled to block them as well? This is, of course, when it comes to problem users who do not outright edit to vandalize, since I assume every wiki agrees that vandalism should be stopped (which is why locks work and most are uncontroversial). -- [[User:Mentifisto|Menti]][[User talk:Mentifisto|fisto]] 10:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Hey everyone, Mentifisto emailed me with some really relevant questions, so I thought I'd reply on-wiki just so they can be shared. A couple clarifications:
* I used my staff account intentionally, because there were requests from several highly respected community members for the Foundation to give input about how it views its role on the topic of global bans. On that, I gave my personal opinion in the Foundation-l thread early on, and there are a couple comments from Sue as well. If you haven't read the full thread (or at least first dozen or so messages) I think it's relevant.
* I wrote a series of questions to help galvanize further discussion and action by the community, not a draft policy. That was also very intentional. If community members are interested in answering these questions or different ones and moving forward with a proposed policy that serves the needs of the movement (and not just English Wikipedia) then that will happen. If not, then it's not my job to singlehandedly draft a new policy to be pushed on the projects, just to be frank about it.
* I think it's really telling that among the first five edits to the question set was some trolling about an editor indef blocked on multiple projects, including English Wikiversity. The thought of Wikimedia communities really getting organized and talking to each other on a friendly, equal basis about these few serious cases of cross-wiki abuse is ''exactly'' what some don't want to see become reality.
:In any case, I think what you're all asking or suggesting so far has been great. There is no way to even begin to think about new policy without people involved immediately to poke holes in current thinking. So thank you. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 16:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

::In the edit you mention, I simply don't see any sort of "The thought of Wikimedia communities really getting organized ... what some don't want to see become reality" type of thinking. I see a single person rudely mocking you, as pretentious. Unpleasant and uncivil, yes, but it seems to me ultimately trivial and inconsequential. Your characterization furthers my view that the "problem" being solved is really about the need for social reinforcement for insiders, as not taking seriously the the views of high-status group members is often considered quite an offense against group norms (as least by high-status group members). -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 22:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

::Being organized and talking to each other on a friendly, equal basis is what hopefully everyone strives to do in any situation or difficulty (that is normally how communities arrive at consensus, and if we're lucky with not too much bloodshed!) - but the possibility of global bans employs coercion, which is the opposite of a congenial discussion where a compromise has been reached. -- [[User:Mentifisto|Menti]][[User talk:Mentifisto|fisto]] 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

::: Global bans do not employ coercion by definition. If an actually honest global policy of any kind is to be built, then it requires input and consent from people in as many projects as possible. Especially note the proposed additions from WereSpielChequers, which could easily and reasonably build in to such a policy the ability for communities to opt out if desirable. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 05:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Isn't that self defeating in purpose then? Global bans apply to all wikis, to somehow punish editors who have been disruptive on one or two wikis, but other wikis can opt out? [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 13:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::A Global system from which 1% of projects have opted out is a lot closer to a global system than what we have today. As for a global system from which individual projects can opt out to the extent of allowing people to edit on their project but not to the extent of making them admins or checkusers; That looks like a global system to me. But as for your comment about punishing editors who have been disruptive on one or two wikis, my proposal is for global bans to be considered after someone has been a problem on three or more wikis. Is anyone advocating global bans for people who have only been banned from one or two wikis? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 14:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::One to two or five hundred to six hundred makes no difference; these are still going to be used to punish users, and that isn't how wikis should work. Bans, like blocks, should be preventative. If someone is vandalizing on fifty wikis, and contributing well on one, why on Earth does everyone here seem to want to also restrict him on that one? Likewise, if a candidate for checkuser on a wiki has had his checkuser rights removed on three other wikis, how likely is he to pass? And if he does, and uses the tools well for once, then it is nothing short of harming the wiki he is on to remove them from him. As I said, blocks and bans should focus on prevention of further disruptive actions, not punishment, which this proposal seems to ignore. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 14:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Well partly I suspect its because those editors consider that such global bans would be preventative, in that there is a risk that any editor who keeps getting themselves banned from individual projects will eventually merit a ban from those where they currently are considered good editors. By the time someone has been banned by three wikis I think there is a pretty good chance that a reasonable person would be worried that we have a recurring pattern, if someone has been disruptive on fifty wikis I would be astonished if they could be trusted to edit productively elsewhere, and five or six hundred as opposed to one or two certainly does make a difference to me. But it was with views such as yours in mind that I formulated the compromise idea that the global restriction could be more proportionate than a complete global ban, what do you think of the proposal that an editor could be globally barred from say email or Checkuser but still allowed to edit where they were not locally banned or blocked? [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I must say, I still feel that global banning is a complete waste of time and effort. As I've said above, if they are being naughty crosswiki, just lock the account. I'd be more open to ''solely'' restrictions, though, since in some cases I guess they could be beneficial. I still see it as pointless, since local wikis could overrule the decision anyways, and if there wasn't enough of a reason to just outright lock the account they must be making good edits somewhere (in which case it is not a good idea to do anything to prevent them from contributing positively). Also keep in mind that most of my comments are responding to the idea that the above example should be banned, even though she/he is making good edits on a wiki, solely because bad edits have been made on other wikis. I just cannot stomech the suggestion that we should be hindering people like that from being able to contribute positively on the projects they are on. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since most of the people here are from the english projects, I will add two points as an editor from dewiki.
* Global locking of "trolls" and other disruptive users is very intransparent. As an example, look at [[:de:Special:contributions/D.A._Borgdorff]] or [[:de:Special:contributions/Tyciol]]. No one locally would suspect that these users are (b)locked. If Stewards lock a user globally, they should at least notify the projects on which the user has edited. Better, implement a notice in the local Special:Contributions page.
* Don't shift the role of Stewards towards "politics". In my opinion, a significant fraction of the stewards are technically skilled people motivated in fighting cross-wiki vandalism and related tasks. These people are really needed, however, they are not necessarily the best people to deal with conflict resolution and political issues such as the Poetlister-case. If the Stewards have to deal with this too, less people will elect this type of user in the Steward elections, which would be a loss for the projects. It would be better to install some global committee in a separate process and to recall the old "Do not decide" slogan. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

==Alternate suggestions==
I've added a couple of ideas to the page.

Firstly re lesser bans. My thinking is that discussion of global bans has been contentious in the past, and that some of the arguments for them are not fear of someone editing other projects, but of their misusing email or various userrights; Whilst resistance to global bans has included the phrase "but they are editing in good faith here". In such a scenario a lesser global restriction such as "[[user:example]] is globally banned from having checkuser, oversight or Bureaucrat positions, but may edit, use email or be an admin on those communities that have not blocked them" might be acceptable to all projects.

Secondly "three strikes and you're out". Nearly three hundred languages, some of which have three or more projects means that we have a very large number of small communities out there, I suspect that most would be quite happy to be protected by a system that they could opt out of if they chose to and they had appointed their own admins and had a couple of dozen active participants. Provided the global bans were rare and fair, either on the basis of a global ban panel or "three strikes and you're out" I doubt that many projects would opt out. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
: But the point of the discussion on the mailing list was to find a way to get bad users banned against the will of certain projects (here:en-wikiversity), that would certainly opt out of your system. That's why I don't see what problems of the current system an opt-out system would solve. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:: I think the core part of the problem in that situation Tinz is that the other projects don't really know why the editor involved was banned in the first place. I don't actually, come to think of it. If there's a case where an editor is banned on one project and not on another on the basis of assume good faith, then one first step could be that they should actually talk to each other about what the situation at hand is. If en-wikiversity knew the facts they might have a different feeling about the issue. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 16:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:::This is a compromise proposal that seeks to address the objections that have prevented previous global ban proposals from being implemented, whilst still achieving almost everything those who support global blocks want to achieve . Allowing projects to opt out, or at least opt out to the point of allowing "globally banned" editors to edit but not gain userrights, means we are more likely to achieve consensus to implement something, and I would hope that if we implemented this only a handful of projects would opt out. If we subsequently had an incident involving a "globally banned" editor who was still editing the Klingon wikipedia then we would be on much stronger grounds if we were able to say "yes he's caused problems before, but we have banned from using Email or looking at deleted edits anywhere in Wikimedia, and he can only edit on a few Wikimedia projects that are not currently in the same security system that we use on the main Wikipedias". [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::: I agree that enwv might respond differently if they knew all the facts, ''however'' that project has a peculiar problem in that they try to transform everything into a learning opportunity. I say peculiar because it is a feature, not a bug; the project scope encourages that, and I don't think the scope should be changed. They do need to mature their policies so that they have a means to break free of the 'learning opportunity' approach when it is shooting themselves in the foot. fwiw, I tried to explain the Poetlister problem at [[Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/10#A_Translation_of_the_Bible]], but the consensus appeared to be that the content was within scope, and that was the wrong forum for a local ban discussion. I think a local ban discussion should be attempted before there is any attempt to create a global ban - the latter will be much harder and cause more disunity within our community. If a local ban discussion fails to achieve the desired outcome, the next port of call would be to create a meta RFC about the Wikiversity outcome or a meta RFC about Poetlister. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 01:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

== Three strikes policy? ==
Could we change the software to enable projects to adopt a three strikes and you're out policy? I.E. Any editor blocked on three or more projects for editing on that project is treated as blocked on all those projects that implement this.

:If we are to have a global ban policy, I like the "three strikes" approach. That allows each project to "try". It also means that stewards are implementing a multi-project consensus rather than them being expected to judge when "enough is enough". The role of stewards in this needs to be thought out carefully, as stewards are the only meta oversight volunteers on meta, they make up the bulk of the checkusers on meta, and they are quite often involved in administrative blocks on meta. As a result of their role in the meta community, they become 'involved' in cases of people who are multi-project malcontents. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 01:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
::I'd thought of the three strikes approach as an automated thing, hence my careful wording that the editor needs to have been banned for something on that project, otherwise we risk the editors who banned someone from the Klingon wiki then banning them from the Klingon wikiquote and Klingon news in order to turn a local ban into a global one. But making it a steward discretion thing would solve that and allow some necessary flexibility. I can certainly see a scenario where someone loses their temper, posts block worthy stuff on three different projects in as many minutes, but the Stewards then decide to treat it as one isolated episode that happens to involve three projects but need not be escalated to ones as yet uninvolved via a global ban. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

*I'm not sure I understand what you are calling the "three strikes and you're out" option. To me, that would mean if someone is banned by three or more projects, they are banned from all projects. I'm fine with that idea, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. I absolutely disagree with the idea that users who have been banned from more than one project for the serious kinds of abuse we are outlining should be allowed to keep running to other projects and forcing them to independently find a reason to ban the user. The idea is as much to protect other projects from someone whose behaviour is that extreme as it is to actuate the will of the original banning projects.
*Secondly, one of the entire points of a global ban is that nobody can "opt out" and the user is banned on all projects. One of the biggest challenges that we have is continued importation of battles into the smaller projects by users who have been banned on larger projects (and no, this is not unique to English projects, it happens with other ones too). It is actually quite disturbing to see how many of these users will move on to another project and use it as a launching pad to continue their inappropriate behaviour on the original project(s). Just as importantly, we encourage our users to work on multiple projects as their time, ability and interest permits; however, projects become significantly less attractive to Wikimedians if they become havens for users who have been banned elsewhere.
*I support the idea of different types of global bans, although I do not know if it is technically possible to "ban" someone from email access. To be honest, though, anyone who has advanced permissions (administrator or higher) removed on more than one project due to behaviour should not be permitted to hold even administrator permissions in the future, let alone 'crat, checkuser or oversighter.
*I also agree that the behaviour has to be extremely serious before we should even consider global banning. One of the biggest challenges is that the evidence that illustrates the extremely serious abuse by those very few individuals who should be globally banned usually involves at least some non-public information, including real-world information about both Wikimedians and non-Wikimedians (e.g., subjects of articles) and broad-based public discussion of this information will both perpetuate and publicly enshrine the facts of these behaviours, to the detriment of the individuals on the receiving end of the abuse. Some of the abuse I'm aware of is seriously disturbing and, in a couple of cases, downright scary. We all know how quickly others belittle such experiences (indeed, we only have to look further up on this page) to recognize that as soon as someone says "User Z should be banned because he made over a hundred harassing phone calls to User Q over a week", someone else will pipe in "Well, that's User Q's problem, they should change their phone number. User Z does great copy editing/uses good references/makes great templates/etc." Can we please be honest enough to admit that this is extremely likely to happen? After all, in many cases, it already has. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

== Questions moved from the main page ==
=== What is the current state of related global and local policy? ===
In to order to write any good global policy there should be a deep understanding of the policies and procedures that are related on ''all'' the projects – not just in English or Wikipedia. Points of consensus and disagreement between various community polices and processes should be identified. An initial list of [[harassment policies]] from all the projects has been compiled, but harassment is only one issue that could result in a ban under current local policies.

===How do we maintain community independence?===
How can we preserve community independence (which is absolutely necessary for the healthy functioning of the projects) and still deal with cross-wiki disruption?
# Reserve Global bans for the sort of extreme behaviour that no-one really wants to defend.
# Make sure that no one project however large can globally ban people without the agreement of the rest of the community.
# Have a range of restrictions, so that a project can allow someone to edit even if they are banned from ever having access to Email or deleted revisions.

=== How can collaboration between the projects be improved? ===
Lack of communication and collaboration between the projects is a root cause of our current vulnerability to persistent cases of cross-wiki abuse. How can we better share information (both public and private) between communities on governance and dispute resolution issues?

Talk:Global locks

2011-07-04T21:38:58Z

Tinz: /* Global blocks and bans */ add unsigned, just replace this with your signature

{{archive box auto}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <div style="float: right; margin-left:12px">__TOC__</div>

== Points for further discussion ==

I'm pointing the questions on the [[Global blocking|draft]] here for discussion; we can move the conclusions of that discussion to the policy page when we're ready.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
=== Widespread vandalism ===
* Point for discussion: how widespread? Should we define that?

::Two basic issues (to me) here.
::#Info derived from CU data where IPs have been exploited to create vandal accounts on a number of wikis
::#Simply "badly behaved" IPs. I would often find vandalism from IPs on en wb & discovered that they had long blocks on en wp & had "migrated" elsewhere
::Maybe simplistic but a starter for 10. The former probably should be considered for long blocks, the latter I think would more be a case of showing them we can do it? Certainly in both cases I would suggest that if three wikis were affected it would be worth examining in detail? --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 07:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::10 is a fine number to me, but one should also take into account the history - if there is some ''strong'' indication they will be affecting many wiki shortly, there is no need to wait until they hit #10 before taking action.  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Widespread spamming ===
* Point for discussion: How do we determine 'clear disregard'? Must we warn them?

** Static IPs who change domain 'on the fly'.
** Static IPs who have a wide range of domains.
** Static IPs who consistently push links in inappropriate ways which are widely used across many wikis, and which do have legitimate use.
** SpamBots can be blocked while waiting for the blacklisting to kick in.

:I dont think they should be warned, because such spambots would certainly not stop the vandalism if they get a warning. --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::Some sort of communication is necessary unless the editor's actions are clearly malicious. The IP spammer referred to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_blocking&diff=1006437&oldid=1003299 here] was clearly acting maliciously. Furthermore, we know that there was communication because as soon as each domain was blacklisted and it took effect, they switched to a new domain and continued. Given the [[User:COIBot/XWiki/vanessa-hudgens.tv|number of domains]] for which this occurred, there is no doubt that this person/bot knew their actions were disruptive, and that a swift global block was needed to prevent further disruption. In such cases where leaving a message on a talk page somewhere is totally ineffective, I agree that doing so is not needed. But where it would potentially be effective, it should be done, and communicating through blacklisting domains is one method of (very clear) communication.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::warning spambots won't really help but firstly you must try to find out if its a spambot or a very funny human :p Spambots are always looking for trouble, and they hardly ever desist and are always persistent in self-promoting themselves/links. and since spam blacklist have a habit of taking minutes to 'kick in', it really is a good idea to block these ips because when and if it kicks in, the bot controllers might realise it and change the links to avoid being blocked, and its safer to know that the Ip in questions won't be used for spamming again , than only adding the spamlink to the blacklist and allowing the bot to go on a spree with some other url spamlink..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Again I'm with Cometstyles - warning is not really an option across wikis with quite fast moving bot style edits. To me the warning arrives by way of the block. Depending on the activity the block might not need to be long (open proxies, static IPs may be different). To me this tool is to prevent disruption not punish per se. --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 12:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Just to be clear, that is what I mean. Blacklisting or a block is as much warning as some deserve - requiring more than that is not a good idea.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:I am all for warning, but we don't have such a tool (yet?). [[Global messaging]] may do the trick, but warning an IP at the moment is impossible, you never know which of the 722 (?) mediawiki wikis (if not other wikis) they hit next. If the IP keeps adding external links, a short block while blacklisting kicks in is at the moment the only possibility.
:Do we need to discuss short (say, which can be measured in maximum several hours) and long-term blocks differently here? For blacklisting external links an hour block should be enough (administrators can add the links spammed, investigate if there are other domains likely to be spammed (e.g. domains on same server, see the -pics.com spammer of a couple of days ago) and add those too, and let the block expire). But for long-time vandalism or spam-bots that may not be enough. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] [[User_Talk:Beetstra|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|C]] (en: [[:en:User:Beetstra|U]], [[:en:User talk:Beetstra|T]]) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Blatantly disrupting multiple projects ===
* Point for discussion: How do we define this to effectively manage disruption but ensure that each project is still sovereign?
::I'm not sure I understand what cases this section is supposed to cover - spamming and vandalism are already covered above, and open proxy abuse is covered below.  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Personal attacks? Disrupting the community in more projects? This would not be quite new... [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I think that can be controlled adequately on a project-by-project basis. Perhaps there have been examples where a global block would have been necessary though...?  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't think making global blocks for personal attacks is a good idea. That is something the local community should deal with IMO. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
* Following up: global blocks have recently been suggested for thekohser and tyciol. Both have been locked for part of this year (due to the lack of a technical option to carry out a global block). So there are cases where this is requested; we should reconsider whether it is appropriate. See below for a specific discussion about reasons for requesting a global lock. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 04:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Open proxies ===
*Point for discussion: How do we deal with Chinese editors trying to edit through proxies from inside the Great Firewall? I'm not really happy with this line just yet
** Also whitelist Chinese proxies on chinese wiki(s)?? System for account creation, as these blocks are supposed to block ''only'' the IP-editing?

:Maybe on chinese wikis, the blocked IP adresses should still be able to create accounts, since the crosswiki vandalbots usually dont create such; but this could cause that they create accounts what would disrupt the global blocking idea. --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::It not really a good idea to Block any proxies unless it disrupts wikimedia and if the OP is being used for vandalism by humans, then it will be blocked for a short period of time but if its done by bots, which can usually be differentiated easily, then longer bans may be in order...--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree completely with Cometstyles. I ceased to be comfortable with OP blocks just because that is what they are a long time ago. Quite a lot of constructive work comes from OP across the project. Truly exploited ones maybe but that is covered by the "vandalism" one above. --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps have all global proxy blocks as softblocks (anon only) and put up a well publicised list of emails people can send to to request account creation over that block? ''[[user:giggy|giggy]]'' ([[user talk:giggy|:O]]) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult for an editor in one country to use a proxy in another country. How do we know if it is really a Chinese editor using a Chinese proxy?--[[User:Cato|Cato]] 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:Blocking open proxies ''because they are open proxies'' is really not an acceptable use of this tool, I think. That said, there will certainly be open proxies blocked ''because they are being abused''.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== Question on local wiki unblocking ==

[[Steward handbook#IP address blocks]] notes global blocks can be lifte don a particularly wiki (3rd paragraph). Thus on Commons I've created [[commons:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked|MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked]] and added an [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Unblock&diff=13754364&oldid=6196908 option] to the unblock request template for removing a global block.

Is it worth doing this, and is there anything else that should be done? —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 00:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:yes, its fine but since IP's are blocked globally for a reason, it will be good to tell the stewards as to the reason why it was removed from a particular wiki, here in meta so there are no misunderstandings in the future regarding this ...--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 00:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed. Another question while I'm here; do IP block exemptions (which all admins have) override global blocks? (eg. if my IP was global blocked, could I still edit Commons?) —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 00:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:yes, its like the spam blacklist on meta, its global but some stuff on the spamblacklist can be whitelisted on another wiki and thus can be used..so yes, IP-block exempt overrides global blocking ..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 01:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Logging details ==

Is there any other slightly more detailed accounting done anywhere of why x range or IP was blocked? [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/gblblock The log entries in some cases] are kind of vague. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:hmm good point, I'll ask the stewards to make a [[Global blocking/List]] (and I'll probably update them myself) and list detailed reasons as to why an Ip or and Ip range was blocked so inquisitive admins from other wikis will know the reason for the block since the edit summaries may not be that clear..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks. It'd make it easier to track down the wheres and whys (may be especially useful for us on Commons, since people come from all over). :) [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::: How should we deal range blocks? When should global range blocks be okay? See for instance 173.32.0.0/16 and 189.81.0.0/16 [[User:Sj|-- sj]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''help translate'']] |[[User Talk:Sj|+]]
::::I'd suggest to place them or not in consultation with other stewards, keeping in mind the principles discussed on these pages (minimum blocking, only when necessary, only for cross-wiki stuff etc...)  — [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]] | [[:b:en:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

== double blocking ==

I would like to clear following two cases: '''A.''' I have blocked an IP on a project; then, after further vandalisms, the same IP is global blocked by a steward; and '''B.''' vice versa - a steward blocks the IP globally, then I will block the IP locally. What happens?
* will the second blockee get a '''message''' that the IP is blocked - globally or in the second case locally?
* which block '''overrides''' the other?
* I blocked the IP indef for heavy vandalism, then a steward blocked the IP for one month only: which '''block length''' is valid, and will I get a message about it locally?
Thanks, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:hmm not sure about which message that Ip will get but I'm very sure that the local block overrides the global one, so even if the so even if the global block expires, the local block stays but if the IP is blocked longer globally than locally and a local admin wants to remove that block, they should unblock the IP using the [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist]] and check the small box which says ''Disable this global block on <nameofwiki>'' and that Ip will be able to edit that wiki freely without it being affected by the global block..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
OK OK, that's what I wanted to know (by the way, sure, every local bureaucrat should know the white list so I do). Important seems to be that the local block can (in most cases) override the global one. More over, it is easier for the local bureaucrat to get the knowledge about global blocks (one click or two), the steward would have a little bit more to do (some 745 clicks or so I guess...). So, thanks for the answer, regards, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "overriding". Both blocks apply (and therefore, restrictions from the two blocks are additive). [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] 00:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mea culpa; so in efect, additiv means, that the longer block is valid and will not be shortened by the short one, won't it? [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] 05:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== User talk? ==

Would the globally blocked user still be able to edit his user talk pages, as with normal blocks, or would he only be able to edit at Meta? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:<s>They can edit their talk pages on any single wiki and request for unblock in that respected wiki</s> --[[User:Mardetanha|Mardetanha]] [[user_talk:Mardetanha|talk]] 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Not sure about the above, but the blocks do not apply at all on Meta, so they may come here to discuss things.  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Equally unsure (per Mike), but ideally the block message given would point to a place to appeal ([[Steward requests/Global]]). I'm not sure if the current one does that. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, you can't edit your user talk page through a global block. I don't know where Mardetanha got that idea. [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:That might be a good thing to change - for instance to allow a globally blocked user to request to be added to the local Whitelist. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
----
Users are not globally '''blocked''' but '''locked''' so that they can't log-in exept on meta. Regards, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== Translation ==

This needs to be done. Very important for a very important function. —[[user:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]][[user talk:Anonymous Dissident|Talk]] 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've created and added {{tl|Other languages/Global blocking}}. I could whip up a weak French translation, but I think it's better for everyone if we wait for some fluent speakers to come help out now. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 09:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Giving this permission to Global sysop ==
{{closed|text=
I think If [[Global sysops|global sysop]] permission applies cross-wiki, Giving Global blocking right to global sysop is good idea. (but global sysop permissions are just a proposal currently.) How do you think about giving it to global sysops?I apologize my English is bad--[[User:Kwj2772|Kwj2772]] 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:already included. speedily close.--[[User:Kwj2772|Kwj2772]] 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)}}

== Policy does not seem to match practice ==

Why is this policy being used to block named accounts? It dosen't appear that blocking named accounts is in the jurisdiction of this global blocking policy as written. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

: Policy isn't beeing used to block named accounts, since it is technically impossible with the global blocking. Accounts can be locked, or blocked locally on each wiki the same way local administrators block users. [[User:Laaknor|Laaknor]] 15:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

:: While this is technically true, locking is being used as a substitute for blocking until the technical ability for global blocks is carried out. We really, really need to fix the technical issue to resolve this confusion. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 04:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

== Automatic global blocking ==

How about to block a (SUL) user globally if he/she was blocked in home wiki? -- [[User:ChongDae|ChongDae]] 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:For registered users there is locking: see [[SH#lock]], where you'll discover why it would be impossible and undesirable. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 07:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

== Mjbmrbot broken ==

Hi, I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll just put it here:

As I mention [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Mjbmr#Reordering_languages here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#Mjbmrbot_broken here], Mjbmrbot is broken, but not stopped by it's owner. Please block globally! Thanks. [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] 14:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:I guess a block is not needed anymore. Thanks anyway. [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] 14:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

== Office requests ==

The question of how to process requests from the Foundation office sometimes comes up here (for global requests).

If there is an urgent cross-wiki block or lock request from the office, how should it be processed? What if no steward can be found on IRC or via email?
* We may want to have a more explicit way to reach stewards in an emergency.
* I believe <s>all</s> certain staff have access to steward tools -- is it worth having a brief version of the Handbook for them (addressing just the emergency situations they may face)?
–[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 10:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:The staff need their own handbook, IMO, preferably including the phrase, "Do what you need to do, and explain for transparency". The original point of the staff global group was to allow staffers with access to it to perform office actions of various sorts without needing to request assistance from the community and to make the steward flag only for those who actually were elected to the position; If another set of rights mirroring that of stewards (&tc.) were used on the staff side, I can't imagine stewards would complain too much. [[User:Kylu|Kylu]] 13:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::: For emergencies, there could be a quick place [the [[Stewards' noticeboard]]?)to leave a note about what happened, which the next available steward could review. Very few actions are not reversible. For legal and other tasks that the office might truly need to do without requesting assistance, an explanation could at least be left there. Philippe: thanks for the clarification; it's good to know that those rare cases are currently only hypothetical. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::Hi there. A couple of things... first, all staff do not have access to steward tools - it's a subset of the staff, and that is limited to a group that have demonstrated need for the staff rights bit. However, Jon, Guillaume and I have been working toward a set of packages that will further restrict the access to the rights. There are very few staff members (if any) that have a legitimate need for all the rights in the staff package, so Guillaume's very good idea was to split them into a couple of "sets" of rights that cover the most frequent usages. Once we've completed that, our hope is to bring it to the community for discussion.
::Staff use the steward tools very infrequently. We have rigid definitions for when/where it's appropriate to use them. When I arrange for the rights assignment through the stewards, I always brief the staff member about the appropriate uses of checkuser, oversight, etc. I have not always included global lock in that group because - quite frankly - I don't think I've ever used that tool, and I forgot it was there. I'm going to include it in the briefing.
::I've always asked that in an emergency that requires something outside our normal use of the rights, staff go to stewards first. In the rare case that we can't find one, I think most would typically be to come to me or to their manager. I routinely answer questions about use of the rights. In the extremely rare case that there's a legitimate need to use the rights and a steward can't be found... and this is purely hypothetical... I'd tend toward getting a second opinion or a C-level sign-off, and then doing it, with a note somewhere to explain it. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Hi Philippe, I have a question, then why split the rights in two at all? wouldn't it be easier to just restrict access to only people familiar with steward tools on staff? checkuser and some staff functions require a fair deal of familiarity with the tools, is there something specific from the steward package that the rest of the staff would benefit from? [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Staff rights as they exist now are sort of an amalgamation of "stuff someone might need", rather than being geared a little more specifically toward "things that community staff need" and "things that tech staff need". The staff rights include a number of features that are not specific to steward tools (for instance, interface editor - which i've started dealing with by requesting that users be assigned to that specific global rights group) and a few others. So the concept is that we would narrow out the rights needed by tech staff, usually, and give those to them (which people like Christine and I don't need) and give us the rights that we need (while not giving them to staff members who don't have need for them). The concept is the [[w:Principle of least privilege|Principle of Least Access]]. So if we were to remove access to staff rights (as they exist now) for people who don't have a familiarity with the steward tools, we'd need to replace them with another set of rights so that those people aren't impeded from doing their jobs by a lack of access to the feature set that they need. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 00:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::: Cool, thanks. I hope you'll post a link to the new staff handbook when it's out! –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   17:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

== Global blocks and bans ==
Two recent requests for global [b]locks involved long-time contributors noted for their good contributions at some point: Abigor and Poetlister. Their cases are very different, but both emphasize the need for a better process to deal with such requests.

=== How do we decide on global blocks and bans? ===
How do we determine when they are appropriate, and how can we better visualize contributions and problems across multiple Projects?

;1) [Technical] Implement cross-project messaging, status flags, and contribution-history review.
: This requires real technical support, both in the libraries available for multi-project MediaWiki installations, and in extensions/visualizations that make it possible to browse and follow contribs across many projects

;2) [Technical] Implement tools for blocking, and for granting flags, across multiple projects.
: Right now this is largely done by hand, in a laborious fashion.

;3) [Policy] Define a [[Dispute Resolution Committee]] to evaluate global ban requests and guide related Meta policy
: Set criteria for conduct that requires a global ban. For example, criminal stalking, legal action against other Wikimedia contributors or entities, &c. Clarify how all involved projects can be notified of the discussion of such a ban, and what group makes the decision.

Steven and Millosh have both made good suggestions on the DRC proposal.

Scott wrote:
:> ''What you need is a mechanism so that one local community, when banning a user who meets the criteria, can refer the case to a cross-project review group for a global decision. ''

=== How do we deal with good contributors who are chronic troublemakers? ===
These users don't immediately raise red flags. They are always repentant after a bout of mischief or anger or deception. There are obvious downsides to excluding them - one fewer good editor/scripter/vandal-fighter.

; 4) [Technical] Create permanent options other than banning.
: For instance, there could be options to
: - flag a user as not allowed to have multiple accounts at all, subject to auto or spot checks for socks (after socking)
: - flag a user as not allowed to have permissions (after permissions abuse)
: - flag a user as not allowed to !vote (after vote stacking)
These flags need not be casually visible to other editors, but implementing/acting on them needs to be easy or automatic.

;5) [Technical] Create activity reports that can be shared across projects
: Ex: Cross-wiki reports on vandalism, bad-faith contribution, and manipulation of community policies and processes. Tools for tracking and visualizing such problems.
:: Risker pointed out in the mail thread that this is one of the biggest barriers to global bans.
:: Currently, for historical reasons, each project has an independent system for dealing with this, and most are updated manually (or by bot). Make this a top priority for interface upgrades -- this aspect of site maintenance gets heavy use; and the quality of our toolchain here is directly related to how much editor overhead is required to keep the sites running. This applies to recentchange and new page patrol, just as to behavioral trouble with active users.

; 6) [Tech and Policy] Offer more nuanced ways to profile new users.
: Right now if you are trying to log in from an IP in a range that has been blocked, you are simply blocked. You get an email you can contact to request a reversal, but it the whole process is shocking and distasteful to anyone who isn't a vandal or spammer.
: Offer a mechanism for flagging an IP range or user (or usergroup) as worthy of closer attention, without blocking them. For instance: flag them as a permanent newbie (subject to the same restrictions as new accounts) until further notice.

;6) [Tech and Policy] Define ways to share checks on problematic users, including private data, across projects.
: Find ways to publicly indicate concerns that are founded in private data. Make a pointer to this information available to all projects.
: If a user has caused trouble on multiple projects and is subject to regular spot checks for socking, have a policy for meta-checks for socking by that user as well. This should involve a way to inform all communities where that user starts editing, some of which will have their own checkusers.

;7) [Policy] Define the negative impact of toxic contribution.
: At present there is no clear sense of how problematic an angry, or malicious, or deceptive user is. A few hundred or a few thousand good contributions are sometimes considered "enough" to balance out a persistent negative or socially destructive personality.
: Offer cross-project guidance on the long-term value of both content and social contributions. [some visualization of social contributions, similar to the crude but persistent use of 'edit count' for edits, might help.]

;8) [Policy] Define when 'clean starts' are appropriate, and how they should be carried out.
: What standards of transparency should all projects uphold when offering clean starts to former troublemakers? Whatever the standards are for deciding that a user is likely to throw away a second chance, they probably should be cumulative across all projects. [someone with a history of deception over many years is likely to continue that way, even on a new project]
{{unsigned|SJ}}

:: just a small note: the most recent discussion on meta about this topic took place at [[Talk:Global bans]], not sure if you knew about it. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Global locks

2011-07-04T21:34:08Z

Tinz: /* How do we deal with good contributors who are chronic troublemakers? */ link to recent discussion

{{archive box auto}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ <div style="float: right; margin-left:12px">__TOC__</div>

== Points for further discussion ==

I'm pointing the questions on the [[Global blocking|draft]] here for discussion; we can move the conclusions of that discussion to the policy page when we're ready.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
=== Widespread vandalism ===
* Point for discussion: how widespread? Should we define that?

::Two basic issues (to me) here.
::#Info derived from CU data where IPs have been exploited to create vandal accounts on a number of wikis
::#Simply "badly behaved" IPs. I would often find vandalism from IPs on en wb & discovered that they had long blocks on en wp & had "migrated" elsewhere
::Maybe simplistic but a starter for 10. The former probably should be considered for long blocks, the latter I think would more be a case of showing them we can do it? Certainly in both cases I would suggest that if three wikis were affected it would be worth examining in detail? --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 07:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::10 is a fine number to me, but one should also take into account the history - if there is some ''strong'' indication they will be affecting many wiki shortly, there is no need to wait until they hit #10 before taking action.  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Widespread spamming ===
* Point for discussion: How do we determine 'clear disregard'? Must we warn them?

** Static IPs who change domain 'on the fly'.
** Static IPs who have a wide range of domains.
** Static IPs who consistently push links in inappropriate ways which are widely used across many wikis, and which do have legitimate use.
** SpamBots can be blocked while waiting for the blacklisting to kick in.

:I dont think they should be warned, because such spambots would certainly not stop the vandalism if they get a warning. --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::Some sort of communication is necessary unless the editor's actions are clearly malicious. The IP spammer referred to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_blocking&diff=1006437&oldid=1003299 here] was clearly acting maliciously. Furthermore, we know that there was communication because as soon as each domain was blacklisted and it took effect, they switched to a new domain and continued. Given the [[User:COIBot/XWiki/vanessa-hudgens.tv|number of domains]] for which this occurred, there is no doubt that this person/bot knew their actions were disruptive, and that a swift global block was needed to prevent further disruption. In such cases where leaving a message on a talk page somewhere is totally ineffective, I agree that doing so is not needed. But where it would potentially be effective, it should be done, and communicating through blacklisting domains is one method of (very clear) communication.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::warning spambots won't really help but firstly you must try to find out if its a spambot or a very funny human :p Spambots are always looking for trouble, and they hardly ever desist and are always persistent in self-promoting themselves/links. and since spam blacklist have a habit of taking minutes to 'kick in', it really is a good idea to block these ips because when and if it kicks in, the bot controllers might realise it and change the links to avoid being blocked, and its safer to know that the Ip in questions won't be used for spamming again , than only adding the spamlink to the blacklist and allowing the bot to go on a spree with some other url spamlink..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Again I'm with Cometstyles - warning is not really an option across wikis with quite fast moving bot style edits. To me the warning arrives by way of the block. Depending on the activity the block might not need to be long (open proxies, static IPs may be different). To me this tool is to prevent disruption not punish per se. --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 12:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Just to be clear, that is what I mean. Blacklisting or a block is as much warning as some deserve - requiring more than that is not a good idea.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 20:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

:I am all for warning, but we don't have such a tool (yet?). [[Global messaging]] may do the trick, but warning an IP at the moment is impossible, you never know which of the 722 (?) mediawiki wikis (if not other wikis) they hit next. If the IP keeps adding external links, a short block while blacklisting kicks in is at the moment the only possibility.
:Do we need to discuss short (say, which can be measured in maximum several hours) and long-term blocks differently here? For blacklisting external links an hour block should be enough (administrators can add the links spammed, investigate if there are other domains likely to be spammed (e.g. domains on same server, see the -pics.com spammer of a couple of days ago) and add those too, and let the block expire). But for long-time vandalism or spam-bots that may not be enough. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] [[User_Talk:Beetstra|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|C]] (en: [[:en:User:Beetstra|U]], [[:en:User talk:Beetstra|T]]) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

=== Blatantly disrupting multiple projects ===
* Point for discussion: How do we define this to effectively manage disruption but ensure that each project is still sovereign?
::I'm not sure I understand what cases this section is supposed to cover - spamming and vandalism are already covered above, and open proxy abuse is covered below.  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 19:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Personal attacks? Disrupting the community in more projects? This would not be quite new... [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I think that can be controlled adequately on a project-by-project basis. Perhaps there have been examples where a global block would have been necessary though...?  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't think making global blocks for personal attacks is a good idea. That is something the local community should deal with IMO. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
* Following up: global blocks have recently been suggested for thekohser and tyciol. Both have been locked for part of this year (due to the lack of a technical option to carry out a global block). So there are cases where this is requested; we should reconsider whether it is appropriate. See below for a specific discussion about reasons for requesting a global lock. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 04:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

=== Open proxies ===
*Point for discussion: How do we deal with Chinese editors trying to edit through proxies from inside the Great Firewall? I'm not really happy with this line just yet
** Also whitelist Chinese proxies on chinese wiki(s)?? System for account creation, as these blocks are supposed to block ''only'' the IP-editing?

:Maybe on chinese wikis, the blocked IP adresses should still be able to create accounts, since the crosswiki vandalbots usually dont create such; but this could cause that they create accounts what would disrupt the global blocking idea. --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
::It not really a good idea to Block any proxies unless it disrupts wikimedia and if the OP is being used for vandalism by humans, then it will be blocked for a short period of time but if its done by bots, which can usually be differentiated easily, then longer bans may be in order...--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Agree completely with Cometstyles. I ceased to be comfortable with OP blocks just because that is what they are a long time ago. Quite a lot of constructive work comes from OP across the project. Truly exploited ones maybe but that is covered by the "vandalism" one above. --[[User:Herbythyme|Herby]] [[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]] 07:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Perhaps have all global proxy blocks as softblocks (anon only) and put up a well publicised list of emails people can send to to request account creation over that block? ''[[user:giggy|giggy]]'' ([[user talk:giggy|:O]]) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult for an editor in one country to use a proxy in another country. How do we know if it is really a Chinese editor using a Chinese proxy?--[[User:Cato|Cato]] 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:Blocking open proxies ''because they are open proxies'' is really not an acceptable use of this tool, I think. That said, there will certainly be open proxies blocked ''because they are being abused''.  '''– [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 01:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

== Question on local wiki unblocking ==

[[Steward handbook#IP address blocks]] notes global blocks can be lifte don a particularly wiki (3rd paragraph). Thus on Commons I've created [[commons:MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked|MediaWiki:Globalblocking-blocked]] and added an [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Unblock&diff=13754364&oldid=6196908 option] to the unblock request template for removing a global block.

Is it worth doing this, and is there anything else that should be done? —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 00:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:yes, its fine but since IP's are blocked globally for a reason, it will be good to tell the stewards as to the reason why it was removed from a particular wiki, here in meta so there are no misunderstandings in the future regarding this ...--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 00:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed. Another question while I'm here; do IP block exemptions (which all admins have) override global blocks? (eg. if my IP was global blocked, could I still edit Commons?) —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 00:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:yes, its like the spam blacklist on meta, its global but some stuff on the spamblacklist can be whitelisted on another wiki and thus can be used..so yes, IP-block exempt overrides global blocking ..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 01:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Logging details ==

Is there any other slightly more detailed accounting done anywhere of why x range or IP was blocked? [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/gblblock The log entries in some cases] are kind of vague. [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 01:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:hmm good point, I'll ask the stewards to make a [[Global blocking/List]] (and I'll probably update them myself) and list detailed reasons as to why an Ip or and Ip range was blocked so inquisitive admins from other wikis will know the reason for the block since the edit summaries may not be that clear..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 01:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks. It'd make it easier to track down the wheres and whys (may be especially useful for us on Commons, since people come from all over). :) [[User:Rootology|rootology]] ([[User talk:Rootology|T]]) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
::: How should we deal range blocks? When should global range blocks be okay? See for instance 173.32.0.0/16 and 189.81.0.0/16 [[User:Sj|-- sj]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''help translate'']] |[[User Talk:Sj|+]]
::::I'd suggest to place them or not in consultation with other stewards, keeping in mind the principles discussed on these pages (minimum blocking, only when necessary, only for cross-wiki stuff etc...)  — [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]] | [[:b:en:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 00:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

== double blocking ==

I would like to clear following two cases: '''A.''' I have blocked an IP on a project; then, after further vandalisms, the same IP is global blocked by a steward; and '''B.''' vice versa - a steward blocks the IP globally, then I will block the IP locally. What happens?
* will the second blockee get a '''message''' that the IP is blocked - globally or in the second case locally?
* which block '''overrides''' the other?
* I blocked the IP indef for heavy vandalism, then a steward blocked the IP for one month only: which '''block length''' is valid, and will I get a message about it locally?
Thanks, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 20:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:hmm not sure about which message that Ip will get but I'm very sure that the local block overrides the global one, so even if the so even if the global block expires, the local block stays but if the IP is blocked longer globally than locally and a local admin wants to remove that block, they should unblock the IP using the [[Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist]] and check the small box which says ''Disable this global block on <nameofwiki>'' and that Ip will be able to edit that wiki freely without it being affected by the global block..--[[User:Cometstyles|Comet]][[User talk:Cometstyles|styles]] 21:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
OK OK, that's what I wanted to know (by the way, sure, every local bureaucrat should know the white list so I do). Important seems to be that the local block can (in most cases) override the global one. More over, it is easier for the local bureaucrat to get the knowledge about global blocks (one click or two), the steward would have a little bit more to do (some 745 clicks or so I guess...). So, thanks for the answer, regards, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no "overriding". Both blocks apply (and therefore, restrictions from the two blocks are additive). [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] 00:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, mea culpa; so in efect, additiv means, that the longer block is valid and will not be shortened by the short one, won't it? [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] [[:s:cs:User:-jkb-|(cs.source)]] 06:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] 05:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== User talk? ==

Would the globally blocked user still be able to edit his user talk pages, as with normal blocks, or would he only be able to edit at Meta? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 23:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:<s>They can edit their talk pages on any single wiki and request for unblock in that respected wiki</s> --[[User:Mardetanha|Mardetanha]] [[user_talk:Mardetanha|talk]] 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Not sure about the above, but the blocks do not apply at all on Meta, so they may come here to discuss things.  '''— [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike]].[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|lifeguard]]''' | [[b:User talk:Mike.lifeguard|@en.wb]] 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::Equally unsure (per Mike), but ideally the block message given would point to a place to appeal ([[Steward requests/Global]]). I'm not sure if the current one does that. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 05:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Um, you can't edit your user talk page through a global block. I don't know where Mardetanha got that idea. [[User:Werdna|Werdna]] 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:That might be a good thing to change - for instance to allow a globally blocked user to request to be added to the local Whitelist. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]'' [[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]] 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
----
Users are not globally '''blocked''' but '''locked''' so that they can't log-in exept on meta. Regards, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

== Translation ==

This needs to be done. Very important for a very important function. —[[user:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]][[user talk:Anonymous Dissident|Talk]] 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've created and added {{tl|Other languages/Global blocking}}. I could whip up a weak French translation, but I think it's better for everyone if we wait for some fluent speakers to come help out now. —'''[[user talk:giggy|Giggy]]''' 09:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Giving this permission to Global sysop ==
{{closed|text=
I think If [[Global sysops|global sysop]] permission applies cross-wiki, Giving Global blocking right to global sysop is good idea. (but global sysop permissions are just a proposal currently.) How do you think about giving it to global sysops?I apologize my English is bad--[[User:Kwj2772|Kwj2772]] 08:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:already included. speedily close.--[[User:Kwj2772|Kwj2772]] 15:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)}}

== Policy does not seem to match practice ==

Why is this policy being used to block named accounts? It dosen't appear that blocking named accounts is in the jurisdiction of this global blocking policy as written. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

: Policy isn't beeing used to block named accounts, since it is technically impossible with the global blocking. Accounts can be locked, or blocked locally on each wiki the same way local administrators block users. [[User:Laaknor|Laaknor]] 15:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

:: While this is technically true, locking is being used as a substitute for blocking until the technical ability for global blocks is carried out. We really, really need to fix the technical issue to resolve this confusion. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 04:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

== Automatic global blocking ==

How about to block a (SUL) user globally if he/she was blocked in home wiki? -- [[User:ChongDae|ChongDae]] 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
:For registered users there is locking: see [[SH#lock]], where you'll discover why it would be impossible and undesirable. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 07:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

== Mjbmrbot broken ==

Hi, I'm not sure where to put this, so I'll just put it here:

As I mention [http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB_%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Mjbmr#Reordering_languages here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_owners%27_noticeboard#Mjbmrbot_broken here], Mjbmrbot is broken, but not stopped by it's owner. Please block globally! Thanks. [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] 14:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:I guess a block is not needed anymore. Thanks anyway. [[User:Buzz-tardis|Buzz-tardis]] 14:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

== Office requests ==

The question of how to process requests from the Foundation office sometimes comes up here (for global requests).

If there is an urgent cross-wiki block or lock request from the office, how should it be processed? What if no steward can be found on IRC or via email?
* We may want to have a more explicit way to reach stewards in an emergency.
* I believe <s>all</s> certain staff have access to steward tools -- is it worth having a brief version of the Handbook for them (addressing just the emergency situations they may face)?
–[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 10:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:The staff need their own handbook, IMO, preferably including the phrase, "Do what you need to do, and explain for transparency". The original point of the staff global group was to allow staffers with access to it to perform office actions of various sorts without needing to request assistance from the community and to make the steward flag only for those who actually were elected to the position; If another set of rights mirroring that of stewards (&tc.) were used on the staff side, I can't imagine stewards would complain too much. [[User:Kylu|Kylu]] 13:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::: For emergencies, there could be a quick place [the [[Stewards' noticeboard]]?)to leave a note about what happened, which the next available steward could review. Very few actions are not reversible. For legal and other tasks that the office might truly need to do without requesting assistance, an explanation could at least be left there. Philippe: thanks for the clarification; it's good to know that those rare cases are currently only hypothetical. –[[User:Sj|SJ]] · [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']] 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::Hi there. A couple of things... first, all staff do not have access to steward tools - it's a subset of the staff, and that is limited to a group that have demonstrated need for the staff rights bit. However, Jon, Guillaume and I have been working toward a set of packages that will further restrict the access to the rights. There are very few staff members (if any) that have a legitimate need for all the rights in the staff package, so Guillaume's very good idea was to split them into a couple of "sets" of rights that cover the most frequent usages. Once we've completed that, our hope is to bring it to the community for discussion.
::Staff use the steward tools very infrequently. We have rigid definitions for when/where it's appropriate to use them. When I arrange for the rights assignment through the stewards, I always brief the staff member about the appropriate uses of checkuser, oversight, etc. I have not always included global lock in that group because - quite frankly - I don't think I've ever used that tool, and I forgot it was there. I'm going to include it in the briefing.
::I've always asked that in an emergency that requires something outside our normal use of the rights, staff go to stewards first. In the rare case that we can't find one, I think most would typically be to come to me or to their manager. I routinely answer questions about use of the rights. In the extremely rare case that there's a legitimate need to use the rights and a steward can't be found... and this is purely hypothetical... I'd tend toward getting a second opinion or a C-level sign-off, and then doing it, with a note somewhere to explain it. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Hi Philippe, I have a question, then why split the rights in two at all? wouldn't it be easier to just restrict access to only people familiar with steward tools on staff? checkuser and some staff functions require a fair deal of familiarity with the tools, is there something specific from the steward package that the rest of the staff would benefit from? [[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Staff rights as they exist now are sort of an amalgamation of "stuff someone might need", rather than being geared a little more specifically toward "things that community staff need" and "things that tech staff need". The staff rights include a number of features that are not specific to steward tools (for instance, interface editor - which i've started dealing with by requesting that users be assigned to that specific global rights group) and a few others. So the concept is that we would narrow out the rights needed by tech staff, usually, and give those to them (which people like Christine and I don't need) and give us the rights that we need (while not giving them to staff members who don't have need for them). The concept is the [[w:Principle of least privilege|Principle of Least Access]]. So if we were to remove access to staff rights (as they exist now) for people who don't have a familiarity with the steward tools, we'd need to replace them with another set of rights so that those people aren't impeded from doing their jobs by a lack of access to the feature set that they need. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 00:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::: Cool, thanks. I hope you'll post a link to the new staff handbook when it's out! –[[User:Sj|SJ]] [[User Talk:Sj|talk]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''translate'']]   17:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

== Global blocks and bans ==
Two recent requests for global [b]locks involved long-time contributors noted for their good contributions at some point: Abigor and Poetlister. Their cases are very different, but both emphasize the need for a better process to deal with such requests.

=== How do we decide on global blocks and bans? ===
How do we determine when they are appropriate, and how can we better visualize contributions and problems across multiple Projects?

;1) [Technical] Implement cross-project messaging, status flags, and contribution-history review.
: This requires real technical support, both in the libraries available for multi-project MediaWiki installations, and in extensions/visualizations that make it possible to browse and follow contribs across many projects

;2) [Technical] Implement tools for blocking, and for granting flags, across multiple projects.
: Right now this is largely done by hand, in a laborious fashion.

;3) [Policy] Define a [[Dispute Resolution Committee]] to evaluate global ban requests and guide related Meta policy
: Set criteria for conduct that requires a global ban. For example, criminal stalking, legal action against other Wikimedia contributors or entities, &c. Clarify how all involved projects can be notified of the discussion of such a ban, and what group makes the decision.

Steven and Millosh have both made good suggestions on the DRC proposal.

Scott wrote:
:> ''What you need is a mechanism so that one local community, when banning a user who meets the criteria, can refer the case to a cross-project review group for a global decision. ''

=== How do we deal with good contributors who are chronic troublemakers? ===
These users don't immediately raise red flags. They are always repentant after a bout of mischief or anger or deception. There are obvious downsides to excluding them - one fewer good editor/scripter/vandal-fighter.

; 4) [Technical] Create permanent options other than banning.
: For instance, there could be options to
: - flag a user as not allowed to have multiple accounts at all, subject to auto or spot checks for socks (after socking)
: - flag a user as not allowed to have permissions (after permissions abuse)
: - flag a user as not allowed to !vote (after vote stacking)
These flags need not be casually visible to other editors, but implementing/acting on them needs to be easy or automatic.

;5) [Technical] Create activity reports that can be shared across projects
: Ex: Cross-wiki reports on vandalism, bad-faith contribution, and manipulation of community policies and processes. Tools for tracking and visualizing such problems.
:: Risker pointed out in the mail thread that this is one of the biggest barriers to global bans.
:: Currently, for historical reasons, each project has an independent system for dealing with this, and most are updated manually (or by bot). Make this a top priority for interface upgrades -- this aspect of site maintenance gets heavy use; and the quality of our toolchain here is directly related to how much editor overhead is required to keep the sites running. This applies to recentchange and new page patrol, just as to behavioral trouble with active users.

; 6) [Tech and Policy] Offer more nuanced ways to profile new users.
: Right now if you are trying to log in from an IP in a range that has been blocked, you are simply blocked. You get an email you can contact to request a reversal, but it the whole process is shocking and distasteful to anyone who isn't a vandal or spammer.
: Offer a mechanism for flagging an IP range or user (or usergroup) as worthy of closer attention, without blocking them. For instance: flag them as a permanent newbie (subject to the same restrictions as new accounts) until further notice.

;6) [Tech and Policy] Define ways to share checks on problematic users, including private data, across projects.
: Find ways to publicly indicate concerns that are founded in private data. Make a pointer to this information available to all projects.
: If a user has caused trouble on multiple projects and is subject to regular spot checks for socking, have a policy for meta-checks for socking by that user as well. This should involve a way to inform all communities where that user starts editing, some of which will have their own checkusers.

;7) [Policy] Define the negative impact of toxic contribution.
: At present there is no clear sense of how problematic an angry, or malicious, or deceptive user is. A few hundred or a few thousand good contributions are sometimes considered "enough" to balance out a persistent negative or socially destructive personality.
: Offer cross-project guidance on the long-term value of both content and social contributions. [some visualization of social contributions, similar to the crude but persistent use of 'edit count' for edits, might help.]

;8) [Policy] Define when 'clean starts' are appropriate, and how they should be carried out.
: What standards of transparency should all projects uphold when offering clean starts to former troublemakers? Whatever the standards are for deciding that a user is likely to throw away a second chance, they probably should be cumulative across all projects. [someone with a history of deception over many years is likely to continue that way, even on a new project]

:: just a small note: the most recent discussion on meta about this topic took place at [[Talk:Global bans]], not sure if you knew about it. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Global blocks and bans/Archive 1

2011-06-04T11:55:02Z

Tinz: /* Alt suggestions */ fix

If you're wondering what inspired the creation of this page, please see [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-June/066047.html this thread]. I focused on open questions rather than a draft of policy or procedure, but feel free to edit boldly. Thanks! [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:I personally do not see global bans as something that are needed. When it comes to crosswiki stuff like the example of that mailing list, the said user could just be blocked - their behaviour has become disruptive, block them to prevent further abusing behaviour. I really don't see a need to enact another bureaucratic global ban system, with some sort of cabal ruling on these cases which could be quite easily solved with a block. That's just my opinion, though. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:Also, should this become policy here, I strongly disagree with global sysops having anything to do with this. It is quite clearly out of the gs scope. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, just for the sake of stating the obvious, I pointed out in the question list that such activity is not what global sysop rights are for. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 23:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. I think on the whole this would create a system where the downsides of abusing it against gadflies and critics as a way for insiders to show in-group disdain for them, far outweighs the current specific problem under discussion. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:I have to agree. I think there is a need for a very small set of people to be banned from all projects, and the specific problem being discussed on foundation-l is one of them. The need is worth discussing here on meta, but I would rather that Seth be the sole holder of the global ban button rather than allow it to become another tool that gradually becomes used for varying purposes. I'm being a bit flippant there, but the need for this is rare, and it is merely a token measure to globally ban someone unless something is done to ensure it is enforced, and therein lies the problem. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::What purpose would these serve other than just further extending unneeded drama? If a user is being disruptive crosswiki, lock the account. This still seems to me to be an overly bureaucratic solution for a very easily solved problem. I'd also like to add to my above points that I don't feel that it is right for a decision to be globally applied to all wikis by someone here - surely that is for local communities to do anyways? [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::: The current burst of energy around this topic is because [[user:Poetlister]] has been banned from most English projects due to some very serious concerns over a long time, but they are quietly [[v:Special:Contributions/Poetlister|working away]] rather peacefully on English Wikiversity. People from the English 'global' community want to impose a global ban which would preempt or overrule the English Wikiversity decision (or lack thereof). At some level all projects are part of a unified community, with a set of common values, or at least the expectation that we have common values. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: If the English Wikiversity decides to take no action, that is their choice. No global action is meant to overrule any local one - if there is no consensus to ban locally, the global ban would be overruled anyways. All projects are part of a unified community, but by no means is that global community meant to overpower the local one. If they are doing good stuff on Wikiversity, I'd treat that as a ''good'' thing, not be attempting to globally ban them. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 01:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::::: What is the price for 'good' stuff? If WikiEditorA murders WikiEditorB on Wikipedia, is it OK if WikiEditorA edits peacefully on Wikiversity? That is intentionally a 'worst case' hypothetical, to which I hope the answer is 'no'. (Poetlister hasn't killed anyone) There are some activities that we can all agree are worthy of a global ban. If one project was to documented the problem completely, each local community might enact a ban. However, in a more nuanced case, describing the problem extensively in public can cause legal issues or might exacerbate the problem by harming/distressing the victim. The Poetlister case can be mostly documented in public, so a [[Request for comment]] is likely to be the appropriate place to discuss a global ban for [[user:poetlister]]. Steward may be able to provide examples of bans like this in the past. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As John described, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. The concept of a ban is mostly just prevalent on the English Wikipedia; many other wikis only utilize blocks (which is the only technical measure applicable in any circumstance). There is a reason why stewards only handle clear-cut blatant cases of vandalism and disruption: we cannot impose our will on local communities, we are only there to help them when needed. That is sensible, because as outsiders we do not really understand the dynamics of every wiki (and I imagine it would be quite difficult if anyone attempted to do so) and since we are essentially not part of the mass of contributors for whatever reason (language, projects we aren't interested in) it would be, at least, impolite if we made decisions regular users do normally.

As Wikimedia wikis weren't created to support the WMF (the latter was created subsequently, so it could only be vice versa), we cannot create support infrastructures for everything outside enwiki only to turn around and claim ownership. Just like dewiki once understandably rejected pressure to alter its main page - authoritarianism does not work. Every wiki is independent, and only discussions may lead to consensus for a decision, whether that's for a ban or merely changing the interface.

Also, on the mailing list there's only talk of another English wiki - what happens when it concerns other languages? Are we really going to try to convince them that, since enwiki had difficulties with some users, they are absolutely compelled to block them as well? This is, of course, when it comes to problem users who do not outright edit to vandalize, since I assume every wiki agrees that vandalism should be stopped (which is why locks work and most are uncontroversial). -- [[User:Mentifisto|Menti]][[User talk:Mentifisto|fisto]] 10:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

==Alt suggestions==
I've added a couple of ideas to the page.

Firstly re lesser bans. My thinking is that discussion of global bans has been contentious in the past, and that some of the arguments for them are not fear of someone editing other projects, but of their misusing email or various userrights; Whilst resistance to global bans has included the phrase "but they are editing in good faith here". In such a scenario a lesser global restriction such as "[[user:example]] is globally banned from having checkuser, oversight or Bureaucrat positions, but may edit, use email or be an admin on those communities that have not blocked them" might be acceptable to all projects.

Secondly "three strikes and you're out". Nearly three hundred languages, some of which have three or more projects means that we have a very large number of small communities out there, I suspect that most would be quite happy to be protected by a system that they could opt out of if they chose to and they had appointed their own admins and had a couple of dozen active participants. Provided the global bans were rare and fair, either on the basis of a global ban panel or "three strikes and you're out" I doubt that many projects would opt out. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
: But the point of the discussion on the mailing list was to find a way to get bad users banned against the will of certain projects (here:en-wikiversity), that would certainly opt out of your system. That's why I don't see what problems of the current system an opt-out system would solve. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Global blocks and bans/Archive 1

2011-06-04T11:54:28Z

Tinz:

If you're wondering what inspired the creation of this page, please see [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-June/066047.html this thread]. I focused on open questions rather than a draft of policy or procedure, but feel free to edit boldly. Thanks! [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:I personally do not see global bans as something that are needed. When it comes to crosswiki stuff like the example of that mailing list, the said user could just be blocked - their behaviour has become disruptive, block them to prevent further abusing behaviour. I really don't see a need to enact another bureaucratic global ban system, with some sort of cabal ruling on these cases which could be quite easily solved with a block. That's just my opinion, though. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:Also, should this become policy here, I strongly disagree with global sysops having anything to do with this. It is quite clearly out of the gs scope. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, just for the sake of stating the obvious, I pointed out in the question list that such activity is not what global sysop rights are for. [[User:Steven (WMF)|Steven Walling at work]] 23:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. I think on the whole this would create a system where the downsides of abusing it against gadflies and critics as a way for insiders to show in-group disdain for them, far outweighs the current specific problem under discussion. -- [[User:Seth Finkelstein|Seth Finkelstein]] 00:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:I have to agree. I think there is a need for a very small set of people to be banned from all projects, and the specific problem being discussed on foundation-l is one of them. The need is worth discussing here on meta, but I would rather that Seth be the sole holder of the global ban button rather than allow it to become another tool that gradually becomes used for varying purposes. I'm being a bit flippant there, but the need for this is rare, and it is merely a token measure to globally ban someone unless something is done to ensure it is enforced, and therein lies the problem. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::What purpose would these serve other than just further extending unneeded drama? If a user is being disruptive crosswiki, lock the account. This still seems to me to be an overly bureaucratic solution for a very easily solved problem. I'd also like to add to my above points that I don't feel that it is right for a decision to be globally applied to all wikis by someone here - surely that is for local communities to do anyways? [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::: The current burst of energy around this topic is because [[user:Poetlister]] has been banned from most English projects due to some very serious concerns over a long time, but they are quietly [[v:Special:Contributions/Poetlister|working away]] rather peacefully on English Wikiversity. People from the English 'global' community want to impose a global ban which would preempt or overrule the English Wikiversity decision (or lack thereof). At some level all projects are part of a unified community, with a set of common values, or at least the expectation that we have common values. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
:::: If the English Wikiversity decides to take no action, that is their choice. No global action is meant to overrule any local one - if there is no consensus to ban locally, the global ban would be overruled anyways. All projects are part of a unified community, but by no means is that global community meant to overpower the local one. If they are doing good stuff on Wikiversity, I'd treat that as a ''good'' thing, not be attempting to globally ban them. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]] ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]]) 01:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
::::: What is the price for 'good' stuff? If WikiEditorA murders WikiEditorB on Wikipedia, is it OK if WikiEditorA edits peacefully on Wikiversity? That is intentionally a 'worst case' hypothetical, to which I hope the answer is 'no'. (Poetlister hasn't killed anyone) There are some activities that we can all agree are worthy of a global ban. If one project was to documented the problem completely, each local community might enact a ban. However, in a more nuanced case, describing the problem extensively in public can cause legal issues or might exacerbate the problem by harming/distressing the victim. The Poetlister case can be mostly documented in public, so a [[Request for comment]] is likely to be the appropriate place to discuss a global ban for [[user:poetlister]]. Steward may be able to provide examples of bans like this in the past. [[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As John described, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. The concept of a ban is mostly just prevalent on the English Wikipedia; many other wikis only utilize blocks (which is the only technical measure applicable in any circumstance). There is a reason why stewards only handle clear-cut blatant cases of vandalism and disruption: we cannot impose our will on local communities, we are only there to help them when needed. That is sensible, because as outsiders we do not really understand the dynamics of every wiki (and I imagine it would be quite difficult if anyone attempted to do so) and since we are essentially not part of the mass of contributors for whatever reason (language, projects we aren't interested in) it would be, at least, impolite if we made decisions regular users do normally.

As Wikimedia wikis weren't created to support the WMF (the latter was created subsequently, so it could only be vice versa), we cannot create support infrastructures for everything outside enwiki only to turn around and claim ownership. Just like dewiki once understandably rejected pressure to alter its main page - authoritarianism does not work. Every wiki is independent, and only discussions may lead to consensus for a decision, whether that's for a ban or merely changing the interface.

Also, on the mailing list there's only talk of another English wiki - what happens when it concerns other languages? Are we really going to try to convince them that, since enwiki had difficulties with some users, they are absolutely compelled to block them as well? This is, of course, when it comes to problem users who do not outright edit to vandalize, since I assume every wiki agrees that vandalism should be stopped (which is why locks work and most are uncontroversial). -- [[User:Mentifisto|Menti]][[User talk:Mentifisto|fisto]] 10:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

==Alt suggestions==
I've added a couple of ideas to the page.

Firstly re lesser bans. My thinking is that discussion of global bans has been contentious in the past, and that some of the arguments for them are not fear of someone editing other projects, but of their misusing email or various userrights; Whilst resistance to global bans has included the phrase "but they are editing in good faith here". In such a scenario a lesser global restriction such as "[[user:example]] is globally banned from having checkuser, oversight or Bureaucrat positions, but may edit, use email or be an admin on those communities that have not blocked them" might be acceptable to all projects.

Secondly "three strikes and you're out". Nearly three hundred languages, some of which have three or more projects means that we have a very large number of small communities out there, I suspect that most would be quite happy to be protected by a system that they could opt out of if they chose to and they had appointed their own admins and had a couple of dozen active participants. Provided the global bans were rare and fair, either on the basis of a global ban panel or "three strikes and you're out" I doubt that many projects would opt out. [[User:WereSpielChequers|WereSpielChequers]] 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
: But the point of the discussion on the mailing list was to find a way to get bad users banned against the will of certain projects (here:en-wikiversity), that would certainly opt out of your s. I can't see what problems of the current system an opt-out system would solve. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Privacy policy

2011-03-24T17:48:42Z

Tinz: /* Request to include the ACC Tool user privileges (access to IP and email addresses) in the privacy policy */ re

:''Archives'': See [[Talk:Privacy policy/archive]] for all comments made before the policy was approved by the Board in April 2005.
__TOC__

<div class="toccolours" style="float:right; text-align:center; margin-left:0.5em;">
'''Archives of this page'''
----
<div align="center">[[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2003|2003]] | [[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2004|2004]] | [[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2005|2005]] | [[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2006|2006]] | [[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2007|2007]] | [[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2008|2008]] | [[Talk:Privacy policy/Archives/2009|2009]]
</div></div>

== Lokalisatie van nieuwe privacy-beleid ==

Het zou nuttig zijn in de vertaling van de nieuwe privacy-beleid om een definitie van het begrip "persoonlijk identificeerbare informatie" hebben. Kan iemand deze leveren? [[User: Lloffiwr | Lloffiwr]] 14:11, 1 januari 2009 (UTC)
: Hij wees mij aan [[w: Persoonlijk identificeerbare informatie]]. '''[[ Gebruiker: Cbrown1023 | Cbrown1023 ]]''''' ' [[User talk: Cbrown1023 | Talk ]]'' '21:00, 2 februari 2009 (UTC)
:: Dank je, ik begrijp dit veel beter nu, en hebben de link naar het artikel op de overlegpagina van de vertaling verzoek om anderen te volgen. [[User: Lloffiwr | Lloffiwr]] 23:26, 6 februari 2009 (UTC)

== How do I report ==
How do I report someone adding something to my view ie. Chris Brown as if it's coming from me? —''The preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by'' [[User:65.95.40.84|65.95.40.84]] ([[User talk:65.95.40.84|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/65.95.40.84|contribs]]) 05:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

== policy violation? ==
The policy says that info on page visits are not exposed publically, but there is a bot which is publishing page after page of user's search terms along with their username and I think for non-users IP address: here are many such pages:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Newpage_bot_search_results]
also failed search terms are logged:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/BadSearchResult]
(there are dozens of archives of the above page stretching back several months, with page names of the form ../archive26). Given the controversy over search engines retaining user data and in some cases publishing it, these pages seem a gross violation of user privacy. Do wikipedia visitors know that the search terms they use have become a matter of public record? I doubt it.
[[User:Weeksinput|Weeksinput]] 03:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

:You're mistaken. The bot is posting its ''own'' search results. It searches new pages and posts a list of those it finds. The username you see next to each page is the page's creator. This is confirmed by looking at the history of the page. That bot is not publishing users' search results. -[[User:Kotra|Kotra]] 17:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

== translation of page view ==

Regarding ''Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues'' in the section 'Access to and release of personally identifiable information'. I have looked at the definition of [[W:en:Page view|page view]] on Wikipedia. But I am still not sure that I understand what 'page views generated by a spider or bot' are. Can anyone explain this in layman's terms? [[User:Lloffiwr|Lloffiwr]] 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:[[w:Internet bot|Bots]] and [[w:Web crawler|spiders]], in this context, are computer programs set up to automatically visit webpages, without anyone actually sitting behind the screen. For example, search engines like Google have spiders that run around the web, reading webpage after webpage, to create an index of the web that you can search. Email spammers use bots too, to search the web for email addresses.

:"Page views generated by a spider or bot", then, would occur whenever a bot visited a webpage. Wikimedia's software would detect the bot's visit as a page view, just like the page views of actual humans.

:One reason I can think of why they would have this line is so administrators, checkusers, and other volunteer editors can take action against bots that are set up to add commercial links (linkspam) into articles. There are probably other reasons as well, or they may just be putting that out for unforeseen contingencies.

:If you're really curious, though, you might try to track down [[User:UninvitedCompany]], who [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&diff=next&oldid=23698 originally added the text] back in 2003. -[[User:Kotra|Kotra]] 03:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for the clear and detailed explanation - I now have a much better idea of how to translate this sentence. [[User:Lloffiwr|Lloffiwr]] 12:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

==Scope of the policy - certain aspects of browsing==
Regarding ''Interactions with the Projects not covered by this Policy include, but are not limited to, '''aspects of browsing''' and editing pages'' in the section ''Activities on Foundation projects''.

The paragraph is mostly dealing with some ways that the user can '''voluntarily''' disclose her own private data. When the user is sending email or creating OTRS ticket, it is obvious that by the very nature of those communications some private data will be disclosed. It is clear, that anonymous editing is one of the the '''aspects of editing pages''', since the IP address becomes public by the very nature of that interaction and becomes ''publicly available data'' and therefore not covered by this policy, although they may be covered by some other policies (like that one of the OTRS).

However, I do not to understand the which '''aspects of browsing''' may constitute ''publicly available information'' not covered by this policy. The policy deals extensively with Web server access logs as well as with privacy implications of certain HTTP features like cookies.

So, the question is, which '''aspects of browsing''' the Wikimedia sites are not covered by this privacy policy? I understand that this is just list of examples ("...not limited to...") but my understanding to date that all aspects of passive browsing were covered under this policy.

 « [[User:Saper|Saper]] // [[User talk:Saper|@talk]] »  02:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

==disclosure of user realnames - no policy?==
I've always thought that the disclosure of the realname of a person behind a user account by another user on talkpages or in edit-commentaries, as it happens sometimes in edit-conflicts between users, is a no-no in all Wikimedia projects. However, when looking for written policy, I couldn't find anything about that. Any hint? --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] 08:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
: I don't think that a global "anonymity policy" exists for that. The current privacy policy certainly doesn't cover it. However, such edits are allowed to be deleted by [[Oversight]] policy (#1) from which I would deduce that they are not allowed in any project. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. Better late than never ;-). --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] 19:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What if that information is available in the history of the user's page? Isn't all the material on the user's page history covered by the same content rules that apply to all Wikimedia material?

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

[[User:Vapmachado|Vapmachado]] 03:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
: I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly. It should not matter whether personal information of a user is disclosed in an article or on a user page. You can ask any [[Oversight]] (or [[Steward]], if your project has no oversights) to remove that information. Or do you mean cases in which the user himself has made his own information public at some earlier point? I don't think that a global policy exists for this, but in the projects I know, the wish to become anonymous is respected. The old versions are deleted and other users are asked to respect his wish to "become" anonymous. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 17:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for addressing my question. I'll take you and all other readers, particularly my very good friend and member of our mutual admiration society [[User:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt|Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt]], through a step by step example, to make it easier on everybody, and present a clear case, hopefully without violating anybody's privacy. You are welcome to post your answers right after each question.

Consider [[pt:Usuário:Alexanderps|Alexanderps]].

I would like to know if it is disclosure of private data of another user account without that user permission, to post on one of your own subpages the following:

1) The name [[pt:Usuário:Alexanderps|Alexanderps]] uses in his signature, like on this example [http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Alexanderps/2010-I&diff=19409069&oldid=19409061] ?

(You are welcome to post your answers right after each question on the space below.)

2) Space for next question

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

[[User:Vapmachado|Vapmachado]] 18:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry, I don't really like this interview style, it makes me feel like a student about to get outwitted by Socrates :-)
:As a former ombudsman, I visit this page from time to time to help in case of problems with the understanding of the privacy policy.
:If you think that the privacy policy was broken then you should contact the current [[Ombudsman commission]].
:However, your problem doesn't really seem to be related to any violations of the privacy policy (which deals mostly with private information that checkusers have). It sounds more like a problem that you have with other users of pt Wikipedia or maybe with the anonymity policies of ptwiki (which I don't know). In any case, this talk page is the wrong place to resolve these problems. A better way would be to seek conflict resolution on pt-wiki itself. Alternatively, you could probably start a [[RFC]] here. Regards, --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 13:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your suggestion, according to which this [[Requests for comment/Public or non-public personal information|request for comment]] has been started and [[Talk:Oversight#Public or non-public personal information|announced]].
As a former ombudsman you must surely know something that might help answer my question. It would be an honor if you were the first to post your comment there.
Thanks for your compliment, but it is highly exaggerated. There's no comparison between Socrates and me. I believe that the Socrates you're referring to is dead :-)

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

[[User:Vapmachado|Vapmachado]] 23:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
=== Two layers of privacy ===
''Draft amendments to the rules'' 
The case of [[:w:Privacy|privacy]] policy has at least two 'layers' both focusing upon certain civil rights of an individual seeking to defend his [[:w:Anonymity|anonymity]].

Encouraging everybody to post, edit and discuss articles, Wikimedia (as well as thousands of other interactive facilities in the Internet) offers an option to show his authorship:
#as some [[:w:IP address|IP]] which automatically appears as a 'singature' above/under/besides his message;
#as some [[:w:Pseudonym|pseudonym]] which one may choose for that purpose
Since an IP is automatically generated upon some technical data which to a certain extent ''may'' show the way to the originating computer and through this to a specific individual — the formula for the first 'layer' is ”'''IP vs nick'''”.

Since the very first days of the Internet folks preferred to identify theirselves by pseudonyms ([[:w:Nick|nicks]]). With the further development of Internet (especially since the namespace boundaries have been overcome) people found it possible to use their actual civilian names as 'nicks'. Although it's obvious that it was their ''personal will'' to disclose their anonymity in this way (below I'll make some reservations upon that), another disputable layer of privacy appeared in the Internet communities, that is '''”real” vs fictitious nick'''.

In addition to the explicit writing of personal data I shall mention some indirect means, as [[:w:Uniform Resource Locator|URLs]] and other kind of [[:w:Hyperlink|external links]] to the sources where their personal data is written. The [[:w:Netiquette|netiquette]] explicitly treats as a gross breach when a third person discloses somebody's private information in that way. Having occured within some community (e.g. Wikipedia registered users) and its common editable workspace — it is suppressed by its in-law. However this case is too flat to deserve a thourough investigation here. I suppose that to be sufficiently covered in the existing rules of behaviour in Wikimedia.

The yawning gap in our rulings here is in unsufficient clarity and unambiguity concerning the case when somebody claims that equating his «”real” name nick» to an apparently fictitious nick is a violation of his privacy. The most recent example:
*Arbiter 'A' creates a sockpuppet 'S' for his personal investigation purposes
*Checkuser 'C' founds that a sockpuppet 'S' = 'A'.
*Arbiter 'A' [http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=31255506&oldid=31254436 insists, that] 'C' has infringed his privacy by revealing that 'S' = 'A', since he claims 'A' to be an abbreviation of his real name.
Let us leave aside all derivative issues that may arise in connection with the specific circumstances of this case. I shall rather insist that both this one and the series of similar disputes shall have their doubtful grounds until Wikimedia shall clearly define that

<div class="usermessage" style="-moz-border-radius:1em;font-weight:normal">
#Observing privacy is primarily a matter of a user. He is personally responsible for the chosen degree of similarity between his nick and his real name and other personal data.
#Since Wikimedia has no legal means to certify that '[User:John Johnson]' is exactly that ''Mr. John Johnson'' (age, address, driver licence…) who opened an abovenamed user account, it shall not support any claims of [User:John Johnson] of infringment against his privacy as ''Mr. John Johnson'', in particular because a) it was his original will to appear in the community with a certain extent of disclosure of its personality; b) the opposite treatment shall discriminate the owners of a really fictitious nicks against the owners of «”real” name» nicks putting the latter in the privileged position.
#Identification of personalities by Wikimedia is limited within the scope of issues related to the further public interaction with users outside the virtual workspace (jobs, conferences etc.) However this data as well as technical and other evidences of identity between [User:John Johnson] and ''Mr. John Johnson'' which might have been forwarded to Wikimedia shall be ignored in all judicial and extrajudicial sues which derive from a prerequisite of identity between an individual and his nick.
</div>
''Note''. Clause 2-a is necessary for the case when checkusers and stewards are required to establish compliance between nicks and IP's — for example, in investigation of abuses with open proxies.

''Example'' (has a [http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2/85.140.130.136#.D0.94.D0.B8.D1.81.D0.BA.D1.83.D1.81.D1.81.D0.B8.D0.B8_.D0.BF.D0.BE_.D0.B8.D1.82.D0.BE.D0.B3.D1.83 real basis], however not investigated yet). User 'X' (assume he is unknown) enters Wikipedia aiming to set an article for deletion (AfD). Since the article is outside his 'national' workspace, he
* sets his browser to work via a foreign open proxy server, so his AfD request is 'signed' with an IP of this proxy.
* having suddenly found an error in his edit, he urgently switches to another browser seeking for solution. For some reason (rush, carelessness) he corrects his error from another window which is not set to an open proxy. This edit is signed with an IP ''originally'' assigned by his [[:w:Internet service provider|ISP]]
* last, the AfD discussion page is 'signed' again with a faked IP (of an open proxy).
Now suppose that a checkuser establishes an identity: 'X'='Quasi Real Name'. But the underlying evidences of this output are IPs, so in the absence of ruling that the 'reality' of a nickname is a problem of an account owner, 'Quasi Real Name' shall have the grounds to counter-claim against the violation of his 'privacy'. Such lawlessness shall undermine all our further attempts to halt cross-wiki-vandalism!
<CENTER>* * *</CENTER>
I realize that a lack of knowledge of local regulations may weaken certain [[:w:Thesis statement|statements]] of my proposals. However the underlying problems in my examples are actual and they are awaiting their solution. Anyway I hope that the discussion of this subject shall contribute to the strengthening of the rules for all the projects of Wikimedia. Thank you in advance for the studying of this project. [[User:Cherurbino|Cherurbino]] 06:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

== Typo on the foundation mirror ==

The last edit to this page fixed a typo in the Cookies section (back in October), but this change was never implemented on the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Cookies Foundation mirror of this site]. Is there anyone with Foundation access that can fix this typo (visted -> visited). We received an OTRS e-mail about this (2010010210021971). Thanks. -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] 15:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
:{{Done|Fixed}} [http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&curid=2551&diff=44813&oldid=36376 here]. Thank you. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

== COPPA ==

This policy doesn't comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act]. Shouldn't it say what the policy is towards children?
--[[User:Aled D|Aled D]] 15:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
: Let me quote from the article you cite:
:"The Act applies to websites and online services operated for commercial purposes that are either directed to children under 13 or have actual knowledge that children under 13 are providing information online. Most recognized non-profit organizations are exempt from most of the requirements of COPPA.[1] However, the Supreme Court ruled that non-profits operated for the benefit of their members' commercial activities are subject to FTC regulation and consequently also COPPA."
: Wikimedia is not commercial and not operated for the benefit of their members' commercial activities. Therefore, it seems to me that COPPA does not apply to wikimedia's projects. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 12:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

== What is being collected? ==

I like your privacy policy, but I have two small issues:

"When a visitor requests or reads a page, or sends email to a Wikimedia server, no more information is collected '''than is typically collected by web sites'''."

That's not really informative, unfortunately. What is a typical website these days? And what do they (i.e. you) actually collect?

Also, I didn't see any mention of search history. What is your policy with that?
: I would say that only technical staff of the wikimedia foundation can answer these questions and I am not sure whether they read this page. All I can say is that the community, including trusted users in special roles like [[Checkuser|checkusers]] or [[Stewards|stewards]], have no access to this kind of information. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::(This is just my personal opinion, and may not reflect reality). The ''average'' apache webserver log entry looks like:
127.0.0.1 - - [12/Nov/2010:02:25:24 -0400] "GET /w/phase3/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=image%3AExample.jpg&go=Go HTTP/1.1" 200 146 "http://localhost/w/phase3/index.php/Main_Page" "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009061212 Iceweasel/3.0.6 (Debian-3.0.6-1)"
It contains the IP address, user name for HTTP authentication (mediawiki doesn't use HTTP authentication for accounts, so normally this is a - regardless of if you're logged in or not), date, the method (GET in 99% of the time), the url, HTTP protocol version (HTTP/1.1 99%) of the time, the HTTP status code (200 is the most common, meaning success. Other common codes are 404 for file not found, and 403 for forbidden), the number of bytes transferred (146 in my example), the referrer (the page where you came from to get to the page you are currently visiting), the user-agent (which web browser you're using. Usually also contains information on your operating system). This is just the "typical" example. Wikimedia servers could be configured differently (not to mention that a large portion of their logs would be squid logs not apache logs). [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] 22:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

== MediaWiki message ==

What is the MediaWiki message which should be used?

The current text suggests [[MediaWiki:Privacy]], which [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=MediaWiki%3APrivacy&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= was deleted] as "no long required". Besides, the pages in other languages (e.g. French, Portuguese,...) suggests [[MediaWiki:Copyright]], which is also deleted in most projects (e.g. [[MediaWiki:Copyright|en.wiktionary]]) with the same reason. [[b:pt:User:Helder.wiki|Helder]] 12:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

== anon/general ==

Is the policy sufficiently comprehensive. These seem like important questions as 200x dates start to feel like the relatively distant past. Technology continues to advance and how can we create a global environment in which a meaningful conversation is possible. [[Special:Contributions/24.59.179.184|24.59.179.184]] 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

== Document structure and formatting ==

It seems to me that there is something wrong with the document structure and headings.
"Reading projects", "Editing projects", "Discussions" are level 5 headings under one paragraph "User contributions". I guess they should be promoted to the same level as "General expectations" (level 3), since this makes little sense otherwise. I am not sure what was the original format presented to the board, however.  « [[User:Saper|Saper]] // [[User talk:Saper|@talk]] »  12:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

== PHPSESSID ==

PHPSESSID is not anormal cookie, but asession, i will ask to agnolege the user about this,.

== Editing: spelling notes ==

=== General scope ===

There's written there: «Consistent with its Data Retention Policy, the Foundation collects and retains the least amount of personally identifiable information needed to '''fulfill''' the Projects' operational needs.»

'''“''Fulfill''” is underlined red by my spell-checker.'''

'''LONGMAN Dictionary of English:'''
:„'''ful-fil''' /.../ ''v'' '''-ll-''' (also '''fulfill''' ''AmE'') ...“ ''(and so on)''.

:What standard of spelling are we to keep to?

[[User:Lincoln Josh|Lincoln Josh]] 13:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

== Request to include the ACC Tool user privileges (access to IP and email addresses) in the privacy policy ==

A majority of ACC Tool users[http://toolserver.org/~acc/statistics.php?page=Users] are not checkusers and have not been formally identified by the Foundation. They have critical access and knowledge about the ip addresses and email addresses of users requesting new accounts at the English Wikipedia. Can we, therefore, include references to the ACC Tool in the privacy policy? (''Note: We also have the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACC_tool_users%27_pledge Wikipedia:ACC tool users' pledge] that attempts to voluntarily encourage ACC Tool users to adhere to our privacy policy'').[[User:Wifione|♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪]] 12:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

: hm, I'm not sure if I understand this ACC tool completely: These users see only the data of users who tried to create an account on the english Wikipedia, had problems (e.g. failed to decipher the captcha), and then applied for an account manually. They don't see the data of users who register the usual way, right? It surprises me that a team of ~100 users is needed for this task, maybe our captcha needs to be improved?
:But it seems to me that their role is somewhat comparable to the role of the OTRS volunteer response team, so did you think of mentioning ACC in the section on OTRS of the privacy policy? --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 17:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Stewards/confirm/2011/DerHexer

2011-02-07T20:26:53Z

Tinz: /* Comments about DerHexer */

<section begin="header" />
==[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]]==

{{se2011 links|DerHexer}}<section end="header" />
<div class="multilingual">
<section begin="de" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = de
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = Leider konnte ich auch in diesem Jahr nicht so aktiv sein, wie ich wollte, habe allerdings mein Mögliches getan, siehe http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Ich möchte gerne auch weiterhin die Communitys unterstützen und habe außerdem einen Rückblick über das vergangene Stewardjahr geschrieben [[:de:Benutzer:DerHexer/Blog#Bericht_zur_Lage_der_Stewards_2010]]. Kind regards, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="de" /><section begin="en" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = en
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = I could not been as active as I wanted to be but did as much as possible, see http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. I would like to continue serving the community and wrote a retrospective about the past year in [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]]. Kind regards, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="en" /><section begin="es" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = es
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = No he sido tan activo como hubiese deseado pero he hecho lo que he podido, véase http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Me gustaría continuar sirviendo a la comunidad e hice una restrospectiva acerca del año pasado en [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]]. Kind regards, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="es" /><section begin="he" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = he
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = לא יכולתי כבר כפעיל כמו שאני רוצה להיות, אבל עשיתי כל מה שאפשר, תראו ב[http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php]. אני רוצה להמשיך לשרת את הקהילה וכתבתי רטרוספקטיב על השנה שעברה ב[[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]].
 
בברכה, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk) ]]
}}<section end="he" /><section begin="it" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = it
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = Non ho potuto essere attivo come avrei voluto ma ho fatto quanto più possibile, vedi http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Mi piacerebbe continuare a servire la comunità e ho scritto una retrospettiva sull'anno passato in [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]]. Cordiali saluti, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="it" /><section begin="nl" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = nl
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = Helaas kon ik ook dit jaar niet zo actief zijn als ik had gewild, maar ik heb gedaan wat ik kon, zie http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Graag wil ik de gemeenschappen blijven ondersteunen. Bovendien heb ik een terugblik op het afgelopen stewardjaar geschreven [[:de:Benutzer:DerHexer/Blog#Bericht_zur_Lage_der_Stewards_2010]]. Met vriendelijke groet, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="nl" /><section begin="pt" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = pt
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = Eu não estive tão activo quanto eu gostaria, mas estive o máximo quanto possível, ver http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Eu gostaria de continuar servindo a comunidade e escrevi uma retrospectiva sobre o ano passado em [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]]. Atenciosamente, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="pt" /><section begin="sr" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = sr
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = Нисам могао да будем активан колико сам желео да будем, али сам урадио највише што сам могао, погледајте: http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Волео бих да наставим да служим заједници, а написао сам ретроспективу рада стјуарда током прошле године у [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]]. Срдачан поздрав, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="sr" /><section begin="vi" />
{{se2011 statement
|lang = vi
|languages = '''de''', en-3, grc-3, la-3, es-2
|statement = Có thể tôi đã không tích cực hoạt động như tôi mong muốn nhưng đã làm việc hết mức có thể, xem http://toolserver.org/~jyothis/tools/stewtools/stewactivty.php. Tôi muốn tiếp tục phục vụ cộng đồng và đã viết một bài hồi tưởng về năm vừa qua ở [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-01-17/Sister_projects]]. Kính chào, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
}}<section end="vi" />

</div>

<section begin="comments" />
===Comments about [[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]]===
* {{keep}} - [[User:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt|@lestaty]] [[User talk:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt|discuţie]] 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} & strongly. Very active & trusty steward. DerHexer has my full trust. -- [[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* * -- [[User:Manuelt15|Màñüé£†¹5]] [[User talk:Manuelt15#top|talk]] [[es:User talk:Manuelt15|es]] 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Keep doing a great job, as always!
<noinclude>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}</noinclude>
* Active and always quite helpful user - [[user:Hoo man|Hoo man]] ([[user talk:Hoo man|talk]]) 00:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* '''keep'''. [[es:User:Nixón|Nixón]] 00:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} excellent steward [[User:Mardetanha|Mardetanha]] [[user_talk:Mardetanha|talk]] 00:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep|behold}} Thank you for doing this job. [[User:Finnrind|Finn Rindahl]] 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} -'''[[User:Fastily|<big>F</big>ASTILY]]''' [[User talk:Fastily|(TALK)]] 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Oppose}} He added kowikinews to list of global bot wikis without normal process of implementation of global bot policy.[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=gblrights&user=DerHexer&page=Special%3AEditWikiSets%2F2&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=] And there wasn't any notification to the projects. Steward should have gone through the normal process to implement the policy. Steward who ignored the process should be responsible to his actions and his right should be removed. – [[User:Kwj2772|Kwj2772]] ([[User talk:Kwj2772|msg]]) 05:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
*:What else can I do to [[Steward_requests/Bot_status/2010-08#Invalidation_of_Global_bot_policy_on_kowikinews|apologize]] after having done a mistake? Unluckily nobody is perfect and I feel very sorry when I make mistakes, but is much more important for me to be responsible to excuse them what I've done. I have not ignored the process, in fact, I didn't know it properly and so acted with best faith. It's nevertheless a shame and unluckily cannot be canged in the aftermath so I'm very sorry that I did not know the exact procedure and hereby ask again to be excused. Kind regards, —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 07:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} [[User:Saloca|Saloca]] 06:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{oppose}} - doesn't like to be opposed on his birthday. Happy birthday! [[User:Laaknor|Laaknor]] 07:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
*:Where's the dislike button? Where? … Oh, wait, it's not Facebook here. xD —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]] [[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]] 11:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* outperformer --[[User:Jan eissfeldt|Jan eissfeldt]] 08:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}}. I still like to have you around as a steward. :) — [[User:Wikitanvir|Tanvir]] • 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* [[File:symbol support vote.svg|15px|Keep]] '''Keep''' --[[User:Roberto Mura|'''Roberto''']] [[User Talk:Roberto Mura|'''Segnali all'Indiano''']] 11:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] 12:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Keep}} & Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum Geburtstag! --[[User:MF-Warburg|MF-W]] 12:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} -[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|Δ]]) 12:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) I liked [[:de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen/Archiv/2011/01#Bericht_zur_Lage_der_Stewards_2010|your status report]] very much and only have good expierience with you.
* {{Keep}} '''[[User:Micki|micki]][[User talk:Micki|t]]''' 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Keep}} seen them around doing a good job. No reason not to say keep going. -[[User:Djsasso|Djsasso]] 14:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Oppose}} for today. <tt>:P</tt> Otherwise, {{Keep}} because he is very active and trusted. [[User:Pmlineditor|Pmlineditor]] ([[User talk:Pmlineditor|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Pmlineditor|c]] '''·''' [[Special:Logs/Pmlineditor|l]]) 14:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Keep}} everytime friendly --[[User:Pittimann|Pittimann]] 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Keep}} [[:User:Mjbmr|Mjbmr]] [[:User Talk:mjbmr|Talk]] 14:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} Yep. — [[User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|Nearly Headless Nick]] [[Special:Contributions/Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington|{C}]] 14:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} - Excellent steward. [[User:Maximillion Pegasus|Maximillion Pegasus]] 14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} --[[User:Stefan64|Stefan64]] 15:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* '''Miauu!''' [[User:Darkoneko|DarkoNeko]] 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} --[[User:Melos|Melos]] 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} Excellent work, outstanding activity, nice user and steward! --[[User:Nirakka|Nirakka]] 17:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Keep}} [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] 18:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} --[[User:WizardOfOz|WizardOfOz]] [[user_talk:WizardOfOz|talk]] 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
*{{keep|confirm}}, one of our best. –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|''Talk'']] 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{confirm}} -[[User:Barras|Barras]] 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{Keep}}, of course. [[User:Savh|'''S'''a]][[User talk:Savh|vh]][[:es:User:Savh|ñ]] 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* {{keep}} - [[User:Trijnstel|Trijnstel]] 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
* '''keep''' --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Identification questions and answers

2011-02-07T20:15:31Z

Tinz: Identification of candidates

Talk:Stewards/elections 2011

2011-01-29T15:59:20Z

Tinz: Identifications

== Template naming ==
I don't thing changing the name schema ("Sr-elections 2010 …" to "Se2011 …") is such a good idea if we want to use last year's templates. There are many complex templates and the simplest thing would be to change every instance of "2010" to "2011". That way, not much should break. Templates that do not need to be modified, can redirect to last year's templates, or we create a set of static templates that can be used any year. --[[User:Church of emacs|Church of emacs]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Church of emacs|contrib]] 13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
: I've always wondered why don't we use static templates that can be reused each year without needing to create & translate dozens of identical templates every year. --[[User:Dferg|dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
::Well, in some instances you need different templates (or they become even more complex). --[[User:Church of emacs|Church of emacs]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Church of emacs|contrib]] 22:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
::: Maybe in some cases but I think that we can create standard templates to use every year :-) --[[User:Dferg|dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 19:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

== Too many disqualifications ==
Right now, there are 7 valid candidacies and 52 candidacies of people who don't meet the criteria, many without any statement at all.
I think that for the next elections some things should be changed:
*The two-click application process may be too easy (Shouldn't steward candidates be familiar enough with templates and stuff that they don't need this?)
*The communication with the projects (Don't encourage every user to apply in the local site notices when the fine print says that only admins are eligible.)
--[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 10:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
: I agree with you that this year we have a lot of disqualified candidates. Instead of deleting them we are tagging them as disqualified. I think it is not about the ''"two clicks"'' process but about the understanding of what a steward is and what is not. 99% of the disqualified candidates might not even know what an administrator is.
: Since this are global elections we have no choices but to use CentralNotice (approaching individual users sounds not very useful) Maybe the text can be tweaked to say ''«if you're an administrator or have been one on any Wikimedia project for at least 3 months, etc...»'' but I think that the problem will continue to exist.
: That said I think that the solution would be to use some kind of script to hide the CentralNotice to those users that are not eligible. The problem is that for running there's no edit count requirement so the thing is much more complicated. I'm not a JavaScript creator, but maybe a script could be created to prevent those who does not meet the requirement of ''«have an account on at least one Wikimedia Foundation project where you have been active for at least six months;»'' can be checked.
: We also should seriously consider installing a script for the voting banner so that the banner isn't shown to those not elegible. As far as I remember it was done with the global sysops CentralNotice.
: Regards, -- [[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

:: The solution could be not to use a central notice that appears on every page but a sort of special notice that appears only on pages like village pump or admins corner etc. - i.e. on pages that are not watched by every newbie but by experienced users only. [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

::: Actually we have no per-namespace filtering. It has been set to display to logged-in only users. Maybe (another) script? -- [[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

::::{{question}} Is this the first year the election uses CentralNotice? [[User:Bennylin|Bennylin]] 13:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
::::: No, as far as I know. I think this is the 3rd year we use it. -- [[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 13:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::Nope.[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2010/Translation/CentralNotice][http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2009/Translation/CentralNotice] [[User:Jafeluv|Jafeluv]] 13:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

== CentralNotice change ==

Hi all. I've [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Centralnotice-stew2011_noms-noms-click&diff=prev&oldid=2292709 changed] the CentralNotice template hoping that people will now notice that we have eligibility rules. Probably not the best solution but, well... Feedback welcome. Thanks, -- [[User:Dferg|Dferg]] [[User talk:Dferg|☎ talk]] 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

: if it helps we'll see in some days, but for the first: OK, [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

: ehm, the folks do not seem to reed it :-=) [[User:-jkb-|-jkb-]] 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

== Identifications ==
I don't understand why steward candidates need to identify to the foundation before the elections start. Those candidates who do not get elected never get access no nonpublic data, so I can't see any good reason why they should identify in advance. Moreover, the local elections for checkusers, oversights or enwiki-ArbCom members don't require an identification in advance either. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Stewards/elections 2011

2011-01-21T10:52:32Z

Tinz: Too many disqualifications

User:Bdk/pp

2010-10-24T17:29:03Z

Tinz: /* Disclaimer */ typo

__NOTOC__
<center>''Bitte zur Übersetzung bestimmter Begriffe die [[User talk:Bdk/pp|Diskussionsseite]] beachten.''</center>
{| class="wikitable"
! ENGLISCH (1:1-Übernahme des Originaltexts [[wmf:Privacy policy]]) In dieser Spalte bitte NIX ändern! || DEUTSCH Hilfe bei der Übersetzung willkommen!
|-
| width="50%" valign="top" | 
:''This version of the [[meta:Privacy policy|Privacy policy]] was approved in October 2008 by the [[Board of Trustees]]. Discussion and proposed changes are welcome on the [[meta:talk:Privacy policy|talk page at Meta]].''
:''It is requested that this notice be translated and linked from the footer (MediaWiki:Copyright) of every page.''

==General Scope==
This policy covers personally identifiable information collected or stored by the Foundation on its servers in relation to the Projects and their communities. Consistent with its Data Retention Policy, the Foundation collects and retains the least amount of personally identifiable information needed to fulfill the Projects' operational needs.

| width="50%" valign="top" | 
:''Diese Version der [[meta:Privacy policy|Datenschutzrichtlinie (Privacy policy)]] wurde im Oktober 2008 vom [[Board of Trustees|Kuratorium (Board of Trustees)]] der Wikimedia‐Foundation beschlossen. Diskussionen und Änderungsvorschläge sind auf der [[meta:talk:Privacy policy|Meta-Diskussionsseite]] willkommen.''
:''Es ist erforderlich, dass diese Bekanntmachung in übersetzter Form in der Fußzeile (MediaWiki:Copyright) jeder Seite verlinkt wird.''

== Allgemeiner Geltungsbereich ==

Diese Richtlinie behandelt die von der Wikimedia‐Foundation auf ihren Servern in Bezug auf die Projekte und die entsprechenden Communities erhobenen oder gespeicherten personenbezogenen Daten. Übereinstimmend mit ihrer [[foundation:Resolution:Data retention policy|Datenspeicherungsrichtlinie (Data Retention Policy)]] erhebt und speichert die Wikimedia‐Foundation nur die minimale, zum Betrieb der Projekte benötigte Menge personenbezogener Daten.
|-
| valign="top" |
==The public and collaborative nature of the projects==
All Projects of the Wikimedia Foundation are collaboratively developed by its users using the MediaWiki software. Anyone with Internet access (and not otherwise restricted from doing so) may edit the publicly editable pages of these sites with or without logging in as a registered user. By doing this, editors create a published document, and a public record of every word added, subtracted, or changed. This is a public act, and editors are identified publicly as the author of such changes. All contributions made to a Project, and all publicly available information about those contributions, are irrevocably licensed and may be freely copied, quoted, reused and adapted by third parties with few restrictions.
| valign="top" |
== Der öffentliche und kollaborative Charakter der Projekte ==

Alle Projekte der Wikimedia‐Foundation werden von ihren Benutzern gemeinschaftlich unter Nutzung der MediaWiki-Software entwickelt. Alle Personen mit Internetzugang können (sofern sie nicht anderweitig daran gehindert werden) die öffentlich bearbeitbaren Seiten der Websites ändern – sowohl unangemeldet als auch als registrierte Benutzer. Indem sie dies tun, erstellen die Bearbeiter jeweils ein veröffentlichtes Dokument sowie einen öffentlichen Datensatz zu jedem hinzugefügten, entfernten oder ergänzten Wort. Dies ist ein öffentlicher Vorgang, und die Bearbeiter werden dabei öffentlich als Urheber entsprechender Änderungen gekennzeichnet. Alle Beiträge zu einem Projekt und alle öffentlich zugänglichen Informationen zu diesen Beiträgen werden unwiderruflich lizenziert und können seitens Dritter mit geringen Einschränkungen frei kopiert, zitiert, weiterverwendet und verändert werden.
|-
| valign="top" |
==Activities on Foundation projects==
In general, this Policy only applies to private information stored or held by the Foundation which is not publicly available.

Interactions with the Projects not covered by this Policy include, but are not limited to, aspects of browsing and editing pages, use of the wiki "email user" function, subscribing and posting to Foundation hosted email lists, and corresponding with volunteers via the Foundation's ticketing system ("OTRS"). These interactions may reveal a contributor's IP address, and possibly other personal information, indiscriminately to the general public, or to specific groups of volunteers acting independently of the Foundation.

Users may also interact with one another outside of Foundation sites, via email, IRC or other chat, or independent websites, and should assess the risks involved, and their personal need for privacy, before using these methods of communication.
| valign="top" |
== Aktivitäten in Projekten der Wikimedia-Foundation ==

Diese Richtlinie bezieht sich im Allgemeinen nur auf personenbezogene Daten, die von der Wikimedia-Foundation gespeichert oder aufbewahrt werden und nicht öffentlich verfügbar sind.

Aktivitäten wie das Lesen und Editieren von Seiten, die Benutzung der Funktion „Mail an diesen Benutzer“, das Anmelden und Schreiben auf Mailinglisten der Foundation sowie die Korrespondenz mit den ehrenamtlichen Mitarbeitern über das Ticketing-System der Foundation („OTRS“) und Weitere sind von dieser Richtlinie nicht betroffen. Solche Aktivitäten können die IP-Adresse eines Mitwirkenden, und möglicherweise weitere persönliche Daten, unbedachterweise der Allgemeinheit oder bestimmten Gruppen Freiwilliger, die unabhängig von der Foundation agieren, enthüllen.

Benutzer können auch außerhalb der Websites der Foundation miteinander interagieren, mittels E-Mail, IRC oder anderen Chats, oder unabhängiger Websites. Sie sollten, bevor sie diese Kommunikationsmittel nutzen, die damit verbundenen Risiken sowie ihr eigenes Bedürfnis nach Privatsphäre bewerten.
|-
| valign="top" |

==User accounts and authorship==

The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. Users that do register are identified by their chosen username. Users select a password, which is confidential and used to verify the integrity of their account.
Except insofar as it may be required by law, no person should disclose, or knowingly expose, either user passwords and/or cookies generated to identify a user. Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed, depending on the policies of individual projects. The Foundation does not guarantee that a username will be changed on request.
| valign="top" |
== Benutzerkonten und Urheberschaft ==

Die Wikimedia‐Foundation verlangt nicht, dass sich Editierende in einem Projekt anmelden. Bearbeitungen können ohne Registrierung eines Benutzerkontos vorgenommen werden; In diesem Fall wird die jeweilige IP-Adresse zur Beitragszuordnung verwendet. Beiträge angemeldeter Benutzer werden den von ihnen gewählten Benutzernamen zugeordnet. Die korrekte Zuordnung der Benutzerkonten zu Benutzern wird dabei durch frei gewählte, geheime Passwörter sicher gestellt. Mit Ausnahme des Falls, dass aus rechtlichen Gründen erforderlich ist, sollte niemand weder Passwörter noch zur Benutzeridentifizierung erzeugte Cookies bekannt geben oder wissentlich aufdecken. Einmal angelegte Benutzerkonten werden nicht gelöscht. Abhängig von den Richtlinien einzelner Projekte kann es allerdings möglich sein, einen Benutzernamen ändern zu lassen. Die Wikimedia‐Foundation garantiert jedoch nicht, dass jeder Benutzername auf Anfrage geändert wird.
|-
| valign="top" |

==Purpose of the collection of private information==

The Foundation limits the collection of personally identifiable user data to purposes which serve the well-being of its projects, including but not limited to the following:

:To enhance the public accountability of the projects. The Foundation recognizes that any system that is open enough to allow the greatest possible participation of the general public will also be vulnerable to certain kinds of abuse and counterproductive behavior. The Foundation and the project communities have established a number of mechanisms to prevent or remedy abusive activities. For example, when investigating abuse on a project, including the suspected use of malicious “sockpuppets” (duplicate accounts), vandalism, harassment of other users, or disruptive behavior, the IP addresses of users (derived either from those logs or from records in the database) may be used to identify the source(s) of the abusive behavior. This information may be shared by users with administrative authority who are charged by their communities with protecting the projects.
:To provide site statistics. The Foundation statistically samples raw log data from users' visits. These logs are used to produce the site statistics pages; the raw log data is not made public.
:To solve technical problems. Log data may be examined by developers in the course of solving technical problems and in tracking down badly-behaved web spiders that overwhelm the site.
| valign="top" |
== Zweck der Erfassung persönlicher Informationen ==
Die Foundation begrenzt die Erfassung personenbezogener Daten auf Zwecke, die dem Wohlergehen ihrer Projekte dienen, darunter ohne vollständige Aufzählung folgende:

:Zur Steigerung der öffentlichen Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Projekte. Die Foundation würdigt die Tatsache, dass jedes System, das so offen ist, die größtmögliche Beteiligung der Öffentlichkeit zu erlauben, gleichzeitig anfällig für bestimmte Missbrauchsformen und kontraproduktives Verhalten wird. Die Foundation und die Communitys der Projekte haben eine Reihe von Maßnahmen entwickelt, um missbräuchliche Handlungen einzuschränken oder rückgängig zu machen. Besispielsweise können zur Untersuchung von Projektmissbrauch, darunter der Benutzung bösartiger „Sockenpuppen“ (Zweitaccounts), Vandalismus, Schikanierung anderer Benutzer oder störendem Verhalten, die IP-Adressen von Benutzern (aus den Logs oder aus Aufzeichnungen der Database) dazu verwendet werden, die Quelle(n) dieser Störungen zu ermitteln. Diese Informationen können von Benutzern mit Administratorenrechten eingesehen werden, die von ihrer Community zum Schutz des Projekts dazu eingesetzt worden sind.
:Zur Erstellung von Seitenstatistiken. Die Foundation erfasst statistische Rohdaten von Benutzeraufrufen. Diese Logs werden zur Aufbereitung der Site-Statistiken benutzt, die Rohdaten werden nicht veröffentlicht.
:Zur Fehlerbehebung. Log-Daten können von den Entwicklern im Verlauf der Analyse technischer Probleme eingesehen werden und zur Aufspürung fehlprogrammierter Webspider, die die Site überfluten.
|-
| valign="top" |

==Details of data retention==
===General expectations===
====IP and other technical information====
:When a visitor requests or reads a page, or sends email to a Wikimedia server, no more information is collected than is typically collected by web sites. The Wikimedia Foundation may keep raw logs of such transactions, but these will not be published or used to track legitimate users.

:When a page is edited by a logged-in editor, the server confidentially stores related IP information for a limited period of time. This information is automatically deleted after a set period. For editors who do not log in, the IP address used is publicly and permanently credited as the author of the edit. It may be possible for a third party to identify the author from this IP address in conjunction with other information available. Logging in with a registered username allows for better preservation of privacy.
| valign="top" |
== Nähere Angaben zur Datenspeicherung ==
=== Grundlagen ===
==== IP-Adressen und andere technische Informationen ====

:Sobald ein Besucher eine Seite aufruft oder liest, oder wenn er eine E-Mail an einen Server der Wikimedia sendet, wird nicht mehr Information gesammelt, als dies gewöhnlicherweise bei Webseiten der Fall ist. Die Wikipedia Foundation hält möglicherweise unausgewertete Logs solcher Vorgänge vor, diese werden aber nicht veröffentlicht und auch nicht dazu benutzt, legitime Benutzer nachzuverfolgen.

:Sobald eine Seite von einem angemeldeten Benutzer bearbeitet wird, speichern die Server die zugehörigen IP-Informationen vertraulich für eine begrenzte Zeitspanne. Diese Informationen werden automatisch nach einer festgelegten Periode gelöscht. Bei unangemeldete Benutzern wird deren IP-Adresse öffentlich und dauerhaft als Autor der Bearbeitung angeschrieben. Für eine dritte Partei kann es möglich sein, aus der IP-Adresse in Verbindung mit anderen verfügbaren Informationen den Autor zu ermitteln. Die Anmeldung mit einem registrierten Benutzernamen erlaubt besseren Schutz der Privatsphäre.
|-
| valign="top" |
====Cookies====
:The sites set a temporary session cookie on a visitor's computer whenever a Project page is visited. Readers who do not intend to log in or edit may deny this cookie; it will be deleted at the end of the browser's session. More cookies may be set when one logs in to maintain logged-in status. If one saves a user name or password in one's browser, that information will be saved for up to 30 days, and this information will be resent to the server on every visit to the same Project. Contributors using a public machine who do not wish to show their username to future users of the machine should clear these cookies after use.
| valign="top" |
==== Cookies ====

:Die Website setzt vorübergehend einen Session‐Cookie, sobald eine Projektseite besucht wird. Leser, die sich weder anmelden noch die Seite bearbeiten wollen, können diesen Cookie ablehnen; der Cookie wird beim Schließen des Browsers wieder entfernt. Zusätzliche Cookies werden gesetzt, wenn man sich anmeldet, um die Voreinstellungen des eingeloggten Zustands aufrecht zu erhalten. Falls jemand einen Benutzernamen oder ein Passwort in seinem Browser eingibt, wird diese Information für bis zu 30 Tage vorgehalten und dem Server jedes mal wieder zugesandt, sobald er das selbe Projekt wieder besucht. Bearbeiter, die einen öffentlichen Computer benutzen und ihren Benutzernamen späteren Benutzern nicht offenbaren wollen, sollten diese Cookies nach Benutzung löschen.
|-
| valign="top" |
====Page history====
:Edits or other contributions to a Project on its articles, user pages and talk pages are generally retained forever. Removing text from a project does not permanently delete it. Normally, in projects, anyone can look at a previous version of an article and see what was there. Even if an article is "deleted", a user entrusted with higher level of access may still see what was removed from public view. Information can be permanently deleted by individuals with access to Wikimedia servers, but aside from the rare circumstance when the Foundation is required to delete editing-history material in response to a court order or equivalent legal process, there is no guarantee any permanent deletion will happen.
| valign="top" |
==== Versionsgeschichten ====

:Bearbeitungen oder andere Beiträge zu den Artikeln, Benutzer- und Diskussionsseiten eines Projekt werden grundsätzlich für immer gespeichert. Die Entfernung von Text aus einem Projekt löscht diesen nicht dauerhaft. Üblicherweise kann in einem Projekt jeder eine vorherige Version eines Artikels einsehen und sich davon überzeugen, was dort vorhanden war. Auch wenn ein Artikel gelöscht wurde, können Benutzer, denen eine höhere Stufe des Zugangs anvertraut wurde, noch immer nachsehen, was vor der Öffentlichkeit verborgen wurde. Informationen können dauerhaft von Einzelpersonen mit Zugang zu den Servern der Wikimedia gelöscht werden, aber abgesehen von den seltenen Fällen, wo von der Foundation die Löschung von Material in Versionsgeschichten aufgrund Gerichtsbeschluss oder einen dem entsprechenden Rechtsweg verlangt wird, gibt es keine Zusagen, dass irgendwelche permanenten Löschungen vorgenommen werden.
|-
| valign="top" |
====User contribution====
:User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited and the number of edits they have made, are publicly available via user contributions lists, and in aggregated forms published by other users.
| valign="top" |
==== Benutzerbeiträge ====

:Benutzerbeiträge werden ebenso zusammengestellt und öffentlich zugänglich gemacht. Dabei werden Benutzerbeiträge anhand der Registrierung und des Anmeldestatus zusammengefasst. Daten über diese Benutzerbeiträge, wie die Zeiten, zu denen sie getätigt wurden oder die Anzahl der Beiträge, sind öffentlich über die Beitragsliste aufrufbar und werden in aggregierter Form von anderen Benutzern veröffentlicht.
|-
| valign="top" |
=====Reading projects=====
::No more information on users and other visitors reading pages is collected than is typically collected in server logs by web sites. Aside from the above raw log data collected for general purposes, page visits do not expose a visitor's identity publicly. Sampled raw log data may include the IP address of any user, but it is not reproduced publicly.
| valign="top" |
===== Lesezugriffe in Projekten =====

::Es werden keine weiteren Informationen über Benutzer und andere Leser gesammelt, als üblicherweise in Serverlogs von Websites gespeichert wird. Über die oben erwähnten Rohdaten für allgemeine Zwecke hinaus legen Seitenaufrufe keine Benutzeridentitäten offen. Stichproben aus Rohdatensammlungen können die IP eines zufälligen Benutzers enthalten, wie werden aber nicht öffentlich gemacht.
|-
| valign="top" |

=====Editing projects=====
::Edits to Project pages are identified with the username or network IP address of the editor, and editing history is aggregated by author in a contribution list. Such information will be available permanently on the projects.
::Logged in registered users:
::Logged in users do not expose their IP address to the public except in cases of abuse, including vandalism of a wiki page by the user or by another user with the same IP address. A user's IP address is stored on the wiki servers for a period of time, during which it can be seen by server administrators and by users who have been granted CheckUser access.
::IP address information, and its connection to any usernames that share it, may be released under certain circumstances (see below).
::Editors using a company mail server from home or telecommuting over a DSL or cable Internet connection, are likely to be easy to identify by their IP address; in which case it may be easy to cross-identify all contributions to various Projects made by that IP. Using a username is a better way of preserving privacy in this situation.
::Unlogged-in registered users and unregistered users:
::Editors who have not logged in may be identified by network IP address. Depending on one's connection, this IP address may be traceable to a large Internet service provider or more specifically to a school, place of business or home. It may be possible to use this information in combination with other information, including editing style and preferences, to identify an author completely.
| valign="top" |
===== Bearbeitungsvorgänge in Projekten =====

::Bearbeitungen von Projektseiten sind durch den Benutzernamen oder die Netzwerk-IP-Adresse des Bearbeiters identifizierbar, und die Versionsgeschichte wird über den Autor mit dessen Bearbeitungsliste verknüpft. Diese Informationen werden dauerhaft in den Projekten verfügbar sein.
::Eingeloggte, angemeldete Benutzer:
::Eingeloggte Benutzer geben ihre IP-Adresse der Öffentlichkeit nicht preis, mit Ausnahme in Fällen von Missbrauch, einschließlich des Vandalismus einer Wikiseite durch den Benutzer oder durch einen anderen Benutzer mit derselben IP-Adresse. Die IP-Adresse eines Benutzers wird auf den Wikiservern für eine bestimmte Zeitperiode gespeichert, während welcher sie von Serveradministratoren und von Benutzern, die CheckUser-Zugriff erhalten haben, eingesehen werden kann.
::Informationen über IP-Adressen und ihre Verbindung zu allen Benutzernamen, die sie teilen, können unter bestimmten Umständen bekanntgegeben werden (siehe unten).
::Bearbeiter, die einen Firmenmailserver von Zuhause aus nutzen oder die über eine DSL- oder Kabel-Internetverbindung telekommunizieren, können wahrscheinlich einfach durch ihre IP-Adresse identifiziert werden; in jenem Fall könnte es einfach sein, quer uber die verschiedenen Projekten alle Beiträge zu identifizieren, die diese IP gemacht hat. Die Verwendung eines Benutzernamens ist ein besserer Weg zur Erhaltung des Datenschutzes unter diesen Umständen.
::Nichteingeloggte regristrierte Benutzer und unregistrierte Benutzer:
::Bearbeiter, die sich nicht eingeloggt haben, können durch die Netzwerk-IP-Adresse identifiziert werden. Abhängig von den Verbindungen des Einzelnen, kann diese IP-Adresse zu einem großen Internetdiensteanbieter zurückverfolgt werden oder besonders zu einer Schule, einem Arbeitsplatz oder nach Hause. Es könnte möglich sein, diese Informationen in Verbindung mit anderen Informationen, einschließlich des Verhaltens und der Bevorzugungen beim Bearbeiten, einen Autor vollständig zu identifizieren.
|-
| valign="top" |
=====Discussions=====
::On wiki discussion pages:
::Any editable page can theoretically be the location of a discussion. In general, discussions on Foundation projects occur on user talk pages (associated with particular users), on article talk pages (associated with particular articles) or in pages specially designated to function as forums (e.g., the Village Pump). Privacy expectations apply to discussion pages in the same way as they do elsewhere.
::Via email:
::Users are not required to list an email address when registering. Users who provide a valid email address can enable other logged-in users to send email to them through the wiki. When receiving an email from other users through this system, one's email address is not revealed to them. When choosing to send an email to other users, one's email is displayed as the sender.
::The email address put into one's user preferences may be used by the Foundation for communication. Users whose accounts do not have a valid email address will not be able to reset their password if it is lost. In such a situation, however, users may be able to contact one of the Wikimedia server administrators to enter a new e-mail address. A user can remove the account's email address from his preferences at any time to prevent it from being used. Private correspondence between users may be saved at those users' discretion and is not subject to Wikimedia Foundation policy.
::On mailing lists:
::The email addresses used to subscribe and post to Project mailing lists are exposed to other subscribers. The list archives of most such mailing lists are public, and searches of public archives may be performed on the Web. Subscribers' addresses may also be quoted in other users' messages. These email addresses and any messages sent to a mailing list may be archived and may remain available to the public permanently.
::Via OTRS:
::Some e-mail addresses (such as info-en at wikimedia dot org) forward mail to a team of volunteers trusted by the Foundation to use a ticket system, such as OTRS, to respond. Mail sent to this system is not publicly visible, but volunteers selected by the Foundation will have access to it. The ticket system team may discuss the contents of received mail with other contributors in order to respond effectively. Mail to private addresses of members of Board of Trustees and to staff of the Foundation may also be forwarded to the OTRS team. These messages and e-mail addresses may be saved by members of the OTRS team and any email service they use, and may remain available to them.
::On IRC:
::IRC channels are not officially part of the Wikimedia Foundation and are not operated on Wikimedia controlled servers. The IP address of users who chat over such a service may be exposed to other participants. IRC users' privacy on each channel can only be protected according to the policies of the respective service and channel. Different channels have different policies on whether logs may be published.
| valign="top" |
===== Diskussionen =====

::Auf Diskussionsseiten eines Wikis:
::Theoretisch kann auf jeder Seite, die sich bearbeiten lässt, eine Diskussion stattfinden. Für gewöhnlich werden Diskussionen mit Bezug zu einzelnen Benutzern auf Benutzerdiskussionsseiten und Diskussionen mit Bezug zu einzelnen Artikeln auf Artikeldiskussionsseiten geführt; außerdem gibt es spezielle Seiten mit der Funktion eines Internet-Forums (z.B. Wikipedia:Café). Man darf dort den gleichen Grad an Datenschutz erwarten wie überall anders auch.
::Per E-Mail:
::Benutzer brauchen keine E-Mail-Adresse anzugeben, wenn sie sich anmelden. Benutzer, die eine gültige E-Mail-Adresse angeben, können es anderen angemeldeten Benutzern ermöglichen, ihnen über das Wiki E-Mails zu schreiben. Bei E-Mails, die auf diese Weise geschrieben werden, sieht der Empfänger die E-Mail-Adresse des Senders, der Sender sieht die E-Mail-Adresse des Empfängers aber nicht.
::Die unter "Einstellungen" angegebene E-Mail-Adresse kann von der Foundation zur Kommunikation verwendet werden. Wer keine gültige E-Mail-Adresse angibt, kann sein Kennwort nicht zurücksetzen, wenn er es verliert. Er kann in einer solchen Lage Kontakt zu einem der Server‐Administratoren der Wikimedia aufnehmen, um eine neue E-Mail-Adresse zu erfassen. Benutzer können die unter "Einstellungen" angegebene E-Mail-Adresse jederzeit austragen, damit sie nicht mehr verwendet werden kann. Private E-Mail-Korrespondenz unterliegt nicht der Datenschutzrichtlinie der Wikimedia‐Foundation; Benutzer dürfen deren Inhalte nach ihrem eigenen Ermessen speichern.

::Bei Mailinglisten:
::Die E-Mail-Adressen, die zur Anmeldung und zum Posten auf Mailinglisten des Projekts verwendet werden, gelangen auch anderen Abonnenten zur Kenntnis. Die Archivlisten der meisten derartigen Mailinglisten sind öffentlich, und Suchanfragen über öffentliche Archive können per Internet durchgeführt werden. Es kann passieren, dass die Adressen von Abonnenten in Nachrichten anderer Benutzer zitiert werden. Man muss damit rechnen, dass diese Adressen und alle Nachrichten, die an eine Mailingliste versandt wurden, archiviert und dauerhaft öffentlich zugänglich bleiben.

::Via OTRS:
::Manche E-Mail-Adressen (etwa info-en at wikimedia dot org) leiten Mails an ein Freiwilligenteam weiter, das von der Foundation bevollmächtigt wurde, Antworten in einem Freigabesystem, dem [[OTRS]], zu erteilen. E-Mails, die heran gesandt werden, sind nicht öffentlich einsehbar, aber Freiwillige, die von der Foundation ausgewählt wurden, haben darauf Zugriff. Das Freigabeteam kann die Inhalte empfangener Nachrichten untereinander diskutieren, um in wirksamer Weise antworten zu können. Post oder E-Mail, die an Privatadressen von Mitgliedern des [[:m:Board of Trustees|Board of Trustees]] und an Mitarbeiter der Foundation gesandt werden, können ebenfalls ans OTRS weitergeleitet werden. Alle diese Nachrichten und E-Mails können sowohl vom OTRS gespeichert werden als auch von den Mailprovidern, die die Freiwilligen benutzen, und es ist damit zu rechnen, dass sie ihnen zur Verfügung stehen.

::Im IRC:
::IRC-Channels sind formal kein Bestandteil der Wikimedia‐Foundation und werden nicht auf Servern ausgeführt, die von der Wikimedia kontrolliert werden. Die IP-Addresse von Benutzern, die über derartige Dienste chatten, kann anderen Benutzern angezeigt werden. Die Benutzeranonymität im IRC kann auf jedem Channel nur gemäß den Richtlinien des jeweiligen Betreibers und Dienstes geschützt werden. Unterschiedliche Channels haben unterschiedliche Richtlinien darüber, ob Logs veröffentlicht werden dürfen.
|-
| valign="top" |

==Access to and release of personally identifiable information==
Access:

Projects are primarily run by volunteer contributors. Some dedicated users are chosen by the community to be given privileged access. For example, for an English Wikipedia user, user access levels to Wikipedia are determined by the user's presence in various 'user groups'. User group rights and group members are reachable in every project from the Special:ListGroupRights page.

Other users who may have access to private identifiable information include, but are not limited to, users who have access to OTRS, or to the CheckUser and Oversight functions, users elected by project communities to serve as stewards or Arbitrators, Wikimedia Foundation employees, trustees, appointees, and contractors and agents employed by the Foundation, and developers and others with high levels of server access.

Access to and publication of this information is governed by the Access to nonpublic data policy, as well as specific policies covering some of the functions in question. Sharing information with other privileged users is not considered "distribution."

Release: Policy on Release of Data

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:
# In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement,
# With permission of the affected user,
# When necessary for investigation of abuse complaints,
# Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues,
# Where the user has been vandalizing articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to a service provider, carrier, or other third-party entity to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers,
# Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Except as described above, Wikimedia policy does not permit distribution of personally identifiable information under any circumstances.

Third-party access and notifying registered users when receiving legal process:

As a general principle, the access to, and retention of, personally identifiable data in all projects should be minimal and should be used only internally to serve the well-being of the projects. Occasionally, however, the Foundation may receive a subpoena or other compulsory request from a law-enforcement agency or a court or equivalent government body that requests the disclosure of information about a registered user, and may be compelled by law to comply with the request. In the event of such a legally compulsory request, the Foundation will attempt to notify the affected user within three business days after the arrival of such subpoena by sending a notice by email to the email address (if any) that the affected user has listed in his or her user preferences.

The Foundation cannot advise a user receiving such a notification regarding the law or an appropriate response to a subpoena. The Foundation does note, however, that such users may have the legal right to resist or limit that information in court by filing a motion to quash the subpoena. Users who wish to oppose a subpoena or other compulsory request should seek legal advice concerning applicable rights and procedures that may be available.

If the Foundation receives a court-filed motion to quash or otherwise limit the subpoena as a result of action by a user or their lawyer, the Foundation will not disclose the requested information until Wikimedia receives an order from the court to do so.

Registered users are not required to provide an email address. However, when an affected registered user does not provide an email address, the Foundation will not be able to notify the affected user in private email messages when it receives requests from law enforcement to disclose personally identifiable information about the user.
| valign="top" |
== Zugang zu und Veröffentlichung von personenbezogenen Daten ==

Zugang:

Die Projekte der Wikmedia Foundation werden hauptsächlich von Freiwilligen verwaltet.  Einige engagierte Benutzer werden durch die Community ausgewählt, um erweitertem Zugang zu zu erhalten. Beispielsweise ist in der englischen  Wikipedia der Zugang abhängig von den Benutzergruppen, denen der Benutzer angehört. Benutzergruppenrechte und Benutzergruppenmitglieder können in jedem Projekt über die Seite Special:ListGroupRights abgerufen werden.

Zu den Benutzern mit Zugang zu personenbezogenen Daten oder privaten Informationen können außerdem unter anderem Benutzer mit Zugang zum OTRS oder zur Checkuser- oder Oversight-Funktion, Benutzer, die von den Projekt-Communitys als Stewards oder Schiedrichter gewählt werden, Angestellte und Beauftragte der Wikimedia‐Foundation sowie deren Vorstandsmitglieder, Vertragspartner und Bevollmächtigte der Wikimedia‐Foundation und Developer und andere mit erweitertem Serverzugang gehören.

Der Zugriff auf und die Bekanntgabe dieser Informationen wird von der Richtlinie zur Freigabe nicht öffentliche Daten (''Access to nonpublic data policy'') geregelt sowie von spezifschen Richtlinien, die einige der betreffenden Funktionen abdecken. Das Austauschen von Information mit anderen privilegierten Benutzern gilt nicht als "Verbreitung".

Freigabe: Richtlinie zur Datenfreigabe

Es ist ein Grundsatz der Wikimedia, dass personenbezogene Daten, die in den Logs gespeichert werden, oder durch Erfassung der Datenbank mittels des CheckUser-Features oder durch andere, öffentlich nicht verfügbare Methoden, durch Freiwillige oder Angestellte der Wikimedia‐Foundation bei Vorliegen einer der folgenden Bedingungen freigegeben werden können:
# In Erwiderung auf eine gültige Zwangsmaßnahme oder andere Herausgabeverfügung durch Zwangsvollstreckung,
# Mit Zustimmung der betroffenen Benutzer,
# Sobald nötig, bei Missbrauchsvorwürfen,
# Wo sich die Information sich auf Seitenaufrufe durch einen Spider oder einen Bot bezieht und die Verbreitung notwendig ist, um technische Probleme zu illustrieren oder zu beheben,
# Wo ein Benutzer Artikel vandalisiert hatte oder sich beharrlich in störender Weise verhielt, können Daten an einen Serviceprovider, Netzbetreiber, oder sonstigen Dritten gegeben werden, um bei der genauen Identifizierung von IP-Blocks Hilfestellung zu leisten, oder um dazu beizutragen, Beschwerden bei den maßgeblichen Internetservice-Providern zu formulieren,
# Wo es voraussehbar notwendig ist, die Rechte, das Eigentum und die Sicherheit der Wikimedia‐Foundation, seiner Benutzer oder der Öffentlichkeit zu schützen.

Außerhalb der oben beschriebenen Umstände erlauben Wikipedias Richtlinien unter keinen anderen Umständen eine Verbreitung von personenbezogenen Daten .

Zugang durch Drittparteien und Benachrichtigung von registrierten Benutzern bei Beschreitung des Rechtsweges:

Als generelles Leitbild sollen Zugang zu und Aufbewahrung von personenbezogenen Daten in allen Projekten so gering wie möglich sein und darf nur intern genutz werden, um dem Wohlergehen der Projekte zu dienen. Natürlich kann die Foundation bisweilen eine Zwangsmaßnahme oder andere Herausgabeverfügung durch eine Vollstreckungsbehörde, ein Gericht oder ein entsprechendes Staatsorgan erhalten, das die Auskunft über einen registrierten Benutzer verlangt, und durch Gesetz dazu gezwungen sein, der Anfrage nachzukommen. Im Falle solch einer rechtsförmigen Anfrage wird sich die Foundation bemühen, den Benutzer innerhalb von drei Werktagen nach Erhalt der Verfügung zu benachrichtigen, indem sie ihm eine E-Mail an dessen Mailadresse schickt (falls vorhanden), die in den Einstellungen hinterlegt wurde.

Die Foundation kann Benutzer, die eine solche Benachrichtigung erhalten, weder rechtlich noch in Hinsicht auf die angemessene Reaktion auf eine Herausgabeverfügung beraten. Die Foundation beachtet natürlich, dass Benutzer möglicherweise den gesetzlichen Anspruch darauf haben, sich dagegen zu wehren oder möglicherweise die Information auf das Gericht zu beschränken, indem sie einen Antrag einreichen, um die Herausgabeverfügung zu verwerfen. Benutzer, die einer Herausgabeverfügung oder andern Zwangsmaßnahme widersprechen wollen, sollten rechtliche Beratung bezüglich der anwendbaren Gesetze und Verfahren suchen, die ihnen verfügbar ist.

Wenn die Foundation einen dem Gericht eingereichten Antrag erhält, der die Subpoena verwerfen oder in anderer Weise als Ergebnis der Klage durch einen Benutzer oder dessen Rechtsanwalt einschränken soll, dann wird Foundation die angefragten Informationen nicht enthüllen, bevor Wikimedia eine Anordnung vom Gericht erhält, dies zu tun.

Registrierte Benutzer sind nicht verpflichtet, eine Mailadresse mitzuteilen. Allerdings kann die Foundation, falls ein betroffener angemeldeter Benutzer keine Mailadresse mitgeteilt hat, dieses betroffen Benutzer nicht in einer privaten E-Mail-Nachricht informieren, wenn sie die Aufforderung von den Strafverfolgungsbehörden erhäůt, personenbezogene Daten über den Benutzer zu enthüllen.
|-
| valign="top" |

==Disclaimer==
The Wikimedia Foundation believes that maintaining and preserving the privacy of user data is an important value. This Privacy Policy, together with other policies, resolutions, and actions by the Foundation, represents a committed effort to safeguard the security of the limited user information that is collected and retained on our servers. Nevertheless, the Foundation cannot guarantee that user information will remain private. We acknowledge that, in spite of our committed effort to protect private user information, determined individuals may still develop data-mining and other methods to uncover such information and disclose it. For this reason, the Foundation can make no guarantee against unauthorized access to information provided in the course of participating in Foundation Projects or related communities.
| valign="top" |
== Disclaimer ==

Die Wikimedia‐Foundation hält es für wichtig, personenbezogene Daten nachhaltig vor unbefugter Kenntnisnahme zu schützen. Zusammen mit anderen Richtlinien, Resolutionen und Handlungen der Foundation stellt diese Datenschutzrichtlinie einen ernsthaften Versuch dar, die Sicherheit der von uns erhobenen und in unseren Servern gespeicherten personenbezogenen Daten zu gewährleisten. Dennoch kann die Foundation nicht garantieren, dass die personenbezogenen Daten der Benutzer nicht-öffentlich bleiben. Wir räumen ein, dass trotz unserer ernsthaften Bemühungen, personenbezogene Daten zu schützen, entschlossene Einzelpersonen in der Lage sein könnten, mit Hilfe von Datenbankauswertungen und anderen Methoden personenbezogene Daten zu finden und weiterzugeben. Aus diesem Grund kann die Foundation nicht garantieren, dass die personenbezogenen Daten, die bei der Teilnahme an ihren Projekten anfallen, zuverlässig vor unbefugter Kenntnisnahme geschützt sind.
|}

Talk:Privacy policy

2010-09-27T14:29:33Z

Tinz: /* What is being collected? */ re

Talk:Privacy policy

2010-07-26T13:57:58Z

Tinz: /* disclosure of user realnames - no policy? */ re

Talk:Privacy policy

2010-07-22T17:47:06Z

Tinz: /* disclosure of user realnames - no policy? */ response

Talk:Privacy policy

2010-05-17T12:23:15Z

Tinz: /* COPPA */ re

User talk:Pathoschild

2010-05-05T13:08:51Z

Tinz: /* User:Thekohser */ unblocked

{{user language|en|N}}
{{user language|fr|N}}
<div style="border-bottom:2px dashed #000;">
Please use ''informative'' section titles that give some indication of the message. This page was last archived 04 March 2010 ([[User talk:Pathoschild/Archives|archives index]], [[User talk:Pathoschild/Archives/2010-03|last archive]]).
</div>

==AJAX transclusion table bug==
I think I found a bug with the AJAX transclusion table script when using Chrome for a browser. I made the needed changes to common.js and I tested it in IE firefox and chrome, IE failed as you said, Firefox works perfectly so I know that the script is getting loaded, however in Chrome when I click show all the text is garbled into symbols, [http://aiowiki.com/wiki/Episode_Actors here] is the page that I was working on, and for you're info I'm using Chrome 4.0.245.0 any help you can give would be greatly appreciated, this is a really cool script. [[User:Redekopmark|Redekopmark]] 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

:Edit: forgot to say that the script works fine with chrome on the wikimedia site [[User:Redekopmark|Redekopmark]] 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

==Bug in CrossActivity script?==
Hi there. Your CrossActivity script apparently categorizes all user right changes as bureaucrat actions instead of admin actions (for example it shows [http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/crossactivity/?user=SoWhy my last crat action] to be on 20091106 despite not being a crat). Would it be possible for the script to distinguish between user rights that can only be granted by crats (sysop, crat, bot) and those that can be granted by admins? Regards '''[[w:User:SoWhy|So]][[w:User talk:SoWhy|Why]]''' 13:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

==Multiple accounteligibility==
Hi, Pathos, what about adding to the AccountEligibility tool the possibility to check a list of usernames and produce a list of eligible and not eligible ones? In that way, it would be possibile to check all the voters of a given vote in a single click. --[[User:Nemo_bis|Nemo]] 09:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

: I'm working on a new framework for my tools that will provide an API for each tool. Once that is implemented, writing a simple script to query the API will be easy. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 20:18:34, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

==ls-testanalysis broken==
Hallo! Your ls-testanalysis was a really great tool - as long, as it worked good. Now however there is a blackshield over it... - could you plese have a look for it? Thanks! --[[User:Skipper Michael|Skipper Michael]] 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

: That script has been replaced by [http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/catanalysis/ catanalysis]. I've marked it as being obsolete. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 20:16:59, 04 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Thank you very much! I've just tested and found results between appr. 150 % and 250 %. Unfortunately it seems, as if counting might bring about 100 %. Do you think, that there could bee still an other bug? --[[User:Skipper Michael|Skipper Michael]] 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

::: I do not understand what you mean; that script does not output percentages. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 19:11:09, 06 March 2010 (UTC)
::::No, of course it does not output percentages. What I mean is, that it says 250 edits, if I have only 100 edits. And the difference in percents is growing with the absolut number: 7 = 7, 20 -> 30, 100 -> 250 (not exactly, just about) - sorry for my bad English. --[[User:Skipper Michael|Skipper Michael]] 23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

==Summary on Oscar's confirmation==
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010#Oscar] - it states that I am concerned. I mentioned that I would like him to be more active, but I begin with "I would like oscar to be confirmed because his talents are necessary." Perhaps there could be a middle ground section with inactivity a concern but not enough to not support? [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
:By the way, I'm in the positive section also. I was just thinking about having a third option for "I understand others thinking it is a problem but I don't"? Just something to think about in the future. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Hi Ottava. I used the {{Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/okay|/okay template}} to indicate concerned-but-favourable. Would it help if I added a legend explaining the formatting? For example: <div style="padding:1em; border:1px solid gray;">Coloured and underlined names below have notes attached. Move your cursor onto the names to show the notes. Possible notes:<ul><li>{{Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/okay|Concerned, but still favours confirmation.}}</li><li>{{Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/oppose|Agrees with this point, but opposes confirmation.}}</li><li>{{Talk:Stewards/confirm/2010/neutral|Agrees with this point, but is neutral.}}</li></ul></div>
:: —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 23:03:05, 04 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I haven't a clue. Ask the stewards, it is for their benefit, after all. :) I just wanted to point out the above as a possible thing to find a way to ensure that there wasn't any confusion. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[user talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

== Lar and the ArbCom ==

Could you please make the report from the .en ArbCom public? For transparency purposes this should be public. If names are mentioned they can be redacted as necessary. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 05:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

: Hello JoshuaZ. I will post the report when I receive it. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 05:45:30, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

== [[Template:Bar]] and [[Template:Bar/series]] ==

Might I suggest having all the documentation on [[Template:Bar/documentation]] and transcluded in a noinclude'd section on each variant of the template, rather than giving each template its own documentation section? I would think (but could be wrong!) that this would ease documentation efforts. [[User talk:Sukida|Sukida]] 17:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

: Hi Sukida. The template is still experimental and largely unwritten. I'll set up the documentation properly when it's done. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 17:43:45, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Thanks, I know... I was suggesting blue and grey to you yesterday in chat. bbbbbzzz? shh! :) Anyway, what would you think of a reverse version of both for RtL languages? [[User talk:Sukida|Sukida]] 17:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::: That should be fairly easy to implement. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 17:56:48, 05 March 2010 (UTC)

==Ajax sysop rollback==
<div style="padding-left:0.5em; border-left:3px solid gray; color:gray;">
<big>'''Not loading'''</big> 
Hi!

I'm using this script at pt.wb but the ajax rollback link is only shown at [[b:pt:Special:Contributions]]. Shouldn't it be loaded also at recent changes, difs and watch lists? [[User:Heldergeovane|Helder]] 11:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
</div>

Hi!!

Did you see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pathoschild/Scripts/Ajax_sysop&oldid=1704861 my comment] about [[User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Ajax sysop]]? [[User:Heldergeovane|Helder]] 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

: Hello Helder. I added support for rollback and patrol links everywhere. Thanks for the suggestion. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:10:20, 08 March 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you!! I noticed it still doesn't appears [http://pt.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?diff=next&oldid=157993&uselang=en here] (when that was the last edit and I could see the [roollback] link). Could you take a look at this case too, when you have time again? [[User:Heldergeovane|Helder]] 02:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

::: I've implemented this in the [[User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Ajax sysop/experimental.js|experimental rewritten version]]. (You'll see it when I update the stable version in a couple of weeks.) —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 01:35:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

==Sj summary==
{{answered|text=
Regarding the summary for Sj I'm listed under "active enough; frequently comments on stewards-l". For obvious reasons that doesn't quite make sense since I'm not under stewards-l. My comment only uses the "active enough" part not the second claim. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

: Hello Joshua. I grouped similar reasons together in the summaries. In this case, everyone listed agrees that Sj is active enough — and a few also noted his activity on the mailing list as a supporting detail. Does that make sense? —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:17:18, 08 March 2010 (UTC)
:: Yep. No worries then. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
}}

== Error Log ==

As needed:

<code>
Webpage error details

User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; InfoPath.2; OfficeLiveConnector.1.4; OfficeLivePatch.1.3; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E)
Timestamp: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 05:48:50 UTC

Message: Expected identifier
Line: 389
Char: 10
Code: 0
URI: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pathoschild/Scripts/MooTools.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript

</code>
--[[User:Jyothis|Jyothis]] 05:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

== krc.wiki bot policy ==

Hello. A new Wikipedia emerged recently and is doing great. Please note it as having standard [[bot policy]]; the bot requests page is [[:krc:Википедия:Ботла]]. I will ask krc.wiki admin to confirm my words :) [[User:Amikeco|Amikeco]] 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
::I am krc.wiki admin and I really agree to implement the standard bot policy there. --[[User:Iltever|Iltever]] 22:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hello Pathoschild, I've discovered that the [[bot policy]] was proposed on an.wiktionary by Spacebirdy one year ago, but nobody commented on it. I've listed it at the bottom of [[Bot_policy/Implementation#Proposed_implementation]]. For future reference, is that the correct place or should I list it on the upper section?. Thanks in advance, — [[User:Dferg|Dferg]] ([[User talk:Dferg|talk]]) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

: That is correct. Thanks. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:02:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

== Blocked IP 85.17.19.195 ==

Hi, why did you block the IP 85.17.19.195? The log just says "crosswiki abuse, web proxies" which basically doesn't give any information about any incidents. What happened? --[[Special:Contributions/85.17.19.195|85.17.19.195]] 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

: Hello 85.17.19.195. Web proxies are blocked on sight, because they are frequently abused to circumvent blocks. In this case, it was abused for [[w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive|crosswiki vandalism]]. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 00:01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

:: Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately the [[User:.snoopy.|User .snoopy.]] was not so kind to answer, but instead deleted my comment on this talk page and even renewed the block without any comment!! Anyway... the block of the proxy is not really a problem for me, whenever I log in I can still do edits. The problem is rather that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Open_or_anonymous_proxies only open proxies] [[No_open_proxies|should be blocked]] - but my proxy is not supposed to be open, but is only used by myself to circumvent some restrictions of my Internet connection. If it is really open or has even been used for vandalism (which equally means that it was/is open, as I haven't committed any vandalism), I would like to know that. So it would be nice, if you could point out particular edits (with time and IP) that were identified as vandalism and explain what makes you think that this IP is an open proxy. --[[Special:Contributions/85.17.19.195|85.17.19.195]] 09:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

::: Your personal web proxy is fine, but unfortunately there are others who are more abusive. The entire web host is blocked, not only the address of the server you edit through. However, the block is anonymous-only to allow legitimate users to log in and edit. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 14:00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

:::: When you say "the entire web host", you refer to the IP range of a certain subnet? So it wasn't exactly my IP? --[[Special:Contributions/85.17.19.195|85.17.19.195]] 14:48, 30 March 2010

::::: You were affected by a global block on [http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/stalktoy?target=85.17.0.0/16 85.17.0.0/16], which affects 85.17.0.0 through 85.17.255.255. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 15:07:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to create a unified account 'Amedee' on en.wikipedia.org, but this failed for nl.wikipedia.org and meta.wikimedia.org. So I'm forced to use anonymous access on nl.wikipedia.org. The site blocks me because of alledged open proxy. I claim that this is not correct. Below is the relevant part of my squid.conf, as proof that my proxy is not open:<code>
acl all src all
acl manager proto cache_object
acl localhost src 127.0.0.1/32
acl to_localhost dst 127.0.0.0/8
acl localnet src 10.0.0.0/8 # RFC1918 possible internal network
acl localnet src 172.16.0.0/12 # RFC1918 possible internal network
acl localnet src 192.168.0.0/16 # RFC1918 possible internal network
acl SSL_ports port 443 # https
acl Safe_ports port 80 # http
acl Safe_ports port 443 # https
acl purge method PURGE
acl CONNECT method CONNECT
http_access allow manager localhost
http_access deny manager
http_access allow purge localhost
http_access deny purge
http_access deny !Safe_ports
http_access deny CONNECT !SSL_ports
http_access allow localhost
http_access deny all
</code>
As you can clearly see, only local hosts on my network can use the proxy, and the only local hosts are the computers that I currently work on, who connect to my personal proxy server over an ssh or openvpn tunnel. The count is currently 3, with only one physical person (me) using the proxy.

Is this enough evidence to get the error message "Uw IP-adres is door Pathoschild (meta.wikimedia.org) geblokkeerd op alle wiki's. De reden is "web proxy, crosswiki abuse". De blokkade vervalt op 10 aug 2010 om 02:16." removed on the IP address 188.40.34.110? For the record: I'm now accessing this page unproxied.
[[Special:Contributions/193.104.159.132|193.104.159.132]] 12:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

== [http://gn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mba%27ech%C4%A9ch%C4%A9:Contribuciones/STRIKINGVENGENCE STRIKINGVENGENCE] ==

You recently [http://gn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mba%27ech%C4%A9ch%C4%A9:Contribuciones/STRIKINGVENGENCE blocked]STRIKINGVENGENCE. There are several other recent account creations on small wikis using ALLCAPS in the username; for example, [http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ANDREMANCHUKHO ANDREMANCHUKHO] on nv.wiki and [http://cr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GRECOROMA GRECOROMA] on cr.wiki (no contributions yet). I have the gut-feeling these might be socks. [[User:Seb az86556|Seb az86556]] 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

: Thanks. These have been locked. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 23:41:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

== Synchbot global page edits request ==

Hi Pathoschild, thanks for providing [[User:Pathoschild/Scripts/Synchbot]]. I do not want to be rude, but it'd be nice to know if you are planning on continuing that service. Kind regards, --[[User:Church of emacs|Church of emacs]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Church of emacs|contrib]] 15:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

: Hello Church of emacs. I haven't discontinued the service, but it's not a high priority so it tends to backlog when I have other work to do. I'll probably work on it this week. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 20:49:17, 05 April 2010 (UTC)

::Okay, great, thanks a lot --[[User:Church of emacs|Church of emacs]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Church of emacs|contrib]] 09:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

== Bambifan? ==

[[:hr:special:contributions/ThisGuyisFalling]] Interest in Teletubbies-related articles. Vandalisms. [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

==[[:File:Booksshelf.gif]]==
Can you restore this image. I was looking at [[:commons:File:Bookshelf-40x20.png]] and wanted to see the orginal so I could redraw the image as SVG. If you feel meta-wiki is the wrong place for this image can you either upload it to commons or email it to me. Thanks.--[[User:Svgalbertian|Svgalbertian]] 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

==Crosswiki vandal deletion in zh-yue wikipedia==
I noticed you have deleted a number of articles due to cross wiki vandalism. From my observations, one article may start as a vandalism but after '''a number of users''' improved on it. It does not look like vandal article anymore. Second, some articles, as far as my concern, contain valid content (redirect). --[[:zh-yue:User:WikiCantona|WikiCantona]] ([[:zh-yue:User talk:WikiCantona|talk]]) --[[User:WikiCantona|WikiCantona]] 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

: Hello Cantona. I checked their article histories and did not delete those that have been significantly improved by legitimate editors. However, the banned user tends to use many accounts that appear legitimate; I remove his additions because he uses these to add machine translations, copyright violations, and unreferenced information crosswiki (as well as vandalism).

: Feel free to recreate redirects or articles with any legitimate content they contain, although it may be better to start from a verified source like another wiki rather than his edits. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:08:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

::Thank you for your quick reply. Since the mass delete of articles seldom happens with other admin from meta, I must inquire for the reasons. thank you for your reply. The redirects in zh-yue is rather unconventional in the sense of English wikipedia, we allows basically any language title to be created and redirect to. The (apparently vandal-like) multiple redirects to single title are all valid, we will not interfere with that. Feel free to continue your work against the vandals but please be sure that they are real vandals. Thank you. --[[User:WikiCantona|WikiCantona]] 07:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

== User banned due to hagger ==

Thanks for block "User banned due to h a g g e r 1" and similars in Catalan wikipedia.--[[User:Alex Esp|Alex Esp]] 23:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

: You're welcome. :) —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 23:05:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== Bambifan ==

Hi, Pathoschild. I've already posted this to Drini. 
I think that Bambifan is again in action [http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisica_i_pas_(1981)&curid=190199&diff=2383005&oldid=2383002&rcid=2434364] [http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kralj_lavova&curid=40189&diff=2383007&oldid=2367792&rcid=2434366] [http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sezona_lova&curid=240845&diff=2383011&oldid=2363756&rcid=2434370]. 
[[:hr:special/contributions/70.146.227.135]]. 
You've blocked this range 70.146.192.0/18, but what about 70.146.227.0/18 ? [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

: I've globally blocked the IP. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:54:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

== Merci ==

Bonjour, et merci de m’aider à bloquer les faux-nez de Bambifan101 sur mg.wikipedia ; par le blocage de ses comptes, il a arrêté de sévir ces derniers temps et j’éspère que cela durera. Bien Cordialement, --[[User:Jagwar|Jagwar]] [[User talk:Jagwar|交談]] [http://mg.wikipedia.org homewiki] 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

: De rien. :) —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 04:01:05, 03 May 2010 (UTC)

== Crosswiki vandalism ==

Hi Pathoschild, a request: Can you delete http://co.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockbuster ? It´s crosswiki vandalism. Thank you, regards --[[User:Jivee Blau|Jivee Blau]] 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

: Done. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 04:00:41, 03 May 2010 (UTC)
::Thank you :-). Best regards --[[User:Jivee Blau|Jivee Blau]] 09:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

== Bambifan? ==

[[:hr:special/contributions/I love pigs]]. 
Blanking. 
Article Lisica i pas (1981), The Fox and the Hound. 
Bambifan's area of interest. [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This one too 
[[:hr:special/contributions/70.146.242.87]] 
Same article. Bad translations, obviously some online translator used. [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] 00:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

: Thanks. I blocked [[hr:user:I love pigs|I love pigs]], and 70.146.242.87 is already globally blocked. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 04:00:20, 03 May 2010 (UTC)

== Oversight at Meta ==

I have closed your [[Meta:Requests for oversight/Pathoschild|request]] as successful. Congrats. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 02:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

: Thanks. :) —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 02:59:38, 04 May 2010 (UTC)

==[[User:Thekohser]]==
hi. you wrote ''requested by Jimbo for disruption/trolling at http://en.wikiversity.org/?diff=548143 (global lock changed to local block to let local community change it)''. What is the local community supposed to do now? talk about? ignore? confused regards, --[[User:Sargoth|Sargoth]] 08:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

: Hello Sargoth. The community can change the block if they want to, but otherwise there is nothing further you need to do. —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 11:23:13, 05 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Hi Pathoschild, after reading your response I unblocked that user, an explanation in english is [http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung&diff=prev&oldid=73991388 here]. --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 13:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Privacy policy

2010-03-01T13:56:35Z

Tinz: rv

CheckUser policy/Users with CheckUser access

2010-02-19T22:51:19Z

Tinz: /* Everywhere */ update

[{{fullurl:CheckUser policy/Users with CheckUser access|action=edit}} Edit]

====Everywhere====
* [[User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]]
* [[:Template:StewardsList|Stewards]] - upon [[Steward requests/Checkuser|request]].
* Members of the [[Current staff|Staff]] (see [[Special:GlobalUsers/Staff|global group]])
* Members of the [[Ombudsman commission]] (see [[Special:GlobalUsers/Ombudsmen|global group]]):
**[[User:DR]]
**[[User:Elian]]
**[[User:Lar]]
**[[User:Palnatoke]]

====Arabic Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|ar}}
# [[:ar:User:Alnokta|Alnokta]]
# [[:ar:User:Meno25|Meno25]]
# [[:ar:User:Mido|Mido]]

====Bosnian Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|bs}}
# [[:bs:User:Demicx|Demicx]]
# [[:bs:User:Kal-El|Kal-El]]
# [[:bs:User:Smooth O|Smooth O]]

====Catalan Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|ca}}
# [[:ca:User:Góngora|Góngora]]
# [[:ca:User:SMP|SMP]]

====Croatian Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|hr}}
# [[:hr:User:E.coli|E.coli]]
# [[:hr:User:Ex13|Ex13]]
# [[:hr:User:Vodomar|Vodomar]]

====Czech Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|cs}}
# [[:cs:User:Mormegil|Mormegil]]
# [[:cs:User:Wikimol|Wikimol]]

====Danish Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|da}}
# [[:da:User:Kaare|Kaare]]
# [[:da:User:MGA73|MGA73]]
# [[:da:User:Sir48|Sir48]]

====Dutch Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|nl}}
=====Appointed by Arbcom=====
# [[:nl:User:Akoopal|Akoopal]]
# [[:nl:User:Andre Engels|Andre Engels]]
# [[:nl:User:Erwin|Erwin]]
# [[:nl:User:Gpvos|Gpvos]]
# [[:nl:User:Hardscarf|Hardscarf]]

====English Wikibooks====
{{CheckUsers autolist|b:en}}
# [[b:en:User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]
# [[b:en:User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike.lifeguard]]
# [[b:en:user:SB Johnny|SB Johnny]]

====English Wikinews====
{{CheckUsers autolist|n:en}}
# [[n:en:User:Brian|Brian]]
# [[n:en:User:Brianmc|Brianmc]]
# [[n:en:user:Cirt|Cirt]]
# [[n:en:user:Cspurrier|Cspurrier]]
# [[n:en:user:Skenmy|Skenmy]]

====English Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|en}}
=====Appointed by Arbcom=====
# [[:en:User:Alison|Alison]]
# [[:en:User:Avraham|Avraham]]
# [[:en:User:Brandon|Brandon]]
# [[:en:User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]]
# [[:en:User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand Luke]]
# [[:en:User:Coren|Coren]]
# [[:en:User:Deskana|Deskana]]
# [[:en:User:Dominic|Dominic]]
# [[:en:User:FayssalF|FayssalF]]
# [[:en:User:FloNight|FloNight]]
# [[:en:User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]]
# [[:en:User:Hersfold|Hersfold]]
# [[:en:User:J.delanoy|J.delanoy]]
# [[:en:User:Jdforrester|Jdforrester]]
# [[:en:User:Jpgordon|Jpgordon]]
# [[:en:User:Jredmond|Jredmond]]
# [[:en:User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]]
# [[:en:User:KnightLago|KnightLago]]

# [[:en:User:Luk|Luk]]
# [[:en:User:Luna Santin|Luna Santin]]
# [[:en:User:Mackensen|Mackensen]]
# [[:en:User:Mailer diablo|Mailer diablo]]
# [[:en:User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]]
# [[:en:User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]]
# [[:en:User:Risker|Risker]]
# [[:en:User:Rlevse|Rlevse]]
# [[:en:User:Roger Davies|Roger Davies]]
# [[:en:User:Shell Kinney|Shell Kinney]]
# [[:en:User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]]
# [[:en:User:Thatcher|Thatcher]]
# [[:en:User:Tznkai|Tznkai]]
# [[:en:User:Vassyana|Vassyana]]
# [[:en:User:Versageek|Versageek]]
# [[:en:User:Voice of All|Voice of All]]
# [[:en:User:YellowMonkey|YellowMonkey]]

=====Office=====
# [[:en:User:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]]
# [[:en:User:Cary Bass|Cary Bass]]
# [[:en:User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]]
# [[:en:User:Tim Starling|Tim Starling]]

====English Wikiquote====
{{CheckUsers autolist|q}}
# [[q:en:User:Aphaia|Aphaia]]
# [[q:en:EVula|EVula]]
# [[q:en:User:Jusjih|Jusjih]]

====English Wikisource====
{{CheckUsers autolist|s:en}} 
([[s:Project:Restricted access policy#Checkuser_access|Local policy]] allows stewards to checkuser on this wiki for crosswiki abuse, so long as the [[s:Project:Administrator's noticeboard|check is noted]].)
# [[s:User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]]
# [[s:User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]]
# [[s:User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]]

====English Wiktionary====
{{CheckUsers autolist|wikt}}
# [[wikt:en:User:Connel MacKenzie|Connel MacKenzie]]
# [[wikt:en:User:Rosasmith|Rodasmith]]
# [[wikt:en:User:TheDaveRoss|TheDaveRoss]]
# [[wikt:en:User:Versageek|Versageek]]

====French Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|fr}}
# [[:fr:User:Alain r|Alain r]]
# [[:fr:User:Cary Bass|Cary Bass]]
# [[:fr:User:Clem23|Clem23]]
# [[:fr:User:Gribeco|Gribeco]]
# [[:fr:User:Hexasoft|Hexasoft]]
# [[:fr:User:Maurilbert|Maurilbert]]
# [[:fr:User:Mmenal|Mmenal]]
# [[:fr:User:Nakor|Nakor]]

====Finnish Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|fi}}
# [[:fi:User:Agony|Agony]]
# [[:fi:User:Harriv|Harriv]]
# [[:fi:User:Jniemenmaa|Jniemenmaa]]
# [[:fi:User:MikkoM|MikkoM]]

====German Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|de}}
# [[:de:User:Bdk|Bdk]]
# [[:de:User:HaeB|HaeB]]
# [[:de:User:Kulac|Kulac]]

====Hebrew Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|he}}
# [[:he:User:Deror avi|Deror avi]]
# [[:he:User:דולב|דולב]]
# [[:he:User:מוטי|מוטי]]
# [[:he:User:עוזי ו.|עוזי ו.]]
# [[:he:User:עידו|עידו]]

====Hungarian Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|hu}}
([[w:hu:Wikipédia:IP-ellenőrzési kérések|requests]] and [[w:hu:Wikipédia:Az IP-ellenőrzés adatvédelme|policy]])
# [[:hu:User:Bináris|Bináris]]
# [[:hu:User:Grin|Grin]]
# [[:hu:User:Syp|Syp]]

==== Indonesian Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|id}}
# [[:id:User:Hayabusa future|Hayabusa future]]
# [[:id:User:IvanLanin|IvanLanin]]
# [[:id:User:Meursault2004|Meursault2004]]

==== Italian Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|it}}
# [[it:User:Abisys|Abisys]]
# [[it:User:Gac|Gac]]
# [[it:User:Pap3rinik|Pap3rinik]]
# [[it:User:Rojelio|Rojelio]]
# [[it:User:Melos|Melos]]

==== Japanese Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|ja}} ([[ja:Wikipedia:CheckUserの方針|policy]])
# [[:ja:User:Bellcricket|Bellcricket]]
# [[:ja:User:Carkuni|Carkuni]]
# [[:ja:User:Cassiopeia sweet|Cassiopeia sweet]]
# [[:ja:User:Chatama|Chatama]]
# [[:ja:User:Kanjy|Kanjy]]
# [[:ja:User:海獺|海獺]]

====Polish Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|pl}} 
Due to a new policy on the Polish Wikipedia, users who gain 85% of votes in favor may become CheckUsers
# [[:pl:User:Karol007|Karol007]]
# [[:pl:User:Leinad|Leinad]]
# [[:pl:User:Lzur|Lzur]]
# [[:pl:User:Masti|Masti]]
# [[:pl:User:Polimerek|Polimerek]]
# [[:pl:User:Saper|Saper]]
# [[:pl:User:Szwedzki|Szwedzki]]


==== Portuguese Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|pt}}
# [[:pt:User:Daimore|Daimore]]
# [[:pt:User:Lucas Teles|Lucas Teles]]
# [[:pt:User:Ruy Pugliesi|Ruy Pugliesi]]

====Romanian Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|ro}}
# [[:ro:User:AdiJapan|AdiJapan]]
# [[:ro:User:Andrei Stroe|Andrei Stroe]]

====Russian Wikipedia====
{{CheckUsers autolist|ru}}
# [[:ru:User:DR|DR]]
# [[:ru:User:EvgenyGenkin|EvgenyGenkin]]
# [[:ru:User:Ilya Voyager|Ilya Voyager]]
# [[:ru:User:Kv75|Kv75]]
# [[:ru:User:Putnik|Putnik]]
# [[:ru:User:Wind|Wind]]
# [[:ru:User:Wulfson|Wulfson]]

==== Serbian Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|sr}}
# [[sr:User:Djordjes|Djordjes]]‎
# [[sr:User:Dzordzm|Dzordzm]]
# [[sr:User:Обрадовић Горан|Обрадовић Горан]]

==== Simple English Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|simple}}‎
# [[simple:User:Eptalon|Eptalon]]
# [[simple:User:Fr33kman|Fr33kman]]
# [[simple:User:Jamesofur|Jamesofur]]
# [[simple:User:Majorly|Majorly]]
# [[simple:User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]]

==== Spanish Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|es}}
# [[:es:User:Alhen|Alhen]]
# [[:es:User:Barcex|Barcex]]
# [[:es:User:Drini|Drini]]

==== Swedish Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|sv}}
# [[:sv:User:Caesar|Caesar]]
# [[:sv:User:Fluff|Fluff]]

==== Turkish Wikipedia ====
{{CheckUsers autolist|tr}}
# [[:tr:User:Eldarion|Eldarion]]
# [[:tr:User:Elmacenderesi|Elmacenderesi]]
# [[:tr:User:Noumenon|Noumenon]]
# [[:tr:User:Ugur Basak|Ugur Basak]]

====Wikimedia Commons====
{{CheckUsers autolist|commons}}
# [[commons:User:Bastique|Bastique]]
# [[commons:User:Drini|Drini]]
# [[commons:User:Eusebius|Eusebius]]
# [[commons:User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]]

# [[commons:User:Mardetanha|Mardetanha]]
# [[commons:User:Martin H.|Martin H.]]
# [[commons:user:SB Johnny|SB Johnny]]
# [[commons:user:Tiptoety|Tiptoety]]

====Mediawiki====
{{CheckUsers autolist|mw}}
# [[mw:User:Brion VIBBER|Brion VIBBER]]

====Meta====
{{CheckUsers autolist|m}}
# [[User:Dferg|Dferg]]
# [[User:Drini|Drini]]

# [[User:Pathoschild|Pathoschild]]
# [[User:Mike.lifeguard|Mike.lifeguard]]

User talk:Bastique

2010-02-17T17:31:03Z

Tinz: /* Request for disclosure */ re

{{User talk:Bastique/header}}
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bastique&action=edit&section=new Post a new comment to me here!!!]

==roa-rup.wikt==
Welcome to roa-rup.wikt, Bastique! --[[User:Piolinfax|0]] '''[[wikt:es:Usuario Discusión:Piolinfax|º]]''' 16:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:Thank you for the welcome! [[User:Bastique|Cary Bass]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez]] 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

==Regarding Over Zealous Admins and the Deletion of the Alvin Fields wiki page:==
Bastique, I know you are probably very busy but we feel the deletion of this page was condescending and unnecessary since this Singer/Songwriter/Actor does fill the quota for notability.
The Admins have blocked editing use and made it impossible to access any editing on this page. Here is a breif history of these admins rash actions:
This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

* 07:47, 8 November 2009 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Alvin Fields" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion)
* 02:23, 29 October 2009 Spartaz (talk | contribs) deleted "Alvin Fields" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial maintenance. using TW)
* 12:22, 22 October 2009 Cirt (talk | contribs) deleted "Alvin Fields" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Fields)
In regard to your deletion of the Alvin Fields page: Define exactly how he does not fit the following criteria.

this is the wiki Quota for Composers:

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4. Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Can you legitimately define the reason for this page deletion despite the fact that this musician actually does reasonably fit this criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nippyinc (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Fields. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This, in fact is a list of Alvin Fields Writer Credits and Label Affiliation:
http://www.discogs.com/artist/Alvin+Fields
Releases:
Special Delivery (12", Promo) A&M Records 1981
Special Delivery (Album) ◄ (2 versions) A&M Records 1981
Special Delivery (LP, Album) A&M Records 1981
Special Delivery (LP) A&M Records 1981
Nothing Heavy ◄ (2 versions) Devon Records (USA) 1985
Nothing Heavy (12") Devon Records (USA) 1985
Nothing Heavy (12", Promo) Devon Records (USA) 1985
Appears On:
Denny Greene (LP, Album) Love Party, Home Run, ... Midsong International Records 1977
Electrified Funk (LP, Album) Epic, Sweet City Records 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (Maxi, Single) ◄ (14 versions) Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock ... 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12") Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant (7", Single) Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12", Maxi) Private Stock, Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12") Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (7") Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12", Promo) Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12") Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12") Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1977
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12") Private Stock 1977
Cantemos (Let's All Chant) / El Expreso Del Amor (Love Express) (12", Ltd, Red) EMI Capitol De Mexico, EMI Capitol De Mexico 1978
Let's All Chant / Love Express (7") Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1978
Let's All Chant / Love Express (7") Let's All Chant, Love ... EMI Music (Netherlands) 1978
Let's All Chant / Love Express (7", Single) Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock, EMI-Odeon, S.A. 1978
Let's All Chant / Love Express (12") Let's All Chant, Love ... Private Stock 1978
SpanDisco (LP, Album) SpanDisco, SpanDisco Band Midsong International Records 1977
SpanDisco (7", Promo) Midland International Records, Midland International Records 1977
What's Your Name, What's Your Number (LP, Album) Life Is What You Make ... Buddah Records 1977
What's Your Name, What's Your Number (LP, Album) Life Is What You Make ... Buddah Records 1977
White Witch (LP, Album) Life Is What You Make ... Buddah Records 1977
"Life's A Party" ◄ (2 versions) Private Stock 1978
"Life's A Party" (LP) Private Stock 1978
"Life's A Party" (LP, Yel) Private Stock 1978
15 Hit Sounds Vol. 2 (LP) Let's All Chant Philips, Phonogram S.A.I.C. 1978
Afromerica (LP, Album) Barclay, Barclay 1978
El Ritmo De La Vida (7", Single) EMI-Odeon, S.A. 1978
Let's All Chant (Album) ◄ (2 versions) Private Stock 1978
Let's All Chant (LP, Album) Private Stock 1978
Let's All Chant (LP, Album) Let's All Chant, Soul ... Private Stock 1978
Music Fever ◄ (2 versions) Soul To Soul Sonopresse ... 1978
Music Fever (7") Soul To Soul Sonopresse 1978
Music Fever / Soul To Soul (7") Soul To Soul Private Stock 1978
Music Fever / Freak (Single) ◄ (2 versions) Freak (Special Disco Mix) Private Stock ... 1978
Music Fever / Freak (12") Freak (Special Disco Mix) Private Stock 1978
ミュージック・フィーヴァー Music Fever / フリーク Freak (7", Single, Promo) Freak (フリーク) Private Stock, Toshiba EMI Ltd 1978
Rhythm Of Life (Album) ◄ (4 versions) Rhythm Of Life, You're... Arista ... 1978
Rhythm Of Life (LP, Album) Rhythm Of Life, You're... Arista 1978
Rhythm Of Life (LP, Album) Rhythm Of Life, You're... EMI Music (Netherlands) 1978
Rhythm Of Life (LP, Album) Rhythm Of Life, You're... Arista, Pathé Marconi EMI 1978
Rhythm Of Life (LP, Album) Rhythm Of Life, You're... Arista 1978
Rhythm Of Life / You're Like (Single) ◄ (3 versions) Arista ... 1978
Rhythm Of Life (7", Promo, Mono) Arista 1978
Rhythm Of Life (7", Single) Arista, Pathé Marconi EMI 1978
Rhythm Of Life / You're Like (12") Arista 1978
Rock 'N' Soul (LP) All Together, Ruby Tue... Epic 1978
Soul To Soul / Music Fever (12") Soul To Soul Private Stock 1978
Super Classifica Vol. 2 (LP, Comp) Let's All Chant Penny (2) 1978
The Stud (Cass) Let's All Chant CBS 1978
Think It Over (Album) ◄ (2 versions) Think It Over, Warning... Private Stock 1978
Think It Over (LP, Album) Think It Over, Warning... Private Stock 1978
Think It Over (LP, Album) Think It Over, Warning... Private Stock 1978
Think It Over / An Umbrella Song ◄ (7 versions) Private Stock 1978
Think It Over / An Umbrella Song (12") Private Stock 1978
Think It Over (7") Private Stock 1978
Think It Over (7") Private Stock 1978
Think It Over (7") Private Stock 1978
Think It Over (12", Promo) Private Stock 1978
Think It Over / An Umbrella Song (12") Private Stock 1978
Think It Over/An Umbrella Song (12", 45 ) Think It Over, An Umbr... Private Stock 1978
Warning - Danger (This Love Affair May Be Hazardous To You) (7", Promo) Columbia 1978
What's Your Name, What's Your Number (LP, Album) Life Is What You Make ... Buddah Records 1978
Winter '78 New Releases (LP, Comp, Promo) Let's All Chant Private Stock 1978
シンク・イット・オーバー Think It Over (7", Single, Promo) Private Stock, Toshiba EMI Ltd 1978
Ilona Staller (LP) It's All Up To You RCA Italiana 1979
Moulin Rouge (LP, Album) Philips 1979
Brass Construction 6 (LP, Album) I'm Not Gonna Stop, Do... United Artists Records 1980
Love Trippin' (LP, Album) I Just Want To Be With... Atlantic 1980
Zager (LP) Don't Sneak On Me, You... Columbia 1980
Doctor Rhythm (LP, Album) Mirage (2) 1981
Good Black Is Hard To Crack (LP, Album) Reaching Out For Love ... Mercury 1981
I Love Music (Disco Mix 1981 / Vol 2) (7", Single, Mixed) Let's All Chant, Let's... Supreme Records 1981
I Love Music Medley (7", Single, Mixed) Let's All Chant Creole Records 1981
It Doesn't Only Happen At Night ◄ (4 versions) It Doesn't Only Happen... Red Rock Records ... 1981
It Doesn't Only Happen At Night (12") It Doesn't Only Happen... Red Rock Records 1981
It Doesn't Only Happen At Night (12") It Doesn't Only Happen... Deutsche Grammophon 1981
It Doesn't Only Happen At Night (12") Red Rock Records 1981
It Doesn't Only Happen At Night / Undercover Lover (12") It Doesn't Only Happen... Red Rock Records 1981
Pato C Presents: Hollywood Studio Show (LP, Mixed) Oop, Oop Mercury, Phonogram S.A.I.C. 1981
What A Woman Needs (LP, Album) Piece Of The Rock EMI America 1981
Mind Up Tonight (Special Remix) (12") Piece Of The Rock Capitol Records, EMI Records Ltd. 1982
Phase 2 (LP, Album) Cotillion 1982
Let's All Funky ◄ (2 versions) I.D.D. One Records (Italy) 1986
Let's All Funky (12") I.D.D. One Records (Italy) 1986
Let's All Funky (12", Promo) I.D.D. One Records (Italy) 1986
Let's All Chant / Traffic Jam (12") Domino Records UK 1987
Let's All Chant (12") Let's All Chant (Somet... TELDEC 1988
Rock The Room (Album) ◄ (2 versions) All The Way RCA 1988
Rock The Room (LP) All The Way RCA 1988
Rock The Room (CD, Album) All The Way RCA 1988
Single Girls (Maxi) ◄ (3 versions) All The Way (LP Version) RCA 1988
Single Girls (12") All The Way (LP Version) RCA 1988
Single Girls (12", Promo) Single Girls (Instrume... RCA 1988
Single Girls (12", Maxi) All The Way RCA 1988
Dance Classics - The Mix (Single, Maxi) ◄ (3 versions) Let's All Chant Arcade 1989
Dance Classics - The Mix (7", Single) Let's All Chant Arcade 1989
Dance Classics - The Mix (12", P/Mixed) Let's All Chant, Let's... Arcade 1989
Dance Classics - The Mix (CD, Maxi, P/Mixed) Let's All Chant, Let's... Arcade, Arcade 1989
Dance Classics - The Remixes Volume 1 (Comp) ◄ (2 versions) Let's All Chant Arcade 1989
Dance Classics - The Remixes Volume 1 (CD) Let's All Chant Arcade 1989
Dance Classics - The Remixes Volume 1 (Cass, Comp) Let's All Chant Arcade 1989
Love Crazy (Album) ◄ (2 versions) Starway Records ... 1989
Love Crazy (CD) Starway Records, Inc. 1989
Love Crazy (LP, Album) Starway Records, Inc. 1989
Let's All Chant - 1990 Remix (12") Rams Horn Records 1990
Mix In Paradise (Comp) ◄ (2 versions) Let's All Chant Watch Out ! 1990
Mix In Paradise (CD, Comp) Let's All Chant Watch Out ! 1990
Mix In Paradise (LP) Let's All Chant Watch Out ! 1990
Use It Up And Wear It Out (12", MiniAlbum) Let's All Chant (Somet... Charisma 1990
Culture Dance Vol. 1 (Special Club) (2xCD, Comp, Ltd) Let's All Chant Versailles, Sony Music Entertainment (France) 1994
Dance Mania (CD) Let's All Chant (Move ... Oy EMI Finland Ab 1994
Let's All Chant (Remixes) (Maxi) ◄ (3 versions) Phonogram 1994
Let's All Chant (Remixes) (12", S/Sided, Etch) Phonogram 1994
Let's All Chant (Remixes) (12", S/Sided, Etch) Phonogram 1994
Let's All Chant (Remixes) (CD, Maxi) Let's All Chant (Happy... Phonogram 1994
Best Of The Best (CD, Mixed) Let's All Chant Coeur De Lion 1995
Kiss And Say Goodbye: The Best Of The Manhattans (CD, Comp) Am I Losing You Legacy, Columbia 1995
1997 Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras - Party Anthems Three (2xCD, Comp + CD, Mixed, Dis + CD, Unm) Let's All Chant (Full ... Dance Pool 1996
Dance Mania 3 (CD, Comp) Let's All Chant (Johnn... EMI, Oy EMI Finland Ab 1996
Génération Disco (CD, Single, Car) Let's All Chant, Let's... BMG (France) 1996
Génération Disco (CD, Comp, Mixed) Let's All Chant BMG (France) 1996
Happy House Vol. 2 (2xCD, Comp) Let's All Chant (Full ... Feel The Rhythm 1996
La Légende Des Tubes Volume 3 (CD) Let's All Chant PolyGram - Kiosks 1996
Let's All Chant (12", Maxi) Numuzik Inc. 1996
Let's All Chant (Maxi, Single) ◄ (7 versions) Manifesto ... 1996
Let's All Chant (CD, Maxi) Manifesto 1996
Let's All Chant (CD, Maxi) Manifesto, Manifesto 1996
Let's All Chant (CD, Single) Manifesto 1996
Let's All Chant (CD, Maxi) Central Station 1996
Let's All Chant (CD, Promo) Manifesto 1996
Let's All Chant (3 Monster Mixes) (CD, Single, Car) Do It Music 1996
Let's All Chant - 6 Monster Mixes (CD, Maxi) Do It Music 1996
Promo Copy 18 (12", Promo) Let's All Chant (The O... Dig It International 1996
Back To The D.I.S.C.O Vol. 1 (CD, Comp) Let's All Chant Versailles, Sony Music Entertainment (France) 1997
Let's All Chant (CD, Maxi) ZYX Music 1997
Let's All Chant - The Michael Zager Dance Collection (CD) Let's All Chant, Love ... Varèse Sarabande 1997
Mega Beat Box (10xCD, Comp + Box) Let's All Chant Disky 1997
The Best Disco Album In The World ...Ever! (2xCD, Comp) Let's All Chant Virgin, Virgin 1997
Disco Nights Volume 1 (CD, Comp) Let's All Chant Unidisc 1998
Once In A Lifetime (CD, Comp) Let's All Chant Bellevue Entertainment 1998
Dance Classics Volume 7&8 (2xCD, Comp, RM) Let's All Chant Universal TV 2000
Let's All Chant... (Part 1) (12") Dream Team 2002
Disco Classics (CD) Let's All Chant Varèse Sarabande 2003
Just Be Yourself (CD, Maxi) Just Be Yourself (Radi... ARS Productions 2006
Body Crash (CD, Single) Positiva, Positiva 2008
Disco (5xCD, Comp, Dig) Let's All Chant Wagram 2008
Godskitchen - The Anthems 2009 (3xCD, Comp, Mixed) Body Crash (Streetlife... New State Recordings 2008
Unofficial Releases:
Mega Bitt 2 (Cass, Comp, Mixed) Let's All Chant Laser Music

This was the list of his music history including his co-write of Let's All Chant on over 200 compilation albums. So where do these admin find the right to delete and protect the page from ever being added to or edited? If you can help at all, your help in un-deleting this page would be most appreciated Bastique. Thank you so much for your time. [[User:Nippyinc|Nippyinc]] 23:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

:Please email info{{@}}wikimedia.org with this complaint. Or visit [[en:Wikipedia:Deletion review]]. I do not personally handle content disputes on Wikipedia. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

== User Lerdsuwa from th wiki ==

Hi. I got your note from my talk page. The preference in my account doesn't have "Enable e-mail from other users" set so your email produce error. It should work now. Alternately you can also mail me directly at lerdsuwa @ truemail.co.th --[[User:Lerdsuwa|Lerdsuwa]] 12:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikigeography]] ==

Hi Bastique,
hope I'm not canvassing here, but please take a moment to look at my new proposed Wikimedia project in the header above. If you have any feedback about it this would be welcomed on the talk page. --[[User:Kelsington|Kelsington]] 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==Wikimedia Brasil==

Hi Bastique,
Could you please send a message to our chapter's mailing list to confirm the aproval of our bylaws from the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation?
Thanks a lot,
[[User:TSB|TSB]] 04:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:Hey TSB. Is this something that you've already heard about? While I know that it was approved, I've yet to see the resolution or the board announcing anything. I made my change based on changes to the Chapters page. [[User:Bastique|Cary Bass]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez]] 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Emesee ==

[[Steward_requests/Permissions#Emesee.40en.wikiversity]] --[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] 15:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Esperanto-Vikipedio ==

Hallo, I translated your message to Esperanto, Martin, Esperantst

== Corporate contributions ==

Dear Bastique, [[User:Alexanderps|Alex Pereira]] told me you about you. He said you probabile could help me. I work in Banco do Brasil, one of the largest bank in my country. We here are developing an learning environment tool based on [[wiki]] software and I was wondering about how making a donation on behalf of the corporation. I haven´t got the decision last word but i am willing to make it on its way. Could you give me any hint? Sorry for my poor english writing skills. Sincerely, [[User:Nevinho|Nevinho]] 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== The banner ==
Hi Bastique :) Sorry to bug you, but could you please check on [[Talk:Fundraising_2008/design_drafts]]? Is that the place - or is there another, which is more suitable? Cheers ;) [[User:Noorse|Noorse]] 20:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
:That seems like a good page. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 21:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you :) [[User:Noorse|Noorse]] 21:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

==OTRS Permissions ticket==
Hi, hope you may be able to help, or find me someone who can. There is a discussion as to the copyright status of [[wikipedia:AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes]]. On [[wikipedia:Talk:AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movie_Quotes#Permissions|the talk page]] is a claim that OTRS ticket 2007041310002766 resolved this issue, but there's no formal confirmation of that, and I can't see into the inner workings of OTRS. Please can you take a look at that ticket and provide a suitable confirmation on the talk page? Otherwise the list may be deleted and restored ad infinitum. Many thanks, [[Special:Contributions/86.147.113.107|86.147.113.107]] 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, the above (and this) is from [[wikipedia:User:TrulyBlue]], no account on wikimedia.
::I've confirmed the ticket and left a note on the articles talk page. Let me know if you have any other questions. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

== My vote ==

Please explain to me what the point is in waiting to vote? What will change between now and Monday? I am not able to return to vote over the next few weeks and given that I have voted in almost every round and that I have long complained about how unnecessarily long this voting has been I think my vote should remain. Please correct me if you think there is a valid reason why voting must wait until Monday.--[[User:Xania|Xania]] 00:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

== Fundraising banner ==

Hi Bastique, 
[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrown1023#Marathi_Translation User:Cbrown1023] had told me that you will be creating the banner/buttons for the fund-raising site for different languages. 
What is the procedure for that? If needed I have created the banners for Marathi (mr), but I haven't yet uploaded them on wiki 
Please let me know what needs to be done 
Thanks, 
[[User:Padalkar.kshitij|Padalkar.kshitij]] 18:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, missed reading this today while I had the resources. Will take a look tomorrow at this. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 02:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::See also, [[wmf:User:Cbrown1023/Fund2008/status]]. '''[[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]]''' '''[[User talk:Cbrown1023|talk]]''' 02:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== Rights at en.labs.wikimedia ==

Hi there! I'm working with the group that's attempting to construct a workable implementation of FlaggedRevisions on en.wiki, and so I'm interested in experimenting with all the rights and options that are available. I [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&diff=1274640&oldid=1274639#Happy-melon.40en_labswikimedia made a steward request] for sysop rights on en.labs.wikimedia, but was told to ask one of the local bureaucrats directly, so here I am. Would you be willing to grant me sysop status on en.labs? As I mentioned in the steward request, I'm an active sysop at en.wiki and there isn't really a community (or indeed content!) to consult at en.labs. I'm not on meta very often so if you wouldn't mind either replying at [[en:User talk:Happy-melon]], or just dropping a note there after responding here, I would be hugely greatful. Many thanks in advance, [[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]‑[[w:en:User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']] 15:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 02:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]‑[[w:en:User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']] 12:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

== copyright permission ==

hey there. sorry to bother you, this has become rather long and complicated, but hopefully you can help :) i want to use a radio interview as a source for an article, but the only copy of the interview is hosted on a blacklisted site. an admin has said that it is suitable for whitelisting so long as the site has permission to host the interview (like it says in wp:copyrights). now, as the site owner is the guy being interviewed, i was pretty sure that he must have permission. but another admin seems to have a personal history with this guy so he won't accept this and said that confirmation from the radio DJ was required. so i emailed the DJ and he confirmed that the site owner had permission to host it and even gave me permission to use it how i wanted so long as it wasn't for profit. but the admin doesn't believe me about the DJ's email and says that i need to forward it to otrs. i'm not really sure what otrs is or how it works (actually i'm not really sure that all this is necessary as wp:copyrights simply says to avoid linking to "known" copvios) but anyway, maybe you can tell me what to do or where to forward the email. thanks :) [[User:Jessi1989|Jessi1989]] 15:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
:What does a blacklisted site have to do with copyright? And what do we care about another sites copyright violation? [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::hey, yeah, to be honest i'm not sure. i need to link to a radio interview recording hosted on that site. so i requested whitelisting, and it looks like the whitelisting should be ok. however, one admin wants me to "prove" that the site owner is not violating copyright by hosting this file and has explicitly told me to contact otrs about it. i don't think it's really necessary either. i'm happy to go back and tell them that you said it's not needed, if you think that's best? [[User:Jessi1989|Jessi1989]] 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Our OTRS agents have no way of verifying whether the owner of another website is violating copyright or not. So that was bad advice. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
::::hey, sorry to keep bothering you, i don't think i explained the situation properly. the interview was done on kerrang radio (a uk radio station). the person who was being interviewed is hosting a copy of the interview on his own website. the admin wants proof that he has copyright permission, so i emailed the radio station, who obviously own the interview. they replied confirming that the interviewee had permission to host their interview on his site. the admin wants me to forward this email to otrs to confirm what the radio station told me, as he doesn't seem to trust me (like i said he has a history with the interviewee). so otrs will not have to verify whether this recording is copyvio directly, just verify the radio station's email confirming copyright permission. sorry if you already understood this. if you still think otrs is not required here i'll say so in the whitelisting request. thanks for your time :) [[User:Jessi1989|Jessi1989]] 05:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Song ==

I need your help in a basic Wikimedia question. Please contact me in the chat if possible. I also try to get in contact to Frank because of the languabe barriere ;-) Thanks --[[User:Steschke|ST]] [[:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Steschke|○]] 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:I will point Frank at your request. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 20:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::ok. --[[User:Steschke|ST]] [[:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Steschke|○]] 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::At the moment he's in a meeting. We'll chat tomorrow then. --[[User:Steschke|ST]] [[:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Steschke|○]] 23:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm in the same meeting. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 23:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== Email sent ==

Just a quick note to confirm that I've sent an email with copy ID to secure-info@wikimedia.org. I've appointed to en:wiki ArbCom on 20 December 2008. All the best, [[User:Roger Davies|Roger Davies]] 11:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:Received and noted. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 17:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

== New mailing lists ==

Hey Cary. I'm pretty sure you're in charge of mailing list creations and I didn't want to assign you to these bugs without asking you first if that's what you preferred. There are two mailing lists that have been requested: [[bugzilla:16369]] and [[bugzilla:16987]]. Cheers. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 09:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Loves Art project: San Francisco museums ==

Hi, Cary,

Is there a list to sign up to get more information about this?

[[w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art|Wikipedia Loves Art]] 
[http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43008300207 Facebook group]

I love this idea and want to participate.

Best wishes, 
--[[w:User_talk:Mariva|Mariva]] 05:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Mariva! Thanks for your inquiry. I don't have much more information yet today, but I do suggest you join the Wikimedia-SF email list, which can be found here: [[mail:Wikimedia-SF|Wikimedia SF]]. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 19:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== Input needed on a Wikiversity project ==

Hi Bastique. I'm trying to get a project started on Wikiversity: [[v:Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections‎|Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections‎]], which is a research project on how Wikipedia articles are created and improved, particularly when the topic is the subject of strong sentiments and relates to events that change over the time period in the study (probably January 2008 through January 2009, but there's some question about when the campaign actually "began").

I'm leaving you (and a few other folks) this note because you've had some interest in Wikiversity's studies of Wikipedia in the past, I wanted to get a few more eyes on the project before announcing it on Wikipedia: I hope to do that over the next few days on the talk pages of the 4 "beta test" articles: [[w:Barack Obama]], [[w:John McCain]], [[w:Sarah Palin]], and [[w:Joe Biden]], with a broader announcement later after the initial kinks are worked out. I was also hoping you would know people who would be interested in this, as well as knowing people with a few "special skills", including:
#Data collection and sorting from the article histories (how many edits and what sorts of edits over a given time period, etc.)
#People who can make good graphs and charts from that data
#people who can help develop guidelines for whether and how to discuss individual editors if they are felt to be "notable"

I think this could be a very fruitful study: Wikipedia's model of content creation is quite complicated, but it works! --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']]|[[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]]|[[b:User:SBJohnny|books]] 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:Erik Zachte already has a lot of this data, see his [http://infodisiac.com website] and [http://infodisiac.com/blog/ blog] (specifically [http://infodisiac.com/blog/2008/11/us-presidential-election-2008/ this post]). '''[[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]]''' '''[[User talk:Cbrown1023|talk]]''' 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks Cbrown... big huggle to you! That's definitely the sort of graphics I had in mind, but I'm more interested in how the "communal creative process" works, so the data would need a more subtle analysis. Does Erik Zachte have a talk page I could leave a message on? I'd like to keep the whole process of organizing the process "on wiki" as well, as much as I can. --[[User:SB_Johnny|'''SB_Johnny''']]|[[User talk:SB_Johnny|talk]]|[[b:User:SBJohnny|books]] 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
:::He has an e-mail address: <tt>:-)</tt> erikzachte{{@}}infodisiac.com. '''[[User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]]''' '''[[User talk:Cbrown1023|talk]]''' 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== Wikibooks favicon ==

Hi,

Could you change the favicon of the french (and probably the other projets, but I’m not aware of the situation on the other projects) Wikibooks projets ? I don’t know how to do it and it’s weird to have a favicon different from the logo. Cdlt, [[User:VIGNERON|VIGNERON]] * [[User talk:VIGNERON|discut.]] 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
:HI! The bug is in: [[bugzilla:17049]]. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

== Request ==

Hi there, Bastique. There is a spambot over on the Simple English Wiktionary that needs a block and there are very few active administrators on the Simple English Wikipedia. Can you please go over there and block the IP address that just created a page? Thanks, [[User:Razorflame|Razorflame]] 18:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is also an open proxy. [[User:Razorflame|Razorflame]] 18:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

:Never mind. My RfA just ended as successful, so I was able to deal with it. Cheers, [[User:Razorflame|Razorflame]] 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Scientific images ==

Hello Cary, so here is a page, I have promised to you: [[Wikimedia Czech Republic/Project: Scientific and Special Photograph]]. And if you can help with correction of English language we will be glad.--[[User:Juan de Vojníkov|Juan de Vojníkov]] 19:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

== Kreyol outreach ==
How is this project coming, by the way? ht is growing at a healthy pace -- are there any active contributors who edit on meta / read f-l ? [[User:Sj|-- sj]] | [[Meta:Babylon|''help translate'']] |[[User Talk:Sj|+]] 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

==ID==

Dear Bastique, I want to let you know that I have already sent the requested proof of identification in order to have checkuser access. Kind regards, --[[User:Góngora|Góngora]] ([[User talk:Góngora|T]]•[[w:es:User:Góngora|ES]]) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

== Equinox ==

Would you mind chiming in at [[wikt:Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-03/User:Equinox for admin#Discussion]]? Thanks.—[[User:msh210|msh210]]℠ 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:I have absolutely no idea how I can help there. If you want to see if someone has identified, check the [[Identification noticeboard]]. Thanks. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you, That ''is'' what was wanted.—[[User:msh210|msh210]]℠ 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

== "Established chapters" ==

Hey Bastique, I was wondering how you determine if a chapter is "established" or not? I thought recognition of "official" chapters was per [[foundation:Resolution:Approval_of_Wikimedia_Brasil|Board approval]]. cheers --[[User:Pfctdayelise|pfctdayelise]] 06:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

== G'day Cary ==

hope you're good 'n all - we thought summer had left down under, but it's come back the last couple of days beautifully :-) Anywhoo... I recently [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_take_a_look_at_:_The_Alastair_Haines_situation put in a request] to the english wikipedia's arbitration committee, and as you'll see, an arb has indicated that they need your input - perhaps to navigate the grey areas between OTRS and arbcom jurisdiction etc. (I'm not sure there are any, but some are being perceived anyways) - your input would be appreciated :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)ping me if a real time catch up would be at all useful too...

== en-wiki RFAR ==

An arbitration request relating to OTRS has been filed at [[w:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_take_a_look_at_:_The_Alastair_Haines_situation]]. If you could comment at it and direct relevant OTRS-personnel to comment, it would be most appreciated. '''[[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]''' [[User talk:MBisanz|talk]] 10:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
* Cary, I have commented. I don't think this is an OTRS issue, I think someone has the wrong end of the stick. [[User:JzG|JzG]] 13:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

== usability wiki ==

There is a request on Talk:Main Page on the usability wiki to change the incorrect "Stanton Foundation" on its Main Page to "Ruth and Frank Stanton Fund". As the request has been there for two months with no attention, I am spamming this to all administrators in the hope someone sees it. [[User:Gurch|Gurch]] 14:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

== Scholarships ==

Hi Bastique. I've applied for a Wikimania Scholarship, but unfortunately I didn't get one. I found a company in my country, South Africa, who is willing to sponsor me for the Wikimania. They just want to know how many South Africans applied, and how good my application was. I've talked with Girl2k and she said I need to talk with you. I really appreciate all the trouble! I would just love to attend the Wikimania. Kind regards, [[User:Slapsnot|Slapsnot]] 13:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Slapsnot: I sent you an email. --[[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

== Question ==

Hi!

I was asked to forward a photo ID to you for the trustee elections, but the email address I was given bounced back to me. Can you send me the correct one so I can take care of this?

Thanks!--[[User:CastAStone|CastAStone]][[User talk:CastAStone|//₵₳$↑₳]][[Special:Contributions/CastAStone|₴₮ʘ№€]] 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:Please see [[Steward_handbook/email_templates#Notification_that_identification_is_required|this page]] for established instructions on identification. --[[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

== adware spam in the wikipedia pages ==

I am a new user and encountered adware while using wikipedia. The following pages have links to ez-tracks.com The site links to ringtone vendors that obfuscate subscription sign up and/or terms and conditions for free ringtones with flashy promotional content. In our tests, we found downloads on this site that some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs. ez-tracks force adware downloads and hijack browsers. Please tell me where the right place is to reoprt spam..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_patriotic_music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avril_Lavigne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avril_Lavinge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyonce_Knowles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boney_M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandi_Glenn_Cyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Adams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine_Dion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Yankee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donda_West
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Montana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Montana?redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsong_United
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lopez
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Timberlake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenny_G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Pausini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Avril_Lavigne_concert_tours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Akon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley_Cyrus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miley_Cyrus?redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MileyWorld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Clayderman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakira
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakira?redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_traditions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weddings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlife
:If you're just concerned with the English Wikipedia's use of these links then visit [[w:MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist]]. For concerns about the site on any Wikimedia project see [[Talk:Spam blacklist]]. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wiktionary logo 2009 refresh voting ==

Hello there, I just would like to inform you that the Wiktionary logo 2009 refresh voting should start now, but so far we haven't come up with any rules yet. Since it seems that you started the refresh, would you like to help out? Thanks in advance. [[User:Wyvernoid|Wyvernoid]] 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

== Re: Volunteering ==

Hi there. Is there some sort of information page you can point me to that explains in more detail what kind of volunteer work is available, what I would/could be doing etc.? I live in Vancouver, BC. Could I volunteer somehow locally or would I have to travel to San Fran? Thanks. -- [[User:OlEnglish|OlEnglish]] 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
:Hello. At this time we have no specific project-related "Calls for Volunteers"; and the Wikimedia Foundation office is presently at capacity. However, as much of the project work is self-regulated, you can do plenty of work here on your own. One way to help out is with the customer service system known as OTRS (see [[m:OTRS]]). Are there any specific areas of interest you have? --[[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
::Well I was hoping to explore what my options were. OTRS sounds like something I'm capable of. But I'm not an admin? Looks like I'll just have to stick to wikignoming for now. :) -- [[User:OlEnglish|OlEnglish]] 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

===Update: volunteer.wikimedia.org===
Looks like my question has been answered, http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/ is just what I was looking for! ..oh and I'm an admin now too ;)

-- [[User:OlEnglish|OlEnglish]] 20:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

==Abuse of non-free content on the English Wikipedia==
I would greatly appreciate your assistance with the issue described at [[Wikimedia_Forum#A_serious_non-free_content_problem_on_the_English_Wikipedia]]. Thank you. [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] 01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

== Pengguna:Ampon ==

Bonjour,

Je suis enregistré sur le wiki fr sous le pseudo de Ampon et j'ai effectué toutes les migrations de mes autres comptes pour pouvoir l'unifier. Seul souci, quelqu'un l'a déjà ouvert [http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembicaraan_Pengguna:Ampon en indonésien]. Comme il a un [http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=ampon compteur d'édition à zéro], je me demandais s'il était possible de le récupérer pour que je puisse unifier entièrement mon compte une fois pour toute. je ne parle par contre pas un mot d'indonésien pour leur en faire la demande sur place. Merci par avance au cas où vous pourriez faire quelque chose.

[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Ampon Lien pour ma page de discussion sur le fr]

Cordialement --[[User:Ampon|Ampon]] 15:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

==Identification of [[user:Hersfold|Hersfold]] and [[user:Hmwith|Hmwith]]==
Hello Cary. Can you confirm that [[user:Hersfold|Hersfold]] and [[user:Hmwith|Hmwith]] are identified with the Foundation, for the [[identification noticeboard]] diff links? —[[User talk:Pathoschild/s|Pathoschild]] 13:04:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

== Identification Martin H. ==

Hi Bastique, I identified myself to secure-info on August 18, can you confirm that on identification noticeboard? If the identification with my [[w:de:Personalausweis]] is not sufficient please let me know in response to my email. Regards, --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:Martin, I did not receive that email; but I was on vacation during that time and those emails were going to someone else, who would have by now deleted it. In which case, I suggest that you send it again, and I will be the one to receive it. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 20:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you, Bastique, I will send it again. Regards, --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] 12:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

== Spanish Wiki and English Wiki ==

Hi there Bastique. I'm an editor from the English Wikipedia project, but I read and sometime edit the Spanish Wikipedia pages. I've noticed on the [http://es.wikipedia.org Spanish Wikipedia] that they have several links to several tools on a page's history page. You can click to get a list of editors, contribution details, search the history, get general statistics on an article, or check the number of visits to a page. Check out [http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=España&action=history this page]. The ''Herramientas'' are tools (list of editors, contribution details, and history search), the ''Estadísticas'' are statistics (general stats and number of visits). We should add this to our pages too. [[User:Declan Davis|Declan Davis]] 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

== Wiktionary vote ==

Bonjour Bastique! I noticed that you are a Translator from English to French. Could you then translate [[Wiktionary/logo/refresh/voting]] to French, s'il vous plaît? —[[User:AugPi|AugPi]] 03:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:I could, but unfortunately, my obligations have me in other places at present. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::I believe Mglovesfun speaks French, maybe you could ask him? [[User:Razorflame|Razor]][[User talk:Razorflame|flame]] 22:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia logo ==

Hi. Semi-annual nudge. I was wondering if you had any info/updates on the Wikipedia logo situation?

It's been a year since your post at [[Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo]] (which got archived, sadly), and a while since any developments at [[Talk:Wikipedia/Logo]]. It's also been over 2 years since the [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/technology/25wikipedia.html?_r=1 nytimes article]. There were a few mentions on the mailing list, eg [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-July/044789.html this thread]. But [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-June/030972.html this from Brion Vibber] was the last "official" word I know of. There might be more clues in [[en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_26#Fix_the_logo_completely.2C_or_not_at_all|this en:WP:VP thread]] or at [[en:User_talk:Ambuj.Saxena/Wikipedia-logo]].

I just wanted to add a straw to the camel's back, or encourage things to start rolling again. ;) [[User:Quiddity|Quiddity]] 06:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Quiddity. The ball is rolling already :) . But thanks for pointing this out. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 22:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

== OTRS for Esperanto ("info-eo") ==

Hi there.

I'd like to start a queue in the Esperanto language. (According to the page OTRS, you are one to contact about it. I am an administrator in the Esperanto Wikipedia, and I am monitoring and cleaning up the images there. Some of the people I contact, our only common language is Esperanto. Is this something you could please set up? Thanks... -- [[User:Yekrats|Yekrats]] 12:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

^--- * ping * ;-) -- [[User:Yekrats|Yekrats]] 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not in charge of setting up OTRS queues. Please make the request at [[Talk:OTRS]]. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
:: Thanks for the response! -- [[User:Yekrats|Yekrats]] 10:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

== Deleted images ==

Hello, I recently uploaded an image and it was automatically categorized for speedy deletion. I don't understand why because I used the proper licensing. I contacted the company directly via email ticket #2009100210033461 and they agreed to release the image, and other, under CC-by-SA 3.0. [[User:Skier Dude|Skier Dude]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|talk]]) deleted my page and he recommended me to contact an admin to verify the email and to have the image restored. You can reply to this image on my talk page [[User:Elmatamoskas|Elmatamoskas]] ([[User_talk:Elmatamoskas|talk]])

-[[User:Elmatamoskas|Elmatamoskas]] ([[User talk:Elmatamoskas|talk]]) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

== WT logo vote ==

The Wiktionary logo vote first round will end soon and logo #59 is winning 243 votes to #1's 216 (at least that's what it was an hour ago) which makes me believe that #59 is most likely to win the second round. A while ago, you mentioned that since the Foundation is holder of the Wiktionary copyright and mark, the Foundation must approve any Wikimedia-wide logo change. Do you know if it would be possible to receive approval in advance of the vote, and if so, how? It would probably be better to be on the safe side, and make sure in advance that the logo will be actually able to be used... --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] 01:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
:Let's address the results of the follow-up vote when it happens--a run-off may yield dramatically different results. I'll alert the appropriate people to this discussion. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Wikipedia/Logo#Why are we keeping the omega at all?]] ==

Do U think U could find a way to insert Uyghur v, ۋ, into the proposed Wikipedia logo ball's unseen area? Warmest Regards, :)--[[user:thecurran|thecurran]] [[user talk:thecurran|Speak your mind]] [[Special:Contributions/thecurran|my past]] 05:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

== haitian flag with "SUPPORT HAITI" ==

Hi Bastique :-)
for the translation : "EDE AYITI" or "SOUTNI AYITI" (the latter underline long term effort, the first one is more general).
Thank you for your attention, it's really helpful. [[:ht:User:Masterches|Masterches]] 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

== Identification to Foundation ==

Hi I have a picture of my driving license for the United kingdom but as my scanner isnt the best I have tried my best to get it to copy correctly but because of the new anti fraud thing placed on the driving licenses it is slightly blured you can see my date of birth just about shall I send it to for you to look at and see if you can read it or not? [[User:Corruptcopper|Corruptcopper]] 16:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
:Go ahead and email it to secure-info{{@}}wikimedia.org. Either we can read it or not. If not we'll let you know. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

== Identification noticeboard ==

Hi, can I add my name [[Identification noticeboard]], my identity was confirmed [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/elections_2007/statements/.snoopy.&diff=prev&oldid=760637 here] :) --[[User:.snoopy.|.snoopy.]] [[User talk:.snoopy.|✉]] 07:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:Hi, that links looks pretty legitimate to me! You may want to ask someone else to add you or give me a few minutes while I have a chance. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

==Steward 2010 reconfirmation question==
I am asking my questions for the reconformation directly, so, here we go. How does being a Steward help you with your role as Volunteer Coordinator? How does it hinder it? Do you feel that if you did not have the Volunteer Coordinator duty that you would be more active as a Steward or less? Do you feel that without the Volunteer Coordinator duty that you would be more active on various projects or less? If you had the free time to accomplish one goal on any project, what would it be? [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] 19:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

: I don't think this is the right place to put it if you would like to ask a question about reconfirmation then place it on the relevent pages rather than pestering the user directly. If they want to answer the questions im sure they will answer them on the relevent pages. [[User:Corruptcopper|Corruptcopper]] 21:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

:: He's here because there is no question-and-answer portion for Steward reconfirmations--in general because existing stewards, their behaviors and their philosophies are generally well-known to the community. Questions in the reconfirmation potentially places an unnecessary burden of response on them. Ottava is asking stewards individually on their user pages which allows them to answer or choose not to answer on their time, and it's appreciated that he's doing it here. I simply haven't found an opportunity to address his questions with the attention I believe he feels they're worth. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

== Identification of [[User:Evalowyn]] ==

Hi Cary. I noticed that [[User:Evalowyn]] is [{{fullurl:Identification noticeboard|action=edit&section=7}} noted] on the identification noticeboard as "Pending 18th birthday". On her [[Stewards/elections 2010/statements/Evalowyn|Steward election]] statement, she says she'll turn 18 during the election. Could you confirm this for us please? Regards, --[[User:Church of emacs|Church of emacs]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

:{{done}} Seems to be on 2010-02-03, according to [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Identification_noticeboard&diff=1808876&oldid=1808873&diffonly=1] --[[User:Church of emacs|Church of emacs]] [[User talk:Church of emacs|talk]] 08:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

== fonction "search" dans wikipedia picard ==

bonjour, la recherche sur le wikipedia picard qui a été créé il y a un mois ne fonctionne pas;
à qui faut-il s'adresser pour corriger ce problème? ou bien quelle est la procédure pour activer la fonction "recherche" ?

voir = http://pcd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueul

merci d'avance; adé; [[User:Geoleplubo|Geoleplubo]] 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:Bonjour, il faut créer un bugzilla, je croix? http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org . [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

== [[Steward_requests/Permissions#SergeyJ.40ru.wikiversity]] ==

I ask you to accept here the final decision. [[User:SergeyJ|SergeyJ]] 09:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

== Id-proof of an older CU ==

Hello! [[User:Gac]] most probably will become a Checkuser on it.wiki [[w:it:Wikipedia:Check user/Elezioni/Gac|next February 14]]. He was already CU [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=user%3AGac%40itwiki&year=&month=-1&tagfilter= on October 2006], but on [[Identification noticeboard]] his name does not appear. Do you need Gac's Id-proof again before becoming CU? Thanks. --[[User:Roberto Mura|'''Roberto''']] [[User Talk:Roberto Mura|'''Segnali all'Indiano''']] 09:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:In October 2006, we were not requiring ID. I'm not sure if we got it after the fact, but if he's not on the noticeboard, then we probably did not. I apologize if he will have to do this again, but I have no record at present. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 00:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. I'll inform him on it.wiki. Bye! --[[User:Roberto Mura|'''Roberto''']] [[User Talk:Roberto Mura|'''Segnali all'Indiano''']] 07:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

==Sexual harassment complaints (moved from [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/confirm/2010/en#Lar Lar reconfirmation])==

Hi Cary, MZMcBride stipulated that questions for you should be posed to your talk page, rather than on Lar’s confirmation page.[http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proabivouac&diff=1854110&oldid=1422349] 
So what happened, to your recollection?[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 08:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:Since I can recall no event similar to what you describe, I can only respond by saying that if any event like the one you describe had occurred, it would be a dereliction of my position to publish the details in public for the sake of the privacy of any of the individuals involved without their express consent. Unless you provide me with an event in which you are personally involved, and give me the permission to release the details of your involvement, I certainly have no interest in engaging you further. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 00:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

== Request for disclosure ==

As evident from [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1860690&oldid=1850631 this edit], you assigned DR to the ombudsmen commission. In this respect, I have several questions:

# Are you aware that DR is a checkuser at ruwiki? Isn't it a conflict of interests that a checkuser becomes a member of a commission which is supposed to independently investigate checkuser activities?
# Are you aware that DR himself was under investigation by the ombudsmen commission for allegedly violating a user privacy by publishing the information on that user's wiki-mail usage in Wikipedia? The commission confirmed that DR violated the user's privacy, but did not impose any actions on DR under a pretense that he did not disclose personally identifiable information. This was a pretty curious decision. Is DR in a secret connection with the ombudsmen commission?
# Do I understand correctly that the decision to make DR an ombudsmen commission member was made in secrecy by an unknown circle of people? If so, I request a full disclosure of this decision process. [[User:SA ru|SA ru]] 13:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
:I understand that you are a banned sockpuppet on Russian Wikipedia. Therefore, let me explain some things to anyone else who might happen upon your questions and not have the context that I've been given:
:# Ombudsmen are usually taken from active checkusers. The local checkuser right is removed when the ombudsman takes over.
:# A large number of active project functionaries get frivolous claims of abuse. While abuse occurs from time to time, it is more often the case that these claims are frivolous. To not promote someone because he was once under investigation is to reduce the potential ranks to individuals often generally unwilling to take on the responsibilities.
:# Trolling is not permitted on Meta any more than any other project. Generating drama by creating unsubstantiated insinuations will get you banned from this project and globally banned from any Wikimedia project. [[User:Bastique|bastique]] [[User talk:Bastique|demandez!]] 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

:Concerning 2.: There are no outstanding issues with DR, our decision in the Serebr case was published [[:ru:Участник:DR/Ombudsman1|here]], "The commission confirmed that DR violated the user's privacy" is very misleading.
:Concerning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysubmit&diff=344606162&oldid=344589337 these] accusations: I had never heard of DR before that case, did not know that he would be a candidate for the new OC before I saw the log entry yesterday, and I generally have no reason to protect checkusers when I believe they did wrong (see e.g. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards%2Fconfirm%2F2010%2FAlexanderps&action=historysubmit&diff=1860676&oldid=1860324 this] post from yesterday). --[[User:Tinz|Tinz]] 17:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (ex-Ombudsman)