User talk:Samuel (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard[edit]

Hey @Xaosflux:, I am glad you found an answer to your question. Samuel (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Community consultation regarding the new access to nonpublic personal data policy[edit]

Hi Samuel, I hope you are well. I would like to thank you for the reminder e-mail asking us to sign the new confidentiality agreement for non-public personal data. I read the help page explaining how to sign the new agreement and noticed that it refers to a community consultation following which the Foundation accepted this new agreement. I was surprised to hear of it. I searched my e-mail archives and this wiki, and could not find any mention of the discussion. I also don't believe I had been invited to participate in it.

Could you point me to where the community discussed this? I understand it's too late to participate in the consultation, however I think it could be useful for me to read what other people wrote before I sign the new agreement. Thank you, odder (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello odder, thanks for pointing this out. Actually, the "community consultation" language was a legacy from the previous version and I have probably missed this when updating the content of the How to sign page, see here Special:Diff/18603499/18442553. However, it's a typo that has been fixed some minutes ago (Special:Diff/18729308).
Best regards -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

General confidentiality agreement[edit]

I've signed General confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, Could you please check and update my username in list for non-OTRS related access to nonpublic information. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 15:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi ZI Jony, the Noticeboard has just been updated. Best regards. Samuel (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Confidentiality agreement[edit]

Hi Samuel, thanks for the message about the confidentiality agreement. I'm really pleased WMF are making such issues a priority and appreciate your hard work. However, in my case I'm not doing any volunteering or work with the Wikimedia or GLAMwiki community at the moment so I think any privileges I have should be revoked anyway. Thanks! PatHadley (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey PatHadley, I am sorry that you received a notice once more. Indeed, after our previous discussion I had noted to remove your Account Creator's rights. I'll make sure not to include in the next reminder messages. Best regards Samuel (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem! Given all that you're juggling I appreciate that you double check PatHadley (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

General confidentiality agreement[edit]

Hi. I'm here to report that I've just signed General confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. So I would be thankful if I should know if I did it all OK and if the request for noticeboard edition is in progress. Best Regards. Millennium bug (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Millennium bug, I hereby confirm that you have signed the agreement. The noticeboard will be updated later after a couple of internal checks. Sincerely -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ditto on the signing.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Cyberpower678 and Millennium bug, the noticeboard was updated Special:diff/18872956. Best regards -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Samuel (WMF)/CA Reminder/MassMessage List[edit]

Please note User:☈ is an alternative account of Ks0stm (on the signed list).--GZWDer (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

GZWDer, thank you very much for the heads up. I will update our records accordingly.
Sincerly, Samuel (WMF) (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You not included Special:CentralAuth/Wojciech Pędzich. --Wargo (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wargo, you're right. That user signed long ago, back in November. I fixed it Special:Diff/18877722. Sincerely --Samuel (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Confidentiality Agreement[edit]

Hello, I've just signed it today, please check it. Also, can I ask how is the process of regaining my CheckUser tools that removed? because I'm signing it too late. Thank you.--AldNonymousBicara? 10:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I confirm that you have signed the Confidentiality Agreement on Phabricator on Feb 17, 2019.
However, as you have already pointed out, your signature happened after the deadline of Feb 13, 2019. Therefore, I am afraid that the procedure for regaining CheckUser access is the one indicated in the CheckUser Policy and explained below. Since the Indonesian Wikipedia does not have an Arbitration Committee, your CheckUser rights can be reinstated per consensus of the community. In this case, you must request those rights within the local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, special request page, etc.). After gaining consensus (at least 70%–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in the local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, you should request access at Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.
I hope the above was helpful. Should you have additional question, feel free to reach out.
Sincerly --Samuel (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I see, thank you for the rensponse.--AldNonymousBicara? 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, when will my name added to this list? Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard?--AldNonymousBicara? 01:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Aldnonymous, were you able to follow the steps detailed in my previous message? -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I understand I have to nominate myself again for CU Access, but my question is when the diff be inserted to the noticeboard, because without the diff is listed there I can not nominate myself for the access because there's no proof that I already signed the agreement.--AldNonymousBicara? 00:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey Aldnonymous, you were added to the Noticeboard (Special:Diff/18915420). You can proceed with the rest of the steps accordingly :) -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot understand the rationale behind requiring a new election for a four days-hiatus. To the best of my knowledge signing the agreement is just a requirement to be met. As soon the requirement is met then normal processes may occur. And in a normal process we can safely assume Aldnonymous never lost id.wiki's community confidence, and in a normal process, this is a plainly uncontroversial circumstance in which CU rights can be reinstated. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I totally agree with Vituzzu. @JSutherland (WMF): your help would be appreciated. Trijnsteltalk 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Samuel, Vituzzu and Trijnstel.--AldNonymousBicara? 00:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Vituzzu and Trijnstel, thank you for weighing in. If the Stewards are comfortable with regranting the CheckUser rights to Aldnonymous without going through the full community process, the Trust & Safety team is happy to support such. Best regards -- Samuel (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Samuel, if Aldnonymous didn't start a local vote we can safely give him the rights back. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello to, Vituzzu there's no need for that, I already start a local vote see here, its safe to assume I will pass anyway. My gratitude to everyone here who've been helping me.--AldNonymousBicara? 00:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you, good luck and glad to have you back soon. Trijnsteltalk 17:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition to access policy noticeboard[edit]

Hi Samuel. Perhaps you could check if User:Стефанко1982 signed the access policy noticeboard? If not, perhaps you could keep an eye on it? Trijnsteltalk 19:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Trijnstel, User:Стефанко1982 hasn't signed it yet. Samuel (WMF) (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have already signed General confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. I do not know if everything has been done correctly. --Стефанко1982 (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Стефанко1982 I confirm that you signed the Confidentiality Agreement on Tue, Mar 19, 3:24 PM. I'll update the Noticeboard. Samuel (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition to confidentiality agreement noticeboard (frwikipedia)[edit]

Hello,

This sunday, the French arbcom give the list of new users which needed CheckUser and Oversight access (see). I signed the french version of the text but need formal confirmation.

Best regards, --Gratus (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Bonjour Gratus, j'ai mis à jour le Noticeboard (Special:Diff/18969604). Bien à vous --Samuel (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup ! Bonne journée. --Gratus (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I sent you an email...[edit]

Hey Samuel!

I've signed the confidentiality policy on Phab, and sent you an email to confirm, but it doesn't seem as though you've seen either as I'm not on the noticeboard yet. Have I missed a step? Dusti*poke* 07:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Dusti, indeed, you followed the right steps. However, we usually perform an internal review before updating the Noticeboard. I apologize for the delay and inconvenience this has caused. Your username has now been added to the Noticeboard as you can see here Special:Diff/19000358. -- Cheers, Samuel (WMF) (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Noticeboard[edit]

Hello I have signed the general and OTRS confidential information agreement on phabricator using my real name Masum Reza. Could you please update the noticeboard? Sincerely, Masum Reza 05:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Masumrezarock100, I have sent you a private message through your email address. Could you kindly check it? Best regards, Samuel (WMF) (talk)
Replied. Masum Reza 23:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Your post[edit]

Regarding your post here:

I'm sorry that I missed that. Is there anywhere for a person to register their thoughts on this issue open right now? I suppose I could put them here - but I'd like to get them copied over to a place where it might actually count as part of a discussion.

  • ------------- thoughts -------------------
  1. Partial office actions.
    These should NEVER be used on the larger wiki projects where there exists a process currently in place to deal with disruptive editing. If there is a problem large enough or serious enough for the WMF to stick their collective noses into a community affair, it wouldn't be a "partial" solution, and a situation that requires a partial solution is certainly not one that should be done unilaterally (without community input). If the WMF feels that there is a situation that needs to be addressed, then they should bring the matter to the attention of that wiki's top advisory team (Arbcom on en-wp), and mention on wiki that a discussion about "x" is ongoing. If for some reason there are details about "x" that should remain private, then of course those issues would not be mentioned.
  2. Temporary office actions.
    These should almost never be used on larger wiki projects. However, there could be times where something arises that could possibly constitute an "emergency", in which case the WMF could step in as an effort to help the community. When this is done, then there should be an immediate opening of dialog with the community to discuss a possible solution.

For the smaller wiki projects that may need some sort of office actions, something should be decided and put into place after a discussion with that community.

  • ------------ end of thoughts -------------

Thank you for your time. Ched (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Ched:, thanks for your valuable ideas. For now they will not be taken into account as, it appears that you are directly answering the consultation (drat) questions. This is not yet the time for that since the upcoming consultation itself will be best-suited for gathering thoughts regarding where and how partial bans should be used, if at all. The consultation will start in September and will be announced widely so that the community can participate. The pre-conversation aim was only to draft the consultation text. I hope my explanation makes sense. Best regards. —Samuel (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and your time. As I'm not on Meta very often, I'm hoping that wherever they post the message on en-wp, that it's somewhere I'll see. Kind Regards, Ched Ched (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Consultation on partial and temporary office actions[edit]

Hi Samuel, do you have any objections to my editing Office actions/Community consultation on partial and temporary office actions/draft to add the question we discussed here? In particular, I would like to change the draft questions to read:

  1. How should partial and temporary Foundation bans be used (if at all)? On all projects, or only on a subset?
    1. Large ones with an elaborate conflict resolution body as the ArbCom on the English language Wikipedia
    2. Medium-sized  ones with a working process for conflict resolution but not elaborate or fully formal
    3. Small ones where neither follow up on all edits is done nor a proper conflict resolution mechanism exists within the community
  2. Can the draft 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?
    1. In what circumstances do the advantages of confidential accusations, evidence, and evaluation of sanctions outweigh the drawbacks of contributors being unable to learn the specific behavior expectations against which they are being judged, and of the checks and balances on the abuse of frivolous or retaliatory accusations inherent in open and transparent evaluation of public complaints?
  3. How should partial and temporary Foundation bans ideally be implemented, if they should be?
    1. For what types of behavior should the Foundation issue partial or temporary office actions?
    2. Should partial and temporary office actions be appealable?
    3. What duration(s) should be available for partial and temporary office actions?
    4. What other considerations should be taken into account when using partial or temporary office actions?
    5. To what extent should the community be allowed to participate in the discussion about temporary Office Actions? What if the temporary Office Actions were challenged by the local community?

If I don't hear from you by Wednesday, I will assume you have no such objections and go ahead. Thank you for your consideration. EllenCT (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello @EllenCT:, as your question came close to the expiration of the pre-conversation, it was reviewed with the rest of pending changes. I split it into two questions for clarity:
  • In what circumstances should the confidential accusations, evidence, and evaluation of sanctions not be disclosed to the accused person nor handled in public?
  • What safeguards could be put in place against abusive or retaliatory accusations inherent to public complaints?
Do the questions above reflect your original opinion? If yes, I'll insert them in the text today when I'll be updating the finalized version of the text. —Samuel (WMF) (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. We need to ask about contributors learning about the standards by which they are judged, because that doesn't happen when the complaints and their accusations are confidential. And the second question seems to assume that it is possible to safeguard against retaliation under such circumstances -- I'm not sure it actually is. Here is how I would split the questions into two:
  1. How might privately evaluated confidential complaints allow contributors to learn the standards by which their behavior is being judged?
  2. How might privately evaluated confidential complaints prevent frivolous or retaliatory accusations?
EllenCT (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT:, concerning the first point, I read "In what circumstances do the advantages of confidential accusations, evidence, and evaluation of sanctions outweigh the drawbacks of contributors being unable to learn the specific behavior expectations against which they are being judged, and of the checks and balances on the abuse of frivolous or retaliatory accusations inherent in open and transparent evaluation of public complaints" as exploring both situations where "privately evaluated confidential complaints" should and shout not "allow contributors to learn the standards by which their behavior is being judged". Could that be rephrased in "When should privately evaluated confidential complaints allow contributors to learn the standards by which their behavior is being judged?"?
Additionally, I'd replace "frivolous" with abusive in the text "How might privately evaluated confidential complaints prevent frivolous or retaliatory accusations?" as abusive encompasses retaliatory, frivolous and similar disruptive/irrelevant motives, and with translation in mind. —Samuel (WMF) (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
My original question was more along the lines of, when complaints and their adjudication are confidential, how is it even possible that people can learn what the behavior standards are, and how is it even possible that we can inhibit retaliatory and abusive complaints? It's absolutely true that by causing the complaints and the adjudicators' opinions to be public, those issues are avoided. But if we assume that complainants are offered privacy, it's best not to assume that there is some way to provide either the behavioral standards information or the abuse safeguards. If you ask the "When..." question you propose, you assume the conclusion, like, "When did Bob stop beating his wife?" If Bob wasn't beating his wife, the question is invalid and misleading. If there is no way to learn the behavioral standards from confidential accusations, that question is similarly invalid.
As for "retaliatory or frivolous," originally we had, "retaliatory or abusive," which I agree is better. EllenCT (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hey @EllenCT:, how about "If complaints are evaluated privately, under which circumstances should contributors be allowed to learn the standards by which their behavior is being judged?"? It's been inserted to the text as such Special:Diff/19357292. Let me know if you have an objection. Be mindful that the page will soon be marked for translation but it can be tweaked if needed. —Samuel (WMF) (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

My username used to be "Wildly boy", and I re-signed the confidentiality agreement ([1]). So can you update Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information? Thanks. Catherine Laurence 10:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Catherine Laurence:, were you able to re-sign it recently under your new account? —Samuel (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)