1) This is not about the Jack Merridew case. I have got a lot to say about
that but I wont as that isn't the scope of this. I have been observing
difficulties on interwiki related issues for quite some time. Assuming good
faith towards me isn't banned, keep that in mind.
2) Do not quote me without permission. Publishing IRC logs publicaly may get
you banned from all Wikimedia channels - or so it says when you join
channels. Frankly it is very rude.
- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Aphaia
<aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your information but it doesn't
sound an "interwiki" thing
at all. It sounds rather trwiki internal issue and that's all.
And I would add using stewards as deus ex machina to judge community
issues is a horrible idea, at least for me. Trwiki, in this case,
would be better to settle their own arbcom; again it doesn't look like
"interwiki" things.
I want to remember that this thread started because White Cat wanted
Jack Merridew blocked *by stewards* in projects where he edited and
without obvious (according to several of us who looked) disruption
In his words:
> Consider the scenario where a disruptive user
is indefinitely blocked on
a
> particular wiki. He decides to have a
"fresh start" in causing the same
> slow-paced disruption on all sister projects one by one...
Yes, someone else pointed that trouble users will eventually prove
themselves and get blocked, that's true, nothing new is needed.
Now what is being proposed is a board to track "trouble users" who are
not obvious vandals (like those who checkusers track crosswiki), and
block them so they can't "escape to Mexico to commit more murders" but
just "controversial users". It sounds a bit to me like stalking
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l