Maybe a foundation committee to cut through the bureaucracy when necesary... I do not think this is a task for stewards.
-- White Cat
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Please consider that Milos is just one voice among many that feel a need for a council that deals with the issues that are currently not getting the attention that they deserve. When some want an Arbcomm that override that deals with cases that deal with individuals, others see a global arbcomm as a body that ensures some harmonisation between the different projects. When NPOV is no longer considered to be exactly that, how do we deal with this. Do we want the board, the organisation to step in or will the projects deal with such issues themselves ??
It is exactly because there is no vision what a council will be doing, that it was proposed to trash out a proposal first. This still needs doing and only then it will become relevant to support or oppose parts of what is proposed or all that is proposed. In my opinion, what the council will in reality do will be different from what we expect at this stage. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, Milos, you would love to have the proposed Volunteer Council to have the role of SuperHyperArbcom. Then I think I have a good reason to oppose strongly your idea.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am talking about 6 months+
blocks.
Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory solution, but as an
opt-in
solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home project, too.)
There are a couple of good reasons for that:
- en.wp ArbCom has its own rules and I am sure that it isn't making
mistakes
about long term blocks.
- Long term blocks are reserved for very disruptive users. I really
don't
think that someone who was so disruptive at en.wp -- would be more constructive at some other project.
I and Ray referred to the same person who was so trusted as to be promoted to sysop (and even b'crat) but once permanently blocked from English Wikipedia Arbcom?
And re: English Wikiquote I sure she was, is and hopefully will be one of the best editors we've ever had.
- Small projects (not those maintained by stewards, but those which
have
a
community) usually suffer heavily by users already proved as disruptive
at
en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English projects.) Usually, the
same
user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very painful process for
that
community.
- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all
longer
blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are the reasons good
enough
for
long time block (which means that such user should get Wikimedia-wide
block)
or a local ArbCom should consider decision once again.
- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for
longer
blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user is a threat to all WM projects.
With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able
to
find
a way how to deal better and faster with disruptive users.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l