This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now closed.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans
Pine
Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition, but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current form. Interesting.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now closed.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans
Pine
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
If I were really wanting to stir stuff up, I'd say that the entire RFC was invalid because there was one option for supporting the proposal and two for opposing it. It should have been a clearer yes or no, especially since the third section only appeared to the end/after the RfC was advertised. But, I think that Peter's suggestion to re-examine it in a year is a good one. Then we can all see if this wording actually works, or not.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition, but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current form. Interesting.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now
closed.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans
Pine
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Mar 3, 2013 1:47 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition, but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current form. Interesting.
Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that the policy needed revision. Essentially it means "not yet", not "I oppose global bans" . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no policy whatsoever. The RFC was originally drafted without the third option because the terms of use approved by the Board includes reference to a community policy about global bans. While the mere concept of global bans is clearly distasteful to some, it has and will still happen in very rare occasions. There's no putting the genie back in the lamp. In light of that, I think it's a good thing that there is a consensus decision-making process outlined for how to do it.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:
This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now
closed.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans
Pine
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
*I think it's a good thing that there is a consensus decision-making process outlined for how to do it.*
If we ignore the fact that there was no consensus for the result, of course. :) _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 3 March 2013 19:03, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 3, 2013 1:47 PM, "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition, but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current form. Interesting.
Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that the policy needed revision. Essentially it means "not yet", not "I oppose global bans" . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no policy whatsoever. The RFC was originally drafted without the third option because the terms of use approved by the Board includes reference to a community policy about global bans. While the mere concept of global bans is clearly distasteful to some, it has and will still happen in very rare occasions. There's no putting the genie back in the lamp. In light of that, I think it's a good thing that there is a consensus decision-making process outlined for how to do it.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com
wrote:
This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now
closed.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans
Pine
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that the policy needed revision. Essentially it means "not yet", not "I oppose global bans" . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no policy whatsoever. The RFC was originally drafted without the third option because the terms of use approved by the Board includes reference to a community policy about global bans. While the mere concept of global bans is clearly distasteful to some, it has and will still happen in very rare occasions. There's no putting the genie back in the lamp. In light of that, I think it's a good thing that there is a consensus decision-making process outlined for how to do it.
That's one way of reading it. I'd read it as one option in support of the policy as written, and two options against it with grades of opposition. My own comment was in option 2, and I would disagree with you viewing it as support for the positive conclusion of this particular RfC. Peter's suggestion that it be revisited in a year is wildly optimistic, given the sclerotic nature of meta ;-) Lots of respect for Peter, but I would have closed this RfC differently.
My prediction in my comment still stands - some communities will object to the global ban, and permit users to circumvent it. Other communities with constituencies on meta will attempt to use global bans as leverage in disputes, with the impact primarily felt on the English Wikipedia. The policy makes no attempt to anticipate these issues, sadly.
Nathan, 03/03/2013 23:22:
[...] Peter's suggestion that it be revisited in a year is wildly optimistic, given the sclerotic nature of meta ;-)
It works only if in a year the policy will not have any use; oterwise all comments will have an ad personam taste i.e. the discussion will be made useless by becoming an appeal for individual (non) bans.
My prediction in my comment still stands - some communities will object to the global ban, and permit users to circumvent it. Other communities with constituencies on meta will attempt to use global bans as leverage in disputes, with the impact primarily felt on the English Wikipedia. The policy makes no attempt to anticipate these issues, sadly.
I don't remember, was the RfC advertised via centralnotice and other effective ways? The participation is extremely low for such a matter: global sysop vote had 2230 participants and global block was even removed from the package.
Nemo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org