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.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Aphaia <aphaia(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am not talking about short-term blocks, I am
talking about 6 months+
Also, I am not talking about this as a mandatory
solution, but as an
solution. (Note that en.wp is not my home
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
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
community) usually suffer heavily by users
already proved as disruptive
en.wp. (This is especially true for non-English
projects.) Usually, the
user will be blocked at other wiki, but in a very
painful process for
- If Meta ArbCom becomes reality, I think that it should process all
blocks made by any other ArbCom and conclude are
the reasons good enough
long time block (which means that such user
should get Wikimedia-wide
or a local ArbCom should consider decision once
- It is also possible option that en.wp ArbCom gives a suggestion for
blocks: are they strictly en.wp related or a user
is a threat to all WM
With some discussion about this issue, I am sure that we would be able to
a way how to deal better and faster with
foundation-l mailing list
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list