From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:50 PM
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to
be halted for now
To: mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:48 PM
--- On Tue, 9/16/08, mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm
<mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
From: mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm
<mikelifeguard(a)fastmail.fm>
> Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs
to
be halted for now
To: birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com, "'Wikimedia
Foundation Mailing List'"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 7:39 PM
> From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb@yahoo.com]
> >Frankly how to handle these anticipated
problems
> _should_ have been decided
> >in concert with the decision to implement of
this
> feature. I had thought
> >they had been. Obvoiusly the feature was
rolled
out
> without addressing the
> >concerns that people expressed over this
during
the
> intial discussion of
> >such a feature. That should not have
happened but
here
> we are.
>
> That's actually false - the discussion
regarding
global
> blocking addressed
> these concerns explicitly and extensively, as you
can
well
> see for yourself:
>
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_blocking/Archive_1
>
> Ipblock-exempt and a local whitelist on the IP
are
both
options you are free
to use to help legitimate users caught in global
blocks.
It is not false. How exactly were the concerns that
were
raised here [1], when david gerard first opened
discussion
on this feature addressed? I don't see the
concerns
that were described about the localization of
block
messages, notification of local wikis, etc. addressed
at all
in the implementation. In fact the only people
who
dismissed such concerns as not needing a remedy were
the
supporters of the blocking who were proposing
blocks
of a
week or less. But nine months later, in practice
we
have one
and even two month blocks without these concerns
that
were
specifically asked to be brought forward before
implementation having been addressed. What am I
missing here
that shows me to be so mistaken that saying this
was
implemented without addressing such anticipated
problems as
there is false? I don't explicit and
extensive
discussion of much outside who should get to use the
new
hammer.
Birgitte SB
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/038261.html
To make the reading a bit lighter here are three sample concerns (and not even from my own
emails)
cocern over localization by Dan Rosenthal :
"Only thing is, I'm envisioning a scenario where a
valid user with good contribs gets blocked, doesn't user meta, tries
to get unblocked at his home project, but cannot because he's not
locally blocked, and the user doesn't know how to get in touch with a
steward (Because he doesn't know of this policy) or doesn't understand
how to communicate with one.
I don't think it's necessarily that big of a deal, but I think it will
need a LOT of localization to be effective."
In a text search of the pages where you claim concerns were explicit and extensively
discussed "localization" had no hits.
concern of effe iets anders over long blocks:
"If we want to stop it for a longer time, there are more
issues at stake, and that would imho require a much more complicated
policy and discussion, both now and at the moment it would be blocked.
Another reason is that if we stick to one day, or something in the
same order of magnitude, it is clearly something within the scope of
the stewards. If we go much longer, I am not so sure about that any
more. I don't say it is not, but I would have doubts about it. With
one day, it is clear, as it is just an emergency measure."
Couldn't do a pure text search on this one but I can't agree that the discussion
of block lengths was extensive there.
Andrew Grey expands concerns on understandable logs
"So the *log entry* per
se is going to be comprehensible ("X was blocked, four days") - it
means there will be something there, even if we can't leave a coherent
comment.
How to do the comment is, of course, a problem. What do stewards
currently do *now* in this sort of situation, where they don't speak
the project language but have to step in? English? A guess at what
language is most likely to be understood by the local community?
The URL of a specific meta page about sitewide blocks might be a good
idea - we can concentrate translations there, and it means that any
particular block can run with a single comment without having to adapt
for each project. And a URL as a summary is pretty clear for "go here"
;-)"
While logging is discussed extensively on the pages you link; it is mostly the location of
the logging with some discussion of expanded logs for transparency nothing about make the
logged reason comprehensible to the blocked parties who may not speak english (or even if
they do find "gwp" less than useful information)
All and all I must disagree with you that my assertion that this was rolled without
addressing anticipated concerns was false.
Birgitte SB