[Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption

[Ray Saintonge]

White Cat wrote:
> You realize what you are saying is the opposite of what you mean right?
>   
Quite the contrary.  While I'm not a great supporter of global blocking 
in the first place, it is clear that Brian understands the problems.  
Your excess of enthusiasm for the proposal suggests that with friends 
like you the proposal needs no enemies
> The local community should decide weather or not to give a second chance to
> the disruptive user. Such a decision should not be made bu the disruptive
> user.
>   
We are not talking about "second" chances but first chances.  Assuming 
good faith includes treating a project newbie on the basis of what he 
does in a project, not on the basis of his being on somebody's prejudice 
list. As Birgitte has stated, Wikisource regulars are quite capable of 
recognizing a disruptive users when they come along.  I assure you that 
those who seek to impose their personal POVs about the rules or import 
some other project's robotic solutions are far more disruptive than 
vandals, spammers and trolls.
> When a disruptive user blocked on some other wiki starts editing another
> wiki. Consider a user indef banned from en.wikiquote starts to edit
> en.wikisource... The local community should know exactly who they are
> dealing with.
>     -- White Cat
>   
The local community knows exactly what he is doing by reading his posts 
in that community's project.  If Wikiquote found some reason to ban the 
user there, that is entirely their business.

Ec
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Brian McNeil wrote:
>>     
>>> I will start by highlighting that I have CheckUser on the English Wikinews.
>>>       
>>> This means I am on the CheckUser-l mailing list and have seen the discussion
>>>       
>>> that has privately taken place about a global blocking mechanism.
>>>
>>> My understanding of the requested functionality is that it is primarily for
>>>       
>>> the most irritating IP addresses. We're not talking about someone who might
>>>       
>>> reform if they go to another project, we're talking about people who create
>>>       
>>> dozens of socks and take a perverse joy in making people clean up after
>>> them. The people who project hop in the hope of vandalising undetected; the
>>>       
>>> really persistent vandals, not the strongly opinionated. We're talking
>>> "Willy on Wheels", not "Wendy on Wako".
>>>       
>> If you build an environment of trust this concept would go through more
>> easily, but the enthusiasm that some have shown for the proposal is
>> worrisome.  There is no confidence that everyone advantaged by this tool
>> would use it wisely.
>>
>> It is one thing to say that the tool would only be used against the most
>> flagrant violators; it is quite another to believe that everyone will so
>> limit himself in using  a process which must often be performed in
>> secrecy.
>>
>> The autonomy of projects is important, and members of projects need to
>> feel that the autonomy will not be compromised by others making
>> decisions without consultation with the members of the affected community.