[Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now

[Birgitte SB]

--- On Tue, 9/16/08, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to be halted for now
> To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:50 PM
> --- On Tue, 9/16/08, Birgitte SB
> <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs to
> be halted for now
> > To: mikelifeguard at fastmail.fm
> > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 9:48 PM
> > --- On Tue, 9/16/08, mikelifeguard at fastmail.fm
> > <mikelifeguard at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: mikelifeguard at fastmail.fm
> > <mikelifeguard at fastmail.fm>
> > > Subject: RE: [Foundation-l] Global blocking needs
> to
> > be halted for now
> > > To: birgitte_sb at yahoo.com, "'Wikimedia
> > Foundation Mailing List'"
> > <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 7:39 PM
> > > From: Birgitte SB [mailto:birgitte_sb at 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
> > and
> > >
> >
> 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."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/038271.html

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."

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-January/038280.html

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"
;-)"

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-February/038329.html

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