[Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Jun 5 09:48:46 UTC 2011

Studies are expensive, often a time waster. They provide some kind of
legitimacy and is asked for when you do not really want to accept a verdict
from someone else. The board has a function and it CAN make decisions. The
issue here is that exceptionally there are people who are poisonous and the
question is how to deal with them.

People who damage others, who have a track record of damage done. Are we
willing to tolerate them? Should we tolerate them? Is it necessary to have
the same pain inflicted by the same person time and again?

For me it does not take a study. I do not believe that a study will be
universally accepted. Because as always there are people with a different
opinion, people who like to throw their weight around as a matter of

On 5 June 2011 00:24, Jason donovan <jdoe99d at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:30 AM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride <z at mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia
> > Foundation
> > >> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
> > >
> > >
> > > They certainly can determine who can and can't use the servers they
> > > are custodians of.
> >
> > Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the
> > BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit
> > around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user
> > in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear
> > mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those
> > processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and
> > someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a
> > distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that
> > involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF
> > office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary,
> > especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't
> > personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do
> > you?
> >
> Isn't this more or less what Mz McBride said earlier quoting you.
> >
> > However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned
> > about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the
> > areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in
> > conjunction with community efforts.
> >
> Let's hope the board can commission another study and then make the hard
> decision to leave it to the community.
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list