[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism?

[Ray Saintonge]

effe iets anders wrote:
> 2008/1/31, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com>:
>   
>> - If en.wp (or any other approved by WMF) ArbCom decided to block
>> someone on 1 year, I really don't want to see such person on any other
>> project.
>> - If some community decided to block someone on a longer period, it is
>> probably because of very good reason.
>> - If someone got N-th consequent block (usually, any consequent block
>> is higher) on any project, I assume that such person is troll or
>> whatever-destructive.
>>
>> But, we have the dark side, too:
>> - If some ArbCom fails, it would be much more visible to the whole community.
>> - If some community made some crazy decision only to remove some
>> person from their project, it would be a global issue.
>> - If some admin is not reliable, it would be, again, a matter of the
>> whole community.
>>
>> Of course, I would be happy with any kind of moving toward this model,
>> which includes WM-wide IP blocks, too. I would really like to see open
>> proxies blocked indefinitely because they are much more harmful to the
>> small projects then to the big ones (yes, Andre, I know that you don't
>> agree with that ;) ).
>>     
> I'm sorry, but I have some big problems with that. I thought for a
> moment I misread you, but I am afraight not. Communities have
> different values, different borders, different rules, different
> behaviour. I beleive we have some very valuable member of the transcom
> that has been banned for a long time from her home wiki. And I'm
> confident there are more of these cases. If I am seen as disruptive
> somewhere, that does not mean the same behaviour occurs at all on
> other projects, with other people. And even if it would, it does not
> automatically conclude that this behaviour is also bad on the other
> community. Personal attacks for instance are very differently
> interpreted in some communities as in enwiki.
I too think that Milos' proposal goes too far.  No single project should 
have the power to insist on a site-wide block.  Some refugees from the 
cauldron of the en:wp can do quite well when they emigrate to a project 
that is willing to listen to and respect their views.  This does not 
mean that their proposals are adopted, only that they are listened to.  
The regulars on a small project look dimly on attempts to import en:wp 
practices without independent discussion.

A logical extension of Milos' proposal could arise if someone 
persistently insisted on pushing a Serbian POV on hr:wp.  The Croatians 
would become very annoyed with this until that individual met one of the 
criteria which Milos suggests.  They would block him, and the logical 
consequence would then be that he should also be blocked on sr:wp.  
Somehow, I don't see that this would necessarily be an acceptable result.

Ec