[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: 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