[Wikimedia-l] Global bans RFC closed

[Nathan]

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that
> the policy needed revision. Essentially it means "not yet", not "I oppose
> global bans" . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no policy
> whatsoever. The RFC was originally drafted without the third option because
> the terms of use approved by the Board includes reference to a community
> policy about global bans. While the mere concept of global bans is clearly
> distasteful to some, it has and will still happen in very rare occasions.
> There's no putting the genie back in the lamp. In light of that, I think
> it's a good thing that there is a  consensus decision-making process
> outlined for how to do it.
>

That's one way of reading it. I'd read it as one option in support of
the policy as written, and two options against it with grades of
opposition. My own comment was in option 2, and I would disagree with
you viewing it as support for the positive conclusion of this
particular RfC. Peter's suggestion that it be revisited in a year is
wildly optimistic, given the sclerotic nature of meta ;-) Lots of
respect for Peter, but I would have closed this RfC differently.

My prediction in my comment still stands - some communities will
object to the global ban, and permit users to circumvent it. Other
communities with constituencies on meta will attempt to use global
bans as leverage in disputes, with the impact primarily felt on the
English Wikipedia. The policy makes no attempt to anticipate these
issues, sadly.