On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:30 AM, phoebe ayers <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
