ENWP Pine, 07/07/2012 11:32:
2. May I ask what the rationale is for proposing that global bans be decided
via global community consensus on Meta, instead what appears to be the status
quo of stewards making decisions about global bans based on requests at SRG?
This is very simple. Global bloc
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, the Global Requests Committee proposal is more sophisticated and
getting consensus for its implementation might be challenging, but I think
the GRC or something like it would be a reasonable option if global bans are
to be implemented.
I anticipate that
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:25 AM, ENWP Pine wrote:
> With that in mind, and since the current state of the RFC on your
> proposal, roughly nine days after commenting began, is about 50% for and
> 50% against in its current form, I would like to offer to work with you on
> revitalizing the
> https:/
Hi Steven,
I agree with you that there should be a “fair and consistent way” for enacting
a global block of an account. My concerns are about the process and
circumstances under which this may happen.
I think that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_committee
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 2:32 AM, ENWP Pine wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> OK. I have a few more inquiries.
>
> 1. Let me make sure that I understand a few things correctly.
>
> * A "global lock" is a technical action that is currently effective only
> against SUL-linked accounts.
>
> * A "global block" i
Hi Steven,
OK. I have a few more inquiries.
1. Let me make sure that I understand a few things correctly.
* A "global lock" is a technical action that is currently effective only
against SUL-linked accounts.
* A "global block" is a technical action that is currently effective only
against IP
On Jul 6, 2012 2:48 AM, "Deryck Chan" wrote:
>
> Short answer as I understand it:
> Global blocks are the technical feature and refer to the accounts, the IPs
> and the software capability; global bans are the policy and refer to the
> people who are unwelcome.
Deryck has got it right here. The s
On Jul 6, 2012 2:38 AM, "Dan Rosenthal" wrote:
>
> The way I read it, Steven correct me if I am wrong, he is writing in a
> staff role, but not necessarily within his Engineering responsibilities.
>
> Dan Rosenthal
>
Dan is correct. Apologies for any confusion.
Steven
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
>
> Theo,
>
> Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm not sure that I understand. Is
> it your proposition that WMF staff shouldn't weigh in on this? Or are you
> surprised at the number? or what?
Hi Philippe
No, that is not my pr
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> It also doesn't help
> that 4 of the 12 supporters for implementing the policy in its current form
> are WMF staff.
>
Theo,
Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm not sure that I understand. Is
it your proposition that WMF staff shouldn
Short answer as I understand it:
Global blocks are the technical feature and refer to the accounts, the IPs
and the software capability; global bans are the policy and refer to the
people who are unwelcome.
On 6 July 2012 10:44, ENWP Pine wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> Could you explain the distinction
Hi Steven,
Could you explain the distinctions between
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks, and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans? These look to me like they have
some redundancy and some areas where they diverge. A chart which
The way I read it, Steven correct me if I am wrong, he is writing in a
staff role, but not necessarily within his Engineering responsibilities.
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Steven Walling >wrote:
>
> > P.S. On a personal not
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> P.S. On a personal note, I wanted to say that though I'm writing this
> with my staff accout during working hours, this is not really a part
> of my core job description now that I've joined Engineering and
> Product Development. I've spent m
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> > I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
> > open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend is to
> > reject the policy as written anywa
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan wrote:
> I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
> open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend is to
> reject the policy as written anyway, that makes it unenforceable until a
> new RfC is held that de
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now, the RfC is trending towards dispensing with the current global
> > ban policy. A large portion of that sentiment is from people opposed to
> > global bans in general. Of cour
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan wrote:
> It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
> import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
> the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
> describing a pro
It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
describing a process for instituting global bans. In fact, the ToU makes
Hi everyone,
This is a long email, so the less TL;DR version is: there is a request
for comment on Meta about a community policy for global bans.[1] This
is vitally important, and I hope you will both comment and help spread
the word in your community. The background on why we're doing this
follow
20 matches
Mail list logo
