I want to chime in briefly, since I have direct personal experience in
WMF0-initiated bans.
Not long ago, Support & Safety took an action to exclude somebody for
whom I, as a volunteer, felt some responsibility. Initially, I felt that
there was inadequate communication with me, and as a
I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple
people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community
involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the US
we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions
about who
Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such
metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most
part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you
have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment
are
How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that
is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free
from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a
I'm not convinced of the problem. The WMF global bans are designed to step
in where community processes would not be appropriate. From their page on
Meta: "global bans are carried out ... to address multi-project misconduct,
to help ensure the trust and safety of the users of all Wikimedia sites,
There is actually quite a bit of community involvement in the process.
They repeatedly respond to community requests for information about
processes and are open to community feedback regarding them. What they
won't do is give you specific information about specific cases, and so the
demands for
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Pine W wrote:
> How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with
> community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that
> is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is
This is a good point Pete. I only know the full circumstances of a couple
of the global bans, but in each case it is based on non-public information
that we would not want going public. Just because each discussion is not
subject to a yes/no decision on Meta, does not mean there is no community
Le 16/02/2017 à 11:31, Vi to a écrit :
> Dealing with staffs they are way so close to more serious stuffs than the
> mediawiki user interface, so I wouldn't care about their on site accesses.
> Root access to db, squid data, mailman, physical access to residuals of old
> identification system,
Dear Wikipedians of the world,
this year the article writing contest CEE Spring takes place for the third
time. It is a contest in which Wikipedians write about topics like the
culture, history, notable people, geography, etc., of the region of Central
and Eastern Europe. We are aiming to close
10 matches
Mail list logo