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
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
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
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 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Steven Walling
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
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 deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Steven,
Could you
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com 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
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
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,
On Jul 6, 2012 2:38 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com 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
On Jul 6, 2012 2:48 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk 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
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
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
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
16 matches
Mail list logo
