On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Philippe Beaudette <[email protected]>wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge, no. > > And that's precisely why we would like a global ban policy implemented. We > would prefer an established, community-monitored process that we can turn > to when at all possible (and make no mistake, in this case it was needed; I > wish we could give all the specifics, but for privacy reasons, we just > can't). Because we didn't have that, we had to break new ground with the > Office actions policy. I hope we never have to use that again. > > pb > Here's a question. If what this person did is so egregious that it required an out of process block, and it was based on something that you believe the community should be able to handle via a global ban process, how does he or she retain such privacy rights to his or her presumably public actions that you can't discuss in general terms the basis of the block? Drawing from history on en.wp and its zero tolerance policies for certain things, there was a time when it pasted big "BANNED FOR PEDOPHILIA ADVOCACY" templates on userpages or referred to the same in block logs. Lists of such people were kept on wiki, mentioned on LTA, tracked by checkusers and SPI with the attendant evidence, etc. While other cases were handled more privately by ArbCom, it was common at the time to ignore the supposed privacy interests that pseudonyms might have with respect to their misdeeds on-wiki. ~Nathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
