No, that was clumsy wording. I did not mean that it could have been used in THIS instance; I meant that in future instances, I can see circumstances where it could be used. ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643 [email protected] On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]>wrote: > Philippe Beaudette, 03/07/2012 21:05: > > 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. >> > > Unless the current draft is completely off track, what you're saying here > is that the proposed system could have been used here, which implies the > specifics *could* be discussed publicly, as the proposed system requires a > public RfC. <https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_** > consensus_for_a_global_ban<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban> > > > > Nemo > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
