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 proposal has good potential. The committee could handle confidential information, and would be less vulnerable to battlefield conduct and sockpuppet manipulation than a global RFC for a global block of a user. The committee would be able to handle cases that individual stewards feel uncomfortable with handling, and it would hopefully any prevent any wheel-warring. I think that the committee wisely isn’t structured as a global arbcom, although I might suggest a different name such as “Global Coordination Committee” because its scope is broader than locally initiated requests. I chatted briefly with steward Matanya who gave me permission to say that from his personal perspective he thinks that a committee that is separate from the stewards would be “a good approach”, although he suggested that stewards-l would be appropriate to contact for comment on this issue. 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://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_requests_committee proposal for a successor RFC, taking into account the comments on that page and at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Global_bans, any comments from Philippe about how this committee might be structured in such a way that WMF would trust it to handle ban requests from the office, and comments from anyone else who’d like to give input. Thank you, Pine _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
