Still, in some cases the WMF global ban sounds like a revenge to an
individual, and when (understandably) WMF refuses to elaborate what was the
motivation for a global ban this impression gets even stronger.


On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Robert Fernandez <>

> I don't see the point of paying for legal and community safety experts
> if we aren't going to allow them to engage in their area of
> professional expertise.  Transparency, due process, and community
> governance are important values, but they are not the skills you need
> to bring to bear when it comes to issues such as, for example,
> predatory individuals victimizing underage editors.   I know this
> sounds like "won't somebody think of the children!" but the thought of
> untrained volunteers, however sensitive and well meaning they are,
> attempting to deal with an issue like this frightening, and the
> thought of what passes for community governance on the English
> Wikipedia attempting to deal with this is positively bonechilling.  It
> has very real consequences for the real, offline lives of victims and
> opens volunteers and projects to significant legal jeopardy.
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Pine W <> wrote:
> >
> > * Based on what I currently know, I disagree with WMF's choice to
> site-ban
> > individuals instead of leaving that decision to the community,
> particularly
> > when the evidence is not public. It seems to me that this practice is
> > incompatible with transparency, due process, and community governance of
> > Wikimedia content sites (which notably excludes the Foundation wiki).
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to