As compared to the current system, I'd be much more comfortable with a
hybrid model, where WMF and community representatives share authority for
making a global ban decision.
We have plenty of cases already where community members review highly
sensitive evidence and make administrative decisions based on that
evidence. I would disagree with a notion that community members who have
passed a reasonable community vetting process are untrustworthy or
incompetent by default (there is ample evidence to the contrary), and that
WMF employees are always super-humanly trustworthy and competent by virtue
of their office (remember the previous WMF executive director?). Also note
that people with good intentions sometimes make mistakes, and that
groupthink can be a serious problem. All of these factors should be taken
into consideration when designing a system for global bans.
I don't expect to come up with a system that is 100% transparent (I don't
think that would be legal in some cases), 100% run by the community (that
would put too much of a burden on already overworked volunteers), and 100%
reliable (which is unrealistic). But I'm sure that we can design a system
that is much better than the one that we have today.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org