> "Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something
> mean that they should be."

Can you clarify that, please?

> "Again, the difference here is between these
> sensitive cases being handled by trained, experienced, legally accountable
> professionals, or by volunteers who are part-time at best."

I am puzzled by your lack of faith in the quality of work of our peers
in the community. Why be so negative? We have produced Wikipedia;
surely that is evidence that volunteers can be highly capable.

Certainly not all volunteers are, of course, and some of them end up
banned for good reason. But in general, I think there is good
reason to have faith in our peers.

I'm not sure how volunteers are not "legally accountable"; perhaps you
could clarify that point.

> How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in
> here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?

I agree with you that a good use of WMF funds is to pay staff to work on
investigations and enforcement. This can be done in such a way that
there is always some kind of community element in a decision-maker role
regarding whether to ban a member of the community.

In addition to staff resources, I would like to see WMF put more effort into
expanding the population of the volunteer community, particularly long-term
volunteers who gain sufficient knowledge and experience to serve in
higher-skill roles such as CU/OS, technical development, outreach to
GLAM+STEM organizations, and mentorship of new Wikimedians.

> You say that the current
> system is broken, because... why?

I say that the current system is inappropriate (not broken) because
WMF should not be making decisions about who is banned from the community.
The purpose of WMF is to serve and nurture the community, not to rule it.

> The community doesn't deal with it?
> That's a good thing. The community shouldn't need to deal with this stuff.
> It's a blessing, not a curse.

I agree that having staff involved in investigations and enforcement is a
good thing.
But as I said, I find it inappropriate and unwise for WMF to (1) have a
largely opaque
process for making these decisions and (2) exclude the community from
the decision-making process.

> It might be worth explaining some more of the
> bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that
> just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like.

I agree with you.

I think that global bans are reasonable options in some cases. In terms of
quantity, I would like to see more of them and to see bans initiated more
quickly, such as against undisclosed COI editors who violate the terms of
I would also like to see better technical tools for enforcing bans. But I
want the
community, in some fashion (probably through some kind of committee, as
has been suggested elsewhere in this thread) to make the decision about
whether to impose a global ban, in consultation with WMF.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to