On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote: > >> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation >> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit. > > > They certainly can determine who can and can't use the servers they > are custodians of.
Frankly, it's not just a question of who has the power to press the BANNED button; who at the WMF do you think should or has time to sit around and review the actions of every cross-project problematic user in every language and decide? We do need to have some sort of clear mechanism to make and review complaints, and there's simply not those processes (yet) on a global level. As both a community member and someone who needs to worry about WMF resources, I want to see a distributed and scalable process for this sort of thing, one that involves, serves, and is transparent to the community. If having WMF office actions to do global (b)locks is helpful or necessary, especially for these few totally bad actors, fine; but I don't personally see that as the starting point for a sustainable system. Do you? However, as Sue stated earlier in this thread, the WMF is concerned about this issue, wants to help, and I think further ideas about the areas in which the WMF could help would be super, especially in conjunction with community efforts. -- phoebe _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
