Hi Andrew! Can you put the proposal on meta without including the details about the case? cheers, Phoebe
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Billinghurst <billinghu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I also believe that there are special cases where there should be a policy > decision made > by the body that has the responsibility for due diligence, with legal > authority and a > legal basis. To that end I specifically addressed the why (with detail) and > a how > (possible) to Sue in a separate post. It contained detail that should not be > put onto an > open mailing list. > > My proposal in short was that the stewards are involved and the conduit for > such a > proposal to the Foundation, and that it could go through any of the > discussion points that > you identified. It does not circumvent stewards, and is not top-down; it is > the close > with a great big THE END. > > Stewards are limited in powers due to the ability for local projects to > override. There > has to be someone make the call on what is ultimately right for WMF. There > will always be > persons who come and try to avoid blocks, and a ruling from WMF basically > means 'no more > wriggle room'. Where someone is cyberstalking, close to the line on > fraud/identity theft, > there has to be authority in a ruling. > > Regards, Andrew > > > On 4 Jun 2011 at 10:42, MZMcBride wrote: > >> Billinghurst wrote: >> > I disagree, this needs to be a decision by the WMF, not by stewards. Some >> > sites are 'independent', and this is a matter that needs to have no wriggle >> > room, and hence be a definitive statement. It is simply a case that the >> > worst of the worst need to be managed from the top and at a policy level, >> > not as operational issues. This is a due diligence matter. >> >> 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. I >> realize that in the past, certain system administrators or Jimmy have done >> this, but as far as I'm aware, the Wikimedia Foundation (as an organization) >> has not and does not get involved in cases like this for a reason. >> >> As Phoebe noted, there have been some efforts at Meta-Wiki (more recently >> than I thought, actually) to address this. I'd like to see the community >> give it a good-faith try (or two) to solve this without intervention before >> seeking top-down involvement. That isn't to say that the two bodies need to >> be completely separate. One procedure for a global ban committee could be to >> direct the Wikimedia Foundation to declare particular people as completely >> unwelcome, or something like that. But I haven't seen too much to suggest >> that the community can't solve this, only that they haven't yet. >> >> Regarding independent projects, a local admin is going to do what a local >> admin is going to do, no matter whether it's stewards or the Wikimedia >> Foundation telling them otherwise. That can be handled on a case-by-case >> basis as appropriate. >> >> Honestly, there are other seemingly intractable problems that the community >> has faced and the response from seeking Wikimedia Foundation help hasn't >> been great. Controversial content comes to mind. A long study that ended in >> a report that said "well, yeah, lots and lots of penises on Commons!" I >> don't really want to see a repeat of that dynamic again. If there are >> technical or legal aspects to this problem that the Wikimedia Foundation can >> put resources toward, let's figure out what those are and make it happen. >> But the community really needs to take charge here, if at all possible. >> >> MZMcBride >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com * _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
