How would you suggest modifying the process so that it is compatible with community governance? Note that while I'm dissatisfied with the system that is in place now, I doubt that there will be a perfect solution that is free from all possible criticism and drama. I would give the current system a grade of "C-" for transparency and a grade of "F" for its compatibility with community governance. I don't expect ether grade to get to an "A", but I would be satisfied with "B" for transparency and "B+" for community governance.
Pine On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Adrian Raddatz <ajradd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wikimedia isn't a country, the global ban policy isn't a law. Any such > metaphors are honestly a bit ridiculous. The WMF bans are, for the most > part, sensitive. And that means that they all need to be, because if you > have a list of reasons that you can disclose, then any bans without comment > are going to be on a very short list of quite serious reasons. Plus, the > ones without a reason would still have the "wikipediocracy-lite" crowd that > seems to dominate this list in a fuss. > > It's also worth noting that the WMF provides some basic details of global > bans to certain trusted community groups. The issue isn't with disclosure, > it's with mass disclosure. > > On Feb 17, 2017 11:09 AM, "Pine W" <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am glad to hear that WMF global bans are processed through multiple > > people. Still, I am deeply uncomfortable with the lack of community > > involvement in this process as well as the lack of transparency. In the > US > > we don't trust professional law enforcement agencies to make decisions > > about who should go to jail without giving the accused the right to a > trial > > by a jury of their peers. Unless we have lost faith in peer governance > > (which would be a radical break with open source philosophy) I think it > is > > both unwise and inappropriate to have "the professionals" make these > > decisions behind closed doors and with zero community involvement in the > > process. > > > > I am in favor of professionals working on investigations, and in > > enforcement of community decisions to ban *after* those decisions have > been > > made by the community through some meaningful due process. I oppose > letting > > "the professionals" decide among themselves who should be banned. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
