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. Pine _______________________________________________ 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>
