Just because volunteers are competent enough to deal with something doesn't mean that they should be. 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. These cases take weeks or months to build, and that's with full-time staff working on them. How much time are you expecting the community-vetted volunteers to put in here? Do we not already have our own responsibilities?
Sorry, but your comments seem quite out of touch. You say that the current system is broken, because... why? 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. It might be worth explaining some more of the bans process publicly, perhaps on a wiki page, to alleviate fears that it's just being used to get rid of people that the Foundation doesn't like. As to the appeals process proposed above, that is not useful either in my opinion. Nor is there any relation between being a bureaucrat, AffCom member, etc. and having the time, knowledge, and competence to deal with these cases. Adrian Raddatz On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
