[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia-wide global blocking mechanism?

Milos Rancic millosh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 31 20:10:52 UTC 2008


I know that you don't agree with that, Lodewijk :)

On 1/31/08, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have some big problems with that. I thought for a
> moment I misread you, but I am afraight not. Communities have
> different values, different borders, different rules, different
> behaviour. I beleive we have some very valuable member of the transcom
> that has been banned for a long time from her home wiki. And I'm
> confident there are more of these cases. If I am seen as disruptive
> somewhere, that does not mean the same behaviour occurs at all on
> other projects, with other people. And even if it would, it does not
> automatically conclude that this behaviour is also bad on the other
> community. Personal attacks for instance are very differently
> interpreted in some communities as in enwiki.

- I really don't care about developed Wikimedian communities (and
their cultures) which are not able to live with other Wikimedian
communities. Bottom line is: If your cultural norms don't allow you to
use computer -- don't use it.

- And if some community depends on one or couple of problematic
contributors, it is a better idea to wait for some others or even to
make some fund raising and find some professional editors.

- Long term ban is not a local, but a global issue. I was very clear
about options.

- Personal attacks are personal attacks and, if needed, may be defined
globally. Expressing racism is also a very clear field. Of course,
someone may interpret that sun shining is a personal attack or a
racism, but this is their own problem.

- Yes, I know that a person who did personal and racist attacks on
en.wp may be a hero at its own language project. But, then we have a
problem with a whole project. And sooner or later we won't be able to
ignore it anymore.

- Also, Wikimedia is a culture with its own values and goals. A person
who is not able to accept and understand this -- is not able to
participate in the project, except as a POV pusher. And if it is a
local community-wide behavior, then we are feeding a project which is
unacceptable from the point our basic values.

- BTW, I know very well what "different culture norms" mean on the
Internet (I live in a "different culture"). Members of really
different cultures are not using Internet.

> Also the open proxies of course. While in some wiki's open proxies are
> mainly used for vandalistic activities, in other projects they are
> being used to avoid easy government control, arrests or the loosing of
> a job. in some projects these addresses are disruptive, in others they
> are the backbone of the project. By deciding that for instance
> nlwiki's open procy policy should become wikimediawide (preventively
> block all open proxies, including TOR etc) might just very well kill
> some projects. I am confident this is not your intention. Of course
> there are ways around it, but this is just an example. My whole point
> is: who is one community to decide for another community who is
> allowed to join them. On one side you extremely rely on good faith of
> the blocking community, but on the other side you forget that also the
> blocked person might be acting in good faith, but for *some* reason,
> makes him/herself impossible on a project. Maybe because of language
> barriers, maybe because of long ongoing disagreements. It can all be
> in good faith, it can all be a reason to block if that is best for
> that local community. It is not per se the best for every community.

- http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies

- There are a couple of projects which need open proxies free for
editing and it is possible to make exceptions for them. However, ways
for helping to valuable editors from such places.



More information about the foundation-l mailing list