The following request for comments is closed. A consensus supporting the proposed changes exists among the respondents. -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I hereby propose two changes to the global ban policy:
- In criteria 3 for global bans, remove the need of support from community discussion. This is because some wikis have arbcom, which overrules community discussion; some blocks are imposed by individual admins but it's rather uncontroversial (e.g. sock puppetery); and some wikis have no community-based block or ban process at all (e.g. Chinese Wikipedia). In Requests for comment/Global ban request for Messina, neither German Wikipedia nor Commons has "demonstrated broad support", but there're clearly good reason for global ban and it's continued based on the principle ignore all rules. Note the scope of global ban is still limited by criteria 1.
- Add a prerequisite for global ban proposers. As there were recent (within one year) global ban requests made by IP users with no inform process, and were closed as unsuccessful. The fourth request made by IP user are likely unsuccessful too. Also, allowing IP users making global ban requests opens a window of trolling.
The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects.
These projects must have demonstrated broad support for the blocks or bans through a prominent community discussion process—clear explanations and considerations for local rules and practices must be evident, decisions must be independent of a block or ban on another project, and the blocks or bans must be clearly intended to be indefinite.These blocks or bans must be based on the user's local disruptive behavior, and do not include protective blocks such as preemptive blocks on user without local edits, and blocks based on account security issue or problematic username.
A nomination that fails to correctly follow the above steps is invalid, and may be speedily closed
. In addition, to make a nomination valid, the nominator must:
- have a Wikimedia account; and
- have at least one edit in any Wikimedia projects before the nomination; and
- be an autoconfirmed user in that project.
--GZWDer (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Added per MarcoAurelio:
Once a valid request for comment has developed a broad and clear consensus, an uninvolved and impartial
sysop or steward may close the discussion. There is no set time limit on requests for comment.Discussion should be open for at least two weeks, but no more than one month. Stewards may extend the discussion in exceptional circumstances. Requests are likely to be closed without extensive discussion when frivolous. Requests are likely to be closed after an extensive discussion when no consensus is likely to be reached. If a nomination fails, new nominations about the same user should not be made more than once every six months thereafter.
--GZWDer (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These blocks or bans must be based on the user's local disruptive behavior, and do not include protective blocks such as preemptive blocks on user without local edits, and blocks based on account security issue or problematic username.
A nomination that fails to correctly follow the above steps is invalid, and may be speedily closed. In addition, to make a nomination valid, the nominator must:
- have a Wikimedia account; and
- be registered for more than six months before making the request; and
- have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis).
Once a valid request for comment has developed a broad and clear consensus, an uninvolved and impartial steward may close the discussion. Discussion should be open for at least two weeks, but no more than one month. Stewards may extend the discussion in exceptional circumstances. Requests can be closed without extensive discussion when frivolous. Requests can be closed after an extensive discussion when no consensus is likely to be reached.
--GZWDer (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Please also consider adding a minimum and maximum duration of any global ban request. Minimum 2 weeks, maximum one month looks appropriate to me. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Improved.--GZWDer (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio never mentioned a cooldown limit and there is no reason to add this 6 months forced break... GZWDer: let's not add unneeded rules and stop making every WMF project a bureaucratic monster. --NoFWDaddress(d) 20:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I admit a cooldown limit is only my idea. However this may be another measure to prevent abusing the process. If you oppose the limit you may explicitly comment here and the limit might not be added.--GZWDer (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- If my previous statement was not explicit enough, yes, I oppose to this cooldown period which is unnecessary unless proven otherwise by real cases. --NoFWDaddress(d) 21:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose limiting IP requests, there's some reasons that a good-faith user can't really login, e.g. because they're visiting Meta-Wiki in the Pentagon, which is used to limit login access of non-"US government"-related sites to protect their information. --126.96.36.199 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
— have a Wikimedia account; and have at least one edit in any Wikimedia projects before the nomination
- @GZWDer: Hello. Could please point out how it differs from any other nomination made by an anonymous editor? Should the purpose be avoiding sockpuppetry/trolling, it'd better rewording this phrase entirely (maybe by replacing the text above with "an established user" instead?) RadiX∞ 03:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @188.8.131.52: They can always return home or use their moblie phone. Global ban is nowhere a emergency request.
- @RadiX: Yes, but what does "an established user" defined?
--GZWDer (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @GZWDer: I'm sorry but at least "can always return home or use their moblie phone" is unlikely to be happened for the Refugees (either from Middle East or from North Africa) to me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- What an "established contributor" is? It is a subjective, non-objective and undetermined concept. I'd avoid those. Registered user with some firm criteria to be determined is what I'd only support. I'm tired of open concepts which are only sources of drama and conflicts due to its interpretation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- @GZWDer and MarcoAurelio: A "registered editor with at least [X] global edits" looks fine in your sight? RadiX∞ 13:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. I'd also add that the registered editor must have at least 6 months old. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Probably 300 or 600 global edits?--GZWDer (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, looks good. We could also use the extendedconfirmed criteria (500 edits) as a threshold for the number of global edits. RadiX∞ 13:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Having a requirement of having the discussion open for at least 2 weeks seems long. Why isn't one week enough as minimum? ChristianKl (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Similar to the reasons for Meta:Snowball; not everyone comes to Meta every day. --Rschen7754 02:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't like the fact that this policy change isn't in the "two changes" that are listed on the top. Have there been problems with discussions about global bans being closed too soon in the past? It seems to me that there are cases where it's valuable to be fast with global banning a certain individual to prevent them from doing more harm. Having a policy that enforces a waiting period implies that a harmful user can do more harm even when it clear that they should be banned. ChristianKl (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I did not understand the need and benefit of the first point of the proposal ("...remove the need of support from community discussion..."). --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Different wikis have different policies in terms of indefinite blocks or bans. This changes the global ban policy to be more compliant with those different policies. --Rschen7754 02:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do not understand yet, probably because I am not familiar with this process and especially with the particular associated issues. For this reason, I decide to not vote. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
on two or more projects should be changed to denote different language projects (if there are languages in that projects ex. wikipedia, wikiquote etc.). Users only blocked or banned in projects that have the same "language" distinction may not be subject to ban in all projects. --Xoristzatziki (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I have posted a renewed version of modification.--GZWDer (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- I cannot discern which are the proposed changes now. --MF-W 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support to prevent the recent frivolous requests, and to clarify the rules in cases where "community discussion" is unclear. --Rschen7754 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support as well. I made some slight changes that do not change the meaning or rules, I hope it is alright. --NoFWDaddress(d) 12:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Now it looks fine for me. RadiX∞ 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Support new version looks better. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support per above. -ArdiPras95 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Overdue. Global bans are an extreme measure, and new users rarely understand the considerations. --Abd (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- See Talk for proposal regarding cosignatures. --Abd (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Mahir256 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Looks ok to me. —Dwy (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment If a user is accepted in a local community, i.e. by 30% of the community votes or a local arbcom decides against a local ban, there should be no global ban.184.108.40.206 09:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose --Dan Polansky (talk) The proposal removes an important criterion: "These projects must have demonstrated broad support for the blocks or bans through a prominent community discussion process—clear explanations and considerations for local rules and practices must be evident, decisions must be independent of a block or ban on another project, and the blocks or bans must be clearly intended to be indefinite." Without that criterion, "The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects" is a very weak criterion since there are projects that lack "prominent community discussion process", are controlled by various unaccountable cliques, and blocks or indefs on those projects should not count. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- To make it more vivid: imagine you are a commissioner of a global governing body of Earth a you have a person prosecuted by China and Russia. What do you do, do you automatically make that person globally sought based on representations made by China and Russia of disruptive behavior? If China and Russia do not work for you as examples, take North Korea and Iran as a pair of two. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's no automatic global banning of people with two local bans. The guidelines don't say that two bans are sufficient for banning someone but that they are necessary criteria. ChristianKl (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- just as admin standards are sufficient, but not necessary. it is a formulation ripe for abuse. Slowking4 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- You are right; it is not automatic and that is my mistake. Nonetheless, I rest my case in that projects that do not have proper processes or did not use such processes in banning should not count in the condition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see the benefit of this proposal. The global ban is currently designed as a community ban, where most of the consensus-building is delegated to local wikis. If you remove the need for local consensus/discussion/community involvement, then you'd need to raise the bar for global consensus. Alternative methods already exist outside of community bans, such as steward-imposed locks for crosswiki disruption. Nemo 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Nemo_bis here, maybe set a minimum percentage of votes to allow a global ban? Similar as to how in some wiki's admins need at least 70% of the vote, or maybe set it even higher. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 12:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Improvements are good. Yann (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Ziko (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 23:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support --- Darwin Ahoy! 06:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support For the changes by GZWDer and Oppose for the changes by MarcoAurelio given that he hasn't made a case for why the status quo without strict time limits is problematic. ChristianKl (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Reasonable changes--Soul Train (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support Two is a good minimum. JackPotte (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - i do not see much evidence that global bans will be run in a fair way. in fact we see gaming the global ban by ip's. you should expect more fun and games and vindictiveness, without a standard of practice and code of conduct. Slowking4 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support limiting IP’s per Requests for comment/Global ban for Xpanettaa and Requests for comment/Global ban for PokestarFan which were both highly disruptive, though I am not 100% opposed to them as Requests for comment/Global ban of INeverCry could've been made to avoid trolling and harassment such as this by this user, but in this case the benefits outweigh the risks.
- Comment Recently there were two (2) global lock 🔒 requests for an account operated by the Nipponese dog, the first such request was rejected. With this request a steward noted “Not done - The request does not meet the criteria for global locking. I don't see behavioural evidence that this is the KAGE LTA, and there are thousands of good edits on wikis where the user is unblocked.” – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC) as usually global bans are applied to cases like this if disruption (which could be but is not limited to vandalism) persists, however a later request for this same Nipponese dog account was accepted. Global locks are currently already enforced as “de facto” global bans and although some Wiki’s enforce “lock evasion” such as Dutch Wikipedia where global locks are also seen as global bans and should be seen in fact as “life-long global bans” (more akin to Foundation bans rather than Global bans which can be appealed) despite List of globally banned users claiming “This list does not include accounts that have been globally locked on charges of cross wiki disruption, spamming, or vandalism. Such users are not globally banned, per se. If they create new accounts and are not disruptive with those accounts, they will not be locked again merely because it is discovered that they were previously globally locked.” Which might make Solomon203, the Nipponese dog ineligible for global locking but whether or not global locks are global bans are more dependent on the whims of the stewards than any current policies, for that reason I would like to suggest also a some criteria that would limit when or not a global lock 🔒 can be applied as currently some users such as Classiccardinal and INeverCry had multiple global lock requests denied (which could partially be because they were sysops), while users with similar behaviour such as a German Wikipedian that accused everyone of being “Antifa Jehovah's” was globally locked (also note that INeverCry's sock “Playtime is over” has been locked since 2015). So I would suggest either that global lock requests for non-Vandalism-only accounts have to be discussed with the affected user if they stop any disruptions, or that users with a minimum of non-vandalistic contributions would have to be addressed at global bans and only have their socks 🧦 locked. Also note 📝 that some users get globally locked if they’re only blocked on three (3) projects while Requests for comment/Global ban for Yahadzija dealt with a user who at the time was blocked on eleven (11) Wikimedia projects. Also note that this user had almost half a million edits and was only blocked on 4 (four) wiki’s (including the Meta-Wiki) in order to still qualify for a global lock 🔒 in order to circumvent a community-based global ban (this was prior to their Foundation ban which applies to all users equally).
- Personally I think 🤔 that the best solution would be to extend global blocks to named accounts which would mean that these blocks could be appealed locally giving local wiki’s more autonomy and might make global bans (other than Foundation bans) wholly unnecessary, but when and how global bans are applied seem to be only born out of a necessity of the fact that it's currently technically impossible to apply global blocks to named accounts. Also note this phabricator ticket 🎟 mentioned in the Steward handbook here.
- So I would like to suggest that the only edits a community-_banned user should be able to make is to request a global unban at least one (1) month after their latest global (un)ban request, as I think that the w:en:WP:SO is wholly too long and as it doesn't apply to all wiki’s shouldn't be taken to apply to all wiki’s. At the global unban request the RfC for his/her global unban would then be the only place they’re allowed to edit and editing another page (maybe with the exclusion of their user talk page, or local discussion boards for notification) would invalidate that request.
- I would one day like to see a Requests for comment/Global unban for Yahadzija if that user ever shows that they sufficiently understand copyright © and will donate their own photographs of their village, and of course not just sloppily machine-translate information 🛈 about their village to other wiki's, but this user should have a fair chance to prove this, and might even be given “a parole period”, but again having technical global blocks that automatically block the accounts of cross-wiki disruptive users and allow them to appeal these locally would ultimately be the best solution for both local autonomy and the users themselves.
- Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 😒🌏🔒) (My global unlock 😄🌏🔓) 12:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support, a reasonable improvement, -jkb- 14:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Support, contemplating the possibility of changing IP at will (due to VPN), it seems reasonable to be suspicious when an IP requests something. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Neutre J'ai rien compris, c'est tout en anglais, je sais même pas si j'ai le droit de causer ici. Moi, je voudrais bien être réintégrer sur Commons si c'est possible.--Classiccardinal (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Je ne connaissais pas l'affaire. Mais bloquer indéfiniment un contributeur qui a apporté tant d'images de qualité, à cause de quelques Egos semble-t-il meurtris, n'est pas du bon folklore de l'ethnie Wiki. Classiccardinal devrait certes faire davantage attention à la fragilité de certaines muqueuses numériques, c'est la même chose qu'IRL. --Wuyouyuan (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ah oui ça c'est vrai Wuyouyuan, je devrais être plus cool. Mais me faire bannir de Commons à cause de l'avis d'un seul SYSOP (qui parle même pas français)... grrrr... Je dis pas ce que j'en pense. La dernière fois que je l'ai fait ici, je me suis fait bloquer 3 jours. --Classiccardinal (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment peut-on justifier qu'un francophone qui écrit «Vu mes contributions, c'est totalement stupide de m'avoir interdit à vie (avant insultes).» soit suspendu 3 jours pour insultes par un anglophone? Pour moi, c'est ça le problème. Et je parle pas de mes contribs ailleurs, hein?--Classiccardinal (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- En conclusion: toujours Neutre. Police partout, justice nulle part, comme disent les punks à chiens.--Classiccardinal (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per User:Dan Polansky, Long-term top contributor has been banned by one admin in deWP because he opposed out-of-process deletions by admins. Then via Community Sanction Noticeboard on enWP because he opposed abusive admin actions. Then a "sock" has been single-handed banned by one admin without any discussion on Commons, same admin also blocked on WD. Now, technically four projects, but the core/home was enWP with Commons and Wikidata cross-wiki help projects. These four blocks were then turned into Global ban forever. None of the original per project bans was done according to a proper process. And all because the user opposed corrupt admins in the first place. A former Top100-editor in enWP. 220.127.116.11 04:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- @18.104.22.168: Then you should point that why global ban requests from anonymous users should be allowed (per 22.214.171.124?). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)