Talk:Global bans
Raising the bar a bit for informing communities
editCurrently the policy requires: "Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited about the discussion through a prominent public venue. Be sure to stay neutral in your communications and avoid any defamatory, inaccurate, or exaggerated commentary." This seems an unreasonable request both for the requestor and the communities being informed: if someone only made a single edit on a wiki, how can that community have an informed opinion on the case? It also drains again a bit of valuable resource: attention. And if the user ever did some interwiki activity, the requestor may have to go over hundreds of wikis. I would propose to raise the bar a little bit - from "where the user has edited" to something more along the lines of "where the user has made significant contributions". A more precise definition is obviously needed. Any number of edits would be arbitrary - 100 edits sounds like a reasonable number to me, but I could also imagine being happy with 10. Any thoughts? Effeietsanders (talk) 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- 100 edits Jphwra (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it makes sense to limit the community notification to wikis where the user has some significant participation. For the same reasons above, the user notification (point 3 at Global bans#Obtaining consensus for a global ban) needs an amendment too. I'd limit it to a talk page message Meta-Wiki (always) and at the wikis where is currently indefblocked (or is currently participating while not blocked). —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- 100 edits sounds like a reasonable limit to me too. --MF-W 15:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Quick guide
editUser:Another Wiki User the 3rd/How to tell if someone should get globally banned Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)