Talk:Global bans/Archives/2015

WMF Terms of use bans

I notice WMF reserves the right to "Ban a user [...] for actions violating these Terms of Use". WMF also refuses to comment on such actions.

I think this page should have a clear note about those bans, as the "Global bans are exclusively applied where [...]" language is misleading. There should also be a pointer to a page explaining WMF policy in this regard – and statistics. What such pages are there?

--LPfi (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Recently WMF Global Ban Policy was created to explain this. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Users globally banned despite the fact that they were blocked on English WP only

In case admin Vogone is willing to discuss instead of abusing their rollback button, I want to point out that, in fact, at least two of the users mentioned on List of globally banned users were NOT blocked on two or more projects at the timepoint of the global ban, but were banned from the English wiki instead of that. So, as a logical consequence, any of the following corrections of Global bans policy should be implemented:

either 1) The modification I made, namely: one of the mandatory criteria for a global ban is an indefinite block on English wikipedia, OR on at least two of any other WMF projects;

or 2) the introduction to the section "Criteria for global bans" should be changed from "Global bans are only considered when all of the following criteria are met" to "Global bans are only considered when ANY of the following criteria are met",

or 3) the global bans of Beta_M and Dcoetzee were a clear violation of this policy and must be lifted,

or 4) this policy is useless pile of bytes and the page Global bans should be deleted, because Jimbo & WMF, in fact, can ban anyone they want to at any time and without any explanation.

--A.Savin (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a basic confusion here. The policy page is only about community-based global bans. (There has only been one, formally declared, and that single one did not follow the policy, which was later written; the WMF has now declared a global ban for the same person, as it previously enforced that ban, without any community consultation; the enforcement was purely about a status offense, not any showing of disruptive behavior (other than allegedly being a globally banned user.) In that case, the user was an administrator as well.

The bans mentioned by A. Savin are WMF-declared bans. It is true that the WMF bans do not comply with the community ban policy. However, they do not change this policy, which does not restrict the WMF. The WMF policy is declared by the WMF, at WMF Global Ban Policy. On the face of it, the WMF may not have followed their own policy, but that's irrelevant here. Nevertheless, I'll comment briefly:

The WMF is the site owner, legally. However, it avoids legal responsibility, except under narrow circumstances, by claiming that site content and management is by the community. The WMF is now showing that it will take legal responsibility. It is willing to bypass community process, and apparently without an emergency. But perhaps there was an emergency; yet it's difficult to assess, because of secrecy, which the WMF claims is necessary. The question is who is being protected, and why the WMF is not willing to negotiate with the community, or, at least, inform it after the fact. Privacy concerns are routinely addressed by restricting information to a special set of users: chosen by the community and disclosed to the WMF as to real-life identity, i.e., all stewards and checkusers.

Any user should be able to waive privacy. Russavia has clearly waived privacy with regard to this affair. The WMF could set up a open appeal process, for users who waive privacy. It may still act to protect the privacy of others, where that is relevant.

And the WMF should clarify the policy, because a global ban, when all precedent would indicate no hazard of that, is a basic violation of human rights, and is likely to, then, create disruption. (It is not "illegal," though it may be a tort.) What actions did Russavia take that violated the TOS, and that he could reasonably know would be seen and treated as such? --Abd (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I assumed you noticed the difference between a community and a WMF ban, but since B..anyone removed the link to the page describing WMF bans added by Philippe, it was probably unreasonable of me to do so. Sorry for the confusion, I indeed assumed unproductive intentions behind your change and thus made use of the rollback tool the first time I reverted you. Regards, Vogone (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I missed that.[1] Face-palm. The addition did not change the policy at all, it merely added an informative note. However, it did violate the literal language of the policy template. Perhaps the Template should be changed. Template:Policy-global/en. Or perhaps we should allow helpful improvements that do not change the policy, even if the letter of the template is violated. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose, that obscure must not was handy to revert the recent WMF test edits. Start a RFC to change the text. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• The recent WMF test edits? To me, it looks like the language was useful to Be..anyone and to nobody else. I'm not about to start an RfC over a simple note on a page. Much easier to edit or propose an edit to the template -- or just to the page. But I'll see what sane comments show up. --Abd (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• I have replaced the See Also link to WMF global ban policy that was added by a WMF account. There have been other accepted edits to the page since the Policy-global template was added. Intention is clear: that template statement, in spite of the literal meaning that can be given to it, does not prohibit all edits to the page. Changing the policy is prohibited without consensus. The added See Also makes no change in policy. It clarifies what has always been true, the WMF has the power to globally lock accounts without community process. Usage has been rare, but it existed before. What was new here was that the locks were announced, whereas, before, they were not, they were quiet (and see w:Wikipedia:Child protection for how Wikipedia handles certain bans), and I've acted on Wikiversity to have third-party reference to one of them suppressed, for privacy reasons. --Abd (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please ban my CsFernandez7 account on all wikis.

Please ban my CsFernandez7 account on all wikis. 112.209.102.2 01:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC) 9:13 AM 1. February 2015 (UTC)

Why? I can't find that account on any wiki, and that's not what global bans are for: preventing abuse. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)