Talk:Global bans/Archives/2016
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
a few questions
Just some questions.
1: Scalhotrod left 3-5 months before his ban. And he left due to outing. Why would a ban be needed? 2: I heard that bans are used to drive off people who cause other legal issues (legal threats, uploading you-know, offwiki harrassment) 3: Francis Kaswahili's ban is BS. He has 2 socks and IDK if they are even HIS. I remember he said something; but he ran for trustees board. 4: I agree with Poetlister's arbcom/community banned, but he was under arbcom sanctions for 5 years and community/arbcom blocked 4 years prior. 5: What is the point of globally banning so many people. Thanks,
96.237.20.248 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please note all bans you mentioned are WMF global bans, bans the community doesn't control. The reasons for these bans are only known to WMF staff. --Vogone (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I know, but why would they ban a user who has been banned for years. 96.237.20.248 00:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not WMF staff either, and have no information myself. But the bans that were in effect for years were of specific Wikimedia projects; the WMF bans made them global. So, the natural inference seems to be that either (a) WMF staff perceived a threat related to sites other than those where they were banned, or (b) thought it was possible the community-imposed bans would be lifted, and perceived a threat beyond what was known to the community. -Pete F (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
To all interested in the topic of global bans (and especially staff -- perhaps Rdicerb (WMF) or Mdennis (WMF) can make sure whoever is appropriate see this?):
I would urge you to look closely at this recent successful global ban: Requests for comment/Global ban request for Messina
Especially the closure, and (if I may be so bold) my own comment (Support #5). In short, this appears to be a case where the ban was needed and worthwhile; and yet, it was not covered by the Global Bans policy. It fell short on requirement #3: none of the wikis referenced had a clearly documented, community-endorsed ban or indef block in place.
I believe the deeper issue is that these wikis (German Wikipedia and Commons) simply lack banning policies, and therefore processes. Perhaps they have gotten by fine without them to date; but I believe if we are to have global bans at all, and rely on local sites when deciding about them, we need clearer documentation.
I'm not sure what the best resolution is, but my gut says that large local projects should be urged to establish more consistent policies and processes. -Pete F (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth: If I am not mistaken, German Wikipedia does have a community-based block process (de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung), but I don't speak german. As for commons, there's no policy, like in the vast majority of projects. None of the Spanish projects have banning policies for example, but that does not mean you can circunvent any blocks imposed there. I'd add too that I miss a time frame in the policy regarding how global ban discussions should stay open. IMHO 15 days max. would be very reasonable. —MarcoAurelio 09:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)