Talk:Global blocks and bans/Archive 1

On global bans

If you're wondering what inspired the creation of this page, please see this thread. I focused on open questions rather than a draft of policy or procedure, but feel free to edit boldly. Thanks! Steven Walling at work 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally do not see global bans as something that are needed. When it comes to crosswiki stuff like the example of that mailing list, the said user could just be blocked - their behaviour has become disruptive, block them to prevent further abusing behaviour. I really don't see a need to enact another bureaucratic global ban system, with some sort of cabal ruling on these cases which could be quite easily solved with a block. That's just my opinion, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, should this become policy here, I strongly disagree with global sysops having anything to do with this. It is quite clearly out of the gs scope. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just for the sake of stating the obvious, I pointed out in the question list that such activity is not what global sysop rights are for. Steven Walling at work 23:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, we neither have the community authority nor the technical "global-ness" to enact or enforce global bans; except for obvious local violations within the GS wikiset, and in such cases it would be better to seek the action of a steward (we have a much wider and global remit). fr33kman 23:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. I think on the whole this would create a system where the downsides of abusing it against gadflies and critics as a way for insiders to show in-group disdain for them, far outweighs the current specific problem under discussion. -- Seth Finkelstein 00:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think there is a need for a very small set of people to be banned from all projects, and the specific problem being discussed on foundation-l is one of them. The need is worth discussing here on meta, but I would rather that Seth be the sole holder of the global ban button rather than allow it to become another tool that gradually becomes used for varying purposes. I'm being a bit flippant there, but the need for this is rare, and it is merely a token measure to globally ban someone unless something is done to ensure it is enforced, and therein lies the problem. John Vandenberg 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What purpose would these serve other than just further extending unneeded drama? If a user is being disruptive crosswiki, lock the account. This still seems to me to be an overly bureaucratic solution for a very easily solved problem. I'd also like to add to my above points that I don't feel that it is right for a decision to be globally applied to all wikis by someone here - surely that is for local communities to do anyways? Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The current burst of energy around this topic is because user:Poetlister has been banned from most English projects due to some very serious concerns over a long time, but they are quietly working away rather peacefully on English Wikiversity. People from the English 'global' community want to impose a global ban which would preempt or overrule the English Wikiversity decision (or lack thereof). At some level all projects are part of a unified community, with a set of common values, or at least the expectation that we have common values. John Vandenberg 01:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If the English Wikiversity decides to take no action, that is their choice. No global action is meant to overrule any local one - if there is no consensus to ban locally, the global ban would be overruled anyways. All projects are part of a unified community, but by no means is that global community meant to overpower the local one. If they are doing good stuff on Wikiversity, I'd treat that as a good thing, not be attempting to globally ban them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the price for 'good' stuff? If WikiEditorA murders WikiEditorB on Wikipedia, is it OK if WikiEditorA edits peacefully on Wikiversity? That is intentionally a 'worst case' hypothetical, to which I hope the answer is 'no'. (Poetlister hasn't killed anyone) There are some activities that we can all agree are worthy of a global ban. If one project was to documented the problem completely, each local community might enact a ban. However, in a more nuanced case, describing the problem extensively in public can cause legal issues or might exacerbate the problem by harming/distressing the victim. The Poetlister case can be mostly documented in public, so a Request for comment is likely to be the appropriate place to discuss a global ban for user:poetlister. Steward may be able to provide examples of bans like this in the past. John Vandenberg 03:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if WikiEditorA did that they would be in jail and unable to edit Wikiversity anyways. I really don't understand why you are so adamant on restricting the actions of someone who seems to have no calmed down and started editing productively. If userA vandalizes on one wiki, then goes and productively helps another, his account shouldn't be locked. He should be blocked on the one wiki that he disrupted, and left alone to do good things on the other. But that's just my view, obviously some people are more intent on some sort of revenge for past wrongs than I am. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And after they come out of jail? This isnt about mere vandalism. This is about conduct issues that strike deep into our expectations. John Vandenberg 01:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that we have a difference of opinion, and I don't think that continuing to argue it out will help either of us in the end. Regardless, I still think that actions on one, two, three wikis should not affect someone if they are contributing well on another. Granted, they'll never become a trusted member of the community there because of it, but there is no reason to stop them from editing. I see this as a huge step backwards, and an unnecessary one at that. As I said above, if they are vandalizing crosswiki lock the account. If not, don't. Simple as that, no need for extra bureaucracy and drama. Regards, Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

As John described, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. The concept of a ban is mostly just prevalent on the English Wikipedia; many other wikis only utilize blocks (which is the only technical measure applicable in any circumstance). There is a reason why stewards only handle clear-cut blatant cases of vandalism and disruption: we cannot impose our will on local communities, we are only there to help them when needed. That is sensible, because as outsiders we do not really understand the dynamics of every wiki (and I imagine it would be quite difficult if anyone attempted to do so) and since we are essentially not part of the mass of contributors for whatever reason (language, projects we aren't interested in) it would be, at least, impolite if we made decisions regular users do normally.

As Wikimedia wikis weren't created to support the WMF (the latter was created subsequently, so it could only be vice versa), we cannot create support infrastructures for everything outside enwiki only to turn around and claim ownership. Just like dewiki once understandably rejected pressure to alter its main page - authoritarianism does not work. Every wiki is independent, and only discussions may lead to consensus for a decision, whether that's for a ban or merely changing the interface.

Also, on the mailing list there's only talk of another English wiki - what happens when it concerns other languages? Are we really going to try to convince them that, since enwiki had difficulties with some users, they are absolutely compelled to block them as well? This is, of course, when it comes to problem users who do not outright edit to vandalize, since I assume every wiki agrees that vandalism should be stopped (which is why locks work and most are uncontroversial). -- Mentifisto 10:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey everyone, Mentifisto emailed me with some really relevant questions, so I thought I'd reply on-wiki just so they can be shared. A couple clarifications:

• I used my staff account intentionally, because there were requests from several highly respected community members for the Foundation to give input about how it views its role on the topic of global bans. On that, I gave my personal opinion in the Foundation-l thread early on, and there are a couple comments from Sue as well. If you haven't read the full thread (or at least first dozen or so messages) I think it's relevant.
• I wrote a series of questions to help galvanize further discussion and action by the community, not a draft policy. That was also very intentional. If community members are interested in answering these questions or different ones and moving forward with a proposed policy that serves the needs of the movement (and not just English Wikipedia) then that will happen. If not, then it's not my job to singlehandedly draft a new policy to be pushed on the projects, just to be frank about it.
• I think it's really telling that among the first five edits to the question set was some trolling about an editor indef blocked on multiple projects, including English Wikiversity. The thought of Wikimedia communities really getting organized and talking to each other on a friendly, equal basis about these few serious cases of cross-wiki abuse is exactly what some don't want to see become reality.

In any case, I think what you're all asking or suggesting so far has been great. There is no way to even begin to think about new policy without people involved immediately to poke holes in current thinking. So thank you. Steven Walling at work 16:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

In the edit you mention, I simply don't see any sort of "The thought of Wikimedia communities really getting organized ... what some don't want to see become reality" type of thinking. I see a single person rudely mocking you, as pretentious. Unpleasant and uncivil, yes, but it seems to me ultimately trivial and inconsequential. Your characterization furthers my view that the "problem" being solved is really about the need for social reinforcement for insiders, as not taking seriously the the views of high-status group members is often considered quite an offense against group norms (as least by high-status group members). -- Seth Finkelstein 22:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Being organized and talking to each other on a friendly, equal basis is what hopefully everyone strives to do in any situation or difficulty (that is normally how communities arrive at consensus, and if we're lucky with not too much bloodshed!) - but the possibility of global bans employs coercion, which is the opposite of a congenial discussion where a compromise has been reached. -- Mentifisto 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Global bans do not employ coercion by definition. If an actually honest global policy of any kind is to be built, then it requires input and consent from people in as many projects as possible. Especially note the proposed additions from WereSpielChequers, which could easily and reasonably build in to such a policy the ability for communities to opt out if desirable. Steven Walling at work 05:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that self defeating in purpose then? Global bans apply to all wikis, to somehow punish editors who have been disruptive on one or two wikis, but other wikis can opt out? Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A Global system from which 1% of projects have opted out is a lot closer to a global system than what we have today. As for a global system from which individual projects can opt out to the extent of allowing people to edit on their project but not to the extent of making them admins or checkusers; That looks like a global system to me. But as for your comment about punishing editors who have been disruptive on one or two wikis, my proposal is for global bans to be considered after someone has been a problem on three or more wikis. Is anyone advocating global bans for people who have only been banned from one or two wikis? WereSpielChequers 14:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One to two or five hundred to six hundred makes no difference; these are still going to be used to punish users, and that isn't how wikis should work. Bans, like blocks, should be preventative. If someone is vandalizing on fifty wikis, and contributing well on one, why on Earth does everyone here seem to want to also restrict him on that one? Likewise, if a candidate for checkuser on a wiki has had his checkuser rights removed on three other wikis, how likely is he to pass? And if he does, and uses the tools well for once, then it is nothing short of harming the wiki he is on to remove them from him. As I said, blocks and bans should focus on prevention of further disruptive actions, not punishment, which this proposal seems to ignore. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well partly I suspect its because those editors consider that such global bans would be preventative, in that there is a risk that any editor who keeps getting themselves banned from individual projects will eventually merit a ban from those where they currently are considered good editors. By the time someone has been banned by three wikis I think there is a pretty good chance that a reasonable person would be worried that we have a recurring pattern, if someone has been disruptive on fifty wikis I would be astonished if they could be trusted to edit productively elsewhere, and five or six hundred as opposed to one or two certainly does make a difference to me. But it was with views such as yours in mind that I formulated the compromise idea that the global restriction could be more proportionate than a complete global ban, what do you think of the proposal that an editor could be globally barred from say email or Checkuser but still allowed to edit where they were not locally banned or blocked? WereSpielChequers 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I must say, I still feel that global banning is a complete waste of time and effort. As I've said above, if they are being naughty crosswiki, just lock the account. I'd be more open to solely restrictions, though, since in some cases I guess they could be beneficial. I still see it as pointless, since local wikis could overrule the decision anyways, and if there wasn't enough of a reason to just outright lock the account they must be making good edits somewhere (in which case it is not a good idea to do anything to prevent them from contributing positively). Also keep in mind that most of my comments are responding to the idea that the above example should be banned, even though she/he is making good edits on a wiki, solely because bad edits have been made on other wikis. I just cannot stomech the suggestion that we should be hindering people like that from being able to contribute positively on the projects they are on. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since most of the people here are from the english projects, I will add two points as an editor from dewiki.

• Global locking of "trolls" and other disruptive users is very intransparent. As an example, look at de:Special:contributions/D.A._Borgdorff or de:Special:contributions/Tyciol. No one locally would suspect that these users are (b)locked. If Stewards lock a user globally, they should at least notify the projects on which the user has edited. Better, implement a notice in the local Special:Contributions page.
• Don't shift the role of Stewards towards "politics". In my opinion, a significant fraction of the stewards are technically skilled people motivated in fighting cross-wiki vandalism and related tasks. These people are really needed, however, they are not necessarily the best people to deal with conflict resolution and political issues such as the Poetlister-case. If the Stewards have to deal with this too, less people will elect this type of user in the Steward elections, which would be a loss for the projects. It would be better to install some global committee in a separate process and to recall the old "Do not decide" slogan. --Tinz 11:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternate suggestions

I've added a couple of ideas to the page.

Firstly re lesser bans. My thinking is that discussion of global bans has been contentious in the past, and that some of the arguments for them are not fear of someone editing other projects, but of their misusing email or various userrights; Whilst resistance to global bans has included the phrase "but they are editing in good faith here". In such a scenario a lesser global restriction such as "user:example is globally banned from having checkuser, oversight or Bureaucrat positions, but may edit, use email or be an admin on those communities that have not blocked them" might be acceptable to all projects.

Secondly "three strikes and you're out". Nearly three hundred languages, some of which have three or more projects means that we have a very large number of small communities out there, I suspect that most would be quite happy to be protected by a system that they could opt out of if they chose to and they had appointed their own admins and had a couple of dozen active participants. Provided the global bans were rare and fair, either on the basis of a global ban panel or "three strikes and you're out" I doubt that many projects would opt out. WereSpielChequers 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But the point of the discussion on the mailing list was to find a way to get bad users banned against the will of certain projects (here:en-wikiversity), that would certainly opt out of your system. That's why I don't see what problems of the current system an opt-out system would solve. --Tinz 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the core part of the problem in that situation Tinz is that the other projects don't really know why the editor involved was banned in the first place. I don't actually, come to think of it. If there's a case where an editor is banned on one project and not on another on the basis of assume good faith, then one first step could be that they should actually talk to each other about what the situation at hand is. If en-wikiversity knew the facts they might have a different feeling about the issue. Steven Walling at work 16:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a compromise proposal that seeks to address the objections that have prevented previous global ban proposals from being implemented, whilst still achieving almost everything those who support global blocks want to achieve . Allowing projects to opt out, or at least opt out to the point of allowing "globally banned" editors to edit but not gain userrights, means we are more likely to achieve consensus to implement something, and I would hope that if we implemented this only a handful of projects would opt out. If we subsequently had an incident involving a "globally banned" editor who was still editing the Klingon wikipedia then we would be on much stronger grounds if we were able to say "yes he's caused problems before, but we have banned from using Email or looking at deleted edits anywhere in Wikimedia, and he can only edit on a few Wikimedia projects that are not currently in the same security system that we use on the main Wikipedias". WereSpielChequers 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that enwv might respond differently if they knew all the facts, however that project has a peculiar problem in that they try to transform everything into a learning opportunity. I say peculiar because it is a feature, not a bug; the project scope encourages that, and I don't think the scope should be changed. They do need to mature their policies so that they have a means to break free of the 'learning opportunity' approach when it is shooting themselves in the foot.
fwiw, I tried to explain the Poetlister problem at Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/10#A_Translation_of_the_Bible, but the consensus appeared to be that the content was within scope, and that was the wrong forum for a local ban discussion. I think a local ban discussion should be attempted before there is any attempt to create a global ban - the latter will be much harder and cause more disunity within our community. If a local ban discussion fails to achieve the desired outcome, the next port of call would be to create a meta RFC about the Wikiversity outcome or a meta RFC about Poetlister. John Vandenberg 01:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Three strikes policy?

Could we change the software to enable projects to adopt a three strikes and you're out policy? I.E. Any editor blocked on three or more projects for editing on that project is treated as blocked on all those projects that implement this.

If we are to have a global ban policy, I like the "three strikes" approach. That allows each project to "try". It also means that stewards are implementing a multi-project consensus rather than them being expected to judge when "enough is enough". The role of stewards in this needs to be thought out carefully, as stewards are the only meta oversight volunteers on meta, they make up the bulk of the checkusers on meta, and they are quite often involved in administrative blocks on meta. As a result of their role in the meta community, they become 'involved' in cases of people who are multi-project malcontents. John Vandenberg 01:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought of the three strikes approach as an automated thing, hence my careful wording that the editor needs to have been banned for something on that project, otherwise we risk the editors who banned someone from the Klingon wiki then banning them from the Klingon wikiquote and Klingon news in order to turn a local ban into a global one. But making it a steward discretion thing would solve that and allow some necessary flexibility. I can certainly see a scenario where someone loses their temper, posts block worthy stuff on three different projects in as many minutes, but the Stewards then decide to treat it as one isolated episode that happens to involve three projects but need not be escalated to ones as yet uninvolved via a global ban. WereSpielChequers 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand what you are calling the "three strikes and you're out" option. To me, that would mean if someone is banned by three or more projects, they are banned from all projects. I'm fine with that idea, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. I absolutely disagree with the idea that users who have been banned from more than one project for the serious kinds of abuse we are outlining should be allowed to keep running to other projects and forcing them to independently find a reason to ban the user. The idea is as much to protect other projects from someone whose behaviour is that extreme as it is to actuate the will of the original banning projects.
• Secondly, one of the entire points of a global ban is that nobody can "opt out" and the user is banned on all projects. One of the biggest challenges that we have is continued importation of battles into the smaller projects by users who have been banned on larger projects (and no, this is not unique to English projects, it happens with other ones too). It is actually quite disturbing to see how many of these users will move on to another project and use it as a launching pad to continue their inappropriate behaviour on the original project(s). Just as importantly, we encourage our users to work on multiple projects as their time, ability and interest permits; however, projects become significantly less attractive to Wikimedians if they become havens for users who have been banned elsewhere.
• I support the idea of different types of global bans, although I do not know if it is technically possible to "ban" someone from email access. To be honest, though, anyone who has advanced permissions (administrator or higher) removed on more than one project due to behaviour should not be permitted to hold even administrator permissions in the future, let alone 'crat, checkuser or oversighter.
• I also agree that the behaviour has to be extremely serious before we should even consider global banning. One of the biggest challenges is that the evidence that illustrates the extremely serious abuse by those very few individuals who should be globally banned usually involves at least some non-public information, including real-world information about both Wikimedians and non-Wikimedians (e.g., subjects of articles) and broad-based public discussion of this information will both perpetuate and publicly enshrine the facts of these behaviours, to the detriment of the individuals on the receiving end of the abuse. Some of the abuse I'm aware of is seriously disturbing and, in a couple of cases, downright scary. We all know how quickly others belittle such experiences (indeed, we only have to look further up on this page) to recognize that as soon as someone says "User Z should be banned because he made over a hundred harassing phone calls to User Q over a week", someone else will pipe in "Well, that's User Q's problem, they should change their phone number. User Z does great copy editing/uses good references/makes great templates/etc." Can we please be honest enough to admit that this is extremely likely to happen? After all, in many cases, it already has. Risker 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course if someone is receiving hundreds of harassing phone calls they shouldn't be told to change their number, they should be told to call the police. The counterpart to the problem you describe is that some users want to play at being the wikipolice. The thoughtful caring wikipolice who can apply penalties across multiple projects without providing evidence because that would hurt the person that their amateur tribunal has found guilty of actual criminal behaviour. Someone at WMF should be helping people who have been the victims of "seriously disturbing" and "downright scary" behaviour to contact law enforcement. 87.254.89.201 15:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions moved from the main page

What is the current state of related global and local policy?

In to order to write any good global policy there should be a deep understanding of the policies and procedures that are related on all the projects – not just in English or Wikipedia. Points of consensus and disagreement between various community polices and processes should be identified. An initial list of harassment policies from all the projects has been compiled, but harassment is only one issue that could result in a ban under current local policies.

How do we maintain community independence?

How can we preserve community independence (which is absolutely necessary for the healthy functioning of the projects) and still deal with cross-wiki disruption?

1. Reserve Global bans for the sort of extreme behaviour that no-one really wants to defend.
2. Make sure that no one project however large can globally ban people without the agreement of the rest of the community.
3. Have a range of restrictions, so that a project can allow someone to edit even if they are banned from ever having access to Email or deleted revisions.

How can collaboration between the projects be improved?

Lack of communication and collaboration between the projects is a root cause of our current vulnerability to persistent cases of cross-wiki abuse. How can we better share information (both public and private) between communities on governance and dispute resolution issues?

Global bans, Good Idea

We already have global locks for vandalism and spam, where WMF-wide remedies make sense for efficiency. But looking at what inspired this proposal, it is dissatisfaction with Wikiversity allowing a user to edit constructively, who is banned on certain other wikis. No disruption of Wikiversity has been alleged, rather the concept seems to be that this user is certain to cause trouble in the future. Looking at the history of this user, I see no recent trouble,; (there is older stuff of obvious concern) that was solely based on the older stuff, with recent behavior that was a history of positive contributions, which are then interpreted as the user attempting to gain the favor of the community for some unstated nefarious purpose. Sin: positive contributions and an attempt, following policy, to return with a new user name (disclosed to checkusers.)

What I see is that the user has been harassed, on Wikiversity, by an attempt to delete his main project there, much original comment based on his identity plus excuses from shaky "scope" arguments, then refiled at about the same time Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister was filed here to globally ban him, by the same person, who is, shockingly, a WMF Board member, who should try to stay out of such activity. If the WMF wishes to ban a user, it may so declare, it has the legal authority, but it will discover that enforcement will create a continual burden. Most blocks are locally enforced, because it is local users who see local activity.

This current effort is an explicit attempt (in the original source cited) to prevent a local wiki from making its own decisions, with an effort to determine Wikiversity business here, where users have no idea of WV traditions and operating principles. If the WMF wants to do this, it can. Such action is rife with hazards, though. I have no crystal ball, but the last attempt to declare a global ban at Wikiversity, without local consent, severely damaged the project, depressing participation, and resulted in a massive RfC here that eventually ran 4:1 to strip Jimbo of his Founder tools, it resulted in delink/unblock discussions at a number of wikis, the resignation of a steward, and other disruptions. Not a favorable history.

Global bans, starting with an unpopular user, will be extended to critics of the WMF, anyone sufficiently unpopular at Wikipedia (which means that editors can be mustered to !vote here), it is a slippery slope. Global locks are already used for uncontroversial cases, and where they have occasionally infringed on local rights, there have been usable remedies. The global ban proposal attempts to prohibit local opt-out.

It's a power grab, even if well-intended, I must conclude, an attempt to impose wiki-wide standards on disparate projects. Wikiversity often suffers from Wikipedia users who show up with Wikipedia-like concepts of inclusion policy. Wikiversity allows original research, and the study of fringe ideas is allowed (as it is at brick and mortar universities). Wikiversity finds it far less necessary to block users, because there are far fewer occasions for users to come into conflict, Wikipedia, on the contrary, sets up continual conflict over pages, since there can be only one page on a topic. Wikiversity allows subpages in mainspace, so alternate versions, POV forks, etc., are allowed, provided that overall presentation, from the top level, is neutral. Wikiversity allows and encourages discussion, as takes place in real-life seminars, and could be a solution to the problem of users on Wikipedia wanting to discuss the topic of an article. They are often told, "No, you can't do that here," instead of being referred to Wikiversity. That's unfortunate.

And, yes, the smaller projects are sometimes havens for users banned on other projects, and this has frequently worked well. Sometimes it doesn't work well, I could cite a few cases. However, inflexible global bans are overkill for this kind of situation. Neutrally notifying local wikis if a user has been banned elsewhere, pointing to a decision, perhaps, would not be a problem. But the proposal, as set up, and as is being attempted with the current RfC, is a setup for creating interwiki conflict and disruption, guaranteed. It will be resisted, and then blocking and banning other users may be required to enforce it. Very Bad Idea. --Abd 02:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all bans or blocks would become global. The suggestion is that there may be behavior which, regardless of which project it was done on, is so offensive to "the community" writ large (all WMF projects) that a global ban is justified.

Had the specific user about whom this was started merely gotten booted off the English Wikipedia, gone to Wikiversity, and stayed there in good standing, this conversation would have never been brought up. Instead, there was ongoing severe abuse after the initial blocks/bans.

That they have found one niche where they don't cause (identified) trouble may not be good enough.

It is important that "normal abusers" - even ones indefinitely blocked or banned from one wiki - be given space for second chances. A wide number of users have rehabilitated that way. But sometimes, there's really no point to that. Georgewilliamherbert 20:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a kind of paternalistic thinking. The case here is Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister. Instead of looking at benefit for the community and communities, we are thinking that we are giving the user a "second chance," as if this were doing him some kind of favor. Rather, in this case, looking back, with everything in the RfC, I see that the truly problematic behavior ceased a year ago, at least, as far as anything detectable on the wikis. This user was "given a second chance" at Wikisource, by checkusers who allowed him to use a new account, and what happened? I'm not seeing that he violated any policies there, he was obviously productive there, and the problem was only that he'd been allowed to edit without disclosing his prior identity, which caused a flap when it was disclosed after he asked for adminship. That (RTV with monitored return) is often done! And in his case, this was a mistake, but a good-faith one, on his part and on the part of the admins he'd consulted.

The question to me is whether or not this user, if he simply continues to edit as he has, will continue to benefit Wikiversity. If it were true that allowing him to edit WV would cause harm elsewhere, that would be a balancing issue we'd need to examine. However, no such harm has even been alleged, the major problem from the past was socking, and global locking and blocking will not prevent socking at all, it would, in fact, encourage it, if anything. If anyone suspects that the user is socking again, knowing what account to checkuser would surely help detect socks! I wish people would realize that there are severe limits to what blocks can do. If the WMF truly wants to prevent a user from editing, it would have to get an injunction, and go after the user personally, and, here, there isn't any basis for that as to anything recent, if anything at all.

I'm suggesting that we are far better off channeling problematic users into constructive behavior, the carrot part, instead of just relying on the stick. I'm a parent (7 kids), and, let me tell you, the stick is broken, it stops working sometime before the teenage years. If your kids are healthy, that is.

This is entirely independent of a very important issue here, local autonomy of the wikis, a crucial principle of the WMF wikis, to be set aside only for very clear necessity (as with account locks for spam and vandalism). Creating a ban from a specific wiki by a discussion here instead of there sets a very poor precedent, and prior attempts have been disastrous. I was surprised to see this start up again. (The preceding mailing list discussion, though, was very clear that Wikiversity was considered a problem wiki.)

I've suggested a compromise on Talk:Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister: a global lock, with delinking of the Wikiversity account ab initio, in recognition of the ongoing positive contributions there. This would set a default condition (locked and therefore effectively blocked unless delinked) that would protect unwary wikis, it would require process to allow the account to be used anywhere it is not delinked. Why not just lock and let Wikiversity delink locally, any 'crat can do it? Well, if we look at the history with Thekohser and Moulton, it's a mess. Wherever it was pushed, on the small wikis, the accounts were delinked, but the discussions were disruptive, we lost users, including several administrators, and possibly a steward, over the conflicts. Bad idea to set up a situation where an active local user is blocked for behavior elsewhere. Moulton ended up being locally blocked for local misbehavior. Simple. I'm suggesting the global lock for Poetlister only as a compromise with the large number of comments here supporting a "global ban." I believe that the compromise would end the disruption, or at least do no harm, and would set a clear precedent that a "global ban" is not an edict controlling the local wiki communities. If the Poetlister account causes a problem, it can be blocked easily, by local action, or, in an emergency, by a steward. --Abd 22:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk page access is revoked

Contrary to what this page says, globally blocked IPs don't get talk page access on any wiki except Meta.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Global block log for users

Is there have any log available to look up the global block for the users and its reasons to perform the global block? Seems it only works for the IP address currently, but not for the users. Shinjiman (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

For example User:Makivan1733 is currently globally blocked. Is there any way to view the record who performs, when and why does this user was globally blocked? Shinjiman (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Just found the log in Special:Log/globalauth. Shinjiman (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any way to view individual cross-wiki blocks?

Accounts can be viewed at special:centralauth but how about IPs? Parallel ocean (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And by individual blocks I don't mean global blocks, I mean suppose an IP is globally blocked and I'm curious to what wikis it has been locally blocked on, is there any way to look it up? Parallel ocean (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You can use this tool to look up any sort of cross-wiki contribs from IP users, but it doesn't currently support global blocks as it states at the top: "This project will replace global user contributions on the toolserver. Additional features like blocklog, sul-info or translation will follow in the future." However, as far as I know, when I used it any individual blocks from individual wikis will show up as a big red block of text, like the one here at MediaWiki:Blocklog-showlog, so you should be able to spot them easily. That feature may have changed since I last used it though, so you can ask the maintainer of that tool whether it still has that function. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What about IP ranges? Parallel ocean (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it can detect IP ranges, you'd have to ask the maintainer of the tool about that. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Parallel ocean: how about this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@PiRSquared17: Ha! I was going to write the same reply here but Special:CentralAuth/Parallel ocean.... --Glaisher [talk] 04:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

apology

Iam sorry for offences i have committed, i didnt know it was offence, and that my topic was off point and useless, pardon me, Thank, am Jesmion 41.206.11.12 03:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not globally blocked as far as I can tell. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

en:User:Jesmion is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Please request an unblock at the English Wikipedia, not here at Meta. See en:WP:UNBLOCK for details about the process for getting unblocked at enWP. --Glaisher [talk] 04:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it seems that the account is also globally locked: Special:CentralAuth/Jesmion. Ping @Rschen7754: as he locked the account. This should probably be moved to the main SRG page. --Glaisher [talk] 04:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

apology

Help, am sorry for every wrong done, kindly pardon, am a learner, you are right to correct me, am jesmion 41.206.11.82 06:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

does global blocks really blocked you on all wiki?

Template:Answered=no examples:

1.semantic-mediawiki,org

2.semanticweb.org

3.wikiaplary.org

4.wikiindex.org

5.free software directory

6.SMW community wiki

7.translate wiki.net

8.universal edit button.org

9.wikitech

10.wikihoster.net

...... at least 10 wiki wont affect by the globalblocked.but making a account on those wiki is extremely difficult. some wiki even need to give summary about yourself to request a account!((need to accepted by a administrators first)) some of them even cant create a account!!! I am finding more wiki won't affect by the global blockHellowhiteccc (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

my user name has been blocked

my username has been blocked please solve this problem