Talk:Requests for comment/Global bans

and who do not speak English

I think the idea behind was to involve editors from the non-English projects, not so much necessarily those who do not speak English.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Both I think. The policy says that discussions don't have to be conducted in English. So even though practically speaking the working lingua franca of the Stewards and Meta is English, I seriously do want to let non-English speakers comment. In fact, if you could translate the statement to Russian using the ls template (just look at how it's formatted now), that would be awesome Yaroslav. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can translate the statement no problem, but let us wait a couple of days so that there are no more suggestions. I understand that non-English speakers comments are welcome, but it sounds now like those who speak English are more welcome that those who speak English (not as a mothertongue) even if both of them work at the same project (say Hungarian Wikipedia). I think this should be somehow corrected.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me give it another edit. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Pls let me know when it is ready for translation--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we can go ahead now. I'll move it to a proper RFC subpage with a note that it's a draft ready for translation. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Just to state it up front, I am thinking we follow this general order of operations:

1. Get this translated.
2. Make sure the translations of Global bans is updated.
3. Get some plain text banners translated
4. Start a campaign advertising this around the 25th or so, when the new terms goes into effect.

Does that make sense? Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but we want to specify to what (or to how many) languages we want this translated before we start advertising.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In my request I specified at least the top 10 languages (Spanish, German, French, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Italian and Portuguese). Some of these are easier than others though... Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

    Now we got four of these, need German, Japanese, Chinese, Italian and Portuguese.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message at the local PT translators cafe, but no movement so far. I'll ping Jon and see if he can poke the general translator's list again. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Related RfC

The Global requests committee has gotten some good initial feedback. We should discuss that as well; controversial global bans are part of its scope. (And the uncontroversial ones seem to be handled well enough at present without this formal policy.) –SJ talk  00:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good initial feedback, but there haven't really been comments since 2011 on the RFC, so far as I can see. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is now active discussion at Talk:Global requests committee Pine^✉ 06:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

article feedback

Why is Article Feedback messages being used in the section header of this RFC? 223.255.230.70 01:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the above question was added by me logged out. As there hasnt been any explanation, I have replaced the template section headers with plain text section headings. I'm guessing that the removed section headings provided localisation; if so, they should be descriptively named rather than tied to an extension. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Votes by users without edits

There are at least 3 votes from users without a single edit in meta (the only one being the vote in this page). We don't have a vote policy (one more reason why we shouldn't be discussing this here) but according with RfA policy: "All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate in any request." Giving that, I'm striking the votes from those who doesn't fulfil this criteria. Béria Lima ^msg 22:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that you need to be active on Meta to vote here, since it's a decision that impacts every Wikimedian. I would kindly request that we not strike any such votes, and rather leave it up to the closing admin or Steward to adjudicate consensus. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm an adm Steven. And be active in at least one project is necessary to prevent sock puppets. Or we don't care about sock puppets in this vote? Béria Lima ^msg 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: And let's be honest, if that is a proposed for consensus, is heading anywhere. 50%-50% isn't consensus in any book. Béria Lima ^msg 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

These people are most likely not socks, but rather people who saw the RFC through watchlist notices on Commons, English Wikipedia, or elsewhere and have never been editing on Meta. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you prove it, Steven? How can you be sure that an account who come here only to vote in this RFC isn't a sock if they don't link the meta account to whatever account they have outside? Béria Lima ^msg 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, in case of SUL accounts this can be easily tracked. See, for example, here and here. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about socks are one reason that I am opposing using RFCs for making decisions about imposing a global ban on a user, and suggesting alternate approaches. I don't know if there is a published standard of practice here on Meta, but at the English Wikipedia Featured Pictures Community, votes from IPs are not counted, although the IPs are welcome to comment. I believe also that in Steward elections, editors must be registered and have met other requirements for voting. Pine^(talk) 07:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• It seems fairly easy to track SULd accounts. I think it is better to include the votes and do checks if there are suspicions than to simply strike votes on the grounds that, because you can't personally prove they have accounts on other projects (and much of the time you can), the person should be assumed to be a sock and booted. Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• In a discussion such as this one, which affects all projects, I think that we should care less about the Metawiki edit count and more about the total edit count. In the case of SUL accounts, it is easy to determine if a user is active elsewhere. If it can't be determined if a user is active elsewhere or not, then maybe the votes shouldn't count. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Beria is right here, the requirement she mentioned is the minimum. Of course SUL is considered a valid link since it has existed, and no edits are required here, while "active" is a very flexible word. That said, I didn't look at any particular user nor I think it's useful at this point. --Nemo 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have found no evidence that any such rule is in place. Béria said that's the rule at Requests for adminship. This is not RfA; this is RfC. No such rule appears to exist at Requests for Comment like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• If an anon has a good point to add to this discussion, why would we remove it just because they don't have an account? This isn't just a by-the-numbers vote, this is a request for comment on the issue at hand. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• If it was just a vote posted by the anon, I could see the rationale. I am strongly opposed to the striking of comments based on the anonymity of the poster. Either erquire login on all projects for everything or allow the anons to participate in discussions so long as they remain helpful. I respectfully request that the struck comments be reinstated. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It is common to disregard anonymous users in "votes" because of the easy ability to sock. Editing and voting are two different things. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

讨论原因还未翻译到波兰语？我在波兰语段落看到英文字。

"Why we're having this discussion" not yet translated into Polski? I see English in the Polski section.

• The headers have not been translated--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Section for "Option 3"?

There are so many !votes that amount to "I don't want to have a Global bans policy at all" that I think it would be useful to place them in a separate section.

Right now, it's not possible to figure out whether many of these Option 2 comments mean "I don't want global bans to be possible, but if we are doing this anyway, then this policy is approximately okay" or "I don't want global bans to be possible, and if we are doing this anyway, then this policy has the following serious flaws". Many of the comments simply stop after the "I don't want global bans to be possible" part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably too late for that now. In the future, that would have been the wiser thing to do, but at this point I think the best thing do would be to try and impress on the closing admin or Steward that these votes are not really supporting the option given, but rather oppose the concept entirely. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it too late? There are quite a few comments at section 2 which unambiguously oppose the idea as a whole. Why not move them to a new section? These comments are, at the time of writing: 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 22, 24, 25, 31. Nine comments. User:Mbz1, at comment 7, User:Iantresman, 29, and User:Trycatch, 32, also seem to dismiss the idea completely, though I'm not sure. Cheers, Face (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it's inappropriate to move people's comments for them, and we can't create the third section after this many comments and not move them, because that would be misleading. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 14:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be awkward at this point, and I wouldn't want to guess which comments should be placed in which category. If we did this, we'd need a note at the top of the item explaining its date, and perhaps notes to each of the individuals with potentially relevant comments inviting them to voluntarily move their comments if they choose to.

Or perhaps just notes to them all now, suggesting that they clarify those comments. If they hate the idea and have specific suggestions about how the policy needs fixing, I'd hate to have their potentially useful ideas overlooked because their current comments are non-responsive to the actual question at hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

As one of those who commented as being completely against the idea of global blocks, I think now a new section should not be introduced anymore, it can all stick under option 2. Surely everyone who opposes the policy also has ideas how it could be made more acceptable to them - like the opt out possibility, which is frequently mentioned. (In my opinion, an opt-out option would effect the same as not introducing the policy at all, is just less obvious. That said, I agree with Steven's comment at option 2, no. 14 - either there is a global policy or there is none, but that's not the topic of discussion here). --MF-W 22:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A non-global policy? Unfortunately for that idea, one of the minimum requirements is "a ban from all of the Project editions," per the TOU. Consequently, your !vote is for "let's not do what the TOU already says we will do", and is therefore non-responsive to the question at hand.

It might be cleaner to think of it this way:

Given:

1. We must have a policy on this subject;
2. The policy must apply to people with "accounts or access blocked on multiple Project editions"; and
3. The policy must address bans "from all of the Project editions":

What policy shall we adopt that meets all of these requirements?

Your response ("Let's have a policy that does not meet mandatory criterion #3") isn't a possible option, and I suspect that it's simply going to be ignored as non-responsive by whoever is stuck determining consensus here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. In my opinion, there is no need for a global ban policy. [I also am of the opinion that the Terms of Use do not require it - user:Philosopher puts it quite well in the Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#What_do_the_ToU_say? section]. Otherwise, I agree with what you said - if the/a global ban policy is adopted, it must be truly global, and opt-out possibilities for single projects would make it non-global. --MF-W 16:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Philosopher is wrong, and since the hole in his logic apparently is not as obvious to everyone as it was to me, I will go explain there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Now created

Here. I think we should decide something now to prevent the RfC from getting disfigured. Perhaps User:Steven (WMF) can cut the knot? Cheers, Face (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note for each of the people who supported #2 before #3 was available, in case any of them wish to add or move their comments.

I think a somewhat longer explanation statement at the top of the section would be helpful: "Nay, we should not have global bans at all" rather than just "Nay". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I approve of that. Thanks for your help. I have struck through my original vote and put it at #3. Yes, this is awkward, but that's how we roll. Cheers, Face (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Striking anon comments?

This is described in the introduction as a discussion, not a vote. While it makes sense to me to strike IP votes in a scenario where strict numbers are important, I'm confused as to why IP votes (including those with commentary) are being struck in the current discussion. Is there a precedent for this? -Pete F (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the usual solution for this is indentation, right? This way the comments can still be read - striking generally implies (to me) that the poster retracted his comments. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Requests for comment/Global bans#Votes_by_users_without_edits. Beria decided that since RFAs on Meta require logged-in users, that this RFC should, too. It's not an unreasonable position (IP hopping can produce serious votestacking with minimal effort), but it is not supported by any policy on Meta. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that link Whatamidoing! An observation: RFAs on Meta are defined as a vote: "Adminship will be granted by a support ratio of at least 75%"' But this process is specifically described as a discussion, not a vote. I think that distinction is important. If IPs are making points in the discussion, I think we should take them as seriously as anybody else's.

If it starts to appear that there are efforts at socking or vote-stacking, it would of course be reasonable to take steps to minimize its impact. But I don't see anything that looks suspicious. Wouldn't we do better to assume good faith? -Pete F (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth un-striking the anon votes, or should we just leave it for whomever gets stuck closing this? I don't feel very strongly about it, but I suppose that if they are left struck, it would discourage further participation from people who aren't logged in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of users are not voting because they have to create a new account

I just wanted to note that a lot of users are not voting on this because they have to create a whole new account. I have spoken to several on and off Wiki that said they didn't want to create a separate account for something that they never use. 108.28.162.125 12:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to create a new account. Instead it is recommended to upgrade older single project accounts to SUL accounts, see Help:Unified login. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Help from developers

Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#Local_opt-out – Can developers please develop the tools and such need to unblock / unlock a registered account locally? If the local opt-out idea isn't adopted, a global bans proposal will never see support levels of 60% or more. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It already is possible, a global account can be locally detached from SUL to get around the global lock. And global IP blocks can be whitelisted locally. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the detaching from SUL is a hack where 'crats can rename an account, not really an intended feature. In any case, the real developer support needed here is a global blocking function, so we can quit misusing SUL for this. As for local opt-out: I don't see overwhelming consensus for it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nor is there consensus for the global bans proposal as it's currently written. You need to form a coalition with the local opt-out proponents in order to obtain a clear majority. You need to work with us; otherwise, you won't have any global bans policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but to be frank I have a hard time taking policy and consensus-building suggestions seriously from someone who was just indef banned on a major project for harassing others. Your behavior is exactly the kind of thing that this policy is meant to combat. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounded a lot like an ad hominem attack to me. Why not focus on what is being said, rather than who is saying it? You still haven't responded to what he said. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that the coalition of people who need convincing is one that accepts the idea of global bans but wants local opt out. What is clear from reading the comments is that more people don't understand why we should have global bans in the first place, and think that the idea is scary enough that they are against it entirely, opt out or no. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And !voters for Option 1 don't understand that people such as you want to use global bans against more than just vandals. The !voters for Option 1 should be a bit more cautious and fearful. The fears of the opposition are more sound than you believe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that at least some of us have good enough reading skills to understand the meaning of "No global ban is required for uncontroversial cases of cross-wiki vandalism or spam". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than a little annoyed with comments like "more people don't understand why we should have global bans in the first place". Have you considered that some people do understand why you think we should have global bans, but then reject the idea as a bad one? I've certainly seen that argument made more than once and, while I don't necessarily agree with it (I haven't decided whether they are or aren't a good idea, myself), it is certainly a valid argument. Especially considering that global bans and global blocks are different ideas and that the WMF projects have a strong tradition of local autonomy. Basically, you should stop discounting arguments simply because you disagree with them. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't harass anyone. Publishing unpleasant facts isn't harassment. Your comment is also an example of why users are uneasy. People !voting for Option 1 are under the impression that global bans will be used against vandals. I'm not a vandal. I exercised my freedom of speech outside of Wikimedia, and ArbCom (there was never an ANI discussion. I was never tried by my average Wikipedian peers) decided that they didn't like that. People such as you want to use global bans to eliminate people that they dislike, not vandals. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Currently, at 58 (Option 1) to 43 (Option 2) to 17 (Option 3), which is 49.2% to 36.4% to 14.4%, i'm not seeing a consensus to implement this at all, no matter how much Steven tries to handwave that we "don't understand". Oh, and if you want to separate it just into Support (Option 1) and Oppose (Option 2 and 3, more or less), then it's 58 to 60, which is 49.2% to 50.8%. A clear split. Silver seren (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, it's not a vote, so the numbers are meaningless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, some of the opposers clearly state they believe that ban on two projects automatically means global ban. This indeed supports the idea that not all of them read the proposal. (Similar story like in the parallel RFC on the travel guide, with quite a few opposers arguing that Wikitravel is enough).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That case Michaeldsuarez was involved in epitomizes the concerns with global banning. We've seen a respected Wikipedia admin, whose contributions and administrative actions for nearly the preceding two years were never at issue, being attacked and banned for political reasons. He remains a valued contributor on Commons. Creating a process like this would allow his detractors to connive some scheme by which he can be banned there without the consent of Commons users, and I fear that is its primary purpose.

I should further add that if we're going to question the validity of votes, we might also question those of the many Wikipedia Arbitrators who chimed in. They have several potential conflicts of interest, either because this extends the reach of their power in making en.wiki bans, or because they could get another position on a proposed global arbitration committee. Put it this way - if they voted to oppose the global bans and committee, would this hurt their chances of getting on it?

The truth is, there is no reason why Wikiquote or Wikiversity or any other of the WMF projects couldn't work as a brand new, standalone project with no "global" anything over them. Wikipedia started out that way, after all. So there's no reason why they have to depend on global bans to protect them. If they have only a few users, they have only a few problems, and they don't need a lot of help. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Now what?

The first !vote was cast nearly two months ago, and the RfC's activity has declined substantially. Form the look of things, there currently isn't any consensus to implement the global ban proposal in its current form. What happens now? How do we improve the proposal in order to make it more acceptable to a larger number of people? @Steven_Walling: Do you have any plans or suggestions? You aren't fond of the "local out" alternative. Do you have any alternatives to offer? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are the salient facts as I see them:

• The Terms of Use requires us to have some sort of system under which especially problematic users could (at least theoretically) be banned from all projects. It stipulates no requirement about the actual process, so long as one possible outcome of the process is that such users may be banned from all WMF websites.
  • The proposed policy (Option 1) meets this minimum requirement.
  • Some supporters of Option 2 want a system that is probably not compatible with the Terms of Use, e.g., re-writing the allow any individual project to completely reject the global community's consensus. Others have TOU-compatible suggestions for improvements, which generally would make it harder, but not technically impossible, to impose a global ban, or which would add an intermediate sanction, such as permitting the community to choose "global ban, with an option for local projects to get permission from the global community for an exception" as an alternative to "global ban, with no exceptions".
  • Option 3 ("The TOU requires a global ban to be possible, but we want the policy to say that it is always impossible") is simply not compatible with the Terms of Use.
• There is significantly more support for adopting the existing proposal than for any of the other options. On a straight-up vote count (see VIE, etc.), it's 65/44/20, which means a bare majority for Option 1 overall and 60% in favor of the existing policy when you compare Option 1 and Option 2 voters (on the theory that Option 3 is simply impermissible, even though popular with 15% of participants, and would likely be vetoed by the WMF legal folks). When you consider content (e.g., re-classifying some Option 2 !votes as Option 3, based on their comments), the majority is even more positive for Option 1.
• There is no particular reason to believe that adopting the most-favored option now would prevent improvements along the lines suggested by the Option 2 supporters in the future. There are relatively few Option 2 supporters who want a dramatically different system for deciding what do with "especially problematic users" (e.g., nobody has suggested a system that doesn't involve a discussion on Meta), so there is reason to believe that such changes could be added by normal discussion later (e.g., expanding the list of outcomes from "yes, ban everywhere" and "no, don't ban anywhere" to include intermediate sanctions like "ban everywhere except at...").

So I think that I would adopt this and then promptly start discussions about some of the suggested improvements, rather than starting completely over. Of course, I expect 100% of the Option 3 folks and at least half the Option 2 folks to object, but I think it's a reasonable enough place to begin. I don't believe that Meta has a formal "closing" process, but perhaps someone knows of one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to add a +1 regarding alterations to the policy in the future to address concerns, such as those described by Option 2 commenters. That openness to revision in a more flexible way than the Terms of Use was precisely why we opted to have the mechanics of global bans described in a community policy rather than a WMF one. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated below, any further changes to the "global bans" policy after adoption would most likely be tiny changes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So basically, your "consensus" is to disregard and not count any of the votes that are against your opinion. Even if it was 65/44/240, you would still say that there is a 60% consensus to start the process, because the 240 don't count? Wow. Nice way to rig the system there. Silver seren (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That's not how consensus works. Option 2 and Option 3 together represent those who are dissatisfied with the current proposal. I don't agree with your "divide and conquer" approach to counting the !votes. Only half of the !voters of satisfied with the current proposal. That isn't consensus.

I don't see Option 2 !votes as being incompatible with the TOU. Here's what the TOU says about global bans:

Especially problematic users who have had accounts or access blocked on multiple Project editions may be subject to a ban from all of the Project editions, in accordance with the Global Ban Policy. In contrast to Board resolutions or these Terms of Use, policies established by the community, which may cover a single Project edition or multiple Projects editions (like the Global Ban Policy), may be modified by the relevant community according to its own procedures.

The WMF can still ban whoever they want. The ToU doesn't require a mob of users to do the banning. The ToU doesn't require the Meta community have the final say in a global ban discussion.

In addition, I don't believe that the proposal should be adopted now and then have a discussion. That is demoralizing. !voters for Options 2 and 3 would believe that their !votes were worthless. They'll feel cheated, become disillusioned, and won't bother participating in any more discussion. Plus, adopting the policy as it is now would create a switcheroo. Instead of having the WMF and Mr. Walling make concessions to the community in order to make the proposal more acceptable to a wider range of people, adopting the policy as it is now would result in Option 2 and 3 users making concessions (dropping some of the bolder demands) in order to have tiny changes made (large changes would be nearly impossible after adoption). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael your reasoning is pretty crazy. You really think the majority of Wikimedians would like to see the WMF handle any banning decision of an active editor anywhere? I seriously doubt that. The purpose of wording the ToU that way was to put community decision-making power first. Whether it's this current incarnation of the policy or not, it doesn't matter. Just because one iteration of a policy may be rejected does not mean you default to handing over banning decisions to the Foundation. That's not the way Wikimedia works. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't advocating giving the WMF more power. I prefer allowing local community override global consensus. I'm just saying that the ToU doesn't give exact details concerning global bans, so calls for "local opt-in" don't contradict the ToU. You need to read these things in context. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"I prefer allowing local community override global consensus." That is not a global ban. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No sanctuary? No asylum? Local communities can't offer asylum to their Richard O'Dwyer's or their Julian Assange's? The community should define what a global ban is, not you. The policy shouldn't have to follow the literal meaning "global ban" if the community doesn't approve of it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the TOU do not permit that. A global ban must apply to "all of the Project editions". We could have an alternative or intermediate sanction that permits such exceptions, but there must be a process by which a ban on "all of the Project editions" could be imposed. We're not following "the literal meaning global ban" here; we're following the dictionary definition of the word all, because that's the word used in the legally binding TOU. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make this clear, the vote tally isn't ~60/~40/~20 in some sort of for/neutral/opposed way - it is ~60/~60 for adopting or not adopting the current proposal. Splitting the oppose camp into two sections doesn't remove the fact that they oppose the current proposal, and there is certainly not enough support to implement this policy. I think it's time for WMF to adapt itself to the community wishes here, rather than standing over us and saying we need to take it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest any future policy should seriously consider the "escalation" attack problem I described - "What this proposed policy does is to create a horrible "escalation" attack. Before, if a clique could get someone banned on English Wikipedia, there wasn't much of an incentive to go after the target on a smaller wiki. Here, all that clique needs is an English Wikipedia ban plus any smaller wiki ban, and they can then shoot the moon for a Global Ban. The last thing Wikimedia needs is more vendetta drama.". I do not consider replies relying on any variant of that-wouldn't-happen wishful thinking to be seriously engaging this problem. I've seen too much wikipolitics, so that I firmly believe if something along those lines could happen, there's a group of self-appointed Defenders Of WikiPurity which would try for it. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, if we are to delve into what any of us personally thinks, I do not consider you to be a neutral observer of Wikipedic community, able to more or less weigh the realistic possibilities of what is and what isn't a wishful thinking. Unless there are serious examples of people ganging up on a user (in particular, on more than one wiki), with diffs we could use to make our own judgments, this argument is purely theoretical. I myself would be really very interested in some juicy injustice cases to analyze independently. Feel free to post some. Pundit (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the blocks of Ottava Rima and Abd from Meta?

• Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2011-09#User:Ottava_Rima
• Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2011-10#User:Abd

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what about these blocks? After short perusal, the first one was given for calling another user a pedophile (in a heated discussion). I definitely agree the user should have been blocked, although the indef nature of the block was disputable. The only thing is that the block was lifted soon after (and after an open discussion). This is exactly how community's common sense works, also when dealing with overly punitive solutions. I don't have time to go through the exact details of the second block (there is much more arguments from both sides there). I take your word for granted that the case wasn't obvious and that the block could have been set with a finite length. However, even without going to weigh in the details, you have to admit, that the user was phrasing his/her point of view in a quite provocative manner, as well as e.g. advocated violating CU policy. All this is irrelevant, this block may or may not have been justified (as any other). But even if it was justified, the main problem with this example is that I have very serious doubts about the assumption of any clique ganging up on a user. This is so especially when you take into consideration the fact that even users previously supporting him/her elsewhere (custodianship) turned their backs. Of course this *may* be a case of a wider conspiracy, but it just doesn't strike me as such, and definitely is not at least an obvious example that could be used for a discussion here. Pundit (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@Pundit - It's well-known that people estimate possibilities differently according to life experiences. For example, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc - these are all in general estimated markedly at variance overall by the target group vs the non-target group. Or, for the death penalty, there are people who will argue that no innocent person has ever been executed - since the executed person was convicted of a crime somehow, that evidence is taken to be correct. I suspect we'd go through something like that, so I'll forebear. I will simply say that if you similarly discount any civil-libertarian concerns from those much more likely be on the ban-ee side than the banning side, that functionally will dismiss considerations of the possibilities of abuse. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Seth, of course people's experiences influence their views. I have been a target of stereotypical biases and I definitely can understand your view. However, I would assume that, for instance, I have much larger exposure to simple trolls on vandalizing sprees through wikis. While I understand your concerns and surely abuse possibilities should not be treated lightly, I am also concerned about the problem a community after community faces because we don't have a global ban. There has to be some balance of threats - for instance, perhaps a global ban should be introduced with more appeal possibilities. I don't know, but the real, non-imaginary problem we have now is with people disrupting communities. They usually are not really people anybody would even bother to gang up on, it is not this level. Of course measures need to be taken so that this problem is not an excuse to limit freedoms we would not like to be limited. I definitely understand that a global ban in wrong hands could be a very dangerous weapon. Pundit (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael (and anyone else),

The TOU says that people "may be subject to a ban from all of the Project editions" according to whatever process is established in the Global Ban Policy.

I've never said that the Global Ban Policy must require community involvement, although I suspect that the vast majority of users, who (unlike you) have not seen what the tyranny of the mob looks like, strongly support a community approach. If we wanted, we could specify that global bans must only happen with a notarized statement from Santa Claus that says the user is on this year's Naughty List. We could say that a global ban can only be enacted if Amnesty International endorses it. Well, Santa Claus might be stretching things beyond tolerance, but we could specify that proceedings require an endorsement from the WMF's Executive Director, or a resolution of the Board of Trustees permitting the discussion, or any number of other nearly-but-not-quite impossible requirements. We could do all sorts of things—but we have to do something.

Whatever policy we adopt, it must be, at least theoretically, possible for an "especially disruptive" user to "be subject to a ban from all of the Project editions". Option 3 does not make this possible. Option 3 is a direct statement that its supporters do not wish to comply with the requirements of the TOU. I'm happy that they had their say, but their say isn't actually relevant to the question at hand (it is very relevant to the next round of TOU changes). The choices we actually have are much more like "Do you want to pay your income taxes by payroll deduction, or by personal check?" Option 3's response is "I don't want to pay my income taxes at all." The only possible response is, sorry, that's not one of the legal options. Our goal is to comply with the TOU. We shouldn't have our decision held hostage by the 15% of users who will reject any and all proposals because they do explicitly want to invalidate this provision of the TOU. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#Section_for_.22Option_3.22.3F – It's really unfortunate that you advocated creating Option 3 when you knew full well that their !votes would end up being useless. Divide and conquer. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Option 3 should've came with a warning that said, "If you !vote for this option, your !vote will basically be useless. You might as well support Option 2 instead," in big, red letters. How many Option 3 !voters were aware of the possibility that their !votes would become meaningless? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, option 3 could still be implemented de facto. As far as I can see, the terms of use require a global bans policy which says that users may be subject to global bans, but it doesn't say how easy it should be to ban someone globally. If you rewrite the proposed policy so that it is very difficult to ban someone globally, then you would basically have option 3. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's true. We just need to make it extremely hard to global ban someone. Silver seren (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no requirement that anyone ever receive such a ban. The only requirement is that we have some sort of defined process. We could, if we wanted, make it not only extremely hard to impose a global ban, but also make it extremely hard to even start a discussion about a global ban.

About creating "Option 3", I believe that it was important for users who really could not support anything that complied with the TOU to be able to express that opinion. If we had to split it manually, I would have miscategorized some of the Option 2 folks as being Option 3 (e.g., anyone demanding a local opt-out for all bans). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#Overturning_a_global_ban_decision – Before we consider ways of making harder to globally ban an user, we should create a real route that globally banned users may use in order to return in good faith. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Global bans are not for people we want returning to any project. That's why it's a global ban. If the discussion is about someone that we could possibly want to let return, then there shouldn't be a global ban at all. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yipes! Even people convicted of murder get an appeal. Along with the possibility of pardon, clemency, etc (granted, that's pretty much gone away in practice these days, but it's at least there in theory). This is really looking less and less like a tool for prevention, but instead some sort of ceremonial exorcism ("Begone devilspawn, we cast you out, our ears are closed to you, in the name of the most wikipure thou are never to be seen or heard from again, unto the end of eternity ..."). I DO NOT trust the drama-addicts never to make a mistake. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Do not feed. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least we can fall back to calling people who disagree with us trolls. Easier than explaining stuff I hear. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote no confidence in Mr. Walling's ability to curate this RfC. I would like the WMF to assign us a different staffer to curate this discussion. Mr. Walling is far too difficult for the community to work with. We need a WMF staffer who's ready to make concessions to the community when necessary. Mr. Walling isn't doing anything meaningful to help create consensus. The WMF needs to assign a diplomat to this discussion, not a stone wall. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this no confidence vote. Mr. Walling's statements in this discussion have been on the verge of appalling in regard to how he's treating people that disagree with him. In Wikispeak, it's quite clear that he is not a neutral party to this and his POV is getting in the way of curating. Silver seren (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would you expect the person who wrote the proposal to be "neutral" about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't have to be neutral, and I find the requests of him withdrawing exaggerated. This doesn't change the fact that his wording was unfortunate. Pundit (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Indeed, I've never been neutral, as one of the primary authors of the policy being discussed. Don't worry, I don't consider myself the curator of this discussion. That is not how consensus works in my mind, and I won't be closing the discussion. (Someone independent, like a Steward, will be asked to.) As for objections to the substance of my comment: someone who does not ever contribute to our projects, but simply hangs around to make hyperbolic comments to incite a reaction is the very definition of a troll. My feelings on Seth's comments do not extend to anyone else participating here, to state the obvious. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr version - You have just proved exactly my objection.

Mr. Walling, there's plenty of times I've given people a pass to prove my good-will and very sadly, it never seems to do any good. You have now doubled-down on a personal attack. You don't care. You don't have to. You can freely use your group social status to hurl insults at me, and if I ever treated you here with similar name-calling to the way you can treat me, I'm sure I'd be in trouble. THIS IS WHY YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH A GLOBAL BAN! Because given the smallest opportunity to abuse your power against a "fair game" target, you will, as you do. If you wonder why I don't love Wikipedia, this is part of the reason. Oh, you criticize me for not contributing. Would you like me to regale you with the stories of the times I've contributed to try to prevent someone being libeled (jargon - enforce WP:BLP), and had to deal with the proverbial Randy-from-Boise giving me grief? Or the bona-fide harassment? (by which I mean not the wiki-whining of being argued with, but e.g. Wikipedia people dragging me through frivolous formal ethics charges) No, none of this will matter, because of who is being attacked. Yet you claim this kind of environment doesn't even need a ban appeal? And think it's somehow proof of malice when I believe that's laughably absurd? Words - at least words I can safely type here - fail me to describe how very much you show why civil-libertarian reasoning is important. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seth (if I may), while not defending Steven's wording, I just want to straighten a conveyed misconception: I don't think "people like him are to be trusted with a global ban". It is my understanding that a global ban is not a tool introduced for WMF staff, and stewards act within the community's mandate (and can be held responsible for their abuses of power). From what Steven wrote, I would also understand that he implicitly understands contributing to Wikipedia as article production, rather than participating exclusively in discussions. It is also my experience that sometimes users with their own agendas and gripes with Wikipedia concentrate mainly on debates, and do not contribute. Steven may have been referring to this phenomenon and you may unintentionally fall into this pattern. I'm not a huge fan of editcountitis, and I do believe that designing a sensible structure for encyclopedia and its rules are at least as important as articles' development and creation. However, I think that there is something to it that people most engaged in the development of the encyclopedia should have slightly more to say about how they organize their work than those who focus mainly on commenting on this work; this is pretty much common sense. Of course this does not mean that you should have no say or that your concerns should be ignored. It is only that experience in developing articles and anti-vandalism definitely helps in seeing the practical, non-theoretical problems this proposal tries to address. Pundit (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Pundit, you're well-intentioned, but I'm afraid you've misread the political undercurrents here. I probably should have replied earlier to your long comment above, on your own perspective regarding "simple trolls on vandalizing sprees through wikis.", as I do understand the viewpoint. However, there is some history. Steven Walling is a sort of person for which I have a saying, "You don't have to like me, but I wish you'd respect me". The reason for this difference is varying views regarding reverence for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and a tendency of some people with high favorable emotional attachment there to impute malice to criticism of such entities. Note, I do not claim that all criticism is deemed trolling - that would be overstatement, untrue. However, I do claim that the point where they deem criticism to be trolling is wearisomely low and extremely resistant to factual refutation. Thus, regarding abuse of power for global ban, I meant not "WMF staff" as a category, but such emotional attachments (which of course correlates highly with "WMF staff", but is by no means identical). Now, my political analysis is that these people are frustrated that over the years certain "banned users" have not in fact been completely banned from every project, and they wish to assert an unchallengeable central authority. It is again not "WMF staff" _per se_, but a viewpoint. But that's a strong aspect of this proposal, as we see in the advocacy of no local opt-out, no appeals, etc. Note, before someone tries to throw my earlier point back at me, I am not imputing malice. I'm quite willing to grant it's viewed in their minds as necessary protection. But the targets tend to be dangerous broad and drift into ideological enforcement - as just happened! This is very well-known sociologically, and I'm not saying anything analytically unusual or especially provocative here. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and I do understand your concerns. However, my perception is that the community and WMF have been introducing more and more measures of control and checks for potential abuse. For instance, my experience with the Ombudsman Commission was that this relatively new body was really focused on assuring that checkusers and stewards do not break the policy, with no sacred cows and pardon. You are right, though, that all procedures should be introduced not necessarily for the people that are in the organization now, but also for the worst possible scenarios. In this sense, appeals should be a safety valve and I'm sure they will be introduced sooner or later. Pundit (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Preparing a better RfC

I feel that we need to build a better RfC. This RfC is flawed:

1. It asks two separate questions ("Should there be Global Bans?" and "Are you pleased by the current version of the draft?") at the same time instead of asking them one at a time.
2. It does a poor job of uncovering what exactly should be rewritten.
3. The binary / trinary approach creates a feeling of "I must support this option. There isn't any viable middle ground."

I created a draft RfC that I feel would help remedy the above problems. It asks questions separately, it clearly presents options of rewriting the draft policy, and it offers many options. I would like some help. Does anyone have ideas, questions, and proposals to add? I'm sorry about the size of the RfC that I'm proposing, but I don't believe that we can build a satisfactory Global Bans policy without a comprehensive RfC that does more than ask two simple questions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just ask if the community should be able to ban then, if it is yes, allow the community to then draft something on its own? Your questions seem way too complex to determine something rather easy. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the numbers in this RfC, there's consensus for global bans, but there isn't consensus for what should go into a global bans policy. The draft second RfC is complex because it's mostly about finding consensus on what should go into the policy. Isn't what I'm doing a part of "the community drafting something on its own"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just try creating your own Global Ban proposal? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it asks only one question: Given that the TOU requires us to have some process for banning especially problematic users from all projects, should we adopt this particular process? See the fourth sentence on the page: "Now that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the new terms of use, that means that a community process for enacting a global ban must be created." There's no "question" being asked about this point. There are responses from people who don't understand what "must" means and from others who simply disagree that it is actually required, but the RFC does not ask that question.

I don't think that it makes sense to plan a second round until some uninvolved steward (or other poor person) has actually determined whether the non-responsive answers on the unasked non-question can be sufficiently disentangled from the responsive answrs to make the remaining responses useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much just tuning you out at this point. You're so determined to invalidate the opinions of others so that your opinion is the only one that matters. Silver seren (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A poll with three options such as this one should've been done with !voters grading each option ("first choice", "second choice", "third choice"). I'm sure Option 3 !voters would've listed Option 2 as their second choice. Option 2 !votes and Option 3 !votes should be counted together. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest before any sort of new yes/no vote on another draft policy, it might be helpful to have some sort of workshop to address the issues which came up in this round. In particular, I remain quite concerned about the "escalation attack" (two means a chance to "shoot the moon"). I had originally thought of it in terms of say, Wikipedia + Commons, being used in the pornography arguments. But some of the main discussion pointed out (my paraphrase) that would work very well in smaller wikis which are extensively politically polarized, and there's obvious motives there. In terms of the TOU "must" argument, even if it were true (I strongly believe it isn't accurate), what would be the penalty anyway? Who is going to sue, on what basis, for not being globally banned? Suppose proposed global-ban policies just keep getting !voted down. Could certain WMF staffers claim there must be a policy, so the policy they have in mind will be in effect from now on, since clearly the community doesn't grasp the necessity? (that'd be such an obvious power-grab I think it wouldn't ever happen, but I've been wrong before). That "must" argument greatly strengthens my worries about potential abuse. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the WMF has the right to set policies for their website, including one on this subject. but it seems unlikely to me that the community would be so dysfunctional as to require such a drastic step on their part. They don't seem to have imposed any condition on the contents of the policy, beyond a minimum of two bans to start proceedings and its applicability to all projects, so surely we could come to some agreement. For example, I've wondered whether it would make more sense to require ejection from three communities. That would dramatically reduce the number of people eligible for it (and therefore Meta's workload). A lot of English speakers never use more than two projects, so a ban from en.wp and Commons is, from their perspective, a ban from everything they might want to edit anyway, and any further proceeding might be a waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Counting

Are there any technically inclined folks who could figure out how many "targets" might exist? I don't want a list of names, just a total number of accounts that have been blocked or banned on 2+ projects, and who are still editing (e.g., anything in the last 30 days) on at least one other project.

I can think of only one person who might be "eligible" for a global ban under this policy (blocked at two Wikipedias and posted here at Meta within the last 30 days; I don't know if he's active elsewhere). Most of the examples people have had in mind have only made themselves unpopular on a single project. I'd be happy to hear that almost no one "qualifies" for a global ban. Can anyone find out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think one can draw the intended conclusion from any current numbers, as it's not taking into account the problem of the "escalation attack", which would change conditions drastically. That is, currently there's no incentive to get someone banned on a minor project (as part of the predicate for a global ban). Now, if the "target" is banned on a big project where there's a conflict, then it doesn't help the "attackers" much to then go after the "target" on some other small project. But if there is a strong reason to do that second ban - as in, it's the gateway to *try* for the shoot-the-moon global ban - then it's likely those numbers will increases, as it matters much more. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia community

I think that this proposal might have more support if there was an actual Wikimedia community. Are there those who edit at the various "other" sites besides Wikipedia? Yes, absolutely. Does that include meta? Yes it does. But the WMF (in my humble opinion) has entirely dropped the ball on fostering wikimedia as a "community" of itself. And so, without that global community, how can we approve global community bans?

Are there ways to foster this? Sure. One example is one I've been hoping for ever since SUL was announced: moving all same language userpages/user talk pages from every same language wikimedia project to a single wiki (and close the namespaces on the individual wikis). And of course, transwiki all the user-related templates, images, categories, and so on. (And to ease implementation, just make the interwikilink to be user:) And thus even by mere appearance, we would be treating all wikimedia reference projects as one "global encyclopedic project".

But as long as every project has it's own seemingly isolated community, you're not going to get the sense of an overwhelming wikimedia community. And so, wikimedia will always be "something over there somewhere" to most editors.

(Want proof? Look to see how many people make a point to say on their user page here on meta that the best way to contact them is through their user talk page at their "main project", usually wikipedia. Here, and here for just two examples.)

And as long as this perspective continues to exist, an actual "global community ban" will be impossible to be genuine. - Jc37 (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just have interwiki watchlists, and leave it up to individual users if they want to have their main user page on meta? That would probably accomplish most of what you're trying to achieve, while still allowing for individual preference concerning what wiki to put userpages on. Different wikis often have different rules about user pages; for example, enwiki allows userboxes and enwiktionary doesn't. So what happens when the enwiki users say, "We want userboxes" and the enwiktionary users say, "We don't want users to have userboxes"? Then it becomes a problem for meta to sort out, when we could have just left it to communities to decide for themselves in a wikifederalist manner.

Also, there's the fact that people may want to tailor their userpages on different wikis according to what's relevant to that wiki. E.g., users on Wiktionary may not care what featured articles someone has written on enwiki or what extensions he's written on MediaWiki.org or whether he's an administrator at Wikiquote, but that could be useful information to members of those communities. Leucosticte (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes - A great example why userpages should be their own wiki. The global community can have an rfc on it, and decide on that wiki. And userboxes would thus have zero to do with editing wiktionary or wikipedia - they are, after all, notices for fellow editors, and have nothing useful for a project's readers. Remember a separate wiki means that users would now have a template space and a category space specifically tailored just for things involving users.

And that includes what kind of notices a person may deign to have on their userpages. - Jc37 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see this happen somehow, but I am afraid it will never happen. Another avenue is actually creating meta-projects, facilitating coordination between different languages (at least of Wikipedia), but we see already with the recent example of medicine that the choice was made in favor of creating a real organization rather than a meta-project.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nod, it's tough to coordinate between separate projects. Imagine how many talk pages would need to be notified if you wanted to notify merely 5 editors who are active on 3 projects, but not necessarily the same 3 projects.

It's rather labour intensive, to say the least.

I've given this a lot of thought over the past few years. I'd write up a proposal, if I thought anyone would give it serious consideration.

But the solution finds itself in the midst of the problem it seeks to help fix - think of how crazy the notification(s) even of such an rfc would be? - Jc37 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

About the Wiki Medicine organization, I believe that they expect to be handling money, which can't be done by any on-wiki project. You need a real organization to process real money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if you write up a proposal that doesn't get adopted by Wikimedia, there are other wiki farms that may take notice and give it a try. Perhaps most notably, the forthcoming Inclumedia. Leucosticte (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought about turning WLM into such a meta-project since it requires a lot of coordination, and much of it is done anyway. May be I will send a mail to the WLM mailing list after the 2012 results have been announced (mid-November). Concerning the notifications, it is not that serious as it looks like. Wikiprojects is a luxury, and only smth like 20-30 biggest Wikipedias can afford them. Others are struggling having a dozen or less regular editors, all of whom are bi- or multilingual and also contribute to a bigger Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any help would be most welcome. To start with, what would be the best venue for this proposal? - Jc37 (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I believe now it is not a good time, when many people are still busy with the contest. I will try smth like Nov 20, and my starting point will be Wiki Loves Monument - l. If you are not subsrcibed, I can leave here a link or/and notify you personally.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I did write the e-mail [1], and there is some discussion going on (if you are not subscribed, this is the best way to follow, in the original thread as well as in the thread Long term.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a great thread- the best one I have seen come out of this rather legalistic discussion of bans. I agree that this is one of the main unsolved problems we have, and efficient solutions all require platform changes. Solving the problem of multiple userpages may also help solve the problem of combining messages/alerts across projects. –SJ talk  12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of the new (planned) messaging system? It is expected to work cross-wiki. Platonides (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So I've heard; wonderful... haven't seen a timeline for implementation. Global user{pages, boxes} still needed. –SJ talk 

Jc37 makes an excellent point -- due to the lack of any coherent global community, talk of bold action by such a community is a rather disturbing concept, and something that should be approached with great care and careful deliberation.

I would go a step further, and this many months in I think this needs to be stated bluntly. This is a bad proposal. It lacks even the most basic structure that any major proposal should have -- it doesn't clearly identify the problem that needs to be solved, it doesn't build a case, it doesn't discuss possible alternatives. It doesn't have the appearance of something that arises from a diverse group of stakeholders deliberating pros and cons. In spite of many good points being raised in discussion, the "why we're having this discussion" has not been improved or clarified since it was first proposed in April. This is not what healthy deliberation looks like.

I do not mean to disparage any individual's work on this, as I know the circumstances that led to the proposal have been complex and messy. But to the WMF as an organization, I would like to say this: I expect better. I think we all should.

Some coherent process for global bans is needed, for reasons that have been stated. But for an organization dedicated to supporting a massive global community, a clear, well-thought-out, and clearly presented/advocated policy is not too much to expect.

A bad proposal has two negative consequences:

• It leads to bad policy
• It wastes a lot of people's time

I would like to see this proposal withdrawn, and redone from scratch prior to a new proposal. In my opinion, a good policy on something like this cannot be written by committee, but needs to be carefully prepared to balance needs before being put up for broad discussion. Careful research and discussions should inform the next draft before it is put up for community review, and the reasons for however it is structured should be explained in a clear way that takes into account possible objections. -Pete F (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposal does a great job of identifying the problem that needs to be solved. The first section explains it quite clearly: The TOU requires us to have one of these policies, so we have to have one.

Perhaps you meant that it doesn't give you an emotional spiel about how a few especially problematic users are going to destroy the projects for everyone if we have to process bans project by project? It's true (within limits), but I don't think that was the main motivation. I think this is proposed by way of ticking an item off the bureaucratic to-do list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@PeteF - I agree about careful preparation. I'm surprised by the finger-pointing of your comment.

It's not intended as finger-pointing. It's not uncommon for a bad result to emerge when good people proceed with good intentions; there are lots of reasons it can happen. I'm pretty confident that's what has happened here. And it seems to me the WMF has intended to "be willing to fail" in its experiments in recent years. Being willing/able to recognize when something has failed is an important component of that. WMF has done a good job of community engagement elsewhere (e.g. the TOU rewrite); it would be nice to see similar methods employed. -Pete F (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

@WID - I hope not! re: ticking off a to-do list.

@StevenW - I don't think this is 'required' by the ToU. Any time a proposal says "because the Board of Trustees said X" I start to worry. fwiw, the Board has no stance on whether or not there should be a global bans policy beyond the language in the ToU, which doesn't necessarily help in drafting specific language here.

That said, I agree with the commenters here, including dissenters (with specific aspects of the proposed language), who think there should be some such policy.

It's not about an emotional appeal, it's about clear communication that supports attaining shared understanding. When a variety of people, with varying levels of familiarity with a problem or situation, are asked to endorse or approve a certain solution, it is reasonable, common practice to present them with a clear and thorough case of why it's a good idea, and to explore and address possible objections. This is not a foreign concept to WMF or any organization: the WMF's grant-giving process is but one of many examples. Grant applicants are required to make a proposal with several sections, each designed to help those reviewing the grant understand the thinking that went into it, and evaluate its merit.

Your comment about the TOU is true, but not germane to my point. I agree with you that there needs to be a global ban process. It's even possible that the process proposed is the best design; but it seems unlikely, given the number of different objections that have been raised by Wikimedians with highly varied backgrounds and experiences. Those perspectives should be taken into account in the design of the proposal, before it is put up for broad review. The Wikimedia Foundation should take this as an opportunity to model how to run a constructive deliberative process, but it appears that instead, it has thrown something out there and hoped that it will stick, or that it would magically fix itself in the process.

Productive, broadly inclusive discussions and decision-making processes don't run themselves. I think this is common knowledge. -Pete F (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but you're ignoring the plain truth in what Jc37 has pointed out, which is one of the reasons this has been a less than productive conversation is that Meta is a hodpodge of participants from random parts of Wikimedia sites, rather than a representative global community. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; community is what you make of it. When an idea is put out with an inclusive attitude that defines the participants as a community, things often work. The converse is also true. –SJ talk  13:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring that -- on the contrary, it's central to my point. The lack of a cohesive community is one (of several) known facts that should have better informed how this process was approached from the beginning. More perspectives should have been solicited and integrated into the plan, more effort should have been put into a comprehensive and easy to digest writeup, and into facilitating discussion after the presentation of the proposal. This probably means more resources should have been directed at the process and more staff or staff hours should have been assigned to it; I don't know how it was approached, but I want to be clear I'm not saying any particular person dropped the ball. -Pete F (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}.  :-) A global ban policy isn't a staff issue, and success or failure isn't a matter of 'staff hours'. A more coherent rewrite is always an option for conflicted discussions with lots of partial support. –SJ talk  13:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Steven issued this proposal and has been engaging in discussion under his staff account; if the project isn't an action of WMF, then there's a much more important problem at play here (lack of either coherence or transparency in what the use of a staff account means).

As for "sofixit", let's look at the scope of that suggestion. I would guess that the WMF's investment in the TOU rewrite (which I consider an unqualified success) greatly exceeded $50k; this is of more limited scope, let's say 10%. While I see this as an important project, I'm not able to make a voluntary contribution of $5,000 worth of effort to it. Even if I were, I lack the expertise required, which would make it more expensive for me to do it right. (I have had contact with very few banned users, have hardly ever followed ArbCom cases, etc.) (Also, I've certainly invested substantial volunteer efforts into similar efforts in the past, and will continue to do so where it seems worthwhile.)

Bottom line, to me: if WMF sees a process like this as important enough to merit paid staff engaging the community, WMF owes it to the community to do it right. Present a draft and a process that respect volunteers' time and varying levels of expertise/familiarity; and do so after some analysis that produces confidence in a positive outcome. In my view, that simply hasn't happened here. I'm not blaming or pointing fingers, but as I suggested above, I believe it's time for WMF to step back, reassess, and come at this fresh. -Pete F (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

fwiw, the Board has no stance on whether or not there should be a global bans policy.

I wonder how you "know" this? I have exactly the opposite impression of the Board's position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

An excellent reminder that it would be tremendously helpful if people in positions of trust include an indication in their signature, like WMF staff members do. SJ knows this because he is a longtime, dedicated member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors. -Pete F (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase this:

Earlier this year, the Board voted for a legally binding contract that includes this sentence: "Especially problematic users who have had accounts or access blocked on multiple Project editions may be subject to a ban from all of the Project editions, in accordance with the Global Ban Policy."

How does voting to approve a legally binding contract containing this sentence not constitute "a stance on whether there should be a global bans policy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, one could argue it's permitting such a policy if "the community" approves it, but that's not that same as saying there should be such a policy. A parent saying to a kid "You may watch TV after you finish your homework" is not stating that the kid should watch TV, but only that the authority has the view it'll be allowed if desired. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The TOU is policy for the projects, designed with extensive input from the communities. Its strength comes from that collaboration, not the final resolution approving it. The Board signed off on it, and supported and trusted its drafting process, but wasn't deeply involved in specific language. Individual lines would be better described as a "TOU stance" or "Wikimedia stance" than a "Board stance".

As Seth notes, this policy is referenced by the TOU, not required in any particular form. There should be a page on Meta about such a policy, to avoid a TOU redlink, but it could read "There is currently no global ban policy." or "Global bans may be applied to mass spammers and vandals by any steward. A discussion about expanding this scope is here: <link to RfC>"

That said, I support the work going into this RfC so far, and hope it come to a fruitful conclusion. I hope to see a policy developed that addresses the issues raised above and complements current steward work. –SJ talk  23:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

SJ, do you see the problem with these statements:

• Contractual agreement: Users may do X by following the Y Policy.
• Y Policy: Users may not do X.

Doesn't that seem self-contradictory to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatamidoing, I'm pretty sure everybody in this discussion sees the point you have been making, but you may be alone in believing it compels a specific action. (It's also impossible to perfectly tune a guitar, but I don't think many people would insist that guitars be abolished as a consequence.) I don't know that it matters though -- on the deeper issue, I think most people here agree with you. There seems to be strong consensus that some form of global ban is important; whether or not people justify it the same way as you, there is a collective will to move forward.

If we are going to move forward though, I still believe it would be valuable to have a clear articulation of the various issues and consequences, and an orderly, well moderated discussion. A distinct, fresh start would help a great deal, as I strongly doubt that the dozens of voters here are following this chaotic discussion, or would return to it without a compelling reason to do so. -Pete F (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that SJ was seeing this point, even though I believe it's tolerably obvious when it's described in generic terms.

The only action that I believe it requires is for a global ban policy to exist, and for that policy to have a theoretical chance of some user being banned. I don't believe that I am alone in this belief; as you say, there seems to be strong consensus that some form of global ban policy should exist, and "a policy that it may not ever happen" is not where that consensus lies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the core of the dispute is whether it should be geared towards extremely narrow applicability, where basically someone has to be doing near-illegal things, with many safeguards against hijacking and abuse - or whether it's going to be in practice more of a "We, the game-players of Meta, run this place, and you're out of all our clubhouses!" type of thing. I'll repeat my view, which is that a global ban policy is permitted but not required by the TOU. I'll also go so far as to say a global ban policy wouldn't bother me if it was basically a community rubber-stamp on, e.g., a Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel finding that someone was too close to legal lines like child-pornography. But Wikimedia needs another drama-board like a crack-house needs another room. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, think that there has to be something that would handle Poetlister type situations. The "illegal" or "near-illegal" is questionable. But the rampant socking, the abuse of privileges, deceit to become an admin on multiple projects, etc. are reprehensible and vary dangerous to the integrity of the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point behind rubber-stamping the legal team's decisions: the legal team doesn't need our endorsement to ban these users, and public discussions of illegal or borderline-illegal activities are a minefield for libel that the WMF ought to avoid (and that we all ought to avoid, out of old-fashioned decency). I also believe that we-the-community don't need the legal team's endorsement. I'd be happy if no one was ever banned, of course, but I think the point behind this is to give we-the-community some direct, transparent control over its members, involving situations like drama-mongering, rather than global bans depending primarily on who has friends on the staff.

If you want to move to a staff-based proposal, then we could do that. I suspect that a policy like "after discussion at Meta, every full-time WMF staff member can vote one user off the island each month" would be very popular with certain parts of the staff. I just don't think that provides any power to the user community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of need, but rather there's many situations where two "branches" of an organization can act on their own, but working together makes for an outcome which is more widely respected than either operating alone - again, even if either has the theoretical power to act on its own. We're unfortunately already in libel-minefield territory, as discussing why someone is such a Bad Character that they should be Globally Banned involves making many charges. One of my experiences which informs my view is seeing how civility and no-personal-attacks rules simply do not apply to high-status Wikimedians throwing mud at those deemed fair-game. I believe this actually has descended to outright libel at times, though please don't ask me to give examples here! Note I said "General Counsel", not "staff" - meaning I'm looking to someone who presumably knows something about legal lines and when someone is getting close enough to be a problem. I'm thinking basically a step below WP:Office, where the situation may not require emergency action, and allows for a more deliberative, "consensus", approach (note again, sigh, not requires, but allows). Obviously we differ in our views of global bans. I'm simply outlining how my thinking is not per above "a policy that it may not ever happen", but there are options as designed to be restrictive to cases verging on illegality, and not expansive. Phrases like "control over its members" tend to worry me that it becomes "Cliques (not cabals) use it against their opponents". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt that the WMF's current General Counsel would agree to hold public discussions on whether someone's behavior constituted a crime, and if he did, we'd probably be quietly figuring out how to have his head examined. The legal team isn't best positioned to deal with other situations, such as a user whose behavior is both legal and wholly destructive to our educational goals. NB that the TOU doesn't say "Users committing crimes or engaged in borderline illegal activities may be banned from all Project editions". It says "especially problematic users", which is a different set. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding public discussions, let me just say it remains a great mystery to me how Commons has so far avoided becoming a huge media scandal. I keep expecting something to explode there, scattering popcorn all over, but it never does. But, I didn't say Counsel would hold these discussions. Rather, I was thinking along the lines of the "finding" which has to be done by the President before someone can be assassinated (note, metaphor!). Again, we're circling back to the practical interpretation question, how narrowly or expansively "especially problematic users" will be construed. For example, Larry Sanger's reporting problematic images to the FBI and making an issue of it got him briefly blocked on Wikipedia - so there's disquieting evidence that would considered "problematic" by at least one Wikipedia administrator. Of course it's a ways from that block to a ban. But perhaps not as a far as one might think given the feelings stirred up. However, it does show these issues are the other side of the coin. Maybe it's a case of having to deal with "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". (sigh, do I tediously have to make sure to say that pointing out this dichotomy causes controversy is not the same as claiming all controversies are examples of this dichotomy?) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So the General Counsel would make a "finding" that some user's behavior is (probably or nearly) illegal, and ban him, and then what? Then you complain about a lack of transparency because there was no public discussion about whether this person really was engaged in illegal behavior that warranted a ban from all projects?

How's that different from what we've been doing for years? The office has banned users over illegal behavior, users have complained about the lack of public discussions, and we still have a (small) problem with a few "especially problematic users" whose behavior is destructive to the WMF's educational purpose, but not technically illegal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a "bicameral" process, with requiring both WMF Counsel and discussion to sign-off. This would differ from the current process in that I also envision loosening the criteria for action by a small amount. That is, there would still be WP:OFFICE for some situations, I'm not proposing to replace that at all. But for cases which are "close", but not quite emergencies, or would seem to benefit from open consideration (yes, I know, a minefield, but we already have that), then there could be a dual process. The idea is to try to constrain the public process from becoming a tool of a clique, while giving WMF actions some sort of both community check and endorsement. I'm hardly saying it's all problem-free. But it does seem like the idea itself should be clear. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So would the current policy proposal, with the addition of a mandatory requirement for the office (either the General Counsel or perhaps someone he designates) to sign off on a ban, basically work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that the senior WMF official would need to do the "finding" to initiate the process, perhaps even write up the "indictment" (metaphor) BEFORE the public discussion. This goes back to whether this is ideally to be an extremely rare, maybe once-a-year if that, process, so this wouldn't be too burdensome in that situation. The goal is in part to put a check on zealots using the global ban process as a free shot at a target - again, drag the target through the process, NO DOWNSIDE to the zealots if the global ban doesn't pass, but plenty of grief for the target as it's basically a free-for-all to personally attack them. Obviously a sign-off if and only if a ban passes doesn't do anything to address that problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So if you wanted to globally ban me (Note for new folks: this is purely hypothetical; Seth and I get along fine, despite being on opposite sides of a few issues), then you would send an e-mail message or other relatively private communication to a Designated Senior Official, who would decide what to do with it. We might stick with the must-be-banned-twice rule to keep the Designated Senior Official from being drowned in requests. The Designated Senior Official then either rejects (or ignores) your suggestion that I ought to be globally banned, or chooses to open a discussion (or at least endorses your creation of a discussion, if we want to put the writing burden on you) to see whether the community chooses to have me globally banned.

The Designated Senior Official would basically be a check on starting the process that is similar to the en.wp's ArbCom voting to accept or reject a case.

The two potential constituencies for opposition that I foresee will be the staff, if it happens that nobody wants to do this, and the community-is-in-charge crowd, which will probably want to be able to start proceedings without the WMF staff agreeing that they're allowed to. I won't even try to guess how significant these possible objections will be.

My only concern is that agreement by the Designated Senior Official to talk about a global ban might be interpreted as agreement by the Designated Senior Official to impose a global ban. It will likely be seen as an endorsement that a real problem exists. What do you think about that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(n.b. the thought of me trying to get anyone globally banned is classic incongruity humor) I think I've apparently not quite conveyed what I'm thinking. In very loose, very metaphorical terms (as in, I know Wikimedia is not a government, but this is to convey a concept concisely using analogy), in a criminal case, the "prosecutor" (senior WMF person) must decide to go forward and bring charges, but the "jury" (community) has the final say in terms of guilt or innocence. Anyone can go to the prosecution and complain and say someone should be charged with a crime - but the prosecutor will at least in theory not bring charges on frivolous accusations or dubious evidence (I know of course it doesn't always work that way in practice, but the preceding is how it's supposed to be). Again, keep in mind I'm trying to come up with some safeguard so "the community-is-in-charge crowd" can't trivially act like a bunch of bullies who want to kick someone when they're down. The WMF official is also so that a person with a real name and some accountability puts their name to this determination, which I hope acts as a way of insuring the accusations are reasonably factual and not political gaming (which again I know is not perfect, but it's the best I've been able to come up with so far). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The almighty enwiki ban

http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=3961554&oldid=3957002 – People demand bans without thinking. Once you're banned from one wiki, they attempt to have you banned from all wikis. Look at this. They want to block me for moving "mini-skirt" to "miniskirt". What's wrong with these people? I didn't even start an edit war. They'll search for any excuse (even a hyphen) to bring out the pitchforks and torches. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Easy: Don't get banned in the first place. While the enwiki banning process is... insane... it is also easy to avoid. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Easy as in "don't rock the boat," "don't be bold," "don't take risks," "don't confront anyone about issues," and "don't speak out." I'm just saying that it's easy to become banned from a second wiki once one is banned from enwiki. The two-wiki threshold in this proposal is too low. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You can do all of those things in a nice way and not get banned. Trust me, I've done that. But you are right, the two-wiki threshold is not enough, and the actions of people on simple.wp are just silly. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not exagerrate here. The two wiki threshold is for requests for comment here on Meta. It doesn't mean you get auto-banned globally, it means there can be a discussion about it if someone starts one. Nothing in this policy is going to solve the problem where a single wiki like Simple wants to pick up English Wikipedia blocks. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

simple:WP:ONESTRIKE suggests that Simple does pick up en.wp blocks, but not automatically. Overall, I suspect that this sort of issue could be handled by the Meta community on a case-by-case basis, after considering all the facts and circumstances.

Steven's right, though: two bans only creates the possibility of a discussion. There are no automatic global bans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, if there is even one other wiki, out of the hundreds, that has a reciprocal ban policy concerning the wiki you get banned on, it's pretty easy for you to become fair game for meta to propose global banning. Also, I agree with suarez's comments above, that it's not that hard to get banned (especially arbcom-banned) on enwiki for standing for certain extremely unpopular principles. The arbcom can just say, "This user is banned for reasons we can't tell anyone. If you have a comment, email us." Leucosticte (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite: you have to actually get banned on the second wiki. And the list of known users who could be subject to this process still stands at exactly one (1) user. So it might be "pretty easy" in theory, but so far it doesn't seem to be happening in practice.

I agree that it's not hard to get banned on en.wp for "certain extremely unpopular principles", so long as "certain extremely unpopular principles" is a code phrase for pro-pedophilia activism. On the other hand, that's true on all the WMF projects. But that's not what Michael was talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pro-pedophilia activism, or even advocacy that the government should simply stay out of the matter altogether, would be a prime example of the type of speech that can lead to a ban (since anyone who expresses a dissident viewpoint with which others vehemently disagree is considered guilty of trolling), but one can also get kicked off for being outed by others as having a criminal record. It's been cited as partial justification for a ban in at least two cases I know of, and who knows how many there are that we don't know about, because of the lack of transparency. Once global banning becomes available, it increases the incentives of users to enact local bans that will help meet the prerequisites for global banning. People will probably game the system that way.

People might argue, by the way, that those of us who lack a desire to advocate fringe viewpoints shouldn't worry about others getting banned for it. I tend to agree with NearlyFreeSpeech's sentiments: "For the bulk of our member base, the 'fringe' web sites we host frequently serve as the proverbial canary in the coal mine: they act as our global censorship early warning system. As long as the fringe sites can remain online, we can all be confident that the rest of us with more moderate views have real freedom to express ourselves. When people attack such sites or attempt to get them shut down, we learn more about what techniques (legal and technological) we need to use to keep your site protected.

"NearlyFreeSpeech.NET isn't necessarily about saying something controversial. In a lot of cases, it's merely about knowing that if you need to someday, you won't find out that your freedom to do so atrophied away while you weren't looking." People who claim to be keeping the wiki neutral and unbiased are often actually suppressing even the giving of what limited weight is due to fringe viewpoints under Wikipedia policies. But if there truly aren't many users who would get banned under this policy, then it's probably not all that important to enact, and we might as well skip enacting it. If the board wants to force the policy upon us, then let them take the initiative to do so; we can at least wash our hands of it. Leucosticte (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I commend Michaeldsuarez for providing additional empirical evidence for establishing the danger of the "escalation attack". While I grant Steven Walling's contention that it "doesn't mean you get auto-banned globally", I also point out it does mean those trying to ban you get a chance to try. And practically, there is NO DOWNSIDE for a clique (not cabal) to initiate what is in effect "vexatious litigation" against an unpopular person in this manner. And I repeat, WhatamIdoing's numerical calculation is not applicable, because currently there is no significant incentive for the second small-wiki ban. The moment that second small-wiki ban becomes the ticket for a shoot-the-moon global ban *attempt*, the incentives in the situation have changed drastically. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

How would you (1) have a process that could result in "a ban from all of the Project editions" for "especially problematic users who have had accounts or access blocked on multiple Project editions" and (2) not have an incentive to use it against people you hate?

Changing it to three projects doesn't eliminate this; it would just be a little more work. I'm not convinced that any process at all is immune to "vexatious litigation" or to overreach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am still unsure what we are discussing here. I think it is clear that "automatic" bans which were not discussed on the project individually should not count. We did not put it in the proposal (which is currently dead anyway) because we were not aware that such bans exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@Ymblanter - It's not obvious to me that "automatic" bans wouldn't count. Right, they weren't considered - but one should never underestimate the literalism of potential wikilawyers. That's exactly the sort of thing someone might seize on for a talking-point ("The policy currently says etc, and you can try to change it, but right now it is ...). What we're discussing here is the evidence for the "escalation attack", where something like an English Wikipedia ban can be easily leveraged into a Global Ban *attempt*, via finding some other minor wiki ban and then taking those as the preconditions for opening the process of total banishment from all lands of the realm.

@WhatamIdoing - This is indeed the civil-liberties problem (i.e. how do you make sure the police don't become the private army of the politicians in power?). I'm not going to try to solve it right here, both because of the complexity and because I'm not in a good political position to do so. I do think it's reasonable that the next iteration of DISCUSSION of this proposed policy seriously contend with the issue. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again Seth: this is website with a Terms of Use and community-created policies. Not a state with a constitution that grants you inalienable civil liberties. They don't exist here. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am using metaphorical language to concisely convey certain general philosophical concepts. I assume people in this discussion can recognize that, and not make silly sneering strawman attacks. That fact that you, as the main policy proponent, manifest such seething hostility to concerns of fairness and guarding against abuse (note, hardly exclusively legal matters!), greatly fuels my skepticism as to what the eventual application of this policy would be :-(. Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Often, principles that have been found to promote good governance in governments also promote good governance in other organizations. For example, "organizational democracy" calls for transparency, dialogue, listening, choice, accountability, decentralization, fairness, and integrity. It would be silly to say, "This is not a democracy" as a reason for not wanting to follow some of the principles that have made certain democratic countries great. (Of course, there is some dispute as to whether it's "democracy" that made those countries great, or liberalism; but the same principle applies in discussion. We shouldn't necessarily conclude, "We don't need to apply liberal principles in our organization because we're not a government.") Leucosticte (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Not a state with a constitution that grants you inalienable civil liberties." Actually, by having principals like "assume good faith" and "civility," we do acknowledge objective standards of treating others. Any time you put forth rules of conduct and behavior, you have created a government. Why do you think all charity groups have their own "constitution" and "bylaws"? We have our own. We have a government and there is no way for us not to have one. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

All charity groups do not have their own "constitution" and "bylaws". Offhand, I can't think of a single non-profit that has a constitution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, then you don't know what you are talking about. All non-profits fall under "corporations" in the United States and are govern by rules which are defined as a constitution, by-laws, or other such names for the same basic system. I work with many non-profits and they all have such things. You cannot have membership in a group without forming such by-laws and rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Most non-profits are incorporated, but not all, in the US. However, incorporation papers are not a "constitution". They may or may not have bylaws, which are optional for corporations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To legally operate within the US, you have to be incorporated here. Otherwise, you aren't a "non-profit." Furthermore, they all require bylaws and the such. Hence, the Foundation has a Board. It is not optional for charities. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorporation is not technically necessary (go read the code), but is by far the most obvious method of being recognized as a tax-exempt non-profit organization. One major class of non-profit organizations (churches) has traditionally not been incorporated, and an org can be a non-profit without being formally recognized as such.

Similarly, bylaws are not required for incorporation. Go look at the incorporation paperwork: writing bylaws is not a necessary step. You can be incorporated without any bylaws, and some non-profits never get around to officially adopting any. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

" has traditionally not been incorporated" You've obviously lack the proper background to discuss this. Churches are incorporated. They have to be legally. They own property. Here is the Maryland Code and every state has similar codes. Whole sections of law are devoted to the corporation of churches. The Catholic Church in particular needs these laws to ensure that it has the proper rights over the use of "Catholic." You are barking up the wrong tree and you are very, very wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

In Virginia, it used to be illegal, not that long ago, to incorporate churches. Leucosticte (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the ban was found unconstitutional because it was denying the ability for Churches to have legal rights (ownership and the rest) and be instituted as non-profits are. Read the benefits of corporation: "By incorporating, Falwell's Lynchburg church will be able to expand the size of its property, gain legal protections and have the power to enter into contracts. " These are necessities for non-profits/charities to operate. It doesn't really matter though, because Wikimedia is a Foundation with a Board and follows these standards already. By claiming that there are no "rights" and such is legally unsound and goes against the whole principals behind the Foundation's founding. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We're going a bit off track here, I think. Back to the point: yes, this is not «a state with a constitution that grants you inalienable civil liberties». However, legal, pseudo-legal and cultural restrictions are used as reasons for blocks and bans. Moreover, things like "universal human rights", which are not quite universal[ly accepted as such] (as some religious leaders of all sides kindly take care of regularly remind us), do have a vaster effect on people than mere legal obligations. The result is that on the wikis of some language/culture things can happen/survive (or even be considered obvious) which would be considered impossible and unacceptable elsewhere, and can't therefore be generalized.

Simple proposal to address the problem: keep the "two wikis" requirement, but require the two wikis to have a different [language/project] subdomain: for instance, es.wiki and en.wiki, or en.wiki and es.books, or es.wiki and commons/meta. --Nemo 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If the user gets banned from meta, where/how is he going to contest his global ban? I would be interested to hear more about what you see to be the advantages of this scheme you have proposed. Given that English projects are probably dominated mostly by monolingual folk, requiring that the two bans be by people from different languages at least increases the odds that it will be by two different sets of editors.

I'd prefer to keep meta, MediaWiki.org, commons, etc. separate from the whole global banning scheme, though. The way I see it, the metapedian and exopedian aspects of the WMF universe are radically different, so what happens on one should not affect the other. The kinds of issues that cause problems on content wikis are often irrelevant to meta wikis. Leucosticte (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is what I proposed, "different language" in its most basic form; what language "multilingual" projects (which mostly conduct their affairs in English) should be considered in, is another matter. It might make sense not to count Meta, while Commons should probably be counted (although you might decide to count it as English), but anyway this doesn't change rules for local block/ban, which is extremely unlikely on Meta and would most likely be immediately suspended in case of an RfC the user has to intervene on, so that I doubt the global bans scheme would encourage blocks with by-ends. --Nemo 09:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Commons would theoretically need to stay within the ban because of the inherent problems of having access to so many projects via the pictures. I agree on the Meta parts though. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial Content" disputes often span both English Wikipedia and Commons. And some of those disputes have been contentious enough that I have no trouble envisioning the zealots of one side trying to make a global ban out of it (note by "one side", I mean whichever clique wins out attempting to impose victor's justice on the losing side, not making a moral statement about the wikipornpornporn vs no-censorship adherents). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a logical problem at the root of this thread -- Michael's initial post doesn't distinguish between blocks and bans. From a policy perspective, they are very different things (even though the end result for the user is very similar). (There does appear to be a poorly worded header at simple:WP:ONESTRIKE, which probably led to the confusion "reciprocal bans" is not an accurate heading for what the section says.) Simple English Wikipedia does not appear to have any policy preferring bans when a user is banned elsewhere; it explicitly says "A ban is when the community decides that an editor may not make any changes to Wikipedia ever again. This should occur after many users have talked about it and reached consensus (agreed)." -Pete F (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Banning on various wikis is sometimes arbitrary. Ajraddatz, many users who advocated for what you have stated have been banned before. I am of the belief in a global ban, but saying "don't get banned on any project" isn't necessarily the most accurate of behavior. Pete revealed an interesting point - there are inherent problems in how different communities use the block/ban ability. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that an inherent problem -- after all, there are probably 250+ words used for "block" and "ban" on the various projects. Since it is defined here on meta as a consensus-based process, it would be easy enough to use language in a policy that explicitly cites that definition; if a project chooses to use the word "ban" in a way that doesn't match that definition, it would be disregarded by the policy. I'm pretty convinced this section is making a big deal out of something that just isn't. (Also, since I posted this, the Simple community has acted to correct the problem over there.) -Pete F (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Still requires work to figure out the language/cultural use, and the community as a whole would have to trust the individual providing the information. I've seen some odd disputes from the Russian wikis or similar projects where there would be 2 or 3 users from the project present. Unless we somehow got a neutral interpreter, we have to take their word for it about the events at the project and that a "ban" according to our definition was actually put in place. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)