Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Dialog-information on.svgThis is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

I hereby propose two changes to the global ban policy:

  • In criteria 3 for global bans, remove the need of support from community discussion. This is because some wikis have arbcom, which overrules community discussion; some blocks are imposed by individual admins but it's rather uncontroversial (e.g. sock puppetery); and some wikis have no community-based block or ban process at all (e.g. Chinese Wikipedia). In Requests for comment/Global ban request for Messina, neither German Wikipedia nor Commons has "demonstrated broad support", but there're clearly good reason for global ban and it's continued based on the principle ignore all rules. Note the scope of global ban is still limited by criteria 1.
  • Add a prerequisite for global ban proposers. As there were recent (within one year) global ban requests made by IP users with no inform process, and were closed as unsuccessful. The fourth request made by IP user are likely unsuccessful too. Also, allowing IP users making global ban requests opens a window of trolling.

Revised clauses:

old versions

The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These projects must have demonstrated broad support for the blocks or bans through a prominent community discussion process—clear explanations and considerations for local rules and practices must be evident, decisions must be independent of a block or ban on another project, and the blocks or bans must be clearly intended to be indefinite.These blocks or bans must be based on the user's local disruptive behavior, and do not include protective blocks such as preemptive blocks on user without local edits, and blocks based on account security issue or problematic username.

A nomination that fails to correctly follow the above steps is invalid, and may be speedily closed. In addition, to make a nomination valid, the nominator must:

  1. have a Wikimedia account; and
  2. have at least one edit in any Wikimedia projects before the nomination; and
  3. be an autoconfirmed user in that project.

--GZWDer (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Added per MarcoAurelio:

Once a valid request for comment has developed a broad and clear consensus, an uninvolved and impartial sysop or steward may close the discussion. There is no set time limit on requests for comment.Discussion should be open for at least two weeks, but no more than one month. Stewards may extend the discussion in exceptional circumstances. Requests are likely to be closed without extensive discussion when frivolous. Requests are likely to be closed after an extensive discussion when no consensus is likely to be reached. If a nomination fails, new nominations about the same user should not be made more than once every six months thereafter.

--GZWDer (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These blocks or bans must be based on the user's local disruptive behavior, and do not include protective blocks such as preemptive blocks on user without local edits, and blocks based on account security issue or problematic username.

A nomination that fails to correctly follow the above steps is invalid, and may be speedily closed. In addition, to make a nomination valid, the nominator must:

  1. have a Wikimedia account; and
  2. be registered for more than six months before making the request; and
  3. have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis).

Once a valid request for comment has developed a broad and clear consensus, an uninvolved and impartial steward may close the discussion. Discussion should be open for at least two weeks, but no more than one month. Stewards may extend the discussion in exceptional circumstances. Requests can be closed without extensive discussion when frivolous. Requests can be closed after an extensive discussion when no consensus is likely to be reached.

--GZWDer (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Please also consider adding a minimum and maximum duration of any global ban request. Minimum 2 weeks, maximum one month looks appropriate to me. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Improved.--GZWDer (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
MarcoAurelio never mentioned a cooldown limit and there is no reason to add this 6 months forced break... GZWDer: let's not add unneeded rules and stop making every WMF project a bureaucratic monster. --AntonierCH(d) 20:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I admit a cooldown limit is only my idea. However this may be another measure to prevent abusing the process. If you oppose the limit you may explicitly comment here and the limit might not be added.--GZWDer (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
If my previous statement was not explicit enough, yes, I Oppose oppose to this cooldown period which is unnecessary unless proven otherwise by real cases. --AntonierCH(d) 21:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose limiting IP requests, there's some reasons that a good-faith user can't really login, e.g. because they're visiting Meta-Wiki in the Pentagon, which is used to limit login access of non-"US government"-related sites to protect their information. --59.63.248.140 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
GZWDer

have a Wikimedia account; and have at least one edit in any Wikimedia projects before the nomination.

@GZWDer: Hello. Could please point out how it differs from any other nomination made by an anonymous editor? Should the purpose be avoiding sockpuppetry/trolling, it'd better rewording this phrase entirely (maybe by replacing the text above with "an established user" instead?) RadiX 03:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@59.63.248.140: They can always return home or use their moblie phone. Global ban is nowhere a emergency request.
@RadiX: Yes, but what does "an established user" defined?

--GZWDer (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@GZWDer: I'm sorry but at least "can always return home or use their moblie phone" is unlikely to be happened for the Refugees (either from Middle East or from North Africa) to me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
What an "established contributor" is? It is a subjective, non-objective and undetermined concept. I'd avoid those. Registered user with some firm criteria to be determined is what I'd only support. I'm tired of open concepts which are only sources of drama and conflicts due to its interpretation. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@GZWDer and MarcoAurelio: A "registered editor with at least [X] global edits" looks fine in your sight? RadiX 13:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I'd also add that the registered editor must have at least 6 months old. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably 300 or 600 global edits?--GZWDer (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, looks good. We could also use the extendedconfirmed criteria (500 edits) as a threshold for the number of global edits. RadiX 13:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a renewed version of modification.--GZWDer (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I cannot discern which are the proposed changes now. --MF-W 16:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support to prevent the recent frivolous requests, and to clarify the rules in cases where "community discussion" is unclear. --Rschen7754 05:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support as well. I made some slight changes that do not change the meaning or rules, I hope it is alright. --AntonierCH(d) 12:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Now it looks fine for me. RadiX 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support new version looks better. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Support per above. -ArdiPras95 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)