Talk:Global bans/Archives/2013
< Talk:Global bans | Archives
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Clarifying language would help
On this item:
| “ | 1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse (that is not merely vandalism or spam). No global ban is required for uncontroversial cases of cross-wiki vandalism or spam; refer these directly to the Stewards’ global requests noticeboard. | ” |
This is not a very transparent framing. Many Wikimedians do not fully understand the difference between a ban, a block, or a lock; without more information, this confusingly appears to state that the most uncontroversially bad behavior need not be interrupted. I would like to see an additional phrase, like this, perhaps:
| “ | 1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse (that is not merely vandalism or spam). No global ban is required for uncontroversial cases of cross-wiki vandalism or spam, since these may be handled with a block or lock (which may be made by a Steward, without need for extensive discussion). See Steward requests/Global. | ” |
-Pete F (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am totally cool with updating to that wording. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this would be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- +1 --MF-W 21:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- +1 — MA (audiencia) 21:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- +1 (Reserving my objections on the RfA page). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- +1 --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this would be an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Done We should have done this months ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
[wikimedia-l] Global bans RFC closed
Wasn't linked here it seems.[1] --Nemo 14:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- [2], [3], [4], [5] – I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who disagreed with the "divide and conquer" strategy used in the RfC. Dividing the opposition into two camps wasn't a fair tactic. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "tactic", and I resent the assumption of bad faith implied. It was a completely open attempt to have a Request for Comment that didn't follow the usual stupid, binary pattern where all oppose reasons are the same. There is a big difference between people who are opposed to the idea of such a policy in principle, and those with practical feedback about ways to make it acceptable to them. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk
- It wasn't acceptable to nearly half of the !voters. When are their concerns going to be accommodated? When are you going to make use of the feedback? How much has the policy changed since the RfC started. As I've stated in August, "adopt first, change later" won't result in any major changes, only tiny ones. "Adopting first, change later" robs the opposition of its leverage (i.e. its ability to have the changes that they demand met). I doubt that the policy will change much now that it has been adopted without compromise. A more "binary" discussion would probably had forced you to change the proposed policy in order to make acceptable to at least 70% of the community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps because I have edited it a bunch and am the major author, I think you're forgetting that it's an openly-editable policy subject to revision at any time. Which is precisely why we wanted to have it, as opposed to simply putting all description of global bans directly in to the Terms of Use. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't forgotten anything. I know that the policy can be revised, but I also know that it'll be nearly impossible to introduce any major changes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps because I have edited it a bunch and am the major author, I think you're forgetting that it's an openly-editable policy subject to revision at any time. Which is precisely why we wanted to have it, as opposed to simply putting all description of global bans directly in to the Terms of Use. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't acceptable to nearly half of the !voters. When are their concerns going to be accommodated? When are you going to make use of the feedback? How much has the policy changed since the RfC started. As I've stated in August, "adopt first, change later" won't result in any major changes, only tiny ones. "Adopting first, change later" robs the opposition of its leverage (i.e. its ability to have the changes that they demand met). I doubt that the policy will change much now that it has been adopted without compromise. A more "binary" discussion would probably had forced you to change the proposed policy in order to make acceptable to at least 70% of the community. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't a "tactic", and I resent the assumption of bad faith implied. It was a completely open attempt to have a Request for Comment that didn't follow the usual stupid, binary pattern where all oppose reasons are the same. There is a big difference between people who are opposed to the idea of such a policy in principle, and those with practical feedback about ways to make it acceptable to them. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk
- Speaking of revisions, I just swapped in the text that Pete F proposed last summer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just noticed this for the first time. Thanks for doing that WhatamIdoing. For whatever it's worth, I remain astonished that this policy was deemed to have passed in spite of the various legitimate concerns raised and not addressed. -Pete F (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When to review the policy
When PeterSymonds closed the "global bans" RfC, he or she suggested a trail period followed by a review. Our first global ban discussion concluded yesterday, so I'm wondering when should we have a review. PeterSymonds closed the "global bans" RfC around six month ago. Should we wait another six months? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should, to see if any more global ban proposals are made. Already drawing conclusions now is probably too early, if there is only one discussion that happened; in other cases, other points might turn out to be important regarding the policy than in this one. --MF-W 13:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is rather clear that the proposal against me did not meet the criteria and cannot be considered part of a trial or a test. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think MF-W is probably right that we should wait more. Global bans, per the criteria set out, are designed to be infrequent (either as proposals or successful bans), so giving it some time is a wise idea. I do think that Nemo generally followed the procedures set out correctly, and the requirement for an open discussion as well as cross-wiki notifications about the RFC are what prevented a small cabal from making a decision on whether to ban Ottava. In short: I agree waiting is a good idea, but personally I think in this case the policy helped prevent a hasty global ban, and was thus a successful test of the system. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Even if the global bans policy hadn't exist, I doubt that a steward would've locked Ottava's account without there first being an extensive discussion by multiple participants from multiple projects. In addition, I don't believe that Nemo bis would've proposed a global ban for Ottava if the policy hadn't exist. What the Ottava Rima global ban discussion does show plainly and clearly is that opponents of the proposed global ban generally prefer having local communities deal with issues to having the global community deal with them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think assuming that conclusion would be the result in all cases is a mistake, which is why I agree with MF-W that one case doesn't make a trend. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Steve, it was really, really clear that Nemo hadn't followed the policy. He did not meet the criteria and used it as an excuse to mass spam me and harass me. That is not what the policy exists to do - only those who clearly meet the criteria are supposed to be discussed. Theoretically, he could put you up under the same flimsy rationale. Don't make things up like that or, if you do, don't post it under your WMF account. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Even if the global bans policy hadn't exist, I doubt that a steward would've locked Ottava's account without there first being an extensive discussion by multiple participants from multiple projects. In addition, I don't believe that Nemo bis would've proposed a global ban for Ottava if the policy hadn't exist. What the Ottava Rima global ban discussion does show plainly and clearly is that opponents of the proposed global ban generally prefer having local communities deal with issues to having the global community deal with them. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I'd always thought that we'd review this policy after two "cases" had been discussed. I have no idea why I thought that. I'm pretty sure that we never discussed the specific idea of reviewing after two discussions. However, it (apparently!) seems to me that waiting for two unrelated discussions to close would be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Ambiguous
Is the line "Serious on-wiki fraud or identity theft (not limited to abuse of multiple accounts)" supposed to mean that it includes abuse of multiple accounts and other things as well, or is it supposed to mean that the abuse has to be more serious than mere abuse of multiple accounts. I'm suspecting the latter, but the wording should really be clarified. --Jakob (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Fraud and identity theft" do not refer to the creation of sock puppets. This is in a section that refers to prior ban discussions. The relevant discussion involved a user who, years ago, apparently, for a sock, put up a photo that was of someone else, a woman. The woman saw the photo and complained. Whether or not this was "serious on wiki fraud or identity theft" is debatable (because no real identity was asserted, i.e., the woman's name was not given, a charge of "identity theft" would not have survived, legally), but most commenting did consider it so. I'm not aware of fraud being involved, but, again, these kinds of claims were made about that user. Very complicated case, and I argued in that discussion that it would set poor precedent. But global bans have not been much used, outside of spammers and blatant vandals, where there is no "global ban" discussion, just administrative action. —Abd (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)