Talk:Global bans/Archives/2014

List of globally banned users

I have edited the policy page to link to a list of globally banned users, so that discussions of global bans and global bans policy can see precedent and examples of implementation. I self-reverted, because this is an edit to a policy page and should be reviewed before being accepted. I will go ahead and create the subpage, since that's harmless. --Abd (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it true (notices notwithstanding, unless the notice itself was enacted as policy; I don't see anything to that effect at Requests_for_comment/Global_bans#Option_1) that the page can't be altered at all without first getting community consensus? Or is it only changes to the policy (as opposed to "see also" sections) that require such prior consensus? Either way, self-reverts seem pointless; in the BRD cycle, if you're going to do that, you might as well skip straight to the "discuss" stage and talk about your proposed change. Oh yes, and let's not forget IAR and the wiki way in general, both of which provide a rationale for BRD as opposed to cycles that start with D. Someone should probably revert the revert; obviously I can't do it. Leucosticte (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have long preferred to use self-reversion for a change that is reasonably likely to be accepted, as I think this one is. It makes it easy to see the effect. Your approval would have been a minimal standard for acceptance, my opinion. However, apparently another user disagrees, though not on the change itself, see below. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is my interpretation and I believe one that Abd shares is that current practice and policy requires consultation with the community before implementing any additional large changes in semantic meaning, especially one concerning additional work for translators who have to review and translate the added line "List of globally banned users". As it is two editors with a mind to insert their change against one who believes differently, we are at the 'no-consensus' stage. That in most usual wiki matters defaults to the most conservative status-quo viewpoint, leading to restoration of the original version of the article. On self-reversion, I will discuss that matter separately on your talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, 2:1 would still be rough consensus. However, so what? Neither I nor Leucosticte will revert TCNSV. The translation effort involved in "List of globally banned users" has got to be absolutely minimal. TCNSV refers to discussion of a change to Admin activity review, by him, that was extensive, not easy to immediately review, and where he actually misinterpreted the policy. This is a bit different, eh? I requested, however, that translation be set up on insertion, I did not know how to do that. This is not at all a change in policy, nor an explanation of it, though. It is merely a link to neutral information, information that I long wanted to know. I thought I knew the answer, but had never actually researched it. Even without the change being made to the page, the list may already be useful. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If nothing else, when someone goes to the talk page to complain, "Why isn't there a list of globally banned users?" they might encounter this thread and find the answer. So it's already been useful. Leucosticte (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The pronoun "it" is being used a bit ambiguously, maybe purposefully.[1][2] The edit of which you speak was one Abd described as a "massive edit" as opposed to adding as "see also" item. For the most part, I don't think concerns about what gives the translators extra work are a very high priority; the English version is authoritative and any translations into other languages are a luxury, not a necessity.

This is, at least, how it is at MediaWiki.org. Maybe the norm is different here. The idea with the software and its documentation is to perfect the English version as much as possible, and the translators can catch up at their leisure. Meanwhile, anyone who wants the authoritative version can read it in English. There are a lot of system messages, for instance, that don't have translations in other languages; those default to being displayed in English.

I don't think "most usual wiki matters defaults to the most conservative status-quo viewpoint"; that goes against be bold. I think that, just as it was permissible for you to revert me, it would be permissible for anyone else to revert you. But if they don't, then your edit is considered to be the consensus, per wiki norms. Self-reversion should probably be covered in a mainspace page somewhere, if it isn't already.

I see it as sort of a majority rules thing, combined with a let's-fix-this-ASAP thing. Barring unusual circumstances, each editor gets to make one revert, so whichever side has n+1 editors on its side beats the side that has only n editors on its side. However, after a certain amount of time has passed, people who already used up their revert can try again, and see if others have changed their minds or left the wiki. On the other hand, some people prefer to hash stuff out on talk pages rather than relying so much on the BR part of BRD, since things can get messy when there are dozens are reversions going on. I guess it's a difference of styles, partly. The more minor and/or uncontroversial one anticipates the change will be, I think the safer it is to be bold. Eh, wiki philosophy is so much easier and more clear-cut on smaller wikis! Leucosticte (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I could still revert once. Self-reversion is voluntary and does not establish revert warring, at all. But I'm not going to. Basically, anyone who gets excited enough to revert without discussion first, or clear policy being followed, probably should be doing something else more productive. There is no hurry. What was important here, because of a need to reference it elsewhere, was done by creating that subpage with the list of globally banned users. The global bans page is the obvious place to link that page, but the place isn't going to burn down if it isn't done promptly. If there is a problem with the list, now that could be a problem! Please fix it! --Abd (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

@Abd: you could probably add your opinion to the self-reversion page Leucosticte created. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would encourage it. Leucosticte (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we should have this list in the See also section? It should at least be outside of translation units, right? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better just to link to a page that lists global ban discussions and their outcomes. Then we don't have to update this page when there's another one. Leucosticte (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That list will be very short, and this saves the reader from having to click through an additional page. We can expand it as necessary, and once it becomes too large, then we can fork the content over from the See Also section onto the separate list page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There should be a disclaimer next to the link to the Poetlister discussion that states that that discussion occurred before the "Global bans" policy was adopted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done [3] --Abd (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And this removal? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to call to attention not only global ban proposals that succeeded but also examples of such proposals that have failed. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that we should turn Ottava Rima into a poster child for the "see also" section. The failure of the ban proposal ought to mean that that user should be left alone. Perhaps even Poetlister shouldn't be a poster child either. Maybe the entire idea of having particular discussions about single users in the "see also" section instead of a link to a "List of global ban discussions" (even if it would be short) is a bad one. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I already removed the reference to Ottava Rima as irrelevant and possibly personally offensive to him. It could be argued that Poetlister is also irrelevant, because the current policy was not followed with that RfC, which could be a basis for an attempt to overturn that ban. However, I'm not opening that can of worms. It appears that the WMF, however, has actively supported the global ban of Poetlister. The simple truth is that the only globally banned user, defacto, is Poetlister, and there has been only one ban discussion since that ban discussion. I'd suggest that if someone wants to look at the Poetlister case and try to derive the basis for policy from it, they may end up needing medication. Poetlister did not satisfy the requirements for a global ban per present policy, except in one way: there might be many users who would so argue, as, in fact, they did, quite contrary to the readily available evidence. So much for ban by RfC. Train wreck. Don't get me started.

Back to the point here, yes. A list is much better than a See Also, which will only confuse. Ottava is on the list I created because the list shows all global ban discussions, instead of only closures with a ban. That could be changed. --Abd (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Before anyone reverts please note that most of the time consensus is the not the same as voting, but it can be sometimes.

• "I already removed the reference to Ottava Rima" Why state what is self-evident in the link I pointed out when it makes your long posts even harder to follow than it already does?
• "as irrelevant" I don't see it as irrelevant, in fact I think it's a great example of past precedence and practice for global bans, a rare example of seeing the policy in action and how it works. To the readers it sends the message "Before you use this policy to enact a frivolous global ban against someone, please look at these past examples for what kind of arguments are or are not considered by the global Wikimedia community as meriting such a discussion."
• "and possibly personally offensive to him" Instead of making unfounded assertions about whether or not a person could find something offensive, why don't you go ask them yourself? Besides, that is irrelevant to this policy page; on Wikipedia for example there are archived lists of numerous failed requests for adminship or failed sockpuppetry cases, yet the offensiveness to the subject of such pages does not objectively factor into the inclusion of such lists or pages.
• "there has been only one ban discussion since that ban discussion" I'm assuming Ottava Rima's case.
• "I'd suggest that if someone wants to look at the Poetlister case and try to derive the basis for policy from it, they may end up needing medication" Why? I'm reading the history of ban discussions and it's more than obvious the Poetlister case was what led to this policy being enacted. Before Poetlister, there did not exist anyone perceived as being so disruptive across so many different Wikimedia projects as to warrant the need for a global ban discussion enacted against him. And there was no prior need for even such a process, let alone a policy, for many problematic users because none had been perceived as being disruptive enough that such a process might come into existence. What resulted from the discussion was so convoluted that the Foundation did not want to make the hard decisions to ban the guy themself; instead they preferred to leave the responsibilities for problematic users in the hands of 'the community', which eventually led to the Foundation changing the Terms of Use in order to force the issue to develop a global community ban policy. There is a correlation between this page and the Poetlister case, and giving potential readers an easy link to such a case should they wish to research the reasons behind the page's creation makes the policy easier to understand.
• "Poetlister did not satisfy the requirements for a global ban per present policy" Whether or not he meets the requirements is irrelevant, the fact is his case created a need, artificially or not, to develop the page in question. The policy is not perfect in being clear why he had needed a global ban (see Requests for comment/Global bans for numerous user suggestions for improvement of the page) but it does derive its power from this precedent case.

I've been thinking about using a category page for global ban proposals instead of a list. How does that sound? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A category sounds like a good idea. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Does any one have any good ideas on what name the category should possess? "Global ban discussions"? "Global ban requests for comments"? "Global ban proposals"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Just "Global ban pages" would be fine for people looking for more information, there's no need to have overly specific categorization schemes which just bloat the Category tree further. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with any of those. PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Category:Global_ban_pages – I've created the category. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)