Talk:Requests for comment/Global requests committee

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Reasons for suggesting this narrow scope[edit]

I've been trying to clear up in my own mind how global locking is used today; what is needed to make global blocking possible for named accounts, and how it would be used; and what other cross-project decisions might need to be made about behavior that can't be described purely as 'counter-vandalism and -harassment'. A few examples:

  1. Recent global lock requests / actions affecting Tyciol and Thekohser
  2. The recent discussion about a global lock for user:השואה, who is making useful contributions on at least one wiki
  3. Cross-project disputes about how to react to off-wiki insults and harassment on ru:wp and ru:wv (where as I understand via Milos, it is possible to be desysoped blockedmillosh's strikeout and correction for an off-wiki insult until you apologize)

I don't know how to handle the third type of issue mentioned above, but the first two issues -- when to implement global (often long-term or indefinite) account blocks (using whatever tools are available) -- is something that a separate committee could be good for.

I would like to see a body separate from the stewards that handles that very narrow class of requests. This body would only handle requests to globally block IPs or accounts for issues more complex than vandalism and basic abuse. These requests would have to come to Steward requests/Global, following a standard process (offering significantly more information than the vandalism requests do). And requests would need to list the local responses to the problematic actions on any wikis where the account had been active. I am guessing that they would (for now) handle some 4-5 requests a year. A single clerk might suffice to help organize information and flesh out related policies.

Thoughts? SJ · talk | translate 04:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it shouldn´t be reduced only for global blocks/locks, but also for problems which couldn´t be solved localy. There are many wikies with some kind of usergroups acting one against other, wikies with political insults and so on. GAC should also be a instance for decisions in such cases and give a posibility for not privileged users. --WizardOfOz talk 06:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those issues, I recommend a broader Dispute Resolution Committee. And I like Geoff's suggestion of making this part of the Ombudsman role - that is certainly an option. This RFC is specifically for current global requests which we are unable to handle. SJ · talk | translate 06:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I think, it will be easier just to change stewards policy and to give them a posibility of concensus in such cases. Let the not-involved stewards decide if such global block/lock was ok or not and that should be enough. This can be done behind the scenes (mailing list or irc), and one of acting stewards can provide it to the request as decision. I can´t see a need to put this in the Ombudsman hands just because of TheKohsers request and Jimbos action. If we implement this just for global actions of blocking and locking, than you will not come around with 4-5 requests to handle. :) --WizardOfOz talk 06:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other next steps for global requests[edit]

  • resolve the feature to allow global blocks (please log in and vote for
  • list appropriate justifications for global account blocks
  • explain where people should take concerns or complaints with same (currently, SR/G; or a page for this new requests committee)


I think it would be better to name this committee something like "Committee on global (un)locks" or something like that - of course "Global requests committee" is not wrong regarding that the proposed committee will deal with issues brought up on Steward requests/Global, but it sounds like a commitee that has competency over all "global issues", whatever that might be (global rights? steward rights? rights on local wikis?). So, to avoid misunderstanding, I'd prefer another name for it. --MF-W 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Not true anymore since the proposal has been modified meanwhile. --MF-W 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modified thanks in part to your comments and others like it. SJ talk | translate  
Sj I was wondering, is this a renaming of the global arbitration committee or are they different concepts? SeeTheInvisible 23:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have overlaps but are different in scope. The global arb comm was envisioned by some as being a place to appeal decisions made on other projects. That is not the goal of this committee; where the focus is primarily to handle global requests that cannot be made by any other community or community body; and to make decisions in areas where stewards are expected to implement but not decide. SJ talk  01:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments, mid-2011[edit]

This proposal was noted in questions for the Steward candidates in September 2011.

from wikitanvir: "GRC should not act by themselves, as per the current draft, the should only act when they have been asked to act."
from Mys_721tx: "how exactly a RfC should be consider difficult that GRC should take actions? It takes time to define where and when the GRC should act. If GRC takes too long or has too small scope, it will be counterproductive to its propose: stewards or the GRC will have nothing to do.
Also here is another problem, the language... if there was a argument involved the local admins and bureaucrats in a project that most members of GRC don't understand, could GRC know what's going on and make an uncontroversial translation of their decision? (Translations caused conflicts in Chinese Wikipedia about the understanding of Strategy:May_2011_Update. )
If those problems get fixed, GRC should be created since it would improve the openness by moderate argument."

Preparing for a global vote[edit]

One of many comments on the need for a broad vote:

"The process should be voted by the whole community (as it was the case for the Global Sysops) because it's a decision that concerns every project. But contrary to the proposal for Global Sysops a short summary translated at least on main languages should be written." (from Quentinv57)
Somebody write a summary in English, and I'll be happy to translate it into English and French. — Kudu ~I/O~ 17:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: Changes to the original proposal, made on July 13, 2011: green = new, red and crossed = removed, orange = edited.

Please continue to revise the proposed committee there, without color code. Let's get input from the stewards and ombudsmen; once they are comfortable with this concept, we should organize a vote or higher-profile RfC, then once there is consensus to implement, draft a resolution approving the committee for the Board to pass. SJ talk  18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent examples?[edit]

Could stewards or others list recent examples of requests or discussions that could have been handled by a GRC had it existed? That will help people quickly understand what is being proposed. SJ talk  00:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion[edit]

I find it a bit confusing to have both Requests for comment/Global requests committee and Global requests committee with discussion happening on both pages. I would like to suggest that the discussion at the RFC page be merged into Global requests committee. When the proposal is ready for community RFC then an RFC page can be created at that time. Pine 20:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged as suggested. Please leave any further comments on the GRC talk page. SJ talk  22:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]