Wikiversity:Community Review/Global bans

The Meta community is developing a process for deciding when to stop people from editing all projects (a "global ban").


 * What role should custodians have in carrying out global ban decisions?
 * When should custodians block Wikiversity participants because of a global ban decision?
 * How should custodians respond to requests to block people because of a global ban decision?

-- dark lama  20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Contribution from Thenub314

 * I think two key considerations are: did representatives from our community take part in the discussion at meta, and was the discussion publically announced here. This ensures everyone in our community was aware and had a change to represent their opinion as part of the global consensus.  But in cases when these two considerations are met, then I think a custodian should act.  So I think the answer to the second question is that we should respect the meta decision (at least initially) when these two criteria  are met.


 * Being a volunteer position I don't think we can require a custodian to ever block a user if they are uncomfortable doing so. But if a custodian is aware that a globally baned user is editing I think it is a reasonable procedure in the case of a global ban is to first block, and if an unblock is desired to re-invite the whole community to decide the merits of having him here vs the harm done the the project (e.g. cross-pollination issues).  Provided of course that in the Custodians opinion, the two considerations above are met.


 * As far as the first question goes I don't think there is any special responsibilities in carrying out the discussions. If you block then making the community aware of the global ban, and subsequent block should be enough.  The conversation can carry on from there by itself and which ever custodian decides to close, and undo the block if necessary. Thenub314 21:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Contribution from SB_Johnny
I've done some poking around on meta, and it's pretty clear that the global ban issue is not something we can circumvent locally by "opting out", though there does seem to be movement towards allowing "local communities" (like ours) to ask for an appeal of a given ban if we have local consensus to do so. With that in mind, I think perhaps the best approach for us would be to poll the community if a particular case is seen as problematic (perhaps starting at WV:RCA, and then to WV:C if it looks promising).

As far as blocking locally to support global bans, I see reasons in favor as well as reasons against. On the one hand, perhaps the best way to handle it would be to allow any local user who is concerned to simply report accounts used to circumvent a ban to the stewards, either on the meta noticeboard or privately, since this would simply "take it out of our hands". On the other hand, the global locks may also prevent the user from editing their talk page or using email to make an appeal to the local community for consideration, so at least in that sense a local block gives us more flexibility.

Another thing I've found in the poking around both here and on meta is that at least some of the argument for ignoring or otherwise denying global bans here on WV seems to be for the purpose of providing a bulwark to prevent meta from being able to enact global bans, or at least to prevent them from being effectively imposed on users here who feel they might be subjected to one. If this is the case, I'd like to refer back to discussions held here some time ago regarding the use of this wiki as a political tool to affect other wikis (which I and at least some others felt was inappropriate, as beyond our scope). --SB_Johnny talk 14:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Contribution from Marshallsumter
While these matters may be better left to the custodial community, I would like to insert these concerns. Wikipedia carries a lot of clout. Should a group there decide to globally ban any user, it may be difficult for WMF to prevent this. I believe we should strive to keep WV as independent as possible. Our first question should be, "Should we agree with the global ban?" My answer is emphatically No!. By maintaining our freedom to decide based solely on the contributions of a user here, I believe our first response must be a no until appropriate review has occurred. Even then caution is needed lest a wrongly steered consensus end up doing harm for which there is no recourse left inside WMF. I believe the probably overworked custodians are our first line of defense against a possibly overly rash decision from outside. The tone, if I may say, should be first to keeping as independent as possible rather than to 'how should we do what we're told?' Marshallsumter 23:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to add this comment. After reading the discussion on meta, I'm convinced that processes already exist to handle potential 'criminal' activity throughout WMF. But, should these fail I believe we should allow appropriate action by outside enforcement on an individual basis only. And, I'm very cautionary about that because all too many governments would love to get further control on internet freedoms, such as contributing to various WMF projects. Having written that I must add that due process does not exist if even one project can ban or block wrongly and no way exists to undo it. Marshallsumter 02:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Contribution from Bilby
I guess I have some thoughts. Short answer: I like the stance of block if somone is globally banned through a genuine community disccusion on Meta and it is clear that they are editing through the ban, and accept a community consensus to unblock if that's what later emerges. - Bilby 00:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, I see a need for global bans. Banning, by its nature, is reactive - the problem has to occur, and then we respond. So by the time we're banning someone locally, the damage has been done. If there is no possibility of a global ban, there is a real risk that a person could move from wiki-to-wiki, repeating the same damaging behaviour, even though the problems have been detected on other wikis.
 * The second argument is that the wider wiki community can be damaged by the actions of one wiki. To some extent this is true - the projects are connected, and major problems on one project will reflect on the WMF, if nothing else, and that in turn could affect them all. On those grounds the possibility of genuine global bans to protect the projects as a whole is something worth considering, but I'm not yet convinced of the extent that this holds.
 * The "all else being equal" means that I can see value in being able to override a global ban locally if there is strong consensus to do so. If the global model fails, then it may be the responsibility of the local models to respond.
 * This will all be moot if the new Terms of Use go through, as they will mean that editing through a global ban is a violation ot the Terms, and that places it outside of our hands. I'm assuming that any discussion here is dependent on the current Terms of Use being in place, and may not be relevant should the changes pass.

Contribution from Abd

 * What role should custodians have in carrying out global ban decisions?
 * None. Custodians are only responsible for what happens on Wikiversity. Global bans are a formalization of global lock decisions, that, by default, prevent an account from being used on any WMF wiki. Global lock decisions are made by stewards, who are responsible to the global community, and who are elected at meta. They serve meta policy, and that policy has always respected local consensus. If I'm correct, the pre-SUL software only allowed certain global tools that affected all wikis, and all of these have local whitelists to allow local admins to bypass them Thus a local wiki is not required to get meta permission to bypass meta decisions.
 * SUL accounts are exclusively global. Hence a global ban is properly decided and enforced at and through meta. However, global locks were designed only for spammers and vandals, not to over-ride the local right of decision. We should not have to decide if a decision at meta is "sound" or "unsound." Our custodians are responsible to this community, and are regulated by the policies that this community has established, which, wisely, do not turn over the responsibility of our custodians, to protect our users and our community, to some outside group making a decision at meta, whether that decision is proper or improper. It might indeed be proper to globally lock, Locally, though, a non-SUL user should be treated like all other users, and be free from harassment, from a need to defend himself or herself, if the user follows policy here.
 * When should custodians block Wikiversity participants because of a global ban decision?
 * Never. That's the long-standing proposed WV:Blocking policy. It is not a legitimate block reason. That does not mean that a globally banned user has some sort of immunity, but the local decision must be made based on local effects and policies.
 * How should custodians respond to requests to block people because of a global ban decision?
 * We should refuse such requests, while respecting complaints showing actual harm. Informing us of a global ban, and requesting review of editing, are fine. Demanding that we block without local policy violation is not. Stewards have the power to block local users, if there is true hazard, and they have done so in the past. When they did so in a manner that did not respect local consensus, the results have been highly disruptive. Stewards know to avoid that, so global ban enforcement is properly handled by stewards. Local consensus is clear that users are not to be blocked based on behavior elsewhere, with other protections and safeguards. For example, users are not to be blocked for old behavior, only for recent behavior, i.e., behavior likely to continue. Human behavior is situational, a person may be disruptive in one environment and constructive in another. A global ban, almost necessarily, only considers the general case.
 * A WV:Assembly process has been proposed to consider this issue. Assembly process is designed for slow but careful consideration of all issues around blocking policy. Comparatively, this CR is "emergency," i.e., we apparently need quick clarification of how to handle global bans, in spite of policy and precedents covering it.--Abd 23:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ottava Rima
The Global Ban discussions have been given plenty of notice and are handled properly at Meta. In situations like Poetlister, any Custodian who thinks that such an outright dangerous person should be unblocked or allowed to edit should be stripped of Custodianship for endangering the project. It isn't about forcing Custodians here to block people. It is about having them do their jobs. If you honestly think that people who use many sock accounts, impersonate others, and manipulate their way to higher privileges to steal personal information on others are appropriate for this project, then that individual isn't appropriate for this project. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Simone Larctia
Custodians shouldn't support users who have disrupted more than one WMF project. Global bans should be enforced locally, even though there is currently still no procedure to appeal a global ban. -- Simone 23:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jtneill
I favour allowing users a clean slate per local wiki and I favour not basing local decisions on activities of the user in other Wikimedia projects or other on- or off-line settings.

If a global ban is made, then it is a Steward role to perform a global lock; it is not a local custodian responsibility. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Thekohser
Any community that would "give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", as Benjamin Franklin once said. The independence of the Wikiversity community and process should come before a blind fealty to matters that happen on Meta. I am a case in point, given that I was issued a global lock from a Meta bureaucrat who was clearly out of process (and arguably out of control). The Commons, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other Wikimedia projects were intelligent enough to see that the Meta tyranny was misguided, and my account was restored. In return, they got 100% freely-licensed content of considerable quality, and no fuss at all about the terrors and troubles predicted (falsely) by the Meta overlord. In fact, when he saw that some of the other communities had evaluated his fraud and overturned it, he retired his tools in a huff. Please, Wikiversity, don't give in to false leaders on Meta who are merely trying to grab more power as a governing body, rather than (properly) a coordinating body. Wikiversity is perfectly capable of evaluating global ban recommendations that might emanate from Meta, on a case by case basis. To blindly accept all such recommendations as de facto rule is pure foolishness. -- Thekohser 17:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Steven Walling
I'm not a regular Wikiversity editor, but as an interested party I do want to make a few statements/clarifications:


 * 1) Since the draft policy for global bans was first posted, we have added a paragraph which acknowledges the possibility of overturning a global ban, among other revisions.
 * 2) Ideally, Wikiversity custodians should not need to even ponder a decision about whether they have to enforce a global ban. If a global ban is successful, then the Stewards enact a global lock and that's that. Unfortunately you've run into the local sockpuppet issue already...
 * 3) I think that when a local sock of a globally banned user is identified beyond reasonable doubt, the wise decision is to block. But, as I said previously on Meta, it is very much intentional that the policy does not demand that sysops identify and block all sockpuppets of a globally banned user. Such a commandment would be ridiculous for a variety of reasons. As described by Thenub314 and others, ultimately this is like any other action that a sysop might take: it's a judgement call, and you're elected to such a position for your ability weigh community consensus and the needs of the project. I honestly don't think it gets a lot more complicated than that.

If you haven't already, I encourage you to participate in the discussion on Meta. No one at the Foundation imagines the global ban policy as a tool for the large projects to throw their weight around. I'm really pleased to see some Wikiversity folks editing the policy already.

Thanks, Steven (WMF) 23:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment from Gravitoweak
Nobody can be banned globally. It's like saying "you are unwanted on a wiki, so we will not want you anywhere else". Yeah right, try globally banning Spanish User Esteban, English User Stephen, French User Etienne, when they're all the same dude at the keyboard. Whack a mole games for all! Gravitoweak 01:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KYPark
It may be noteworthy that the global ban in a way is an analogy to such terrorism as scapegoating, Inquisition, excommunication, and even Japanese  ijime(いじめ) and Korean wangtta(왕따), and perhaps so on, and that it could be abused as likely as historically by degenerating into a radical partial tool of banning the liberal global standard, as it were, and thus desroying the global balance of yin and yang. As far as this fear is reasonable, may I wish Wikiversity's custodians to do their best to keep the global ban from abuses and misuses? KYPark [T] 07:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ebe123
No custodian should be having anything to do with global bans. If anyone sees a sock, report it on meta. I also agree with Steven Walling. Ebe123 12:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Katarighe
I also agree, but no custodian should be having anything to do with global bans. If anyone sees a sock, report it on meta and they do the rest. --Katarighe 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Marcus Zerbini
Moved to Colloquium