On Jul 6, 2012 2:48 AM, "Deryck Chan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Short answer as I understand it: > Global blocks are the technical feature and refer to the accounts, the IPs > and the software capability; global bans are the policy and refer to the > people who are unwelcome.
Deryck has got it right here. The situation is made more complex by the fact there currently is no technical mechanism for a global block. In lieu of that, Stewards etc. have been resorting to locking people out of their accounts using SUL, which is known as a global lock. A global lock is the usual way of enforcing a ban, according to the current state of the policy. Steven > > On 6 July 2012 10:44, ENWP Pine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Steven, > > > > Could you explain the distinctions between https://meta.wikimedia.org/** > > wiki/Global_locks <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks>, > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_blocks< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks>, > > and https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_bans< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans>? > > These look to me like they have some redundancy and some areas where they > > diverge. A chart which compares these three side-by-side would be helpful. > > > > Also, if Global Bans are decided by an RFC on Meta, that gives me pause. I > > can envision sockpuppets and meatpuppets attempting to sabotage the process > > and giving Meta checkusers more work to do, potentially much more work, > > especially if WP:DUCK behaviors need to be evaluated on multiple projects > > in multiple languages and/or coordination is needed with checkusers from > > projects in other languages. I'm a bit more supportive of the process at > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Global_locks< https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks>which seems to involve Stewards making the decision to take a global action > > based on multiple local projects taking local actions, rather than because > > there was a global community RFC at Meta. I agree with AFBorchert's comment > > at the RFC, "Meta is working great for non-controversial project > > coordination, requests to stewards etc. But Meta is in no way prepared to > > serve as a battleground for a large-scale global ban discussion which would > > tend to revive previous debates at other projects." > > > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm thinking that global locks and > > global blocks would be the best two of the three options to deal with a > > user who is problematic enough to be unwelcome on all wikis. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Pine > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected].**org <[email protected]> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l< https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
