Requests for comment/Global account blocking practices

The following request for comments is closed. Thank you for participating in this consultation. See #Results and request for close. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

As you may know, global blocking has recently been extended to accounts. Unlike global locks, global blocks on accounts do not prevent the user from logging in and can be locally exempted (technically still called whitelisting) on a specific project by any local administrator.

Stewards have internally discussed when we would plan to use global blocking versus global locking, and have come up with the following draft guidelines. We would like to seek community input, though the intention here is not to create a firm policy - none have previously existed for locks or global blocks, and we want to maintain flexibility to use our access with our best judgment depending on the circumstances. At the end of this process, we will update the pages on global locks and global blocks to include when each action is likely to be used.

That said, below are the proposed guidelines for global account blocks:

Global locks are globally-set actions that lock a user out of their account and do not permit local projects to place exemptions. These are preferred over global blocks in cases where:

The likelihood of a successful appeal is low given the severity of abuse, and stewards would be best suited to handle the appeal and evaluate the risk of the user's return to Wikimedia projects. This includes, but is not limited to: automated spambots, LTAs, xwiki or off-wiki harassment, and cases involving private information.

The user should be locked out of their account. This includes, but is not limited to: LTAs, globally banned users, users with extensive and severe cross-wiki disruption, compromised accounts, and deceased users.

Global blocks are globally-set actions that prevent a user from editing and making most logged actions across all Wikimedia wikis, but permit local projects to exempt users on their wiki. These are preferred over global locks in cases where:

A global block is necessary to prevent abuse, but the severity of abuse is not at a level that necessitates locking them out of their account, and an on-wiki appeal would be acceptable/preferred. This includes, but is not limited to: cross-wiki promotional editing (but not malicious linkspam), rogue bots, and cross-wiki disruptive editing that may be in good faith.

The user is constructively editing on a project that is likely to want them to be able to continue editing, and the severity of the violations do not necessitate a global lock. In such cases, stewards ~~can~~may pre-emptively exempt a user from the global block on those projects.

Written by Vermont

Put simply, we plan to use global blocks in cases where we expect an appeal, either globally or locally, might be successful. We think that this would better help local projects manage this category of problematic, but potentially redeemable users. The intent is not to start taking global action against users who would not currently be subject to global sanctions; rather to start using blocks for some cases that are currently handled by a lock.

In terms of locally exempting globally blocked accounts, we do not want to set expectations around when and where local admins choose to use this function. However, we would ask that if local admins find themselves often overriding global account blocks, it would be very useful to bring that information to Meta so we can understand how these global actions are impacting local projects and look at changing our own practices to better accomodate the local needs.

Comments/questions/concerns welcome, thanks for reading! – Ajraddatz (talk) (on behalf of the stewards) 16:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

When a user is globally blocked, can they appeal on their talk page on any project by default? Leaderboard (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, only their talk page on Meta. But they can still send emails to local unblock processes like UTRS, and local admins could exempt them from the global block based on that (unlike a lock). – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a sensible set of parameters for the stewards to use when deciding which action to take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the proposed addition. Comment: I think it's better to rephrase LTAs, xwiki, and alike wiki jargon, many newbies don't know what such acronyms mean. Secondly, will be globally blocked users pointed to their Meta page via a MediaWiki notice as Metawiki user talkpages aren't really accessible through their homewikis?--A09|(pogovor) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point about jargon, though the audience for the above guideline text is stewards. We can separately make whatever simplifications are necessary on noticeboard/instruction pages to help new users understand where to report unconstructive conduct. Re: what blocked text users see...also a really good point, we'll need to make sure that the text points people to their Meta-Wiki talk page and provides instructions on how to get steward attention. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ideal to have a guideline for global actions that are only supposed to be comprehensible to those performing those actions. Global locks currently seems to be worded rather transparently, with links and no heavy jargon, so it would be nice if it could stay that way (and be the same for the global blocks page). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. It would be disastrous to have a non-transparently worded policy, especially on an aspect so impactful as a global b/lock is. A09|(pogovor) 10:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the intent is to take these principles, not necessarily the exact text, and write it into the existing pages on global locks and blocks (for a lay audience at that time). We could even workshop that language here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Vermont for your responses. Also, WikiMedia notices should be translated into local languages so that chances of block appeals are language wise fair for all included parties. A09|(pogovor) 10:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks great to me. --SHB2000 (t • c) 21:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently unclear whether the conditions 1. and 2. respectively are combined with "and" or with "or". ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under global blocks? (1) is the example condition; (2) is a process exception that in the case we place a global block we may additionally add a local whitelist entry for the user to override our block (where local whitelist management is normally only performed by local admins). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will need to be made clear in the final text. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, stewards should reserve their powers to things local community can not handle. English Wikipedia has an ArbCom, but it only overrule community in few cases. Stewards are not even a global ArbCom, per policy. So they should interfere local community issues as little as possible. So what I propose instead:

Global locks are globally-set actions that lock a user out of their account and do not permit local projects to place exemptions. These are preferred over global blocks in cases where:

The user should be locked out of their account. This includes, but is not limited to: community or foundation globally banned users, compromised accounts, and deceased users.

Issues that involve private information that are not suitable to be discussed or handled by local community.

Accounts with improper name (suppressable, or obviously suggest a LTA or vandal).

Global locks may be also used in the following cases, though stewards may issue global blocks instead in their own discretion:

Vandalism or spam only users, or disruptive users with no significant constructive edits.

Potentially disruptive sockpuppets.^[1]

Global blocks are globally-set actions that prevent a user from editing and making most logged actions across all Wikimedia wikis, but permit local projects to exempt users on their wiki. Cases that global blocks may be used include but not limit to (note vandalism or spam only users are handled in above section instead):

Who engage in widespread cross-wiki vandalism, where that cross-wiki vandalism would currently require the intervention of stewards (as opposed to allowing local communities to manage the vandalism).

Who engage in cross-wiki spamming, where the user shows clear disregard for external link policies of the respective wikis.

Who are otherwise blatantly disrupting multiple projects, and the local communities of those projects are unable to effectively manage the behaviour.

They are used in cases when the account is currently causing disruption and where a combination of local blocks would be ineffective or inefficient (e.g. currently or previously causing issues in multiple wikis). Unless the disruptive behavior is an emergency (e.g. users go to disrupt wiki B after being blocked in wiki A), or the issues are in wikis without active local administrators, stewards should let local community try to handle the issue before issuing global blocks. Since stewards are expected to intervene local issues as little as possible, global blocks should be placed with the lowest expiry possible, while still remaining effective. If short-term global blocks are not effective, indefinite global blocks or global bans may be considered.

--GZWDer (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ This including sockpuppets with disruptive edits, and those of LTA accounts. However, evasion of global blocks or locks are not, in and of itself, reason for global blocks or locks.

This feels unnecessarily restrictive. Leaderboard (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share similar sentiment as Leaderboard, as the proposed global block would actually replace many current locks for various crosswiki spammers, vandals and sockmasters which have longdisproven any good faith in becoming good Wikimedians. I believe a lock is stronger than global block and is more appropriate for basically all LTAs. I fail to see how would your proposal keep up with current LTAs we're dealing with at SRG A09|(pogovor) 13:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being restrictive is my intention, since stewards are not super-admin or super-ArbCom on local communities. For how to deal with LTA: the simple rule in my proposal is socks can be locked (see the second section), but we should be cautious for main accounts, since stewards should have little authority on deciding whether they can edit a Wikimedia project. They should be first handled by local community, or via short-term global blocks. In addition: "longdisproven any good faith in becoming good Wikimedians" (not first-time behavior) would mean global bans, not global locks. --GZWDer (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Leaderboard here. and Support the original proposal. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stewards are neither of what you have listed and if you think they lock accounts however they feel it you're a bit wrong. I feel like your proposal would be less efficient to currently established processes. Maybe you have misunderstood what I was trying to convey, but no, I wasn't thinking of global bans. Best, A09|(pogovor) 16:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, what I primary concern is global locks since they can not be overrided by local community, so at least I propose to limit it to first two sections I described. Here is some real example that global locks were used, but I consider it as overuse even if complies with current de facto (pre-global block, not here proposed) guideline:

UserA is a long-term Wikimedia user and once an admin (since resigned) in a Wikimedia wiki. He was later blocked in English Wikipedia for personal attack and battleground behavior, and found abusing sock puppets there; and later indefinitely blocked in two other projects including the one he was an admin. He was active in Commons. A steward locked the user as long-term abuse. My comment: not appropriate. Commons has a large community and should be able to properly govern itself, and stewards should not intervene in Commons issue. If there are ongoing abusive behavior outside Commons, global blocks or global bans should be considered instead.
UserB is a long-term Wikimedia user and once an admin (since resigned) in a Wikimedia wiki. He was found to abuse sockpuppets for years in multiple wikis. After it was discovered, he resigned his adminship. Multiple wikis indefinitely blocked him for abusing multiple accounts. There are no evidence of further socking after the exposure of initial socking. Several months later, A steward locked the user as long-term abuse. My comment: not appropriate. Even it meets the current global lock guideline ("have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual wikis"), the issue is already sufficiently handled by local community. Steward intervention is overkill, and prevent user from contributing other wikis in good faith (w:Wikipedia:Standard_offer#Variations: "Banned users seeking a return are advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to the English Wikipedia per this offer."). I will also oppose global blocking in this case since there are no ongoing issue global blocking needs to handle.

--GZWDer (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me this sounds like something that point 1 under "Global blocks" of the original proposal should take care of. Leaderboard (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in the second case I will oppose a global block as well. GZWDer (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think global blocks should also be listed on Special:CentralAuth - currently it isn't and this makes it a bit trickier when checking whether accounts have already been locked/blocked. Leaderboard (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See phab:T358979. GZWDer (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that - thanks for pointing that out. Leaderboard (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposal. I think it is important for local projects to be able to overrule a global block. As a former steward I have come across situations where a user that was acting as a good local user but did some action(s) that won them a global lock thereby denying their useful local edits to the local wiki. This proposal seems like a good compromise in such a situation. fr33kman 17:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good, and I think the biggest thing to think of is "can this person ever contribute constructively to any project?". I think the guidelines above accomplish this kind of thought process well. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, being neither super-admins nor global ArbCom, unless private information is involved, stewards are not the ones to assess whether "can someone ever contribute constructively to any project" or "evaluate the risk of the user's return to Wikimedia projects" especially in large wikis; local communities (or in few cases, global one) are. For example: Stho002 (which is also the UserA mentioned above) and Matlin - both indefinitely blocked in multiple projects, have a relatively-long abusive (and socking) history, were active and not indef-blocked in large wikis (Commons and plwiki in each case), are not vandalism-only accounts. For local communities like Commons and plwiki, stewards are just an external body like WMF, which should intervente local affairs as little as possible. So I supposed accounts should be unlocked and let community handle issue in large wikis. Optionally global blocks but not locks can be used (especially if they are disruptiving smaller wikis), and formal global bans should be proposed if issues can not be handled by global blocks. In a nutshell, I just oppose global locks in these two cases, not oppose global blocks. In addition:
- Please also remember what I said above: "the simple rule in my proposal is socks can be locked (see the second section), but we should be cautious for main accounts". I am not against locking socks.
- Some stewards believed that being indef-blocked in all wikis i.e. no project welcomes their contribution is a reason of global locks (the UserB mentioned above). I oppose it: being indef-blocked in all wikis may mean issues are already sufficiently handled by local communities and there are nothing more stewards should do. In this case I will oppose both global lock and global block.
GZWDer (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too endorse a more restrictive treatment of global (b)locks unless it's obvious that rehabilitation on a global scale is impossible. There is enough serious abuse in all other categories on which stewards activities could focus. Other than that, I miss a statement or example on when global blocks should be used because they can trigger global auto blocks (phab:T368949). In my opinion, that should be one of the main reasons for stewards to decide between global locks and global blocks in these central cases (not the edge cases where it's obvious to either use the one or the other). Any suggestions how to flags this best in the guidelines? Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note (1) In the future global locks will also be turned to global blocks that prevents login and can not be locally disabled. See phab:T373388 and subtasks. (2) currently autoblocks only last for one day, though there are proposal to extend it - Note if I read the task correctly, the current blocker of increasing $wgAutoblockExpiry is not a technical one, but a social one, namely we need to measure how increasing it is effective. GZWDer (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - making this comment using my volunteer hat (to make that clear). It may also make sense to mention that Temporary accounts should in general only be globally blocked (as locking is ineffective). Furthermore, maybe something about using global blocking when global autoblocks are desired. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | enwiki} 17:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results and request for close

Thanks for all of the input! As this was intended to be a consultation, the stewards have taken this feedback into consideration and will be putting into practice the principles outlined above, with a slight change now that global autoblock is in place to favour global blocks in cases where an autoblock may be useful as well. We will be updating guidance on global locks and global blocks shortly. Please note that, as before, these will just be guidelines and stewards will be expected (and enabled) to use their judgment in deciding which technical action to use.

As I opened this RfC, even though it was meant to be consultative, it might be more aligned with our local procedures if someone else closes it. Thanks again! – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This including sockpuppets with disruptive edits, and those of LTA accounts. However, evasion of global blocks or locks are not, in and of itself, reason for global blocks or locks.

[1]