On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/4/24 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org:
White Cat hett schreven:
Has there been any discussion on this matter? If a user is being disruptive on a wiki he or she will eventually end up getting blocked for it. If the same user decides to continue this disruption he was blocked for on other wikis, particularly sister projects, commons, meta and etc how should he or she be treated. I know every wiki is independent. But letting a disruptive user become the source of agony on many wikis seems like a problematic thing to do.
That should be decided by the projects he or she is disrupting, shouldn't it? If they feel being disrupted, they will block, if not they won't. Where do you see problems with this way of handling it?
Depends on what the person is doing. I referred previously to how the main reason for global IP blocking is so as to deal with persistent cross-wiki vandals; many take to trying to harass people (e.g. blocking admins, previous wiki-foes) on other wikis, vandalising in their names, etc. (SUL helps with this, but many targets are not admins.) The cases I'm thinking of are bad editors who are sufficiently unambiguously vandalising and/or harassing that a steward could clearly act, for instance.
- d.
Indeed, I don't think White Cat's example is the purpose of this - this is for cases of clear-cut vandalism across wikis - Examples include the time I went and scrubbed "Wikipedia is Communism" off the Navajo Wikipedia on a couple dozen pages (including the main page!). A global block is needed in a case like that.
WilyD