[Foundation-l] Dealing with interwiki disruption

Wily D wilydoppelganger at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 22:04:39 UTC 2008

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:52 PM, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Marcus Buck <me at 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.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list