[Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?

[Scott MacDonald]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Coombe
> Sent: 03 June 2011 13:14
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
> 
> On 3 June 2011 09:17, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> > What does it take for a global ban?
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you remember "Poetlister"? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka
> Quillercouch, aka
> > British Civil servant with various anti-social problems.  Multiple
> > sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft,
> acquiring
> > checkuser and crat status on various projects. Banned from en.wp,
> banned
> > from commons, banned even from wikisource.
> >
> >
> >
> > The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity:
> > http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm genuinely shocked.
> >
> >
> >
> > I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user
> simply
> > wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person
> evil
> > enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he
> is, he
> > does not reach this level of fuckedup.
> >
> 
> Even old Greg is not banned everywhere anymore - see
> http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Thekohser
> His account was globally locked at one point on "word of Jimbo", but
> it was decided that this was out of order and that individual projects
> should be free to decide for themselves. A few (including en.wikinews)
> have unblocked him after some discussion.
> 
> I am somewhat shocked at Poetlister though, that was a truly
> monumental case of deception and abuse, probably the worst ever seen
> on our projects. But if the Wikiversity community wants to let him
> continue editing, I suppose it's their funeral.
> 
> Pete / the wub
> 
> _______________________________________________


The attitude that every project decides for itself and sinks or swims by its
wisdom, is fine up to a point. However, there is a point where the continued
presence of a user will serve to bring all the projects into disrepute.

Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
Wikiversity. When the press print "Despite his earlier activities and being
banned, Wikipedia's masters knowing allowed him to continue on sister
projects" they will not observe the internal self-determination. The
reputation of projects stands or falls together.

To take it to extremes, does someone banned for criminal activities get to
edit any other project unless that project wises up?

There should be a basis for saying "once banned independently from three
projects, you don't get to use a forth."

Scott