Requests for Comment/Meta bans RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This RfC is closed as follows:

• Proposal 1: Pass
• Proposal 2: Pass
• Proposal 3: Pass
• Proposal 4: Pass
• Proposal 5: Unsuccessful.

John (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

---

While there is currently a global bans RfC it may very well be that a situation would arise where a user doesn't meet the criteria for a global ban but has nonetheless done things on Meta that the community thinks deserve a local Meta community ban. In order to avoid having to re-vote on the same exact proposals as in the global RfC, I'm proposing that we have the starting point which is that everything from the global RfC applies and then we have specific proposals to make it more appropriate for Meta (since obviously things like blocks on other wikis aren't relevant to Meta). Reception123 (talk) (C) 20:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Co-initiator: Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Successful conditions from the global bans RfC apply to Meta community bans as well, with modifications in proposals below. Reference to global groups and terms ('Stewards', 'global') will be converted to local references ('bureaucrats', 'local').

Support

1.  Strong support This works. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support No issues with this, a formal community ban RfC is needed anyway in the case of any future community ban from Meta. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposer. Reception123 (talk) (C) 07:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
4.  Support Per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
5. MacacoKouhai (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
6.  Support per the co-proposers' rationale. That being said, Meta community bans must not be a substitute for a Meta administrator blocking a user with repeated conduct issues, merely to add community support to their actions. As part of their mandate and their own election process, as administrators, the community has duly elected them to be fair, ideally neutral and impartial in all decisions, but, crucially, to not be afraid to make the tough decisions. Blocking a single-purpose vandalism only account or likely sockpuppet is not what I'd consider a "tough decision." Dmehus (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
7.  Support Per above. Kourouklides (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
8.  Support Per above. Universal Omega (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
9.  Support I have no problem with this proposal. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
10.  Support — Pixial ^[Talk] 13:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Criteria)

In order for a Meta community ban to be requested the user must exhibit conduct issues and remediation attempts to address such conduct have failed.

Support

1.  Support This wording is essentially the same as with the global bans RfC so I see no issue. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support per the Global bans RfC. Reception123 (talk) (C) 07:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support Per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
4. MacacoKouhai (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
5.  Support Per above. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) 20:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
6.  Support per the co-proposers' rationale. As I said above, but it bears repeating as it adds to what this proposal aims to articulate, Meta community bans must not be a substitute for a Meta administrator blocking a user with repeated conduct issues, merely to add community support to their actions. As part of their mandate and their own election process, as administrators, the community has duly elected them to be fair, ideally neutral and impartial in all decisions, but, crucially, to not be afraid to make the tough decisions. Blocking a single-purpose vandalism only account or likely sockpuppet is not what I'd consider a "tough decision." Dmehus (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
7.  Strong support Per above. Kourouklides (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
8.  Support most of RfCs were for this reason. — Pixial ^[Talk] 13:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
9.  Support I see no problem with this if I'm being honest here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

1.  Comment: There’s no numerical way to judge this criteria. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Accounts)

In order to file a request for a Meta community ban, the nominator must have

• A Meta account which is at least 3 months old
• At least 250 Meta edits. These edits may not consist of directly copy/pasting content from other wikis, they must be edits done by the user.

Support

1.  Support Good way to prevent frivolous Meta community ban RfCs. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

   This RfC is about meta-only bans. Naleksuh (talk) 04:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

   Indeed, my comment erroneously referred to community bans as global bans and that has since been fixed. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 04:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

2.  Support It makes sense to have less activity required than for global bans due to Meta bans not being as serious (since users can still edit other wikis) and the fact that it may be more difficult to have many edits on Meta. Reception123 (talk) (C) 07:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
3.  Weak support Per comments in the global bans RfC. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
4. MacacoKouhai (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
5.  Weak support I'd probably prefer 500 edits and an account that is at least six months old, but that being said, this is not the global bans RfC, and these conditions are reasonable-ish enough. Dmehus (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
6.  Support Per above. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) 22:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
7.  Weak support Per above. Kourouklides (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
8.  Support As is done in voting, to avoid fraud. — Pixial ^[Talk] 13:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
9.  Strong support Per the above comments to avoid repeating myself. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Neutral as I really don’t see the need for this but can’t oppose it. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 4 (Quorum)

A Meta community ban request must have had ten (10) users, meeting the requirements of Requests for Comment Policy, express a view (in favour, opposed, or neutral).

Support

1.  Support. Would even consider upping this to 20 users. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
2.  Support No issues with this. Community bans should, like global bans, be a measure of last resort and should reflect broad community consensus. Agent Isai ^{Talk to me!} 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
3.  Support Makes sense to have a lower threshold per Propoasl 3. Reception123 (talk) (C) 07:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
4.  Support I supported a 10 user threshold for global bans and even though I believe that the Meta one should be inferior a 5 user limit would be too little so 10 will have to do. --DeeM28 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
5. MacacoKouhai (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
6.  Weak support Ten (10) participants, given the conditions in the above proposal, is reasonable enough for a Meta Wiki only community ban; it is not sufficient for a global ban, however. Dmehus (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
7.  Weak support Per above. Kourouklides (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
8.  Weak support Once again, so I'm not repeating myself, I wouldn't mind this to be honest with all of you. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
9.  Support That doesn't hurt, normally the RfCs take a long time and for sure the ten users would arrive. In addition, having unanimity is better. — Pixial ^[Talk] 13:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 5 (Applicability to Discord)

Meta community bans will automatically apply to Discord.

 Note: Meta bans do not currently apply to Discord automatically and are decided on a case-by-case basis by local moderators.

Oppose

1.  Strong oppose Discord is a global Miraheze platform, and is not exclusive to Meta. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 01:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Per above, it makes more sense to allow moderator discretion in this case as the user isn't globally banned. Reception123 (talk) (C) 07:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
3.  Strong oppose per above, but especially Reception123's comments. I'd also add that Discord, and IRC, are important communication channels for potential appeals, and it's important to leave them open. Where platform moderators have a need to kickban a wiki-banned user for frivolous and vexatious appeals, the kickban's duration should be short (i.e., a few weeks) and reapplied if the behaviour pattern resumes following its expiration, or evasion occurs. Dmehus (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
4.  Strong oppose per above Kourouklides (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Blocks on Discordo should only be enforced when the user causes problems there. To this day, for example, I can't get into the Discord server. — Pixial ^[Talk] 13:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Neutral Ehhhh.... I don’t know. On one hand, the opposes have a point. The Mireheze Discord isn’t exclusive to Meta. However, Miraheze is really only used for Meta, excluding global requests. What I think would be the best is to decide if they’re harmful enough to cause sufficient problems on the Discord and if they will actually contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moisty (talk • contribs)
2.  Abstain Depends on context, pretty much. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.