Requests for comment/Global ban for PokestarFan

The following request for comments is closed. No ban. Invalid. This RfC at this stage is purely disruptive. Closing without prejudice that, in case an editor in good standing believes that PokerstarFan needs to be globally banned, they should start a new RfC which conforms with the global ban policy. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 209.242.141.24/29

PokestarFan (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
PokestarFanBot (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)

Hello Wikimedians I propose a WMF ban for PokestarFan because he was indefinitely blocked on 4 wikis. A lock request was denied here I will ban PokestarFan from all Wikimedia wikis for now and he treating all Wikimedia wikis as playground and he is not here to build encyclopedia --209.242.141.28 19:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ban criteria for PokestarFan is:
The user was indefinitely blocked on four wikis
The user helps with others
The user makes him into Cross-wiki vandalism. The bot is now a sock of PokestarFan --209.242.141.25 19:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 71.172.143.180

In other words, he is proposing a ban for PokestarFan simply because he is blocked on 4 wikis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.143.180 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2017‎

Statement by PokestarFan

Reason #3 does not make sense.

The user helps with others

Reason #4 does not have any sense either. Also, a bot is not a sock. The block can be blocked for editing without bot flag, but you cannot sock with a bot.

The user makes him into Cross-wiki vandalism. The bot is now a sock of PokestarFan

--PokestarFan ·Drink some tea and talk with me ·Stalk my edits ·I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 04:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PokestarFan: Now you're socking with your bot so please stop abusing multiple accounts --209.249.5.140 05:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? They've only operated their bot on 3 wikis. The Commons, from which their bot has been blocked. Wikidata, where operation was ceased after PF's main was blocked, and enwb, where he is not blocked and hence can run the bot legitimately. Can you point to some diffs? Caliburn (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Support

Oppose

Oppose Premature request. Local wikis can deal with these disruptions independently. If cross-wiki disruptions continue this may be reconsidered (probably after at least one year).--GZWDer (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Global bans#Criteria for global bans, first point, we have as criterion “The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam.” This has to be elaborated but this was not addressed in the initial statement. Just opening a global ban discussion because of multiple infinite blocks is not appropriate. Please note also that these blocks came quite recently. Opportunity should be given to the user to address the problems on the individual wikis. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per GZWDer and AFBorchert. It is too soon, the request was badly reasoned (not using required criteria), and the requestor appears to have a pattern of behavior that has led to it being currently blocked. — Jeff G. ツ 16:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and maybe we should consider requiring that global ban requests be made by registered users. --Rs chen 7754 01:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have proposed Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy.--GZWDer (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close this RFC as invalid. -ArdiPras95 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per above. XPanettaa (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment I am not partial to having a global ban generated by an IP address, and one which shows a history of abuse, then supported by another IP address. Neither IP address is clearly a continuing editor and may be any person that edits. I would prefer that this be struck, and, if required, opened by users with an editing history. — billinghurst sDrewth

@Billinghurst: Exactly. I do not like an IP-leaded discussion whatsoever. Make an account, it takes 30 seconds! PokestarFan ·Drink some tea and talk with me ·Stalk my edits ·I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 13:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: What might be done to expedite clarifying the status of this proposal? I had been wondering who to ask about this, as I am not experienced with this type of proceeding but thought the proposal looked quite fishy. A non-serious proposal of this sort would seem an unproductive drain of everyone's time. --Pi zero (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: If there is a general agreement that this is inappropriate we close it down. There is no value in character assassination, and the individual wikis can manage their affairs. This is especially the case where the user behind the IP address is evidently a long term editor who is choosing to not align with the username so we can give fair value to their opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This person has a huge obsession with using automated tools to make alot of edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.143.180 (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2017

Comment The starting ip has also tried to initiate another global ban, which has failed. The criteria were similar to this, as the user to be banned was blocked in multiple wikis. PokestarFan ·Drink some tea and talk with me ·Stalk my edits ·I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 13:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I was harassed by that IP user who reported me back in April, saying that I did "stupid things that are not permitted", and tried to get me kicked out of business, which means I easily lose my temper and feel like me and my future work is being targeted here, as well as at the other projects were I worked. However, it seems very unlikely to me that I did these things, as mentioned by the reporter on the request for comment page linked above. I released a statement on that page after that user said "Thank you just wait for UTRSbot to receive your message at your talk page", admitting that I was angry because of their decision (despite I am not going to agree with them that I should stay blocked and therefore not get unblocked on the projects mentioned on that page and that I should be fired from all Wikimedia projects worldwide), that I never ever did things mentioned by them and that there's been a misunderstanding, in which case it should come undone. I still want to get unblocked in the future, because I can no longer wait, and I have understood the rules and terms few months ago. XPanettaa (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of this RfC

I am going to shut the RfC down at Sat, 12 Aug 2017 13:50:50 +0000. PokestarFan ·Drink some tea and talk with me ·Stalk my edits ·I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 01:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PokestarFan: In this case I think it would be inappropriate for you to be the one to shut it down. You are the accused party. --Pi zero (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I make a proposal to shut it down. PokestarFan ·Drink some tea and talk with me ·Stalk my edits ·I'm not shouting, I just like this font! 03:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your "proposal". Poyekhali (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]