This alone would not be enough for action, but only the tip of the iceberg. Slowking4 has repeatedly made personal attacks, incivility, and sockpuppetry (he has made over 127 sockpuppets on English Wikipedia alone).and most recently a legal threat.(Note:this was strike out by the nominator per discussion belowCamouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Slowking4 is not only a candidate for action on Meta in general but also meets our global ban criteria:
The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. This is indeed the truth, the issues here are not blatant/vandalism spam but strong abuse across many wikis
The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems. Yes, there are loads of talk page messages offering helpful friendly advice and frankly more chances than deserved, but he has not cooperated at all.
The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. Doubling this amount at four.
This RfC has been a long time coming due to multiple abuses across many wikis. Every time he is indeffed on one wiki, he starts causing problems on two more. I have added several proposals in keeping with our policies due to the issues above that many have voiced about.
Based on some discussion and confusion, here are a few points that I do feel it is necessary to add here:
The abuse here is not limited to only one or two projects. He has already been indeffed on our different wikis, with issues on even more-- concerning German Wikipedia, he uploaded images in violation of license and was blocked for it. And the same behavior of having no interest in changing was present there as well as every other project. This extends for a while. It is not just one or two projects that can be solved via local blocks.
In addition, it should be said that 127 sockpuppets uh...a lot, to say the least. I can only think of one person who has made more. A global ban allows such sockpuppets to be globally locked as they should be (currently they are only locally blocked on a variety of several different wikis)
While I do note the claims to productive edits on Wikisource, I do not think this is enough to consider ignoring the abuse of incivility, gaming the system, socking, and other problems spanning across many many projects. As -revi put it: Doing one good thing doesn't invalidate 100 bad things.
In addition, I can't say that his work at Wikisource is 100% problem-free either. It seems like the issues with copyrighted content and incivility are still there from his talk page, and I have heard from another person on this thread that he has also been socking there.
I do not think that the edits on Wikisource alone should be enough to justify ignoring the above. However, Nosebagbear had thought of the idea of a partial ban (which I interpret to mean disallowing edits to all projects except Wikisource, globally locking his account if he violates it). Please let me know your thoughts on this as well.
Originally the proposal here was a global ban-- however I have added two more due to suggestions by others and a potential for a higher support ratio. Naleksuh (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The level to which they socked, and were dishonest about it, on Wikidata left me with a really sour aftertaste (see wikidata:Topic:V73q4742vi3wb49x). I do not want such dishonest editors editing any Wikimedia Foundation project.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't think someone who uses their meta userspace to write essays about how much they hate Wikipedia/Commons should be welcome to edit any WMF project. Also, interactions I had with this user over on simplewiki have been nearly entirely hostile, and in one case on their user talk page, I was insulted for an article I had created (see simple:Special:Diff/7093980). We tried to be accommodating and welcoming, but Slowking frankly edits according to their own policies. I fear they will simply move to the next small wiki to disrupt, and that cannot be allowed to happen. --IWI (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Multiple years of socking, threats, and other disruptive behavior. Enough is enough. -FASTILY 04:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Over 100 sockpuppets? I don't want more any more cheaters on the Wikimedia projects. There are already too many of these people, at least on Portuguese Wikipedia.--MisterSanderson (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I haven't had any interaction with this user, but from what I gather from the provided evidence is systemic abuse of Wikimedia projects, disregard for local policies and profilic sockpuppeteering in order to evade blocks. Seeing as how long this has been going on and there seems to be no end to this abuse, I support globally banning this user. The user in that regard is a net-negative for the community. --Wiki13(talk) 06:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doing one good thing doesn't invalidate 100 bad things. — regards, Revi 12:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Slowking has been a pain for years, their behavior spans multiple projects, they absolutely meet the threshold of a global ban. Productive work on a single project does not and cannot outweigh the continued disruption on others. David Fuchs (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Has had many opportunities on many projects and has proven they can't work well with others in a collaborative environment. -Djsasso (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good behavior and edit count on a single project is insufficient to resolve or otherwise mitigate cross-wiki harm and a history abusing multiple accounts. The pattern is established and there's no reason to expect any difference of behavior in the future. Operator873talkconnect 15:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Operator873: Interested in your comment. Do you think that any of the large WPs accept the locking of a significant editor for abuse elsewhere. What edit count, or what role do you think would move the viewpoint. Similarly, do you see that maybe that there are alternative sanctions that the global communities could agree to in an RFC that is enforceable outside of a global ban? I know that the individual wikis manage alternate means of sanction by limiting users to one account. I think that there are alternatives possible through an RFC that do not require a global ban. Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. — billinghurstsDrewth 02:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that depends. I could add some other proposals as well if enough people think it is a good idea. However, I wouldn't say that is the end of it, as more proposals for a global ban may crop up and it is not out of the question for a WMF ban. However, I think that the entirety of this proposal has a very toxic environment on both sides. I myself might add more but cannot speak for anyone else. Any such ideas? Naleksuh (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please be civil. I politely asked about something that several people have talked about here. In addition, this is a public RfC and not solely a numerical vote (as you have already pinged Operator873 here) and I was asking about something that I think would resolve concerns brought up. Naleksuh (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naleksuh: I was completely civil. If you wish to argue about the form and general question in the RFC, then go and put your points into the discussion, not hijack my clearly directed questions to a user whose opinion I value. Don't try and teach me how to suck eggs. — billinghurstsDrewth 03:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also find this quite rude and not what I would expect to hear from someone with advanced user rights. Everyone has the right to challenge an opinion and ask questions here (or in any discussion), and I don't think telling someone to "hush" is what we should ever be doing to someone who does so. --IWI (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support it's unfortunate that those projects where they edit productively are going to lose them, but that's on them. An editor who continues to show such utter disregard to the policies and guidelines of other Wikiprojects and tries to force their participation has no right to participate in any of them. To be clear, editors who find it difficult to follow the rules of other Wikiprojects may be able to participate in some Wikiprojects, but they do have to have the decency to accept their sanction in those Wikiprojects where they aren't compatible, including any blocks or bans, rather than continually ignoring them. Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support although this is clearly not going to pass. We cannot tolerate harassment on Wikimedia. And sure, they may contribute productively to English Wikisource now, but what about when they have worn out their welcome or consensus is against them? We do not magically change who we are when we change the URL in our browser. --Rschen7754 06:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rschen7754: We kinda do though. Different projects have very different communities and policies, and that also changes how a person acts. I have experience with a bunch of projects in several languages and no two projects or communities are the same, even the same project in a different language is often completely different. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm talking about character and integrity, and the ability to work with people that you disagree with. That is deeper than policy and deeper than the Internet. --Rschen7754 01:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I can tell, if Slowking doesn’t agree with a policy he will defy it even when warned, and will complain to admins of their "interpretation" of whatever policy before being eventually blocked. It may just be the case that he likes the polices of Wikisource, which is why he is apparently non-hostile. As stated, Slowking's first response to the simplewiki block was a threat to go to the press due to him not liking our notability guideline. As soon as he disagrees with a policy, even on Wikisource, he will likely not even consider discussing his views in a civil manner. A person does not change just because they are on another wiki. Slowking has demonstrated he does not have the ability to work in a collaborative environment when he has a disagreement. --IWI (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Absolutely not. A valued and non-problematic editor at enWS. Do what you want at your other communities, do not deprive our community of a prolific editor. — billinghurstsDrewth 04:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: So you suggest we allow him to continue abusing project after project ignoring local policies and abusing editors (which is the trend thus far), all while threatening to go to the press, purely because he is a good editor on one project? I'm sorry but being good on one project does not give someone free rein to abuse others without consequence. --IWI (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, if I were the closing steward I would discount this entirely -- it doesn't even attempt to address the concerns in the nom statement, much less that edits on Wikisource are not enough to ignore legal threats, personal attacks, and over 100 sockpuppets. Naleksuh (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly disagree with the idea of discounting this. The position is a perfectly valid reason for opposing. --Yair rand (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment and Naleksuh: I beg your pardon, as a member of this community I am allowed to express my opinion-based on my experience and the value that the editor brings to a community. Just because it is in opposition to your opinion does not make it wrong. Naleksuh: you are only recently to the communities, you have had no experience in the broader world of administration and advanced rights, so making a comment like yours is at best just naive. A global ban does not stop any of what you express, and so far the community level bans have not done anything, so don't give my your impotent pointlessness when you are actually quite ignorant about global bans, their management, and the provisions you think you can employ. I also have worked harder and given more to these communities to express a knowledgeable and experienced opinion than you have. ImprovedWikiImprovment: Where did I say or suggest any of that verbiage. I said that the communities could individually do what they needed to do to manage their issues. I shall not extend the issues of how and why your communities get themselves into bitter fights, yet other communities are able to edit in harmony. I don't think that the problem lies at the heart of our community. — billinghurstsDrewth 05:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:Yes I think your vote should count like anyone else's. To respond: It was a question that I asked as I felt that's what could be inferred. Him not being banned will inevitably mean more WMF projects will be subjected to the abuse that Slowking4 has perpetrated for numerous years. He has shown zero signs of stopping and clearly understands what he is doing. The user has consistently sockpuppeted on numerous projects and has over 100 accounts that they could use at any time on any project. With a user below expressing concern that this has also extended to Wikisource as well, I find it difficult to trust the assessment of Slowking4 being "non-problematic" (although I cannot judge either way, having never edited there). Even if this is indeed the case, a global ban is designed to protect the overall community from further abuse. The user will simply move onto the next project until they are inevitably blocked there. Like I said, other projects should not have to put up with such abuse purely because the user is helpful on a single project. Kind regards, --IWI (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I can say that the primary account has never been blocked, in 170k+ edits at enWS. I can say I have no idea how many accounts SK4 has used at enWS it could be one, it could be many, not that we have not given them the reason to need to sock. Nor do I think that he has been close to being blocked.
I can say that I am an experienced administrator for multiple years, at multiple wikis, so my opinion must hold some value.
I have no issue with his accounts being blocked, and him being banned at other communities where there has been a process to do so.
I know exactly what is a global ban and its purpose, I am not new here and it is worthwhile doing a little research before you start teaching other people how to suck eggs. I don't think you actually know how a community ban works, and that having a global is going to alter the behaviour you are trying to stop. I would also note that the criteria for a global ban are deeper in what they are trying to prevent, not solely socking.
I would think that if the community has an issue that it should pursue a ban outside of the Wikisources, thinking that a person who has in the vicinity of 370k edits in about 10 years has committed themselves to much of what is done at the WMFs, and you are better to limit their editing to a channel, rather than think that you are just going to stop it. Understand human nature and human condition. Tell me how throwing the book has worked in this case and other cases. — billinghurstsDrewth 06:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I do somewhat regret how I phrased this, with the comment about discounting. The point here was basically that very serious issues were raised in the nom and this oppose did not bother to address them at all (as if he didn't even read it, just saw the name of a guy he liked and opposed). While I do think that his work on Wikisource is both 1) frequently overused (and even mentioned in his EN lta page) 2) not "non-problematic" (as several users have observed, there are still problems on wikisource including confirmed sockpuppetry as you said) 3) certainly not enough to justify ignoring the issues in the nom alone. However, as it since been expanded, and I have somewhat rephrased my thought, I do think it would be acceptable to count this !vote (although the consensus seems to be to ban even with or without). Naleksuh (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naleksuh: Please don't misquote what you don't understand or what you don't know. Others will express their opinions, they don't need for you to double-guess or reinterpret them. You stick to citing your opinion on what you know, not prosecuting a case. You make allegations of how I responded which are completely baseless, and without knowledge. You must stop doing that. Your interpretations are simply wrong, and you may ask questions but the rest of your approach is just untenable. — billinghurstsDrewth 07:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Slowking4 is a great and valued contributor on English Wikisource. I can't speak towards the Commons/Simple English Wikipedia/Wikidata issues, but I know the work of the English Wikipedia Long Term abuse page can be pretty much credited to a single admin. It has never had widespread discussion concerning its merits as an LTA case page as I do suspect there would be some amount of dissent for it (though admittedly a minority in all likelihood). As for this diff, I am seriously strained to find a legal threat anywhere in there. Slowking is warning an editor that there are bad press optics involved with whatever they were supporting, and that it might cause some amount of bad publicity for the user and the project. As someone who was in the media themself recently over a Wikipedia controversy, this is something more editors should be prepared for in general. It's ridiculous to keep pretending the work we do exists in a vacuum because it can have real world consequences. However, if contributors here are right and that was some sort of threat by Slowking to instigate a controversy themself, then I would regrettably have to change my position in this discussion. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 07:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry I do not speak English. This is a google translation. Let communities deal with their own vandalism. He participates in the French-speaking wikisource and no vandalism has been carried out by this user. There is not only Wikipedia in life. There are also brother projects. --Le ciel est par dessus le toit (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inclining to Oppose. If the behaviour in en.wikipedia and other project is so bad as people have described above, then I absolutely understand the reasons leading to this proposals. However, I know Slowking from en.wikisource where I have never seen him to behave in that way. He is considered to be a prolific and valued contributor there and his block would be a big loss for the project. So, if it were possible, I would prefer his blocking only in those projects where he makes problems. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I am for one not impressed for Slowking behaviour, his subpages here on meta etc, however, this fails the global ban criterion as he is sort of valued in one wiki (per billinghurst) which we typically allow them to still contribute and not global ban. Local communities management seems the only way in this case, regretfully. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English: Between Oppose to Strong oppose Reasoning same per Medelam. His #wpwp contributions in WBI (Indonesian wikipedia, the cool abbreviation) is very valuable, especilally with the fact that WBI is holding a program for newbies in WBI to learn about editing and stuff. Adding images could also encourage these newbies to learn more. Several thousand of these contributions. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bahasa Indonesia: Antara tidak setuju dan sangat tidak setuju. Alasan sama dengan pengguna Medelam. Penambahan-penambahan gambar Slowking4 di WBI sangat bermanfaat bagi komunitas. Terutama ketika kita melihat bahwa sedang diadakan program WikiLatih, maka penambahan-penambahan gambar Slowking 4 sangat bermanfaat. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The request does not demonstrate the need for a global ban since it only mentions 4 projects out of dozens (hundreds?) of Wikimedia projects. And I confirm what Le ciel est par dessus le toit says: from what I saw, this user apparently does a good job on the French Wikisource. Seudo (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As an administrator on enWS, I would say that Slowking4 certainly should not be banned from enWS at least, since they have a long record of valuable contribution there, a small handful of curt comments about some local policy are about the limit of "misbehaviour" that I could name, and that does not even reach a standard for concern, let alone a ban. The vast vast majority of edits are content edits and not discussion-space edits: it's my impression that they are a heads-down get-things-done editor at enWS and uninterested in drama there. Inductiveload (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per billinghurst et al. Slowking has made many thousands of useful contributions to enWS, and, as I can see above, elsewhere, and certainly isn't deserving of a global ban. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose largely per wikisource editors' opinions. This seems like a problem that local blocks and administration can handle. Wugapodes (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes: Not to disrespect, but it really isn't "something local blocks and administration can handle". If he was indeffed on only one or two projects that would be one thing, but this is global, spanning across many projects. Just the edits on Wikisource alone are not enough to say this is not a global issue. In addition, he has multiple confirmed sockpuppets on Wikisource so it's not like that is perfect either Naleksuh (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It spans across 4 projects; we have over 900. I'm not particularly moved by the scale of the issue. Nothing about this seems to go beyond normal disruption we deal with on these projects, and a global ban won't do much of anything. If block evasion is a problem, a ban won't stop that: admins will still have to block sockpuppets like we've been doing. The only thing a global ban will do is remove a productive contributor from English Wikisource. Per global ban, meeting the bare minimum requirements is not sufficient and global bans are reserved for situations on the level of harassment, identity theft, and serious privacy violations. This is not at that level, and certainly is not at a level that justifies harming another project or violating its autonomy. Local blocks and administration are well equiped to handle this problem. Wugapodes (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes: IIUC, a global ban would mean that stewards could globally lock the sockpuppet accounts, rather than having each project needing to deal with them independently. --Yair rand (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yair rand: If that's the case, then I'm more open to the idea, but I need to look into the specifics more. While in theory it would be nice to ease the local burden by endorsing global locks by stewards, I'm concerned the actual practice will still be "En Wikipedia admin sees disruption and blocks a sock" but with the added task of "and goes to make a steward request". That just doesn't seem like a huge benefit for the global community when weighed against the problems this would cause for En Wikisource. I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the enforcement arm of global locks, so maybe the process is more robust than I'm imagining. Wugapodes (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes: That is indeed the standard for globally locking sockpuppets. Infact, almost all my edits on meta are to SRG. While it's true that sockpuppets are locally blocked as well as being globally locked, for some smaller wikis, such as Simple English Wikipedia (where Slowking is known to cause problems there), the global lock response time can actually be faster than local blocks on occasion. In addition, there are multiple cases of sockpuppetry on many wikis, not just English Wikipedia, and ironically he's been socking on English Wikisource which is what most of the opposition is from. So I hope that sums up my views on this global ban, please reconsider this oppose and ping me if there are any more questions. I'll also be writing a statement in comments that addresses some other concerns. Naleksuh (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Rubbish. most recently a legal threat there is no legal threat there. None. Follow the link before you vote. Having such a a blatant lie in the opening makes this RfC a farce. uploading non-free images to commons and abusing the system I'll add a "citation needed" to that for you, Slowking4 wasn't blocked for his uploads. Slowking4 has his way of putting stuff on the agenda. At times, that was a bit disruptive.. But he did get things on the agenda, he got stuff moving. He also contributed with tens of thousands of uploads. In my opinion, Slowking4 was clearly a net positive for that project, but others disagreed. The block on Wikidata was bureaucratic nonsense, the worst kind. Slowking4 wasn't abusive on Wikidata, the policy on alternate accounts on Wikidata is abusive. It allows blocking any editor who has an undisclosed alternative account, regardless of the reason. Got an alternative account to edit BDSM articles and use that on Wikidata for BDSM related stuff as well? Enjoy indef! That corrupted policy means they can block me, and probably you, and probably a bunch of people who voted here and your mother. In practice this means users can simply be blocked randomly by admins who blindly follow the rules. The rotten fruits of shit policy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikidata blocking policy you linked actually does not say that at all; simply that misusing multiple accounts (such as to evade blocks or manipulate discussions) is not allowed. It does appear that you have a personal issue here, but statements like "lies and misdirection", "the rotten fruits of shit policy" are completely uncivil, in addition to editing others' messages. Naleksuh (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, corrected the link. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Naleksuh, I agree with Alexis Jazz: your proposal is heavily biased, and your conduct when communicating with people who oppose your opinions is unbecoming. I see also poor conduct and incivility from you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
As a Wikidata admin: The Wikidata policy on multiple accounts says that multiple accounts must be disclosed and the explicit reason that was named for anning Slowking4 was not disclosing accounts and not that he did anything disruptive that went beyond not disclosing alternative accounts. Wikidata's policy on alternative accounts is stricter then the one of most Wikipedias. While I personally would prefer a more open policy, it's the one we have. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChristianKl: Thank you for your comment. I just realized something: w:WP:IAR. And then I checked, and.. you have that policy as well! Wikidata:Use common sense: "This policy applies to everything on Wikidata, including editing, interactions with other editors and interpreting other policies. If another policy or guideline prevents a useful contribution to Wikidata, use common sense and ignore it." Slowking4 was following that policy, and I even think that justifies an unblock as Jasper Deng broke it. (his block of Slowking4 prevents useful contributions to Wikidata) There's no point in asking people why they want to anonymize certain contributions or omit declaration of accounts, per AGF it should be assumed they have a reason. In effect, Use common sense voids the possibility of any other policy that allows blocking editors who only make useful contributions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, starting an RfC with unsourced and incorrect statements is a serious issue. Adding a note was the least I could do, and frankly not nearly enough. Any "support" vote has to be questioned now, because several of them appear to be based solely on the unreliable opening. Lies and misdirection is an observation. The claim of a legal threat is a lie, clear and simple. The note about uploading non-free images to Commons is irrelevant (though technically true for any mass-uploader), hence, misdirection. The rotten fruits of shit policy is directed at Wikidata's policy, not at you or this RfC. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a global ban for reasons given by Billinghurst and Wugapodes. It's not clear to me that the benefits of banning them would outweigh the loss of their valuable contributions. I agree with MJL and Alexis Jazz that the supposed legal threat was exaggerated by OP. That said, I might support more fine-grained sanctions that wouldn't prevent Wikisource from losing a productive editor. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PiRSquared17: While his edits at Wikisource were questioned, I did consider adding additional proposals. If I have interpreted what you are saying correctly, additional stuff like that might be useful? Naleksuh (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'd be more open to supporting something like the partial ban proposal you mention in the addendum. The problems you've outlined are certainly concerning, but I'm not convinced that a fully global ban is the right solution. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't know what global ban will achieve here. They are already blocked on projects they abused. Global ban will not ensure that they will stop creating socks or disruption they do on those four projects. If they are contributing positively on enWS let them continue. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per billinghurst, Alexis Jazz, 1997kB, and it is particularly worrying that such misleading (or even outright false) statements are being permitted to be made in a global ban proposal, supposedly a measure of last resort. The original proposal is problematic for multiple reasons: (1) the allegation of a "legal threat" is unfounded, as noted by multiple participants in this discussion, and all participants in this RFC should click through to that diff to view the full alleged threat in its entirety; (2) I find the claim of "ignoring GNG and using his own idea" to be highly suspect - the impression given is that Slowking4 is out to flood the wiki with articles about non-notable subjects, which is not entirely accurate. There have been some articles created by him which were found to either potentially meet inclusion criteria (simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Toni Gilpin), or were actually determined by the community to meet inclusion criteria (simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Ilse Arts, simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Ilse Arts (2nd nomination)); (3) the alleged refusal to cooperate with other editors (simple:Special:Diff/7051744) looks more of an WP:OTHERSTUFF-style of argument - Slowking4 is not obliged to bring every supposedly non-notable article to AFD, and even whether the articles highlighted in the thread do indeed fail the various N criteria is a matter of debate (again, please read the comment thread for context); (4) I could not find any evidence of "sock puppetry" on EN wikisource - it seems that there is a conflation of "alternate account" and "sockpuppet". Chenzw (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Though there is legitimate concern raised about editors being able to skirt global action by editing constructively on one or a few projects while disruptively elsewhere, I do not believe Slowking4 has reached a point where the benefits of banning them globally would sufficiently outweigh the cost imposed on projects they constructively edit. I'll also note that, though they've been incredibly hard to talk to on some projects, lightning-quick to assume bad faith and see nothing but vast evil conspiracies everywhere, it's a problem that can be handled locally. Vermont (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Billinghurst and the rest of the opposers. Blocking him may deprive them his valued contributions. Em-mustaphaUser | talk 14:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose (moved from neutral} for similar reasons I weakly opposed Global ban for Eric abiog. Get him indefinitely banned/blocked on enwikisource with no reasonable chance of a successful appeal then come back. Can I Log In (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose -- Valuable contributor. Helps others learn, including me. I will study these critiques and see if I can help. -- econterms (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I must admit I am not familiar with many of the problems he's had on Wikimedia projects. However, I can attest that he is one of the most helpful and active volunteers I've ever met in person, devoting so much time to helping new editors, creating images, documenting events, presenting workshops on WikiSource, etc. A global ban would pointlessly exclude him from events and prevent him from doing this work. Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Seconding the above, Slowking acts as an extraordinary ambassador of Wikimedia projects and has taken real care in helping other people to make meaningful contributions. To ban him would be tragic. Groupuscule (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Billinghurst. If they are being useful somewhere, a global ban is unnecessary.-BRP ever 14:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose per Billinghurst, Rosiestep, and others. This does not give good confidence in these other projects, someone should investigate. Janni Rye (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No legal threats here that I can see, so the proposal is questionable. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Serious, unjustified accusation of legal threat. Why is a 6 months old account so determined to globally ban a beneficial editor? —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 13:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aron Manning: I have two issues with this comment. Firstly, you have mentioned how long the user has been here, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Secondly, you have suggested that this proposal has been made for no reason. This is not true: he is blocked on four wikis for refusing to comply with the polices of them. Not exactly the "beneficial editor" you are making out, at least not everywhere. The user has been (from experience) hostile and rude to anyone who pointed out his errors. --IWI (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Slowking4 has been one of the most helpful members of the GLAM community, reliably helps out with training sessions for new Wikipedia editors, and is generous with his time and expertise. He can be somewhat sardonic but not in an unpleasant way, from what I've seen. I think it would be a real loss to the GLAMWiki community if Slowking4 were banned. Uncommon fritillary (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Uncommon fritillary: In terms of my own experience, I would disagree with the "but not in an unpleasant way" assessment. Slowking recently insulted my article creations (specifically one creation of mine, simple:GirlsDoPorn) in response to me politely requesting he ensured his creations were of notable people, which has been linked above. --IWI (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose He handled things like a person ways and reacted without been conscious of what is next. Give him last show and after that proceed to the next step.Tbiw (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeI’m not a big name fan of Slowking4, but the trend of repression and harassment against certain seasoned productive editors is nothing else but a creeping coup. But is a decisive victory for all kinds of kiss-up-kick-down people and trending “civility defenders” really attainable here? Their coup can bring them only temporary dominance, and admins in this case will (instead of blocking vandals, liars, and PoV pushers) be busy definding the establishment against organized and technically advanced guerrillas. Waging internecine war against former contributors, people like myself. And this can eventually escalate to a full-fledged civil war within the Wikimedia movement. Please, send “community defenders” back to their mines until it would be too late. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Misrepresentation of Slowking4 behavior as far as for what he was banned on Wikidata and the false claim about him making legal threats should be enough reason to oppose this RfC. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per above, it seems people prefer this over a complete ban due to the edits on Wikisource. Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moral support While I think this is on the right track, Camouflaged Mirage is correct about the realities of the proposal. Without a policy or clear guidelines, no one really knows how to handle this. We don't really have a technical way to enforce this other than local blocks which is what we're already doing. Even if this was not meant to be a technical restriction, it's not clear how this interacts with communities who do not care or do not agree. What if a sizable portion of Lojban Wikipedia (fictitious example) doesn't agree and is willing to let Slowking4 edit there? Will a global sysop or steward be forced to make a local block against the consensus of that community? If Slowking takes Lojban Wikipedia up on the offer and gets globally locked, will English Wikisource lose a contributor whose "crime" was editing on a project that wanted them to edit there? While I'm not against the proposal in principle, I think we need to work out the specifics before this can be implemented in any meaningful way. Wugapodes (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes: There is no existing policy is the correct statement, and this is a means to get to that policy. RFCs have always been our means to define solutions to immediate problems and then find a path to permanent solutions. I see that the community is not happy with the binary solution, so for these rare occasions of something akin to Jekyll and Hyde type cases it needs a more malleable and finessed solution. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Does the global ban policy even permit such a course of action? Even if it is permitted (which I do not think so, btw), my impression is that editors being considered for global bans have demonstrated conduct that is harmful to Wikimedia projects as a whole. The fact that this alternative proposal exempts EN wikisource from said global ban undermines the whole rationale for the original global ban proposal. Chenzw (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Where are we to mandate such an action, it must be supported by global policies. If we are to do partial global blocks, we need (1) the tools to do so (2) the mandate from community to do so. 2nd must be obtained via RFC, 1st one via mediawiki software or etc. This just isn't feasible. And the idea of globally locking if they don't obey is completely wrong, if we cannot global ban, we certainly can't global lock in most situations, unless the behaviour at enWS and all the other wikis turn sour and then they are blocked in all, although I think stewards will prefer to handle it via 2nd global ban discussion. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose a local Community can make a local Ban for this User.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫👤💬 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't see a reason to block slowking4 from contributing to idwiki, outreachwiki, or meta. Even speaking as an admin on a project they've edited, Scots Wikipedia, they have done nothing there that would be a cause for my concern (quite the opposite in fact). –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 14:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not how things work. — regards, Revi 16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This proposal is gibberish. It's impossible to know what it means exactly. Can't be voted on. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I can't make any sense of this proposal. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral go to his CA and sort by most-lowest edit count. It's enwikisource, blocked on 4 wikis, and then the rest are uh not so major edits. This seems to be a large-wiki problem where he's active in. Let the locals deal with him. Can I Log In (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposal 3: Enforce a one-account restriction to User:Slowking4 only, globally locking all other accounts and any new accounts creatededit
Per the persistent use of sockpuppets, I see no reason for communities to deal with them individually. Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I genuinely like slowking4 and find a lot of value in their contributions both past and present (on all projects), but I don't see a particular reason why their socks shouldn't be locked on sight. They aren't used for a particularly productive purpose in my view (despite a single sock of slowking4 having a better track record for article creation than I do on my main account). I think that if this proposal passes, that would make for an excellent path for them to be able to return to Wikidata and possibly other projects. I'm not persuaded by the fact that some projects allow articles from banned contributors made after their ban. If a local project wants to benefit from slowking4's ability to create quality articles, then they should keep them unblocked. In my opinion, this is an extraordinary circumstance where the global community should step in to sanction an editor in only the areas where they have proven to be disruptive. I find slowking4 to be a valuable asset in all the ventures they set out to help with, but I also think that their socking is a bad habit they need to learn to break if slowking ever hopes to be re-accepted into the communities they've been blocked from. That is the outcome (where slowking is eventually able to take the standard offer on enwiki, wikidata, and simplewiki) I think which would be best for all parties involved and most healthy for all communities affected. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per MJL. But I think they should still be able to have legitimate alt accounts if they genuinely have a reason to and they proactively inform stewards about it. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legitimate alt accounts here should IMO imply that the accounts aren't use abusively anywhere. What I mean by this is that AFAIK, in all projects using another account to get around a local block is forbidden with the except of those blocks for username and similar issues. (What happens to the content created by such editors may vary, but the fact the editor isn't supposed to be editing does not.) Therefore once the Slowking4 (or for that matter any of the alt accounts) receive a block, all editing from any legitimate alt accounts in that project needs to stop. Sure those accounts could be individually blocked in those projects, but this seems to be creating unnecessary additional work. And in addition can cause confusion and problems if those alternative accounts are not linked to each other for privacy reasons. So this exception applies under the assumption they are managing it and not creating additional work and confusion for others. If Slowking4 does start to to abuse legitimate alternative accounts, IMO they should lose that right. It does not matter if they informed stewards, have good reasons and those alternative accounts were never abusive in Wikisource (or whatever). I would allow that if Slowking4 feels they cannot manage it themselves, they could pre-emptively request their accounts are blocked in whatever local projects they receive a block since the amount of extra work here is small. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - any sockpuppet account used abusively by Slowking4 on any project should be locked. Communities he is new to may not be necessarily aware of the accounts, and he could easily abuse a small community that only has a few other contributors by using numerous accounts, as he has before. This should help ensure he can only edit from his own account or any legitimate alt account (which should preferably have a meta page explicitly stating it is his alt account, if there is one). --IWI (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, with PiRSquared17's caveat. We need a way to deal with this continuing block-evasion. --Yair rand (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per above and my previous comments. Global locks is not a policy, but a list of common practices by stewards. One common practice is that "Accounts that...obviously are...being disruptive on multiple wikis are candidates for a global lock." This seems to fit that bill. I see no reason why global policy would prevent us from asking/telling stewards to lock known sock puppets of Slowking4 when found by local communities. Wugapodes (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Should be only limited to where sockpuppetry has been a problem, which is English Wikipedia, Wikidata, Commons and Simple Wikipedia. Bidgee (Talk) 07:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bidgee: Do you mean only locking sockpuppets that have been misused on those wikis, or that the blocks should only happen on those wikis? --Yair rand (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I am saying is on the Wiki projects where he is currently blocked, he should be limited to a single account (Slowking4), if he continues to sock, the likely chance it could lead to a global block. Bidgee (Talk) 04:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose There is simply no way to compel, per my reasoning at #2. 1 account restrictions are typically done at local level, there is no established local / global policy here on meta to impose such restriction. Global locks aren't to be used in such situation either, this is usually done via global ban. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage:Global locks mentions that locks can be used against "long-term abuser sock accounts", which this definitely is. Strictly speaking, I think it would be within policy to implement this even without an RFC (though this probably wouldn't be a good idea). --Yair rand (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yair rand: No, this must mean that the original account is globally locked / banned and the socks are evading the global lock / ban. It is clearly not within policy to implement a lock on a sock account where the master is not globally locked/ banned. There is no mention of your quote in global lock, but then there is "Accounts that have been created to evade a global ban (community or foundation)." I hope we all have the proper understanding on global policies. Thanks much. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the lead, third sentence, it says "It is generally applied to vandalism-only accounts, spam-only accounts, long-term abuser sock accounts...", although this is not mentioned in the section titled "Reasons to request a global lock". --Yair rand (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yair rand: FWIW, this refer to crosswiki long term abusers who got their primary account locked / banned and their socks can be locked. Clearly Slowking may be LTA for one wiki, but let's be clear, he isn't locked and ban, which makes this not valid. Some examples of the long term abusers referred here are ISECHIKA and GRP etc. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support global ban, and global ban only, which means I oppose any options that is not "global ban". — regards, Revi 16:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Proposal is ambiguous. (don't make me explain) It also hasn't been demonstrated that this particular proposal would make any difference at all: does Slowking4 even re-use accounts on other projects after being blocked by one project? (that's a question, I don't know, and it's up to the proposer to provide evidence) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I do not see how this is vague. Any accounts that belong to the user in discussion other than User:Slowking4 are globally locked. As for reusing accounts, just from what I found, it appears Special:CentralAuth/Anklewaist was initially created to edit both English Wikipedia and Wikidata (which Slowking4 is blocked from). You can also see that Special:CentralAuth/Arcituno has edited from both English Wikipedia, Wikidata, and Commons, and is blocked from all of them as a sockpuppet individually. At the time, that was all the wikis he was blocked from on the main account, although he has since been blocked from Simple. And that is just what I found from the first few sockpuppets, there is probably more. Hope this sums up, let me know if any more concerns about this. Naleksuh (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naleksuh: I said don't make me explain.. Well, you've shown that at least in some cases Slowking4 will use an alternative account to circumvent blocks on more than one project. (though I can only support circumventing the Wikidata block as it's not Slowking4's fault that Wikidata policy is abusive) This kind of proposal can easily get interpreted in unforeseen ways. In particular the first part, which would be better omitted. "Enforce a one-account restriction" could be interpreted as a license to ban/block the main account if Slowking4 creates another alternative account. "globally locking all other accounts and any new accounts created" should be restricted to globally locking accounts that have been created to circumvent blocks that are supported by community consensus on the respective projects. But at any rate, chances are all of this would only increase the workload for stewards. As 4nn1l2 mentions below, it's questionable if complicated matters like these are a good fit for meta at all. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: By calling Wikidata's local policy abusive, you are calling the whole Wikidata community abusive. You can propose a change to the policy. The governing body of any project is community consensus, and the fact that you would endorse ignoring that is worrying, to say the least. Doing so goes against the behaviour expected of a Wikimedian. Most of us are able to follow the policies of each local project we edit and don't get banned from them (it's not that hard really), so I disagree that it is not Slowking4's fault for breaking the local policy of Wikidata. --IWI (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: And as you were suggested to do there, start an RfC about it. You complain about it as if it will not be changed. --IWI (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Since when Meta has started imposing surgical restrictions on users of other projects? Meta should only be trusted with acting in simple 0-1 (binary) scenarios. Any other subtleties and fuzzy decisions should be left with local communities. End of discussion. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please let me know if I missed any and I will notify right away Naleksuh (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I was told over IRC that I should post this on English Wikisource as well. Done for talk and comm. Naleksuh (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I myself had intended to start an RFC for a global ban of Slowking4 a while ago. Posting the draft I had written up before:
Slowking4 is a contributor with an extensive history of cross-wiki abuse, whose violations include behavioural issues, civility issues, copyright policy violations, and extensive sockpuppeting. Brief history:
After two blocks on the English Wikipedia, for "edit warring" and "systematic abuse of non-free content policy", the user was blocked indefinitely for "Continued systematic abuse of non-free content policy, plus repeated personal attacks". More details here. The user created over 100 confirmed sockpuppets. (See w:Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Slowking4.)
On Wikimedia Commons, the user was blocked for "Long-term pattern of personal insults, disrespect for the community, sockpuppetry, etc." (Summary of early issues here.) This was followed by block evasion by means of sockpuppets. The user refuses to accept the copyright policy, and used Commons to continue disputes from enwiki after being blocked there.
After each of these three blocks, the user evaded the blocks with more sockpuppets.
General: According to the user, they regularly attend in-person events, and are affiliated with Wikimedia DC. The user continues to edit on Meta, where they have edited using at least 8 socks, and where their editing has been characterized as "facilitat[ing] their socking on another project where they are community banned", "Most of the user's activity here is maintaining lists of "cancer" on other wiki-projects.", "A fair bit of his Meta contributions are aimed at trash-talking users/situations on other wikis." The user has used Meta to try to facilitate proxy contributions on Commons. The user is also active on the English Wikisource, where they have used at least two socks (User:Grantant, User:Duckduckstop).
A note: I have personally been in disputes with this editor, so my statement should not be taken as a neutral statement by an uninvolved party.
(I wrote this in mid-June, so it doesn't include anything more recent than that.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question.@Operator873 and Vermont: Why was Slowking4 even blocked on Simple English Wikipedia? I'm not seeing a discussion about it anywhere on wiki. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 07:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: They are blocked per simple:WP:ONESTRIKE policy where they are blocked in enwp for having created pages with notablity issues, then they continued this behaviour in simple wikipedia. Since there are editors warning him, and that didn't work, the policy state that such users can be blocked without further warnings or discussions. It is a valid block and can be given by any admin. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes and additionally for being uncivil towards other editors who attempted to explain the notability policy to him. --IWI (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: I applied Slowking4's block on the Simple English Wikipedia for consistently creating bad articles, being disruptive, and being unkind towards other editors. This was after many months of trying to foster a positive presence from them. The community at SEWP tries to be welcoming of all editors from other projects, including those who are blocked on other projects. However, hostility and uncivil/unkind interactions with other editors will always be disallowed. As IWI mentioned, SEWP has the ONESTRIKE policy which applies to those blocked on other projects and allows for a block to be placed on SEWP with no warning. Yet even ONESTRIKE blocks aren't coffin nails. In the section I created on their talk page, I even specifically said I was willing to remove the block should Slowking4 be willing to commit to being respectful of their fellow editors and observe the notability requirements on SEWP. Their response was to make repetitive threats to specific individuals to have media organizations harass them. So, unfortunately, we can no longer engage in that conversation and, while I do not speak for all sysops on SEWP, I do not believe there is any path towards unblocking on SEWP, at this time. Operator873talkconnect 16:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lots of people are basing their participation around this central theme, and we've already escalated to major unhappiness, so let's discuss it.
What should be our position where a user is problematic on multiple (indeeed, 4) projects, but has a project where they are viewed as a significant positive? Should that project be obliged to lose the editor as part of "the greater good"? Or does that same reasoning apply that other projects should instead, rather inefficiently, use local blocks, so as not to lose their benefit?
I'm not yet sure of my ultimate viewpoint on the ones above, but I do feel that opposes on these grounds are by no means baseless and warrant disregarding, but that their weight and reasoning could well be disputed. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My view should be that they should receive a warning at theior one "good" project that if they want to continue contributing to WMF projects, they must restrict themselves to projects from which they are not blocked or banned, and must refrain from unconstructive behaviour of the type that led to any blocks or bans, and then if there is no recurrence after 6 months we move on, but if there is, we show them the door. JzG (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might want to move this to Wikimedia Forum as this isn't based on this ban alone, and they have 2 viable projects (idwp, enWS). I am also thinking about this issue is relevant in the recent failed Eric abiog global ban where they are banned / blocked in more than 4 projects but seems to have a few viable ones. Therefore, I feel it will be best this is discussed on a more centralized platform. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A more extreme case is Special:CentralAuth/Japan Football - the user's edit was accepted in some wikis but a steward lock the account based on abuse of many others without community discussion. This also indicate the deficiency of global lock (when should global lock be used?).--GZWDer (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will say that judging from this, all someone has to do to circumvent a global ban and thus abuse any project they want is simply behave on one. As I said, nobody should be given free rein to simply continue socking, threatening people and acting uncivil throughout WMF purely because they have decided to behave on one. If Slowking4 really wants to continue contributing to the projects he seems to "like" then he really shouldn’t decide to create over 100 sock accounts to deceive users on at least three projects. In my eyes, someone who does so should be globally banned; they know what they are doing is wrong and yet are still continuing to sockpuppet. --IWI (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A global ban only comes after they've been blocked on several projects, and there's only so many projects a person can reasonably contribute to. I don't see how the global ban affects socking at all, as a practical matter. Note also that "circumvent" implies malicious intent, and I'm pretty sure Slowking4 is not working on Wikisource in order to abuse other projects. And try approaching from the perspective of Wikisource people; we want to keep a useful contributor. We're not arguing for Slowking4; we're arguing for the project.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Sockpuppets of globally banned users can be globally locked, rather than requiring each project individually deal with every new sock. --Yair rand (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nosebagbear: No, there isn't a formal way to do that in the software, but you could propose it as a policy. (i.e. tell him he may not edit any project except Wikisource, and if he violates it we put him on SRG). Would you want to propose this here? Naleksuh (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naleksuh:, I've never proposed a meta policy before, so I don't feel adroit to do so, but it would be worth to see that discussion more broadly than on one case. Thus far I haven't even made up my own view on it (though your idea absolutely has merit), so I wouldn't want to propose it in any case, yet. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Global bans should be reserved for users whose conduct threatens the Wikimedia movement or the safety of its volunteers. Where a disruptive user show they can contribute positively on one project, and their disruption on other projects does not seriously threaten the movement or its volunteers, we should prefer local blocks as needed. Wugapodes (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment@Nosebagbear: The point of a global ban is to stop the actions of a irredeemable editor, not just someone who meets a minimum set of criteria. There used to be a single policy, though we have evolved to a community and a WMF-based. Either way the principle and reasons for bans should be the same, though their processes will differ. Of course the WMF policy evolves better than the glacial community policy. In fact, I would suggest that this policy will only change as a result of an RFC like this one. It may be that this RFC looks to propose a transactional or transformational change to the policy. Reading your general words in this section would indicate a transactional change where the community could set up a global ban on sets of Sister wikis, or exclude based on set(s) of sister wikis.
Alternatively, and I think that the easiest process would be for the community could simply have an RFC that limits Slowking4 to that single account, and state that all others will be locked on site. As the primary account is easy to manage and already managed at 4 wikis, it then means the Wikisources are happy, and the other wikis are manageable. — billinghurstsDrewth 02:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with all of this. I think this exposes a gap in the tools we have to handle global disruption. I think allowing stewards to globally lock the socks is a good idea, and something we should just generally encourage. A one account restriction, or even a one wiki restriction seem like they strike the best balance between helping English Wikisource and preventing harm to other projects. On English Wikipedia we have en:w:Project:Topic bans which the community can impose on editors who are really productive in one area but cannot contribute constructively in another. It seems like a similar tool would be useful for global disruption, and especially for cases like this. Wugapodes (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to this (excluding the aside about the merits of WMF policy vs community's). --Yair rand (talk) 05:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wugapodes: Not to disrespect, but it really isn't "something local blocks and administration can handle". If he was indeffed on only one or two projects that would be one thing, but this is global, spanning across many projects. Just the edits on Wikisource alone are not enough to say this is not a global issue. In addition, he has multiple confirmed sockpuppets on Wikisource so it's not like that is perfect either Naleksuh (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Naleksuh: CITATION NEEDED. This is ABOMINABLE. Where is your evidence of problematic editing by alternate accounts at Wikisources? If you continue to spread such unproven things, then I will move a request to have you blocked from further editing this RFC.
To my knowledge, none of the Wikisources have made complaints or requests for checkuser checks for sock editing of Slowking4. The last elected checkuser for any of the WSes was me and I never ran that check, was requested to run that check nor had a requirement for that check. There is no request at Meta for such a check to be made at any of the WSes. I am unaware of any complaints about editing of Slowking4 alternate accounts or to that point any commentary at all about whether it has even been attempted. So, please stop prosecuting a case, your factual inaccuracies are problematic. — billinghurstsDrewth 01:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As another user in this thread pointed out, User:Grantant and User:Duckduckstop are both checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of Slowking4, and both of them have edited on English Wikisource. I actually referenced that this was not my own claim in the addendum, but I have since verified it. Naleksuh (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recognise the value of Slowking4, I recognise the value of their material. I have, directly to him, and through other channels, told them that, and have suggested to go back to their main account. He has summarily refused. I understand his insistence in wanting to be allowed to use fair-use material wherever they want, I understand his insistence in wanting to be allowed to copy material however he wants if it is under a free license. It is however not how MediaWiki works.
Slowking4 is globally restricted to only one account. Any identified sockpuppet accounts will be globally locked and material created in violation of this ban may be summarily deleted/reverted.
This should give a pathway to Slowking4 to come back to constructive editing on en.wikipedia, Commons, WikiData and Simple. It also allows editing on, e.g. WikiSource. However, this also allows global checkusers to check for accounts when accounts get identified on Wikis where they are not blocked. --Dirk BeetstraTC (en: U, T) 06:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am neutral for a global ban, but I will specifically oppose the proposal above, for:
We does not have any mechanism to enforce a global sanction.
"material created in violation of this ban may be summarily deleted/reverted" - in some wikis (such as Chinese Wikipedia), contributions by blocked users are not deleted or reverted at all if they are themselves acceptable as if they are made by a normal user.
This is indeed also the case on the Simple English Wikipedia, where we do not delete articles purely because they were created by a banned or blocked user. --IWI (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beetstra: What is the difference between this and proposal 3? Might it be better to simply add support to that instead? Naleksuh (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference is BANREVERT which is only policy in some wikis.--GZWDer (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but very similar. I'm not sure if the question of whether or not to revert stuff by global bans is a local decision. For local bans it definitely is. For global bans, it could go either way. Naleksuh (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Naleksuh As noted above in this thread, it 'edit conflicted' with your changes to the proposal (and addition of the proposals). And I am not !voting, just giving an idea and interested in the responses. --Dirk BeetstraTC (en: U, T) 08:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aron Manning: No, I do not think there is a legal threat anywhere in there. I was told by another editor that the diff contained a legal threat. I asked them what the legal threat was and was told that threatening to contact the press is "basically a legal threat". I accepted this instead of saying it was not a legal threat. I admit this is my bad and I need to be careful to speak for myself only in the future. This is the first RfC on meta I have created and I have certainly made more than zero mistakes while doing so. However, I am not saying that what was said there is civil or acceptable, simply that "legal threat" was a misnomer. Naleksuh (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I chose to remove from the lead as the key points were mentioncally generally instead of specifically. Thanks for the kind advice Naleksuh (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Naleksuh: I will appreciate if it's a strike through as per typically discussion page norms, as some of the opposers say there isn't NLT, so it's hard for later people to follow. Thanks for removing that NLT statement which is clearly not the case. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that it's clear that the original proposal is not likely to pass, two more proposals have been added. These have not been announced on affected wikis, so people who saw the original announcement and commented will not see that the nominator is now trying to apply double triple jeopardy. Further, on some wikis, the original proposal was announced on administrators' noticeboards, not on the main community noticeboards. Finally, the nominator's reliance on multiple unsubstantiated allegations ("I have heard from another person", indeed!) renders their account unreliable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your input. I had said that if anyone had problems with the way I notified the community to let me know. I see you are trying to get it closed instead. The RfC will be closed once consensus has been reached, which it has not (particularly with proposal 3). Naleksuh (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly support this proposal. The original proposal is now so different from the current proposal that those who made their comments immediately after it was begun would need to make new comments in response to the new material. In addition, the conduct of Naleksuh, both on this page and at other places, has tainted the discussion and prevented the making of legitimate decisions based on the evidence, as the evidence he has provided is faulty at best, and inaccurate in a number of places, as has been elsewhere shown. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
This is not a proposal, and not something supported or opposed. In addition, no proposals have actually changed, only two new ones added. Naleksuh (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page was originally at "Global ban for Slowking4," and the message you sent to other pages regarding this discussion carried that name. Now, the current proposal is in three parts, and bears little resemblance to the proposal as it existed when you sent out the messages. Some slight modifications might be allowed, or proposals set forth as a solution to a problem stated, but neither of those has occurred here. The more salient concern is the support which was based on your faulty proposal, which you have in no wise addressed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
[P]roposals set forth as a solution to a problem stated is what is going on here. Both proposal 2 and 3 were based on concerns to 1. I might be willing to edit the notices to make it more clear it is more than just a global ban. Naleksuh (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixing quote. This is an example of a problem being presented, and solutions being asked for. The original notice for this, if it were relevant to a specific editor, would note the problem (concerning behaviour) but not any solution (global ban). This page originally focused on the solution, and the proposal which leads this page serves as a justification for the solution, rather than a statement of the problem. The messages you originally sent out regarding this proposal declared the discussion to be about your proposed solution, which does not address the current state of this page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I guess this page could live on as a discussion (Meta:Snowball is specifically not policy here), but as a proposal it should be closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why should it be closed? Discussion and proposal results are still ongoing? Snowball does not apply when dozens of editors including stewards are in the support section. Naleksuh (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Je pense que cette procédure devrait être close, je suis revenu ici par hasard, et si on change les modalités du vote tous les jours, on ne peut pas s'y retrouver. C'est devenu n'importe quoi, je reste opposé aux blocage globale (ce qui était l'objet de cette page) pour le reste aucune communauté n'a été avertit donc elle n'existe que dans l'esprit du proposant. --Le ciel est par dessus le toit (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Lightly edited machine translation, feel free to improve] I think this should be procedurally closed. I came back here by chance, and if we change the voting methods every day, we cannot find our way around. It has become nonsense, I remain opposed to global blocking (which was the subject of this page) for the rest no community has been warned so it only exists in the mind of the proposer.
The writing's on the wall, but for good reasons we don't do early closures on meta. The side discussions are still productive, and the OP concern can easily be resolved by adding a comment to the previous notifications. I think we should continue to allow comments until the advertised deadline, but make clear that this has largely become a meta-discussion on how to handle editors productive on one project but otherwise disruptive. Wugapodes (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]