Talk:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2)

Proposed exception to ban

@Seawolf35: Would you be amenable to a global ban with an exception for edits to Wikisource projects? I can already foresee the current discussion ending with "no consensus to ban", and I feel like this addendum would get the ban proposal a lot more support, and would make more sense IMO given the situation. (I hope that Meta Wiki isn't so bureaucratic that such a thing wouldn't be allowed.) SnowyCinema (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema I would be amenable to a version of that. My proposal would be something around the lines of they are banned from all projects but Wikisource projects and their main acccount is locked if they are found to have violated the ban. This would be through the use of sockpuppets as well. I do fear people would point to the perceived lack of technical measures to enforce this. Meta is quite bureaucratic as well. Seawolf35 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the openness to consider this. But I should say that unfortunately, to be realistic, I would wager that SK4 (or any prolifically bad-faith actor) is unlikely to stop creating these socks, even after being banned, if he's been doing it consistently for 10 years. Clearly he doesn't care about the consequences, because he's seen at least two global ban discussions for him and been blocked on many projects. So I'm afraid the result of that debate would be the same—he'd end up globally banned on every project very quickly, because he'd fail to comply with the "deal". Maybe he'd pleasantly surprise me, but if I were asked to bet on it, that would be where my two cents goes given what I know. So at that point, we might as well just globally ban him from all WMF sites point-blank, which I'd still be opposed to for the practical reasons that I laid out in this discussion earlier. A complicated issue, huh? :( SnowyCinema (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema Honestly, if this RFC fails, it is getting to the point of WMF intervention. Seawolf35 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You would be asking the Wikimedia Foundation to decide that the faction of the community you are in is right and the other faction (which I am in) is wrong. What incentive would they have to do that, and why do you think them doing so would accomplish anything other than inciting a user revolt? * Pppery * _{it has begun} 14:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery One of the criteria of WMFBAN is “all possible community-led efforts to address the situation have been attempted and seem to have failed”. If this proposal fails as the last RFC did, and they continue to sock and abuse cross-wiki then I would argue that falls under the Foundation Ban criteria. Seawolf35 (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point, but that's just w:WP:OTHERPARENT. It still doesn't answer the moral question of why it would be right for them to decide the very same evidence the community has decided does not warrant a ban actually does - it clearly isn't IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So... consensus is to ban Slowking4 from every project except Wikisource?

Just checking. (I know I got indeffed on English, but I want to close). Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No. That exact proposal had no consensus in 2020, and I wouldn't support it either even now, as it's a special restriction without any evidence of a problem it would solve. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC

what is please RFC? —-Nordlicht3 (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation for Request for comment. - Squasher (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A very bad case

This is a very bad case for following RFC discussion regarding global ban. It's generally trusted believed that someone in this discussion has engaged in unchecked sockpuppetry and someone from global community declined checkuser request, making it an unsolvable matter for the following years. e.g. CCF case or Kubura case. As rampant threat from Slowking4 is still on this page, and the consensus is not enforcing a global ban, this will be the excrement feed to the U4C.
This will become a bad example for following request, and some defendants may get the way that slowking4 circumventing the bans. May god with those who made this decision which saved Barabbas and killed Jesus. Lemonaka (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad, though I agree that this case highlights some significant flaws in the global bans process and I'm really not happy with the tolerance of obviously bad faith/disruptive behaviour. If the U4C does not seem capable/able to handle these cases well once implemented, I would like to see some changes to the RfC process for global bans (and for other wiki arbitration/systemic failure cases) that requires some sort of burden to be met before opening a case (a steward making a determination of a reasonable possibility that the proposed sanction could be agreed upon and implemented, for example), and some changes to prevent the discussion from becoming an endless back and forth, largely between users who are indef blocked on other projects and end up taking up a lot of space here. Anyway, still workshopping... – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

During the global ban discussion, the defendant sides was collaborated well. Some tried to use puppets to confuse the participants, some tried to intentionally misinterpreted others' words, disrupting all the discussion and angered others. While Slowking4 threated others with off-line identity, and calling that "do not ban me or get ready to face local news". I really felt tired since this case was closed with a vaguely powerlessly "no consensus".
The corruption of the current global ban discussion system has showed its tip of iceberg due to this case. And something more may be showed from further ones. Taking it easy, just wait and see. Lemonaka (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

oh, BTW, you may have a try for ARBCOM discussion from English Wikipedia, put some restrictions on the number of the words, only allow comments on one's own paragraph, this will improve current system a lot. Lemonaka (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)