Requests for comment/Global ban for 1Goldberg2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit Newer edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:33, 21 November 2021

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Statement

Statement by Mrakia

1Goldberg2 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) (socks)

This is a request to ban 1Goldberg2 globally to prevent him from disrupting Wikimedia projects.

This user and his socks are indefinitely blocked in seven wikis:

Dutch Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Wutsje. Reason: “ Ingelogde vandaal: LTA/cross wiki vandalism, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:CentraalAanmelden/1Goldberg2 ”.
English Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Kuru. Reason: “Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: @ Greta Thunberg, edit warring to continue severe attacks on minor, claims it was not a mistake”.
German Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Itti. Reason: “Unsinnige Bearbeitungen Wikipedia:Vandalismus” (Nonsensical edits Wikipedia:Vandalism).
Portuguese Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Chronus. Reason: “Conta criada para vandalizar” (Registered account used only to vandalise).
Russian Wikipedia. Indefinite partial block (page: Greta Thunberg, namespaces: Talk, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk, MediaWiki, MediaWiki talk, Portal, Portal talk, Incubator, Incubator talk, Project, Project talk, Arbitration, Arbitration talk), 87 blocks in a block log. Common reasons: gross incivility, rudeness, insults, personal attacks (ВП:ЭП & ВП:НО), vandalism (ВП:ВАНД), violations of topic ban (ВП:ТБ).
Spanish Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Marcelo. Reason: “Cuenta creada para vandalizar” (Registered account used only to vandalise).
Swedish Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Ternarius. Reason: “Vandalkonto som används för att klottra i halvlåst artikel” (Vandalism-only account used to vandalise semi-protected article).

Since the beginning of 2010, the user has been using multiple accounts to evade blocks, avoid sanctions, disrupt, mislead and deceive other editors. See socks. The last sockpuppet was temporary blocked for incivility (personal attack on a queer woman) by Helgo13 on 9 February 2021. And then, after a few hours, reblocked indefinitely for violation of an active topic ban. – Mrakia 02:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

The participant's mentors were repeatedly criticized for failing to control his destructive activities, which continue even now. Since it is now clear that mentoring is ineffective, and has in itself a negative effect on the atmosphere in Russian-language Wikipedia, I think it is necessary to support the blocking. The account locks on the other language wikis also indicate this. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 1Goldberg2's comment below is already a reason enough to contact Trust & Safety about a violation of the Universal Code of Conduct, it seems now. I've never seen people shooting themselves in the leg that outright in the public. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It’s not the first time user attacks me on the basis of sex/gender. Moreover, it is worth noting that Biathlon just blocked 1Goldberg2 for 3 days for gender discrimination – misgendering and mispronouning me. – Mrakia 16:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although that is true that the user can create some useful content, the main reason for keeping them in ru.wiki is not this content (tolerable but not especially significant). The main reason is that if being blocked they immediately come back from a new account or anonymously. I don't think this way of treating a user with highly problematic behaviour is correct. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Based on the blocks on five wikis for vandalism. However, I'd have suggested a global lock in this case, but the other two blocks on ru and enwiki makes me think that ban is a better route to go. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The strongest support ever possible, for the reasons stated above. Роман Беккер (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am supporting this. The user has done much harm to Wikimedia projects, including Russian Wikipedia, but they are too afraid of him to put a stop to this harm. The most egregious problems of behaviour include multiple cases of abuse directed towards BLPs, the same towards other editors and vandalism across multiple projects. Someone has to say ‘enough’ to this. stjn^[ru] 19:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The participant is voluntarily monitored in a special mode by several administrators and promptly eliminates his antics. They do this because he generates a lot of content (articles) for RU Wikipedia. Since this is the main purpose of Wikipedia - content creation - I would like to support their efforts. I see these constant requests as personal settling of scores over differing views on certain aspects of gender identity. -- NoFrost (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number one -- there is NO significant "content creation" by this user. He generates something like low-quality stubs, which other users (including his "mentors") then have to improve a lot to just keep them there. Number two -- NO amount of "content creation" can be seen as an indulgence for such an unacceptable behavior. The Jimbo personally stated many times that users which regularly annoy or harass others need to be excluded from being there, no matter what content of which quality do they bring there. Number three -- the problems with this user arise NOT from some political or ideological differences regarding LGBT issues, but from his SEVERELY disruptive and TOTALLY unacceptable behavior. Number five -- I am not surprized by your vote in support of 1Goldberg2, because... Guess what I could say -- but what I'd better refrain from saying, as we're discussing 1Goldberg2's behavior, mode of operation and views -- not yours. Роман Беккер (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Real reason of this attempt to block me is not violationes of rules (exaggerated), but political persecution by a small group of leftists. But I must agree that I had problems with being rude with some users years ago. Now my main activity is in RuWiki. I translate articles about birds and ornitologists from English to Russian. As far as I remember, I am in 100 of most productive users of RuWiki.--1Goldberg2 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Making comments like "political persecution by a small group of leftists" is a very serious accusation to make. Personal attacks towards anyone is not welcome. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This group exists. They discuss their activities in Discord chat. If speak Russian you can find traces of scandal in RuWiki--1Goldberg2 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And your comments like this also don't convince me either. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I still agree with every word of that comment, can you imagine?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The request for a global ban is not due to violation of the rules as such, but to personal hostility and political convictions. Nebydlogop (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like you want to discuss & blame the victim rather than the cross-wiki abuser. – Mrakia 18:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has nothing to do with his political views (and I don't bother about what these views really are), but it has to do with VERY SERIOUS, REPEATED, cross-wiki violations of every basic rule of human interactions you can even imagine, and also violations of Universal Code of Conduct and the site's Terms of Use. This is NOT acceptable. Period. Роман Беккер (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that for some time you pretended to be a doctor, without having the right to do so? How many times have you been blocked?--1Goldberg2 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user is mainly active in Russian wiki, where his excursions from the rules are reviewed and local blocks are installed as needed (for example, now he is blocked for 3 days for misgendering). His last edits in other wikis are more than a year old. This user has some unpopular views and sometimes acts by them. We as a policy don't persecute users for their views and his actions are monitored and reversed as needed. No global ban is required in this case. Sir Shurf (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we know how you act about this user. And a good part of active users in ru.wiki are tired of this everlasting circus. Serial offenders must be eliminated from Wikipedia. We are not in so desperate need for low-fi small articles to tolerate this disgrace for years. Andrei Romanenko (talk)
Could you please not generalize your opinion with an unlimited number of users - "we"/" good part of active users", but express exactly your own? "good part of active users" - it is a myth NoFrost (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes we also know that you, dear Sir Shurf, didn't hesitate to try to impose an indefinite partial block on me (an open gay) for criticizing YOUR OWN ACTIONS and led-by-you-Arbcom-ruling #1144, which posed two severely non-neutral, anti-LGBT-biased persons to be... MEDIATORS in LGBT conflict mediation. At the same time we regularly see you to maximally strongly defend a transphobic person 1Goldberg2 for his actions. Doesn't it seem strange? ;) It does. And your bias surely need to be taken into consideration when any steward will summarize the current discussion and will weigh our arguments vs your arguments. Роман Беккер (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colleague writes zoological articles in Wikipedia in Russian; Wikipedia exists with the purpose that more and more articles to be written in it, is not it? Oh yes, he is a highly emotional person, and it creates problems sometimes; but any person is more or less emotional, is not it? One more interesting fact: about two weeks ago his partial block was disappeared because of a technical error, and the colleague himself reported that technical error and asked to reblock him; I think this fact says about his fairness, is not it? Gamliel Fishkin 20:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very interesting to see your argument in support of 1Goldberg2 to be like that -- "of course he's very emotional person, but any person is more or less emotional", heheheh. And why didn't I hear exactly this same argument from you at the time when Sir Shurf tried to INDEFINITELY block me for (SOMEWHAT) emotionally criticizing HIS OWN ACTIONS? Are there some double standards in operation? ;-) And also... The problem is NOT with "his emotionality", but with his continued misconduct and misbehavior, with his systematic breaking of rules. Роман Беккер (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being blocked in several wikis while writing a lot of articles that are helpful to an other Wikipedia is not a reason for a global lock. SummerKrut (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This young Wikipedian is under my mentorship. And I personally, as his mentor, explicitly stated to him that I don't allow nor recommend him to conduct too much metapedic activity, especially in the context of complex, long-standing, conflicts which he does not fully understand. So his vote there should not qualify. Роман Беккер (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Mrakia 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the three criteria. Please, read the official global policies. “Criteria for global bans: The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These blocks or bans must be based on the user’s local disruptive behavior, and do not include protective blocks such as preemptive blocks on user without local edits, and blocks based on account security issue or problematic username.” – Mrakia 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria №1 of global bans requires "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam". Of his 5 current indefblocks, ptwiki, dewiki, eswiki, nlwiki and svwiki banned him for vandalism. All indef blocks (incl. enwiki) are given either on 26.01.2019 or 14.03.2020, so it is merely two episodes last of which was a year and a half ago, if we look on cross-wiki behavior specifically. At the current moment, any problematic behavior only affects ruwiki where the user has several mentors (1 sysop and current arbitrator and 2 bureaucrats of ruwiki) who oversee him constantly. Given all this, the request looks like an attempt to locally ban annoying user bypassing local procedures (perhaps, inspired by 2 recent office actions in ruwiki), as the nominator is likely aware that local ruwiki procedure is yet unlikely to yield favorable result. Adamant.pwn (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

The reason why the user is not blocked in ruwiki is that he is very stubborn and is ready to search for unblocked proxies for half an hour or more in order to bypass the blocks. After he finds such a proxy it becomes unclear from which account or address he participates and it is becomes hard to control his contribution (problems with which remain the same for years — locks in other language Wikipedia sections confirm this).
I'm sure user will quickly find a workaround if a global block is applied to him. Purely formally, of course, it would be worthwhile to apply such measures as global block to the user. But I'm not sure of the practical benefits, especially considering that the Foundation is going to make it difficult to see the IP addresses. Carn (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add to what Carn said. This is exactly the case. --Хедин (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As there are some objections in ruwiki community the motion has to pass RuArbCom before being filed here.--Abiyoyo (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to your comment about this: At this moment, after so much time, it's pretty much obvious that the RuWiki community is incapable of solving the issue on hand, so it does not deserve any "autonomy" at this moment. This issue must be solved now, and not swept under the rug. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ArbCom is overwhelmed now. And has about 15 still unsolved cases. Do you want to bring more job to our poor arbiters? Why are you so cruel on them? :) Роман Беккер (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm the Evil Lord, why else? If the local procedure is incapable of dealing with clearly local issues, it has to be enhanced. If the community is broken, fixing it is more important than blocking one user. If requests here are that easy why bother arranging things locally?--Abiyoyo (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that fixing non-working local mechanisms can take months or years of continued effort of many benevolent people wanting to fix these together. While the problem with, say, this user or, say, former administrator, mediator and Arbcom member A.Vajrapani and her indecent behavior are needed to be taken care of IM-ME-DI-A-TE-LY and AP-PRO-PRI-A-TE-LY to the severity of their violations of rules and their general indecency and rudeness. Роман Беккер (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, and no, this is CLEARLY NOT a local issue of ru-wiki, as this user is a well-known cross-wiki vandal, indefinitely blocked at maaany wikis. Роман Беккер (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not quite right. This user meets three general criteria of global ban, so it’s not a local issue anymore. 1Goldberg2 is currently indefinitely blocked in 7 wikis (req. 2 or more), and continues to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think, he presents a danger to all wiki communities. Consensus for a global ban should be conducted through Meta GRFC, no other way. – Mrakia 22:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The request repeats a previous global lock request (not done “as this needs to be handled by a global ban request” – AmandaNP). I was not aware of the difference between “lock”, “block” and “ban” back then. Since my previous request, 1Goldberg2 got blocked 16 times (10 cases of topic ban violations, 2 cases of vandalism/removing encyclopaedic content, 4 – other). The user demonstrates irredeemable patterns of incorrigible behaviour, but mentors keep acting like everything’s normal. Mentors are not advocates, it just has to stop. – Mrakia 00:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve announced this RfC in Russian Wikipedia. The user has been notified (@mentioned). – Mrakia 01:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make a few clarifications. 1. I am not a vandal and I do not like vandals. My actions are aimed at writing articles, not spoiling them. 2. I am not homophobic or transphobic. I am against the violation of LGBT rights in Russia, and my disagreements with trans-activists concern the rules for using the Russian language and other lesser issues. For example, sport concerns. 3. I am skeptical about global warming, but at the same time it was me who wrote the article about Greta Thunberg in Russian Wikipedia. 4. Unfortunately, I am an alcoholic.--1Goldberg2 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 * The request repeats a [[Steward requests/Global/2021-05#Global lock for 1Goldberg2|previous global lock request]] (not done “as this needs to be handled by a global ban request” – [[User:AmandaNP|AmandaNP]]). I was not aware of the difference between “lock”, “block” and “ban” back then. Since my previous request, 1Goldberg2 got blocked [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Служебная:Журналы?type=block&page=User:1Goldberg2 16 times] (10 cases of topic ban violations, 2 cases of vandalism/removing encyclopaedic content, 4 – other). The user demonstrates irredeemable patterns of incorrigible behaviour, but mentors keep acting like everything’s normal. Mentors are not advocates, it just has to stop. – [[User:Mrakia|<span style="text-decoration: inherit; color: #cf6ba9;">Mrakia</span>]] 00:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve [https://ru.wikipedia.org/?diff=117985395 announced] this RfC in Russian Wikipedia. The user has been notified (@mentioned). – [[User:Mrakia|<span style="text-decoration: inherit; color: #cf6ba9;">Mrakia</span>]] 01:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
+* I would like to make a few clarifications. 1. I am not a vandal and I do not like vandals. My actions are aimed at writing articles, not spoiling them. 2. I am not homophobic or transphobic. I am against the violation of LGBT rights in Russia, and my disagreements with trans-activists concern the rules for using the Russian language and other lesser issues. For example, sport concerns. 3. I am skeptical about global warming, but at the same time it was me who wrote the article about Greta Thunberg in Russian Wikipedia. 4. Unfortunately, I am an alcoholic.--[[User:1Goldberg2|1Goldberg2]] ([[User talk:1Goldberg2|talk]]) 01:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)