Requests for comment/Global ban for 1Goldberg2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment has been resolved by enacting a global ban.


Statement by Mrakia[edit]

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:

  1. Dutch Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Wutsje. Reason: “ Ingelogde vandaal: LTA/cross wiki vandalism, see ”.
  2. 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”.
  3. German Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Itti. Reason: “Unsinnige Bearbeitungen Wikipedia:Vandalismus” (Nonsensical edits Wikipedia:Vandalism).
  4. Portuguese Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Chronus. Reason: “Conta criada para vandalizar” (Registered account used only to vandalise).
  5. 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). The primary account has been blocked 88 times (the previous primary account: 21 blocks + more than 35 indefinitely blocked sockpuppets). Common reasons: gross incivility, rudeness, insults, personal attacks (ВП:ЭП & ВП:НО), vandalism (ВП:ВАНД), violations of topic ban (ВП:ТБ).
  6. Spanish Wikipedia. Indefinitely blocked by Marcelo. Reason: “Cuenta creada para vandalizar” (Registered account used only to vandalise).
  7. 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 22:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. Terms of Use violations[edit]

Here is an additional analysis of 1Goldberg2’s incorrigible behaviour problems and cases of ToU violations. (It’s Mrakia, my account has been renamed).

One day I wrote a few messages on the WP:DYK talk page in support of the Delaware state senator, human right activist Sarah McBride (she’s a trans woman). On 9 February 2021 I received a highly offensive and discriminatory message from unknown user Хомяк1520 (a sock of 1Goldberg2). It is important to note, I didn’t know nothing about 1Goldberg2 until that day. That’s when he started harassment activity against me, including violation of privacy, fantasies and deliberate false statements (sexual in nature) for the purpose of defamation. It’s definitely a violation of the Terms of use.

Now I can only echo the Anita Sarkeesian’s words: “Harassment is the background radiation of my life, it is a factor in every decision I make. Any time I tweet something, or make a post, I’m always thinking about it. It affects where I go, and how I behave, and how I feel walking down the street every day.” (Bloomberg Businessweek)

As a psychiatrist (postgraduate), I note that 1Goldberg2 shows a stable pattern of online dissocial behaviour: impulsivity, reactive verbal aggression (count his blocks for incivility and NPA), callous-unemotional personal traits (i.e., empathy deficit, lack of guilt, lack of anxiety), and disregard for safety of other volunteers. He have no remorse or guilt when fellow editors are emotionally harmed by his actions. I believe there will be more victims of abuse if we don’t stop him now.

1Goldberg2 has told us about his alcoholism. Indeed, the chronic alcohol use disorder may be related to dissocial traits, callousness, and impulsive aggression. But that’s not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. Voluntary intoxication is not a defence in itself even in the legal theory. The intoxication may be a circumstance aggravating punishment per curiam.

On “the Left”.
The user wrote a conspiracy theory about “political persecution by a small group of leftists” (the “cultural Marxists” or who?). It perfectly demonstrates his failure to accept responsibility for own actions. As required by the global ban policy, the user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems. Unfortunately, he is incapable of modifying behaviour in response to blame and even hundred of blocks. The global ban will save the day.

On the “encyclopedic content”.
Personally, I believe dignity and safety of volunteers in our movement are much more important, than those stubs. We don’t need no harassment, cissexism, heterosexism, misogyny, violence, threats and other socially destructive forms of behaviour.

In addition, we see the urgency and the opportunity to do more to address the needs of the LGBT+ User Group and others. The Foundation’s Community Resilience & Sustainability function will be connecting more closely with the LGBT+ User Group going forward to ensure that the Foundation’s staff better understand the needs of this community, especially but not solely in our professional Trust & Safety work. — Community Resilience and Sustainability/2020 December Foundation commitment of support for LGBT+ volunteers

User:Mdennis (WMF).
I hope the Trust & Safety and Human Rights Team will research this RfC. 1Goldberg2 is not the only one with the problematic behaviour here.

As Geraldine Ferraro said, “we’ve chosen the path to equality, don’t let them turn us around.” Xena the Rebel Girl (talk♡) 06:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. 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]
  2. Although that is true that the user can create some useful content, the main reason for keeping them in 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]
  3. Support 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]
  4. Support Support The strongest support ever possible, for the reasons stated above. Роман Беккер (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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]
  6. Support Support The history of persistent use of sockpuppets (list at least 35 detected and blocked sock accounts) which are used in bad faith and to attack others and the evidence of in this request of "my disagreements with trans-activists" in order to marginalise objectors to bad faith personal attacks as "activists" rather than fellow volunteers who happen to be LGBTQ, shows a past and present cross-wiki threat to the projects. The claims of "[all complaints are] political persecution by a small group of leftists", "I am not a vandal", "I am not homophobic or transphobic", "I am an alcoholic" and the objections to a global ban that there is some sort of ineffective mentoring on the Russian Wikipedia does not balance the cross-wiki harm and distress this user is causing. It is clear that Russian Wikipedia's local policies have failed, this global process is necessary to limit the cross-wiki harm done. Volunteers on Wikimedia projects have a right to feel they can contribute without harassment and personal attacks, the years of evidence is overwhelming. --Scuto (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Goldberg in ru-wiki is also an exceptional phenomenon. He would have been banned forever a long time ago, but he is a very fruitful author. The whole of Russia is drinking, but Goldberg at least admits it.--Xedin (?!) 11:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support Per nom, Scuto and others above. Comments here directed at the nominator and at others should themselves be enough for censure. It is not up to ineffective processes on ruwiki to determine whether or not a user should be globally banned, when even their behaviour in this discussion is reprehensible. Let alone that several participants here from ruwiki seem happy to minimise the users problematic LGBTQ-phobic behaviour. And a user's alcoholism is no excuse for their behaviour, offline or online. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 15:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support Per nom, Scuto, OwenBlacker and others above. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cross wiki vandalism is not tolerated. — Ailbeve (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support engaging in conduct that isn't welcome here. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Cross-Wiki Vandalisem and NPOV-pushing. 16:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support Enough is enough. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support To prevent further damage to the various projects. --RacoonyRE Message meContributions 17:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support The violations of BLP policy on en:wp were ugly and persistent, going well beyond casual vandalism, and this editor was unrepentent. It is clear that this person has disrupted many projects. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support abusing the projects to harass public person who was a minor at the time of the en-wiki block. Creating content doesn't provide you plot armor. There is no place for harassment within the Wikimedia Community. Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support -- saw the vandalism at de:WP. Definetly blocking and throw the key away. Such people we don't need here. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Amitie 10g (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support cross Wiki vandalism seems evident --Neozoon (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support --Gmünder (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support Vandalism is the wrong word, this is really globally pushing your own POV. --Rschen7754 21:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support --Coffins (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support too many blocks on too manny wikis for vandalism. --Elmie (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support. It's not just cross-wiki vandalism: this user has been engaging in violating the Terms of Use for years, stalking and harassing Wikimedians and evading numerous blocks to do that. All attempts to control this behavior have been completely fruitless so far and I'm not even sure why we as a community have to tolerate constant basic vandalism of our projects and outright harassment of our fellow Wikimedians and discuss "soft measures" - this is not what we usually do with common vandals even if they're persistent in evading blocks. So this has to stop. Meiræ 22:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support --Morten Haan (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support Many Violations by Terms of Use. Plus infinite bans by many wikis. Sorry, enough is enough. --Funkruf (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support --A.Savin (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Calling a just turned 16-year-old girl "idiot" and "Fat Face" and making sure everyone worldwide could read this, is reason enough to ban someone for life. We just can not trust any single edit they make, and should get rid of editors like them. --Mirer (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support The opposition to banning him appears to be that he is a net positive on ru . The question should be whether he is a net negative to Wikimedia projects as a whole. The answer is yes. Any benefit to the Russian Wikipedia is outweighed by the harm done to other Wikipedias, including the likelihood of harm to Wikipedias that he has not yet damaged,and so which have not yet banned him. It is time to stop him worldwide, even if that means some loss of content to one Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support --Lars2019 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support If the users are making vandalisms on articles they are "interested in" on many wikis, then for what reason they can still be trusted? Just judge this "user" as a Russian counterpart of Kage. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support particularly abusive and disruptive behaviour across multiple wikis that should not be tolerated. The opposes in the section below were highly unconvincing. 1Goldberg2's behaviour is evidently incompatible with our standards and mission, as well as our collaborative philosophy. JavaHurricane 06:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support Whether he will circumvent it or not in Russian Wikipedia, this sign is to be set. --KnightMove (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support Way too many transgressions against our rules for biographies of living people. This is one of the worst kinds of vandalism. --2A02:8071:31C0:6500:F1A7:1F80:FABE:6C26 09:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support per nomination. ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support --Wahldresdner (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support Evident vandalism on Greta Thunberg's articles in eswiki and enwiki. Ruy (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support Creating lots of content does not give people a free pass to ignore basic standards we expect of all contributors. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support Evident multiple vandalism. Michileo (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support It is surprising to see that no global lock was requested for the series of really bad cross-wiki vandalisms that occured on 26 January 2019: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This series was actually longer but multiple projects chose to hide this prominently placed attack against a BLP subject. Two months later a global lock was requested with the simple rationale Cross-wiki abuse without providing any details. Such requests where stewards are expected to checkout the contributions themselves are unlikely to be successful. As far as I can see, nothing happened of significance since then outside the Russian projects. The numerous socks were mainly active at ru-wp except for adding some interwiki links at Wikidata and some other harmless edits. Blocks like that of Хомяк1520 at en:wp were just issued in a f'up to the checkuser results at ru:wp. As I do not speak Russian, I am unable to follow the developments at ru-wp. But I am surprised that a contributor with such a series of vandalisms and this long block log happens to find support despite these disruptions. We need to keep in mind that this behaviour happened not just in the past but has been renewed right here on this page. In summary, I fail to see an ongoing cross-wiki issue here but wonder how such a user with such a huge number of abusive sockpuppets can be tolerated at ru:wp and note that 1Goldberg2 did not fail to confirm the necessity of their own ban right now on this page with their disgusting personal attack on Mrakia. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support Why isn't this user banned yet? To prevent further damage. --Minecalpe (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Support Whoever does not want to or cannot keep to the rules across the wikis is to be excluded from further collaboration. Wikipedia must be protected from such users. --Unendlicheweiten (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Support It shouldn't work that way for the person behind the accounts. --AltesHasenhaus (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support Goodbye --SDKmac (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support all of the above. --Harald Krichel (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support Responding to the opposes, constructive edits and a global ban are not mutually exclusive, as previous precedents indicate that people who have received global bans (both community and WMF ones) have made constructive edits in the past, but there was something disruptive in their contributions that warranted the ban. The users' POV-pushing about Greta Thunberg, their conduct in this discussion, a block log that spans seven wikis, in addition to having an extensive block log as well as a topic ban on their home wiki, ruwiki, means that this issue is not merely spam or vandalism, and I am also not confident that this is something that can be handled at a local level. Therefore I can be sure that this satisfies the criteria for receiving a global ban. Hx7 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support -- Ra'ike (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support per Scuto --Hillbillyholiday Unfrozen (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Secretary-General, Wikimedia Affiliates Association[reply]
  49. Support Support Some constructive editing is no excuse for persistent refusal to follow policy. More or less agree with how Unendlicheweiten has put it above. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Support This person's combative attitude makes them unsuited for collaborative projects, per their ample block log on multiple projects. Disagreement is one thing, being divisive and dismissive is something else. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Support 1G2's content contributions to RuWiki essentially consist of poor translations of EnWiki material that anybody could potentially do. It can't compensate for his frankly outrageous conduct that has spanned over a decade. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support --De728631 (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support sockpuppets named after Himmler...seriously? --Vituzzu (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support crosswiki vandalism, socking, the BLP violations on w:en:Greta Thunberg (which he confirmed to not be a mistake) are in summ too much, and a clear stop sign is now nessesary. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support Evident multiple and cross wiki vandalism. Enough is enough. --Just N. (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support Enough is enough --Armin P. (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Support Why isn’t g-locked yet? Sargento - A sus órdenes 10:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Support --Jed (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Support --- Darwin Ahoy! 14:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Support --Andol (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Support --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Support this is rather straightforward. --Karl Oblique (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Support the Wikimedia movement should never tolerate editors like this one. Period. Julius1990 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Support Clearly warrants global ban. Should have happened a long time ago. Nosferattus (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Support --Maresa63 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Support I'm sorry to have to say that so clearly, but anyone who takes the effort to attract attention with vandalism in wikis in different languages must feel the consequences. The only thing that speaks for him from my point of view is the fact that some of his blocks were a long time ago. But: that rather shows me that we should have responded earlier. We should now use the last action as an opportunity to react appropriately. And since no improvement can be seen: global ban. --Alex muc86 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Support Failed mentorship. --Aalfons (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Support Perfektsionist (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Support--Doc.Heintz (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Support RoBri (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Support Dr-Victor-von-Doom (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Support --Флаттершай (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Support --TenWhile6 (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Support --Zollernalb (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  75. viciarg414 17:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Support --Bwbuz (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Support Although there may be some credible arguments in Goldberg's defense, 7 bans and 34 sockpuppets are waaaay in excess of what I can reasonably excuse. Toadspike (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Support -ArdiPras95 (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Support --H.Parai (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Support Seven wikis is enough. For those saying that Goldberg's content creation is useful; en:WP:CCI looks at thousands of potentially important content creation for copyright issues, and removes them as necessary. Content creation is not and never will be an excuse for disruption and abuse of policy. BLP violations are unacceptible. Sennecaster (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Support Bernd Bergmann (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Support massive and long-term cross-wiki abuse. --Ghilt (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Support --Euku (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Support per Hemiauchenia and Sennecaster; per precedent here, here, here, here, here, and here (all but the first one from this year), we as a community have shifted towards discrediting the idea of any amount of low-quality Wikipedia article stubs counting towards an editor's compatibility with the Wikimedia projects. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Support per KnightMove: "Whether he will circumvent it or not in Russian Wikipedia, this sign is to be set." --Dealerofsalvation (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Support AlgoritX3 (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Support 6.5 indefinitely blocks? This user must be globally banned after only two of them. — Soul Train (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Support some ideas can just not be accepted if they destroy part of the community health as per hereNattes à chat (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Support This is another Kubura case. I'm usually in favor of local consensus over global consensus. Keep in mind, many of the support votes and the organizer are from Russian Wikipedia. However, in this case, apparently there is a counteracting force that hampers reaching local consensus. Fixing it could take many years. By then, it may be too late to save Russian Wikipedia. Lastly, the "fear of block evasion" argument can be used for any global banned LTA. That hasn't stopped us from banning many LTAs. Why can that argument be used now? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This homophobic comment is also of concern. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not a lesbian/homosexual. ICYMI, I openly identifying as a polysexual woman (polysexuality is a non-binary sexual orientation characterized by an attraction to several genders).
    Concerning homosexuality, I support a feminist theory which states there’s a connection exists between different types of oppression, especially homophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, and classism. According to the works of sociologist Kimmel, some of the heterosexual white men demonstrate toxic masculine behaviours just to demonstratively prove “they’re not gay” (“super-straight!”), to prove they are so-called “real men.“ One of the central parts of that exaggerated masculinity is putting LGBTQI+ people and cis women down. 1Goldberg2 is an extreme example of such a behaviour. – Xena the Rebel Girl (talk♡) 06:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that it is clear to everybody in this discussion that presenting a community member like this, drawing his psychic profile on the basis of some written replies, is in itself gross misconduct and shouldn't be tolerated. As far as I know, Xena is not familiar with 1Goldberg2 and her remarks on his supposed traits and motifs are lacking any base. It is one thing to support one or another theory and quite another thing is to judge real people using these theories. I don't believe in pushing productive wikipedians out of the project if their negative impact can be otherwise controlled (here, it is the case), and the above presentation puts a serious question mark on the motifs of topic starter. I propose to close this RfC as unwarranted and concentrate on the measures that should be implemented in ru-wiki in order to minimise the negative impact of 1Goldberg2 replies, while maximizing his positive output as a productive writer. Sir Shurf (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Comment The message above is written by a 1Goldberg2’s mentor (sic!).
    This is yet another attempt to silence and neutralize a victim of harassment. I do have the right to criticise gross misbehaviour of the user. The fact about me being a feminist and social justice advocate has nothing to do with the RfC requirements. – Xena the Rebel Girl (talk♡) 14:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not "an attempt to silence and neutralize a victim of harassment". You do have the right to criticise misbehavior of 1Goldberg2 and I am ready to hear your critique and to apply any reasonable measures. However you don't have the right to demonize the member of community nor to apply him labels. Exactly as you don't want any labels applied to you. I am pretty sure the in case of this user a global ban is overreaction. Sir Shurf (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Support Global lock because of edit warrings and behaviour. Thingofme (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Support I am an admin on Commons and for me was enough the mess he created 2 years ago in the attempt to discredit an admin who blocked an user for homophobic statements (see from here and following diffs). -- Blackcat 14:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Support he demonstrated more than enough that he's not willing to comply with community rules. --Johannnes89 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Support --Itti (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Support - after seeing the list of socks and behavior on other global ban RfC's. --Daniuu (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. 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]
    "He generates something like low-quality stubs". — I mention here very few examples of created by him articles: ru:Basilornis celebensis, ru:Brachypteryx hyperythra, ru:Дрозды короткокрылые, ru:Сюс, Густав, ru:Bucco macrodactylus, ru:Bucco tamatia, ru:Bradypterus sylvaticus, ru:Bradypterus cinnamomeus, ru:Мискин, Уильям Генри, ru:Bradypterus carpalis, ru:Франклин, Джеймс, ru:Butastur rufipennis, ru:Караджа, Константин, ru:Королевский канюк, ru:Buteo refectus, ru:Торговля насекомыми, ru:Rhopias gularis, ru:Rhynchortyx cinctus, ru:Белоногая креветка, ru:Forktail… Do you believe they has a low quality? Gamliel Fishkin 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
    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]
    Here we discuss YOUR mode of operation, NOT mine. Period. Роман Беккер (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC) And credability of my accusers is important here. 3rd question : is it true, that you were head of one of the fighting parties in so called homowars and trolled users for years? Answer it. Now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Goldberg2 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement you've just made there is simply a brazen and shameless lie. I was one of those who were working hard to FINALLY put AN END to a seemingly endless at that time, very rude, persistent and incessant homophobic trolling by the users like Smartass and Serebr. And when we finally had done what needed to be done much earlier -- YEARS before -- the ru-wiki community just sighed freely with relief. And you know that very well. Роман Беккер (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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 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]
    To stewards: I believe that mode of discussion that Роман Беккер uses is against rules of community, being highly agressive to everybody, who has a different point of view. Please take measures to prevent him from intimidating other users. Sir Shurf (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Sir Shurf, where do you see me "being highly aggressive to everybody, who has a different point of view"? :) Didn't you describe more of the modus operandi of the user being under your so-called "mentorship" (which turns out in reality to be a protection from more severe sanctions), not mine? ;-) And isn't "against the rules of community" the thing you tried to do to me? ;-) And who'd I've "intimidate"? :) At the same time, the user under your so-called "mentorship" REALLY DID intimidate Mrakia for her being a trans-person (and continued to do so even there, on this same page), and persisted in his misgendering her. Such behavior is simply NOT acceptable. Роман Беккер (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose 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 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.
    edit: also per Adamant.pwn. SummerKrut (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    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) Ok, not too relevant there. Роман Беккер (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. – Mrakia 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To stewards: I believe that this user is becoming highly aggressive by trying to take all of the votes into his favor. This user has no right to manipulate the votes, so his opinion there shouldn't qualify. SummerKrut (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This aggressive, rude and totally false accusation on me could lead me to immediately END my mentorship over you as being totally, completely, maximally ineffective, and to allow the previously-blocked-you-admin to reinstate an indefinite metapedic block on you, from which you were released under my mentorship. You should behave politely and respectfully to ANY fellow editor, ESPECIALLY you have to respect and listen to your own mentor. You should also assume good faith for ANY not-otherwise-proving fellow editor, ESPECIALLY for your own mentor, and avoid such a rude tone and false accusations. If for any future moment (even if it lasts just one second) you will behave the other way (the way you have demonstrated there), then I will not see any more point in being your mentor for even one more second. You already had severe problems with Assume Good Faith rule, when you falsely accused several admins and former arbiters of being in some conspiracy coup. Remember that, and remember my reaction and consequences that could follow. Think twice, or better thrice, before writing anything anywhere.Роман Беккер (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any user is allowed to comment on the votes of other users. Can you provide evidence of the "manipulation" of which you accuse Роман Беккер? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    23:53, 30 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]
  6. Criterion №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]
    The issue is that the "local ruwiki procedure" is absolutely ineffective in even tackling the problem, as was proven by exactly these two other office actions. It should be concluded that these three mentors (1 sysop and current arbitrator and 2 bureaucrats of ruwiki) are innefective in their work, so the mentorship should be terminated. That's way overdue. -Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The second office action was done due to behavior on Russian Wikinews... There was nothing ruwiki should've done regarding that specific case. Adamant.pwn (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant.pwn: hold on. You said there was no cross-wiki abuse since all the recent problems have either been vandalism or been on the Ruwiki by which I assume you mean Russian Wikipedia only. In particularly "At the current moment, any problematic behavior only affects ruwiki where the user has several mentors". But now you're saying they're a problem both on Russian Wikinews and Russian Wikipedia. This would suggest there is cross-wiki abuse since it isn't just the Russian Wikipedia where they are a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Russian Wikinews is about recent office action against other active Russian Wikipedia editor. It had nothing to do with 1goldberg2. Adamant.pwn (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the exact wording of the Adamant.pwn: there was no local appeal for the obvious reason that for many months the 1Goldberg2 did not give to somebody reason to criticize his behavior. Bypassing the consensus is obvious. --Хедин (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on this, there were multiiple local appeals about the behaviour, multiple threads in 2019 and 2020, and yet the so-called "consensus" unfortunately was in the vein of "sweeping it under the rug". Therefore it's safe to conclude that any new thread/discussion on RuWiki about 1Goldberg2's behaviour will be fruitless again. It's way past this now, and 1Goldberg2 has already committed T&S-punishable violations of UCoC, so unless the RuWiki community will finally figure out and fix it's incapability of doing anything, it will be now dismissed in favour of higher level. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem lies in an absolute, total failure and ineffectiveness of so-called "local procedures", and you knoooow it very well. And also, I have to say that, of three so-called "mentors", in reality, only one - Sir Shurf - takes his time to really do his mentorship tasks -- but let's admit that he does these duties in a way that is much more protective to the user we discuss now, than to others, who severely suffer from his actions, and to the global ru-wiki athmosphere. Роман Беккер (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you any example 1Goldberg2's destructive behavior last half-year? Write here, please. --Хедин (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me please: if he's SOOOO innocent -- for what was he blocked in ru-wiki again just right now? ;-) Роман Беккер (talk) 07:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't answered my question. --Хедин (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I have answered it. The action he just did and for which he is blocked right now -- is just an another example of his modus operandi and his behavior which is highly destructive to the ru-wiki athmosphere, highly discriminating against trans-people and is in an obvious violation of both UCoC and ToU. And you know that very well. Secondly, I am not obliged in any way to answer your pre-loaded and prejudiced questions. If I answered - it is my good will, not my obligation to do so. Роман Беккер (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Goldberg was blocked for harsh words on the page of this application became possible due to its appearance. Everyone knows that the participant gives in to emotions. But your question has not been resolved yet - in one place your verbal balancing act was interrupted, and you continued here?... --Хедин (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, 1Goldberg2 was blocked in ru-wiki this time NOT for just "harsh words", BUT for systematic, repeated and continued misgendering of a fellow editor, LGBTQ user Mrakia. And you know that VERY WELL. And this is NOT the first time he knowingly, consciously and purposefully does that. And it is not a matter of "just some momentary emotional fuss, which lasts for a second or a minute or two", it is a matter of an outright transphobic hate speech. And it has the purpose of deliberately harass, harm and de-motivate the said user from participating in Wikipedia anymore. And it is a direct violation of UCoC and ToU. And you knoooow that very well. And NO, it was NOT because "he appeared there". It was because he misgendered Mrakia inside ru-wiki, not somewhere else. You know very well that our admins never block users for actions or words said outside ru-wiki. And that's the case. Regarding my blocklist -- firstly, it is an incorrect appeal in order to try discrediting my opinion by that. And we're discussing 1Goldberg2 behavior, not mine. Secondly, you also know the circumstances of these blocks and know very well that there's an appeal to ArbCom, and also you know well that the block by Sir Shurf was annulled by himself... So... Think more what are you saying. And thirdly and lastly - why didn't I hear your voice about "the user is very emotional but good faith and benevolent" at the time of, for example, my own block from Sir Shurf, but we DO hear this argument repeatedly repeated there? ;-) Are there some double standards in operation? ;-) Роман Беккер (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a better opinion of my knowledge than I think myself . Thank you for the detailed answer. I believe that having been under lockdown for more than 7 years, it is better for you to judge a 1Goldberg2 with a similar "award list". --Хедин (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again and again you make personal attacks on me in order to try discrediting my opinion. It does not work that way there on Meta. And I inform you on that in advance, so that you won't be too disappointed when you will see that your personal attacks on me and your appeals to my blocklist didn't matter anything to stewards and didn't cause them to discredit or discount my opinion. And, regarding your phrase about "7 years under ArbCom restrictions" in archaeologic times - you have to know that these "7 years" happened just because I was SO offended by the unruly ArbCom decision so I hadn't any motivation or will to appeal that decision after an year or two or whatever and had much less motivation to participate in ru-wiki in general. And our ArbComs were not always doing the right things, as you know. For example, in even more archaic times we had an ArbCom-2, which once ruled "we won't accept any claims or appeals from homosexuals until the end of our terms-in-office". If this is not a severe act of discrimination against homosexual people imposed by ArbCom-2, then I don't know what constitutes the discrimination. I think English-speaking people would be truly shocked by hearing something like that. Роман Беккер (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not dispute that your position about your blocks looks vulnerable, but I have nothing to do with it. The fact that you criticize a participant who makes a great contribution (albeit of average quality) to an article space in which you do not participate is also interesting for assessing the level of this criticism. Your complaints should be brought to the attention of the Foundation immediately, but this is not the right place for this. --Хедин (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1) From my point of view, "vulnerably" looks the position of the blocking-not-so-neutral administrator, not the position of mine regarding these blocks and their circumstances. And anyway, there we discuss the behavior and the modus operandi of 1Goldberg2, not mine. Don't forget that, don't forget that, don't repeatedly try to step away from the topic of this discussion to discussing the persons of the critics of 1Goldberg2. It is an unacceptable behavior on your side by itself - repeatedly repeated personal attacks on me in order to try to derange or discount my opinion in the eyes of other readers. 2) The person discussed there, 1Goldberg2, does not "make a great contribution" of any acceptable quality - he makes low-quality stubs, which his mentors then have to improve thoroughly just in order to keep them there. And anyway, no matter how significant the contribution of the problematic user is -- it does not make such mode of behavior on the 1Goldberg2's side any bit more acceptable -- EVEN if it was the case where he could generate 10 millions of featured articles per minute, like a superpowered man. See what did Jimbo say on this matter. 3) Your accusations regarding me "not participating in main namespace" are simply a BIG LIE. Who wrote w:ru:Светлоклеточный рак почки? Maybe it were you? Maybe it was 1Goldberg2? And it is also a continuation of your repeated pattern of personal accusations on me there. This behavior is simply NOT acceptable there. And again, anyway, we don't discuss me there, we discuss 1Goldberg2 there, a second remind. 4) If you feel that my case should be brought to the Foundation, please feel free to write a complaint. And we will then see. Роман Беккер (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, you have created 3 articles in the last couple of years. Goldberg created 837, and I am very, very far from him, since I have only 7. And drafts that I will not finish in any way. I take 2 years, since I ruled from another account until 2020, this one took a break. So who's lying? --Хедин (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're entitled to your opinion, but global bans are the means to fight cross-wiki abuse, not to right all local wrongs. Adamant.pwn (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And there IS an evidence of persistent cross-wiki abuse, as evidenced by indefinite blocks in FIVE wikis. Not just two, not even three. Роман Беккер (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I I have already commented specifically on why I don't find those blocks neither relevant nor showing anything persistent. Adamant.pwn (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, we differ in our assesments and opinions regarding that matter (is the cross-wiki thing still relevant when we weigh today's 1Goldberg2 actions, and is the 1Goldberg2 pattern of behavior persistent, un-improvable and un-correctable, or not). And it's normal to disagree :) And we quite often disagree -- but nevermind, I still like your mode of action as an admin and former ArbCom member and have great respect to you :) Роман Беккер (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    “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)…”@Adamant.pwn: I wrote my first request for global lock/ban back in March 2021. A.Vajrapani has been globally banned on 27 August (153 days later). Krassotkin has been globally banned even later. So that’s a false assumption. – Mrakia 03:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barring cases where an entire wiki has been taken over by POV pushing like Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura, it makes little sense to globally ban someone who is not indefinitely blocked on the wiki(s) where they are most active. * Pppery * it has begun 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not indefinitely blocked in ru-wiki not because he is a good faith editor in it, not because does any good to the project, but simply because of the reasons stated by user Carn below - for just a fear of him getting more and more virtuals and proxies, that's it, and that's simple and wrong way to deal with users like him. And also because of severely damaged, disrupted and non-working local measures of such conflict resolution. And also because of prevailing public prejudice against LGBT in Russia in general - and as ru-wiki is just a mirror of russian-speaking community at large, this applies to ru-wiki too. And also because of having such mighty and powerful supporters and defendants as Sir Shurf, who effectively prevent any serious discussion regarding 1Goldberg2's behavior to even happen locally and such discussion surely will be finished prematurely (and we're not talking about "reaching local consensus", which is incredibly hard with him having such powerful defendants - we're talking of just starting a serious discussion). More than that: the said defendant wanted some time ago to... totally strip away the restrictions and mentorship on that user. And he came with this idea to the admin forum just some little time after the user was again violating his topic-ban with another virtual... See... Роман Беккер (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if ruwiki doesn't want to indefinitely block him because of the risk of block evasion, why would globally banning him be any better? * Pppery * it has begun 21:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "The risk of block evasion" is not unique there. And maaany vandals and maaany other non-vandal destructive users resorted to this mode of operation after being banned. And some of them were very persistive, doing that for years after an initial indefblock. But nevertheless, this "fear of block evasion" never was perceived as a valid reason not to do anything about the problematic user, just for fear of "block evasion" - not in ru-wiki, not everywhere else. And in reality, there's no problem to use a duck test and ban one more sockpuppet, then one more. And it was done, done and done, socks were banned, banned and banned again and again and again - and the insisting & persisting destructor finally got demotivated and left what he did. Why not to do the same thing in this case? We're the whole large community, he's the one person - who'll be more persistive in the end? :) Роман Беккер (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Average write speed 500 articles/year looks good, don't you? --Хедин (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the quality of these articles? I think the user creates low-quality stubs (same content could be generated even by bots with Wikidata items). And that’s no excuse for unstoppable gross incivility and bad behaviour. – Mrakia 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the participant creates stabs. But they meet all the requirements, are agreed with the portal participants, and certainly meet the minimum requirements. He wants to stake out the authorship of the maximum number of articles, which may annoy someone. You see, the world isn't always the way we want it to be - but I've come to terms with that a long time ago. --Хедин (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In my opinion, there is no necessity for global ban/lock now. — Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum I. I hope that is *not* a simple damned voting procedure, is it? Wikimedia Movement that is about consensus, and 100% not about primitively understood 'democracy'. -- WBR to all participants of the discussion, Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum II. in Russian (I'm too lazy to translate it into English, you can use machine translation). (1) ""Из всех возможных решений выбирай самое доброе". Не самое обещающее, не самое рациональное, не самое прогрессивное и, уж конечно, не самое эффективное – самое доброе!" (Аркадий Стругацкий, Борис Стругацкий. "Волны гасят ветер", a masterpiece of Russian 20th century prose). (2) Не отбирайте у деточки (фигуранта заголовка настоящего Обсуждения) любимую игрушку, грех это. -- Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Last episode of vandalism was more than two years ago. There is no need for global ban, I think. Землеройкин (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is incorrect. 11 September 2021 Vladimir Solovjev blocked 1Goldberg2 (vandalism: content removing + topic ban violation). – Mrakia 08:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at that diff I think it was just a mistake. But anyway, I mean cross-wiki vandalism in my comment. Землеройкин (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Землеройкин, I am trying to understand your point here: Are you really arguing that "assume good faith" should apply to an editor blocked or banned on several Wikipedia language versions and blocked many times on their native language Wikipedia, and that AGF applies to this editor in late November, 2021, and that this editor deserves a "just a mistake" exemption when they again disrupt their native language Wikipedia, because it is not "cross-wiki" behavior at this moment in time? Haven't they already been warned many times? Just when does your assumption of good faith run out for repeated, years long, cross-Wiki abusive editing? Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2021 (UTmany C)
  11. Oppose Oppose I agree with User:Sir Shurf. --Die QuasiIP (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Look at five --Fregattenkapitän (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose no necessity for global ban --MPowerDrive (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. adamant.pwn's reasoning is convincing. There are rules regulating global bans, and they don't allow global ban in this case. colt_browning (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose It looks that the majority of 1Goldberg2's input in ruwiki is strictly positive and the quality of his articles is high enough to make wikipedia better. I did not notice any recent activity in other wikis that requires an urgent global ban. I think that some ambiguous edits should not lead to such a ban. Rijikk (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose Global blockade is not justified --Shiho 123 (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose per Peppry. ——SerialNumber54129 14:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose per Sir Shurf. Цавдом (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose If ruwiki (their homewiki) wants them to edit, global community should not try to override the decision of the local community. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @4nn1l2: This opinion is not universal and both the organiser of this RfC and many of supporting votes come from ruWP as well. ‘Wanting to edit’ is mostly based on the fact that for many it seems easier to track this user’s activity this way (as opposed to when he is banned), not because he is such an important contributor to the project. stjn[ru] 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Oppose All Thunberg-related incidents happened in 2019. There is no ongoing pattern of such behaviour toward Thunberg or any other minor, so global ban is pointless, in my opinion.--EugenG (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Due to formal problems with this RfC. Paelius (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose. Of course, he has engaged in many destructive activities in the past, but lately it just seems like an infantile thirst for attention. On Ruwiki he writes articles on ornithology, never once has he been caught hoaxing. I'm afraid that blocking him will cause a cobra effect and he'll start engaging in more destructive activities, because in fact it's easy to get around the blocking. It's up to the stewards, of course. --YarTim (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose --Maxl Useless. He could always get himself another account and, depending on what he does, this could go unnoticed. As long as he is in a position to use his account his edits can be controlled and, if necessary, reverted. Also, I have seen often enough that bans are deliberately used to silence persons who do not conform to something they are told but have an opinion of their own. --Maxl (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Take this message for example: “Lets throw away safety and inclusion together with divercity and transgenderism from Wiki and concentrate on writing Enciclopedia, not left ideas--1Goldberg2 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)”. It’s not just an “opinion”. It’s a destructive idea directed against the Wikimedia movement’s basic values and strategy. – Mrakia 05:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion writing (real) encyclopedia is more important then wikimedia movement’s basic values and strategy. 14:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strongly Oppose Oppose per obvious reasons. If someone is not good enough it does not mean he should be blocked here. It should be handled within Russian Wikipedia. Edits in other Sister Projects are random and any global harm was not an intent of the user (but the number of wikis and suck-puppets is impressive!). All the argumentation is coming from users blaming him in breaking the rules of personal attacks, misgendering, etc. I ten to agree but those are things ru-ArbCom should decide on. Then again, here is not a proper place. It's not a global conflict, he is a ru-wiki user and casual blocks in foreign to him projects are working fine for the moment, no need for any global ban. The-ultimate-square (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose This is a Russian Wikipedia issue, not a global one. In the Wikis where he broke local guidelines disciplinary sanctions have already been given. In my opinion global blocks should be issued if the user poses a danger to multiple Wikimedia projects and/or uses multiple Wikimedia projects to sabotage the movement. ~ℳɑrio (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose --Jack User (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose Two generall reasons: a) In dubio pro reo! b) Beause of the increasing tendency (in the whole global society) always faster to block, always harder to punish. And one specific reason: it appears the bluntly – unfortunately successful – attempt to block him on this way in the ruWP, after it in his homewiki failed – this would be a strongly violation of the ban policies and an attack against the autonomy of the community there. (By the way: to offend a girl isn`t worse than to offend a boy – to offend a woman not worse than to offend a man.)--Trollflöjtenαω 23:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose Making a psychiatrical diagnosis while not seeing a person is a no go. -- BanditoX (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a misinformation. I didn’t wrote any diagnosis. Describing user‘s actions and motivation in psychoscientific terms is not a diagnosis. – Xena the Rebel Girl (talk♡) 15:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. Eating melon. -- 05:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BLP violation is a serious matter, but from the statements above, that seems to be in the past. Current conflict appears to be strong animosity between Mrakia and other so-called "activists" versus 1G2 as an alleged "serial abuser". This is in the context of broader claims of failure-of-process on ruwiki, versus cultural norms: “prevailing public prejudice against LGBT in Russia in general ... ru-wiki is just a mirror of russian-speaking community at large”. Will a future U4C / UCoC Enforcers Corps be equipped to deal well with cases like this? Pelagic (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is has been no evidence that 1G2 is the target of animosity from "activists", or to use 1G2's words later on this page "trans-activists", which is how he seems to label those that he attacks and misgenders. If you have evidence that these claims from 1G2 are anything more than the well evidenced track record of personal attacks against minority groups from 1G2, then please present the diffs in a factual way rather than repeating 1G2's personal attacks as if they might be evidence.
    A discussion about the hypothetical future of the proposed UCoC is a tangent to this RFC, it is not an alternative to using this process. If this case could be a useful reference case for those working on the UCoC implementation, then a better place to hold those theoretical discussions is Talk:Universal Code of Conduct. --Scuto (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Neutral Eating Melons……--夏雪若 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Although I want to show as much respect as I can to the opposers, I think that the statement above just explains why I find it hard to believe many of the arguments for opposing the global ban, as I am pretty sure that although they do acknowledge that there have always been issues with the editor, they seem to treat the situation as if everything is OK. Hx7 (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]