Requests for comment/Global ban for Eric abiog

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for the global ban. Ruslik (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Rationale[edit]

This user participates since July 2012, and has significant number of contributions (>500) at 23 wikis, excluding Wikidata all of them are Wikipedias. Out of them, 7 decided to block them indefinitely already. In addition to that, Wikimedia Commons decided to block them indefinitely for incorrect licensing. That means just about 30 % of wikis. If we look at number of edits, and weigh wikis according to that, they made 135k edits in total, almost 54k of them at wikis they're indefinitely blocked, making that 40 %.

Except Commons, all of the blocks seems to be for inserting machine translations again and again, and not responding at their talk page. In my opinion, that qualifies for a global ban, because it's not a local-only issue, instead, the issue is spread at many wikis. It is also not a simple case of spam/xwiki promotion, and as such, needs the global community to consider a global ban.

This issue is also long term, as the last block is from 3 August 2020 at cswiki (disclosure: by me).

As such, I hereby propose Eric abiog to be globally banned by a resolution made by the global community.

Thank you, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification was sent to the user at all wikis via MassMessage, see [1] and [2] for distribution lists. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

@Martin Urbanec: Do you mean a global ban?--GZWDer (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Ehh... Yeah, fixed, but the MM was already sent :/. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - the Global ban is for toxic users. For people who came with threats of violence, stalking, hounding etc. Notoric harassers. But not for people who do wrong automatic translations. For those there is the normal ban the right descission. I am honestly horrified by such an application asked by none less than a Stewart (!). -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Hello Marcus Cyron, I do not think you are right. Firstly, there is no "normal ban" effective globally, and the user is already "normally banned/blocked" at numerous wikis. However, any local action means the user just switches to another wiki, and it continues. Secondly, single-purpose accounts who are violating, stalking or otherwise harassing others are quickly locked by a steward, and if the master is identified, the office is, in my opinion, better suited to handle this than the global community, given they have access to confidential data. To summarize myself, I do think the global ban is a good tool the global community can use, if an user behaves inapppropriately at multiple wikis. We are here to build an encyclopedia/book/etc, after all. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the articles that the user created lately in Turkish Wikipedia and concluded that they were translated very badly. The user also has autoreview flag in our wiki, how bad.. Thanks for bringing the matter here, but as Marcus said, I don't see a reason for a global ban to be issued on this user, but as the articles he create makes no improvement in our wiki, I can say that they should be nuked by Special:Nuke and the autoreview rights of the user should be removed in Turkish Wikipedia. Regards.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ mesaj 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support, I support the global ban as I can foresee that the user will shift directly to other wikis whenever he gets banned in a wiki locally. A global ban seems needed for this case.--evrifaessa ❯❯❯ mesaj 16:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support global ban per nom. This behavior cannot be allowed to continue. See also Steward requests/Global/2020-08#Global lock for Ria Cruz and Eric abiog.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose As Marcus already wrote a global ban is for massive absuse, not for such quite harmless but annoying behaviour. It is not a good idea to soften up our instruments... Chaddy (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am only familiar with user's actions on my home wiki (pl.wikipedia). I have to tell you that he deserved the ban he got on our project. The user openly declares that he has no knowledge of polish, he did not try to communicate with anyone using other languages he can understand. He created many articles that were deleted either by speedy deletion or via the pl.wiki equivalent of Articlef for deletion. Many of his articles had to be moved out of mainspace to his userspace because they did not constitute articles according to our standards. I understand Martin Urbanec's comments about him moving from wiki to wiki after getting blocked. Because of that, I am weakly supporting his global ban. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • On enwiki, a checkuser investigation (w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ria Cruz/Archive) suggests this is another account of User:Ria Cruz - as such shouldn't this ban be against the master account if warranted? — xaosflux Talk 16:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am patroller on Czech Wikipedia and i know this user from backlog of unpatrolled pages. And yes, pages created by this user are machine translation. For that i support this global ban.--MrJaroslavik (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Marcus, and I don't consider 500 edits over 23 wikis in 8 years "substantial". Golbals bans are not for this type of user. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rodhullandemu, I think what is meant is that there are 23 wiki's with at least 500 edits each, given the 135k total, and actually that is what is written also. Eissink (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC).
  • Well, that was an arbitrary number to demonstrate the need. If you use just top 5 wikis, they're banned at 2 wikis out of 5, which is 40 % :-). It doesn't really change anything. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Imo, plastering wikipedias all over with machine translations over a long time while not responding to repeated requests not to do so is a kind of vandalism. Wutsje (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support, if the user is still vandalizing pages on wikis despite the user warned several times.Ahmetlii (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support this is an adequate measure for this user's behaviour. There is a minimum level of competence that is required to edit Wikimedia projects, including ability to communicate with other editors and respect rules and guidelines of every independent Wikimedia project. Such behaviour is not only annoying – as stated above – but also harmful, as it wastes time and work of other editors in numerous projects. Wostr (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support this user had given us a hard time at huwiki too. Harmless actions? Don't think so. He was asked multiple times, dozens of times to stop the machine translation, manual adding of interwikis to pages already connected to wikidata, creating categories with atrocious grammar etc. and he never listened just continued the behavior. We decided to ban him infinitely for that reason. It's not harmless when someone knowingly and continuously spams multiple wikis with things other people need to constantly clean up. We have enough trash to handle, and his edits are not constructive. This person enjoys trolling, otherwise he would have listened to repeated requests on multiple wikis. Why let other language wikipedias suffer the same route, and give them the same headaches, just for them to end up cleaning up his trash and ban him anyways? His behavior is destructive and it's more than just a slight annoyance. Did you also check the number of deleted articles? (Sure, we did save some of his creations, but after a while it exhausts the community to do the real job after he leaves a quick google translate jumble). Teemeah (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. I just went through some of the articles he made on the Dutch Wikipedia (made in 2013). In the first versions it was really apparent that the articles were machine translations. Seeing as this behaviour continued on multiple other wikis, I think a global is warranted for this user. He has had so much time to better himself, yet falls back in the same pattern over and over. It's time we protect the WMF projects from the damaging edits of this user. --Wiki13 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support, per Wutsje. Patriccck (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support no communication, repeated copyright infringer (see w:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130409, w:Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20191012). MER-C (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Same problems on dawiki. --Madglad (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Question. Do I get it right that the account is just a small splinter of a sock farm? Retired electrician (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I have just discovered the user's contributions on sv.wp and I can clearly see that this user has caused a massive workload that will require extensive cleanup work from other users, as well as refusing to communicate on his/her talk page. Some articles have been deleted as they were utterly incomprehensible and others have now been marked for clean up and in need of sources. This has to stop. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support per nom. Sgd. —Hasley 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support while I do find that Marcus Cyron's argument has merit, I don't believe it's fair to waste any more community resources on Eric aboig. The disruption is quite severe and when one wiki blocks him, he merely targets another. Regards. Natuur12 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Please hear me out despite the strong support for a global ban that seems to manifest. This user, despite stating on their userpage in German-language Wikipedia (de-WP) that they have no knowledge of German, has 2,547 live edits there, and was never blocked in that project. Although I'm an admin there, I was not familiar with them until now. It seems that the approach in de-WP to deal with their machine translated articles is to improve them; and often, these articles are so short that given the acceptable quality of current machine translation, there is actually not much that needs to be improved. An example is de:Telediario, a short article about a Spanish television newscast. It is rather a stub, but the German is correct, the subject is notable, and there is no major issue with that article. Therefore I'm under the impression that their contributions are welcome in de-WP, and that this edition of Wikipedia is able to manage them in a meaningful manner. Therefore, also in my role as a de-WP admin, I oppose a global ban which would make it impossible to handle this case individually in the way local projects think appropriate. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Oppose Based on your logic of having the individual projects deal with them, I oppose the global ban. If the user is able to do some good somewhere that appreciates the edits, that user should be allowed to edit there. If the user is being destructive, block them. Simple as that. I'm not convinced a global ban is necessary. Junedude433 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose Oppose If the user is capable of determining what subjects are notable on, for example, dewiki and creates machine translated articles that the community is willing to work on, they are contributing positively. I would however support a global sysop blocking them on all micro wikis without an active community and an announcement or whatever that admins on other wikis can block the user without the usual bureaucracy. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support global ban, there is no use to force many users from many wikies to improve his "contribution". Wikisaurus (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No user and no project is forced to do anything in this case; if a project thinks the account needs to be blocked, they can block - without a global ban. As I described above, there are also projects that manage to handle Eric abiog without blocking; these local decisions, assuming good faith activity, shouldn't be overruled by a global ban. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Hi, crat+sysop at trwiki here. I've gone through his(?) contributions at trwiki, and my evaluation differs considerably from what Evrifaessa wrote above. He has 1190 edits, is working on TV articles and actually doing useful work. His articles are usually like this, where he adds a perfectly grammatical one-sentence definition and solid skeletal structure for the article. His work on the categories is also very neat. I like this kind of infrastructural work. Another user by the name of Dünya vatandaşı at trwiki is also tr-0 and has the fourth-highest number of edits. Also uncommunicative, he's been doing amazing work on categories, and we're lucky to have him. I've had my fair share of users that fit into the described category, and I think this raw energy should be channelled into somewhere where they would be useful. If he is committing blatant copyvios on a particular project whose language he can make relatively more sense of, like enwiki, then block him locally so that he could focus on some other project where this kind of energy could be utilized. Block him from all major wikis if need be, but a global ban is just a waste of this raw potential that can speed things up in small-to-mid-sized wikis.--Vito Genovese 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support. User is now also indefblocked in ruwiki (9th wiki that banned him) for all the same reasons. And our community is now to clean up all the mess he created — and he did create dozens of machine-translated articles. This is pure cross-wiki vandalism and it has to stop. Meiræ 20:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Meiræ: If the user is already banned in ruwiki, how will a global ban help that project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: It will help other projects to not end up in a same exact situation. Ruwiki has big community and it will still be a whole ordeal to clean up dozens of machine-translated articles that this user has created. I can't image how projects with smaller communities are supposed to deal with this. In no way does it help to build an encyclopedia by spamming various Wikipedias with Google Translate results. Clogging wikis with autotranslated nonsense is a very disruptive behaviour - just a form of vandalism, basically. As of now this user has shown zero willingness to cooperate on this issue and amend his behaviour. For me personally: disruptive behaviour on a global scale + lack of communication = global ban. Meiræ 19:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I just had a quick peek at Eric aboig's contributions to the Dutch Wikipedia, and all I can say is that I concur with Gestumblindi and Vito Genovese: his articles indeed are short, but the language used in them is not bad at all; believe me, I've seen a lot of native speakers writing worse texts! His work on categories etc. is quite neat indeed. In other words, I cannot think of a reason why he should be blocked locally. And if there's no reason to block or ban him locally, there's even less reason to ban him globally. IJzeren Jan (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose No need. --Prüm (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I looked at his edit history on mswiki. He has done a very good job in editing and creating new page. It doesnt look like a machine translated one at all. --Hayate891 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I’m not convinced that a global-ban is really needed here. --DaB. (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Every wiki should decide indepently, no power to the movement at large. No trust - no safety. Bahnmoeller (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I doubt that so many Wikipedia versions happen to be wrong at the same point; and if not, it's a cross-wiki abuse, what else? --A.Savin (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Seems like overkill to me, what with Gestumblindi's statements. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't think that a global ban is the right instrument for this case. A global block seems to be more appropriate for me. --Holder (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Holder, don't you mean global block. Prahlad balaji (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah, of course I mean a global lock. --Holder (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Holder and Prahlad balaji: A global lock is a technical measure applied by the stewards, that marks the account as unable to login, and invalidates all their current login sessions. It is applied only in cases of blatant cross-wiki vandalism, spam, or a proven long-term abuse. It is also applied when a global ban was approved by the community. A global block is a technical measure that denies editing to given IP address, or range of IP addresses. It doesn't have to do anything with accounts. A global ban is a social measure taken by the community, that formally revokes their privilege to edit, which is used in case of abuse that's not as blatant to warrant an outright lock. It is generally used for long-term users instead, because it allows for direct community decision. I'm not sure what do you suggest doing instead. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Martin Urbanec, sorry, typo, should now be Fixed Prahlad balaji (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Prahlad balaji: I don't see a fix through :). As I said, global blocks can be applied only to IP addresses. This is not an IP address, but an user. It can be either banned or left to continue, there's nothing else that can be done (globally, I mean). --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Martin Urbanec, can't you lock him up then? I meant to say to Holder that Eric should be locked. Prahlad balaji (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

:::I support locking Prahlad balaji (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

*Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support He has gone too far now. Prahlad balaji (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose Oppose agréé situ Marcus and Gestumblindi. I don't think this user came especially for unrespect the policy, I dont think he has really bad intentions. Golmore (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose no threats, no harrassments. This is not what global bans are for. A global block might be ok for the cross wiki spam, but this behaviour is explicitly excluded from a global ban.
    • Global blocks are for IP addresses, and no one can apply it to an account anyway. Locking will work technically speaking, but outright global lock is not a good idea, per Global lock. As I asked above, what would you suggest? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral Neutral This account added a bunch of automated translations on rowiki, but we'll deal with him or her on our own. Gikü (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose like Holder says; global ban is an overkill. --Mormegil (cs) 09:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd appreciate any comment on what would you consider an appropriate action. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Eric does a decent job at fawiki, not great, but not that bad either. Iranians are usually kind to foreigners and are willing to help a person from the Philippines who cares about fawiki. I just edited his userpage there and improved some of *his* translations. 4nn1l2 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been watching this user for a long time on kowiki. The problem for this user is not because of short articles or awkward language skills. It is just doing machine translation without any reaction. Many users tried to discuss him, but all failed; Because there was no reaction. Machine translation is just the level of Google Translator, at least on kowiki. (Of course, I don't know how good the level of machine translation is on other wikis.) If this user is not banned, I think any action/communication is necessary. This means that he needs to participate in discussions, or keep communication open. His reaction was found one or two on several wikis, but no positive response to his edits. --Sotiale (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I checked some of his latest creations in the Finnish WP where I'm an admin, and while there are problems (lack of sources and communication), I'm not awfully bothered by his articles. They are extremely short but at least have some basic information about a TV show, for example. Maybe our community will get tired of it and we'll decide to block him, but it should be up to us. I do appreciate the information that there has been problems in other wikis and it might make the decision to block easier if it comes to that. -kyykaarme (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support no communication, repeated copyright infringer, w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eric abiog --ɱ 12:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support SupportNeutral Neutral i'm an Eliminator in fawiki and struggling with users who create machine translated articles with one or two clicks (we have some gadgets in fawiki). i'm not looking forward to meet a user who acts like this globally! i saw their articles and i guess this type of machine translation will not be tolerated in our wiki. (based on the discussion below, i feel neutral now. reaction to his editing and article creation style can be different in each wiki. but i do not oppose to global ban.) --Jeeputer (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jeeputer Maybe it is good to read the opinion of 4nn1l2, just above, who claims the exact opposite. Eissink (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC).
So let block him on fa:WP. But why a Global ban? -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
No need to block Eric on fawiki. In fact, Eric does a better job than many native fawiki users. Fawiki has a crazy amount of low-quality stubs without any actual sources. Many articles have been created by bots and many one-line articles are directly translated from enwiki just to raise the number of articles. Fawiki aspires to be bigger than arwiki (it's "rival"), so the standards are held pretty low to boost the number of articles. Just play with fa:Special:Random for one minute or two to believe my words. Again, what Eric does is better than many native fawiki users. Considering that Eric does not know the language nor the script (which is right-to-left), what he does really surprises me! 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@Eissink and Marcus Cyron: i agree with 4nn1l2 that we can improve machine translations created by newcomers (what i do when i see such an article in fawiki). but when it comes to a user that doesn't communicate and keeps creating those articles, it can be considered as vandalism and disruptive editing as we have to correct all the upcoming machine translations and it doesn't seem to stop. when he is being blocked in most of wikis one after another, global block is not a wrong decision. anyways, i changed my comment to neutral.
@4nn1l2: agreed, this article is a good example of what you are pointing at (created by one of the most experienced users on fawiki). but what is the right action when you face a user who doesn't react to warnings? what Eric is doing is rare in Wikipedia; specially in rtl languages. but short articles like this one is not accepted by most of the fakiwi community, am i wrong? --Jeeputer (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
No, you are not wrong, Jeeputer. As I said, Eric does not do a great job, but just a decent job. Anyway, it goes against my conscience to "pick on" Eric, while there are many established users (even admins) on fawiki whose works are far worse than Eric. However, I bet Eric will end up being blocked on fawiki now that he has been brought to attention, so that fawiki admins can prove who the boss is! Sad :-( 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Even though fawiki is not exactly the same as nlwiki, 4nn1l2 voices my own feelings about the matter pretty well. Eric's work on nlwiki is definitely not great, but it's reasonably acceptable, better than that of many a native speaker. I get the impression that it's not mere machine translation, but something I'd like to call "machine translation plus", i.e. machine translation with some additional googling for the right formulations. The articles are short, but better a short article than no article at all, especially since it's subjects that a native speaker is not likely to write about any time soon. As for sources, this is no hard requirement, especially in very short articles, and as far as I can see, Eric has never given us information that was false. The biggest remaining complaint seems to be that he does not respond to questions and comments, which can indeed be very irritating, but again, discussing things is by no means mandatory on Wikipedia. Therefore, I maintain that global action is not required, since wikis are well-equipped to handle this locally. IJzeren Jan (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose Each wiki is independent. Some wikis even live on machine translations. This request for a global ban is attempted paternalism. --Methodios (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose This is not something that should be global. Some communities may absolutely hate shoddy machine translations; some may view them as better than nothing. Those that hate it will block the user, those that are fine with it won't. Either way, it's not a matter for global oversight. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose! I have gone through all the above discussions about this User:Eric abiog and different opinions were expressed regarding his actions, it seems to me that the User is still appreciated in some wikis based on his contributions, if this is the case; why would he be blocked globally? When individual wikis can take the necessary action if he goes against the rules. Em-mustapha User | talk 17:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose. Whether the work and machine translations are acceptable should be decided within each project and not handled with a global ban. --Hannes Röst (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Local ban – if necessary – should be sufficient. Obviously his work is considered as acceptable by some communities. Being banned by multiple other projects should be a warning to the user though. --StYxXx (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose If you want to shut down Botpedias, that live from machine translated, sometime extremely inaccurate, stubs, do so open, but not one by one. This is something for the projects themselves to decide, not the bureaucracy here in meta. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 20:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - per Marcus. Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Taking into account the arguments provided by the user Martin Urbanec and global account information of the user in question: Eric abiog. The reasons for "Blocked indefinitely", voted by the administrators of the different communities, list (by date):
    17 October 2013, incorrectly licensing files after warnings ((English) link); 26 July 2016, writing editor only ((Hungarian) link); 14 July 2019, always refused to promise not to create serious machine translation entries. To prevent Wikipedia from being damaged by long-term sporadic machine translation content ((Chinese) link); 26 September 2019, Wikipedist unfamiliar with the Polish language, inserting texts from the autotranslator and without sources, no reaction to discussions possible ((Polski) link); 13 December 2019, the user abuses multiple accounts, sockpuppet investigations ((English) link); 19 January 2020, continuous serial production of blanks of meaningless articles ((한국어) link); 3 August 2020, Wikipedia disruption: repeated creation of articles by automatic translation ((Česky) link); 5 August 2020, destructive behavior ((Русский) link) and 5 August 2020, graffiti / vandalism: machine translations and not responding to attempted dialogues ((Svenska) link).
    Personally, in view of all the elements, I vote for a global ban on this user. —— DePlusJean (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose - User is in good standing on Wikidata, where there are no complaints about their >14K edits on their talk page, and a clean block log. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support As per nom and SPA. Almost all other edits are machine-translations and no responses when warned. I think it's a case of simply bringing as much articles in as many places as possible until some of them stick. But done on a massive scale. — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose As long as there are projects that accept the participation a global ban is contraproductive. Those who don't want the participation can ban localy any time.--Fano (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Hello! I'm a rollbacker at pt.wiki. My home wiki is the wiki where he did the majority of edits (more than 34 000). I watch recent changes regularly and I confess that I didn't know him. He was blocked 4 times on our wiki. However, it was 7 years ago and watching his latest edits I found them pretty useful to our community. I think local blocks should solve the issue instead of a global ban, because as stated before he has some good edits at other wikis. --Dioluisf (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support His autotranslations are not that bad, but still are. Ukrainian community tolerates bad autotranslates, there are a lot of them, nobody wants to improve them. As more wikis ban this user, more activities will go to uk.wiki as in connected vessels. It would be difficult to block there so it would be better to prevent it now and globally. --Brunei (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose I don't think CIR is an appropriate rationale for a global ban. Also still active on other wikis. I can't speak for ptwiki but I don't see any issues with their edits on Wikidata and they have 15000 edits there. I can sympathize with the frustration but I don't think this is quite at the level needed for a global ban. --Rschen7754 20:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Marcus Cyron, Gestumblindi and Dioluisf. Global bans are for harassment and villainous behavior, not merely annoying or misguided behavior. Do not deprive the German Wikipedia of what Gestumblindi calls a good contributor. Per Methiodos, the thing this user did, adding machine translations, is undesirable behavior on some wikis but not others, so let him be blocked on some Wikis but not others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Like Gestumblindi Valanagut (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Gestumblindi and others. --El Grafo (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support pumping machine translations into wikis and not responding to warnings and urgent requests to stop is clear cross wiki vandalism. Wikipedia does only work with communication between authors. Without communication this behaviour is unacceptable from my point of view and the proposed restriction provides the right means to urge communication / cooperation. Groetjes --Neozoon (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment 22 users supporting, 32 users opposing, and 2 users are neutral as of August 11, 23:10 UTC. EstrellaSuecia (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • weak Oppose Oppose. Cases like this should be handled individually on local project level.--Wdwd (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Putting up many machine translations in nearly every wiki is a really bad behavior that should deserve global ban, but there is some wikis that accept machine translations. I believe that rule should go through review at first before we are going for a ban on Eric. Give it a chance. SMB99thx Talk / email! 13:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
    Please look at my new vote below. SMB99thx 11:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose Gotta agree something like this is a little too much, especially if they have constructive contributions to other Wikimedia sites. ミラP 21:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose If someone (referring to an actual Wikimedia user) is blocked indefinitely on commons, wikidata and enwiki for persistent sockpuppetry but are otherwise contructive contributors to enwikisource (their homewiki) and simplewiki, should they be globally banned? In my opinion, no.
Now, in the case of persistent machine translation, from some of the opposer statements above, apparently it is allowed on some small wikis. Machine translation on wikis where it is allowed is disruptive? No global ban. However, if it occurs solely on wikis where prohibted, you have my support, but the number is 40%; I expect a logarithmicly high number like, in this case, 99.9%, about 136 non-machine translation edits in mainspace globally. Can I Log In (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Can I Log In: I know who you're talking about. Their block on Wikidata was 100% bureaucratic bullshit. It was just a block for basically jaywalking. Ridiculous. When policy and admins allow that to happen, you don't need vandals. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Gestumblindi and others. (I have additional strong reasons, but the threaad is long enough.) — Jeblad 18:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Gestumblindi. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose per Gestumblindi and others. --Ján Kepler (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support most of their Wikidata contributions are providing global nonsenses, they just google-translate the titles, wrote many google-translated contents, publish them and link them by themselves, still wondering why permanent block didn't happened on Wikidata for them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose users, don't believe that? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Liuxinyu970226: Many of their recent contributions are in connection with nlwiki. (wa zedde gij?) Checked about half a dozen. Don't see any problems. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Oppose as Pigsonthewing pointed out, he has a clean record on WD. I really don't think he has bad intentions. --Prahlad balaji (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Prahlad balaji: you mean as Andy Mabbett pointed out. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Fixed :-) --Prahlad balaji (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Prahlad balaji: FTFY ;-) (but now I picture pigs with wigs) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Looks like you Fixed it for me lol ;-) --Prahlad balaji (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It is not about intentions, it is about harm he will not improve. We don't need Cebuano Wikipedia type of edits all across the wikipedias. Carn (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia language editions can decide for themselves whether they want their contributions, as it's currently the case (they are seen as a positive contributor in various editions); it would not be wise to overrule these local decisions with a global ban in this case. By the way, I think this discussion has quite run its course, there have been very few comments this month, so I suppose someone should close it soon. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Support I took a look at pages this user created and most of them are meaningless. Plus the 7 WPs which indefblocked him, he should be globally banned from editing, although if this user made good faith contribs during this discussion, maybe we can have this ban period set to one year or more, since those other WPs can indefban this user. PythonSwarm (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: He returned to huwiki as an anon, confirmed by IP Check and keeps doing what he had been doing. He has been creating meaningless categories en bulk, with only 1 article in each, which is against our rules. Now we can clean up his sh*t again. Teemeah (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm changing from Oppose Oppose to Support Support. While i agree that some Wikipedias accept machine translations, please take a look at Requests for comment/Large scale language inaccuracies on the Scots Wikipedia. In light of that highly publicized RfC and since what Eric abiog has basically done is putting up machine translations on many Wikipedias, we should not risk putting up more publicity or hysteria in more Wikipedias other than Scots Wikipedia because of many language inaccuracies Eric abiog kept putting up. SMB99thx 11:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    That's a totally different case. If you look at Eric abiog's global contributions, these are mostly to larger language editions of Wikipedia, among them some of the largest ones, such as German, Spanish, and French. These languages have substantial, active communities where his edits are checked. There's no indication whatsoever that he would do something like AmaryllisGardener in Scots Wikipedia. By far the largest amount of his edits is in Portuguese Wikipedia - 34,464 edits! - and he seems to be an accepted autoreviewer there - some issues in 2013, last blocked there for a week in October 2013, apparently because of removal of deletion templates, but a productive editor since then. Maybe User:RadiX who granted him the autoreviewer rights in 2017 could give a commment on Eric abiog's standing in the Portuguese Wikipedia's community. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)