Jump to content

Requests for comment/Global ban for Faster than Thunder

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Requests for comment
Latest comment: 4 days ago by A09

The following request for comments is closed. The request for comment has been archived with no consensus to impose a global ban. Participants agreed that the demonstrated behavior is not acceptable on Wikimedia projects or when directed at Wikimedia users on other platforms. However, there is no consensus to globally ban Faster than Thunder, given considerations such as their medical conditions, the limited effectiveness of a ban in preventing the behavior, and concerns about whether such a measure would be socially appropriate under the circumstances. This closure does not affect any previously imposed sanctions against the user.--A09|(pogovor) 20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination statement

Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Faster than Thunder (talk · contribs · CA) is a user whose behaviour is a bit hard to pinpoint exactly. For a long time, they've, for the most part, tried to be constructive. This, however, changed after they were topic-banned on the English Wikivoyage from editing all food-related topics; instead of reflecting, they decided to import their frustrations and grievances with Asamboi onto the English Wikipedia, where they kept digging deeper holes, the latest of which now involves off-wiki hounding and online harassment.

Initial blocks

FtT was blocked on the Wikimedia Incubator by MF-Warburg and English Wikipedia by Shirt58 in the early days of their wiki career. Their unblock appeal was quickly accepted on both (Incubator discussion, enwiki was removed 1 day later for "WP:YOUNG read, other issues mostly resolved"). While these issues may have been long resolved, it demonstrates that their problematic behaviour has persisted for years.

FtT also had their Phabricator account disabled in August 2025, mainly for irrelevant and off-topic requests, but that does not relate all that much to the bulk of their abuse.

Current blocks

enwikivoyage

The current stream of blocks started around mid-2025, when Faster than Thunder was adding content to food-related articles on enwikivoyage that were just factually untrue in areas where they had no clear expertise. After some warnings from Ikan Kekek and Asamboi and a successful TBAN nomination, they were subsequently topic banned for 6 months from editing all food-related topics.

(Their topic ban has expired, but that's besides the point)

enwiki

Now, the most logical thing to do once given a temporary topic ban is to take on the feedback and improve your behaviour. FtT, however, did not do that: instead, they decided to take out their frustration on Asamboi for warning FtT. The hounding of Asamboi later extended over to enwiki, where they were subsequently blocked by Tamzin just less than 2 weeks later. In October, they were once again unblocked, but on the condition that they'd limit their edits to content edits... which did not last all that long, as they were once again blocked on enwiki in mid-November for continued hounding, and TPA revoked a week later by asilvering.

Meta

Hounding and pestering other users didn't end there, though: after being blocked on enwiki, they've moved onto doing exactly that to Tamzin on Meta. This, whilst also having tried to start numerous RfCs and U4C cases (such as this, this, this, and this). After being guided by Vermont on their talk page, FtT still somehow could not understand, with EPIC giving them a 1-week cooldown block. That, however, also did not help with the last U4C case filed by them after the block expired, resulting in an indefinite block by Ajraddatz.

Off-wiki abuse

If the first law of holes couldn't have been violated any further by now, FtT has since engaged in email abuse and off-wiki hounding towards Tamzin and Asamboi on other platforms (private evidence of this remains with stewards). As such, they were globally blocked indefinitely by EPIC for violating the UCoC.

Concluding statement

I've hesitated to start this GB request for a long time because of FtT's age. Reflecting on my own younger years, I know I did my fair share of foolish things. However, being young usually means you learn from those mistakes and adjust your behaviour. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case with FtT. They continue to make poor decisions and only dig themselves into deeper holes with each misstep.

As they are already globally blocked, a global ban will be a preventative measure for FtT's own good. What had started as a rather mild topic ban on enwikivoyage has devolved deep into this; FtT has proven time and time again that they are incompatible with a collaborative Wikimedia environment. As someone who's tried time and time again to steer FtT on the right path, I can rather confidently say it is for FtT's own benefit that they are banned from all Wikimedia-related spaces and avoid any legal trouble (especially given their age).

//shb (t • c) 01:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Formalities

Criteria

As per the global bans policy, this user meets all three criteria:

  • The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. – YesY.
  • The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had a fair opportunity to rectify any problems. – YesY, been given several warnings. They had plenty of opportunity to reform after each block.
  • The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. – YesY (blocked indefinitely on enwik and Meta).

Nominator requirements

  • have a Wikimedia account; – YesY
  • and be registered for more than six months before making the request; – YesY (account created on January 25, 2021).
  • and have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis). – YesY (211,851 edits as of March 22, 2026).

Refer to Special:CentralAuth/SHB2000 for the last two points.

Final required steps

  1. Confirm that the user satisfies all criteria for global bans: YesY Confirmed
  2. File a new request for comment on Meta: YesY Done
  3. Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active: YesY
  4. Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited: YesY by SHB (with eswiki + enwikiquote notifications handled by Codename Noreste)

Comments

Latest comment: 9 days ago72 comments42 people in discussion

Support

  1. Support Support as nominator. //shb (t • c) 01:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  2. Support Support * Pppery * it has begun 02:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  3. Support Support, due to FTT's continued battleground behavior despite warnings and blocks. Also, I notified the only Spanish-language project they edited (per my edit). Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 02:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  4. Support Support. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 02:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  5. Support Support --Stïnger （会話） 02:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC).
  6. Support Support - Blue-Sonnet (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    After thinking about the situation over the past day, I've added them as a comment below for context. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC) Strike in view of Cyberwolf's comments in the Oppose section. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  7. Support Support --𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 03:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  8. Support Support - Thilio (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  9. Support Support - The Bushranger (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  10. Support Support --Saroj (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  11. Support Support - This editor has been offered myriad off-ramps to improve their conduct, and they've all fallen on deaf ears. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm also strongly against any idea that FTT should be unblocked to participate here or that there should be any kind of "roundtable" involving him. The community has bent over backwards the last year in an attempt to give FTT every benefit of the doubt, every possible accommodation, to no avail. But these things have limits, and actions have consequences. While I wish him nothing but the best in his journey, Wikimedia projects should not be part of it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  12. Support Support harassment is simply not acceptable in any form, and multi-wiki and off-wiki moreso. JavaHurricane 09:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  13. Support Support His Reddit activity, including DM's towards me, is still a continuation of on-wiki hounding. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  14. Support Support Per nomination and Ahri Boy. Most of the posts at r/wikimedia going back 4 months are his, all in the same tone and show no understanding whatsoever. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  15. Support Support global ban. The cross-wiki behavior that Faster than Thunder is casting is not acceptable. Dwccb10 (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  16. Support global ban. I am not sure what the difference is between a global block and a global ban, but their cross-wiki behavior is unacceptable, and they are a net negative to all Wikimedia projects. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    In practical terms, there isn't much of a difference. But given FTT's pattern of interpreting negative actions by other users as expressions of personal vendetta, there could be some value in having a global ban "on the books", as an action of the Wikimedia community as a whole, to diffuse that. Omphalographer (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    It's that and that global bans are supported by broader community consensus, whilst global blocks are a (relatively new) tool used by stewards. An unban appeal for a global ban would mean that FtT would need to sufficiently demonstrate to the broader community that their behaviour has improved, and the community would need to be satisfied with it. Enforcement of global blocks is also done by stewards, whereas with global bans, it's enforced by the whole community. Given the continued off-wiki messages (even after the global block), I'm not really convinced all that much that stewards are the ones who should be making the final call when their actions have had a profound impact on the community. //shb (t • c) 23:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    @SHB2000, are you saying the harassment has continued after the global block? That isn't clear in the nomination statement. -- asilvering (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Some of the Reddit messages were posted after the global block, yes. //shb (t • c) 20:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  17. Support Support Ternera (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  18. Support Support as uninvolved user; please wait a minimum of 100 years before appealing Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 01:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  1. Support Support as an user who has suffered similar block to FtT and had his tpa revoked as well. FtT dug this himself and kept digging instead of picking up the pieces and moving on to somewhere else (like commons) and contribute constructively. Per tamzin and jmabel and some of my own research i retract my support Cyberwolf (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  2. Support Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  3.  Weak support to Support Support per WHYGB criterion 5 and as something that the Foundation will take care of anyways. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  4. Support Support sadly. I think their heart was in the right place as evidenced when they asked me on my enwiki talk page if I'd consider becoming an admin there after less than 5,000 edits and only a few months there; I was about to do some research on the issue but other users dissuaded me from it. Nevertheless, I can't ignore the cross-wiki behavior and harassment of Asamboi; there's no excuse for that. The sanctions on enwikivoyage should have taught FtT that what he was doing to Asamboi, but instead they continued their harassment and even extended it to other users on other Wikimedia projects. A preventative global ban is necessary here. Gommeh (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  5. Support Support As an editor who is about a year older than FtT myself, age is no excuse for prolonged hounding and harassment whether on or off wiki. FtT was given more than enough chances to improve his behavior by now. ~deltasock (talk • cont) 17:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  6. Support Support per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 14:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  7. Support Support --NDG (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  8. Support Support - Given the glaringly clear evidence of the harassment and hounding by Faster than Thunder, I think the reasons for wanting to globally ban him outweigh the reasons for not wanting to globally ban him. ~SG5536B 01:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Oppose Not sure what the added value is of a ban in addition to a global block in this case. I've rather the impression, someone has been globally blocked for being a pain in the ass, not for a real harassment. --A.Savin (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose stack a global ban on top of previous punishments using off-wiki actions as justification? Might not be unusual punishment, but it sure is cruel. XavierItzm (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  3.  Weak oppose: This user has already been globally blocked and their email access has been disabled, so frankly I don’t see what additional benefit a global ban would provide on top of that. Moreover, a significant portion of the behavior occurred off-wiki—what effect would an on-wiki ban have on activities outside the wiki? Additionally, I agree with Ajraddatz. 浅村しき (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  4. Simply because it's redundant and as others pointed out, I don't know what's to be achieved further with a global ban. That being said, with "FtT has since engaged in email abuse and off-wiki hounding", a global ban is generally in order as that usually blocks the user from off-wiki projects as well. So this is a rather narrow oppose, on the basis that what I've seen from this user is childish. If they continue abusing after the global block, I think WMF will intervene anyway. Leaderboard (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    The second sentence is indeed why I don't think a global block is sufficient, especially since global blocks only have on-wiki ramifications. A global block does not indicate a ban on all Wikimedia-related spaces (which is necessary, given there were some messages posted after the global block), and is something that wouldn't have ever been considered before the technical ability to globally block users (because stewards aren't there to handle behavioural cases). //shb (t • c) 22:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose. Will write a longer comment soon. ToadetteEdit (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    I do understand the intent of this global ban discussion. I understand how the user was so frustrated after the enwiki block, having myself given them advices and points, which is the basis of their metawiki block, and the global block. I do however oppose such a global ban for multiple reasons:
    • The support votes are often pile-on votes, reassuring and confirming the user's disruption on a wider scale, but without links (Reddit is anonymous, and can be freely linked, but with the risks of outing), I can not yet be convinced that a wider ban be enacted. Also, putting a global ban would only complicate things, as the user will eventually continue using the off-wiki means unless the Foundation intervenes.
    • As the user stated, they have special mental issues (autism, ADHD) that should be carefully dealt with, since entirely restricting the user's ability to edit just introduces a problem where the editor's impulsiveness goes way ahead of themselves and thus will never stop digging a deeper hole. The editor is still a teen short of the age of majority, that editor shall ought to be learned, and to their eyes, the blocks and later the ban is seen as purely "punitive" rather than "preventative". To disclose myself, I just happen to be older than them by several months, and I myself have also experienced my own problems caused by my impulsive behavior, which resulted in my current ban from enwiki (and will not intend to reappeal until 2027). From the problems, I have quickly learned from my mistakes, and I believe that this user should. Maybe if I could advocate for a two-year ban from all of Wikimedia to ensure that the user has all the time off understanding what they did wrong and how would they fix their mistakes, and as what was written below, «if [one doesn't] understand a rule, but it's important to follow it, it's best to avoid the situation entirely».
    • I do not see the fulfillment of the ban rationale; it is technically, but, I my opinion, isn't theoretically. The user was block on enwiki for a case, then blocked on meta for reasons directly related to the enwiki block itself, which while actually disruptive, I probably wouldn't count it as the block rationale was due to fourmshopping for ways to appeal an existing block. In addition to that, the user appears to be contributing positively on the wikivoyage. I want to see these new contributions be positive, rather than completely banning the user; should the user first appeal the gblock via mail.
    I do not want to create some sort of a team or something, but I confirm that I am 100% with FfT. ToadetteEdit (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah. I’m currently blocked too and per my other comments below suffer from similar issues. The kid needs help before he comes back Cyberwolf (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    A WMF or U4C ban is usually unappealable. A lot of people listed in the WMF or U4C ban have high-risk behavior off-wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I understand the rationale as the WMF will always take action against offwiki violations including issuing bans. My main concern was initiating a ban discussion right after a global block for credible claims of off-wiki abuse. I feel that the ban discussion is an unnecessary escalation and that the user will either way continue with such activity. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    This isn't true. WMF bans can be appealed to the Case Review Committee and U4C bans can be appealed to future incarnations of the U4C in theory. No user who was subject to one has ever returned to good standing, but that's because they are typically applied to people who were already incorrigible, not because of the lack of an appeal process. * Pppery * it has begun 17:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Oppose given the current situation there is no need for this. If you aren't young any more you will likely remember that you once were. With that you will also remember some things that you did that will look like folly in hindsight. In addition, this ban would create a precedent of (another?) global ban. If the user comes back in a few years the people enacting this will no longer be around, arguing that the ban is to be lifted will be next to impossible. So: a clear no to a global ban. Can I also request that the user gets back a possibility to appeal, such as access to email or the talk page on Meta. Thank you.-Eptalon (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  7.  Strong oppose excessive after emails with FtT i think that this whole thing stems from FtT’s unique situation including his age, the fact he is an non native English speaker, and his neurodivergence resulting in an misunderstanding to the very core of the situation to the point I think a part of this whole saga just fell apart due to several missteps.
    Nothing looks completely right here and to this point i feel we need to have a roundtable discussion with FtT Cyberwolf (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Do you suggest we stop this process? - if the result was to community ban the user, this would not change much to the current situation. The user is already blocked Eptalon (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
    I’d say yeah this has gone too far to the point i can’t see a purpose of a global ban or this whole discussion. This is the most I’ve bounced in a discussion support to neutral to strong oppose. Speaking with the user has given me the insight i think most of the discussion lacks. The support here is surface level drive-by support (with exceptions) and i think that factor will decide this case Cyberwolf (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  8. Referring to age or unknown mental issues or "own good" are enough to withdraw this. --Wargo (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Oppose There are already plenty of blocks and bans in place. "When you're in a hole, stop digging" goes both ways; more punishments will not send more message. I would only support the ban if it had an automatic expiration date. I do not mean an appeal date but an automatically-over date. This person has some potential, and who knows what they might do after a few years of cool-down time? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  10. This user meets the letter but not the spirit of the global ban criteria. Global bans are for editors that independently contribute constructively and then get banned for similar reasons on several projects. When someone merely abuses other projects to import their disputes, that is what a global lock or block is for. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  11. Thinking about this more through the course of the discussion, I would prefer to try lesser remedies first. Placing another sanction immediately after the global block seems punative and unlikely to improve the situation, particularly as I do not think there has been on or off-wiki harassment or misbehaviour after the global block. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Oppose because I think lesser remedies may be appropriate at this time, considering the complicated circumstances. --Minoa (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Comment Comment has been a reasonably good contributor on Commons; I was unaware of these issues elsewhere. - Jmabel (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  2. This case has vexed me for a good while. I genuinely don't think that FtT is trying to hurt anyone. They see themself as being in some Kafkaesque story where reasonable actions are arbitrarily punished and attempts to get juice ignored. One would hope that they would see that, if literally everyone else to review their situation doesn't see it that way, it is likely their own perception that is flawed, but instead we're in the proverbial situation of the guy on the highway who says everyone else is driving the wrong direction.
    FtT has sought greater guidance for neurodivergent editors, but has failed to heed it when given. A simple strategy for neurodivergent people, on Wikimedia and in the rest of the world, is that if you don't understand a rule, but it's important to follow it, it's best to avoid the situation entirely. For instance, when I was about FtT's age, I realized that I didn't have an intuitive sense of when it was socially acceptable to make jokes about others' appearances, so I resolved to simply not do so at all. If FtT legitimately cannot tell what kind of contact with people will be read as harassment, by the same logic the solution would be to proactively avoid anything along those lines—resolving to never follow people to other discussions or other sites, for any reason. Instead, though, FtT has refused all advice at managing neurodivergence, on a site where many (most?) editors are neurodivergent and have our own strategies for working around whatever issues that may cause.
    The reason that I'm neutral here is that, unlike other GBan proposals I've seen, in theory this could all be resolved right now by FtT saying they realize they need to avoid any conduct that could be read as harassment, apologizing to those they've hurt, and seeking mentorship. FtT has not yet done anything that would be very difficult to take back, like serious personal attacks or posting people's addresses. At the same time, they're on a very bad trajectory, appearing more and more obsessive over time, and less and less interested in following anyone else' advice. I can't in good conscience oppose a proposal like this when I am not the only victim. But I also hesitate to support when it still would be so easy for FtT to turn this around.
    FtT, if you're reading this, a word of advice: This comment is not going to turn the tide of this discussion. It might garner a few "per Tamzin" neutrals or even one or two opposes, but I would not expect it to, on its own, save you from a ban. What it might do, though, is give you a framework of what you would need to say to turn this around. You've lost all talkpage access, but could presumably talk to a Meta admin or steward. (Note: I still do not consent to being emailed/DM'd/etc. anywhere.) If there are people in your life you can talk to about this sort of thing, like your parents or a therapist or a counselor at school, I would recommend doing that. Now is a great time to seek advice, and to listen to it. -- Tamzin[[[User talk:Tamzin|cetacean needed]]] (they|xe|🤷) 13:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    I must commend you on the grace you've shown this editor, even after the reprehensible way they've acted towards you. But for me, I think the degree of trust that this editor has broken has rendered any words or promises made at this point absolutely worthless. Most people aren't going to have the ability to act with such equanimity, and any editor in any project who comes across FTT risks having their WMF experience absolutely shattered by this individual. I think the time period where this was easy to turn around ended several months ago. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Hit the nail on the head in my honest opinion Cyberwolf (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    There's unfortunately a serious flaw with the part where you say to speak with "people in your life you can talk to about this sort of thing". The answer is that the number of such people is likely a big fat 0. I can almost bet that friends, therapists or parents will be clueless about anything more than "Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit", let alone know what this wiki is. And chances are that if FtT speaks to their parents, they'll get good-faith but misguided criticism. This is not the right solution for such an editor at this time. Leaderboard (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think they are talking in general the kid has issues that haven’t been dealt with properly. The parents in this case seem absent. It may seem scary but this kid needs help before he harms himself IRL. If this is common place for him he will do something he will regret. I think we are past the punishment points in my opinion we need to guide him to get help in general now Cyberwolf (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  3. Comment Comment I don’t really care if someone with some of the most extreme w:wp:CIR issues I’ve seen gets banned, but they’re already globally blocked and highly unlikely to get unblocked. Banning them is gratuitous but they’re also not worth outright defending. --Dronebogus (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  4. 4. Neutral NeutralComment Comment I was too hasty in my support and I am going neutral per tamzin.
    I’ve been through similar but was pulled out of the fryer and dunked in an ice bucket before I even got to this point, I thank @Ahri Boy and other admins.
    It seems FtT was pulled from the fryer dunked in that ice bucket (Perhaps he was not kept in long enough) but as soon as he was pulled out he was still searing hot and jumped back into the fryer. I’m unsure if there were signs pointing towards “he is having a mental breakdown” and if they were ignored. But if he could have been blocked in the first place this all I mean all wouldn’t have happened. He self destructed and thought everything is over. FtT wasn’t acting in bad faith. He was simply lashing out to the point of no return. I’m sure that FtT doesn’t have the irl support he needs. And I hope and encourage that he would seek professional help Cyberwolf (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Professional help is essential if there are a lot of mental health problems that the person is unable to deal with. I could have asked FTT to read Emergency. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    A lot could have been done differently. But hindsight is 20/20. Cyberwolf (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Other comments

  • I warned FTT on Reddit to get off take a step back all wikis. But still, FTT is active on r/wikimedia, found delusional in the same way as his on-wiki behavior. This isn't the first time a Wikimedian DM'ing me on Reddit. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • With stewards having the power to block for UCoC violations, this sort of lower-level disruptive behaviour could be better served through a global block than a global ban imo. Further escalation through a global ban discussion, after the global block is already in place, might just further aggravate the situation. That said, I do think an enforced indeterminate break from Wikimedia is the only solution for FTT at the moment, so I am not opposing this, more just noting for future cases. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • After reading through Tamzin & the other neutral posts I was veering pretty close to going neutral. This editor seems to be rather young and without an adequate support network that can rein them in (or they have a good offline network who don't have the technical know-how to understand the damage they're causing online).
I've kept my Support for now as I hope this will show them that it's not just a few admins or one Wikimedia project that finds their actions unacceptable - it's the community. If they can realise how serious this is and how much it's affecting other people, it might give them the push they need to realise that they have to stop.
One-on-one guidance from multiple different editors on different projects didn't work.
The block from English Wikipedia didn't work.
The Meta block didn't work.
Maybe seeing editors standing together in agreement like this will have an effect.
I say this as their recent U4C cases argue that an individual administrator is being unfair, unkind or somehow stopping them from being treated fairly. This has broadly been their argument throughout.
Wikimedia project blocks are carried out by one administrator; a global block is actioned by a steward - one or two people that they can accuse of being unfair.
I'm sticking with Support because an RFC isn't just one or two people - it's not a small "cabal" that could be accused of doing unfair things quietly.
This is the community as a whole making a clear, cohesive statement that we stand by the decisions made to date and this really has to stop. I don't know how else to get that message through to FTT. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree with this too Cyberwolf (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
TBH I spent a literal half hour writing that and hated every minute; I desperately wanted to persuade myself to go to neutral/oppose, but I don't know any other way to prove to FTT that they've not been treated unfairly and need to just let the matter drop.
If anything changes before a ban is enacted (or someone can think of a better way) then I'll be very happy to amend my decision, but I can't justify it to myself right now. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
IMO dropping hostility with a user like this will work. I’m surprised that this was not a bigjust indefinite block until he realizes he messed up. He’s not been treated unfairly but I felt that when I was blocked.
I watched myself lose respect from the community and broke down.
I’m probably the only person who would be able to relate with FTT Cyberwolf (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Struck my Support in view of your Oppose comments. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Questions

Latest comment: 4 days ago24 comments13 people in discussion
  • Is it possible to unblock them in metawiki to participate here?🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 18:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    For procedural fairness reasons they should probably be given the opportunity to do so. If nothing else they could email stewards [at] wikimedia.org with a statement and we could post it here. That's part of the reason why I would prefer to not be having this dicussion now, though... I don't think FTT's participation here will help them or anyone else. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would refrain as depending on his mood or attitude he may jump back into the deep fryer Cyberwolf (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Though I wouldn’t mind having an discussion with them privately Cyberwolf (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Having discussion with FtT at the moment Cyberwolf (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I’d say so Cyberwolf (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Suppose this request passes, and the user gets community-banned. Can we make sure that if the user comes back in the future and appeals, that this appeal is handled by an uninvolved, neutral instance, and that both outcomes (uphold ban, retract ban) are possible? - I know that currently bans do not have a predetermined duration, but would anyone see a ban that expires, say in a year? -Eptalon (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I pretty do not know the nuances of appealing the ban, but since bans lead to a global lock, the user should use the steward's email address to send the appeal, after which a RFC gets opened to attract the views of the wider community. Not sure about this, since I have never witnessed an editor coming from a successful global ban appeal. Although WMF/U4C bans are so much harder to appeal.
    Global bans have always been indefinite, but like enwiki bans avd even WMF actions, it can be made for a definite time. Which is the reason why I am advocating for a two-year ban rather than indefinite; I just hope that this won't escalate matters to the WMF themselves. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I’m discussing with FtT currently and a 2 year ban would be in accordance because he is discussing his situation with me. And I’m quite certain that he can return eventually Cyberwolf (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    I am planning to file a request for moderator roles of r/wikimedia on r/redditrequest within next two weeks. That subreddit should discuss about Wikimedia and not about whining editors off-wiki. Can't risk getting the subreddit banned by Reddit admin team for being purposed as a whining machine.
    Edit: The current r/wikimedia mod team responded after I posted a modmail, and declined a mod role request. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
    Just to say: I haven't seen a successful appeal to a site wide community ban yet. So if the result was to ban for a given time, the environment should be set up so that all the blocks/locks time out after the set time. Note: this should also apply to wikis where the user was active, wr don't want to repeat the process for every wiki. Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
    @ToadetteEdit: Global bans can only be permanent. See global ban policy: A global ban's [...] is usually permanent. A09|(pogovor) 09:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    "usually" makes a big difference here. Suggests the potential of an exemption. Leaderboard (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
    Eh, the exemption rarely happens anyways Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 12:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Will this close before a foundation ban? Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    Pretty much likely, quoting the global ban page: Discussion should be open for at least two weeks, but no more than one month. We are quickly approaching two weeks into the discussion, but because it is apparent that the discussion has convincing oppose comments, I feel that the ban discussion would not close sooner than later, and could even close as "no consensus".
    WMF bans are very unpredictable since that involves continuous and private off-wiki conduct even after local/global locks/blocks/bans, but I think that the ban would most likely occur only after this gets closed, and the user keeps on causing disruption on Reddit and elsewhere. Although I personally hope that this user stop digging a deeper hole and actually listen to us, in order to make the WMF ban less likely to happen. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    And a WMF ban would force WMF themselves to refer any off-wiki disruption to respective site admins. The Reddit admin team can review any Faster Than Thunder activity if sufficiently reported. r/Wikimedia mod team just already banned FTT, but FTT can still harass anywhere on Reddit. (Personal attack removed) Ahri Boy (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    (Personal attack removed) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 04:16, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    Your comment is problematic and contradicts legal processes in that the user in this case is a juvenile and would most likely be taken to a rehabilitation center until they become eighteen. Life imprisonment for "online harrasment" or similar is impossible and in our case would not considered a "felony" but rather a "misdemeanor". ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    Any such speculation is totally irrelevant and counter-productive. A09|(pogovor) 20:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Could a Meta admin please do something about Whyiseverythingalreadyused's comment? And maybe the last sentence of Ahri Boy's as well. @Vermont @DreamRimmer @EggRoll97: Just picking a few names I recognize from the admin list. -- Tamzin[​cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Blocked both users for two weeks for uncivil comments. – DreamRimmer ■ 18:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Question https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikistress&oldid=30307068 he did it here too not to be a person looking to get ahri boy in more trouble but this should be counted as uncivil. Cyberwolf (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    Should probs be closed as insufficient consensus for a gban tbh. Though I suppose could be argued either way. //shb (t • c) 01:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Faster_than_Thunder&oldid=30397927"