Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320

The following request for comments is closed. The requirements listed in Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban, namely that the user and the communities affected need to be informed, have not been fulfilled. Therefore, this request is "speedily" closed. --MF-W 13:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user has two permanent bans and two partial bans. Openly expresses chauvinistic message, Nazi-like things against Ukrainian culture. Might be worth checking out additional dolls. --Arxivist (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a legit proposal? Seems a bit, short. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 23:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost 3 am for me now. I'll wake up and add more. I did this so I wouldn't forget. Arxivist (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whatever this is, I Oppose a global ban. The conversation linked by the nominator seems to stem from an escalation from both sides. There was a dispute about copyright, where legit copyright stuff was being discussed, until Arxivist said "You simply support Russian fascism and do not recognize Ukrainian culture. Now your actions are clear to me. I also wish you to wake up to Russian air raids or bombs". Sorry but if you say that you know that the response isn't going to be nice either. PlanespotterA320 is an active admin on uzwiki without any problems, so a global ban would be a negative for that project. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx There's an RFDA disccusion for them on uzwiki. Lemonaka (talk) 06:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lemonaka Can you link it here? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but PlanespotterA320 is still telling lies on local community, accusing us as Nazi supporter and denying sockpuppetry. It's a hard discussion.uz:Vikipediya:Administratorlar forumi Lemonaka (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFDA started is started by you and there is no one from the local community supporting it yet. So, I still do not see a problem from them in uzwiki. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 16:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this RFC itself is low quality. It needs copy-edit a lot. Lemonaka (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify all the community this user is active, thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxivist please read Global_bans#Obtaining_consensus_for_a_global_ban and fulfilling all these 1-4 Lemonaka (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said, nor do I beleive, that ALL Ukrainians or all Ukrainians of Wikipedia are Nazis. I merely beleive it is rather problematic and very insulting to ethnic minority editors that a pro-SS userbox is available on Ukrainian Wikipedia (and used by dozens of editors). That is a HUGE slap in the face to Jewish, Roma, disabled, etc editors who the SS tried to exterminate. Many of the articles I've written on English Wikipedia have even been translated to Ukrainian Wikipedia, and I've worked with ukwiki in improving articles. I merely hope that Ukrainian AND Russian Wikipedia will respect ethnic minorities in their article coverage AND adhere to copyright regulations. In fact, it's quite surprising that I'm getting so much hate from Ukrainian Wikipedia especially since it wasn't very long ago I was getting a lot of flack from "friends" at ruwiki after a started an RfC without their permission and made the mistake of refering to others as chauvanist. I know I have pissed off a lot of people with my deletion nominations of non-PD-photos and things that are unpopular - but those aren't legitimate grounds for a ban. Yes, I socked with the RespectCE account (I never denied it!). But I used it only to make good-faith edits that improved wikipedia, from adding publication information to fair-use photos to translating articles from other wikis - not malicious vandalism. I hope people here can see through the anger here and forgive me for my mistakes. I owe a huge debt to all wikipedians here and naively thought I could pay it off by continuing to write and evade a ban. If allowed to return to ruwiki, I promise not to file any more RfC or publish any more Crimea-related articles there, I know this upsets a lot of people. I know my place now, I know better than to let my emotions out in editing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I still wish my ban on ruwiki could be revoked considering the circumstances - I am unaware of any precedent that allows for a permanent ban for the use of the word "chauvanist", which is even done by the nominator here, and it's pretty obvious it was because I made a bad RfC about Russian Wikipedia without asking permission from Russian editors. I apologize for calling anyone here chauvanist or editwarring on hot-topics, but I don't think it's nessesary to stop me from making positive contributions to the wiki. I know the best I can do is honey from a barrel of tar, but it's better than nothing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the very reason that I was banned there was because I refered to certain editors expression of very fringe nationalist anti-Crimean Tatar veiws and steryotypes as "chauvanist" (which was dubbed name calling and used as a pretense for a ban, although it's kinda an open secret it was retaliation to me for starting an RfC about concerning behavior on ruwiki)

This user at best takes things out of context and at worst just blatantly lies. — Summer 04:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is EXACTLY what happened. I provided ample context. I know I was wrong to start an RfC about Crimea in ruwiki. It's already closed. I know my place now. I tried to discuss the matter in good faith. You know that I won't edit about Crimea again if allowed to return to ruwiki. I never said that the official reason for my ban was starting the RfC, just that ruwiki did not handle the RfC well (as evidenced by comments from ruwiki). I'm not a "free speech warrior" as you mentioned. Just an editor trying to improve wikipedia who makes a lot of mistakes.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there ANYONE here who isn't Russian or Ukrainian who thinks it's incorrect to describe a userbox that endorses an SS unit as "Nazi"?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't help but laugh at what's going on here. I would not have thought Ukrainian and Russian nationalists could agree on anything, but apparently I managed to become hated by both, albeit for very different reasons. I think that should serve as a testament to my impartiality here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest even possible Support. We do not need such people here. This user was indefblocked in ruwiki for unparliamentary language (ВП:НО). Enough is enough. Nothing ever lasts forever. Ban the user.Sipuha From Ruwiki (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, the "unparliamentary language" of using "chauvanist" to describe highly offensive and racist edits by certain users to articles about national minorities is not exactly grounds for an indef ban.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I'm really against for banning this user globally because of that this user a professional editor and sysop in our UzWiki. You mustn't adopt a resolution someone's wikilife based on national and emotional feelings. Optima D (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Planespotter is unproductive and abusive in many Projekts see enwiki, commons, ruwiki and meta. A sock is global locked Special:Contributions/RespectCE. The abuse outweighs any good work in uzwiki. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts. Also, "unproductive and abusive" is downright insulting considering how many rare and hard to find public domain photos I have put on Commons, articles I've translated, stubs expanded, and articles improved. I know you are upset that I complained about that userbox that glorifies the SS, but please put your personal feelings aside here. Also, calling a userbox that celebrates is SS "offensive" and expressing concern about widespread usage of it isn't trolling or abuse, it's having a discussion that NEEDS to be had.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a request in one Godwin's law sentence, really? --Trollflöjten^αω 10:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC) PS: Off course also Strongest even possible Oppose[reply]
Oppose insufficiently substantiated request. Please take time to carefully create a new request that better illustrates the breaks of rules, if any. --Dealerofsalvation (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Dealerofsalvation said. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This isn’t a proper request. --Morten Haan (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 42 --Knoerz (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient explanation of reasons for a ban--Hyperdieter (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]