Requests for comment/Global ban for WayneRay

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. There's clear consensus to ban WayneRay on all Wikimedia projects through community process. The user is already globally locked due to WMF ban, but this RfC shows the support of the community about it. All community members are asked to enforce this ban. Matiia (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Reguyla[edit]

WayneRay (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)

This RFC is a request to ban WayneRay globally. This user meets at least one general criteria for a global ban but also meets at least two additional criteria that justify a global ban I have identified below:

  • The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects: At a minimum, this user is blocked on Commons and the English Wikipedia indefinitely. I have not checked the length of others, but I know that they are also blocked on
  • Potential endangerment of editors including children
  • Use of WMF wikis for soliciting or posting inappropriate materials

A recent blog post called Meet the editors: WayneRay was published by Wikipediocracy March 21, 2016 here This blog article identified that a WMF wiki editor known as WayneRay had been arrested and convicted of child pornography. Since then several of his accounts have been blocked (but not all), his Wikipedia article has been deleted and several of his images on Commons have been deleted as out of scope or inappropriate. The WMF has stated they are looking into the issue but have yet to actually globally block the account.

I realize this is a sensitive matter and certainly this type of issue falls into the criteria of a WMF action, but since it has been 3 weeks and the WMF has not taken any action yet, I feel it's appropriate to recommend a community vote to do so, at least temporarily, until the WMF has a chance to finish their research and make a determination. I want to clarify that I am not accusing the editor of any wrongdoing on the WMF sites, but the seriousness of the offenses he was convicted of merit a discussion on whether the WMF communities want this user participating. Reguyla (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WayneRay[edit]

(Originally posted on "User_talk:WayneRay")

I apologize for my discussions with other users. Originally I was charged for uploading images to shut down some Yahoo User Groups and a few other errant items already made public. Charges were only related to photographs and don't or didn't involve real people or other humans. Some of the WP accusations and need for removals are out of scope and wrong in their accusations (ie the scouting canoe photo for example). My commons work may have and did need some assistance in editing and uploading (Copyrights and ownership were not my good point but as I owned the negative collections I thought I owned the copyright and could just upload them)from my collection (ie Beamsville historical photos and my father's WWII and Korean War photos), but I have been working in areas unrelated to the charges. I am out of jail and was trying to forget about the whole mess and move on but as I said, things got out of hand on Commons and WPedia. I apologize again. Some User contacted FaceBook as well and both my personal and business FB pages were deleted the same day so I am nowhere now. Do what you have to do, I tried to do a good job with my Botany and Books edits and at least I can be satisfied with most of the things I have done. BYe. WayneRay (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



  1. Support Support - I think the case here is pretty clear, for those of you following at home off wiki. Carrite (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support Generally a ban for this reason should be done by WMF, since all material is usually oversighted and private, and for good reason; however, this case is unusual in that the Signpost ran an article on this account a few weeks ago, so the general facts are publicly known (for better or worse). In this case, since the concerns are known to us, are very serious, and WMF has been slow to act, I think we as the community should go ahead and ban him, regardless of any potential WMF action. --Rschen7754 03:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support Technically, he may not meet the criteria for a community-imposed global ban, but I presume the WMF will be taking action anyway given their recent history on these matters so I see this as merely a stop-gap measure due to their sluggishness in imposing a ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support – Look at the sort of comments that had to be removed from Commons. Comments like this and the addition of photos to the userpages of female editors can be considered sexual harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support --Defender (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support --Andreas JN466 15:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support — It's rather unfortunate, though one might also call it a damning indictment, that it needed that much publicity from "outside" to get this account blocked on the Wikimedia projects where he was active — despite the fact that the problem with this account was obviously well known on at least one WMF project since August 2012! Legal had been notified about the unsolved problem on March 21st 2016. --Túrelio (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support Almost a month since legal was notified and still no ban... I asked Jalexander-WMF about this on Commons in late March, and he said WMFOffice was working on it. I expected something to be done a bit quicker than this. INeverCry 17:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support The conviction for child pornography offences is entirely sufficient to justify a permanent ban. Nothing more needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support - Agree with comments by Rschen7754, The Devil's Advocate, Michaeldsuarez, Túrelio, and INeverCry, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support per everyone above - The child porn conviction is enough to ban anyone here. –Davey2010Talk 20:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support The illegal behavior is justified for a global ban, and police involment to arrest the user. That's a Zero-tolerence violation, He's need to be gone for good. CitiesGamer66 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support. A conviction for child pornography, and this - [1]... Really?! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support. As per GeneralizationsAreBad (esp. the awful implications of the linked note from W to Sonja); we have enough young people editing within Wikipedia that could easily serve as a pool of potential victims. If we don't have a policy regarding this, we should have. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support I can not imagine why the WMF has not slready done this. The conviction plus the inappropriate request noted by GeneralizationsAreBad are enough. JbhTalk 22:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support. The whole thing is sad and its wrenching to see the downfall of fellow person. And while "served his debt to society" is sufficient for most any offense, not for this, not here... we can't have this. And re "Charges were only related to photographs and don't or didn't involve real people", but unless the photos were of dolls or drawings (not saying that would be OK) these are real people... it's just sad. @User:WayneRay: Nobody here hates you. We are humans and nothing human is alien to us. We celebrate and cherish your accomplishments as a human. We just... we mustn't and can't have you here. There are very many places in the world where your energies will be welcome and useful, and we wish you peace and fulfillment. Herostratus (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support. As per Rschen7754, and the facts at hand. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support per Rschen. I note especially Michaeldsuarez - sexual harassment of users, especially minors - cannot be tolerated. I'm surprised the WMF hasn't acted sooner. --LT910001 (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support per above Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support, as this person should not be viewed as a role model for the WMF community, and because child porn. --TJH2018 talk 01:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support with the hope that the WMF will also ban through their processes. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support I agree with the sentiments of Herostratus however WMF offers to much of a risk to children hence this must be supported. Faendalimas (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support This kind of harassment must not be tolerated. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support Stanistani (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support per above. MER-C (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support Sexual harassment of users, ESPECIALLY minors, can not be tolerated at all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support The Wikipediocracy post is pretty damning. This is completely unacceptable behavior. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support Harrassing users (especially minors) and soliciting illegal images are unacceptable. And the statement quoted above, worded to make it appear that he does not believe the subjects of photos to be real people, does not help the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support The correct action for conviction for child pornography offences. DARIO SEVERI (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support per the above Epic Genius (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support Can't reiterate strongly enough that sexual harassment of any form cannot and should not be tolerated in any way. shape or form. Ban, bury and salt the earth. Blackmane (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support, per Rschen7754. -ks Talk 17:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  34. Support Support Pretty ironic, though. --QEDK (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support Mike VTalk 16:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support Egregious behaviour which can only be resolved through a global ban enforcement. --Chesnaught555 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support--Druddigon (talk | contributions) 18:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support is a disruption from the goals of the projects. xaosflux Talk 02:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support - Piling on, but in a good cause. Jusdafax 10:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support - Carrite (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support - Has to be flicked. A no-brainer IMO. Aloha27 (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I've taken the liberty to proxy-post[2] your intended comment on his Commons-talkpage. Hope that's o.k. for you. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One note though. I think he is blocked here as well as some of the other sites so I'm not sure if he can respond. Normally I would advocate a person be able to defend themselves but given the situation asking him to participate may not be appropriate. If he is to participate at all, someone else would have to post the response on his behalf. Reguyla (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, he isn't blocked on Meta, and he has posted a response on his talk page. I've posted a copy of that response on this page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: I'm okay with that. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my apologies, I see that now. Yes I agree, I am certainly ok with that as well. Reguyla (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Other comments[edit]

Honestly the WMF is suffering from the same problem as the communities. They are focusing their efforts on the wrong problems, the wrong solutions and the wrong priorities. They are more interested in building empires, pushing POV, violating policy when it suits them (like stepping in to desysop users on Commons without community discussion just because they disagree with a decision) than in doing stuff they should be doing like this.
Frankly, the fact that I am on the verge of getting globally banned myself for continuing to advocate admins follow the rules and that my bullshit bans on IRC and EnWP be revoked and I am the one that finally submitted this (not even an admin, functionary or WMF employee) and even then only after waiting so long to do it, is telling in itself about what the communities priorities are and why there are so many problems that aren't getting solved. That there is such a weak turnout is all the more disappointing. I am extremely disappointed in this whole situation. Reguyla (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i agree. this tallying of blocks, when we know how political those can be, does not inspire confidence in this process. and the "legal threats" issue makes it even more important for the WMF to step up when there is off wiki evidence. i continue to be dismayed by their abdication of responsibility. a little leadership would restore confidence, but i see no prospect for this. Slowking4 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment The user has been blocked at enWS, though the reasons for the block were due to actions on another wiki, which generally would not be consistent with our local policy there, and more would seem to be an overly enthusiastic approach by an individual admin. So please don't use the block at enWS as evidence of behaviour.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]