Talk:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomad's vote[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose: From my perspective I see no reason whatsoever for a global ban. Kubura has made some edits on Lithuanian Wiki, I have reviewed them all after this forum post, all of them seemed to be done in good faith and while some of them weren't stellar, none of them were even close to being ban-worthy. So, we never had any problem with this user, and in the unlikely event we ever will, we are perfectly capable of banning him ourselves. As for the other „charges“ many of them seem to be really unconvincing to me and more like a personal vendetta. I might very well be wrong since I have no deep knowledge on these situations, but that's again an argument for a local ban at worst, and not a global one. --Nomad (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    I am changing my vote to strong oppose convinced by all this dogpiling and attempts to pressure, that there's something shady going on here. --Nomad (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Purple arrow right.svg Moved by MJLMJLTalk 03:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Nomad: I have literally never interacted with Kubura before in my life, so it seems kind of impossible for me to have a personal vendetta here.
    Also, just so you know that Kubura has several sleeper accounts on your wiki. You might want to look into that. (Edit conflict.)MJLTalk 22:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    Nomad, from a procedural standpoint, the area of interest in a global ban discussion is not that they have made good edits in some places, but that they have made bad edits in many places. In other words, editing decently on one or some projects while engaging in abhorrent behavior on others does not disqualify an editor from a global ban. Vermont (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Vermont: I strongly believe if they engaged in abhorrent behavior on some projects they should get banned on those projects and the decision should be made by people participating on those some projects who have first hand knowledge of whats going on. If you go around inviting people from some other projects to state their opinion, they do state their opinion based on what they do know, and what they do know is whats going on on their projects. --Nomad (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Nomad: Queen...do you not know how global bans work? Better question: did you read the RfC? Because the RfC has all the evidence you need. Also, users are not answering based on only what they know from their own projects, because all the evidence they need is right up there, y'know, the part of this page you definitely didn't read. User:Imjustthere 23:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
    Global ban policy requires that proposers notify every project that the subject has edited on. This editor and his sockpuppets have been blocked on multiple projects already. The point of this is for editors from our various communities to review Kubura's actions from a global perspective, not to simply look at the relevant edits on their home wiki. If the latter were the case, someone could vandalize fifty small wikis, make a single edit on the English Wikipedia, and infinitely evade global ban. Vermont (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
@Vermont: I'm looking here and Kubura has no edits on sh.wiki but notice about this rfc was posted there. Why is that, if he has no edits there? On bs.wiki he has 3 edits, all of them only info related, no articles edits, but notice about this rfc was posted there too. Same with sr.wiki only 2 edits only info related but notice about this rfc was posted there too.--Rovoobob Talk 05:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I suppose "every project" means just that, every project. Apart from that, AFAIK there are no provisions against anyone notifying projects the editor in question never edited on, as long as the notification is neutrally worded, which seems to be the case here. GregorB (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My question still stands not because he said every project, but rather that he said: Global ban policy requires that proposers notify every project that the subject has edited on. To me it looks like Vote-stacking/Vote-banking because from the past I'm yet to see somebody from that sh.wiki who opposed. So going around notifying groups that are known for being against him from the past, no matter how neutrally worded the notice is, will result in support this rfc.--Rovoobob Talk 09:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, shwiki notification was fully in line with WP:APPNOTE, but I since I'm not exactly an uninvolved editor here, it's for the others to weigh in. It would be OK, I'd say, to also notify projects particularly supportive of Kubura. Also, the RfC is not a vote; sheer numerical majority is not necessarily sufficient for it to succeed or fail. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nomad: Hrwiki admin here. Kubura has not been banned on hrwiki because we have a local rule that admins cannot be banned. If we were to block him, he could simply start a vote to revoke his ban, using his socks and likeminded people to win it, have Meta restore his sysop rights, and then start a vote to desysop the person who blocked him. --Ivi104 (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    @MJL I find it odd that it's you who moved this conversation to the talkpage, according to policy, only admins / stewards could do this. For what it's worth I think this is okay to move to talkpage, but since the global policy is passed not too long ago, I think it will be better next round for a steward/admin to move (can ask me for help if needed). I know this may seem that I am very inflexible and didn't follow the spirit of IAR, but since we are gloablly banning someone, let the process be as uncontroversial as possible, though it is already controversial. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    I have question for you Nomad, when 20% of active population of HR wiki is same person, you are right. Something shady is going on. So can you argument for me, why are you defending Kubura, here and on RFC? As every single time you would attack people, and then call him victim. Even after he is proven to sabotaged votes here? Kanikosen (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    @User:Camouflaged Mirage It's pretty new policy, MJL may just have not known of it. Perhaps MJL as the RfC's proposer should have let someone else handle it, but it would never have occurred to me that any well-intentioned, experienced user couldn't move off-topic discussion to talk, or that any other couldn't disagree and move it back as relevant. I looked at the RfC behind that change, and I'm surprised no one suggested that it shouldn't require an admin for that. Valereee (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Valereee True, it's very new and some of us admins here don't even know it that well. Yes, as the initiator it might not be too proper to move. However, policy being policy, we have to respect it in some sense. But to be honest, they should had read the policy in depth before as they requested Limited Adminship on meta just recently to close RFCs citing the policy as a background. Personal note, I missed the RFC in all, but yes the suggestion of not needing an admin might be worth considering. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Camouflaged Mirage and Valereee: I knew of the policy, but I forgot that it meant more than just closing RFCs. I will refrain from moving comments in the future. –MJLTalk 16:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael's comment[edit]

Hey, @User:Jeromi Mikhael, I interpreted the post to Nomad's talk as a genuine expression of concern that an admin on another project maybe didn't realize there was a possibility this person might be socking at that project too. I think there's a strong possibility MJL took it to Nomad's talk to avoid bludgeoning here. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: You're probably right. ImJustThere and Kanikosen bludgeoned Nomad quite hard. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I felt unconvinced. I think it is better for MJL to directly clarify regarding this matter. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I'm not trying to convince you, just offering an alternate interpretation. :) Valereee (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jeromi Mikhael and Valereee: I have on my talk page my intention there. My only concern was that Nomad was not taking the sockpuppet allegations as seriously as they should since it has a direct impact on Lithuanian Wikipedia (while the Steward election meddling has an indirect effect).
I have already privately (and off-wiki) requested that ImJustThere leave Nomad alone. –MJLTalk 16:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I have only interacted with Nomad once and do not plan on interacting with him again. User:Imjustthere 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: Understood, thanks. Face-smile.svg --Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

MJL, et. al. Why was a Survey started in this rfc before Kubura had a chance to write his statement?--Rovoobob Talk 10:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rovoobob: Well then. You could compile your own evidence and create a similar RfC. Although I supported this proposal, I'm here to help you and I might change my stance if Kubura, et al. could come up with a better evidence and a more convincing defense.Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rovoobob:, the usual practice is to open RfCs and have the involved users comment on them once they're published. People who comment are free to change their mind at any point in time if they are convinced by counterarguments.
Jeromi Mikhael, I'm not sure what a "similar RfC" would achieve here, since the people in opposition don't seem to be looking for an alternative remedy; they are simply opposed to the proposal at hand, which can and should be discussed here. Blablubbs (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Meta's guidelines on a global ban, it isn't an obligation for a defense to be written up by the target user. Blablubbs has already satisfied the requirement of notifying Kubura on his active wikis with this message on hr.wikipedia. Though, with that being said, I would be very interested in Kubura's defense to all that has been stated against him. His last edit on hr.wikipedia was November 13. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Blablubbs: Sorry. I mean "a place where Kubura et al. could collect evidence to oppose this RfC". It doesn't have to be an RfC. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rovoobob: I made a survey section for this RFC in the same way I did for James Salsman.
People have the option of waiting for a response or not, and I suspect that there are a lot of people who have not actually commented on this RFC for that very reason. –MJLTalk 17:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Rovoobob entirely. This complaint clearly took a lot of time and care to make and MJL says it was the work of a whole team! Whether Kubara's innocent or guilty, they should be allowed enough time to write a defense. Long complaints like this one tempt the community to only skim them instead of checking every link carefully. And then they're too tired to read the defense even if there is one. Then anyone can be insta-killed by anyone willing to put in the time to craft a long, boring complaint that looks legit on the surface. Let's not have a My Cousin Vinny moment where it turns out the bricks are as thin as a playing card. I'm not accusing MJL of anything here; MJL has clearly acted in compliance with the rules as they currently exist. I'm agreeing that there's a weak spot in the system, and it would be very easy to fix. 1) We could tell Kubara he's accused and send him the complaint privately, let him write a rebuttal and post both at the same time. 2) We could post the complaint but ask the community to refrain from voting until after Kubara's had a chance to respond... There are a lot of options. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
"This complaint clearly took a lot of time and care to make and MJL says it was the work of a whole team!" Darkfrog24, I wonder how long it took them to make it and when did they start doing it? MJL?--Rovoobob Talk 12:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Rovoobob: That is a difficult question to answer. I started this request back on Halloween of this year, but all that was basic formatting stuff. 90% of the words written in the final product were solely written by me over the course of three days in a marathon editing session.
The reason for that being the case is that this was initially going to be a de-sysop request against Kubura with no mention of the socking (I was skeptical on that front), but I had to scrap all of that after Sakretsu's checkuser on Kubura revealed more information than I expected. A few days were spent discussing steps forward, and then I drafted it all for comment from the folks involved.
Hope that answers your question! –MJLTalk 18:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

MJL, et. al., I can see now that involved users can comment and "are free to change their mind at any point in time if they are convinced by counterarguments" and that there "isn't an obligation for a defense to be written up by the target user", but if a place is offered to him to put his statement anyway it's only fair to wait for him to do so and then open up Survey. You see usually in rfc's most of the users who put in their support/oppose opinions, they come by, read what's already there at the time, post their opinions and that's it, they will not be following the dinamics of the rfc closely. That's why I think he's in that case disadvantaged from the outset.--Rovoobob Talk 02:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a difference between a six yesses and one yes plus five me-toos. I want to support and agree with other people I like who've already participated and that's a hard impulse to resist. It's clear which way this is going, but the fairer Meta is to Kubara the more trust the community will have in Project Wiki. It's about Kubara but it's also about everyone watching. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24 and Rovoobob: Like I said, I did it exactly as it was done for my previous global ban request. No one had a complaint about the survey section there, so I don't see why it would be a problem here (unless people are under some assumption that Kubura is uniquely entitled to more rights than Salsman, etc).
It's also been three or so days now, and it is my understanding that Kubura has seen this request already. That is more than enough time to write down a sufficient reply, but he has made the decision not to do so as of my writing this. At a certain point, one has to just see that a user has actively chosen not to respond and move on without them, and we are certainly reaching close to it. Apparently he was free enough to respond to Man_Usk on hrwiki,[1] but I guess he didn't feel like it was worth his time to comment here.
Finally, given that Kubura has been blocked on three different Wikimedia projects and has previously used socks to disrupt the last Meta RFC about him... I really am not sympathetic for him being in this position. His own actions led him here, but that is just my simple opinion. –MJLTalk 03:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, MJL. You absolutely did this in the normal way, in accordance with Meta's rules, customs and precedents. Absolutely no one here is accusing you of doing anything wrong or even anything unusual. I just think the normal way has a big hole in it.
I do not share your view that one could write a careful and convincing rebuttal to an accusation of this size in only two days. Nor do I believe that "they're blocked on another wiki" is itself evidence. Blocks are not always merited. You cite Kubara's blocking of DraconicDark, and I agree it was wrongly done.
It's clear at this point that Kubara is going to be globally locked. The fact that I agree with some of the accusations but not all of them only proves that I read whole thing. If anyone ever claims that this was just theater, you can point at my post and say, "See? No it's not theater. Why even Darkfrog24, who had all those galaxy-brain ideas about how the process could be improved (quite the genius, that Darkfrog24 ;)), still thought Kubara needed a sanction." Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: After this RFC closes, would you be willing to work with me to make an RFC to update Global bans and Requests for comment/Policy? Having gone through this process twice now, I seriously agree that there are plenty of ways that the process can improved (though probably from a different perspective than you lol).
Also, I hope it is clear that I don't think any less of you for your opinions and similarly don't think you have even slightly accused me of wrongdoing. You are just making sure that the process is fair, and I get that. I just think you are putting too much emphasis on the statement from the accused. Having been a part of hundreds of block discussions by now, 90% of the time people just dig themselves into a bigger hole (especially when the facts aren't in dispute.. which I believe to be the case here). The number one reason someone gets off without a block is a respectable fellow of the community (like Billinghurst for example) gives a rational and policy-based reasoning to oppose it. –MJLTalk 15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I would be delighted to do that very thing. Honestly, I just don't want to do it solo. I believe my perspective as a blocked user could be very useful. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it and I think one specific issue is the idea "Well people can change their minds later if they want to." That doesn't work as a defense of "It's okay if the accused hasn't made a statement/hasn't had time to respond." Most people read what's there, then make their vote, then don't come back to see what other people have posted. Of course, some moderator could be given the job of contacting every single person who's already voted to tell them that the accused has responded, but 1) that's a lot of work for a volunteer, 2) people are often afraid to look like hypocrites by changing their minds, even if it's in response to new information. I will continue to think on this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I mean, if we wanted to change it so that voting was prohibited for, say, 72 hours after posting, then I'd have no great objection to that. I've mooted a shorter-timescale for exactly the same issues on CBANs on en-wiki. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: To go to this specific example, in the case of Kubura; he actively has chosen to not make a response here. He was informed on multiple occasions his ability to make a statement (in whatever language he wants) in his own defense. He has responded to this RFC in several different places (on different wikis) except the one place where he was told most people would see it.
Either way, in the grand scheme of things, the initial 36 hours after a report like this is made pretty the deciding factor for whether it will pass or not. If you prevent comments of clear support or opposition in that period (remember it actually isn't a vote, it's a weirdly-formatted discussion), you will find very few global ban RFCs actually getting sufficient participation.
The only remedy I see for that is the accused party getting to see a copy of the RFC a few days before it actually gets posted. Most likely it should be done via email to avoid talk page watchers from getting a peak. –MJLTalk 06:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That would be one way. Most likely the best. I think you could get a reasonable facsimile by just delaying the "marketing" of it, but I can see potential issues from that route. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No need. Based on Global bans, the process is simple, someone post a global ban RFC, notify them, and they have the chance to respond. In the meanwhile, global community can start !voting, there is no need to wait till them to respond before voting. It's the same per RFAs, people can start !voting before the candidate answer any of the questions. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: There's no way that GBANs could be compared to RfAs, if only because:
1) RfAs are constructed by the candidate (here, the accused) in advance, so the majority of the information is there already. GBANs provide a huge block of information to review. I reviewed a third, then !voted, then the rest - and it took me ages, and I only had to do it in enough detail to !vote
2) RfAs are triggered at a time suiting the candidate, with ensuring time to rapidly answer questions specifically noted as a key criterion to consider. There is no such convenient timing agreement here
3) RfAs do have issues with people supporting or opposing and a question/answer set undermining the reasoning for that, but participants not checking their vote later on. In Floq's CratChat, it was specifically noted how many editors came back to reconfirm and update their early !votes, because that was unusual. The concern about individuals not updating to factor in an accused's response is certainly feasible. They'd have to have a message dropped on their home talk page to confirm they saw it (same reason why pings are insufficient notification in ANI threads) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear True to an extent for RFA is at a time convenient to the candidate. To be honest, MJL provided too much details IMO, but well this add to the solid case, global ban rationale can be much shorter such as the one in Requests for comment/Global ban of PlavorSeol (note how brief -revi presented the case). If we want to say the length in which voters had to read, we might consider having an executive summary / abstract if you want, this we can raise in an RFC. As of last point, I had completely no idea what you are talking about. What's Floq CratChat? What's pings insufficient in ANI? Pardon me but I need links to read. I admit my linking to RFA isn't the most ideal, but the same problem can occur in both. One way to solve this in Global ban is to increase the minimum time period for enacting to be longer, now it's 2-4 weeks, I will be keen to 4 weeks. Another way is to notify all possible people who had voted to review their vote once the subject had responded. But to be honest, Global ban is typically the last resort measure, so the person reply doesn't matter usually, and they don't reply at times. I just hope all who voted can know the severity of this measure and vote carefully, that's it. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Main issue of why giving the accused a chance to see the ban before it is being filed isn't the best in my perspective is that it will allow the person time to hide their tracks, e.g. pages can be deleted by a rouge admin which then require stewards to restore if they refused (more work), this is just a basic example. In addition, it will give the accused much more time to mount sock/meatpuppets attacks on a RFC if the issue is meat/socking. And there can be attempts to intimidate the filling party by on / offwiki means, if email is a mean, it can be outing the email or if the person isn't using a dedicated wiki email (like me), the identity of the person can be easily outted. My worries are as above. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I could get behind asking the accused not to make any edits at all during the statement preparation process. There is SUCH a stigma on not having a "clean block log," so while the person could be given an administrative block or something while they prepare, perhaps "Refrain from all editing on any project while you prepare. Any edit outside your own userspace will be interpreted as 'I am ready to proceed' and the complaint will be posted." Making or timing accusations to exclude the accused from policy or content discussions would be explicitly defined as misconduct. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24 This is hard for the filler to track. They can be doing harm in many wikis, and this punishes the flier again by requiring the person to track down the tracks of the problematic user. In addition, some actions aren't publicly available, such as supression / abuse filter changes. Frankly this protection of the accused is unwarranted IMO. There is already a high bar to bring someone here, if they breaches the high bar, it's likely the case against them is quite solid already and the global community had always been fair. Like in the recent Slowking issue, there isn't an issue at all with him not responding in time, I really don't see what problem this is going to solve or is there a problem afterall. All these discussions are based on certain project working of their sitewide ban, which may have a problem as I read above, but not here on meta I guess. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree MJL that by now it is clear that Kubara has either chosen not to participate or has been prevented from doing so, but that wasn't clear when this was first posted. It sounds like all reasonable and appropriate efforts were made to contact him. I figure if some future accused candidate can prove they had no Internet access for weeks (like if they were in the hospital or had gone way up in the mountains), then some accommodation could be made.
the accused party getting to see a copy of the RFC a few days before it actually gets posted. Most likely it should be done via email to avoid talk page watchers from getting a peak. This is what I think as well.
The problem that I see with what CM says is that there's a difference between six people voting "yes" separately and the second person seeing the first person has voted yes and going "me too!" then the third person seeing the first person had voted yes and going "me too too!" This is a community and there's a social aspect to all of this. I can imagine plenty of people going, "Oh I'm really neutral or think THIS, but I see a lot of people in my faction said THAT," and feeling pressured to vote THAT. Ideally, people wouldn't be able to see who's already voted which way, but that might be a tall order right now.
I did pretty much what NoseBagBear did, read enough of it to form an opinion, then went back and read more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Do see my reply above. What I would hope is that no one is pressurized into voting, I won't for one. I hope others do not too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Not only was Kubura invited multiple times from day 1 of the RfC to respond, in this particular case many were no doubt already well aware of these issues, given more than a decade of serial problems, multiple RfCs involving Kubura, including the still open CW RfC, which has now gone on for more than a year, with thousands of Kubura’s own words in response. Thus many are very familiar with his deeds and stance, when they stated here that this action is long overdue. Plus multiple people have written here that they are personally acquainted with the abuse inflicted by Kubura and his associates, having been driven away from hr.wiki by the same. Thus the fast and overwhelming response here was in many cases no doubt the result of an abundance of familiarity with Kubura’s deeds, many having personally felt them, and not the result of any pressure or insufficient knowledge, which in any case he’s had plenty of time since day 1 to address, had he so wished. If anyone’s rights have been abused here, it is all those who’ve suffered the abuse of Kubura and his associates for more than a decade, without adequate outside intervention. That does not mean that all parts of these processes can’t be tweaked and improved, but by far the main part that needs investigating is what type of processes is Wikipedia running, when Wikipedians in this RfC report that not only were they too terrified for years to speak out against the rampant abuse, but that there may still be hr.wikipedians who are afraid to do so even now. This is what needs improving most, so it never happens again, since in my view trying to edit on Wikipedia should not be some looser equivalent of being held hostage by terrorists Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Certainly there is a broader hr-bit (there's achingly slow steps being worked on there), but I try to hold a firm "hard cases make bad law". If we decided to not institute safeguards because it was achingly clear with Kubara, that's not much comfort to the next soul hit by a GBAN not crafted by MJL in ultra-clear detail Nosebagbear (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
That’s fine, I said I agree all processes should always be questioned and ways found to improve them. But first and foremost this should be done with processes that have done harm to the greatest number of people, i.e. the uncountable hr.wiki editors who suffered abuse, which affected their right to participate on the platform. These most important issues should not be kicked down the road, instead a way needs to be found to have an open, public discussion of what went wrong, and recommend how to improve these processes, so it does not repeat. I see here a long discussion and recommendations on changing processes with respect to Kubura’s safeguards, but no such discussion evident on what happened and how to improve processes and safeguards given many more impacted hr.wikipedians who had their rights abused for over a decade Thhhommmasss (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes, Thomass. But I agree with Nosenagbear: just because Kubara deserves something doesn't mean that everyone who's accused does. Besides, continuous innovation and improvement are part of what the Wiki is all about. Imagine someone's taken some controversial stances on a Wiki and then BOOM someone drops a humungous complaint on them. They can either rush through their response (canceling or neglecting any IRL obligations they may have) or they can take the time to read and respond carefully, by which point twenty people have already voted and, by then, the outcome is unlikely to change. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Just a note, global ban is never about numbers, I don't know about some projects (they may use headcount - which isn't ideal as it can lead to canvassing or like what people said, the people in my clique voted, so I vote). Global bans is about consensus, if there is a well thought up oppose, I don't think any stewards can neglect them. In addition, the closers of global ban discussions as opposed to site ban discussions are stewards not administrators, which will be reviewed yearly for any lapse. I know for some projects it can be very hard for an admin to be desysop but clearly, if there is a sizeable group voices an opposition, and steward closing didn't have a good reason to disregard, the confirmation of that steward will be hard. I am all for fairness for the accused, but it shouldn't be prolonging the process and causing the victims in the situation suffering more harm as global ban is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Speed is of the essence at times. Hope you understand. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog – like I said I’m all for continuous improvement everywhere, but also believe it should focus first and foremost on the greatest injustices, like the numerous hr.wikipedians who suffered abuse and were driven away from hr.wiki for over a decade by Admins who systematically violated core WP principles. I believe an open, thorough discussion is much needed of what went awry here and how to improve these processes, so that this does not repeat. We now have some of the remaining hr.wiki Admins finally starting to open up on what happened, many more hr.wiki participants detailing their experiences, etc. It’d be great to hear from the decision-makers on this process as well, to see how they were looking at this for over a decade, as well as other participants in past RfCs, to better understand the issues, and then jointly try to figure out improvements. I think there is a real opportunity for process improvements here, on issues that go to the core of what WP should be 19:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anything went awry here, per se, Unsigned Contributor. My problem is that if someone wanted to fake a global complaint, it would be moderately easy to do it and have it get lots of votes in favor. An accuser could take all the time they wanted to prepare everything juuuuust right and BAM! There's also the fuzzier issue of what if you want someone gbanned for one reason that kind of is misconduct, like "They keep bringing up XYZ when everyone else wants to move on" or "they don't defer to people who outrank them socially," but the accuser thinks it won't pass if they tell the truth or that the folks on Meta will say "Hey, you're not supposed to have a rule against that, WTF?" so you frame them for something else. Once again, MLJ didn't do that here. The problem is that someone could. That's the hole that needs plugging.
But yes, I quite like that hr.wiki admins and other participants are talking about the problems there without fear of retaliation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I guess we’re debating over agreeing since I said I’m fine with any improvements on notification processes that people agree upon, although as I said that was not the first thing I noticed as needing improvement. I can see problems in advance notices in that it’d give people advance opportunity to organize counter-canvassing or sockpuppeting, but then everything has its pluses and minuses. I should note that under the current system in the CW RfC the accused Admins chose to respond extensively, thus no one can say that their side of the story was not heard. In fact they were often their own greatest enemies - openly proclaiming POV-agendas, going on rants on how the whole world conspires against their “truths”, providing diffs that prove they blocked people for merely daring cite Reliable Sources who disagree with their POV-agendas, etc, etc.
People can search for Kubura’s signature in the CW RfC and see what he had to say, and decide if perhaps he has not done himself a favor by not responding this time. When they were challenged on facts they often dissembled, or even more probably, flat-out lied. Take a look at Vodomar’s Talk page when he was challenged on his CU, to see how that looks, and see if he wasn’t also done a great favor by not having first responded in this RfC regarding his CU claims. Regarding the potential danger of someone making up accusations, I’m certain in such a case that other people familiar with the issue would immediately counter those, or at the very least ask “what are you talking about?” In this case, on the contrary, many people confirmed the accusations from their own extensive personal experiences (btw, don't know why my signature doesn't appear sometimes, although I always sign - we'll see what happens here) Thhhommmasss (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Thhhommmasss: You most likely use 5 ~ instead of 4 ~, sometimes happens to me too, 5~ only give the date not the username Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that rather than giving advance notification to the subject of an upcoming global ban RfC, it is better to fully protect such an RfC for the first 24-48 hours after it is publicly posted, and to include a note indicating when the RfC is expected to be made available for all the editors to comment. This way the accused has enough time to prepare a response and neither side, neither the filer nor the accused, has the opportunity to flood the initial response with a bunch of canvassed supports/opposes at the expense of the other side. Also, this way uninvolved users will have more time to actually study the evidence and formulate their own opinions before being influenced by someone else's. There are other things that I believe do need to be changed. For example, I think that IPs and meta-non-autoconfirmed users should not be allowed to participate in global ban RfCs in any way (not even in the talk pages). Their presence in such RfCs only serves to encourage sockpuppetry and block evasion. Restrictions on conduct with respect to political soapboxing and hate speech need to be tightened as well. I also think that some coordination with stewards should be mandatory at the start of any global ban RfC, and probably a notice should be posted at Stewards' noticeboard when such an RfC goes live. Nsk92 (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    @Nsk92 This is a possible idea, but the same flooding will take place 24 - 48 hours later. One idea I can think of is to have a 2 stage process, 1st stage will be just discussion and will take place around 72 hours, after that, votes will be counted. As of IP editors, we can just ignore their comments if needed and typically the advice is to not respond to unresponsible statements by IP editors. As of autoconfirmed, here we just need 4 days 5 edits, we are not like zhwp, with 7 days, 50 edits; the autoconfirm here is quite low bar hence it's very easy for meat/socks to overcome it, hence, if we want some restrictions, it needs to be something else IMO. Lastly, if there are any inappropriate conduct, per RFC policy, any user can report at RFH and any uninvolved admin will impose sanctions. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Even if the flooding happens 48 hours later, after RfC is unlocked, at least under this option the treatment of the two sides is equalized, and more importantly, the uninvolved editors have a chance to study the RfC and form their opinions before the vote opens any any possible flooding does occur. Also, I think that the mandatory notification of the wikis where the subject of the RfC is active could and should happen during this initial blackout period, say the first 12 hours of it. In principle one could unprotect the RfC talk page during the blackout period and allow a preliminary discussion to start there before the vote opens. I think that's the sort of thing that you mean by a 2-stage process. Regarding IPs, I think their comments should be either formally struck out or actually removed. Leaving them as they are, to be "ignored", creates too much of a distraction, and those comments continue to serve their disruptive purpose. Plus there are always plenty of users who ignore the advice to ignore those comments and who will engage into discussions with the IPs. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I just wonder what is the policy to blanket ban IP from participating from RFCs. For those socking/meat puppeting IPs, they will be stricken off as per we did here and elsewhere. @Nsk92: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
At the moment Requests for comment/Policy has no restrictions on the IP participation. However, on individual wikis it is common to restrict the IPs participation in certain kinds of RfC-type surveys. E.g. at en-wiki, IPs are allowed to vote in regular RfCs, but not in RfAs and not in Arbcom elections (although they are allowed to comment there in the discussion section). Nsk92 (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nsk92 We need a global policy to be enacted before sysops here can do such. We are only working on the global consensus, we cannot implement local policies on a single wiki to meta stage. I think this RFC brings us some scope to refine the RFC policy further, and this can be considered then. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Camouflaged Mirage, of course I realize that. What's being discussed above, by MJL and others, is exactly this type of a possible global policy change here on Meta, via a possible future RfC on amending the global ban policy and perhaps on amending Requests for comment/Policy. E.g. the latter could be amended to include a provision specifying that IPs are not allowed to participate in certain types of RfCs, or are not allowed to vote in certain types of RfCs or some combination thereof. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nsk92 Exactly that is what is needed, as of now, we are bound by the relevant policies and let's allow this to play out it's course, shall we? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I think what Nsk is saying is that even if the flooding happens 48 hours (or whatever period) later, it would be better for it to happen after the accused has composed and posted their response. The page protection with visible complaint is not my first choice, but I do consider it a big improvement.
As for having a discussion period before any voting is allowed? I also think that is a very good idea.
As for preventing IPs from participating, I got the impression that the IP sketchiness that was very detectable in this Kubara gban discussion is not typical, and that IPs aren't usually a problem. Is that correct? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

On the issue of safeguards for commenting and voting on RfCs, it’s obvious that on this RfC a number of hr.wiki Admins and many more hr.wiki editors finally felt free to comment and vote, some stating they were intimated from doing so on previous RfCs because of fears of retaliation from the abusive Admins (as noted, one person even wrote that there may still be hr.wiki participants fearful of speaking out even now). This brings to mind the need for something like witness- or whistleblower-protection, where those who participate in good faith in the RfC can be assured that they will receive protection against any retaliation, e.g. that the RfC team will review any complaints of retaliation against them, and promptly act to remove or ban the offenders. Retaliation in such instances should be treated as an offense of the highest order. This approach could help safeguard RfC participation for all Wikipedians, without fear of retribution, while also helping provide more complete information on abuse, so that appropriate RfC actions can be taken. In any case I hope this and other much needed improvements will be discussed as part of the proposed RfC Policy discussion Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I love the feeling, Thomasss, but I don't know how it would be possible to enforce. But then, a lot of Wiki guidelines and policies are just ideas, like "Battlegrounding is bad," and "original research is bad," and somehow the communities manage to enforce them.
Thomas, Nsk, CM, MJL, do you think we should continue this discussion of how to improve gban discussions in general elsewhere, given that the matter of Kubara's gban specifically has been addressed? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: It is my understanding, based on what people mentioned above, that a new RfC will be created for RfC Policy enhancements. I hope someone can confirm whether this is the case, and what would be the timing of such an RfC. I also hope that this will be an open-ended RfC where everyone can first discuss the challenges and problems facing the current RfC process, then recommend and discuss possible solutions, and later vote and see what can be accepted. If that is so, then this might be the appropriate venue for such a discussion, else people might recommend alternatives Thhhommmasss (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
What is described in this RfC are common practice in these scenarios but they are not very subtle. if you want to do it better, you simply create a group that applies all possible guidelines in the most rigid ways. Like you find a border-line copyviol or comment and exaggerates it. It does matter if you find a better examples of the issues in the edits of those attacking you, at that point. It's an old trick in the book, I could cite countless off-wiki discussions where these processes are described. You take some profiles, you let them apply rigidly rules to all but your posse and in exchange you encourage for them a public roles. At that point you can accuse people going off-wiki to discuss the issue to plot something, while most of time they are just exhausted, and use this as an excuse for an additional purge. None of this will be possible without a core group of users but also a silent majority. That's why I don't think these specific bans teach anything. You can always find a subtle way to enact such nightmarish scenarios. Plus, you are obliged to use the internal processes before going meta and this means that someone has to take the bullet to finally see the issue, although it's easier to make them escalate to spot them outside. The only good things to invest are IMHO analytical tools if you want to stop these scenarios on time. For example spot who follow users on platforms, people reappearing for discussion, making CU data as transparent as possible, and so on. All the other guidelines are more of a catalyst to make these processes more subtle hence more toxic, than actually stopping them. I have no hope therefore in these guidelines of hate speech (they were suggested in the discussion), they are not where the core problem is.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Short url...[edit]

...to this milestone case https://w.wiki/qJo

Broader question on socks[edit]

In view of the decade-long havoc generated by Kubura’s socks, both on hr.wiki and beyond, I wonder if WP might be able to conduct random or even broader, systematic testing for socks, particularly associated with events where this would likely occur (voting for Admins, etc). Perhaps this could’ve averted much of the damage he was able to create Thhhommmasss (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)