Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Baboon43

Just to keep track, the subject was notified of this RFC/U at 08:16, 22 June 2013 and politely declined to participate at 13:42, 22 June 2013. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather concerning they don't wish to participate - I know if someone filed something like this against me, I certainly would participate, no matter how little time I had! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without his input, do you know how to generate discussion in accordance with the relevant guidelines? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, you'll have to ask a sysop, or read the RFC/U rules carefully, I guess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with an admin, and the gist of it is that we can proceed with the RFC/U anyway. I noticed that a third user informed Baboon43 that s/he would be the subject of an RFC/U after noticing it in my sandbox, with Baboon answering via an edit summary fifteen minutes later that he doesn't care. At this point I'm not expecting him to participate though this apparently shouldn't hamper things. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll just have to see what discussion gets generated, I guess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this on ANI/AN and thought I'd make a comment. There have been cases of RFC/U's where the subject has not participated at all. The idea is to generate something of a forum for other editor's, both those who have not been involved and those who have been, to discuss the behaviour of the editor in question. From this discussion, ideally, the editor would note that their behaviour has caused enough concern that a number of editors have issues with them and take stock of how to accommodate others. In a case like this, the discussion will basically boil down to a consensus as to whether sanctions should be discuss at the appropriate noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radical, there seems to be a clear picture of how this is done now. Perhaps time for another discussion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've skimmed through the RFC/U archives looking at the sort of solutions that are often proposed and accepted. It seems that the "proposed solution" section is relatively new so most of the archived cases don't include that. I'm going to pull some up just to get an idea of what should be proposed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cantaloupe2, an indefinite block was proposed and the closing admin explained that an RFC/U is not the place for that. Given that the subject continued the objectionable behavior even during the case, the closing admin did mention that having completed an RFC/U, arbitration would be the next step. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti, a motion to close was made along with the proposal that the subject be banned from English Wikipedia with the option to apply for unblocking at Arbcom after six months, in addition to a topic ban which would stay in effect even after a potential unblock. The proposal had wide support except for one dissenting admin, who correctly pointed out that RFC/Us can't impose things like that. So the RFC/U was closed and the proposal immediately moved to ANI, where a topic ban was enacted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, there seemed to be a general agreement that the subject's communication with other editors was in need of improvement. It was suggested at the closing that if anyone felt a topic ban was in order, the issue should be brought to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - in the one RFC/U I've been involved in,
  WP:AN when we were all satisfied, where it was then acted upon. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, there was a clear consensus of all involved parties that the user under discussion was making detrimental edits to the encyclopedia, and his response was incoherent and demonstrated that he just didn't get it. The closing admin actualy blocked the user indefinitely at the end. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb, multiple points of abuse of admin powers were brought against the subject with wide community agreement. The case was on its way to arbitration when the subject retired, leaving a message on their user page specifically stating that the community will eventually "destroy itself." Which is their choice, the main thing the RFC/U did was get things headed toward Wikipedia:Arbitration. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've collected a modest amount of community feedback, and another user did suggest that we move on to solving the issue.

• I'm not sure a community ban is yet required, and I doubt further that it would actually be passed. What I would be more expecting is either a mid-term block, or, more likely, a topic ban with some civility restrictions, or something like that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...so you're saying that a community ban not might fly per Wikipedia:Consensus? I'm just thinking out loud here. I have Wikipedia:Blocking policy open in another tab, now under the "Common rationales for blocks" section there are two relevant-looking subsections: "Protection" and "Disruption", which refer to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility respectively. The subject obviously has a habit of violating both and this hasn't changed since at least July 2012. He seems to have laid low since this RFC/U started and has only made a few edits, but based on prior behavior we can estimate that if nothing is done, he will simply continue this behavior - especially since he rejected participation in this RFC/U totally. I'm literally just writing as I think right now. Perhaps more commentary can help us find a more focused solution. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should be preventative, rather than punitive. I'm nearly positive that one of two things has happened. Either the editor has finally figured out that his editing pattern is disruptive and needs to change, or he's lying low because he doesn't want to be blocked. Either way, history has a way of repeating itself and there needs to be sanctions imposed. I'd suggest:

• An indefinite block pending a successful appeal where the editor acknowledges that the behavior that's been exhibited is inappropriate and he (or she) is able to collaborate with other editors in a positive and productive manner
• An indefinite topic ban until the editor acknowledges his/her faults and demonstrates the ability to collaborate with other editors in a professional and productive manner
• A community ban

I'm not sure which one would be best, but they're guidelines to bring this to a close. Dusti^*poke* 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go for the indefinite topic ban, as that is the sanction with the best "preventative vs punitive" ratio, for want of a better expression. If he violates that, then the blocks will escalate very quickly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a topic ban is: which topic? He edits articles on religion, politics, languages, ethnic groups...just peeking at his edit conflicts which didn't involve any of us here, he seems to have a problem with falling into conflict in most areas. What topic would the user be banned from? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ethnic groups/religion are fairly similar. If there are issues with all topics, then I would support a long term or an indefinite block, but it would have to be presented very clearly that he has issues in all areas. I still oppose a community ban; that is usually reserved for prolific sockpuppeters and is unlikely to get traction at this stage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about a general indefinite block, as Dusti suggested, but worded such that appealing it would be simple if the user acknowledges the problem and pledges to work on it? It would require the user to work on their problem while at the same time, be more than a slap on the wrist, even if the appeals process is made easy. Would that fly? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be fine, but obviously it would be made clear that stepping out of line again would quickly result in the block being reinstated. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's a question, would it be acceptable to solicite feedback on potential solutions from those who have endorsed comments on this RFC/U, or would it be considered a breach of the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with proposing solutions on the actual RfC and then sending those who made endorsements on the views a note asking for their input. Dusti^*poke* 04:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the new notifications feature, if you place in user name tags the various users will be made aware that they have been mentioned. As an aside, I have been watching this RFC and with the discussion moving onto the drafting of an AN proposal, I left a comment on Baboon43's talk page encouraging them to make a comment here so as to address your concerns. Their response was to delete the RFCU notification and the subsequent comments. I had been previously reluctant to comment about the move to AN but given their failure to respond to community concerns and the continuing issues with their editing, there can be little recourse but to seek sanctions on AN. Blackmane (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, let's get this show on the road. I always wanted to say that. @

Each of the three solutions have been presented on the main page for discussion. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support an indefinite block. Thanks,

talk) 10:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

George, can get one comment at the project page? Talk is maily for discussion. Faizan 12:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Just starting a new section to leave a note that the user is continuing this contentious behavior even now; at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Johnnyleepeter_reported_by_User:Baboon43_.28Result:_.29, they filed a 3RR complaint against a user who was not guilty of violating the rule, and were then told by an admin that they are just as guilty of edit warring. As mentioned on the main page of this RFC/U, this user has already filed complaints at the admin board for edit warring in which it boomeranged onto them...twice.
Additionally as Blackmane mentioned above, s/he took the time to request input from Baboon43 again here, though Baboon simply deleted their request here. I'm simply bringing diffs to make a note that even as the user has refused to participate in this RFC/U, the same disruptive behavior has continued. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to throw out a suggested wording for the proposal at

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, I would like to propose an indefinite ban of User:Baboon43 which could be successfully appealed based on the following conditions:

1. The user publicly and formally acknowledges the consistent, long-term problems with his/her conduct.
2. The user publicly and formally acknowledges that repeating their combative, tendentious conduct will result in the ban being reinstated.

Additionally, should the user successfully appeal the block, they are highly encouraged to seek out a mentor to guide them as they work on improving their conduct on Wikipedia.

This proposal is a preventative one based on consensus that the user, since they began editing Wikipedia more than a year ago, has consistently displayed all the conduct issues discussed in the RFC/U and has resolutely refused to acknowledge that community consensus or even participate in said RFC/U at all.

I'm trying to keep it short, though perhaps it could be shortened. I figured that there's no need to include diffs or policy violations as all of that is viewable in the RFC/U, but I've never done this before so perhaps that's necessary for an AN thread and I don't know it. Hoping to see what others think of this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. Faizan 06:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should be amended to be indefinite block. Using both block and ban together is inconsistent as they have different meanings on WP. Again, another pedantic point but something that is often differentiated on AN and ANI. The wording sounds more like Baboon43 is being dragged off to the stocks. Simple wording like

• Proposal to indefinitely block Baboon43 for sustained combatative and tendentious editing.

In the summary on AN, just keep it brief and ref this RFC/U without belabouring the point. Other editors can chime in, if they wish, once they've perused the RFC and diffs. Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's another version:

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, I would like to propose an indefinite block of User:Baboon43 as a preventative measure due to sustained combative and tendentious editing. This block could be successfully appealed based on the following conditions:

1. The user publicly and formally acknowledges the consistent, long-term problems with his/her conduct.
2. The user publicly and formally acknowledges that repeating the same conduct will result in the block being reinstated.

I will start by voicing my support as the nominator.

Or should the middle two points about appeals be removed since readers could simply see them here? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just removing the two conditions and adding "based on the conditions outlined in the RfC" Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, version three:

Per the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43, I would like to propose an indefinite block of User:Baboon43 as a preventative measure due to sustained combative and tendentious editing. This block could be successfully appealed based on the conditions outlined at the RFC/U.

I will start by voicing my support as the nominator.

How's this one? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and get things started. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]