Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2)

The following request for comments is closed. There is consensus to globally ban PlanespotterA320. Additionally, the Stewards have been made aware of continuing off-wiki harassment during the discussion relating to participants in this discussion. I will note that this RfC should have been quickclosed because it was created by an account that was registered less than 6 months ago, but I consider this to have been mitigated by the support of many experienced users. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Special:CentralAuth/PlanespotterA320 was indefinitely blocked in:

• Russian Wikipedia in May 2022 for unstoppable insulting other editors on talkpages. See ru:Обсуждение_участницы:PlanespotterA320#Бессрочная блокировка
• English Wikipedia in February 2022 for belligerently pushing genocide denialist talking points. see en:User talk:PlanespotterA320#February 2022 2. And then banned for sockpuppetry.
• Meta-wiki in February 2023 as vandalism.

Their sockpuppet, Special:CentralAuth/RespectCE got blocked on:

• Russian Wikipedia in July 2022 for sockpuppetry.
• Commons in November 2022 for sockpuppetry.
• English Wikipedia in October 2022 for sockpuppetry.

On Feb 11, 2023, during this discussion, she created another two sockpuppets user:PlanespotterA330 and user:BoatyBoatface to make trolling edits on English Wikipedia. Got caught and blocked again on that project, see This link.

Here is a direct threat for using more sockpuppets to evade the bans and blocks; Considering recent misbehaviour cross-wikis instead of just vandalism, I am convinced that it is time to enact a global ban. After that threat, while the previous RFC for global ban was ongoing, this user created another sock on English Wikipedia to evade their blocks, known as User:CK1218, caught by steward AmandaNP (talk · contribs) due to CU evidence and got locked. After this lock, I publicly contacted English Wikipedia Checkuser and confirmed user:CK1218 is a sock of user:PlanespotterA320, see this link.

Finding the facts

Sockpuppetry

See leading part, public information is there, while we cannot disclose private information, such as CU logs or IP addresses.

Harassment

1. This user has a long history of email abuse, which was confirmed by steward AmandaNP during the discussion of previous lock. Confirmation by AmandaNP. As a victim of this behaviour, I believe I'm not the only one.

   Now, this trolling behaviour was also confirmed by user:Red-Tailed Hawk, see below.

2. Harassment behaviour also got confirmed by Vermont on logs of locking, see Special:CA/PlanespotterA320
3. This user's edit history on Russian Wikipedia including a series of insults, she was blocked multiple times for different reasons, whether vandalism, disruptive editing, or edit warrings, before eventually getting permanently banned from RuWiki. More information can be checked here on Russian Wikipedia.
4. Threats of using a bunch of socks. First link on English Wikipedia, Second link on wikicommons.

   too long; didn't read

   In the first link, she is quoted as saying I am going to edit Wikipedia one way or another. I can't stop..., followed by a confession to the socking and then several massive walls of text.

   In the second link, she wrote Let's all stop pretending everything here is so pure, because we all know exactly how Wikipedia works - the loudest and strongest always win. Considering your behavior and the timing of your edits I would be rather shocked if you didn't have a couple sockpuppets in use right now, so get off your high horse and in a few weeks I'll be back writing stuff that I doubt you'll be upset by.

5. On Feb22, during the discussion, their edits on Special:Diff/24608601 make a direct threat against the whole community.

Canvassing

1. PlanespotterA320 has a history of making false accusation against Russian Wikipedia, trolling against sysops there but was fortunately caught by other users, such as Томасина (talk · contribs). See Their first RFC against Russian Wikipedia, Their second RFC against Russian Wikipedia sysops
2. Making false accusation against Ukraine Wikipedia but caught by a Ukraine sysop, Piramidion (talk · contribs). See Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat/Archives/2022-10#Report_concerning_Requests_for_comment/Nazis_in_Ukrainian_Wikipedia. After that page deleted, she just recreated another page of same content on RFC against Ukraine wikipedia
3. Forum-shopping during first discussion of global ban. On RFC against Arbcoms of Russian Wikipedia, caught by SummerKrut (talk · contribs).
4. For her own blocks on Russian Wikipedia, if you are still interested in this topic, have a read of her own essay on ru:Special:Diff/119777671.
5. Off-wiki canvassing, on reddit, such as Off-wiki trolling. Confirmed by Red-Tailed Hawk, see below.

Using of global ban

1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. No global ban is required for uncontroversial cases of cross-wiki vandalism or spam, since these may be handled with a block or lock (which may be made by a steward, without need for extensive discussion). See Steward requests/Global.

   Yes. SRG gave her a lock as sockpuppetry, harassment and something like that, but was reverted after discussion, See here. Considering the complexity of this case, an RFC for global ban is requested by user:Vermont.

2. The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems. These projects must have demonstrated a good faith attempt to explain acceptable practices and behaviors that are consistent with their mission and scope. This criterion is to show users reasonably know what is expected, have had ample opportunity to appropriately address concerns, and chose not to participate appropriately in projects.

   Yes, for many times. When she came up with an RFC trolling against Russian Wikipedia or Ukraine Wikipedia, we all tried to notice her, but she just came up with another sock in other projects and then went to meta for another RFC.

3. The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These blocks or bans must be based on the user's local disruptive behavior, and do not include protective blocks such as preemptive blocks on user without local edits, and blocks based on account security issue or problematic username.

   Yes, if you take their socks into consideration. There are clearly more than two blocks. Even she had two locks.

Additional Request

1. For using a lot of sockpuppets from different wiki projects, in addition that the user also created a sockpuppet during the last discussion for global ban. During the discussion, we need stewards to monitor the discussion in order to avoid puppet hijacking consensus.
2. If this case ends with or has a clear consensus for enact a global ban, PlanespotterA320 should be revoked sysop rights at once to prevent further possible disruptive actions.

Procedural

Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active.

1. Active Wikis noticed. On Feb 15.

Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited.

1. AMwiki noticed amwp .
2. English Wiki noticed Enwp .
3. German Wiki noticed dewp
4. Jawiki noticed Jawp
5. Russian Wiki noticed RUWP by Lemonaka and Excellence.
6. Ukwiki noticed Ukwp
7. Uzwiki, as their home wiki noticed Uzwp
8. Viwiki noticed viwp
9. Wikicommon noticed Commons
10. Wikidata noticed Data
11. Metawiki noticed Meta
12. Now all projects were noticed by massmessage. Deeply Sorry for spamming minor projects due to this is my first time using Massmessage.

Lemonaka (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop spamming minor projects! It has nothing to do with most of them. I've reverted all your spams in the projects I've involved in. ✒ Bennylin 16:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

actually, it is great to "spamming" minor projects. thats why im here. im here because he "spammed" in tr wikiquote village pump. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 02:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

For reference, Global bans#Obtaining consensus for a global ban point 4. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Support

1.  Strong support Absolutely inactable behavior.-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
2.  Strong support This is a procedural vote from nominator. Changed to SS since Feb22's threats. Lemonaka (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
3.  Support. I would like to ask stewards or meta-admins to moderate the discussion a little, or ask the user under discussion to try to write concisely and using less words if she wishes to be understood. At this point it's just unnecessary soapboxing. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
4.  Support per ongoing, intractable harassment — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
5.  Support Planespotter claims that For the past few months, I have been completely clean. By the book., but that is plainly untrue. PlanespotterA320 emailed me via Wikimedia Commons' Special:emailuser on December 4, 2022, threatening to intentionally take Wikipedia's coverage of Uyghurs—a small Turkic ethnic whose members largely live in Western China—and turn it into "shit" unless I were to go on-wiki and make personal attacks in an attempt to get her unblocked. This was an extremely bizarre email (and I am more than happy to paste the entire email here with PlanespotterA320's consent, or to have it forwarded it to anyone who would like it). I had at one point supported unblocking PlanespotterA320 on EnWiki—but the email caused me to strongly reconsider whether there was a chance that Planespotter would be a net-positive to Wikimedia projects. Frankly, the fact that I have not been the only one receiving harassing emails from PlanespotterA320 demonstrates that this is absolutely the sort of anti-wiki behavior that has made PlanespotterA320 to a net negative across the whole of Wikimedia, and for that reason I support a global ban. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Red-tailed hawk: I think you really, really misunderstood me. (Read hidden comment in source mode) --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

   @PlanespotterA320:, I don't understand why you think that I somehow have a negative reputation on the Russian Wikipedia; even if this were an ends-justifies-the-means situation, the notion that making personal attacks against me (or having me make personal attacks against you) somehow builds up credibility on RuWiki is... patently absurd. The Crimeans, like many Turkic ethnic groups, were systematically oppressed and starved at various times in the USSR, and to this day face a strong stigma against them that results in systemic discrimination. I can guarantee you that I do not harbor negative feelings towards Crimeans, and it saddens me that it would come to this on your end. Most Wikipedians aren't playing ethnic politics, and I don't understand why going after Uyghurs is a way to ensure that the Crimean Tatars are treated better than their Turkic brethren.

   That all being said, blanking your ban discussion to make a point isn't going to help you here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   I've asked for some actions on it. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

   This is acceptable, but we need someone who has an account on Reddit to have a look of their off-wiki threats. Lemonaka (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

6.  Support, there was inadequate behaviour in ruwiki full of POV pushing, and as I could see, not only there. AndyVolykhov (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

   Saying that the Mubarek zone was real, Yaliboylu people are real, and pushing back against chauvanist (yes, I say chauvanist) content calls for POV pushing. If that is unacceptable, then the people pushing the very fringe, malicious, and chauvanist POVs that I fought back against should be banned too. There are some things that shouldn't even be debatable. Russian Wikipedia really needs a policy against attack pages IMHO.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

7.  Support, regretfully. This user's refusal to accept their disruptive behaviour does not convince me of a behavioural reform. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Sadly, their refusal to confirmed sockpuppetry is also nasty. Lemonaka (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

8.  Support per given data in first revision of this global ban. Even though user may have made many good contributions, crosswiki harrasment in email form, crosswiki statements of sockpuppetry and lying about others (even when spotted, as in linked RfC#1 and RFC#2) is not appropriate and not acceptable per Wiki standards.--A09 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   NOTHING it said in an RFC was a lie! Russian Wikipedians making very dangerous accusations against Crimean Tatars (re: accusing Crimean Tatars of inventing the Mubarek project to embarass Russia, a country that REALLY doen't like to be embarassed) happened! Saying that there was problematic behavior there is not a lie! Saying that it is a problem that there are editor on Ukrainian Wikipedia with 8814 in their usernames is not a lie! Saying that the SS was a military formation of Nazi Germany is not a lie!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

9.  Support --ɱ 11:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
10.  Support because of large-scale copyright trolling, Uighur genocide trolling, Crimean Tatars trolling by user under discussion. We even has a serious suspicions that this is a Russavia sockpuppet. MBH (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

    I am NOT a Russavia sock! I don't know what I have to do to prove that! Filing legitimate copyvio deletion nominations is NOT trolling! Just ask any admin familiar with Russian copyright law! And fighting back against deeply chauvanist content about a hated ethnic group is not trolling!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

    Wow. This changes a lot. Nicoljaus (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

    I invite EVERYONE to read my essay on why it is important that photos on Commons are TRULY public domain (and why I'm not the bad guy for filing deletion nominations to ensure content on Commons is truly free). Also, I think it would be reasonable to demand a public apology from certain users who spread very racist conspiracy theories against Crimean Tatars (who I am banned on ruwiki for calling "chauvanist")--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

11.  Strong support -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
12.  Support Crochet.david (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
13. This user's modus operandi clearly suggests that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. — Summer 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
14.  Strong support Per above, Special:Diff/24506762 and Special:Diff/24506993 AlPaD (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
15.  Support Per Red-tailed hawk. Pathological lying and just refusal to get the point, and now off-wiki harassment? Have we given them enough rope? X750 (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
16.  Support per above. --Little General Judge (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
17.  Support, their behavior is unacceptable.--Kadı Message 07:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
18. —viciarg⁴¹⁴ 10:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
19.  Strong support Given the continued personal attacks in the below discussions and off-wiki harassment in both email & Reddit posts, this editor has clearly shown they are not fit for participating in a collaborative project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
20. Support as my rationale for blocking on enwiki should be self evident. In case it's not, replace Uighurs with "Jews", "Armenians", or "Circassians" and people would be tripping over themselves to support a ban first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
21. Support per nom Amir (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
22. Support Insults, threats, harassment, accusations of nazism, trolling. It's enough. --Zlata Night (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

    The above statements do not trace to any evidence. In certain contexts, they could amount to defamation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

    The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Summer ^talk 23:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

    WP:BLUDGEON is an essay and not a policy. To refer to a non-policy as if it were a policy has the appearance of psychological manipulation, but I need to do more reading on the concept of psychological manipulation. Moreover, the quoted statement is as implausible as anything and ought to be removed from WP:BLUDGEON immediately. (From the formal tracing Wikipedia standpoint, the statement is not an imperative but a declarative statement and ought to trace to reliable source supporting that unobvious statement, which it does not do.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

23. Support Nasteysha❤️ (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

    Rationale-free supports ought to be discounted as violation of strength-of-the-argument-augmented consensus process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

24.  Support --Coffins (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
25.  Strong support - In my opinion, the most important thing is the user's intentions. While they have had constructive edits on some wikis, it is clear they are not truly here to contribute constructively. This is shown through the harassment on wiki, off wiki, and through the email feature. What made it strong support, however, was when the user added this to the page. Camera Worker (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    As for "they are not truly here to contribute constructively": they are where, at what location or wiki? In the oppose section, editors report ability to contribute positively on some wikis. Given the ambiguity of the location specifier ("here"), the sentence is too vague to be taken seriously. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry, I should have been more specific. When I said "here" I meant all of the WikiMedia projects. The user has clearly shown they are not willing to behave. While their contributions on some Wikis are positive, I believe their intent in negative. (See this and this) Camera Worker (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    As for "their intent in negative": their intent in relation to what action or activity? Is it their intent behind their aggregate macro-action of editing any wiki of Wikimedia foundation? I mean, analyzing intent behind a narrowly specified action is challenging enough, given that intents all too often remain hidden; isn't it a bit too daunting to analyze the intent, mythical or otherwise, behind a large macropattern of actions that take place in different cultural environments, in different languages, under different policies, guidelines, pseudo-guidelines, patterns of administration, etc.? Why should a wiki in which the editor contributes positively care about anyone's speculations as to the person's intent? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Dan Polansky - I gave you two diffs (See this and this) of when I thought the user had bad intentions. The user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia when they attack other editors, sent harassing emails, and commit sockpuppetry.

    In addition, please don't force your opinion on all the voters who disagree with you. It is very rude, and people can have their own opinion that doesn't concern you. Accusing users of "violation of strength-of-the-argument-augmented consensus process", "defamation", and "too vague to be taken seriously" is very odd. I would please ask you to please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLUDGEON. Camera Worker (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    WP:BLUDGEON appears to be in violation of the strength-of-the-argument-augmented consensus process. It should ideally be deleted or tagged as archived and inactive. Ideally, there will no longer be any mentions of WP:BLUDGEON and the strengh of the arguments will be properly evaluated and investigated, also during the time of running of this process and not only at the very end; the mere numerical consensus process ought to be avoided. I also note that there is no objective verifiable evidence of there being consensus for WP:BLUDGEON. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    I feel  Very strongly that this user needs to be globally blocked, and your unwillingness to let others have their own opinion is unreasonable. I have given you my reasoning and you refuse to reach consensus. I suggest you stop forcing your opinion onto others. Even if you think WP:Bludgeon should be deleted, it is still considered good practice. Another user has suggested this to you in addition to myself. I (and others) do not wish to be interrogated by you because you disagree with them. Camera Worker (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    In addition @Dan Polansky, Red-tailed hawk also told this to you on your talk page, and you have yet to apologize. Camera Worker (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    see unjistified accusations against checkuser-admin[1] Кирилл С1 (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Кирилл С1Hi, are you sure you are replying to the right user? Lemonaka (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    This user is banned away as lock evasion, I don't know how to deal with them so I will leave this comment alone. Lemonaka (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

26.  Strong support As WikiBayer said. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
27.  Strong support the facts are clear and so is the ban. Alone, the justification below "SOLELY for "insulting" other users" is really worrisome. VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
28.  Support per this, Wikimedia projects aren't psycho-therapist to help her. --A.Savin (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

    yeah, this is bad thing.. but still, this user has not only one aim, global bans should be enforced when users has one aim. but that user also has contributions.... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Modern primat If they only has one aim, they should be global locked, not banned. Lemonaka (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    Planespotter has multiple aims @Lemonaka ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 11:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    yeah, if they are only aiming at me, I will definitely contact WMF Office for help, but they are aiming at more than one users. Lemonaka (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

29.  Strong support I find this user's contribution being vehemently disruptive and contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia. Specificly, they are trolling Commons and reporting the percieved "copyright violations" that contradict the letter of the respective laws. -- Wesha (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
30.  Support - after reading the recent contributions to meta. I'm sorry. --Daniuu (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
31.  Support - as above. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
32. --BrunoBoehmler (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
33.  Support, the combination of relatively recent harassment issues, consistently inserting very objectionable fringe political agendas and taking this to several wikis is enough reason to make this ban global. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
34.  Support -JacobSanchez295 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
35.  Strong support - Nuff said. Obviously disruptive user (per their own words and actions in this discussion). --Cavarrone (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
36.  Strong support - I do NOT want to share this space with someone promoting the Ukraine is Nazi troll propaganda. I can't express how morally disgusting I find these beliefs. Nothing else needs to be said. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

    Obviously a "en:straw man" argument. There was only an attempt to remove the template glorifying the SS division [2]. Nicoljaus (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Am I supposed to believe that after this user presented the issue as "Nazis in Ukrainian Wikipedia" (name of the RfC) or after she stated "I know that people from the wiki in question won't like this discussion, but it must be had"? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    Bad name for the RFC, I agree. But this is a continuation of the issue with the template. The fact that there are fans of the SS units and the numbers 88 in the Ukrainian Wikipedia does not mean that "Ukraine is Nazis." Nicoljaus (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

    To be clearer - I am not sure of the true intentions of PlanespotterA320, but this is not a reason for unfounded accusations. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

37.  Support --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
38. Moved from oppose below. I don't know what Planespotter was thinking by flagrantly sockpuppeting after I and others had made clear that opposition was contingent on no further socking, but that above all else makes clear that this is someone who needs to not be editing any Wikimedia project. Courtesy pings @Nguyentrongphu and Jmabel, who had both cited my opposition. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
39. Oh, dear. Some people just can't leave well enough alone.  Support - Jmabel (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
40.  Support At least the most important basic rules must be observed, otherwise Wikipedia cannot function. "No personal attacks" is such a non-debatable point. Godihrdt (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
41. Also moved from oppose below. 1. This is unacceptable. 2. She's been pestering me with strange requests on Telegram. Nataev ^talk 16:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Nataev For some off-wiki trolling, we may need to contact WMF Office (T&S) for help Lemonaka (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    It's OK. I think she's really stressed and simply cannot let go of the contentious issues she deeply cares about. I feel like she needs a break from wiki. Nataev ^talk 16:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

42.  Support Unacceptable behaviour, should be more than enough reason for a global ban. --Lentokonefani (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
43.  Support Inexcusable behavior towards fellow editors. Even worse, inexcusable behavior in regards to article subjects (as seen on some of Planespotter's socks). Sennecaster (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
44. The world's most  Strong support, year by year persis racism edit behaviors on all wikis they visited, "contributed" and "helpped", and when peoples warn him, he always re-asked peoples to stop our "racism", this looks like pointing dears as horses for me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Liuxinyu970226 Well infact they are she, not he. This still need to be respected. Lemonaka (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 1. This is yet again and attempt to censor me for raising very legitimate concerns and is completely distorting everything that has happened. First of all, my ban on ruwiki is SOLELY for "insulting" other users, specifically for the use of the word "chavanist" to describe some very nasty behavior from other users (re: saying that Yaliboylu people aren't real, claiming that Crimean Tatars invented the Mubarek zone project to make Russia look bad, etc). Saying that there is a high degree of animosity to Crimean Tatars in Russian media is not "insulting", it's a statement of fact. Which is why I asked that a very nasty site, novoross.info, be blacklisted.
   2. My position on the Uyghurs (who I would like to point out, I never said weren't a real ethnic group - in fact, there is widespread agreement they still exist contrary to predictions in Novo Vremya from the 1960s) has nothing to do with my ban on ruwiki or Commons. It is why I am banned on enwiki. I have not made any edits about Uyghurs in wikis I'm not blocked in, save a few copyvio nominations on Commons of blatant copyvios and adding defaultsort to Uyghur articles in Uzbek Wikipedia.
   3. My only sock is RespectCE. I have nothing to do with User:CK1218. I have no idea why anyone thinks it's mine. The edits are completely different!
   4. Saying that a userbox that glorifies the SS is a Nazi userbox is not a lie. The SS was a military formation of Nazi Germany. Ergo, glorification of a Nazi military unit = Nazism. Expressing concern about the prevalance of users with ADL-recognized Nazi dogwhistles like 8814 in their usernames is not against the rules or anti-Ukrainian. Croatian Wikipedia had a Nazi problem too, and it was addressed via an RfC.
   5. There is NO listing of recent behavior that is against the rules, just a lot of ragging on me for things that happened many months ago.
   6. I strongly suspect this is retaliation for my latest wave of deletion nominations on Commons for Russian and Ukrainian photos with questionable PD tags.
   7. For the past few months, I have been completely clean. By the book. Searching for (and finding) PD photos. Editing uzwiki. Things that aren't controversial.
   8. Amanda admitted that their use of the word "harassing" was very liberal (broad) on their part and there was community outrage at their unilateral and unpermitted decision.
   9. Saying that ruwiki has some problems regarding Crimean Tatar coverage is NOT a "false accusation". Just ask ANYONE at Ukrainian or Crimean Wikipedia. It IS offensive (and very dangerous!) to accuse the Crimean Tatar people of creating a hoax to make Russia look bad! (Tomasina did that in ruwiki). It IS offensive so say that Yaliboylu people aren't real! (a user now banned did that). It IS offensive to say that a Lipka Tatar Nazi collaborator was Crimean Tatar! (I doubt Ukrainian wiki would be amused if someone called a non-Ukrainian Nazi like Kube or Vlasov "Ukrainian"). Point is, I say some very concerning things and filed an RFC. Even some editors of ruwiki admitted ruwiki had a problem!
   10. This is an attempt to override local consensus that supports allowing me to edit in other wikis where there have been no problems with me.
   11. Threatening to continue writing on Wikipedia is not against the rules. I'm allowed to edit others wikis. And if I am not globally locked, I will continue to make uncontroversial edits that "I doubt you'll be upset by". I have yet to get any complaints for writing an article about Bashorat Mirboboyeva in Uzbek Wikipedia or making a list of authors by years of death. That's not exactly scary!
   Yes, I have pissed off a lot of users. I never intended to harass anyone. But nothing I am doing right now is against the rules. I know better than to talk about Crimea. I'm not emailing people. I shouldn't have editwarred or called anyone chauvanist many months ago. But globally banning me out of vengence is not going to help Wikipedia. This nomination is filed by a user who has an axe to grind against me because I have attempted to have discussion on some very real problems on wikipedia.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. As I said before, I strongly oppose to block PlanespotterA320 globally. Because she is one of the most necessary wikipedian in UzWiki. Salazarov (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
3.  Oppose. As for a wiki project where PlanespotterA320 is not active at all, I see no need to ban them globally. They seem to be active only on several of all the hunderts of wikis. The ban should be used to protect the wiki projects — and most of the wikis do not need any protection from PlanespotterA320, no PlanespotterA320 or any their puppet being there. If some destructive Moscovite fascist appears in our wiki, we are able to ban them by ourselves. --Mmh (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose. man.. this user has many edits in cross wiki, especially in uzbek wiki. but this doesnt mean users cannot be accountable for their actions. i didnt read whole RfC, if i read maybe i comment  Strong support? but still, this user break rules as it seems. so, maybe even it would be deserved, not should be globally banned. just ban him local not global, when its necesarry. Modern primat (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Modern primat Yes, they are a trusted sysop on one project, but socking a lot of places outside that project. I have cut the RFC short, still hope you can have a look. Lemonaka (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

5.  Oppose. As someone rightly pointed out, each specific Wiki is able to make its own decisions, and the user PlanespotterA320 should be evaluated in the wikis in which she has edited. Therefore, I disagree for a global ban; did not break any rules in the Italian wikis (in which I was invited to read about this provision) and is still welcome if she complies with our policies. So I oppose a global ban. --Wiccio (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose. She hasn't engaged in any disruptive behavior on uzwiki, and we really appreciate her contributions. If some action is to be taken against her, there should be a separate discussion in each project. A blanket ban is not the best solution. Nataev ^talk 00:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, a project that protect a sock master sysop, even defend them against stewards' action. Haven't I tired on your project long long ago? To assume good faith, I have struck them out. Sorry for assuming bad faith to the whole project. Lemonaka (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   You seem to have an axe to grind. She hasn't caused us any trouble, that's why we wouldn't want to see her blocked globally. And it wasn't "long long ago" that you raised this issue. It was only a few months ago. Nataev ^talk 20:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, I have an axe to grind. I'm going to use it to cut down the sockpuppeteers (in numbers) like cutting down trees. Anything wrong for my grinding my axe? Lemonaka (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   To my knowledge, she hasn't engaged in sockpuppetry on uzwiki, for instance. And if you're concerned about her socks, you should start an SPI. Nataev ^talk 17:44, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Nataev SPI and CU both done on Enwp and meta wiki, sorry without notifying you for the SPI. But the result is on the top of this page, if you scroll up a little, you can see the link to the result. Lemonaka (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

   Weak oppose per lack of ongoing disruption, contingent on there being absolutely no socking and no hostile emailing. Additionally, I would probably support a ban from Meta, for things like that weird hidden-comment message to Red-tailed hawk above. But I'm just not seeing the case that a cross-wiki ban is currently needed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Struck. See above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

   Banning on meta is useless. How could I explain that? They have already evaded their blocks twice. Lemonaka (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   you are right about "weird hidden-comment message", but not about banning. @PlanespotterA320 you should have use Template:Collapse top and Template:Collapse bottom. Modern primat (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   • STOP LYING! I only socked ONCE! Not twice! A meta ban would not be helpful - I have been assembling a list of research resources for everyone to use in a meta page.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

6.  Oppose This is double jeopardy absent any new transgressions since the most recent lock/unlock cycle, which there seems to be no evidence of. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Hi, @Pppery. It may look like a double jeopardy, but in fact is not. The previous unlock is with the condition, saying that As an update, after discussion among stewards I’ve unlocked User:PlanespotterA320. This situation is best handled in a (properly formatted) global ban request. Best,--Vermont. This is the first trial not the second. There was no previous trial before it, so it cannot be a double jeopardy Lemonaka (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Pppery Since Feb22, a lot of new evidence has been submitted, you may want to have a look. Lemonaka (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

   All I see since then is some behavior on Meta that (rightly) lead to a block on Meta but does not need to be punished yet again with a global ban. And you're w:WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 23:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

   I will respond you with one of the opposer's comment of this RFC, take it.
   WP:BLUDGEON appears to be in violation of the strength-of-the-argument-augmented consensus process. It should ideally be deleted or tagged as archived and inactive. Ideally, there will no longer be any mentions of WP:BLUDGEON and the strengh of the arguments will be properly evaluated and investigated, also during the time of running of this process and not only at the very end; the mere numerical consensus process ought to be avoided. I also note that there is no objective verifiable evidence of there being consensus for WP:BLUDGEON.
   --Dan Polansky
   If the opposer of this comment has refused WP:BLUDGEON, keep commenting on all suppoters' comment for defending, then you have no reason for accusing me as bludgeoning. Lemonaka (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

7. Strong oppose. The user does a lot of extremely useful work for wikipedia. PlanespotterA320 is very experienced and well versed in the PD-laws. Other users always don't like that their photos are deleted - you must not pay attention to it. I believe that wiki projects will lose a lot in case of re-blocking. Plus, I don't see any grounds for blocking: the user has already been punished for these violations. Why should old violations be punished again? The user has changed his behavior for the better way and I don't see that the promises given in the unblock request have been "broken".--Kursant504 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   She literally blanked this very global ban discussion. There are ongoing issues, not just old stuff. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

   people being angry and acting out after being falsely accused of something is actually pretty normal, infact when a person doesn't act out or starts abusing their rights, thats when you know the accusations are correct, I don't blame her for acting out..probably getting harassed by certain individuals for a few years now, you will eventually hit your breaking point, that blanking post/comment looks personal but i can see where she is coming from, been there..so no, Judge a person on the work they do and not where a situation forces them into...as someone who actually followed the Crimean war around 2014-onwards, and sought images for wikipedia i can see where she is coming from..what makes this situation worse is that she got blocked on meta and cannot defend herself on this RfC, we always allow people the chance to defend themselves, this is not a Kangaroo court and if they are not here then others have to do it for them.. Stemoc 08:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

8.  Oppose par principe, qu’on le bannisse là où il se doit ; pour Wikisource francophone, aucun vandalisme, aucun message qui justifierai son bannissement de WS.fr. --Le ciel est par dessus le toit (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   Translation by Tamzin: "Oppose on the principle that we ban where necessary. For the French-language Wikisource, no vandalism, no message that would justify a ban on fr.WS."

    Oppose. I am from Commons – the project, where Planespotter has made most edits is Commons. In my opinion Planespotter is mostly good user there, creating a lot of successful deletion requests against poorly sourced and licensed old photos. Nobody else does that regularly, but this is a work must be done. I understand, that Planespotter has problems in different wikipedias. If you must, can you block him/her from wikipedias, leaving Commons open for him/her? Also seems like Uzbek wikipedia likes him/her. Please do not ban Planespotter. Taivo (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   I did not like Planespotter's edit of this page at 19:54, 7 February 2023. Now you can ban him/her, if you want. Taivo (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

9. Strong oppose A global ban should prevent evil work. I inspected the users edits of the last 2 years in de.wp. All edits are useful. If the user would be banned globally it would become impossible to continue the useful work. So good work will be prevented, not evil work. The user and de.wp will suffer - thats a very bad idea. If it would be necessary, we are able to ban hin/her here. --2001:9E8:2474:4200:F878:C1BC:583B:3364 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

   @2001:9E8:2474:4200:F878:C1BC:583B:3364 Your only contribution on all projects is this one, check here. I believe this is something so weird. Lemonaka (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose User may be problematic and some local blocks may be OK, but still I fail to see what justifies this really ultimate step. My POV: ban all the RU-wiki rashists first, especially the sysops among them. Please. --A.Savin (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Changed vote after seeing [3]. --A.Savin (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   • Wikipedia is not a battleground. — Summer 12:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

     maybe it should be, maybe not? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 01:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

10. Cannot support this request as being done in good faith given the behaviour I saw at Requests for comment/Concerning sentiments in a particular wiki by the RfC author @Lemonaka and in an AfD in Ukrainian Wikipedia: this seems like the classic case of wikihounding by Lemonaka for reasons unknown to me, and even in cases where PlanespotterA320 is both in the right and not doing anything particularly offensive. PlanespotterA320 is a very problematic user who defends Uighur genocide and cannot act civilly like a Wikimedian should for the life of her, and would eventually be globally locked anyway if she doesn’t change her current behaviour, but I feel like not opposing this request on principle is worse in terms of what behaviour we would encourage if this succeeds. stjn^[ru] 12:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

    Да, у меня тоже ощущение, что с учеткой Лемонака что-то не то. Она появилась впервые в запросе на Мотина и сразу развела бурную деятельность. Lesless (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

11.  Oppose Believing Salazarov and per Mmh. The comment by Kursant504 seems convincing as well, although I cannot independently verify it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

    An addendum: I noticed the curious phrase "fake accusation", which would mean accusation that is no real accusation, meaning it would be a non-accusation. What was probably intended was "false accusation", meaning "untrue accusation", meaning "factually incorrect accusation". I derive my own conclusions from this defect, and a competent formal analyst trained in psychoanalysis may derive the same conclusion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

12.  Oppose I am from the wiki which was not affected. If I look at the reasons why a global block is required, they seem exaggerated. I think that the mentioned problems can and will continue to be solved locally. For example, in the case of the revert war on en, there was no consensus search at the discussion page of the given article. I don't consider the fact that someone opens 2 RFCs at the finish line to be wallpapering. The fact that they were impolite in the discussions is a problem, but I think that it can be solved with traditional methods on the site. All in all, it seems to me that the proposing party is not unbiased and they overreacts to someone who contradicts the "Western" description of facts and events. So in what you presented, I really do not see a whole series of disruptions to the running on projects for which a global block would have to be granted. --Juandev (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
13.  Oppose As pointed out in this page, I think that for now each Wiki should be able to make its own decisions, and the user PlanespotterA320 should be evaluated in theose wikis in which she has edited. I disagree for a global ban; in the portuguese wikipedia, she has made good contributions and I even worked with her in some articles and lists, for example List of female Heroes of the Soviet Union, adding photos like in this edit, etc. I love aviation and I have several symbols in my userpage in pt.wiki, from the Portuguese Air Force cross to the Luftwaffe cross, and it was never a problem between us. She was always respectful and cordial, followed the pt.wiki rules and conduct, and nobodie had anything to say about her. So, ban her if you want in the wikis where she might have caused problems, but leave the other wikis alone to decide for themselves. Tuga1143 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
14.  Oppose Per Tamzin and Tuga1143. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

    Sure, there has been new socking. However, I don't see any severe cross-wiki disruption to justify global ban. We do not global ban many much more prolific sockmasters unless there is a severe global disruption. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

    @Nguyentrongphu Please read comments from @Nataev, you will know why this really need a global ban, even need to contact WMF Office. Lemonaka (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

15. I've had a conflict with PlanespotterA320 in ru.wiki, and I was also not right in that situation. I feel guilty that my episode went down in her block history. I beleive, that she can learn a lesson with this ban request and will (or already) change her behaviour in proving arguments in a socially acceptable way. --Rave (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
16.  Oppose Per Juandev above. No disruption on Wikiversity that I'm aware of. --Marshallsumter (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
17.  Oppose most wikis don't need protection from PlanespotterA320. no need for a global ban. ban local if it's necessary. --Knoerz (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
18.  Oppose There seems to be no problems with this user’s Uzbek, Italian and French Wiki postings, judging by others commenting here. Also it should be uncontroversial to describe users who display SS insignia as neonazi, nor should it be controversial to call out those who claim that Crimean Tatars don’t exist. As far as the claim that they’re operating under a new sock puppet account is concerned, that seems unlikely and unproblematic in any case, as this account has posted solely about hurricanes since being created. PlanespotterA320 hasn’t done herself any favours with the childish edit to this very page but, even so, a local or temporary block seems fairer than an indefinite global one to me. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
19. Oppose per Overlordnat1 which nicely sums it up. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
20. Rather, here. In Russian Wikipedia, it was believed that this was a RUSSAVIA's puppet, but there is still no evidence. Lesless (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    Russavia is Australian and barely speaks russian or understands it..whoever thinks this was Russavia must be smoking some strong stuff..Russavia isn't globally banned for harassment or anything major like Planespotter has been accused of, he was banned by our not so benevolent leader for personal reasons..just to clarify stuff cause Globally banned user, INeverCry made it look like Russavia was some sort of mastermind when he was the one making those socks and tarnishing his name due to them having issues before he was banned .. Since WMF never told us why Russavia was banned, a lot of us believe INC made some fake stuff and reported it to WMF claiming it was Russavia and since WMF has a habit of not reverting messes they make, they shoved it under the rug.. Stemoc 03:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

21.  Oppose.. as a neutral, reading everything on this issue, these all seem more Propaganda and personal than any thing else, every wiki Planespotter had issues in, she has been blocked, it is done, move on, if she creates a sock on enwiki and does something bad there, localCU can take action, i will ALWAYS oppose blocking contributors on any project unless they break one of the major pillars of ToS, her contribution across wikimedia is good, and obviously people who actually contribute to the project will have enemies, rather we leave politics out of projects and Global banning Planespotter will make this project "political" .. lets not cross to that side of the road yet, Wikimedia needs to always remain IMPARTIAL..lets leave global bans to people who actually break the ToS and not because someone makes someone else 'uncomfortable'..--Stemoc 03:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

    They actually break the ToS, especially the following items.

    4#1,Harassing and Abusing Others
    Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and
    Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.

    and also 4#3With the intent to deceive, posting content that is false or inaccurate;

    and even 4#2Infringing the privacy rights of others under the laws of the United States of America or other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content); if you take some of their posts on reddit into consideration. Lemonaka (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

    you need to backup some of the claims you made, the user didn't engage in most you mentioned before she got pushed into a corner, the email thing started after she was blocked on the russian wiki, safe to assume we know why, you need to backup the other 2 with proof, what you might perceive as being false and/or inaccurate may be accurate/true from the other side and regarding 4#2, as someone who also posts on reddit, i didn't see anything that violates ToS in the way you say it does.. Stemoc 02:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

    The email things are not only about blocked on Russian wiki, also on English, on meta, to me, red-tailed hawk and AmandaNP and also other people. We all fucked up by their emails. In their emails (threats) targeting me, they said they are co-operating with government and will cause me into troubles (if I dare engage in further content dispute against them), (or versa, such as leading them into troubles). these emails were sent to stewards group which lead her the first lock....
    For 4#3, reading their own essay on Russian Wikipedia, the ban discussion of them on English Wikipedia, their introducing hoaxes and hates content into Ukraine related articles (especially on english wikipedia). All listed above.
    For 4#2, sorry, privacy evidence cannot be directly exposed here, also note that they had a private group on reddit for special kind of things, which was proved by Red-tailed hawk. I will disclose them to Arbcom or WMF Office when required, but not now. (also, disclose such things will lead me into disastrous situation) Lemonaka (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Neutral/Recusal

1. Neutral I haven't perused the detailed evidence against this user, but I will say that it's not a "false allegation" to describe this [4] as a "Nazi userbox". The en:14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) was a part of the Nazi party and where I live (Canada) there's been a lot of controversy over whether memorializing that division is acceptable; arguing against that division is not some bizarre false accusation. [5] If this user is globally banned, her issues with that user box should not be part of the reasoning for said ban. Chess (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   Good point Nicoljaus (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

2. Neutral I'm a non-interested party and only as informed as this page (browsing discussions on enWP linked here), but I've noticed some of those who are opposed to a global ban seem to be basing their positions on the conduct of this one user account on their own wiki, but the issue seems to be that PlanespotterA320 is one account that is kept somewhat clean, belonging to a user who has been using multiple accounts for their dirty work. It is the user who has been found by several wikis to be causing disruption, spreading misinformation, stalking people outside the wikiverse, and other infractions that seem very serious, necessitating multiple bans. Considering the behavior of only one account on one wiki seems to miss the whole point of this discussion, and a short-sighted justification to retain a demonstrably damaging and untrustworthy user (by history and her own admissions). As I read it, this is about a broad and ongoing pattern across many wikis, spilling over to other social media, using multiple accounts, not just one account on any single wiki. That is what should be considered. Dcs002 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
3. I agree with Stjn and Chess. Recent disruption needs to be taken into consideration though, as evidenced by Special:Diff/24506762 and the subsequent behaviour on the user talk page here, as well as placing a speedy deletion tag onto more than 100 files on Commons to make a point. ~~~~
   User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
4. Neutral — Sadko (words are wind) 01:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

• I'm on the fence here, and it's a bit hard from the request above to see a clear answer to the question that matters the most to me, which is: Has Planespotter engaged in further cross-wiki disruption since her unlock? Would appreciate if someone could clarify that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin, Red-tailed hawk and TNT have answered you above. To avoid further harassment, I strongly recommend you blacklist this user from wikimail. Because I got two threat emails from this user on different projects. If you want to have a read the terrible content, I'm happy to share. Lemonaka (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Lemonaka: When is the most recent email of this nature? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  @TamzinThey sent me two emails in November and December, then I Special:Mute them from all projects and asked them not to do so. Due to mute, they cannot send me further ones. But on Dec 4, Red-tail hawk got another. So it's obvious... Lemonaka (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  So then there has been no disruption in two months, since the lock and unlock? Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly on Planespotter's side here—I helped her request an unblock on enwiki, only to later find out she had been socking at the same time, which rather felt like a betrayal—but I'm trying to understand what ongoing cross-wiki issue a ban would actually prevent. And it sounds like you're saying there isn't one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Tamzin, I'm on the bus right now, I will answered this a few hours later, can I? Lemonaka (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, I'm in no rush. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Bus stuck in a traffic jam. To tell a long story short, this rfc was firstly draft on November, just after first rfc failed for poorly formatting. It takes me a lot of time and effort, researching previous case, collecting evidence while keeping all the things privately. We all know that if you submit something to arbcom, it will take time. So as this. Lemonaka (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I knew this rfc, no matter write in which kind of pattern, is likely failed. A trusted sysop on a project was terribly socking outside their homewiki, just hard to imagine.

  While sock master PlaneSpotterA320 is doing constructive edits , socks(repsectCE) are doing disruptive ones, including harassment outside Wikipedia. I'm the victim of harassment, and now it looks like I'm the one who intimidated a poor established user.

  It's such a clever way, and this is just a circle when I tried to find a solution. When I went to WMF about their sockpuppetry behaviour, they told me to discuss with stewards. Stewards take action, but reverted by local community. So I came here, and someone is asking, why not make local decision on each project? If local decision is useful, why I came here, wasting more than four months collecting and writing. Lemonaka (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Tamzin fyi w:Special:Contribs/PlanespotterA330, not completely sure this isn't impersonation but seems to be matching the pattern. (Plus what I mentioned in regard to Commons and Meta above.) ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps this will also be useful: [6]. --Nicoljaus (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

  ENwp notified for such worries. Now confirmed as sockpuppetry. Lemonaka (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

• Pretty much what Tamzin said. Actions here are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. - Jmabel (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I have not emailed ANYONE after being asked not to email users in any way that could appear harassing. I have been in contact with @Ghost of Kiev: via email to share newspapers found at the library of Congress to help them with an article they are working on, @Nataev: and others of Uzbek Wikipedia to discuss Uzbek Wikipedia affairs, Uzbek history, sharing newspapers etc. While Lemonaka claimed that I was still doing block evasion after my RespectCE account was outed because I mentioned "showing the ropes" to new users, that was purely in reference to off-wiki social media activity discussing Wikipedia matters. As of now I am permitted to edit Commons, Uzbek Wikipedia, and other wikis, and I have been active there, but it is not disruptive in any way because I am permitted to edit there.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • This is still preventative. They have created a lot of sockpuppets here and there. We have given them enough trust and assuming good faith, that's really enough. Lemonaka (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Banning me from wikis I am permitted to edit and have local consensus in support of keeping me isn't going to prevent ANYTHING bad! I'm already banned on enwiki and ruwiki anyway! So there is NO point in banning me elsewhere!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
    • NO, I have only ONE sock, RespectCE, which is already blocked. STOP slandering me!!!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

      You are still telling lies to all these people. AmandaNP and checkuser from English wikipedia has confirmed that ck1218 is another sock. Sadly Lemonaka (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

      • There must have been some mistake, because I NEVER used the CK1218 account! I don't know how that confusion could have happened. My edits and their edits are COMPLETELY different! Maybe they use the same VPN as me? Hola is rather popular after all. I admitted to using RespectCE, but I COMPLETELY deny the CK1812 account being related to me in any way!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

        • Maybe they use the same VPN as me?

No open proxies. Oops! — Summer 20:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

hi, @SummerKrut, Thanks for your comment. But don't get fooled by her. This is not the problem of open-proxy. Because CU is not only about IP address. It needs some other data to compare. Lemonaka (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• To be fair I would have to say that I haven't seen any posts in our community from him or her. All he or she is said to have contributed are 563 Graphics and Photographs exclusively on Wikimedia. I am therefore undecided whether to vote for or against. Best regards to all. -- Mirzali (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Mirzali sorry a lot for spamming your projects. It's the first time I'm dealing with massages and I selected all projects. I'm so regret doing so. Lemonaka (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• To all, I have explained why user:CK1218 is a sock, checkusers from two projects (AmandaNP and English Wikipedia CU group) confirmed this. Tl;dr

1. Special:CA/CK1218 , confirmed by AmandaNP
2. w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PlanespotterA320/Archive#06_December_2022, confirmed by user:GeneralNotability, an established Checkuser from English Wikipedia.
3. Also, to their fake reason of using same open proxies and wrongly blocked, please have a read on user:-revi/蟲蟲飛, you will know how CU works. CU is not only about IP, it's also about devices and something like that. This is a special thank to user:-revi what he wrote helped.

Lemonaka (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• • • I don't know how sock checks work, but I 100% deny any affiliation with CK1218! It's not mine! There must be some mistake! I don't know how anyone could even think it was mine! Please do another checkuser, because ITS NOT MINE! I am being framed! The edit histories are completely different!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
• Lemonaka said: fortunately caught by common users, such as ... Nicoljaus. I'm sorry, there must have been some misunderstanding. In the mentioned topic, I spoke about some of the problems with bias in the Russian Wikipedia. But I didn’t write anything bad about PlanespotterA320 (virtually didn’t intersect with her). The Russian Wikipedia really thrives... unconventional views. For example, they cannot even reach a consensus there that something bad really started with the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine 24.02.2022, which is worth regretting (not to mention condemning) [7]. And some of the most powerful admins have already openly switched to the pro-Kremlin project (Runiversalis) [8].

With this in mind: diff, I cannot but speak out neither "for" nor "against" the global ban. If this was indeed trolling on the part of PlanespotterA320, then it's not easy for an outsider like me to recognize if the puppeteer skillfully disguises himself as an emotional truth-seeker.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am frankly a bit surprised that the foundation isn't stepping in and explaining to Russian Wikipedians that "complaining" about nasty content and racist accusations in ruwiki and saying that Russia has retroactive copyright laws are not legitimate grounds for a ban. I know that most of ruwiki would be happy to see me punished, but their reasons are far from legitimate. If they don't like the copyright laws, they should take it up with the Duma, not Commons. If they think there are no problems with Crimean Tatar content on ruwiki, I dare them to say I was wrong for asking for some basic changes (like the white supremacist website novoross.info to be blacklisted)! It's not a lie to say that ruwiki and ukwiki have some problems! I don't deny socking with RespectCE and ONLY RespectCE, but I never try to troll anyone, most of my edits are very boring, like adding author attribution to fair-use photos, tagging photos on Commons, etc.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I am inviting @Taivo: and other Commons admins who understand Russian copyright law to contribute to this discussion and explain copyright to users who are upset by deletion nominations of their photos that they perceive as "copyright trolling". I hope we can take this moment to educate some of the users who are ill-informed of publication requirements and that copyright rules on Commons aren't personal, but a matter of policy.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Me "trolling" Russian wikipedia, sumarized in meme form: Mubarek was an Uzbek project anyway! reacting to the "final solution to the Crimean Tatar problem" celebrating ruwiki admitting that Yaliboylu people are real Explaining that Amet-khan is Crimean mocking the chauvanists reiterating that Yaliboylu people are real being bitter about airport names explaining the whole tatar as an adjective vs tatar as a noun difference asking for media for commons Obviously I'm an unemotional Russophobic troll who actually doesn't care about Crimea and is just looking for ways to attack Russians! /sarcasm --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you... really want to make your whole reddit history fair game here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What is so bad about my reddit activities? Is there something wrong with the teddy bear sewing projects[9]? The request for a PD-Kyryzstan template on Commons? The essay about the importance of knowing what is and isn't public domain? Expressing concern about a userbox that endoreses the SS? Announcing the the addition of digitized newspapers to a library website? Complaining about mislabeled entries in goskatalog.uz? Celebrating that ruwiki admits Yaliboylu people are real? Complaining that Ogonyok magazine falsely labeled Crimean Tatar Hero of the Soviet Union Uzeir Abduramanov as "Azerbaijani" Appealing to ask people to write and translate wiki articles about famous Crimean Tatars? My pathetic Crimean crafting attempts?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

So be it. Respectfully, the following are (among others) things I take issue with:

• Posts on /r/GenZedong: (quarantined subreddit, so the Internet Archive does not work, but Archive.is has an account go access the pages to get around that issue)
  1. In June 2021 (archive), you were on /r/genzedong, baselessly alleging that you encountered sockpuppets of mine. I also am not, and have never been, an employee of the U.S. Government, and I don't appreciate your conspiracy-mongering (nor that of the subreddit more broadly).
  2. In November 2021 (archive) baselessly alleging that Horse Eye's Back is a part of a neocon brigade seeking to censor information.
  3. in January 2022 (archive) baselessly alleging once again that a "brigade of neocons" is conspiring to censor you.
• Other not-so-chill item
  1. In October 2022 (archive) you openly tried to canvass people from reddit to EnWiki move discussions.

The teddy bear stuff and weaving is quite nice, but dodging the fact that you've made personal attacks off-wiki and attempted to canvass discussions is not helping me to change my mind. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk Auch, everything got cleared. Lemonaka (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You're "WikipediaHistorian" on Reddit? That account has been harassing me for years. Why would you do that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Those posts were a very long time ago. 1. I don't know anyone one Reddit who is Horseeye. But when I hear that a fellow editor is a government employee (a MASSIVE coi), I tend to want to get the scoop on that. Also, there is a history of socks editing Xinjiang articles, so I would expect there to still be socks there. And not to mention, it is aweful cpincidence that hawk and horseye edit just so many of the same pages. 2. I haven't ben posting about Xinjiang on reddit for a while. However, I did express dismay that a comment on a TALKPAGE asking about a huge timeline inconsistency was censored as it showed that Wikipedia wasn't allowing discussion that was remotely dissenting. Yes, I'm on Genzdong. It is nessesary to be proactive about things when people on social be screaming that Crimean Tatars "are the next Uyghurs"! If that narrative is out, Russians will feel a license to do even more shit! It's pure politics. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. If I have to woo the r/Sino freaks to to prevent dissemination of anti-Crimean bloodlibel, so be it. It's not like those places are highly suceptible to anti-Crimean propaganda or anything. 2. Years? I haven't posted on reddit about you guys that much, and not for a LONG time. And it is important for the sake of all Crimeans that it be very, very clear that I don't get along with you and that you hate my guts. Keep it up. I have not been harassing or DMing anyone in a harassing manner on reddit, just expressing concern about potential COIs and other questionable behavior (re: Socking in Uyghur articles, strange article history timelines, etc). 3. When elements of the Russian state make a concerted effort to erase the existance of Yaliboylu people so that it is easier to paint Crimeans as subhuman Asiastic hordes that don't belong in Crimea (the language of a troll on reddit, not me), it is nessesary to fight back by ANY MEANS NESSESARY to prevent literal erasure of a forgotten and unwanted nation from history. If people tried to delete the article about Uyghurs claiming Uyghurs aren't real and that Uyghurs aren't worthy of an article, I doubt you wouldn't fight back. People have a right to be notified when people on wikipedia unilaterally decide that their ethnic group isn't "worthy" of being remembered!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"And it is important for the sake of all Crimeans that it be very, very clear that I don't get along with you and that you hate my guts. Keep it up." I'm sorry but you're saying that trashing me on social media will save the Crimean people? You're saying that you engaged in disruptive behavior on enwiki against me so that a subreddit would think you hated me and therefore support your claims about the Crimean Tatars across a wide range of language wikis? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear I don't hate you and I'm actually kind of relieved that the animosity you showed towards me was to convince an external audience of such rather than being your real feelings towards me. I think your heart is in the right place your head is just a little hot and your hands get you trouble. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@PlanespotterA320: you were blocked from Russian Wikipedia because you couldn’t act in the manner that is expected from all editors, see WP:CIVIL. As much as I support the view that Russian Wikipedia has biases in their coverage of minoritised nations, the block was much more of your own doing than anyone else at Russian Wikipedia. If you would’ve stopped behaving in an incivil manner, there would’ve been far fewer reasons to block you. stjn^[ru] 12:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how a violation of WP:CIVIL could ever be grounds for indefinite block. Makes no sense to me, and is in violation of the Christian love-and-foregiveness standard (which can be upheld by Christians and atheists alike). --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Except this was also accompanied by huge soapboxing (see her "theses" here - although it's in russian, I think google translate should be enough), violations of NPA and overall battleground-y behaviour. — Summer 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to "you were blocked from Russian Wikipedia because you couldn’t act in the manner that is expected from all editors, see WP:CIVIL" with a period at the end and nothing else. As for NPA, this whole request on Meta is probably much worse genuine personal attack than any that the editor ever made. Moreover, the Christian-love-and-foregiveness standard requires the editor to be blocked not indefinitely but rather for an extended period of time so they can ponder that the situation is serious; for many people, psychologically, one year approaches indefinite and ought to be more than enough for regulating many classes of serious misconduct. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

As for SOAPBOXing, that is very easily soluble: any on-wiki communication that is reliably identified as soapboxing can be deleted by an administrator and the author is temporarily blocked. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Most importantly, the proposers of the measure/intervention ought to establish that an all-wiki ban for all future time is the most prudent, just and expedient course of action. Nothing remotely resembling such a thesis has been established on this page, as far as I can tell. It is not even clear what drives the creator of this measure/intervention and the supporters, but from a formal perspective, that is more of an intellectual-curiosity-driven question than one required to be answered by the process. (One might perhaps debate even that, but let us leave it at that; philosophers seem to be able to debate nearly anything.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thinking more about it, the sentence "you were blocked from Russian Wikipedia because you couldn’t act in the manner that is expected from all editors" appears to use phrasing so vague and general as to be practically nearly meaningless; the level of specificity approaches zero. In some regards, one might hyperbolically liken it to "The entity in question entered into a certain relationship with the other entity"; well, okay, what else is new? Sure, there are some contrasts, such as "The entity has a certain quality, namely the quality identified by a certain adjective". Well, sure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

From a logical standpoint, she was indefblocked due to her negative impact on Russian Wikipedia exceeding the positive. In ruwiki this is also known as the "Casino principle", but to you I think "not being here to build an encyclopedia" sounds more familiar. Summer ^talk 11:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

From a formal standpoint, a sentence criticized as untrue/inaccurate (by me above) cannot be defended by making statements not pertaining to the sentence or the criticism. Inaccurate/untrue statements ought not be made, and can be amended by the author's changing them later, and indicating below that the statement was changed; the change can be indicated using underscores and strikeouts if preferred.

The accusation of the person transparently identified as en:WP:NOTHERE, "not being here to build an encyclopedia", possibly defamatory but I do not know, is distinct from the accusation of incivility, and is therefore change of a subject. Whether there is a formally correct tracing for that accusation to objective verifiable evidence I do not know; it is in part not all that important since the imporant thing is that the propriety, suitability, justice, Christian forgiveness and similar desirable characteristics of all-wiki ban for all time has not been established. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot properly concentrate. That is perhaps not surprising, given the high count of formal errors/defects/deficiencies/inaccuracies in statements made on this page. Let me try better: As for "indefblocked due to her negative impact on Russian Wikipedia exceeding the positive.": the sum total of negative and positive impact being under zero is not a sufficient ground for ban for all time, merely for ban for, say, one year, consistent with the Christian foregiveness standard/policy/rule/cultural norm. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not concentrate. The statement above about the ground being some kind of sum total of good and bad being under zero contradicts the top of this page, which says that the accussed editor was banned in "Russian Wikipedia in May 2022 for unstoppable insulting other editors on talkpages." That rationale for a block for all time is invalid, and absolutely unacceptable; such an offense could earn a one week block, or perhaps a one month block. Moreover, one could even block the editor from user talk pages only, using the tools current Mediawiki version affords. Something seems remarkably astray here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your wikilawyering. Thanks. Summer ^talk 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 'I Agree' Camera Worker (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia: User:Camera Worker page states: "This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Cbauman12 (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely." Whether that matters is unclear; in any case, the above 1) is not an argument, and 2) contains four problematic elements or elements suggesting that something is wrong even if it is not clear what exactly it is: a) icon; b) italics; c) boldface, d) use of single quotes around the statement "I Agree" (why would one be quoting oneself in this way?). --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Please address your accusations of Wikilawyering and not the formatting of said accusations. Camera Worker (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky In addition, I couldn't help but notice you are indefinitely blocked on EN.Wiktionary for Unacceptable conduct and racism. Camera Worker (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky Hi, mind you stop a little. I'd rather you focus on the defendant of this RFC, not lawyering on others' block or bans. This is no good for the whole progress of RFC. Lemonaka (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320 tries to constantly make an argument that Russian Wikipedia administrators have blocked her because (in a nutshell) she was telling them ‘the truth’ and they didn’t want to hear it because they are imperialists. I was trying to say that that is not what happened, and her block over at ruWP is purely down to the fact that she repeatedly engaged in hostile behaviour against other editors.

‘Couldn’t act in a manner that is expected from all editors’ is a fine description to use here when I link to the policies that PlanespotterA320 is both familiar with and doesn’t care much about. The overarching point is that she was not blocked for content issues, she was blocked for behavioural issues. And that block is justified given that she had more than enough chances to alter her behaviour, since indefinite block does not come out of the blue unless you vandalise pages. stjn^[ru] 12:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Even by your argument, there is no "standard" period of time for "love and forgiveness", and indefinite generally does not mean infinite... on the other hand if you disregard that, I don't see why the argument would need to be restricted to blocks for violations of civility policy. Anyway, I don't see how this discussion is in scope of this RfC and why the duration of the block would matter specifically for telling whether there is a problem or not. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Here's supplementary material for recruiting meatpuppets outside Wikipedia, (especially on reddit) today's new evidence
stop_framing_me recovered by archive1

it_is_not_a_lie_to_say_that_this_userbox recovered by archive 2

i_wont_be_around_much_longer... no needs for recovering now.

According to their uncivil call outside Wikipedia, I believe that made this RFC more complex and more horrible. Lemonaka (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify yourself how did you end up in the discussion in Ukrainian Wikipedia despite not editing Ukrainian Wikipedia before, and why have you felt the need to argue there more than any Ukrainian editor ever did on that page, instantly saying that PlanespotterA320 ‘needs a block ASAP before more vandalism or trolling behaviour happens’? I don’t think this was particularly civil either. As well as maybe answer Chess’s comment about the division’s legacy being controversial. stjn^[ru] 12:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Stjn All answered on the same page, if you scroll down a little then you can read it why I'm proposing a block for that user on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Please assume good faith to others instead of accusing me of civility. Lemonaka (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please calm down

When I drafted this RFC, I never imagined the situation would come to this. It's a little bit out of control right now.

As the drafter, I kindly ask that both opponents and supporters calm down a bit. The purpose of our discussion here is whether PlanespotterA320 should be banned, not whether any of you should be banned or not. Therefore, the focus point of our discussion should be on the behavior of PlanespotterA320, not on the behavior of you in your projects, and whether or not you are blocked is irrelevant to today's discussion. Please do not continue to argue or attack each other about this. One may be blocked for a lot of reasons, if PlanespotterA320 wishes, she could block me on Uzbek Wikipedia since she's a sysop there and I'm nominating her for global ban. So please take a step back.

Hereby, I suggest that we should pay attention to the user's canvassing behavior off-wiki. I am very concerned that there may be questionable votes due to the repeated use of sock puppets by defendant.

Tl;Dr

Focus on comments, not on others.

Regards,-- Lemonaka (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please, stop chasing User:Planespotter A320. As you said you don't believe our project UzWiki. So, We do not block anyone who doing good things to Wikipedia from our project. User:Planespotter A320 knows it perfectly. Salazarov (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Salazarov I have withdrawn my words of don't believe your project, deeply apologized. Lemonaka (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)