Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Global ban request for Messina

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. Ban: Concerns were raised by a minority that this global ban RFC may not fulfil the global ban requirement #3, which seems to be a cause of a lack of proper documentation of the issues on either wiki involved. Though, regarding the question if a global ban is the appropriate action to take, good consensus among the RFC participants seems to exist and the evidence provided why Messina harms our projects is not doubted by any of the users commenting. There is merely an argument over what action to take specifically in this case, where good consensus exists that the global community at large wishes an implementation of a global community ban. By closing this, all comments made were taken into consideration. All community members are asked to enforce this ban.
--Vogone (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the procedures of Global bans, I hereby request discussion of a global ban for Messina (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser).

The user meets the criteria for a global ban and has caused severe disruption and problems in various projects.

Cross-wiki abuse and infinite blocks in 3 projects

  1. He has been blocked in September 2013 indefinitely on Commons for repeated violation of copyrights and subsequently avoided this block by hundreds of sockpuppets.
  2. He has been blocked numerous times an de:WP for violation of Wikipedia's core principles and was blocked indefinitely in August 2013 for avoiding blocks with scores of sockpuppets
  3. He has been blocked on Hebrew Wikipedia in January 2016 (with other accounts blocked in 2014 משתמש:גומבל & he:משתמש:Daniel123)

Previous information and fair process for user
The block in de:WP was later suspended to allow Messina to contribute in his user namespace only to prepare articles that were mentored and reviewed before moving them to the main namespace. The community of de:WP took substantial efforts to enable Messina to participate while at the same time guarding the project and other users. Those efforts are documented in no less than 6 attempts of a Mediation Committee and 4 decisions of the Arbitration Committee.

However, working with Messina continued to prove extremely difficult at times due to displays erratic and non-cooperating behaviour resulting in further temporary blocks within his namespace.

Harassment, legal threats and violation of privacy policies
At the end of 2015 Messina sent Wikimail to several reliable long-term contributors, threatening them with legal actions and accusing them of antisemitic campaigning (some discussion can be found here. When asked, Messina denied sending the mails, and a CheckUser request was filed to prove his ownership. Messina tried to prevent de:Benutzer:Theghaz from performing the CheckUser by threatening him with legal action via Wikimail. He also harrassed the German OTRS-Team by sending hundreds of emails, some containing additional threats. As a result, he was again indefinitely blocked from de:WP, revoking his limited suspension of the earlier block. The checkuser result has proven his authorship of the mails without doubt.

In addition, Messina is also known to have revealed private information of Wiki Users outside of Wikipedia and accusing them of antisemitism.

Since his latest block, Messina has again turned to avoiding the block with IP edits. There is a great deal of disruption in the German community about how to approach edits and articles from Messina since some of them seem to be useful, but are never reliable (wrong or fake information, possible copyright violations etc.). In order to settle the matter and prevent further damage to the community of de:WP, I hereby request a global ban for Messina, so that en:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad and en:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors can be enforced what is currently not otherwise possible on de:WP due to a lack of local policies for such cases. All others wiki projects need to be enabled to handle his sockpuppets and edits effectively to protect them from damage like Messina has already caused on de:WP, Commons and he:WP.

Regards, --Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information:

Messina has also been active as User משתמש:גומבל on Hebrew Wikipedia, after a 3 month block in 2007 he was active as he:משתמש:Daniel123 until he was infintiely blocked in September 2014 for repeated sockpuppetry. In 2007 the first account got blocked because of insufficient article quality and language skills (similar problems as in de:WP).

See blocks of first account on he:WP, talk page of first account, blocks of second account und talk page second account . Thanks to de:User:Sakra for providing this information.

This also serves to show that problems with this user are not limited to de:WP and/or Commons and further sockpuppetry is to be expected in other projects making a global ban even more necessary. --Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Additional information 2:

Messina is now active as User משתמש:מסינה on Hebrew Wikipedia [1], accusing de:wp users for antisemitism and mention what he think are their real names. --Alraunenstern (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Votes & Comments

edit

Support

edit
  1. Strong support Strong support -jkb- 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC) - - - - See also Steward requests/Global/2015-05#Global lock for Messina[reply]
  2. Support Support --.js[democracy needed] 23:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support The user had much more time on Wikipedia than it should ever have been allowed, and their actions are far more negative than positive(not that everything had been negative, that not...), and Messina is active in commons and dewiki, and might spread the disruption further.--Müdigkeit (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Strong support - sometimes it's neccessary to protect users even from themselves as the project must get protected too. Messina had millions of chances and never learned. He is dangerous for us all. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support (restoring vote, see below.) I have reviewed the user's activities on Commons, where they have been blocked since September 2013. From what I see, this seems proper and I will Support Support. I do not know the user, and I have not participated in decisions about global bans, so I will be watching with interest to see if I have misunderstood something. -Pete F (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would seem from discussion that there are still open questions on German Wikipedia about this user, and the issues have not been widely discussed on Commons. Meta and the Global Banning process are not supposed to substitute for local deliberations; they are supposed to be used to buttress cases where clear decisions have already been made on local wikis. So I am striking my "support" vote (and will likely change to "oppose" after a bit more research). If somebody could provide a more thorough summary of the status on German Wikipedia, that would be most helpful. -Pete F (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I am restoring my "support" vote. I am not comfortable supporting this based on the Global bans policy, which requires (point 3):

    The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. These projects must have demonstrated broad support for the blocks or bans through a prominent community discussion process—clear explanations and considerations for local rules and practices must be evident, decisions must be independent of a block or ban on another project, and the blocks or bans must be clearly intended to be indefinite.

  1. It seems to me that neither German Wikipedia nor Commons has "demonstrated broad support" in that way. However, it is clear that there are very good reasons to ban this user globally. The most convincing thing, for me, is that 7 of the 10 German Wikipedia arbitrators have voted for the ban (and none have voted against).
    I therefore think we should apply a global ban based on the principle ignore all rules. (I realize this is not formal policy here on Meta, but it's an important principle regardless.) We should do the right thing in this instance; but we also (overall) should have policies and processes that match up better. I think the best thing would be if big projects like German Wikipedia and Commons could develop better practices for documenting significant decisions; of course, local arbitrators, bureaucrats etc. may have better insights than I do; but that is the best solution I can think of. -Pete F (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support User like this doesn't belong here --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Support — Eduardogobi (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support He was “on parole” and failed. It seems that it doesn’t make much sense to give him yet another chance. It might sound rude, but he has to go. --Gretarsson (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support Seader (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Messina is a long term troll and sockmaster. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support -- O.Koslowski (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support Strong support. This case goes on for much too long and there must be drawn a final line. That local admins like #1 under "oppose" lack of ability and will to step against Messina, makes a global ban necessary. --Julius1990 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support - Martin Bahmann (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC) As admin of the de-wikipedia, I strongly support this request. This user - and hundreds of his socks - was and still is, for years, responsible for such a great mess in de-wikipedia, commons and other wikipedia language versions, too. It's really time to make a final cut with that user. After that, delete & ignore, even if that would be a sisyphus work or not.[reply]
  10. Support Support - Long overdue. --Denniss (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support Though a ban will not stop sockpuppeteering or IP edits, it will send the clear message that Messina continous disturbance of the project and threat of fellow contributors is not acceptable and in opposition to all principles of Wikipedia. It will also allow German administrators to enforce global ban policies and deal with further interruption without endless discussion. The ban is not really controversial, since Messina has been banned infinitely for years with only suspension of the ban for specific purposes. This ban has been reinstated after continued violation of policies. Multiple legal threats would even alone justify an infinite block.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support --Alraunenstern (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support --Sakra (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support Messina is not willing to respekt rules. He is not able do learn and to contribute properly. The main reason is, he is trying to get other users to break rules in his intention to violate copyritht-rules and last point, his defamations against others are no longer tolerabel. --Itti (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support Strong support One of my friends vandalized Wikipedia, and I see it's wrong so we must get rid of people who use the wiki not for what it's intended for --Skupsum (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Support I would have prefered a solution within the german Wikipedia, but since a consistent block of all Messina edit's seems to be impossible there... // Martin Kraft (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Support --თოგო (D) 13:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC) this person just has no ability to contribute without rule violations and without causing disruption to the project and without threatening other users. Note: Member of German arbcom.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support Wikimedia does not need trolls and mass sock masters. Yann (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support unacceptable quality of contributions to article namespace (de/he/commons), repeated problems concerning copyright infringement, massive threats and harassments/defamations internally and offwiki and threats of legal action per mass-wikimail, summarized: massive disruption of project procedures and complete disregard of the usual policies and guidelines - for many years - IMHO we did all we could do, time to end the story. Consensus about a global ban would be a helpful guideline for admins and stewards. --Rax (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support --Jbergner (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support The user showed, that he is not able to contribute to wikipedia. After tons of copy right violation problems, error-prone contributions and threatening other wiki users, there has to be point where we say: "it's enough!". Since the user still is contributing by IP edits and there are a lot of discussion on the german wikipedia about how to handle these critical and often defective edits, a global ban would help, because it would give a clear guideline how to handle these edits of the user. --Engie (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support --Herbrenner1984 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support --Krd 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Note: Member of German arbcom.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)--2A00:14D8:400B:10:9133:B53C:B2DE:C42A 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support per Rax, Engie et al. NNW (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support Unfortunately necessary. --Millbart (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Support --A.Savin (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support --Emeritus (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Ladies, Sirs, I follow this case since several years, I even offered mediation years ago. His output is a kind of overwhelming, generally good in idea, but no good in exercise, binding so much power, nearly incredible, and not to mess the figures [correct expression?]. I never took part of de:WP discussions about "Case Messina", but I can, will, do and did follow the pros and cons. Contraproductivity might be the word I've been looking for. There must be an end. Respectfully Yours. (hate mails to: nirwana) --Emeritus (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Finally --KurtR (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support It´s a hard way, but in this case the best way. --Helfmann (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Note: Member of German arbcom.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)--2A00:14D8:400B:10:9133:B53C:B2DE:C42A 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support the track record of the person behind the useraccount Messina shows that the person is not able to work together with others in a collaborative way. Person did not change behaviour regardless of the help offered by many users. --Neozoon (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support -- Clemensfranz (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support --Wahldresdner (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong support Strong support 96.237.20.248 15:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support per Rax, Engie --Unendlicheweiten (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support He gives all Wiki authors a runaround. In German Wiki, he even boasted with having lots of sockpuppets. Such brash bearing should be stopped. --Nephiliskos (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support --Michileo (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support --Cirdan (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support Strong support --1971markus (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support --Username Violation 02:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support Strong support 100.6.47.23 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support Strong support all Messinas mails received by the Support-Team show, that Messinas behaviour is way beyond what our rules allow. And that it is no longer a problem inside the German Wikipedia. Many users would long be blocked for that, but since the conflicts with that account has gone so long, others are supporting Messina without knowing what its about now or just don't want to know. I don't even consider all the problems in the past in this support, just what I have seen by Messina in the OTRS. --Don-kun (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Support --Diorit (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support Strong support --JWBE (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support --Kuebi (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support --Tsungam (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support Harrassement of users, sysops and checkusers by email, sockpuppets on at least four projects [commons, he.wp, de.wp and en.wp (for an start: en:User:Loew13, en:User:Loew14, en:User:Loew17, en:User:Loew26, ...)], massive copyright violations on commons and de.wp and the inability to contribute correctly sum up to a problem which cannot be resolved on each language version at its own. --Jergen (talk) 09:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support without any questions. --Maddl79 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support It´s enough. Weissbier (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support Strong support --Ochilov (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Support --He3nry (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support Strong support --voyager (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support --YMS (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support --XaviYuahanda (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Support --Kein Einstein (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Support Long overdue. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 16:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Support -- Miraki (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Support ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Massive socket puppetry combined with a history to go on violating primary principles of the project in several language versions of wikipedia and commons. A global block provides no means to technically inhibit further socket puppetry. Still, it makes sense because the block will mitigate the effort needed to deal with him if/when he insists to not change his behaviour.[reply]
  58. Strong support Strong support--DCB (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Note: Member of German arbcom.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)--2A00:14D8:400B:10:9133:B53C:B2DE:C42A 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong support Strong support--Falkmart (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Support, this to be a signal. --Aalfons (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Support --Gugerell (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Support --Ambross07 (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Support --Hyperdieter (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Support --Generator (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Support --Nils Freiheit (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Support --Zinnmann (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Unable and unwilling to work collaboratively; consumes lots of time for fixing his trial articles.[reply]
  67. Support Support --Bunnyfrosch (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Support --WolfgangRieger (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Support, alas. თოგო and Rax put it well. –SJ talk  16:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Support -- Bahnwärter (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support Strong support --Alnilam (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Note: Member of German arbcom.--Alraunenstern (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong support. --Allan Aguilar (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Support --Kulac (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Support -- --Silewe (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Support --Jojhnjoy (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong support Strong support Long-time problem editor/sockmaster on several projects. INeverCry 23:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Support --Boshomi (talk) legal thread per wikimail (Check User) he is unfit to friendly colaboration. 23:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Support --Jocian (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Support --Brainswiffer (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Support off wiki harrasment, sockmaster. Enough is enough. Natuur12 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Support -- Toni Müller (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Support --Ijbond (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Support --Eppelheim (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Support -- kh80 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong support Strong support --Saidmann (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Support --Ghilt (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC) unfortunately necessary Note: Member of German arbcom.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong support Strong support --Jossi2 (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC) As per Rax and Emeritus; user is extremely disruptive in many ways.[reply]
  88. Strong support Strong support For behavior unbecoming of a Wikimedian, as it is clear that nothing at this point is working with this user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Support a clear-cut decision --Howan Hansi (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Support --Gunslinger.1970 (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Support --CorranHorn (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Support --Codc (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC) ) Note: Member of German arbcom. -jkb- 13:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support Strong support toxic personality that attracts and creates toxic followers, which is even worse.--Chianti (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  94.  Weak support Wikipedia should ban users which are not able in contributing on a normal base with just one account; otherwise this is a test case for blocking users globally if a block in a particular project has ended or didn't gather enough acceptance for a regular blocking procedure ("Benutzersperrverfahren") – Filterkaffee (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Support --Zweioeltanks (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Support Blocked on multiple Wikimedia projects, unable to contribute in a productive manner. --Schulhofpassage (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Support He seemed to be "tameable" in the last years, but his current behaviour is definitely not acceptable and can be a problem for any project here. --Ali1610 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Support --Eschenmoser (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Support --AxelHH (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Support --MBxd1 (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC) With concerns regarding the legitimacy of this process. A solution within German Wikipedia should be possible (or not even necessary because Messina is already blocked infinitely). The proof of cross-wiki abuse is quite weak, because only 2 language versions are affected. Commons cannot be considered here, because this is in fact necessary for use of any of the Wikipedia language versions. And it seems a little bit dubious, that anybody from any Wikipedia version could open a global ban request against me.[reply]
  101. Support Support --Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Just a weak support, but the request is a) valid, b) follows the rules and c) is about a really disruptive "editor". I don't know whether Messina would start over at the next project, and what languages he as well doesn't know well enough to write comprehensible texts but can communicate in, like he has proven in deWP and heWP. Perhaps it's really just a problem with the three projects affected until now, and local solutions would be enough, but a global ban is definitely not something wrong.[reply]
  102. Support Support -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Support --Mikered (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Support --Superbass (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Strong support Strong support -- Bleddynefans (talk)
  106. Strong support Strong support   — Jeff G. ツ 18:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong support Strong support --Surikate (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Support --Bwbuz (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Support Redlinux (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Support --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC) unsolveable problem, going on for years in the same manner without any progress. Absolutely sick an tired of it.[reply]

Oppose

edit
  1. Oppose Oppose Messina will find ways to avoid such a ban, we don't need symbolic politics. I'm afraid, we've to come to an arrangement with him. --Morten Haan (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So should we then stop all blocks and bans after all? Because they can be avoided? If you avoid a ban often enough it has to be lifted or not placed in the first placed? And then "come to an arrangement" with all trolls and disruptive editors that are determined (obnoxious) enough to do so by hundreds of sockpuppets, thus effectively encouraging them? This is a very very strange notion for an sysop, I'd like to say.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morten Haan - we tried (all in all disciplined from the scratch last time two years ago in the arbcom solution finding program 2/2014-6/2014) but failed (you may read a book about; last recital: checkuser request about mass-email threats 1/2016) - what else sort of "arrangement" do you have in mind? For in the end we'll have to protect wikipedia and our fellow users, against this long term massive disruption by one single user abusing the given possibilities. --Rax (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose This does not resolve anything. The most of all: The local block even does not comply the requirements the DE:WP arbitration committee set for blocking the user in case he is violating the terms for his conditional unblocking. Also, there hasn't been a Benutzersperrverfahren, i.e. local user block referendum. Furthermore, there is nothing a global ban could help with the situation. And I am pretty sure that we won't block all University of Heidelberg IPs to prevent the user von editing WP. I also believe that Gonzo.Lubitsch did not understand what a global ban does mean. It is only a Mickey Mouse instrument based on psychology with no practical meaning. I also am also displeased with Gonzo.Lubitsch's disruption of local consensus finding processes. The DE:WP community does not need any incapacitation by this Meta RfC. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, this is somewhat concerning to me. I can't follow all the jargon of what happend on dewp, but if it is not an indefinite ban, then maybe there is cause for concern that the minimum standard for a global ban has not been met. It seems to me that Commons does not have a banning policy in place; Messina has been blocked there since 2013, and to me the block looks justified, but it was merely the action of an individual admin -- not a carefully deliberated community decision, and as far as I can see no clear intention that it should be indefinite -Pete F (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is much more complicated. The blocking practices in the German WP are somewhat obscure. It never was decided wethher a single sysop's decision to block indefinitely users which edited for years are valid or not. In some cases this was contested and the community enforced a community vote instead. On commons the block of the Messina account, IMHO, is invalid. Blocking a user only because, at that moment, the user was blocked in DE:WP is not a block reason. However the user who exerciced the Commons block is very much a buddy of user's involved as what I consider provocateurs in the Messina case. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The block an Commons was due to Messina history of multiple copyright violations on wrongful use of licenses. The first indefinite block of Messina has been discussed at length by the arbitration committee and only been suspended temporary with strict limitations. This ban has been reinstated after continued violation of policies. Multiple legal threats would even alone justify an infinite block.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Matthiasb: Could you please provide us links to the Policies/Guidelines that would make a "Benutzersperrverfahren" (User block procedure/trial) mandatory additional to the "Schiedsgericht" (arbitral court)? And to exactly which requirements of the SG-ruling you regard as not being met? (The other points you write only claim we shouldn't follow the policies because you regard them as ineffective - what is not a valid point.) --.js[democracy needed] 13:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The rules to implement a block are laid out on the page you have linked to, and sysops can block users without approval of the community (only) in cases named in "Benutzersperrverfahren#Grundsätzliches". That includes if users destroy articles, are involved into editwars, disrupting basic principles of WP, abuse of sock-puppetry (sock puppetry itself is not forbidden), threat with legal actions and improper user names. All other cases are within the responsibility of the whole community, and a community vote is needed. The rules do not specify wether those sysop bans includes infinite blocks of long year users. Messina has been an editor for more than a decade with well over 100,000 edits, and the community enforced unblocking of users to held a community vote of such blocks for users with a much lesser record, e.g. w:de:User:TJ.MD or w:de:User:Michael Kühntopf. On the other hand I do not remember that the Schiedsgericht ever decided to block a user previously unblocked. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK so the links I posted and the section-link you added show there is no policy that supports your claims. I also see Itti's statement below as a very experienced admin's one. (Or do we additionally need an English translation of the German policies here?) --.js[democracy needed] 05:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose A controversial in dewiki ban should not be also implemented globally. --Hardenacke (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose Pete F: then maybe there is cause for concern that the minimum standard for a global ban has not been met. I think so, too. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose Circumvention of local consensus finding process. While Messina caused problems in several Wikis, there are no arguments given, why at the moment measures beyond the scope of the German Wikipedia should be necessary. The current issues are entirely local. Global ban is not for overruling local decisions of the arbitration committee. --Chricho (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The German arbcom has not voiced any opposition to the infinte block of Messina. There is no discussion or pending decision open at German arbcom nor any further mediation committee attempt. No "overruling" took place and is not asked for here. Messina has been active on at least three Wikis with hundreds of sockpuppets causing the same problems in all of them. To protect other wikis (like it:WP) where he is very like to go to avoid bans, global action needs to be taken.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose I can't see any improvement by a global ban compared to the local ban currently effective in de-wp. --Varina (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Varina: Then Messina would be persona non grata on all Wikimedia Wikis. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose That's imho cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. Messina has edits on dewiki and commons and edits with sockpuppets on hewiki. On all these wikis he is blocked infinetely. I really don't see a global problem. Shall we use global ban for all users, who are blocked infinitely on any Wikipedia? --Holder (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Messina has acted on three wikis with hundreds of sockpuppets are you proposing to wait until he continues disruption on other wikis like it:WP or en:WP (both languages he is capable of)?--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there is a great difference between 'could be a global problem' and 'is a global problem'. --Holder (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently, Messina has several open sockpuppets accounts on en:WP and it:WP. Are you going to monitor all those accounts to track if he starts spreading false information or violates copyrights with them? Or should we rather give the local admins the mandate to block those accounts (and all following) swiftly before things start to get messy and someone has to clean up after a user that has a disruptive record in three wikis?--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Oppose Only cowards avoid a regular ban on wp:de by such an global ban. It's a German affair, so pleas keep it German. Unblock Messina on wp.de and start the ban, gonzo.lubitsch just prepared. Im shure Messina will get banned and everythin will be allright. --Lo straniero chiamato Bertram (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose -- Stechlin (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose Local not global problem. -- Ekki01 (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Messina is blocked on three wikis. Imho a global problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Three. Indeed a global problem. (I was being sarky, by the way) -- Ekki01 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And he has several unblocked accounts in other wikis Loew14, Loew26, Loew17. Desaster waiting to happen. But just keep you eyes shut. I am sure someone will clean up the mess later. Probably not you though.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not keeping my eyes shut, rather to the contrary. And that's exactly the reason why I do think it's a de-wikipedia problem and not a global one.
    Hardly anyone outside de-wikipedia is bothered by this attempt to turn a de-wikipedia problem into an international one, particularly under the guise of creating international consensus on how to deal with ostensibly disruptive editors on a multi-national level (see comment below by Gonzo.Lubitsch). Another indication that it’s merely a local problem. The whole thing sounds more like a crusade. And why should I "clean up mess" on de-wikipedia? I'm not editing there and the user is blocked there. -- Ekki01 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're keeping your eyes shut to the fact that Messina messed up commons with so many sockpuppets that he has his own blocked accounts category, you're keeping you're eyes shut to the fact he messed up with several accounts on he:WP, you ignore that he runs several accounts on en:WP and it:WP copying articles between wikis (so what is deleted because of wrong content in de:WP might still linger in en:WP or elsewhere) and you are completely unaware of Messina's well known obsessive need to publish his articles somewhere. So when he is stopped in de:WP he will turn to others projects. He has done so before. And noone expects you to clean up his mess, it would just be appreciated if you'd try no to make it much harder for others to do so..--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Hardly anyone outside de-wikipedia is bothered ..." - do you mean it seriously? I cannot believe it. -jkb- 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose 1. Few cross-wiki activity. 2. The declared intention of this request is to change (or at least clarify) the nature of Messina's Benutzersperrung on de:wp, but that is not in accordance with Global bans#Relation to local policy. The problem what the local Benutzersperrung exactly involves has to be resolved on de:wp, not on meta. --Amberg (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    113.766 contributions on de:wp (main account "Messina" only), 9.897 contibutions on commons (main-account "Messina" only), 4701 contributions as Daniel123 on he:wp is definitely more than "few cross-wiki activity". And this is only the activity of his well-known accounts. The user was contritubuting with several hundreds of accounts. --Sakra (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your source for the accusal that Daniel123 is a sock-puppet of Messina? --Matthiasb (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    read this --Sakra (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose Obviously not a global Problem but a German one. I do agree that Messina is tying up and thus wasting lots of ressources and yes, he should be completely banned once and for all, but that's for the German community to solve. I also think it's a ruse and lacks fair play to use this banning back door by including the completely irrelevant but coincidentally qualifying ban on Hebrew Wikipedia. --Studmult (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked to at Hebrew Wikipedia and on Commons because of hundreds (!) of sockpuppets. It's a de.WP-Problem? Really? By the way, the Austrians and the Swiss have a good cause not to like it, when people are saying, it's a german problem! Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Since a lot of years I am living in Germany and therefore I know the problems of the German-WP concerning Messina, but I was very amused to read about Messina on this page. The clearing of the Messina-problem is a German affair, not a global one. May the Germans solve it. - My suggestion: a shoot down at high noon, but please in the middle of a German main-street. --Redbeard John (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked to at Hebrew Wikipedia and on Commons because of hundreds (!) of sockpuppets. It's a de.WP-Problem? Really? By the way, the Austrians and the Swiss have a good cause not to like it, when people are saying, it's a german problem! Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose(hier stand ein Satz der Aufgrund meines schlechten Englisch Anstoss erregt hat...ich werde diesen demnächst durch einen anderen ergänzen)--Markoz (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose --Woches 00:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose --Brodkey65 (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC); freedom for Messina![reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose Majo statt Senf (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Messina has not been blocked by the community in de.wp only by a single admin. and he has not been working on dozens of wp-projects. why should he then been blocked globally? [reply]
    Because of kicking the ass of the whole project by using hundreds of sockpuppets and because of harrasment, because of the rule "No legal threats", because of using the mail system for hounding and threating authors. Because of clear check user results. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    but that's a problem of de.wp and not of pl.wp, ru.wp, xy.wp, ... Majo statt Senf (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Majo statt Senf - please read the global policy bout global ban, in particular (according to your point) the Criteria for global bans, Point 3.: "The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects." --Rax (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Na und - deswegen darf ich doch trotzdem meine Meinung vertreten, dass ich keinen Sinn darin sehe Majo statt Senf (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Majo statt Senf: The problem exists on multiple wikis, not just dewiki. The sense of a global ban is to disallow Messina contributing on all wikimedias wikis. Why Messina schould be globally banned has been elaborated above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose Why making efforts to a global ban? It's not appropriate as there is actually no necessity. The case has already been solved locally on german WP. Should be sufficient. Time to cool down. --Slökmann (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Obviously the problem hasn't been solved yet. I recommend strongly to close this request and to manage it locally on de-WP.[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose --Dvl (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose local problem -- feuerst – talk 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Oppose only some german admins has a probelm with him — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toen96 (talk) 12. Januar 2016, 12:13 Uhr (UTC)
    This is a lie! Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls realize what Messina has been doing: copyright violations, mass sockpuppeting, harrassing with emails (legal threats) and violation of privacy policies etc. Please realize that such behaviour disturbs the common widespread meaning in the society about all projects here. That means, it is not only a problem of some admins on German Wikipeia. -jkb- 11:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Oppose The whole conflict began in 2006, when Messina wrote german articles about jewish personalities and jewish organisations. Some of the authors in conflict with Messina, that are linked in the german Mediation pages above, suggested deleting such jewish content. IMHO all escalation was based on these anti jewish opninions. Messina would not have been driven in his hundreds of sock puppets without his opponents, who managed to get him temporarily banned after and after. Messina would not have been driven into copyvios, if his opponents would not have deleted the original content. What we have is Messina writing thousands of articles, and a group of the ever same opponents acting against him for a decade, since his first jewish articles. Better ban the opponents instead. Schmelzle (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schmelzle: This argument is ridiculous and not true at all. Messina is simply trolling and that over years, including copyright violations and accusing editors offwiki for antisemitism. Needless to say that Messina is blocked on hebrew wiki as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    //edit conflict// Pls stop this antisemitismus nonsense. I by myself wrote a dozent articles on jewish personalities at least at least another dozen articles on jewish themes like synagogues, jewish communities etc; most of them were imported to Jewiki by Kühntopf (where you are CU and bureaucrat). So stop harrassing. -jkb- 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    de:Central-Verein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Heilbronn) suggested for deletion by jergen, deleted on 6.12.2006 by Sebmol. de:B’nai B’rith (Heilbronn), suggested for deletion by jergen, then temporarily kept until deleted on 6.12.2006 by He3nry. de:Judentum im öffentlichen Leben (Heilbronn), suggested for deletion by jergen, kept (but later moved to another lemma).... etc etc... you cant deny facts. Schmelzle (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, even you supported the deletion of de:Central-Verein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (Heilbronn). NNW (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because the regional regulars did find a better solution for the content (including it into another article). There were many people discussing Messinas articles without any clue of the article content. Thats another bad aspect of the whole Messina conflict. Schmelzle (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schmelzle: Conspiracy theory's are not helpful at all. Messinas bad behavior is a fact, and i don't argue about facts. You are a sysop on jewiki (which is a troll wiki to troll users and admin - for example commons admins has been called antisemits there because they deleted messinas copyvios), therefore i am not surprised about your comments here. I think a extended discussion about your onwiki and offwiki behavior is needed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are plain lies by schmelzle. There hasn't been a single incident when articles were nominated for deletion because of "such jewish content" and it is outrageous to claim so. Messina's first block was in 2008 when he repeatedly recreated articles about schools that had previously been deleted, even after deletion review. No connection to judaism whatsoever. And he was promptly unblocked, when he promised to stop that behaviour as can be seen here. The next block was about violation of copyright de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2009/09/17#Benutzer:Messina_.28erl..29 after he copied from external sources that had declined the use of their contents - after he had been notified and warned only 2 days earlier about it. Those copyrights had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "original content deleted" and neither had Messina's hundreds of illegal uploads to commons when he simply ignored the copyrights of third parties. The next block was due to a conflict about articles on streets and buildings in Heilbronn that had, again, nothing whatsoever to do with judaism at all, but with scores of basically useless stubs, irrelevant articles and Messina's failure to work together with basically everyone else working in related areas and inability accept opposing opinions. You can check all blocks and discussion (if you have a few dozen hours of spare time) and will find that very same pattern. The notion that Messina or his articles were targeted because of him working on jewish themes, is simply an untrue myth created by himself, backed by some supporters.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose per Morten Haan. --Mogelzahn (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose Looking through the arguments and the list of people making them, one thing is clearly standing out: this is a local de.WP issue looking for a global response. --Lukati (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Oppose This is an abusive global request, obviously aimed at overruling a valid local decision. Not on my watch. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to elaborate which "valid local decision" is asked to be "overruled"?--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, the present valid local decision is "blocked indefinitely". -jkb- 17:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Wherefore this request, if that is so? That's only one half of the truth. And you know that very well. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Björn Hagemann - would you please give the link to this "valid local decision" you mentioned and which might be overruled? --Rax (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote from the request: "I hereby request a global ban for Messina, so that en:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad and en:Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors can be enforced what is currently not otherwise possible on de:WP due to a lack of local policies for such cases". That's pretty obvious. And I agree that it is abusive. --Amberg (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    He who is able to read is clearly on the inside track. The arbcom decisions are already linked above. Please stop throwing smoke grenades. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one using smoke grenades is you and Amberg. The arbcom decision stands and has neither been revoked nor overruled. There is a valid, uncontested ban not questioned by arbcom, based on earlier rulings and Messina's failure to comply to them as well as basic wiki principles. In fact: Several of the arbcom members support the global ban (supporters Krd, Thogo, Helfmann, DCB are elected arbcom members), not one member of arbcom opposes. And Amberg uses quote mining to support his claim because the request states in several places (including the first introduction) that this is not only about German Wikipedia, but about implementing a global policy to enable sysops in all projects to handle Messina's disruptive editing, copyright violations and sockpuppets consistently. This includes de:WP, but is by no means exclusive to it.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating. Your logic is beyond me. Is Messina currently barred from any form of contribution? No, he is not. Because the arbcom on dewiki has left some, lets say, ports of indirect collaboration open. And that is exactly the local decision you are trying to underrun. EOD. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinating is your ability to ignore reality. Messina is banned from contribution, the de:arbcom supports his infinite block and 7 of 10 members (as of now) also support the global ban. It is simply an untrue strawman argument that there would by any overruling of a local decision by a global ban.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    citation needed :-) -jkb- 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This arbcom decision is obsolete now. The “license to edit through the backdoor” (which means that Messina was allowed to write WP articles in his own user namespace wich, after successively passing a “peer review process”, had to be transferred to the article namespace by a sysop) was rejected due to a recent CU that has revealed that Messina has threatened other users with legal actions. Messina is currently blocked indefinitely at de.WP, and it is highly probable that this will never change again. --Gretarsson (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    *facepalm* Well... citation needed. :S --Björn Hagemann (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The CU result can be found here. This link has already been cited near the top of the page. Reading the accompanied talk page will show you that there is in fact no chance, that Messina will ever been unblocked again at de.WP, not even indirectly... --Gretarsson (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I had just found it. Anyhow, the suspicion persists that this global procedure was initiated because of the uncertain outcome of a local Benutzersperrverfahren. That's, at any rate, bad style and I am not supporting it. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing uncertain about a the outcome of a Benutzersperrverfahren (there is a 4:1 majority here and 75% of opposes are due to "German problem", not because there is any doubt about banning an abusive user handing out legal threats). But a BSV against a infinitely blocked user is patently obsolete.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think of the outcome as uncertain but I really don't feel like discussing them with you. --Björn Hagemann (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose --Itu (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC) per Björn Hagemann , other projects can make their own decisions[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose --Sujalajus (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose -- Smartbyte (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC) The germans like to act more human, more ethical, greener and cleaner then others. This affair is driven by Angst and mistrust in eng.WP.[reply]
    This "argument" doesn't even make sense... --Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The only Wikipedia to distrust is the Deutsche Wikipedia, because its community and sysops tolerate obvious long-term abuse. --A.Savin (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that Messina had so many second chances indeed may be related to the fact that his supporters in de.WP “like to act more human, more ethical, greener and cleaner” (and in this respect Messina being a jew or at least having strong connections to jewish culture surely was of mayor importance). Basically I appreciate such an attitude, but at some point the bottom is reached and a cut has to be made. And that’s why we are here now. --Gretarsson (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The justified ban in de.WP is not our issue here. The proponents try to bury the Messina account under the biggest rock they could even think, perhaps with a silver pole in his heard. The supporters are left alone, the few opponents are excoriated. Its a german revenge, begging for approval in an international costume -- Smartbyte (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (insertion) Revenge for what? It is simply a sanction, provoked by Messina himself and covered by the rules of Wikimedia. OK, maybe the hardest sanction there is, but exceptional cases require exeptional treatment. According to the page intro, Messina had not less than six(!) chances to resocialize at de.WP and he missed them all. Messina clearly proved that he is unable to contribute in an appropriate manner and he already proved it in three wikimedia projects. What the heck makes you think that he will act differently in the fourth, fifth and sixth project? --Gretarsson (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, the German ban is not the issue (contrary to opposing beliefs here), it stands and has no need whatsoever for any "approval". This is about implementing a global policy on a user that has messed up on three wikis already before others projects have to learn the hard way what we have dealt with for years now.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which international voice has asked you & campaigners for help via a german stage ? --Smartbyte (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not surely your voice; but have a look at the pro votes, might be you will have an idea :-) -jkb- 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    circumventive answer --Smartbyte (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are arguing emotional and ad personam (“campaigners”). That is not much better. The request is justified beacuse it is in accordance with the rules. It simply doesn’t matter who asked. Obviously, the German users were the first to take the option of a global ban into account, and because Messina had his main field of activities in de.WP, that is not so really surprising, or is it? --Gretarsson (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This a request page, not a discussion page. When I wrote my first statement here, I asked nobody to give any comment on it. But my statement although recieved censoriously comments. So I have every right to mention campaigners. ### Furthermore, "campaigners" is generally no brickbat. ### At last, you describe a german issue, which is already finished. Internationalizing the ban is a destitute pomposity. --Smartbyte (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartbyte: It is a request for comment (!) and therefor user may comment on your votes. It isn't a german issue because messina is blocked on commons and hewiki as well, rather a global problem. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is for comments on the issue - and counting, not for comments on the comments. Therefore we have a discussion page. (Do you see any comment from an opposer vs supporter on this request page?) ### The world is not interested in this issue. Do you see any international participants here ? ### It is a nable-gazing of a self defining group of moralists, unfortunately supported by victims of the dubious account. --Smartbyte (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but the “true moralists” in this case rather are those who prevented indefinitely blocking of Messina in de.WP for years. Without all those failed efforts to “resocialize” Messina, this request would have never been initiated. And is it possible that the ban opposers do not comment on the ban supporters because the former do not have any striking arguments? What should they say? That all the points made in the page intro are lies? That all the disruptions by Messina never took place? Some try to insinuate that this request is an antisemitic conspiracy, but how pathetic is that? And hey, for most of the commenters this is their first time on Metawiki. We're all still learning. Next time we do better (not to mention that probably no one's really looking forward to a “next time”). But does it actually make any difference whether a given comment is questioned/commented right here or on the talk page? --Gretarsson (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC); subsequently edited by --Gretarsson (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear you don't understand the RFC concept at all. All issue-related comments belong here, the talk page is to be seen as a rather technical page to address issues with this RFC page. Furthermore, no "counting" is happening here, since this is not a vote. Comments on comments belong to the discussion, so that the closing admin may easier determine which arguments to weigh in more or less. Regards, --Vogone (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's quite normal for deWP-users to get confused about such issues, as in deWP there are votes, especially on crucial questions, and not just subjective closes by single persons, even if they may be admins. A Meinungsbild or a de:WP:BSV are votes, with restriction on who may partake (only users with a right to vote), and the whole formal stuff like needed majority or time frame have to be clear before it starts. Something with modalities like an RfC is only done in discussions about content. I still don't know what's the better system, but it definitely is very different.
    And, because it's a vote on the front page, any discussion there is discouraged and moved to the discussion page, where usually three main topics are Before Voting Started, During Voting and After Counting. So users like user:Smartbyte, who nearly exclusively edit in deWP, this procedure here is quite alien. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Michael Kramer (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC) local de.WP not global worldwide, so what?[reply]
    Seems that you have not read the request at all. This problem does definitely not concern the German Wikipedia only. --Sakra (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

edit

Comments

edit
  • @Gonzo.Lubitsch: I am not quite sure what makes you think the English Wikipedia policy applies in case of a global ban, but the relevant meta policy is Global bans. Regards, --Vogone (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will respect the result of this RfC, but choose not to vote for either option, as I consider myself too involved in several ways. But: I strongly disagree with Morten Haan's argument: A global ban of course will not terminate the person using the account "Messina", but unlike a local block it provides sysops, stewards etc. with a clear tool of measures. → «« Man77 »» [de] 00:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A community ban delivers the means for advanced permission holders to both pre-emptively and reactively deal with the user and their socks. It sets the framework of management, rather than having to repeatedly establish actions, and this is at whichever wiki that the person next edits. As such it says that all admins at all wikis and global rights holders can manage this person in the same process, so that if they move to a another wiki there is not a requirement to start at ground zero with management. It encourages the interaction of multiple wikis to coordinate their responses.

    A global ban isn't necessarily going to change the users behaviours — in fact they are usually past the point where we think that we can change their behaviours — and it is just block and revert their actions when identified. In short the person is irrecoverable from a wikimedia space, and they should move somewhere else.

    Part of the purpose of a ban discussion is to identify if there are any communities who stand against the proposal to ban, as the person has been able to productively participate and is a required member of that community, and as such counterpoints the proposal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gonzo.Lubitsch: Would you please identify the means that you have taken to notify the individual and the relevant communities. I do not see that you have fulfilled all the requirements as specified at global bans. That fair and due processes have been utilised will be part of a review by stewards. So it would be useful to check those, and to provide diffs to where you have undertaken notifications.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request an immidiate closure of this request. The conditions set by this procedure are not met. 1) There has not been a successful Benutzersperrverfahren. 2) The local arbitration committee which decided to unblock the user under conditions also laid out how to proceed if the user was to be reblocked, esp. that three sysops should confirm wether the block corresponds to the framework set by the arbcom's decision. At this moment it is unclear how the single sysop's decision does fit into the arbcom's decisionhow. 3) It is unclear if there exists a consensus how to deal with his text edits when he is bypassing the block. At this moment a discussion on this issue is underway (see: w:de:Wikipedia:Administratoren/Notizen#Messina nach CU), and it seems that the proposal to remove any edits of the user does not meet consensus. – Therefor I consider the conditions for a global ban RfC as not fulfilled. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MatthiasB, you're not right. See the statement of Ghilt, arbcom member on de, here. He correctly argues, that the indef block from 2013 has never been taken back, it was only interrupted for the arbcom case and the following mentoring; as the conditions of the arbcom has been fullfilled, the block has been not set but re-set. And, the arbcom measures (as off no sock puppets etc) are still in progress and has been broken by Messina more times now in december and january. Ghilts statement has been supportet by some other community members on de, admins as well. Howgh. -jkb- 10:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the arbcom measures are still in progress, but that is somewhat meaningless if and because of the user already is blocked. And that is not the point. The point is that the conditions for this RfC are not met. Besides the fact that this evasion of the DE:WP community procedures is a sass against that community without precedence. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The need for a global ban has not been explained. Reported vandalismn nearly never has to do with user Messina. There are other users you can find in the vandalismn site nearly every day and even someone of the supporters of a ban can be seen there quite often. But bot user Messina. --Arcy (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take note that User:Arcy is blocked infintely on de:WP because of "no intent to work on an encyclopedia" (kein Wille zur enzyklopädischen Mitarbeit) and his request to lift the block has been discussed and rejected by the arbcom years ago.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thtas right beside the fact that i would not descripe my work - 10 years, images, programming (the first article gelocation tool used in wp was made by me) - as "no intent to work on an encyclopedia". But thats history now.Even User Gonzo Lubitsch has been blocked quite often and can be found regulary on the vandalismn page, involved in quarrels. This request too is just another piece within a big german wikipedian quarrel-tarte. --Arcy (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have been blocked for short periods during quarrels and heated discussion, like many long-term users have. This is quite a bit different than being blocked infinitely, kicked out by arbcom and being included in the de:WP's Troll list with dozens of known sockpuppets. A banned troll arguing for lenience towards another highly problematic user is not a strong point in favor.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • A new account when blocked is not a socketpuppet. Beside. That list is just a playground of the little hobby checkusers without any access to log files. Many are correct, most are missing, e.g, a list of new accounts if posted some day some where. And i tell you: admins dont like it when you add your "real" account name to an edit. They like ips or new account name. Im not the case of this request and anyway, my comment that many of the users above are part of wikipedia-de internal quarrels and a detailed list of reasons is missing is just a simple truth, which does not become false just because its from "Arcy". --Arcy (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock Messina in order to guarantee a fair trial. Thx --KlatschG (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Messina is not even blocked here. --Vogone (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone opposing with just a de:WP problem explain why this is a de:WP problem? I really don't understand. NNW (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that the account "Messina" with 0 (zero) Edits in HE:WP was blocked as sock puppet of "Daniel123" with 0 (ero) edits outside HE:WP. Is there any proof that "Daniel123" is "Messina"? --Matthiasb (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [2] where שיחת_משתמש:גומבל (Gumbel) is identified as the German user Messina. By the way, contrary to what Messina pretended on de:WP, the he:WP-Uses discussed his problems with the Hebrew language and noted the lack of substance and accuracy in his articles. Daniel123 was identified as sockpuppet of Gumbel and subsequently blocked. All three accounts are pretty obviously "Messina": Lack of language skills, lack of article quality, same fields of interest (esp. Heilbronn) and complete disregard of wiki policies and cooperation in the project.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone noticed that (almost) only German authors participate in this request thread and most foreign authors don't even give two sh*ts about it? So redundant, this thread...--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Massive socket puppetry combined with a history to go on violating primary principles of the project in several language versions of wikipedia and commons.
IMHO, there are two effects at work. Regular German users are alerted to this request by a note on the community portal. So they are likely to know about it. In addition, problems with Messina have been a topic on the German pages to deal with vandalism, the local village pump ("Wikipedia Kurier"), German arbcom, check-user, and about every place meant to resolve conflicts -- repeatedly, for years and ad nauseam. So there is quite a chance German users have made up their minds one way or the other.---<(kmk)>- (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: For the record multiple people have approached Maggie and I about the possibility of a WMF Global Ban against Messina. That possibility is being investigated. While the investigation is high priority and ongoing the amount of work required and our current workload mean that this RfC is almost guaranteed to go faster. Because of that I want everyone to know that we ARE doing our own investigation but I would recommend that the community continue their process now that it's begun. While at some level I wish we were easily able to come in and avoid the level of drama that is always likely in a situation like this (better directed at us/the WMF than other community members) sadly the current workload doesn't allow us to go as quickly as we'd like. Jalexander--WMF 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not meant as an attempt to influence you or your team, but if I could choose between a global community ban or a global foundation ban, I'd go for the former. Firstly, some people out there do not really like decisions made by WMF, so this could mean even more drama than it is already, and secondly, as I understand it, a global foundation ban would have to be executed particularly by foundation staff, whilst I would feel jointly responsible to carry out a global community ban. Nonetheless, please do your job ;-) Cheers, → «« Man77 »» [de] 23:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, if our German Community is not able (since Mid 2013) to find a sufficient sollution in this causa, and if now the sollution will be made "outside the local" project, so such a sollution might not be the best but still second to the best. It is a sllution, and we need it, as this drama had cost us an enormous amount of energy, work and human resources (that would have been invested better in writing articles). -jkb- 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: The Tobias Conradi global ban passed 20 something to something less than 10. If that is the case (this is 29 to 109 or something) a global ban might happen incredibly soon. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.237.20.248 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[3][reply]

Why the ban is justified and needed

edit

MatthiasB's notion that the criteria for this RFC are not met, is kind of absurd. To clarify:

  • 1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse: Support Support Messina has cross caused cross-wiki disruption in three wikis with copyright violations, wrong licensing, false information in articles and inability to communicate properly and follow project rules. And he is still avoiding the block by all means possible and also encourages other users to act as meatpuppets, uploading his images to Commons or sending them articles to push to the main namespace etc.
  • 2. The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems: Support Support 6 mediations, 4 arbcom rulings and years of mentoring by several helpers. Still no change of behaviour.
  • 3. The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects: Support Support Messina and his hundreds of sockpuppets are blocked in a three wikis.

Merely meeting the above minimum criteria does not mean that a global ban is required. Past reasons for requesting a global ban have included:

  • Harassing or threatening contributors to the projects, on- or off-wiki: Support Support Messina has repeatedly threatened several users, including the CU handling his case with legal actions and accuses them of antisemitism.
  • Serious on-wiki fraud or identity theft (that is not simple abuse of multiple accounts): Support Support According to some of Messina's supporters, he might also make his account available to others without notice.
  • Inappropriate use of user rights with access to private information, such as CheckUser or Oversight: N/A
  • Violations of the privacy policy or other official Wikimedia policies.: Support Support Messina is known to have published private information of other wikipedia editors on third platforms (i.e. jewiki, a project run by Michael Kühntopf (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) who is infinitely banned by community decision in de:WP and en:WP and subject to a Global lock) without consent and with ill intent.

The above mentioned continuation in #1 is the reason a global ban is needed to enable sysop's in all project to react to Messina sockpuppets and users/meatpuppets supporting his disruption to protect the projects from false information and/or copyright violations. Right now, there are several images with wrong licence information on Commons uploaded by another user on Messina's behalf. There needs to be a clear message that such editing is irresponsible and unacceptable.

This is not only a problem of German Wikipedia, though the community there might also benefit from a clear international consensus about how to deal with such a massively disruptive editors. Right now Messina has several unblocked accounts on en:WP for example: en:User:Loew13, en:User:Loew14, en:User:Loew17, en:User:Loew26 and others (see jergen's support above) .He is also using those accounts in it:WP--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it is a problem of the German Wikipedia community to conduct a Benutzersperrverfahren on its own. fAter that it can be decided wether a global ban ist necessary or not. I do not see that a global ban has any advantages in comparison with a Benutzersperrverfahren. (Besides: neither of them hinders Messina to contact OTRS) Why the German WP is so unwillingly to start a Benutzersperrverfahren? (I even would support such a notion but not this evasion of the German WP community.) --Matthiasb (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiasb, there is no need for an BSV. That is the simple point. Messina is blocked. He was it, the de-arbcom opened the block for the BNR he was on parole, after his often enough discussed actions, and you can trust me, they were more than worse, he is complete blocked again. The "parole" is know refused. That´s it, and for that, there is no need for an BSV. I thing this BSV would be very unfriendly and worse for Messina and you know, I always trey to be fair, but, I thing for Messina in his position it would be destructive. --Itti (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Itti. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. There is unncontested inifite block of Messina in de:WP, supported by CU evidence, and the arbcom has voiced no intent to challenge the sysop decision. A local ban would not change anything. The issue at hand is that Messina has open account and several sockpuppets on other wikis and that those accounts are very likely to by abused by him to continue disruptive editing, as he has done before. This is why a global ban is needed to enable sysops in all projects to deal with this threat without having to dig into a 3-year background story in de:WP to defend respective blocks, reverts and/or deletions all the time. That German sysops might be enabled to do so by the same mechanism is just an added benefit, but not the main point about this request.--Gonzo.Lubitsch (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gonzo. Messina started today as User משתמש:מסינה on Hebrew Wikipedia [4], accusing de:wp users for antisemitism and mention what he think are their real names. --Alraunenstern (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_request_for_Messina&oldid=24950563"