Talk:Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom

Speedy close requested

This RfC is a problem, and the problem will get worse if it's not speedy closed, or at least frozen pending consideration and possibly addressing the problems.

• The standards for global bans have not been followed. This user is currently blocked on a number of wikis, but is not banned from any. "Permanently blocked" cannot be interpreted to mean simply that a block is indef or "infinite," because these are issued by a single administrator, not a community. Sometimes these blocks stand for a long time without being lifted, and then are lifted. A truly banned user cannot be unblocked without the admin unblocking facing community disapproval and sometimes desysop. Bans generally require a community discussion of some kind to undo. The user is blocked on en.wikipedia, and en.wikipedia clearly distinguishes between indef blocks and bans. The former are not "permanent" no matter what the expiration date is, or if there is no expiration date. My first block on en.wikipedia was explicitly "indef" and the administrator wrote something like "indef" as in indefinite, not as in "forever."

• Global bans policy is explicit that the user proposed to be banned must be notified on all wikis where the user has edits, on the user talk page there, and, as well, the communities be prominently notified. The filer has apparently taken no steps to do this.

• If the lack of notice were the only problem with this RfC, I'd recommend that the RfC be frozen (closed, maybe protected) until notices are provided, but consider how much disruption such notices would create. And then consider how flimsy is the case against this user. There are hundreds or thousands of users who are more disruptive than this one. Yet we have only one globally banned user, banned before the policy was approved (and that ban didn't follow what became the policy). A speedy close would look at what is established with evidence in the filing, would see if it actually satisfies the requirements of policy for a global ban discussion, and would close it if it does not.

• I urge careful consideration. The longer this remains open, the more the argument will be to leave it open since people have already commented. We don't have a process to require RfCs to be reviewed before being open for general comment. Wikipedia requires a cosignature on an RfC, at least. That lack, then, leads so many RfCs to become useless train wrecks that waste a great deal of editor time. Compared to how much damage is DanielTom doing? How many administrators have been driven away. Any? It used to be understood that if one was an administrator, a thick skin was necessary, that criticism was to be expected. Has this changed? --Abd (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for global ban and DanielTom

The filer wrote:

The criteria listed at the global bans page gives three general criteria as well as four 'users have been globally banned for these in the past' cases. Personally, I feel DanielTom meets all of them.

That's not what Global bans actually says. The "four ... cases" are not of bans, but of requests for ban. What the policy page has, first, is

Global bans are only considered when all of the following criteria are met:

So these criteria must be met before the ban is even considered. What it requires to do this isn't actually covered in the policy. We have a global ban, on the face, being considered. Sensibly, the first order of business would be whether or not each of the minimum criteria for consideration is satisfied. Only if there is consensus for all of them being satisfied would a ban process begin. Instead, what we get in requests for sanctions, in general, is every editor who has ever tangled with the user popping in and supporting a sanction. The user has an interaction ban with Cirt. So, of course, who shows up quickly to support the ban? Obviously, if there is a ban process, Cirt has the right to "vote." But the comments on the page do not explicitly address the issue of the criteria, and plenty of irrelevant arguments are being raised.

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.

"Ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" is not well defined. Criticism of administrators, as to their actions as administrators, however, is not ordinarily considered abuse, and users who have been far more abusive in criticism than DanielTom have sometimes been considered banned informally -- and that's been dropped --, but were never formally banned. If DanielTom is banned for such criticism, it will have a chilling effect. It is essential to healthy wikis that it be possible to criticize administrative actions, and that can include "patterns of abuse" that may be alleged. Is it uncivil to accuse a user of a pattern of abuse, as has been done in this RfC? If not, then it would not be uncivil to so accuse an administrator. Gratuitous repetition, in inappropriate locations, and tendentious argument, become factors in determining if criticism is abusive. It used to be understood that if a user is uncivil to a blocking administrator, on the user's Talk page, it was normal. Users were not to be sanctioned for it.

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.

It could be argued that DanielTom has been warned. He was not adequately warned on meta, my opinion. I have not investigated this matter on the other wikis. (He is now unblocked on meta, and the unblocking admin suggested that meta be removed from the list of places he's blocked.)

The user is permanently 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 permanent.

This criterion has not been satisfied on any of the wikis, as far as I've seen. (Normally, if a block is implementing a community ban, it's linked in the block log.) This is a fatal flaw in this RfC, if the policy is to be followed. The filing does not even attempt to establish that there are actual bans on two projects, and it's quite clear that a simple indef block isn't enough to count as "permanent." The filer seems to have not read the policy carefully, thinking that indef blocks were enough. Explicitly, they are not.

The filer went on to mention the "four cases," and "personally feels" they also apply to DanielTom. The policy goes on:

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

Again, the minimum criteria are not met, nor is there any showing of some necessity.

Harassing or threatening contributors to the projects, on- or off-wiki

No examples of threats have been alleged. "Harassment" alleged included critical comments on the user's own talk page, which is not normally considered harassment. The user has sent email; single critical emails, again, don't rise to the level of harassment, for users may protest, especially to administrators. It would be repeated emails after a request to stop that would become harassment, and to apply for a global ban, this would need to be repeated cross-wiki. The user has been accused of inappropriate email.

Serious on-wiki fraud or identity theft (that is not simple abuse of multiple accounts)

This has not been credibly alleged of the user. Claims have been made of sock puppetry, but examination of these claims shows that "abuse of multiple accounts" is not a strong characteristic of this user, if it has happened, and the ban policy explicitly excludes simple sock puppetry, even if proven, as a reason for a global ban. Identity theft is a crime, no crime has been alleged or shown. Specific evidence has not been provided to substantiate the claim of "identity theft," and the claim was incoherent. Does Daniel Tom have a brother? How would we know? Apparently, he attempted to prove he had a brother, and was blocked for the effort. Did he deny he had a brother? And why should we care? Do we globally block users for a harmless lie? I.e., is this "serious fraud," even if he lied? And no evidence of a lie has been shown. No diffs. Just a claim by the filer, unsupported.

Inappropriate use of user rights with access to private information, such as CheckUser or Oversight

This has not been alleged of this user.

Violations of the privacy policy or other official Wikimedia policies.

I have reviewed the official privacy policy and I have been unable to determine what action of the user violated this policy, which generally covers what information the WMF and WMF servants may disclose about a user, not what the user may disclose.

This does not apply to this user, no example has been shown. The user has been accused of violating privacy policy, but it was not the kind of "violation" contemplated here, at all, it was providing a copy of his brother's passport to attempt to prove that he had a brother (in a mistaken belief that this might make a difference, when there were charges of sock puppetry) One of his blocks was actually for this, and seems to be an administrative error. But that's not our business here.

So of the four examples of what were claimed in ban requests before (not actual bans, necessarily), three don't apply and one is weak. The filer was careless and clearly out to attack the user, making him look as bad as possible, finding whatever charges he could make appear to be reasonable. This ban request is entirely outside of precedent for global ban requests, and if successful, would exert a chilling effect on the proper criticism of administrative behavior that is necessary for healthy wikis. Every editor makes mistakes, and in attempting to properly criticize, there will be error, there will be incivility, etc. We properly warn for that, and even block. But simple criticism of administrators wasn't any part of the basis for our only global ban, Poetlister.

It is not that this user's criticisms of administrators are necessarily correct or even adequately civil. It is that a maximally harsh response (bans are implemented with a global lock, which prevents all user account, they cannot, for example, retrieve their watchlist) would set a very poor precedent, and then, next time, the bar would be set even lower. There is a wiki now under RfC for alleged administrative abuse. Those administrators are volunteers. Should criticism be prohibited of our "volunteers"? DanielTom is a volunteer, as is nearly everyone reading this. --Abd (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the filer for speedy closing this

• [1]. Some benefit may come out of this RfC. This is the first RfC requesting a global ban in a long time, and it reveals certain issues with the described process. The ban conditions were apparently written in such a way as to be easily misinterpreted. The issue of notification has not been set up to make it all work smoothly, standards for that should be crystal clear. Most importantly, because of strict conditions for even considering a ban, there should be consensus -- or at least a majority opinion based on evidence, -- that the preconditions have been met before an actual ban discussion begins, and there are other simple safeguards; because that first discussion would be focused on fact, determinable with relative ease, not on opinion or conclusions about the value or harm of a ban, notice to the user would be required, but it might only be on one or two talk pages, perhaps the most active, it would not be massive cross-wiki notice. In the preliminary discussion, evidence or opinions about the user's alleged bad behavior -- or, in the other direction, value as an editor -- would be irrelevant and prejudicial, with certain narrow exceptions, the only issue would be whether or not the preconditions have been met, so broad participation should not be necessary.
• I may be making some suggestions on Talk:Global bans, and I encourage other users to help clarify and refine the policy. There is no rush. A little care now may avoid much disruption later. --Abd (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read the part where I said; will take the matter up with Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team in more depth. Basically; I closed it to follow up a more professional route which actually a team of people who know what is happening and doesn't care about a users contribs to a project, much rather legally keeping Wikimedia in ropes and protecting it's staff and volunteers. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't like that I thanked you? Yes, I read what you wrote. Taking it up that way is totally proper and, if you were concerned, is what should have been done in the first place. Should I strike the "thanks"? What? --Abd (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the direction that Lewis is taking this. His new direction is a private and top-down. I would prefer a public, bottom-up approach, like the discussion we just had on the main page. I also believe that DanielTom would be unduly disadvantaged in such a private discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That he will inform himself, privately, is a good thing. The WMF is not stupid. They approved that policy. I assume they want it followed. Basic principle that protects the WMF, legally. Hands off. --Abd (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The community approved it, not the board of trustees. Plus why would I ask for a global ban of Daniel to staff when that is a community matter? John F. Lewis (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary was "no," but John agreed with me, as to substance. However, yes, technically, Global bans was approved by the community, but at the request of the Board, which created the draft. Reference to global bans is in the Terms of Service, and the RfC that created the Global bans policy was initiated by a Board member. The first draft of the policy was from a Board member. See Requests for comment/Global bans. They wanted a policy, pushed for it, and got it. The essential point is that they want it followed. They have, in the only test, supported an existing global ban by having Foundation staff issue a private sock confirmation. I'll say that, legally, that's questionable, since the global ban policy may not have been strictly followed in the RfC behind that ban. There are other legal issues raised by the present case. I'm not describing them in detail. The last time I pointed out legal hazards here, a steward resigned, temporarily, overreacting, and also in a related situation, requested I be blocked for "legal threats," but I wasn't threatening at all. Common practice: don't like the message, shoot the messenger. --Abd (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but what do you expect Legal to do after you contact them? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll assume he expects they will advise him. What I expect is either that, or they will do nothing, or they will act to see that policy is clarified on certain issues raised by this case. He is explicitly not asking for a global ban. Michael, drop the cudgel. AGF. --Abd (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What clarification? They've responded and it is being dealt with internally, I don't think I am at liberty myself to disclose more. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already advised John F. Lewis on his talkpage that the Wikimedia Foundation's legal team might just dismiss his message out of hand whether he thinks it in his best interest to notify them or not, and that is his choice. I suggest all participants back away from this discussion right now as it is quite a timesink and unproductive toward other matters, or if you feel the need to still comment, reopen the RFC page. Most of this stuff is quite irrelevant anyway. (That means don't respond to this comment, Abd, Michaeldsuarez, do so on the actual RFC page. If you cannot follow these instructions I cannot help you.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To make additional comments

This is the page on which to make additional comments on the RfC or RfC process, contrary to a suggestion abive that, to make additional comments, one should reopen the RfC. Reopening a properly closed RfC is a very Bad Idea, merely because one wants to make some additional comment. It is a long-standing tradition to allow comments to continue on the attached Talk page, this covers many RfC or related processes all over the WMF. In fact, on Wikipedia, if someone comments on a closed AfD, the comment is often moved to the attached Talk page, and I've seen the same with RfCs there. It is theoretically possible to start a Reopen discussion on the Talk page, even. Reopening without discussion, again, Bad Idea. Reopening because of an improper close, just do it, revert the close, turn it into a comment in the RfC, but be careful. It could be disruptive. Commenting here, not disruptive. --Abd (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)