Requests for Comment/Community Ban for PlavorSeol

Reasoning

 * PlavorSeol has a history of foul conduct on both Miraheze and Wikimedia projects and are blocked on many WMF wikis because of it as well as Miraheze Phabricator.
 * As can be seen in this CN archive and edit summaries during that discussion these issues are not new.
 * This phab task is recent and has severe conduct issues throughout.
 * They are banned from Miraheze Discord for conduct issues.

Proposal

 * PlavorSeol is banned indefinitely from all Miraheze projects and sites. This may be appealed in 6 months.

Support

 * 1)   ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This user has disrupted the farm, and violated the Code of Conduct on IRC and Discord, even after being warned multiple times by sysadmins and volunteers. Their behavior here and on the WMF indicates for me that they should be banned. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 14:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) . When a random Admin edited his wiki's permissions and locked himself out, asking for repair via Phab, PlavorSeol entered the discussion to accuse the guy of lying.  It might be understandable if these two have prior history, but no, you don't assume bad faith in a situation like this where you seem to be representing all of Miraheze.  Miraheze becomes unusable when users start to think that asking for help will invite a drama-fest.   22:12 18-Feb-2020
 * 4)  per Reception Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 22:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition my vote is in capacity of being a volunteer, not a staff member Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 11:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  In addition to Spike's comment. Anyone can make mistakes when modifying Manage Wiki for example, even me! This user's attitude is unacceptable and brings volunteers into disrepute.  Hispano76 (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * with heavy consideration. I am always hesitant to erecting barriers against any single individual. Unfortunately, it appears to be necessary in this case. PlavorSeol has distastefully misrepresented the volunteers, staff, and community of Miraheze. I hope to see PlavorSeol again in 6 months. dross  (t • c • g) 04:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  One look at the kerfuffle on Phabricator is evidence enough to convince me that they are not welcome on this project, not with that sort of attitude. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 21:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  This user violated the Code of Conduct in all of MIraheze. --Mb1209 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  We will not allow a user like this to continue disrupting Miraheze. &#32;  Miraheze Logo.svg centrist16 | P mail.svg | Discord color D.svg  &#32; 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) the proposal, but only based on reasoning within Miraheze (see my comment below as well).-- 06:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) looking at the evidence this guy has done unacceptable things on Miraheze and I think he should be banned for at least six months to think about what he has done and maybe improve his behavior. I agree with Pioneer that the ban should not be based on the WMF behavior but the behavior there re-inforces that they are a disruptive person and adds to the evidence that we can use. --DeeM28 (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) We will not allow users to do that kind of behavior.  17:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  boldly. After reading and thinking about comments from OwenFung87, and with my original hesitation to, I am moving to an oppose vote. It is no question to block/ban/disable on specific parts of Miraheze for misconduct, though I am unsure that a far-reaching all-community ban on Miraheze is at all necessary. Additionally, the evidence is not compelling that PlavorSeol is disruptive across all of Miraheze. I hope we don't drive users away with any similar cases.  dross  (t • c • g) 22:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of having a username is to connect the actions of a person, who is the same person on all forums. This user has taken disruptive action on multiple forums (the evidence is compelling) and the fact that he has not done so on all forums does not mean a general ban is too "far-reaching."  Given a drinker who starts gunfights in taverns, we do not "boldly" maintain his right to visit taverns he has not yet shot up.   01:04 28-Feb-2020
 * As compelling an argument as you make, and as much as I always appreciate reading what you have to say, I have to maintain my opinion in this vote. The main thing I would emphasize is I don't see evidence of disruption on forums outside of those which would be considered "meta" to Miraheze (i.e. the disruptions on metawiki, Discord, and Phab are all meta in scope). As for maintaining the right to continue on which you mentioned, I would go so far as to say that a motive of prevention does not justify preliminary action against any user/thing. This I maintain in my own prerogative, and I don't expect to see any other votes turn. dross  (t • c • g) 01:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spike, the evidence of misconduct on the two platforms (Discord, Phabricator) and the additional evidence from the WMF demonstrates that a preliminary action is justified, to prevent this behavior from continuing the on-wiki sphere, and to send a message that we don't tolerate such behavior and are willing to take action against it. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the proposed action is "preliminary"? If this were a sanction made in anticipation of misconduct, I'd oppose it too, but it isn't.   13:42 28-Feb-2020
 * Action based on anticipation of misconduct on other Miraheze projects is preliminary, no? It is also an arguable point that a wide sweeping ban from the network could encroach on the autonomy of specific projects. Even if PlavorSeol isn't welcome on meta projects or WMF, is it really fair to say that another community could not be allowed welcome PlavorSeol? As it stands, this vote is not without reason, and no amount of debate will validate nullification (chuckling because that sounds a bit oxymoronic). I'm in the minority, and I accept that. I don't expect anybody to bend to join me, and hope that we can all accept a difference in opinion, regardless of the subject. dross  (t • c • g) 20:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I currently do not see any evidence where PlavorSeol has disrupted Miraheze to the point where he/she is eligible for being indefinitely locked. I think a way to address this is: ban him on Meta, but allow him/her to request wikis, and unblock him/her in 6 months. OwenFung87 04:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Unfortunately, This has spread to Discord and Phab as well and is evident across multiple sites; therefore, a block on meta would be futile. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  10:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What about on Meta? Screenshots? OwenFung87 07:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated in the reasoning, Community_noticeboard/Archive_7 and edit summaries of their posts show issues on meta. Speaking to others, we believe that there has been a clear, long term pattern of cross-service abuse. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  07:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But that isn't enough evidence! That example of non-civility in discussions would only lead to a block on meta and not a global ban. Please provide evidence on other wikis so that I can support the global ban request. OwenFung87 02:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, this discussion isn't active enough to completely cast a global ban. More support votes are needed because the current amount of commenters on this RFC isn't enough to present a community-wide view of PlavorSeol. OwenFung87 02:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I do find the need of the ban, the reasoning should be limited to those within Miraheze (which includes phab, Discord, or IRC but not WMF) unless it's an obvious vandalism only case.-- 05:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This person have the certain history of long term bad civility behavior, I am pretty sure that were be familiarize about him, when I've look into the block log on WMF Meta. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We discussed this with Revi first. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1 block on Meta isn't serious enough... OwenFung87 06:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but this issue may need to invite Revi for conversation, he seen has some certain history of disruptive behavior on other site as well, he not just only temporary blocked on WMF Meta, he's also indefinite blocked on WMF project other 3 Wikis, and I has seemed this user before when I am a active patroller on WMF Meta in the past ago. S</b>A</b> 1</b>3</b> B</b>r</b>o</b> (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no set number of votes needed for RfCs and bans set, so it is up to a Steward to make the determination of whether there are enough people who have commented. Second, the user has violated the Code of Conduct numerous times and as I said in my previous reply to in the oppose section above above, we need to send a message that we do not tolerate such behavior and need to make sure that the behavior we saw on Phabricator and Discord doesn't repeat itself on wikis. What I find the most serious about this user is the fact that they were rude in a volunteer capacity to a user looking for help, and that user may have decided to leave Miraheze because of PlavorSeol's behavior, which is unacceptable to me. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I would like to see possible future consideration as to the autonomy of individual projects on Miraheze, as well as the wider community's ability/right to implement wide sweeping bans (such as this one). This requires negotiating whether or not community bans include locking a user account, and whether or not individual communities retain a right to allow a user who has been banned by the community. dross  (t • c • g) 22:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A global ban will result in the account being locked. At this time, there would be no way for a project to be exempt from that. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  06:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This issue came to Meta. Assuming Meta is able to make a decision, and does so by open, democratic voting, there will always be dissenters.  We do not need further deliberations from "communities" seeking to preserve their "autonomy."  A great many voters found that cross-platform disruption justified an all-platform response.   12:21 3-Mar-2020
 * If you need that level of autonomy, your choice should be "migrating out of Miraheze". &mdash; <tt>revi</tt>  14:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)