Requests for Comment/Global ban for Matttest

    From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Though there is no global policy around community-imposed global bans, they can, nonetheless, request a user be globally banned by way of a Requests for Comment. As one user articulates, there would need to be a very strong case as to why an ordinary global lock would insufficient. In this case, there is clear consensus against this global ban request. I would additionally note that, procedurally speaking, this was not the correct venue for this request. The user raises questions at stewards' noticeboard with respect to two users' participation in their local election request on retrowindowswiki. Matttest has made all of two very minor edits on retrowindowswiki. The complainant provided a thoughtful response to Matttest's further question and posed a further follow up to Matttest, to which Matttest has not responded or clarified his question further. Bukkit has not contributed to the wiki at all, other than to participate in the local election request, perhaps because he'd seen either (a) the stewards' noticeboard thread or (b) this global ban request. If user feels that non-participants are interfering in a local election request, they can ask for Steward involvement at stewards' noticeboard, which could include asking the participants to clarify the reason(s) for their involvement, the argument(s) behind their !votes, retraction of their !votes, or striking of !votes. As well, speaking as a Meta administrator, I would additionally note that the community, in line with this policy said that malformed, out of scope, or otherwise procedurally incorrect RfCs should be drafted first. While deletion of such RfCs remains an option (in this case, though, I would not favour deletion unless all parties agreed to it and there was a discussion at Meta:Administrators' noticeboard with general support in favour considering that the gravity of the request initiated by Jack980517 (regardless of how ill-advised it was and good-faith in the sense of potential misunderstanding of the global ban process it may have been), other options could include userfication in order to allow the user to further draft their request or reaching out to the user, typically via their user talk page, to advise them of the purposes of Requests for Comment and/or better venues. Dmehus (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

    Reasoning[edit | edit source]

    Matttest has been very active on Stewards' noticeboard, consistently meddling in matters that he has nothing to do with and has no power over, sometimes with wording that would make someone not in the know mistakenly think that he (Matttest) is a Steward. What non-Stewards do on that page should be limited to pointing out clear facts, and not opinions; any unclear points that require interpretation should be clarified/decided on by Stewards only, since only Stewards have power to do so. What Matttest wrote clearly crossed the line. (I do concede that I did not think of looking at Xack's global user page, so Matttest pointing that out was helpful. However, he should have stopped there.)

    And it appears that even this is not enough for him. He participated in the local election of a wiki I'm trying to take over (following the discussion on Stewards' noticeboard linked above), despite that he never was an editor of that wiki or its predecessors. What Raidarr wrote seems to indicate that Raidarr has understood the situation well, while Matttest has not (as proved by his pointless questions in the local election).

    Also note that his first "question" to the otherwise nonexistent "discussion" was posted merely 11 hours before the election was scheduled to end, despite knowing about it before it even started (since he participated in the discussion on Steward's noticeboard). I have to suspect that this was done to intentionally lengthen the time and annoy me, given his consistently annoying behavior. And because his followup was posted after the election ended, his vote and all his words are void anyway. Also, his actions fit in the definition of w:sealioning, and is therefore trolling.

    Note that I have no prior history with Matttest; the two paragraphs above describe my very first two interactions with him, and they were both unpleasant. It's my belief that keeping such an unhelpful, useless, and annoying "volunteer" can only make users feel frustrated and angered, having to deal with such an uninvited and unwelcome interference. Jack980517 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Proposal 1: Globally ban Matttest[edit | edit source]

    So that he won't be able to annoy users, not just on Meta, but on all Miraheze wikis. Jack980517 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Support[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support as proposer. Jack980517 (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

    Abstain[edit | edit source]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose This is absolutely unnecessary. Why was this RfC even made in the first place? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      I saw that previously globally banned users were banned by RfCs. The list page does not mention any other procedure to request a global ban. I have stated my reasoning for requesting a global ban; perhaps you could state your reasoning to oppose? --Jack980517 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      The RfC was made in the first place for the provided reasoning. Your favorite quote for RfCs seem to be "Why was this RfC even made in the first place?" whilst there is clear reasoning in the RfC. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 22:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose I would recommend that you read the Global bans page to get a gist of what a global ban is. There is a reason why only 2 community global bans have occurred over Miraheze's 7 year history. They are only given out in severe cases like that of Lawrence-Prairies and PlavorSeol. The reason they were both banned for is severe conduct issues and cross-wiki abuse that could not be resolved by the community despite their best attempts. I do not see any indication that Matttest's behavior is a source of concern and the mere fact that he may accidentally come off as a Steward to those not in the know is not an issue (I get confused for a Steward various times a week, should I get globally banned too?). It seems you are annoyed with him and his "meddling" on the Stewards' noticeboard but that does not mean a global ban should be imposed on him or else we'd be banning users left and right for little personal disputes that arise. At most, if you think his behavior is a concern, I would suggest that you raise that up on the Stewards' noticeboard so that a Steward can review the evidence and if needed, impose restrictions on Matttest should his behavior be deemed an issue. Agent Isai Talk to me! 13:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Agent Isai: I was told this RfC is currently in a draft. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Agent Isai: The problem is he gives opinions on a matter that he does not have authority on. But even that is the smaller problem here, and I would not have wanted to have him banned if not for the second (again uninvited and unwarranted) interaction. This is an even more serious problem, as a local election is for editors on that wiki to participate in, which he isn't one. Yet he continued to participate as if he is entitled to do so, without any understanding of the current situation. This is overstepping of authority. --Jack980517 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Jack980517: That does not warrant a global ban though. As you can see from the previous examples of Lawrence-Prairies and PlavorSeol, they were only globally banned because of their severe, cross-wiki and long-term behavioral issues. Matttest may have shown an issue or two in his handling of the unbookswiki case but if we locked users for little, short-term, conduct issues or disputes, we'd be banning a lot of people for little offenses. Once more, because this request lacks (in my personal opinion) the needed fundamentals for a global ban which means it will likely not pass, I would recommend you withdraw this RfC and instead move this discussion over to the Stewards' noticeboard so that a Steward can determine whether this behavior warrants a reprimand of any sort. Agent Isai Talk to me! 14:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose Per my comments below. This RfC is done under a condition that the proposer don’t like me commenting on his election, which is necessary for other users and stewards to know what is happening. There are also no signs that other users think that my comments on the noticeboards are disruptive. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 04:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Personal issues with another user are not sufficient enough to warrant a global ban at all. Hypercane (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    5. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose LisafBia (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    6. Symbol full oppose vote.svg Strongest oppose A global ban because of animosity toward a user is not needed. In the article, it states: Global bans by the community are generally done in extreme cases where the user has engaged in severe cross-wiki abuse, has persistently disrupted various Miraheze projects, and where remediation attempts to address any behavior deemed an issue have failed., in which Matttest does not fall under the categories stated. This is a clear failure of assuming good faith on Jack980517's part. If we globally banned people just for being a nuisance, unfortunately Fandom would be better moderation-wise. -- Bukkit[cetacean needed] 21:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    1. This RfC is absolutely absurd, and I think the nominator's intention was to disruptively attempt to shun the user off this platform, which is something I don't want anybody to go that low to. In my opinion, this looks like a witch-hunt against Matttest over something trivial. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      What is absurd, and disrupting, is Matttest's actions. I did not want to bring this up, but the ongoing conflict between him and 黑底屍 doesn't portray him (Matttest) in a good light either. I have read some of the discussions in that conflict, and it appears that Matttest's actions there closely resembles what he did to me: he fails to understand even the most basic facts, insists that he is correct, and do things he was not supposed to. Without Matttest, I would have spent considerably less time in the wiki takeover, which was supposed to be easy and effortless, given that there are no active editors. All I should have to do was wait for the local election period to end and then wait for Raidarr to make me Bureaucrat and Administrator. And yet he threw pointless questions at me, completely uninvited, unwelcome, and unwarranted. This behavior disrupts the local election procedure.--Jack980517 (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      Quoting from w:WP:DISRUPT which you linked: "Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Matttest is being disruptive and time-wasting here. --Jack980517 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      @Jack980517: Sadly, I fear that you just described yourself. The community has had to educate you about what a global ban is and you can see clearly that this will snowball. Can you also please clarify if this RfC is a draft or not? Agent Isai Talk to me! 15:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    2. I see that one of my replies to DarkMatterMan4500 was removed by Agent Isai. I will make further replies in the comments section, as this seems to be more appropriate. Feel free to tell me the right place to put it if this isn't it.
      I have read about Global bans. I admit that I wasn't familiar with how the terms "ban", "lock", and "block" were used here, but after reading all three pages, I still think a global ban is the most appropriate measure. However a global lock is acceptable too. (Should I open another section for this as a proposal?) The lack of any position of power did not stop Matttest from those inappropriate behaviors; I doubt anything else is going to stop him.
      The point is that Matttest's behavior mentioned by me shouldn't be allowed. If the administration wants time to investigate the matters, I have no objections. After all the edit history is out there for all to see. The truth is clear. --Jack980517 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      Please read my comments above in the Oppose section. I think a global ban is inappropriate as Matttest has not shown the issues which led to the previous global bans and thus this will likely not pass. I suggest you raise these concerns up at the Stewards' noticeboard instead where a further discussion from various stakeholders can take place and a final dictum can be rendered by Stewards on whether Matttest's behavior is an issue. Agent Isai Talk to me! 14:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    3. Not voting because this is a draft but this is nowhere near the standard for a global ban. A global ban should only be given where they are severe issues with conduct across a number of wikis over an extended period of time and where local actors are unable to resolve. If his only issue is being a bit too eager to get involved in SN, Stewards are more than capable of telling him to calm down and giving a partial block. I don't even see an attempt to mediate here. As to voting where he isn't an editor, Stewards are again trusted to handle this. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
      I don’t think that even a partial block is needed. I have not commenting on issues where only stewards can done (such as dormancy policy exemptions), but rather giving suggestions and policies as references for users who asked for help. This is a case where the sentence “not a steward” is not given when opinions are given at SN, but the fact shows that after this case I didn’t do this mistake again, so no blocks should be placed. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 05:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
      I don't personally believe it's needed. I only mentioned it to suggest that the appropriate actors have easy ways of handling if they believed there was an issue. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 07:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    4. Reply from Matttest:
      I will respond to the Jack’s comment line by line to explain why I think this community ban is inappropriate, and should not be made in the first place.
      ”Matttest has been very active on Stewards' noticeboard, consistently meddling in matters that he has nothing to do with and has no power over, sometimes with wording that would make someone not in the know mistakenly think that he (Matttest) is a Steward.”
      Can you give evidences on which comment on the Stewards’ noticeboard had caused disruption and mislead other users (except your case, which I will explain below)? If you had really seen my activity at Stewards' noticeboard, you will find that my comments are generally helpful and users even thanked me for my additional comments and no disruption is caused whatsoever. For your case, I raised a point of fact about the original bureaucrat have decided to retire and open invitation to “adopt” wikis, which is also helpful. After your comment saying I should tell others I am not a steward before commenting on the Stewards’ noticeboard, I really do so. So what’s the reason of this community ban request?
      “What non-Stewards do on that page should be limited to pointing out clear facts, and not opinions; any unclear points that require interpretation should be clarified/decided on by Stewards only, since only Stewards have power to do so. What Matttest wrote clearly crossed the line.”
      Per my comments above, I had pointed out opinions without saying “I am not a steward”, which is not a good practice but also not qualified for a community ban. It also seems that you misunderstood something: any users can place opinions and suggestions to the thread, given that stewards are busy. Policies are also decided by the community, and if something requires interpretation, users are free to comment on it. Raidarr had also said “We don't take issue with users responding to inquiries as long as they are accurate, which I can confirm has been pretty much the case so far”, that my comments are accurate and thus not a disruptive behavior as long as I put “I am not a steward” before.
      ”And it appears that even this is not enough for him. He participated in the local election of a wiki I'm trying to take over (following the discussion on Stewards' noticeboard linked above), despite that he never was an editor of that wiki or its predecessors.”
      What’s the problem of my comments in your election? I pointed out mainly 2 things on your election: 1) the rights you want to apply is confusing, which you mistakenly think that “sysop” means “bureaucrat”, and that also causes confusion to stewards; 2) you said “I contributed to this wiki's predecessor, xpforever, for example on the page SATA.”, but without any links for users to know your contributions (and I don’t believe Stewards will know it well with no link on what is talking about “xpforever”). I am helping stewards to judge the validity of the vote, as well as making the election clear and transparent. Again, what’s the problem of this?
      ” What Raidarr wrote seems to indicate that Raidarr has understood the situation well, while Matttest has not (as proved by his pointless questions in the local election).”
      I don’t believe Raidarr will know what you mean to apply for for “sysop and admin” before my questions asking about this and your answer.
      ”Also note that his first "question" to the otherwise nonexistent "discussion" was posted merely 11 hours before the election was scheduled to end, despite knowing about it before it even started (since he participated in the discussion on Steward's noticeboard).”
      I do know about the election, but at that time I was busy doing other things on other wikis, so the question is asked 11 hrs before the deadline of this election. What’s the problem with it?
      ”I have to suspect that this was done to intentionally lengthen the time and annoy me, given his consistently annoying behavior. And because his followup was posted after the election ended, his vote and all his words are void anyway. Also, his actions fit in the definition of w:sealioning, and is therefore trolling.”
      The election is not ended due to the fact that the election clearly mentioned “ The election would close at June 10th 00:00 UTC, if there is no ongoing discussions at that time.” And so it is not closed since there are discussions at that time.
      ”Note that I have no prior history with Matttest; the two paragraphs above describe my very first two interactions with him, and they were both unpleasant. It's my belief that keeping such an unhelpful, useless, and annoying "volunteer" can only make users feel frustrated and angered, having to deal with such an uninvited and unwelcome interference.”
      I don’t believe other users have the same “belief” like you after knowing it is you making the election becomes confused, and when I pointed it out, you started a community ban request without any signs of trying to communicate with me. Cheers, Matttest (talk | contribs) 03:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    5. Okay, this went from essentially nothing to an argument over misconceptions to a fully blown Request for Comment requesting the highest possible sanction the platform can give, up there with a ban based on the Terms of Service, and I feel some extreme misconceptions have taken place which I will have to correct both here and in the linked place. From the top.
      • Is this a draft, or a complete RfC? It is being treated as complete but appears to have the draft notice on, see the top of the page. I'm assuming the latter but wish to confirm for the record.
      • This is based on two interactions wherin you've admitted that while you don't like the user's approach, they've introduced facts or clarification you are not privy to. Claiming you've gotten nothing or that the input was useless entirely is demonstrably false. You've made several errors or lacked context which they've expanded upon even if it has been accompanied with 'peanuts' that may not have been needed.
      • To explain. Miraheze is based on traditional concepts from Wikipedia, which include a desire to exhaust all other options including reasonable warnings, contact, and minor sanctions before proceeding to a lock, which in turn is given for egregious or systemic violations of this process (sometimes outright if there is a strong history or if the individual activity is extreme/all the user has come to do on the platform).
      • Frankly it looks to me like you, Jack, a new user to the global Miraheze community (including many wikis and a fairly established culture), are requesting the central nexus of the global community to issue maximum sanctions over what is no more than a petty dispute, and for this reason you can expect a 'snowball' response. I will let it play out, however pending an answer to this comment the RfC is likely to be closed very shortly with any further dispute directed to the SN. This process raises concerns with the local request which I intend to respond to separately. --Raidarr (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
        It is indeed confusing to see this RfC in the Open requests section of RfC page and marked as draft here. This should perhaps be sorted out by Jack980517 themselves. Startus (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    6. I disagree with Jack980517 that this behaviour of Matttest warrants a global ban. This is not what global bans are used for. As the page reads:
      Global bans by the community are generally done in extreme cases where the user has engaged in severe cross-wiki abuse, has persistently disrupted various Miraheze projects, and where remediation attempts to address any behavior deemed an issue have failed.
      I do not see any severe behaviour from the Matttest's side to mandate a ban—Matttest did not break any of the policies. But also, I do not see any conversations from both of the sides to resolve this dispute on the either of their talk pages. IMO, that should have been done before creating this RfC subpage. Startus (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
    Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Comment/Global_ban_for_Matttest&oldid=324197"