Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


The following request for comments is closed. Since it seems I am wasting the communities time, I am self closing this and will take the matter up with Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team in more depth surround what the community is calling 'false harassment charges', 'not fraud' and not 'forcing legal responsibilities onto other users'. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

DanielTom (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)

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.

Blocks

DanielTom is currently indefinitely blocked at three wikis on Wikimedia. These are the English Wikipedia (see extensive block log), Meta-wiki and the English Wikinews. DanielTom is also on an interaction ban at the English Wikiquote with user Cirt. These three blocks and interaction ban have relevance with the global bans criteria and show to me he is not here to improve the whole project. His enwiki and enwikinews blocks are due to abusing multiple accounts on multiple wikis (alone some users get locked for this) and his metawiki block is for harassment of users after being warned multiple times. DanielTom was also blocked on Wikimedia Commons by an administrator for misusing multiple accounts and abusing the email function.

Harassment

DanielTom has been pursuing harassment of volunteers quite actively, most notable is Deskana. As seen here, In that discussion, DanielTom makes several personal attacks towards Deskana for their work during the investigation as he ran the main CheckUser against DanielTom. Also he has been causing distress for the whole CheckUser team by constantly hounding them with emails discussing either how 'abusive' they are or how they are 'harassing' him. The first block on Meta-wiki against DanielTom was email harassment as and on-wiki harassment of Deskana. See this section for more. The block on metawiki was for continued harassment of volunteers and even Wikimedia Foundation staff (as it continued into Deskana's tenure as foundation employee). This diff used for the blocking on the user on metawiki contains serious accusations over CheckUsers in general and that the privacy of users is violated because they defend themselves. From user responses to DanielTom, it is also stated that the user uses the email function to send abusive and harassing emails to volunteers, unfortunately this can not be monitored too easily nor prevented too easily. An available source for this type of harassment is the removal request made by Daniel against an OTRS volunteer.

Crosswiki abuse and sockpuppetry

As pointed out by Billingshurst, DanielTom has been checkusered three times on this wiki due to their use of multiple accounts and general behaviour.[see note by Billinghurst refuting this component (in #Comments)] This is also seen on enwikinews as a user states they were checkusered for the same reasons as they were on the English Wikipedia. This page points out a some-what extensive investigation into the users use of multiple accounts for violating enwiki's policies as well as harassing behaviour. Cirt (CheckUser on the English Wikinews at the time) blocked and tagged DanielTom's 'brother' account as a sockpuppet. 13 days after this, the above interaction ban was proposed due to DanielTom's decision to go crosswiki with harassing Cirt for his actions as a CheckUser. An echo of the case on the English Wikipedia. Looking at the pattern, DanielTom is using other wikis to harass all editors who criticize his behaviour and past sanctions for which ever reason that exists.

Recurring violations of privacy policies

With the above, the main reason for asking for a lock is DanielTom's continued willingness to violate privacy of users, take part in fraud/identify theft as well as putting legal responsibilies onto users who are either not willing to take it or are not legally allowed to access such information as per the Wikimedia Foundation's policies. Most recent, DanielTom has sent personal information about himself and his 'brother' to a volunteer, LauraHale. Laura has made it clear to DanielTom she is not willing to accept personal documents about the user as a way to unblock them. After that, DanielTom decided to send her documents of his 'brother' whose account was locked and unlocked for being a sock puppet of the user. The identify theft/fraud comes from DanielTom stating he has a brother and then deny he has a brother as well as serious varying of ages for his brother from young teens (13 - 15) up to adult age. Evidence of the 'single user' here is DanielTom's 'brother' had the same attitude as DanielTom had against administrators.

Conclusion

I am recommending DanielTom be globally banned from Wikimedia due to continued harassment of volunteers, somewhat serious crosswiki abuse relating to user accounts and serious violations of the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy and possible identify theft/fraud as a way to avoid repercussion to their actions. The user does meet the criteria set out on global bans and thus this proposal should be justified. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielTom

Hello. First, and foremost, I am Portuguese. I edit in Portuguese wikis. I have never even received a warning for any of my activities there, let alone be blocked. No one would even dream of blocking me there. I contribute to the Portuguese Wikipedia, edit featured articles such as "Luís de Camões", and created articles too, such as "Antonio Maria do Couto" and "O Oriente". I have contributed to the Portuguese Wikisource, where I improved their most read text, "Os Lusíadas". Other project languages even include Latin Wikiquote. These projects do not want me blocked. And preventing me from editing them from Meta, that is very wrong.

The block at Wikinews shouldn't be of much value. I never edited there, and only came there after attack pages were created for my real name (Daniel Tomé, a public rename) and my brother's name (Diogotome). They claim these accounts are Wikinews sockpuppets, so I asked, how can they be Wikinews sockpuppets when they have never edited Wikinews? I asked the same question on wikis where the same attack pages were being created: on Wikiquote, Commons, and Wikisource they were all removed. On Wikinews, I was blocked, and the pages remain, because of Cirt's influence, but this should not be surprising. My presence there was just to defend myself and my brother from uncalled for attacks, and in this I have failed.

I did criticize Deskana, you can look at Maggie's talk page for that. I did it openly. Deskana has admitted to have misrepresented my emails, but he says he did it unintentionally, while I say I emailed him before and told him of his unintentional mistake and he ignored me. It was only when Maggie asked Deskana that he admitted to this. Calling my founded criticism of him "harassment" is indeed very deceiving.

Sockpuppetry. I claim, I have never socked. I have no socks whatever. People should be suspicious where the only "sock" accounts are people's real names. Consider my alleged two socks. "Daniel Tomé", a public rename, and "Diogotome", an account created in 2009 by Diogo Tomé. Who could I fool by using names so close to mine? Consider also the following edit I made at my early days on Wikipedia:—

If you still aren't convinced that my IP edits show that I am Portuguese, please check, e.g., the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia "Pedro Cosme Vieira" (which is obviously written in Portuguese). It was my brother (Diogo Tomé) who created that article, but he asked for my help to improve it, which I did, as you can see here. (Incidentally, the article is about one of my professors at the University of Porto.)[1]

We have never tried to hide this very obvious fact.

The privacy question has already been dealt with. It is untrue, that the passport was of my brother. It was mine. My brother doesn't have a passport. He did send his ID card to ArbCom showing the account is his many months ago, but this is conveniently ignored.

Finally, let me say a word about my favorite project: en.wikiquote. In very few months, I made over 8000 edits there, and continue to work on improving several of its articles. I am not blocked there, and preventing me from editing there would be very unfortunate. It would also go, as far as I can tell, against the local community's wishes.

As to local communities, needless to say, some of them (from Portuguese wikis) might not comment here. But I am glad to see people from, for example, English Wikisource commenting here against this global ban. This reminds me I actually did work hard there to transcribe Mickle's translation of the Lusiad, and other works, and this is an ongoing project. I also don't think it would be fair to prevent me from editing there.

Apparently, Lewis was upset when I reminded him, yesterday, that he never edits articles. Well, I for one want to continue editing many articles, and creating many articles. Local communities can decide when to block me, if a block is warranted. Thanks for your consideration/time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks very much also to those who opposed to this global ban before my statement – much appreciated. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Definitely -- He was once a useful contributor, but he no longer seems interested in contributing constructively and it is highly likely that there would be deleterious effects if DanielTom is to remain on WMF sites. He was given chances to contribute constructively, but he blew it. Oh well. Sportsguy17 (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sportsguy17. I am interested in editing contructively, and do so. Just a few days ago, I created the article "Overshooting" on Portuguese Wikipedia, and have created many articles on Wikiquote in the past few weeks. Please see how the article Bertrand Russell looked before I started editing it, and how it looks now. Another example, see how the Virgil article looked before and after I edited it. The same is true for many other minor articles, and I can remember creating at least 30 articles just on Wikiquote, though I probably did more. I am currently expanding the Homer article at Wikiquote. (Even at English Wikipedia, I created one or two articles—amusingly the less scholarly are the ones that have the most views per day.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I have stricken accordingly, but I hope that you can make your useful edits into a consistent pattern. Sportsguy17 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support — I think the block reason on xyr userpage on enWN succinctly sums up the nature of interaction we experienced. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The comments at wikiquote:en:Wikiquote:Village pump, plus previous incidents leading to the global lock request, are enough for me to support this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Essentially agree with comments by Brian McNeil, above. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support never was a constructive user, i am shocked that this thread wasnt proposed sooner. Chirukane64 (talk)
    Chirukane64 has, at this moment, a total of 14 edits on WMF wikis, 13 on en.wikiquote, all January 30. The Wikiquote edits seem highly disruptive, and they started in direct opposition to DanielTom. Then I just noticed the user is blocked as a vandalism-only account there, so I've struck the comment. --Abd (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a LTA, please don't forget to add it on SRG, I've just found 20 accounts and I think I'll find more digging on en.wikiquote. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Until such a time as "the whole CheckUser team" appoints a representative to tell us how "distressed" they are. Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose While the matters raised in the request are serious, I question whether they rise to the level of cross-wiki abuse. I've been working with this user at enWS for the past several months, and have found his contributions to be of value to that project. There was an attempt to involve us in the drama with Cirt mentioned above, and he was given to understand that we weren't interest. Since then there has been no egregious behaviour. Therefore I cannot support a global ban at the present time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion says otherwise.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear then, I meant no further egregious behaviour at enWS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Speedy close for lack of notice and failure to show the disruption required for a global ban discussion. I've been following the situation with DanielTom, here on meta, carefully, and his crime appears to be criticizing administrators. Administrators can criticize users without consequence, but apparently the reverse is thought to be not allowed. Daniel names administrators he claims have abused the privileges. (I don't necessarily agree, but his block here on meta was questionable.) I see no signs of the kind of massive disruption that was alleged with the only prior global ban (Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister). The standard in Global bans, The user is permanently blocked or banned on two or more projects, is explicitly a minimal standard, not any kind of suggestion that users with two or more blocks should be banned. That a block is indef doesn't mean that it's "permanent," the real intention of the global ban policy is that the user is actually banned, which means that it wasn't the decision of one or two administrators, but of the community. There is no ban of DanielTom from meta, there has been no community discussion, and he's only been blocked for less than a month. He still has talk page access at this point, for what it's worth, but has not requested unblock. DanielTom is not banned on en.wiki, which clearly distinguishes between indef blocks and permanent bans. The block on en.wikinews is also explicitly not a ban. An interaction ban or topic ban is trivial, not even part of the criteria. The criteria for a global ban discussion, including notification of communities that may be affected, have not been followed, and notice provisions were radically disregarded. A global ban discussion can be highly disruptive. --Abd (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Affected wikis have been notified, at the very least. The discussion I link above is a pretty clear example of bad behavior from him.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't decide that, the communities do. If is thought that any criticism of administrators is "bad behavior", what Jasper Deng has said would make sense. Is it? I do see that some wikis are being notified, now. So it may be too late to close this. Not all have been notified, yet. The policy is explicit. --Abd (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones? Please don't state that without evidence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's outrageous, Jasper. The user has not been notified on most of the required user talk pages, I just looked at all of them, and there were only a few provided, and I'm not going to put the long list here of what wasn't done. I have not checked for the required community notices. If it matters to someone, we can look at timestamps later. I'll mention one: Commons permanent link to current version. --Abd (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified on Commons at 09:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Still many wikis with no notification on the user talk page or, alternatively not as a community notice, though it is not so easy to find those. The filer should link to all required notifications. --Abd (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose communities can manage this, no requirement for global ban, has acted in good faith at our wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose — and I, like Abd, would encourage a speedy dismissal, for what I believe to be an unwarranted request. This itself seems to me to be little more than harassment and active suppression of sincere dissent, with accusations which seem to me to include severe distortions of relevant facts.
    I do not pretend to know all the circumstances in relation to DanielTom and his motivations — nor all those in relation to his adversaries and theirs, but I know he has been a very contributive editor on Wikiquote, who I believe to be sincerely concerned about what he wrongly or rightly perceives to be some forms of distortions or dishonesty in regard to facts which others seem to prefer to have casually disregarded or ignored entirely.
    Though sometimes understandably resentful or even aggressive against what he either wrongly or rightly perceives as unjust harassment and accusations of himself and others, in ways such as I have sometimes implied it is futile and detrimental to be, he remains primarily an active contributor at the English Wikiquote, and from what I gather at other Wikis as well. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose – DanielTom is frank and outspoken. I find these qualities to be admirable, but others find them to be offensive. I don't see the discussion that Jasper Deng spoke of as being a ban-worthy situation. At least one Wikisource sysop has described DanielTom as being a "responsible edit[or]." Supporting and enacting a global ban would robbing Wikiquote, Wikisource, and ptwiki of a productive editor. As with some of the other opponents of this global ban proposal, I believe that these issues are best handled by local communities. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't think a global ban is necessary in this case, agreeing with Billinghurst. He is still contributing constructively to some projects, so I think any problems should be handled locally. I also think that Abd's concerns about the validity of this request should be investigated. Per policy, "These projects must have demonstrated broad support for the blocks or bans through a prominent community discussion process". I don't see anything like that, but maybe I haven't looked enough. PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose. Despite his all-too-human foibles, DanielTom is a useful and valuable contributor to Wikiquote. I would specifically like to address the interaction ban with Cirt referenced above. I imposed that ban, with the support of the community, but it is a two way street, and applies to Cirt as well. Both editors have in the past provoked the other, and have reacted to that provocation, but both have now abided by the restriction for months without incident. I don't think that it should have any bearing on this discussion at all. As for the various accusations of sockpuppetry and privacy violations, it seems odd to me that an editor would be accused of violating one policy, and then prevented from presenting evidence in his favor on the grounds that such evidence violates another policy. BD2412 T 14:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Actually he's not frank, he's simply uncivil and his supporters make the worst part since they are totally unable to point him his own faults. That's a blatant trolling I eventually choose to ignore but still it shows almost the worst attitude possible on a collaborative project. I don't know when, why (maybe the "first incident" would had been better handled) and how he went bad but honestly I don't care. We are here to build an encyclopaedia and this kind of behaviour must be rejected on sight. Nevertheless both his edits and general behaviour on en.wikiquote (setting apart for some wannabe-provocation) seem to be good so, at least by now, I don't see any need for a global ban. Ofc all the local blocks will be restored as soon as this rfc ends. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You have misrepresented the context of my commentary about checkuser that had been undertaken. I would expect fairness in presenting a case, this is not a prosecution. Being checkuser'd is neither good nor bad, it just is a check, and as it shows private data its use is restricted, and not made public.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be removing the block on the user here, so that they are able to comment, so you can scratch that they are blocked at meta too.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment I read most of the evidence presented above, and I don't actually find them supporting a global block. There may be more evidence of abuse not publicly available (in emails, etc.), but these are not shown here (obviously because of privacy concerns). So we have to rely on the opinions of the trusted people requesting this block. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the English Wikinews blocking admin, sending myself and another admin a copy of his or his brother passport was a major no-no. (Would you want your siblings allegedly e-mailing copies of your passport to multiple random people? Especially when others clearly indicated they felt uncomfortable with this material being sent to them because they were not identified to the WMF?) Sockpuppeting did not play a factor into his current block. The real reason for his block was different though. He had to basically shut up, and he was incapable of doing so. He was actively pursuing grudges against Cirt. He created hours of drama and huge swaths of text with no project benefit. When offered a compromise, he could not accept it but saw it as a way to push further to get what he wanted at all costs. Please see n:User:DanielTom which says, "This account is indefinitely blocked from English Wikinews for violating policies including no personal attacks and turning the project into a theater of war." --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment, Laura. I really don't know whether sending a copy of my brother's passport would be a problem. It could depend on whether or not I had my brother's permission, the purpose of the showing, and it's hard to imagine what harm would be done by it. It's not "identity theft," since he didn't claim to be his brother. What it strikes me as, is clueless. But not having reviewed the details of the situation, nor having seen the email, I can't tell for sure. And you were not a "random person." You were a WMF administrator, presumably trusted. That some felt "uncomfortable" receiving this information did not make providing it a violation of WMF privacy policy, as has been alleged. Had you revealed private information, provided to you as an administrator, without the permission of the user, that might have been a violation. I suspect there has been some naive interpretation of policy. I haven't seen a specific privacy policy provision allegedly violated by the user.
  • I do not contest that the user was blocked for, essentially, incivility, and I assume your block on that basis was made in good faith. The user is not banned from English Wikinews, as I'm sure you would agree. --Abd (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABD, At no point ever was there any indication that DanielTom had the permission from his brother to send out copies of his passport. Given the absence of any statement by his brother that he had permission to send copies of the passport, it concerns me and I would consider it theft. What would you call it if someone took from you without your permission copies of your passport and started to share it with people? --LauraHale (talk) 08:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laura, it's clearly uncivil to accuse someone of theft, a crime, without evidence that property was taken without permission. And I'm not sure that showing someone a copy of a passport of a relative, even if without permission, is "theft." I think you have the default assumption backwards. Has the brother complained? What I would normally assume was that he asked his brother for permission. Now, certainly, it's possible he didn't, but whatever happened to Assume Good Faith? You seem to expect some complicated process where the brother provides you with proof of permission, but how would you check that this wasn't just him using a gmail account he set up in his brother's name or something? Basically, once you start going down the road of assuming a crime, in the absence of evidence there is no crime, there is no end to it. There is a reason for Assume Good Faith, it's because Assuming Bad Faith can lead you to all kinds of absurdities.
  • And let's not forget, we are talking about a supposed basis for a global ban. I fail to find what policy he violated by emailing you that passport copy. It was not illegal ("theft"). It wasn't "identity theft." What DanielTom doesn't seem to me to be offensive, if he had permission, and mildly offensive if he did not. The problem with an administrator seeing a copy of his brother's passport? The possible harm? The actual passport is valuable property, but that passport may have never left the brother's possession, rather families often make copies of passports when travelling, and DanielTom may simply have scanned a copy. If my brother asked me to allow him to send a copy of my passport to a WikiMedia administrator, so he could prove we were different people, I'd certainly consent. Why not?
  • You are on much more solid ground about incivility. I suggest standing there and not go on about this passport nonsense. If you asked him not to send it, and if you know he received that request, and he sent it anyway, that would be an offense, though a mild one, and simply dumb. --Abd (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Abd, If anyone in my family took copies of my passport and shared the copies with random strangers on the Internet without my clearly stated permission, I would absolutely consider it theft, and would consider it identify theft. This issue can easily be resolved: Can you please find a diff on English Wikinews or on meta where his brother publicly stated that DanielTom had his permission to share copies of his passport with people who have not been identified to the WMF? If you can find such diffs, which would demonstrate to me no theft was involved, I will go to English Wikinews and immediately seek DanielTom's unblock and post an apology for the confusion regarding the perception that he stole his brother's passport to "win" on the Internet.--LauraHale (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Laura, you seem to believe that if there is no proof that it wasn't theft, it can be treated as theft. Your arguments are going beyond reason. You are not a "random stranger." If I gave my passport to my daughter to show to someone, I would not also hand her a signed permission. You are demanding something that would quite likely not exist. I'm sorry, Laura, I'm disappointed. I'll ask DanielTom about the issue of permission, but it's actually irrelevant. You might be horrified if someone in your family did it with your passport, that does not make it into a generic crime. I would not be horrified if my daughter showed someone a copy of my passport without my permission. Much less if there was some perceived necessity, some official to be shown the passport. Like you. Then again, I'm known as "laid back." Some people obviously aren't. You have misinterpreted WMF policy, you think it forbids him to provide you with private information. No, if anything, it prohibits you from disclosing private information. The policy would forbid you from demanding or accessing using privileged tools, private information (that's the "identified to WMF bit). --Abd (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What stops Laura receiving such private information is the fact they don't want to handle such information. The fact she does not want to deal with such private information yet gets it sent to her is adding additional legal trust/requirements to her which she has not willingly to accept and thus DanielTom can infact be endangering Laura of legal issues with the fact she knows the identify of someone who may or may not exist, who may or may not be of appropriate age and who may or may not have given permission for it to be shared freely. John F. Lewis (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ABD, This will be my last comment on this: For me and for other English Wikinews administrators I consulted, DanielTom's e-mailing of a passport was hugely problematic because of the perception of privacy problems. For me, his actions clearly constitute identity theft as a password was involved and no permission was given by the passport holder to share this information. Once you have proof that DanielTom's brother made public statements on English Wikinews or meta by the brother stating permission was given to share the passport, I will continue this discussion. --LauraHale (talk)
  • Did not read all the supporting evidence, but as such things go this seems very mild (I have seen behaviour that obviously was several orders of magnitude worse, and could not even get a local block), this looks like it can be handled locally? - Brya (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it can, but can't effectively. Still Daniel is causing harassment and distress for volunteers to irrelevant issues. Very recently he just stopped hounding the entire English Wikioedia CheckUser team, 7 months after he got blocked there. Long term harassment is one thing Wikimedia does not need off volunteers especially if it is directed towards though acting in policy and in advanced positions. John F. Lewis (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence or proof of accusations of harassment are provided here. I have seen a similar accusation against DanielTom on English WP by an admin on the basis of an Email sent, the full Email was published to DanielTom's Talk revealing the accusation to be gross exaggeration. Harassment is something serious and bogus accusations are are probably worse. Where can evidence be examined for these claims beyond simple say-so? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if DanielTom only has made one good contribution on fr.wikiquote.org [2], I can't judge. I don't feel concerned about his global ban. Also, it was useless to warn every wiki.--Morphypnos (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_DanielTom&oldid=18457698"