OTRS-wiki ubersecret but CC-BY-SA licensed discussion

Background

In the last few months, User:Russavia negotiated with photographers to license a number of photos from Airliners.net, which included a number of tickets that were handled and the appropriate templates modified on Commons. However, said user was banned from all Wikimedia wikis for reasons unknown. Over the last couple of days, Russavia has sent a number of emails to OTRS, with licenses for some of his uploads. Listed below are the ones I found and linked together, although there may be more.
List of tickets

Tickets should not be answered pending further discussion below

    Ticket:2015012810005083
    Ticket:2015012810006706
    Ticket:2015012810009098
    Ticket:2015012810010773
    Ticket:2015012810015965
    Ticket:2015012810016348
    Ticket:2015013010006318
    Ticket:2015013110004952
    Ticket:2015020310021038
    Ticket:2015020410003234
    Ticket:2015020410014821 (answered, agent might be unaware of discussion)

Sent before the ban, but answered after it

    Ticket:2015011610014381

Discussion

    What should be done with these emails? On the one hand we have a banned user and on the other hand we have uninvolved copyright holders who could be affected by the banning. If someone is banned, does the ban extend to emails sent to OTRS? Thanks in advance. Green Giant (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

    I will only comment on your final point - a user being blocked/banned on a project (or all of them) has nothing to do with how we would respond to a ticket from them typically. Given this was an office situation, I suppose it would be best to ask LCA what to do. I've poked them for a response. Thanks for the good question, Green Giant. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

        Russavia is not welcome to upload to our sites, so there should be no reason for new copyright assignments, correct? I think there's no harm in accepting them, but I don't want to legitimize his participation. Downplay.  :-) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

            Sooo... that's a yes/no/maybe? :P I'm not sure how many other pre-ban uploads Russavia made that are still OTRS pending especially with other accounts, so it is possible there may be more emails in the future. Green Giant (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

                Based on what Philippe said above, everything that was done or was pending before the ban should be conditionally accepted. However, based on what Philippe said above, I would make sure that we have proof that these correspondences occurred before his ban. If he starts sending material that has been negotiated after the date of his ban, then we would be legitimizing his participation on all WMF sites. That he's sending them after his ban is me interpreting that he wants to finish up some final business before he leaves for good, and I don't see any harm since the photographers behind the image are getting the benefit of having their images on the site, for all to see. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see any harm in letting him finish up his business here, and then stopping correspondence for good once he finishes up these pending copyright things, and should there be evidence that he is trying to circumvent his ban via this method. Ktr101 (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

                    If you follow the linked Twitter account from the seventh ticket above, it appears that that ticket relates to a request made by Russavia on 29 January. Clicking his profile, you can see that he is continuing to ask other people to license or relicense images e.g. this one on 31 January. I think such tickets could be closed as no-reply-needed? Green Giant (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

                        Yeah, we could do that, or also drop him a note letting him know that we will no longer be accepting his work on this site due to his ban, so that he doesn't keep sending us e-mails and getting other people's hopes up. I have no problem dropping the note, as it is clear that he is trying to circumvent his ban at this point. Ktr101 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

                            That's fine by me. Feel free to take over any tickets. :) Green Giant (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

    I think that we should accept such perrmission. Russavia was trusted user in Commons and was not involved in copyright violations. And I do not see reasons to not accept tickets in this way.--Ahonc (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

        Just from the pragmatical point of view, I'd say permission agents don't really have the resources to check whether a permission sender might be sending his permission because a banned user asked him to. Possibly it's obvious, probably we cannot determine at all.
        If it is decided that we do have to enforce the ban, too, we maybe need more information about the ban, and a prescribed terminology regarding the customers who don't understand why their permission and images are rejected. Someone would have to take care of defining a procedure. --Krd 14:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

            At this point, we are going to have to assume that he is working with photographers and gently instruct photographers to not work with him if he is doing it blatantly. After we send him a notice that it is not okay to be working on behalf of Commons to work with photographers (either this can be Legal's doing, or an OTRS agent), we then will not accept any of the work that he does on their behalf, and let the the individual photographers know accordingly. If it turns out that he starts doing this secretly, then this will likely become a matter for Legal, and we will have no choice to but to follow their word.
            From what Philippe said above, I do think we should be enforcing the ban, as having him interact with the site in any way other than directly with Legal at this point would be a violation of the ban, as I understand it. However, we do not need to know the terms of the ban, as that is a confidential matter between the Legal team and Russavia, and we should be accepting the images from those persons in good faith. After that, we should drop them a note explaining that Russavia is not allowed to interact with the site in any way (or something to that effect), and that we would be willing to work directly with them in the future. Maybe Philippe can chime in here on that aspect, but I don't see any reason why OTRS agents should be privy to the reason behind his ban, nor should we let others know if we did. I know that there are some on Commons who believe that Russavia was unfairly banned, and I am officially neutral on this matter as I have never knowingly interacted with him before, but there is a good reason that Legal doesn't tell us why people are banned, because there are many reasons why that could result in a whole mess of issues, which could include a lawsuit. Any terminology that we tell the photographers should just state that he is a banned user, and if they have any further questions, contact the Legal team and we can provide their contact information within the e-mail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

                I don't want to know the reason for the ban and I strongly agree that it is private between the involved parties. Anyway, if we refuse permissions from third persons on grounds of the ban and they ask "Why?" I'd be uncomfortable to answer "I don't know." or "Because I say so." --Krd 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

                    No worries, as I just wanted to put it out there in case anyone else might want to know. In terms of other parties asking, I don't see a reason that we could not just direct them to Legal, since it would help cover us from any responsibility over the issue, as well as direct them to people that actually know what happened (or have access, since people come and go on the team all the time). In terms of a response to this, I have noticed that we don't have a template as a direct response should people come in and ask why people were banned from all projects, nor do we have one that would direct users who have been banned on a project to request an appeal. I had a case last week where Tim Sheridan was ranting against administrator abuse (amongst other things, as well) and asked for help getting unbanned. I sent him an unblock form, but in lieu of anything better, it was the best I could do. In terms of this issue though, does anyone have any qualms about me creating a "How to unban yourself" and a "We did not ban them, so please go talk to Legal" template in order to address these shortcomings? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

                        Here's where I sit on it: I don't want him on our sites. I dont want him to be forcing people to interact with him. I'm doing everything possible to expedite his removal and his understanding of it. He's not going to be back. I don't want to draw firm lines, because the second I do, there'll be a good reason to break them, but in general, I would like it if we were all taking steps to disengage from him. I'm not to the point of outright refusing copyright assignments because he's been a part of them, but I certainly don't want us to be doing anything that would even imply to him that continuing on that course is okay.
                        I'm aware that's pretty vague, but I'm fairly confident that if you ask - and if I really put my shoulder into it - I can come up with an even more vague and unhelpful answer. :-) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I am going to go ahead and e-mail all of these users and close the tickets. We haven't received any more Russavia tickets since the last one above, but if he continues to solicit these permissions, we can cross that line where appropriate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

    I object. Let's not close these until we can formulate a response. The one you sent has already caused a flurry of comments. Tiptoety talk 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a procedural note - please do not reply any further to any of the emails that may be related to this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A personal note - the files Russavia uploaded prior to being banned are not being deleted because he was banned. They are currently sitting on Commons waiting for OTRS verification. If they do not receive that verification they will be deleted, just like any other file. There is absolutely no reason that we should not process these tickets as normal, even if the tickets come in after the fact. We don't have to reply to Russavia. But the file already exists, so why have this media deleted because we can't reply to the banned user? What does that have to do with the copyright release? Nothing. In the humble personal opinion of Rjd0060 (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Blimey, this is a real can of worms! After trying to get my head around Phillipe's understandable "vagueness", I think that some cold hard facts need to be acknowledged. First of all, the ban is a WMF action, so Russavia needs to be addressed in a single unambiguous email by WMFOffice, rather than an OTRS agent. Secondly, as Rjd0060 says, the copyright has nothing to do with the ban, so I think that:

            Files uploaded before the ban, but waiting for confirmation, should be dealt with when that ticket comes in, with a PermissionOTRS directly in the file page, rather than the templates created by Russavia, and followed up with a reply to the copyright holder but not to Russavia.
            Files uploaded and confirmed before the ban should have the tickets moved from the templates to the file pages and treated like any other confirmed file.
            The templates created by Russavia should be deleted as unnecessary.

    Finally, we could do with some clear guidelines on what to do and what not to do for similar future cases, preferably with less-than-vague input from WMFOffice. Me tuppence worth o'opinion. Green Giant (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do not fully understand problem: we do not want anser to Russavia or we do not trust him? If first, we may close tickets without answering. If second, we should delete all his files (including before-banned).--Ahonc (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    We don't let banned users make contributions on-wiki, because that's just encouraging them to continue and essentially makes it moot. Even good contributions are deleted. Why on earth would we do anything he asked? That would essentially make us 'Russavia-by-proxy'. It's one thing to say 'Wonderful, your friend made a contribution, which may have been at your behest, but they're not banned, so if they could send in permission themselves that would be lovely'. It's another to go 'Ok Russavia! We'll get right on editing at your request!'. Panyd (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

        The difference is that banned users on-wiki are banned for clear reason per wiki's local policy. In the case user is banned by WMF for reason unknown. Our, wikimedia community's, goal is to increase free human knowledge, to enrich our projects with free content. There is also a rule, a principle actually known on Wikipedia as WP:IAR : if some rules are in the way of improving a project, in other words, of moving towards the goal - ignore them. What Russavia does is clearly increasing free knowledge, it's improving Wikimedia projects. What deleting images uploaded by him or sending gibberish to photographers, he works hard to persuade realise their works under terms of a free license, will do is decreasing free knowledge. I don't know what WMF's goal is (in words they claim it to be just like ours but actions are known to be better indicators than pretty words) but it's clear, at least for me it is, that in the case WMF's position is contrary to our main goal of having new fine pictures under free license. It's clear-most case of IAR to be used and it's not important whether the rules on the way are imposed by WMF, the Devil or the God himself. I don't care whether Russavia is actually guilty of something or not, though I'm sure he is innocent for as long as WMF doesn't clearly prove it's otherwise, for as long as what he does resonates with what we do: with work towards enriching Wikimedia sites with free content, there is no real reason to decline his great help. We should not sacrifice our main goals, the sense of our projects existing, for satisfying pride of WMF who, as it looks from my point of view, just holds some personal grudge against Russavia. In my opinion it's clear that in OTRS we should treat Russavia as any other customer, and actually even more: as any other trusted costumer, which in field of copyright he clearly is, despite what other sides of him whoever may try tarnish reasonably or not. --Base (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

            If his actions are enough to warrant a global ban from the body that runs Wikimedia (and let's not fool ourselves here, they do), then they are not 'trusted'. They are decidedly 'not trusted'. The WMF doesn't have to tell us why they're doing it, and the definition of a 'ban' does not suddenly become muddled because the WMF were the ones to hand it down.
            Are we working for the goals of the WMF, or are we slavishly adhering to the idea that we know best because we're not employees? He's banned. Banned users can't edit and we shouldn't be their proxies. Besides, the man has been making accounts. He can do it by himself. 'Nobody can stop me' was particularly fun. Panyd (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

                He also just completely ignored the ban so he could make a dig at Kevin. He doesn't need us contravening this ban for him. He's perfectly fine doing it bold-faced and acting on his behalf just hides his actions behind the mask of OTRS. Panyd (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
                If man was convicted of paedophilia he cannot be the school teacher, but he can be programmer in bank; and man who was convicted of financial machinations cannot work as programmer in bank but he can be school teacher. Similar situation in this case. We do not know the reason of ban. That's why we do not know should we trust him or not. It is closed wiki, maybe here can be discovered reason of ban?--Ahonc (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

                    This whole case has gone down like a lead balloon in some quarters, obviously Russavia has been talking to his friends on Commons and I got this delightful response from one of his friends which if more widespread doesn't exactly make our job any easier in dealing with Commons issues. You'll see the invite to nominate every one of Russavia's images for deletion because apparently we have some sort of global fiat to act without further discussion with anyone.
                    Upshot, the OTRS response needs to be clear about existing contributions vs new contributions (proxy or otherwise). Nthep (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

        Thinking about that, this might be the better question - on whose behalf are we responding to these emails? Because if it's the WMF, the solution appears clearcut. If it's the community, then to my mind it's still very clear cut but I can see those upset about it feeling conflicted. Panyd (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

            Based on what Philippe said above, I get the impression we're working for the WMF over the community. I do admit to royally messing up above, and for that I am incredibly sorry and would not have done it again in retrospect. In some ways, we've never had to discuss what we should do if the Foundation bans someone and an editor decides to circumvent the ban with proxies and sockpuppets, as well as using OTRS. Based on the former, it is clear that Russavia does not recognize the legitimacy of the ban and is going to antagonize us for months, and possibly even years. If we keep accepting that he will upload these images via sockpuppets and do this with full knowledge when he tells us this via OTRS, then we are complicit to his circumventing his ban, and this means we are helping him by proxy, whether we like it or not. At this point, we really should not be accepting any of the images that he is sending to the site, because this would mean we are continuing to help him in his quest to circumvent the ban. It does not matter if the Foundation tells us what the reasons for the ban are or not, as we have to blindly trust whatever they say, no matter how vague they are for legal reasons.
            I understand that potentially having to ban a friend of some of you is going to bring up tough feelings, and I really do sympathize with that because I can understand where some of you are coming from. Immediately after his ban, there were legitimate proposals to opt out of the WMF's Global Ban Policy, and they were shot down after people pointed out that you would have to essentially fork the project in order to do so. It's also pretty clear that Russavia has friends on Commons who are willing to act by proxy to ensure that he still operates on the site and IRC, and they are prepared to do whatever they can to help him. Our job as OTRS is to help ensure that confidential information is handled properly, but this also means that we are often put between the community and the WMF on issues such as users operating on the site. Because of that, we are in a tough spot right now. Still, when it comes down to it, the WMF is our boss (one good example of this is how we need to identify to them before we're able to use OTRS as agents), and we are operating on their behalf on the projects.
            In the end, I am partial to not accepting his uploads on the site because even if he is working to get licenses for the images, he is still uploading images to the site, which is against his ban. I do commend the amount of work that he has put into the project over the years, but he is no longer able to work here and we need to enforce it through reporting his sockpuppets and having his images deleted, because at this point he is just being bold and trying to make a statement that is sticking the proverbial middle finger to the project (check out some of his sockpuppet names if you want more information). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

                Thanks for the comments Ktr101. I just want to point out what I said above, and reiterate one important part. We're here to process the tickets. If the file exists, we should process it. If Russavia is evading bans and uploading files and then emails us the verification, unless Commons deletes the file, I don't (personally) see a compelling reason to not push the permission forward. We don't even necessarily have to reply to Russavia. We could thank the original owner if they were CC'd, if anything. But if the file is kept (and that's up to the Commons community) and needs OTRS verification, we should verify it. Happy to discuss. (Again, lets not act on any of the tickets or new tickets of this for the time being). Rjd0060 (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

                                This is a good summary of my thinking as well. But reasonable minds can disagree on this (James, from my team, disagrees and quite strongly. I've settled that one by increasing the frequency with which I subject him to work-related torture, but thats not always an option) and I certainly hold nothing against those who disagree with me (except James, obviously, who shall be punished according to the WMF handbook, supplemental edition). You're all smart people. These are hard questions. I don't have good answers yet because we're thinking it through internally as well, but I frankly think this conversation is more likely to get us to a good answer, because I choose community brains over legal-team brains anyday, and not just because I'm scared of Rjd. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts: Firstly, Commons has different policies and practices than en:wp. One important point is the handling of contributions by blocked or now banned users. So far, it is not practice to undo contributions by indef'd or globally banned users at Commons and, if I may add, most WMF projects with the notable exception of en:wp. Copyright violations get deleted, uploads by notorious copyright violaters are also frequently deleted without proving this for each individual picture but legitimate uploads with no copyright concern that are within scope are kept. It is up to the community how contributions by banned users including their uploads are to be handled. If there are concerns in regard to this point, a discussion at Commons should be opened. Secondly, given that Russavia apparently happily publishes messages we send (as here) it seems best not to respond to any of his emails. In summary, I would suggest to contact the copyright holder (if the email address is known) and to confirm the free license. If this is successful, we could tag these uploads. But we would never respond to Russavia's emails (to the extent we recognize him). --AFBorchert (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is now a debate going on at Commons:Village_pump#Public_statement_from_Ktr101_and_OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the party. I'm coming from the link Green Giant mentioned above. I just made a quick reading on all the above comments. I agree with AFBorchert that we need not respond or CC mails by a banned user, not limited to Russavia. But we can process all requests having another point of contact as usual. There is no need to advice any not to communicate with him; no need to spread hatred. They all die naturally when time passes. This case is also applicable to Dcoetzee and all other banned users too. (Comments like "i love pulling the wings off butterflies" are literally equal to he want to amputate me. If true, this is the most fatal threat I ever received in my life. But I said above, time will heal all.) Jee (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

        This issue is something that should be applied to any user globally blocked by WMF, however, this issue has shifted to a particular problem with Russavia and derived personal situations. I do not agree that such decisions are taken privately in this wiki. --Wilfredor (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made an alternative proposal, below. It is not specific to Russavia, nor to the reasons for the global ban (which we will never be told, anyway). May I suggest discussing the proposal at the bottom of the page? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Consensus

Ok, how about this: We process permission emails no matter if they have been forwarded by globally banned users or result from interaction of the licensor with a globally banned user. This is unless the relevant project community decides to decline such uploads alltogether, in which case there is no point in processing such emails, or unless the Wikimedia Foundation, in its role as service provider of ticket.wikimedia.org, explicitely instructs the OTRS volunteer community to disengaged from doing so. However, we do not send emails to globally banned users through OTRS, though we will continue to interact as usual with third parties whose images are the subject of a conversation involving a globally banned user. Is that something we can agree on, Jkadavoor, Green Giant, AFBorchert, Rjd0060, Ktr101, and others? — Pajz 10:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    Looks like the best possible solution to me. --Krd 11:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    +1. Jee (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Ack. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    Works for me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    I think this is the best approach. --AFBorchert (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    As long as the WMF will be respected if they tell us not to - Panyd (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    +1 this sounds about right. Green Giant (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    ACK. Tickets from users blocked by WMF could be moved to one of their queues, too, so they can handle ticket and file without volunteer participation. Sargoth (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    NO, NO, NO, definitely not. If I understand correctly, this 'consensus' proposal is to keep handling Russavia's tickets in almost the same way as if he were a trusted user in good standing, so that OTRS agents could rely on his good faith in what he says. I'll have a think in the next hour or so about an alternative suggestion which I will post here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

        I read the proposal as - we will process tickets after establishing with the project concerned if they want the tickets processed. So in the case of Russavia it's down to Commons to decide if they want those tickets dealt with or not. If they decide they do want the tickets dealt with and that sets Commons on a collision course with the Foundation, that's there arguement and not ours as proxy for one side or the other (or both as considered by the other). This seems to align with the discusion at commons:Commons:Village pump#Public statement from Ktr101 and OTRS where the vociferous objection appears to be that we are deciding/dictating Commons policy behind closed doors.
        if my interpetation is correct then it's something I would support and suggest that all the current tickets are placed on hold, perhaps with an explanation to the copyright holders, and we ask Commons what they would like done with the tickets and what they would like us to tell the copyright holders in the interim. Nthep (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

            Hmm. I think there are subtleties here which you have not addressed. I think it is very important to take into account the reason for the global ban. If it is for repeatedly lying about copyright or other image issues, then I think we have nothing to do with the user. If it is for bad personal behavior -- ad hominem attacks, bad language, etc., then maybe we can accept the e-mail. In any case, assume good faith goes out the window and we treat the e-mail with considerable skepticism. I should add that I am not inclined to accept e-mail licenses that have been forwarded by anyone except a well known honest user -- it is, after all, very easy to create an e-mail from scratch and deliver it to OTRS saying that it came from so and so. I should also add that this is a global comment and does not reflect specifically on the Russavia situation at all.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me)

                Jameslwoodward, I agree with that, but I don't think it needs to be addressed here. What you describe is a consideration we always have to make, no matter if the person is banned, blocked or whatever. So what I meant to formulate was merely a specific layer to the process relevant for globally banned users, not something that partly replaces our normal checks. In other words: If someone has demonstrated they lie about copyright issues, we don't accept their forwarded statements anyway, regardless of whether that triggered a global ban or not even a block. — Pajz 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

            NthepWhat I had in mind was basically this: As long as the Commons community doesn't decide that they want to delete everything uploaded by Russavia and/or everything where Russavia solicited a release, we should continue to process permissions statements (whilst not sending any emails to Russavia) until the Foundation explicitely tells us not to. But as you say it's in the hands of the community, really. If they cease to accept such image material, we'll stop working on the emails as well. — Pajz 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

                Ok, I can go with that. But I think the question has to be asked explicitly of Commons - "what do you want to happen with new tickets from blocked users?" Let them set their policy and then we know where we stand. If the Foundation then take the matter out of our hands then again we need to tell the project concerned. At the moment we are becoming everybody's whipping boys and the most evil cabal ever. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

                    I don't think a need to discuss anything in Commons; it only helps to make further attention for them (banned users). We need not accept anything copyrighted by them; but can process forwarded/assisted tickets. But we should be careful in all forwarded mails. There is no need to split them as trusted and not unless those mails come from some very trusted accounts. Jee (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Principles

Globally banned users cannot be considered trustworthy, and should not be accorded any formal community channel via OTRS whereby they continue to receive encouragement or recognition. A banned user may not act as proxy or a communications channel for any third party copyright holder, though there is no objection to anyone communicating directly with a rights holder or other bona fide third party who may have been initially approached privately by the banned user.

Specifically

    No OTRS agent should knowingly communicate via the OTRS system with a globally banned user, nor should any ticket be handled with the banned user's email as 'customer'
    Any OTRS ticket based on an incoming email from a banned user that includes no direct contact details for a rights holder should immediately be closed as 'unsuccessful', without discussion with the banned user
    If an email is received from a banned user that does include direct contact details for a rights holder, the OTRS agent may if desired make direct contact and (if agreed by the rights holder) continue with the ticket using the rights holder contact as 'customer'. In such a case, the agent must not rely on any statement made by the banned user to support approval of the ticket, and all necessary facts should be checked directly with the rights holder contact.
    There is never any obligation to process a ticket that is instigated by a banned user, regardless of its content, and any agent may, at discretion, close any such ticket as 'unsuccessful'.

    Support, as proposer. If this can be agreed in more or less this form as a sensible way forward I would suggest then putting it to the Commons community. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)