Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.

[JoshSSJGod]

Hello everyone! In this thread I will be going over a rule that has been brought to light as a result of a recent thread. It is my belief that this rule is highly exploitable and needs to be reworked if we are to maintain integrity within the wiki with this rule being.

Proxy Rule:​

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members your arguments to secretly post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed your arguments. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted."​

What does this rule do?​

This rule aims to crack down on users that try to circumvent their own ban in order to interact with the wiki. It does so by preventing users that have been banned to be unable to use another person as a way to get their opinions onto the site despite their banned status. While this looks well and good the issue comes from the last part of the rule.

"Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted."

This section of the rule states that banned users are able to use a proxy to post their opinions on the condition that it is approved by staff. This sounds good on paper but it sadly heavily flawed for a multitude of reasons.

​

Why does this rule not work?​

The issues with this rule can be boiled down into 2 main points. Which are...

- Being too loose

- Being easy to exploit

Being Too Loose:​

This rule firstly has the issue of being too loose. What I mean by this is that it does not provide enough detail as to properly give a unified definition. An example of what I mean by this is the use of the "Genuine Helpful Revisions" in order to be given an exception as it does not define what a "Helpful Revision" is. Let's try to deduce what one could be based on the last instance of it being used which was this thread. Here the argument for this being a useful thread is that it is "providing corrections" which regardless on if you agree or disagree is not a valid reason to be considered helpful as it is dealing with the forever subjective topic of verse revisions. If we consider this thread to be helpful then would the thread that applied the information that this thread is trying to change be deemed unhelpful? If so then why? Not everything in the previous thread is being addressed by the new one so wouldn't it still be helpful by providing new information to add to the verse to improve the overall standing of the verse on the wiki?
If you are getting what I am saying you would also realise that any thread can be labelled as helpful for any number of reasons that someone can simply just say.
"My thread is helpful as it is adding new information the wiki didn't have otherwise!"
"My thread is helpful as it is correcting information that is wrong!"
"My thread is helpful as it is improving the quality of a page/verse!"
These examples here could be applied to essentially every CRT that has ever existed on the wiki which trivialises the condition of the thread being helpful allowing banned users to post whatever they want with these examples being used to justify it.

​

Being Easy to Exploit:​

The rule states that a post needs to be approved by staff before being posted. While this looks fine on paper it is highly exploitable. For starters, the rule does not specify how much staff is required to allow for a post to be made which would have people think that it only requires 1 staff approval to be made (which after some investigation with some staff seems to be the case). Such low requirements for this rule makes it extremely easy for a banned user to effectively circumvent their ban as it is a sad truth but a truth none the less that extreme bias exists within the wiki. This will damage the wiki as a whole as being banned would become a non-punishment and be hardly a deterrent for poor behaviour and/or conduct. In the example we have seen in Fuji, they are effectively able to interact with the wiki the same way they could have before. If a banned user is capable of interacting with the wiki in such a degree as this with such low requirements which can easily be satisfied by asking staff who are biased to get a certain result then the ban would effectively have done nothing.

​

​

How this can be improved?​

There are many ways this can be improved but here I can provide 2 that would solve this issue.


Method 1: Disallow any exceptions:
In this scenario the rule would be rewritten to be...

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members your arguments to post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed your arguments."

"Proxying can be defined as the scenario in which a normally banned user has a unblocked user post on the forum messages directly written in large part by the blocked user. An example of this would be if the banned User X asked User Y to post a thread about the topics that User X has written and created. User Y has not had substantial input in the written components of the thread and is merely copying User X's work. Posting this thread would qualify as proxying."​

This is the strictest option but it is a sure fire way to prevent this rule from damaging the integrity of the wiki and effectively removing the penalty that bans give. Some may say that this is too strict as it completely disallows any banned user from doing anything with the wiki I shall simply counter argue with the fact that if they are banned for some time they shall simply wait that period before making their posts as intended by that ban. Perma Banned users would then also be directly unable to ever interact with the wiki ever again, this can be justified by the fact that these users are permanently banned for a reason and that they had their chance on the wiki and would have received warnings about their behaviour.

Method 2: Make the requirements for exceptions much stricter:
In this scenario the rule would be written to say...

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes sending unblocked members your arguments to post in our forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed your arguments. Exceptions can be given for posting genuinely helpful revisions while openly admitting where they came from, but this needs to be evaluated by our staff before any arguments are posted.​

The post requires a minimum amount of approval of 5 staff with the approving staff being listed on the thread and said staff being able to provide evidence of said approval."​

"Helpful Revisions can be defined as revisions that are aimed to improve the overall quality of the wiki. An example of this would be a rule change that would benefit the wiki as a whole or threads that affect the wiki as a whole. Examples that do not count would include the likes of Standard Content Revision threads as they only apply to at most a few verses and not the wiki as a whole."

This solution goes way more in depth about what is needed for an exception to occur. It defines what it meant by a helpful revision with the intent of only allowing revisions that will actually provide positive improvements to the wiki and not simple verse revisions. It also drastically increases the number of required staff as to ensure there is as minimal bias in play as possible as 5 staff are far less likely to all be biased then a single staff where it would almost be for certain. The staff would must then also be named on the thread as to ensure the integrity of the post. We would not want situations where users fake staff approvals as to get past these requirements.

​

​

Conclusion:​

Overall, this is my suggestion on how to improve this rule of the wiki and ensure that it does not get taken advantage of. Any suggestions to further improve this would be greatly appreciated and I hope we can build a stronger wiki through changes like this.

Agree with Method 1: TheGlassman12 (Can also accept Method 2), Emirp sumitpo, AbaddonTheDisappointment, GarrixianXD (same as Glassman), LordTracer, CloverDragon03, GrathOfLux, Nierre

Agree with Method 2: Twilight-OP (though wants the requirement to be lowered), DarkDragonMedeus

Disagree: Tllmbrg (Believes the Proxy rule should be removed except for stating who it is), Mr. Bambu, Agnaa

Neutral:

 

[SYPHe5D]

Agreed.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ideally I'd prefer Method 1 as the solution given the as I've said earlier, this is just sockpuppeting with extra steps given they're using another user to help them bypass the ban, but having 5 staff members be needed for approval does help for a middle ground as it prevents this system from being as exploitative as it currently is, so I'm down for either methods.

 

[JPTheGamer]

Mark me down as agree.

 

[Speedblitzer50]

Agree with method 2

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

FIVE staff??!??! Two at most. One still works since the staff should be trustworthy enough on their own anyways.

 

[Damage3245]

This should be in the staff discussion portion of the forum, I believe.

 

[JoshSSJGod]

FIVE staff??!??! Two at most. One still works since the staff should be trustworthy enough on their own anyways.

Two is far too little. It still enables the problem stated above which is why One staff approval does not work. It would be far too easy for a banned user to effectively circumvent their ban as our staff are not infallible. I proposed such a high number to ensure personal biases does not play a factor in the choice of allowing a banned user to comment.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Two is far too little. It still enables the problem stated above which is why One staff approval does not work. It would be far too easy for a banned user to effectively circumvent their ban as our staff are not infallible. I proposed such a high number to ensure personal biases does not play a factor in the choice of allowing a banned user to comment.

Ok but that's too excessive especially when the votes required for a controversial CRT is only 3. Plus it'd be very hard to get that much staff onto approving one thing when there's already a lack of staff on a majority of CRTs.

 

[Speedblitzer50]

Ok but that's too excessive especially when the votes required for a controversial CRT is only 3. Plus it'd be very hard to get that much staff onto approving one thing when there's already a lack of staff on a majority of CRTs.

It's that or nothing, so it won't be so easy for banned users to interact with the wiki. 5 staff is fine imo

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

This should be in the staff discussion portion of the forum, I believe.

Yeah this should be moved to staff forum .

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

It's that or nothing, so it won't be so easy for banned users to interact with the wiki. 5 staff is fine imo

It's not that or nothing there can be inbetweens. Both current methods essentially result in the same thing happening as 5 is quite unrealistic.

 

[JoshSSJGod]

Ok but that's too excessive especially when the votes required for a controversial CRT is only 3. Plus it'd be very hard to get that much staff onto approving one thing when there's already a lack of staff on a majority of CRTs.

3 was originally what I was going to propose but I was convinced when discussing with staff in DMs to bump it up to 5. The point of it is to be difficult, its there to ensure that the post is genuinely helpful the wiki and not a thread with an agenda. When we are dealing with the topic of banned users it must be difficult to do so otherwise their ban would serve no purpose.
If they are temp banned they can simply wait out their ban to do their thread as intended.
If they are perma banned then there must be this many hoops to go through.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

3 was originally what I was going to propose but I was convinced when discussing with staff in DMs to bump it up to 5. The point of it is to be difficult, its there to ensure that the post is genuinely helpful the wiki and not a thread with an agenda. When we are dealing with the topic of banned users it must be difficult to do so otherwise their ban would serve no purpose.
If they are temp banned they can simply wait out their ban to do their thread as intended.
If they are perma banned then there must be this many hoops to go through.

This comes off more like an attempt to suppress a certain individual rather than actually being fair here with requirements.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Moved this over to staff threads

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

I agree with the second method, but 5 staff members might be a bit excessive. Perhaps we could reduce it to 2 or 3?

 

[JoshSSJGod]

This comes off more like an attempt to suppress a certain individual rather than actually being fair here with requirements.

I have quite literally never interacted with them. I simply just saw a rule that I knew could be highly exploited and took action to prevent it from happening.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Personally, I think trying to stop proxies is unlikely to ever work unless we try to outright ban interactions with banned users.
So my vote is "Remove the law besides stating that you are proxying for a banned user"

 

[JoshSSJGod]

Personally, I think trying to stop proxies is unlikely to ever work unless we try to outright ban interactions with banned users.
So my vote is "Remove the law besides stating that you are proxying for a banned user"

That would be a disastrous option. While it is true we could never truly stop proxies, as with any issue our aim here should be to mitigate it as much as possible. That option would just fully embrace proxies onto the wiki rendering any sort of ban pointless.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I agree with method 1, though I think method 2 is acceptable as well. Though for method 2, I do think 5 is a little excessive, I think 3 is a much more convenient alternative.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

My opinion is pretty much the same as Emirp’s

 

[GarrixianXD]

I share the same sentiment as Glassman.

 

[LordTracer]

I completely agree with Method 1. I can accept Method 2 if it’s what the majority agrees on, but it’s definitely not my preference.

 

[Wankbreaker]

I completely and utterly disagree on this, especially on method one.

For the Nasuverse reworking on the wiki, we enlisted the help of quite a few banned users who plan to make sizable contributions. What do we do with their work if this passes? Throw it out? I’m sure quite a few other series have similar situations

 

[Da3ggman]

I'm feeling option 2 as our best bet tbh, as there can be cases where a verse is absolutely horrendous, but the only supporter that knows anything is banned. With option 1, that verse will stay in that state; with option 2, there is at least a chance for it to be fixed. I also agree with the majority that 3 staff is a better alternative to 5 for an approval.

Though, that does open another question up: would the user need approval for each individual post, such as responding to counter-arguments, or would approval of there thread extend to rebuttals (either overall or for a certain amount of replies)?

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

I completely and utterly disagree on this, especially on method one.

For the Nasuverse reworking on the wiki, we enlisted the help of quite a few banned users who plan to make sizable contributions. What do we do with their work if this passes? Throw it out? I’m sure quite a few other series have similar situations

For situations like this, in my opinion as long as the work isn’t mostly from a banned user (ie most of the CRT and the arguments are made by someone who isn’t actually banned) then the CRT should be fine.

The issue comes from when the CRT as a whole or the vast majority of it is literally made by a banned user, reworded or not it’s still basically just being a sock puppet with extra steps.

Spitballing ideas, getting scans from, or just bouncing ideas off with a banned user shouldn’t be an issue as long as they aren’t the ones directly creating the arguments

Not sure if that’s how other mods feel but that’s my opinion

Also pretty sure image helpers and translation helpers don’t actually get votes in staff threads

 

[JoshSSJGod]

Though, that does open another question up: would the user need approval for each individual post, such as responding to counter-arguments, or would approval of there thread extend to rebuttals (either overall or for a certain amount of replies)?

The initial idea was to allow that user to comment on that thread specifically as it would be really time consuming to get permission for every single post (imagine any staff thread but you need permission per 1 out of 400 comments) which the extra verification to do so would help justify. If staff believe that they would need permission for every comment though then that be how it is.

 

[Da3ggman]

Also pretty sure image helpers and translation helpers don’t actually get votes in staff threads

My apologies, I was under the impression that, even if we (image helpers) can't vote, we could still at least comment on staff discussions. Sorry about that.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

The initial idea was to allow that user to comment on that thread specifically as it would be really time consuming to get permission for every single post (imagine any staff thread but you need permission per 1 out of 400 comments) which the extra verification to do so would help justify. If staff believe that they would need permission for every comment though then that be how it is.

Technically speaking iirc non staff actually do need to request per message unless its admins where they can allow 3 messages

My apologies, I was under the impression that, even if we (image helpers) can't vote, we could still at least comment on staff discussions. Sorry about that.

Not sure about comments I was just talking about votes cause they were counted in the OP

 

[GarrixianXD]

What do we do with their work if this passes? Throw it out? I’m sure quite a few other series have similar situations

Well, first off, I think you should know better that we already have a rule that goes against such direct banned-member influence on the wiki. It is your job to scrutinise through their work if the shit they've done is reliable or not, as well as to discuss it with staff members about it, and obviously not to blindly put your trust in them; if you're simply asking them for scans and all, that is fine (unless the scans are fake) since you're not taking in any of their sentiment. Otherwise, yes, throw them all away since it is a direct violation of our site rules to include direct influence of banned members without any staff scrutiny.

Also pretty sure image helpers and translation helpers don’t actually get votes in staff threads

I'm pretty sure all thread discussions only take the votes of administrators and thread mods (CGMs for exclusively calculation threads). Image and Translation Helpers aren't even allowed to comment on a staff thread if they do not have permission to do so (yeah, blue name level of access).

I'll be deleting comments from here on out if I see those who commented out of the blue without staff permission.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

First, I should mention this. But regular users need permission from staff to post a discussion that is reserved for staff discussion. Second, with the exception of the OP who was given permission to post, regular users aren't allowed to comment on staff threads.

But since this is a sensitive topic and there was a private thread among staff to discuss this as started by Grath, I agree with a lot of things the thread says. But I do not want to be too extreme. So I would vote for method 2, I think the "No talking to banned users at all period" would be going to far. What is also important is why the respective users were banned in the first place. If someone is a hostile user who is simultaneously infamous for making a lot of bad content revisions that are severely overplaying their favorite verse while at the same time downplaying every other verse, I agree our standards should be much stricter and that content revisions that repeat the same dead arguments should be heavily scrutinized. But at the same time, there exist a few specific users who were banned for other reasons related to offsite drama. And before that, were considered great when it came to having a sense of judgement regarding our tiering system or calculation policies and what not. I see no reason why people can't speak with them or talk about potential feats or scans.

 

[GarrixianXD]

First, I should mention this. But regular users need permission from staff to post a discussion that is reserved for staff discussion. Second, with the exception of the OP who was given permission to post, regular users aren't allowed to comment on staff threads.

But since this is a sensitive topic and there was a private thread among staff to discuss this as started by Grath, I agree with a lot of things the thread says. But I do not want to be too extreme. So I would vote for method 2, I think the "No talking to banned users at all period" would be going to far. What is also important is why the respective users were banned in the first place. If someone is a hostile user who is simultaneously infamous for making a lot of bad content revisions that are severely overplaying their favorite verse while at the same time downplaying every other verse, I agree our standards should be much stricter and that content revisions that repeat the same dead arguments should be heavily scrutinized. But at the same time, there exist a few specific users who were banned for other reasons related to offsite drama. And before that, were considered great when it came to having a sense of judgement regarding our tiering system or calculation policies and what not. I see no reason why people can't speak with them or talk about potential feats or scans.

Tbh, I think it's a good idea to vary our options by including the reason for the ban of that user, as well as the severity of their violation(s). Not just simply establishing a general rule to every banned user without taking consideration into their ban reason and severity.

Edit: Actually, on second thought, allowing staff input for proxies would cover this concern of mine anyways.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I prefer Method 1, in all honesty I think a lot of the extreme stuff like this one...

I completely and utterly disagree on this, especially on method one.

For the Nasuverse reworking on the wiki, we enlisted the help of quite a few banned users who plan to make sizable contributions. What do we do with their work if this passes? Throw it out? I’m sure quite a few other series have similar situations

...doesn't actually hold up in practice as counterarguments. It's not like scans suddenly become no longer up for grabs just because a banned user brought them up. They're scans. We're just trying to not have people copy-pasting banned users' arguments so that such users can get around the bans and functionally eliminate their purpose

If I may be so bold, I think we have enough common sense to know what does and doesn't work as far as far as the whole banned user situation goes (like yes you can use scans because those are fair game, no you can't just copy-paste banned users' arguments since that's functionally the same as our "don't copy-paste off-site arguments" rule, yes you can use arguments similar to them if they're your own)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I completely and utterly disagree on this, especially on method one.

For the Nasuverse reworking on the wiki, we enlisted the help of quite a few banned users who plan to make sizable contributions. What do we do with their work if this passes? Throw it out? I’m sure quite a few other series have similar situations

Also, another fyi. The issue is less about "Banned users have some worked contributions such as collecting/sharing scans or sharing thoughts." It's more so the idea of Copy/Pasting arguments word for word from banned users is what is often problematic.

 

[Testarossa002]

Got permission from @LordTracer
Issues with the current rule
The OP has listed some issues, but here is one more.
It's vague. What exactly are staff evaluating whenever a proxy approaches them? Is it the content of the thread (coherence, availability of scans, politeness, etc)? If yes, those will be evaluated by the staff on the actual thread anyway. So why the extra step? Is it the source of the thread, i.e., circumstances surrounding the banned user and reasons for their ejection? If yes, what are the qualifiers/disqualifiers? Does getting banned because of a slur usage result in an auto-rejection? Or off-site drama (Dread)? Or persistent annoyance/sock creation (Vapourr)? These things need to be clearly specified so that affected parties know what they're dealing with

Issues with the overall idea behind the rule.
While the intent is clear, the application of it is a glaring issue.
If getting the prior 3/5 staff members to sign off on posting a thread becomes an issue, there are loopholes that, frankly speaking, make the rule ineffective.
If banned User X posts their argument on Twitter, Reddit, Quora, YouTube, Comicvine, or even on our own platform (old threads/blogs) and I take said argument and publish it here, does that make me a proxy?
If yes, where do we draw the line? Are we to completely blacklist banned users from our social space so that we don't end up using their arguments?
If not, that's a very big loophole. As banned user (X) and a proxy (Y) can easily collaborate and slip this through
Y: Staff aren't going to let me publish your arguments as my own
X: You know what, I'll post my arguments on Quora. You can copy it from there. After all, there's no restriction on it.
Y: That's great. I can simply feign ignorance when confronted by staff i.e I didn't know User X on Quora was perma banned by VSBW

I know I'm not proffering any solutions. It's not for a lack of effort. I simply can't find any one that works.
If there's evidence that a proxy circumvented the rules placed, they should be banned, but that's highly unlikely given the loophole presented above.

 

[JoshSSJGod]

Got permission from @LordTracer
Issues with the current rule
The OP has listed some issues, but here is one more.
It's vague. What exactly are staff evaluating whenever a proxy approaches them? Is it the content of the thread (coherence, availability of scans, politeness, etc)? If yes, those will be evaluated by the staff on the actual thread anyway. So why the extra step? Is it the source of the thread, i.e., circumstances surrounding the banned user and reasons for their ejection? If yes, what are the qualifiers/disqualifiers? Does getting banned because of a slur usage result in an auto-rejection? Or off-site drama (Dread)? Or persistent annoyance/sock creation (Vapourr)? These things need to be clearly specified so that affected parties know what they're dealing with

Issues with the overall idea behind the rule.
While the intent is clear, the application of it is a glaring issue.
If getting the prior 3/5 staff members to sign off on posting a thread becomes an issue, there are loopholes that, frankly speaking, make the rule ineffective.
If banned User X posts their argument on Twitter, Reddit, Quora, YouTube, Comicvine, or even on our own platform (old threads/blogs) and I take said argument and publish it here, does that make me a proxy?
If yes, where do we draw the line? Are we to completely blacklist banned users from our social space so that we don't end up using their arguments?
If not, that's a very big loophole. As banned user (X) and a proxy (Y) can easily collaborate and slip this through
Y: Staff aren't going to let me publish your arguments as my own
X: You know what, I'll post my arguments on Quora. You can copy it from there. After all, there's no restriction on it.
Y: That's great. I can simply feign ignorance when confronted by staff i.e I didn't know User X on Quora was perma banned by VSBW

I know I'm not proffering any solutions. It's not for a lack of effort. I simply can't find any one that works.
If there's evidence that a proxy circumvented the rules placed, they should be banned, but that's highly unlikely given the loophole presented above.

Thanks for the input! I thought of this while I was writing this CRT, I spent a good awhile trying to think of a solution but I couldn't come up with anything that was consistent and plausible. There is simply to much that varies there to be able to properly control. It is why I'm looking for all feedback I can on this so it can be as air-tight as possible.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It bears mentioning that in no scenario can we absolutely cease a banned user from interacting with the wiki. It is a fool's errand to attempt to cover every gap in the armor on that front, it simply cannot be done. We are not a police state and we cannot stop users from interacting with a banned person, so a person can get ideas on the site if they really want that. Furthermore, I don't see that as the desired outcome- the primary function of the ban is to cease negative activity on the site, which is functionally done with the rules as they are now. I wouldn't consider them to be "too loose" or easily exploitable without some instance of that being shown, and I don't think the current case regarding Fuji does that- we have a stated interest in accuracy above all else, so the messages sent by Fuji, via Topaz, being well intentioned and informed revisions of statistics, are in our interest to allow. Especially vetted by a staff member.

Something I mentioned in a prior discussion on this front is that it may do well to relegate the approval of messages to a higher ranking staff member (administrator, or perhaps even bureaucrat if those with the title were to stay on the ball in regards to this added specialized task). Making it two administrators or higher would also cover these perceived exploits nicely- I think the exploits are exaggerated a bit, however.

I don't think proxying ought to be allowed. However, I do think good ideas should be allowed, provided they do not break rules abiding by common sense. Historically, we have allowed users with good ideas and good intentions to assist the wiki, if they so wanted to, even while banned. I see no reason to hamper ourselves just to harm the banned.

In light of these musings, I disagree with both methods as they are now. Five staff members is a psychotic amount of approval required to allow this sort of thing (we'd allow someone to impart controversial, wide-ranging changes to the site before allowing a banned member to post a single message? that's not right), and the first one seems to be geared towards silencing banned users completely- interpretations of that rule allow for banning users just communicating about arguments, and then having those arguments posted. I would consider this a downgrade to the rules as they are currently.

What I think ought to be done is to disallow the practice of direct proxying completely, while making explicit mention of the distinction between proxying and advising/discussing/what have you. So long as that is kept distinct, I am satisfied.

 

[JoshSSJGod]

It bears mentioning that in no scenario can we absolutely cease a banned user from interacting with the wiki. It is a fool's errand to attempt to cover every gap in the armor on that front, it simply cannot be done. We are not a police state and we cannot stop users from interacting with a banned person, so a person can get ideas on the site if they really want that. Furthermore, I don't see that as the desired outcome- the primary function of the ban is to cease negative activity on the site, which is functionally done with the rules as they are now. I wouldn't consider them to be "too loose" or easily exploitable without some instance of that being shown, and I don't think the current case regarding Fuji does that- we have a stated interest in accuracy above all else, so the messages sent by Fuji, via Topaz, being well intentioned and informed revisions of statistics, are in our interest to allow. Especially vetted by a staff member.

We indeed can never truly create a gapless system that can never prevent this from happening, the intent of this rule change is not to influence how a member of the wiki can interact with a banned user (there are other rules for that which are not the subject of this thread) but to mitigate scenarios where a banned user makes use of another user to get the work they did onto the wiki and effectively circumvent their ban and yes the purpose of a ban is to cease negative activity on the wiki we must not forget that it also comes with the consequence of said user being unable to interact with the wiki. If we are to strengthen the worth of a ban and reduce negative activity on the wiki the rules on this must be more strict or a ban would lose that consequence. To give an example, let us say that I got banned for this scenario. I logically should not be able to interact with the wiki as a punishment for my negative actions, if I were still able to provide content to the wiki through the form of content revision would I really have been facing any real punishment? I moreso use the Fuji case as an example as while yes it has approval it is being used to show how these rules can be taken advantage of in order to get a desired outcome, as someone could leverage connections or shared discontent over a particular verse which over my nigh 6 years on the wiki I have sadly seen happen more times than I wished to.

Something I mentioned in a prior discussion on this front is that it may do well to relegate the approval of messages to a higher ranking staff member (administrator, or perhaps even bureaucrat if those with the title were to stay on the ball in regards to this added specialized task). Making it two administrators or higher would also cover these perceived exploits nicely- I think the exploits are exaggerated a bit, however.

I had actually thought of this before, it is a possible alternative I would be willing to agree with. The main issue I have with it however is the higher chance of personal bias that could affect the choices made on what to approve.

In light of these musings, I disagree with both methods as they are now. Five staff members is a psychotic amount of approval required to allow this sort of thing (we'd allow someone to impart controversial, wide-ranging changes to the site before allowing a banned member to post a single message? that's not right), and the first one seems to be geared towards silencing banned users completely- interpretations of that rule allow for banning users just communicating about arguments, and then having those arguments posted. I would consider this a downgrade to the rules as they are currently.

As stated before, the intent behind such a high requirement is to ensure the integrity of the post. If the message is truly helpful it should not have any issue being allowed however, I am willing to reduce it to 3 staff as was my original plan. We need not forget that banned users are serving out a punishment placed upon them by the wiki staff, if the user was simply banned for a period of time then they can simply wait out their ban period before posting their thread as was intended by placing such a time limit on the ban in the first place. As stated above the worth of a ban is only as heavy as the consequence it deals and thus if these are to have merit they must give these users who do not care about how they are acting a reason to cease their negative activity as with the current rulings it is only a matter of time before they will get taken advantage of through the weakness in its requirements.

What I think ought to be done is to disallow the practice of direct proxying completely, while making explicit mention of the distinction between proxying and advising/discussing/what have you. So long as that is kept distinct, I am satisfied.

That is an interesting thought, do you have any ideas on how this would be done and done in a way as to preserve the integrity of the post being made? If this could be done and done so in a way that does not allow a user to circumvent bans then this could work as possible alternative.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

At a certain point, we must imperfectly trust people to be unbiased in handling these cases. If one person can be biased, so too could two, three, or five. If they are a staff member, particularly a high ranking staff member, they have been entrusted to that position and the responsibilities, until such a time as they retire or, rarely, are forced out- perhaps due to no longer being deemed capable of meeting those trusted responsibilities.

By this measure, I find the idea of bias guiding banned users back into the wiki an unlikely thing to be an issue. If it is a notable concern for the lot of you, even if it isn't one I consider notable, I could see us creating a system to handle this, should we continue allowing proxies under our current rules; we could handle it like CRTs, with the option to vote against allowing a particular member.

Regarding the bit about five or three staff members, this seems uninformed. It is argued that a well intentioned post should have no difficulty receiving three staff approvals and yet most of the wiki has difficulty receiving three staff approvals on anything short of a policy revision like this. It's overturned compared to wiki norms.

As for your final paragraph, I would amend the rules to strictly ban proxying, clarify what proxying means, and provide an example to differentiate it from other activities such as just discussing things with a banned user off-site. That would be my ideal scenario, I think.

 

[JoshSSJGod]

At a certain point, we must imperfectly trust people to be unbiased in handling these cases. If one person can be biased, so too could two, three, or five. If they are a staff member, particularly a high ranking staff member, they have been entrusted to that position and the responsibilities, until such a time as they retire or, rarely, are forced out- perhaps due to no longer being deemed capable of meeting those trusted responsibilities.

Yes but as anyone who has done data management can tell you, getting the opinions of larger group of people lessens the overall bias regardless of what type of group it is. The staff are human after all, personal bias is a given. There would be a point where we would indeed have to trust imperfectly trust people but we have not that reached that point as of yet.

By this measure, I find the idea of bias guiding banned users back into the wiki an unlikely thing to be an issue. If it is a notable concern for the lot of you, even if it isn't one I consider notable, I could see us creating a system to handle this, should we continue allowing proxies under our current rules; we could handle it like CRTs, with the option to vote against allowing a particular member.

That could work but has issues of it rather slow or just never resolving like a CRT can. Through my nigh 6 years of the wiki I have seen the personal biases of many users on this sight influence their own choices which has happened to regular and staff users alike. I am capable naming examples but I am not sure if this thread is the right place for that.

Regarding the bit about five or three staff members, this seems uninformed. It is argued that a well intentioned post should have no difficulty receiving three staff approvals and yet most of the wiki has difficulty receiving three staff approvals on anything short of a policy revision like this. It's overturned compared to wiki norms.

I am again willing to reduce it to 3 staff approvals. I personally never had an issue getting over 3 before in my own CRT threads but that is at the end of the day my own perspective. 3 would have to be the minimum however any lower and the risks stated above take affect.

As for your final paragraph, I would amend the rules to strictly ban proxying, clarify what proxying means, and provide an example to differentiate it from other activities such as just discussing things with a banned user off-site. That would be my ideal scenario, I think.

I see, Method 1 can be easily rewritten to do this as it also is about strictly banning proxying as a whole. So it would only require some changes before fulfilling your ideal scenario.