Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.

[Planck69]

Put me in the Agree section. Same reasoning as Qawd.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Bambu kinda falls into the same camp as Grath I feel, agreeing with a ban on direct proxying but doesn't really vibe with either option. He said he wants it to be clearly defined what is allowed (discussing with banned users off-site) and what isn't (direct proxying), though if I got something wrong he can let me know ofc

This is correct. Even if we end up allowing proxying outright, we need to lay down what specifically our stances are. Every time we implement a rule, I tend to find the phrasing leads to fringe cases.

My vote is that direct proxying should not be allowed, but you can't ban people from discussing with banned individuals or having their opinions influenced by those discussions. If it is decided that proxying directly is permitted, then I suggest heavier punishments than usual for proxying and pushing things like insults from banned users onto the wiki. Those punishments would fall on the individual posting, not the banned individual they are posting for.

As I mentioned to you on dc, I'm overall neutral. I do not like being able to "bypass a ban", but on the other hand, I do see merit on letting accurate information come through, regardless of who it comes from. Though thinking more about it, wouldn't giving these users the opportunity to give their thoughts also serve as a way to gauge whether they have reformed? Part of our rules and why bans are temporal in the first place is to encourage users to change their behavior enough so that when they do comeback to the wiki they don't fall back to the behavior they exhibited before.

I do also think this is a novel idea, one I find agreeable. Proxying can be a gauge of how a banned user has improved: we process ban appeals fairly frequently, this may give us greater insight into that. It doesn't shift my opinion, but I think it is worth considering.

 

[Elizhaa]

I agree with method 1, from reasonings like Qawsedf234's.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems like we all need to find some kind of compromise solution here, as I and several other high-ranking staff members think that it would be unwise of us to completely ban occasionally gathering matter-of-fact, accurate, and valuable information that legitimately likely improves the quality of our wiki from banned members.

Would it be a sufficient compromise solution to allow comprehensive information-gathering from banned members, but disallow any personal comments from them in conjunction?

 

[CloverDragon03]

My main thing is that it's not as if this info is completely inaccessible without banned members, so I don't see the hassle

 

[Theglassman12]

Ant the vote count is currently 6-4, that gap only gets bigger if we include the other staff votes not on Admin and Bureaucrat level. The most we have to do in terms of compromise is elaborate on what counts or does not count for proxying. As for losing access to info, what part of this cannot be done by any other user on the wiki that aren't troublemakers? Anyone else can pick up the slack and work on verses or other wiki standards.

 

[Antvasima]

My main thing is that it's not as if this info is completely inaccessible without banned members, so I don't see the hassle

It is recurrently extremely impractical and improvements of reliability will never get done otherwise, so I am not budging regarding an issue that would actively harm our wiki in the long run.

Ant the vote count is currently 6-4, that gap only gets bigger if we include the other staff votes not on Admin and Bureaucrat level. The most we have to do in terms of compromise is elaborate on what counts or does not count for proxying. As for losing access to info, what part of this cannot be done by any other user on the wiki that aren't troublemakers? Anyone else can pick up the slack and work on verses or other wiki standards.

Given that the vote is split, with two bureaucrats, and two super moderators opposing this, and another super moderator apparently wanting a compromise solution, our only way out of this stalemate seem to be to either do nothing to our current rules or use my suggested compromise solution, which would retain the benefits and remove the negatives.

 

[Agnaa]

My main thing is that it's not as if this info is completely inaccessible without banned members, so I don't see the hassle

Ant the vote count is currently 6-4, that gap only gets bigger if we include the other staff votes not on Admin and Bureaucrat level. The most we have to do in terms of compromise is elaborate on what counts or does not count for proxying. As for losing access to info, what part of this cannot be done by any other user on the wiki that aren't troublemakers? Anyone else can pick up the slack and work on verses or other wiki standards.

Ant's suggestion there is in line with the OP, which is what people voted in agreement with.

The two methods proposed are "Ban direct proxying" and "Make direct proxying have even stricter requirements".

Ant's suggestion involves banning direct proxying, but allowing indirect methods, such as information gathering.

 

[Theglassman12]

Ant the vote isn't split, it's literally 6-4. Stop trying to twist this into it being even when it's not.

@Agnaa That doesn't really address how vague and exploitable the current system is and having it be more defined to know what counts for proxying would count.

 

[Antvasima]

Ant the vote isn't split, it's literally 6-4. Stop trying to twist this into it being even when it's not.

@Agnaa That doesn't really address how vague and exploitable the current system is and having it be more defined to know what counts for proxying would count.

Our highest ranked members either oppose this or want a compromise solution. Our safety praxis is to not allow any revisions to our rules unless there is a very strong majority for one side of the vote, so a compromise solution is necessary.

Please stop trying to mess up the rules for our wiki and community as a whole just because you don't want Fujiwara to be able to potentially help to initiate any valid rational downgrades to your favourite verse.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa That doesn't really address how vague and exploitable the current system is and having it be more defined to know what counts for proxying would count.

I mean, defining it more would say that "direct proxying" involves posting a banned user's arguments largely unedited (unless in the case of a ban appeal).

So if a banned user sends an on-site user arguments, they would need to put it into their own words before posting it.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Antvasima Do not twist this to being only about Fuji, that's blatant appeal to motive Ant and you're better than this. By that logic should I work with Mckmal despite all of the shit they've done in the past to cause drama on the site just because of a promise that they can make "rational downgrades" to anyone's favorite verse? I've also made it clear numerous times in the past that I don't give a shit if anyone makes downgrades for any verse I like, I have a problem when problematic users decide to bypass a ban despite given numerous chances to improve and they refuse to better themselves and be problematic.

@Agnaa Which hasn't been working whatsoever with what's been happening as of late when folks have just copy and paste their words with no effort to make it their own.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa Which hasn't been working whatsoever with what's been happening as of late when folks have just copy and paste their words with no effort to make it their own.

?????

I'm talking about proposed rules. By the current rules, copy-pasting is allowed.

I seriously don't understand why you'd say that.

Of course it hasn't been working! It's not the policy yet!

 

[Antvasima]

In your case this issue very blatantly seems to be about Fujiwara attempting to downgrade your favourite verse right before this thread was initiated, so I think that it would be dishonest of me to pretend that it isn't.

Anyway, my main interest and responsibility here is the wellbeing of our community as a whole, not statistics for individual verses, so allowing knowledgeable banned members to help with information gathering, but not to have their direct comments quoted here in our community seems like a completely harmless compromise solution that would only benefit the reliability of our wiki.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Agnaa Then I didn't exactly understood your original post, my bad then.

@Antvasima If that was the case then why haven't I reported literally anyone else who've attempted to downgrade any franchise I like? Saying I'm only motivated by Fuji is stupid when I was fine with Topaz at first making a downgrade so long as he didn't parrot a banned member and used his own words. Also your main interest and responsibility is the wellbeing of the commmunity? Ant you're the same person who's bringing up Fujiwara as an example of someone who can help the wellbeing of the community, the same person who told someone to kill themselves in the forums (one of the reasons they're banned from the site btw). What part of that is remotely helping the wellbeing of the community when you're allowing folks who harass others to have any say in the site at all? Again by that logic is Mckmal allowed to comment here again despite the constant **** spamming and staff slanders they've done in the past.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa Then I didn't exactly understood your original post, my bad then.

Yeah so hopefully this ends up being clear.

Ant's suggesting an implementation of the rule which, imo, isn't a compromise. It's just applying method 1. I don't think Ant's comments would even need the wording to be changed at all.

Really, I'd think the compromise would be method 2.

 

[Antvasima]

Yeah so hopefully this ends up being clear.

Ant's suggesting an implementation of the rule which, imo, isn't a compromise. It's just applying method 1. I don't think Ant's comments would even need the wording to be changed at all.

Really, I'd think the compromise would be method 2.

Please clarify and elaborate regarding what you mean more specifically. I thought that one side here wanted to disallow any revision information-gathering help from banned members at all.

I am personally fine with if they are not allowed to make any indirectly quoted personal comments here, and are just allowed to have their matter of fact revision information posted if it is well-considered.

 

[Agnaa]

Please clarify and elaborate regarding what you mean more specifically. I thought that one side here wanted to disallow any revision information-gathering help from banned members at all.

I am personally fine with if they are not allowed to make any indirectly quoted personal comments here, and are just allowed to have their matter of fact revision information posted if it is well-considered.

Referencing the OP's suggestions, method 1 would be to disallow direct-copying of things written by banned members, while method 2 would be to apply stricter requirements before things can be directly copied from banned members (requiring the approval of 5 staff members).

Rewording would be allowed either way.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima If that was the case then why haven't I reported literally anyone else who've attempted to downgrade any franchise I like?

Not reporting people who have not broken any rules does not seem to be relevant to the context here.

Saying I'm only motivated by Fuji is stupid when I was fine with Topaz at first making a downgrade so long as he didn't parrot a banned member and used his own words.

If that is accurate, you should not have a problem with my suggested compromise solution.

Also your main interest and responsibility is the wellbeing of the commmunity?

Yes, very much so, with a long history of a very large number of efforts in that regard.

Ant you're the same person who's bringing up Fujiwara as an example of someone who can help the wellbeing of the community

Not true. She is banned for good reasons, but seems to have a good ability to gather and analyse information, so if she simply helps with gathering relevant information that helps to improve the accuracy of our pages, with no personal comments allowed, I don't understand the problem here.

the same person who told someone to kill themselves in the forums (one of the reasons they're banned from the site btw). What part of that is remotely helping the wellbeing of the community when you're allowing folks who harass others to have any say in the site at all?

They are permanently banned, and should not be allowed to harrass others anymore, just to very occasionally help out with information-gathering.

Again by that logic is Mckmal allowed to comment here again despite the constant **** spamming and staff slanders they've done in the past.

Mckmal spammed me and others with many hundreds of murder, ****, pornography, and genocidal bigotry oriented posts for 2 to 3 years, and also helped to post over 500 thoroughly disgusting videos with our usernames in them to many "adult" websites. He was not ever able to contribute in any way whatsoever, and was actively severely breaking the law in the degree of his and Jirenchi's harrassment campaign.

They also went to extremes with vandalising our wiki and used hundreds of sockpuppet accounts.

 

[Antvasima]

Referencing the OP's suggestions, method 1 would be to disallow direct-copying of things written by banned members, while method 2 would be to apply stricter requirements before things can be directly copied from banned members (requiring the approval of 5 staff members).

Rewording would be allowed either way.

Hmm. Does that really directly match my suggested solution of allowing them to help with information-gathering, but not to directly quote them or insert their personal comments or attempts to communicate here? I think that 5 administrators or above seems like impractical overkill for example.

 

[Agnaa]

Hmm. Does that really directly match my suggested solution of allowing them to help with information-gathering, but not to directly quote them or insert their personal comments or attempts to communicate here? I think that 5 administrators or above seems like impractical overkill for example.

Yes, as if they're simply helping out and not being directly quoted, then they'd be allowed to contribute under all suggestions.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, as if they're simply helping out and not being directly quoted, then they'd be allowed to contribute under all suggestions.

Okay. So how do you think that I should adjust my suggestion then?

 

[Agnaa]

Okay. So how do you think that I should adjust my suggestion then?

I'm not sure what your goal is; it sounds like your preference is satisfied by any conclusion suggested in this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am fine with if our current rules are strictly adjusted in the manner that I stated. Any additional restrictions mentioned in the suggestions here seem like overkill to me.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Antvasima You're bringing up me trying to silence someone just because they make downgrades for franchises I like when I barely give a shit on if people make downgrade threads to my series. If I was trying to silence them like you claim I am then so many other folks that have made downgrades on series I like would've been silenced by me with your claim (which has never happened and I've always had full discussions with said users until we got to a middle ground or left it to staff members).

Your suggested compromise solution isn't that far off from what Bambu was proposing, which was clarifying what does and doesn't count as proxying, which he himself agrees that proxying in of itself shouldn't be allowed so Idk why we're even discussing this as a compromise when we're right now waiting for Option 1 to be better elaborated.

The problem is you're making permabans on users who've constantly been problematic to other folks on the site feels inconsequential, plus the folks who've had to deal with these users wouldn't remotely feel ok knowing that the folks who harassed them in the past is still lingering on the site having the rights to have comments be posted for them as if they're not banned at all.

So there is a line to who's allowed to come back via proxying then? Even under the pretense of them wanting to help better the wiki standards? Because if that's the case then I don't see the reason why we should treat other problematic users who were permabanned after numerous instances of trying to be better, only to double down on the behavior that got them banned in the first place. If this was a temporary banned member then it's one thing, but permabanned members were permabanned for a reason.

Either way that's the last of my comments here for the next couple days, gotta get ready for an exam so later.

 

[Vzearr]

The problem is you're making permabans on users who've constantly been problematic to other folks on the site feels inconsequential, plus the folks who've had to deal with these users wouldn't remotely feel ok knowing that the folks who harassed them in the past is still lingering on the site having the rights to have comments be posted for them as if they're not banned at all.

This is an appeal to emotion. Just because some users don't feel okay about folks who harassed them being able to influence the site doesn't make what the banned users are saying wrong, we strive for accuracy right? I don't think users are actually that affected by banned users influencing the sites information anyways, your statement is an assumption.

So there is a line to who's allowed to come back via proxying then? Even under the pretense of them wanting to help better the wiki standards? Because if that's the case then I don't see the reason why we should treat other problematic users who were permabanned after numerous instances of trying to be better, only to double down on the behavior that got them banned in the first place. If this was a temporary banned member then it's one thing, but permabanned members were permabanned for a reason.

They're permabanned for a reason yeah, but their permaban doesn't pertain to the information they perpetuate, it pertains to their behaviour on site.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima You're bringing up me trying to silence someone just because they make downgrades for franchises I like when I barely give a shit on if people make downgrade threads to my series. If I was trying to silence them like you claim I am then so many other folks that have made downgrades on series I like would've been silenced by me with your claim (which has never happened and I've always had full discussions with said users until we got to a middle ground or left it to staff members).

Okay. I apologise for finding your behaviour here very suspicious then.

Your suggested compromise solution isn't that far off from what Bambu was proposing, which was clarifying what does and doesn't count as proxying, which he himself agrees that proxying in of itself shouldn't be allowed so Idk why we're even discussing this as a compromise when we're right now waiting for Option 1 to be better elaborated.

The problem is you're making permabans on users who've constantly been problematic to other folks on the site feels inconsequential, plus the folks who've had to deal with these users wouldn't remotely feel ok knowing that the folks who harassed them in the past is still lingering on the site having the rights to have comments be posted for them as if they're not banned at all.

So there is a line to who's allowed to come back via proxying then? Even under the pretense of them wanting to help better the wiki standards? Because if that's the case then I don't see the reason why we should treat other problematic users who were permabanned after numerous instances of trying to be better, only to double down on the behavior that got them banned in the first place. If this was a temporary banned member then it's one thing, but permabanned members were permabanned for a reason.

Either way that's the last of my comments here for the next couple days, gotta get ready for an exam so later.

Again, what I approve of is strictly helping out with information-gathering for wiki improvement purposes, not indirectly making personal comments within this forum. I strongly doubt that Mckmal would be able to constructively gather information, and he broke the actual real world law hundreds of times, which I don't remember Fujiwara doing.

I also agree with what Vzearr last posted above.

 

[KLOL506]

I think we should determine what counts and doesn't count as information-gathering because right now I'm just seeing this term being thrown around with very vague meanings.

IMHO that should be limited solely to scan-gathering, like collecting comic book scans, video scans, video game scans, artbook and manual scans, novel chapter scans, so on and so forth, grabbing info from the source material itself and similar, nothing beyond this. The banned members should not be allowed to formulate arguments or CRTs with said scans or information, nor should their arguments be posted by anyone else in their stead, whether copy-pasted (Especially copy-pasted, that should just warrant a punishment on the spot) or just slightly tweaked with different words and grammar changes but not so much that you end up recognizing who originally made the argument in the first place. Constant back-and-forth should also not be allowed as that would defeat the purpose of the ban entirely.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that gathering information and discussing and analysing the information with others outside of our community should be allowed. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think Agnaa is making some fairly good middle ground compromises, but I think someone like AKM sama's input would be appreciated. Though I understand if he is unavailable.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think that gathering information and discussing and analysing the information with others outside of our community should be allowed. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a point.

I think this is fine, but I think no one should be allowed to just regurgitate their arguments (basically acting as a mouthpiece for them) as if they were never banned to begin with

 

[KLOL506]

I think this is fine, but I think no one should be allowed to just regurgitate their arguments (basically acting as a mouthpiece for them) as if they were never banned to begin with

This. We should also try to close all possible loopholes one might try to use and abuse this rule to circumvent bans, like say, someone pops up with a CRT that they claim is 100% original and not copied from someone else in order to avoid authorization from staff and so on and so forth (Assuming Method 2 is the chosen method and not Method 1). It should be a team effort, where the arguments aren't overwhelmingly from said banned user alone.

 

[CloverDragon03]

(Assuming Method 2 is the chosen method and not Method 1).

Okay tbf Method 1 is the runaway winner here

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think we should determine what counts and doesn't count as information-gathering because right now I'm just seeing this term being thrown around with very vague meanings.

IMHO that should be limited solely to scan-gathering, like collecting comic book scans, video scans, video game scans, artbook and manual scans, novel chapter scans, so on and so forth, grabbing info from the source material itself and similar, nothing beyond this. The banned members should not be allowed to formulate arguments or CRTs with said scans or information, nor should their arguments be posted by anyone else in their stead, whether copy-pasted (Especially copy-pasted, that should just warrant a punishment on the spot) or just slightly tweaked with different words and grammar changes but not so much that you end up recognizing who originally made the argument in the first place. Constant back-and-forth should also not be allowed as that would defeat the purpose of the ban entirely.

I disagree with this take. We can't tell banned members what they can or cannot do and we ought to take a very light approach to making demands of people off-site, banned or not. Aside from being nigh-impossible to police unless they themselves expose that they're doing it, who cares if a person is getting help looking through the scans themselves?

Like. Suppose you got scans from X banned member who happens to be super knowledgeable on a verse (just to throw an example out there, Elder Scrolls). The banned member has read the books and provides you with specific quotes that you ask for regarding some ability or another. This is all above board in your opinion, but the instant the banned member mentions their take, this is invalidated if you even remotely agree? That's madness, we can't make such microscopic demands that require huge alterations in behavior and information-absorbing. "Don't talk to banned members, they may say something and change your mind".

Either we allow people to speak with banned members or we don't, I think. The copy-pasting arguments thing seems fair since we at least have more ways of directly analyzing that, and it leads to greater conflict with the spirit of a ban.

 

[KLOL506]

Your opinions regarding this matter are duly noted.

 

[Antvasima]

Bambu's latest post also makes perfectly good sense, and I agree with it.

 

[Agnaa]

I think we should determine what counts and doesn't count as information-gathering because right now I'm just seeing this term being thrown around with very vague meanings.

IMHO that should be limited solely to scan-gathering, like collecting comic book scans, video scans, video game scans, artbook and manual scans, novel chapter scans, so on and so forth, grabbing info from the source material itself and similar, nothing beyond this. The banned members should not be allowed to formulate arguments or CRTs with said scans or information, nor should their arguments be posted by anyone else in their stead, whether copy-pasted (Especially copy-pasted, that should just warrant a punishment on the spot) or just slightly tweaked with different words and grammar changes but not so much that you end up recognizing who originally made the argument in the first place. Constant back-and-forth should also not be allowed as that would defeat the purpose of the ban entirely.

I think this is fine, but I think no one should be allowed to just regurgitate their arguments (basically acting as a mouthpiece for them) as if they were never banned to begin with

You can have those views, but that's simply not what was voted on.

I guess you can try pinging the staff members that voted for method 1, to see if they'd agree with this even more extreme option.

But outside of that, I think we could just resolve it by applying method 1; since it kinda seems like Ant's opposition to that was due to a misunderstanding, which would put the votes at 7-3 with 1 bureau and 1 super mod in each of those camps.

 

[Antvasima]

You can have those views, but that's simply not what was voted on.

I guess you can try pinging the staff members that voted for method 1, to see if they'd agree with this even more extreme option.

But outside of that, I think we could just resolve it by applying method 1; since it kinda seems like Ant's opposition to that was due to a misunderstanding, which would put the votes at 7-3 with 1 bureau and 1 super mod in each of those camps.

Please explain what exactly that would be applied with method 1.

I think that I suggested my own quite straightforward compromise solution here, and don't want to dragged into any applications beyond that.

 

[Agnaa]

The current rule regarding proxying is this:

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.

Method 1 would involve changing it to this:

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.

In short, "proxying" is defined as posting messages directly written in large part by a blocked user, without substantial input from the unblocked user. This act is defined to be prohibited, with the banned user and the person enabling the proxying both being punished.

 

[Antvasima]

That doesn't sound like what I suggested.

I strictly suggested an in my mind rather sensible and straightforward compromise solution, according to which knowledgeable banned members are still allowed to help unbanned members with gathering and analysing evidence outside of our community, after which the results can be posted here, but not in a manner that allows the banned members to indirectly communicate with our community through their own comments, personal opinions, any agitation, or similar, just help unbanned members with gathering and analysing information outside of our forum and wiki, to be used for suggested matter of fact revisions within our wiki, and that's it.