Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.

[Agnaa]

The only difference I see between those is different framing. "You're not allowed to do X" vs "You're only allowed to do it if it's not X". Glass half full vs glass half empty.

 

[Antvasima]

Being allowed to help with preparing matter of fact information for revisions outside of our community, but not inserting personal comments and communication into it, still does not sound like what was being suggested in any of the initial options here as I perceive it, so the new rule text would have to be adjusted accordingly for me to be willing to accept it.

 

[KLOL506]

@Dereck03 @Celestial_Pegasus @GyroNutz @Andytrenom @LordGriffin1000 @Abstractions @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Firestorm808 @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Just_a_Random_Butler @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality Your input here would be appreciated, you are the only admins left now to vote from what I checked (ByAsura and Everything12 retired).

 

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have responded to this thread so far? I need to ask them if they find my suggested compromise solution here acceptable, in lack of better options.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I generally agree with your compromise, although the specific wording can have a great deal of impact on my stance. For example, you have repeatedly emphasized "knowledgeable"; is this a status you would want to have overseen by the staff, so that people deemed unknowledgeable would not be permitted to communicate with editors on our wiki? Or, rather, is that just to emphasize that the rule is put in place to allow collaboration?

On a basic level I agree with your suggestions. I'll withhold my vote for now to see the actual written word of the rule proposed.

 

[Antvasima]

I generally agree with your compromise, although the specific wording can have a great deal of impact on my stance. For example, you have repeatedly emphasized "knowledgeable"; is this a status you would want to have overseen by the staff, so that people deemed unknowledgeable would not be permitted to communicate with editors on our wiki? Or, rather, is that just to emphasize that the rule is put in place to allow collaboration?

We have no authoritarian control over who unknowledgeable editors communicate with outside of our wiki, and I simply mean that our rules should allow for constructive well-informed revisions, even if banned members helped out with crafting them offline, as long as they are not allowed to indirectly comment or communicate with our community.

On a basic level I agree with your suggestions. I'll withhold my vote for now to see the actual written word of the rule proposed.

I have very limited time available, but would appreciate if somebody is willing to help out by writing a draft text. I can slightly clean up the wording afterwards if necessary.

 

[KLOL506]

Which staff members have responded to this thread so far? I need to ask them if they find my suggested compromise solution here acceptable, in lack of better options.

Here is the vote count.

Also, if I may, Method 2 in the OP clearly states the following:

"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."

Which your proposal seems to align with, minus the "number of staff required to approve", which you think should be lower, and the CRT section, which you think all threads should apply.

Overall, I still agree with Clover's suggestion posted here, but right now the votes seem heavily lopsided for Method 1. Please do not try to invalidate them or their point of view.

 

[Antvasima]

My suggestion still does not align with option 2, which is considerably too harshly worded for my taste. I suggested a middle-of-the-road solution, given that nothing will happen here otherwise.

 

[KLOL506]

My suggestion still does not align with option 2, which is considerably too harshly worded for my taste. I suggested a middle-of-the-road solution, given that nothing will happen here otherwise.

Your suggestion does nothing to actually discourage banned members from further breaking the rules or improve themselves, it only encourages them to engage in such behavior even more. The rules need to be strict to actually make them think twice before they go about proxying, or else the severity of the ban loses its meaning. If we really want them to contribute, then we should instead force them to change themselves and their behavior for the sake of the wiki so that in the future they can make a wholehearted appeal to return back to the wiki and contribute as normal (Ignoring highly-problematic individuals with multiple counts of toxic behavior and disruption of the wiki's wellbeing showing little to no signs of change, and literal criminals, of course).

In any case, regardless of the solution picked, Method 1, 2 (Or even a less strict version of it) or yours, the problem of members still trying to use loopholes to bypass staff approval and pretend that they made the thread all by themselves still exist, and many could even pretend that they didn't know about the new rules set in place. This still needs to be addressed and stopped regardless of what method we go with here.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu

Is this a good draft for a new rule text? I am very open for suggested changes in the wording, and am not sure if it should be necessary with two administrators or bureaucrats to verify such revisions to be posted beforehand.

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes banned members sending unbanned members their arguments to secretly post in our forum on their behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of their punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed their arguments. However, knowledgeable banned members are still allowed to help unbanned members with gathering and analysing evidence outside of our community as a collaborative effort, after which the results can be posted in our forum, 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 strictly be used for suggested matter of fact constructive revisions within our wiki. The unbanned members who post such revisions should also openly admit if banned members helped them out, and the suggested revisions need to be verified to be publicly posted by a combination of two bureaucrats or administrators from our wiki beforehand."

 

[KLOL506]

I think it should also be emphasized that these findings should be a team effort, and the banned member should not have an enormous amount of influence in these dealings.

 

[Antvasima]

I have added that clarification.

 

[Agnaa]

Your suggestion does nothing to actually discourage banned members from further breaking the rules or improve themselves, it only encourages them to engage in such behavior even more. The rules need to be strict to actually make them think twice before they go about proxying, or else the severity of the ban loses its meaning. If we really want them to contribute, then we should instead force them to change themselves and their behavior for the sake of the wiki so that in the future they can make a wholehearted appeal to return back to the wiki and contribute as normal (Ignoring highly-problematic individuals with multiple counts of toxic behavior and disruption of the wiki's wellbeing showing little to no signs of change, and literal criminals, of course).

In any case, regardless of the solution picked, Method 1, 2 (Or even a less strict version of it) or yours, the problem of members still trying to use loopholes to bypass staff approval and pretend that they made the thread all by themselves still exist, and many could even pretend that they didn't know about the new rules set in place. This still needs to be addressed and stopped regardless of what method we go with here.

I find it astonishing that you're talking about Ant looking for loopholes to bypass staff approval, while you're pushing for something which literally 0 staff members with evaluation rights on this have accepted ("forcing people to change themselves and their behaviour" before they can proxy).

@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu

Is this a good draft for a new rule text? I am very open for suggested changes in the wording, and am not sure if it should be necessary with two administrators or bureaucrats to verify such revisions to be posted beforehand.

"Using other members to circumvent bans or topic bans is prohibited. This includes banned members sending unbanned members their arguments to secretly post in our forum on their behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of their punishment, and a punishment may also be applied to that proxy member(s) who conveyed their arguments. However, knowledgeable banned members are still allowed to help unbanned members with gathering and analysing evidence outside of our community as a team effort, after which the results can be posted in our forum, 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 strictly be used for suggested matter of fact constructive revisions within our wiki. The unbanned members who post such revisions should also openly admit if banned members helped them out, and the suggested revisions need to be verified to be publicly posted by a combination of two bureaucrats or/and administrators from our wiki beforehand."

idk how much I can help, I'm just finding this thread frustrating at this point.

All I can do is keep repeating:

• Your earlier suggested rules were exactly as strict as Method 1 was, which was the most restrictive option that was voted on.
• This current suggested rule is even stricter than Method 1 was.

However, you don't seem to believe me when I say this, and literally no-one that has voted on this thread is meaningfully commenting about that.

KLOL and Glassman keep pushing for something even more extreme than that, despite the lack of support, while they hypocritically complain about you pushing for this thing without support.

While Bambu, DDM, Clover, and Vzearr, despite commenting, haven't commented on this stuff I've brought up.

Any further attempts I've tried typing to elaborate just get me more heated.

@GrathOfLux @Qawsedf234 @Damage3245 @Planck69 @Elizhaa @LephyrTheRevanchist @DontTalkDT Please, any of you, come back to this thread and evaluate what's occurring.

 

[Antvasima]

I am very open for you or Bambu or DontTalk writing a revised less extreme version of my suggested wording if you wish.

 

[Antvasima]

Basically, I have no illusions regarding that I may have messed up here, but you need to present an alternative.

 

[Antvasima]

I am very open for you or Bambu or DontTalk writing a revised less extreme version of my suggested wording if you wish.

Basically, I have no illusions regarding that I may have messed up here, but you need to present an alternative.

@Agnaa @Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT

 

[Crabwhale]

I have been awoken from my antedilluvian slumber to comment here.

I do agree that the influence of banned users on the wiki should be as limited as can be practically achievable. They did, after all, break the social contract we all agree to when joining and continuing to interact with this wiki, of their own free will.

However while bad user remains bad, that also means good argument remains good. Information shouldn't be disregarded simply because it comes from a morally compromised source, whether it's new info altogether or old info that has been overlooked for whatever reason. There are some exceptions to this neutrality, but I'll get to that in a bit.

I do not agree that users should be allowed to Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V arguments. I'd say just in general that's a lazy practice, and when it comes from a user on behalf of a banned member, is skirting the line of minor ban circumvention. Besides, if an argument or piece of info holds water, it should be good enough to be replicated and presented in the same spirit by others.

I do think jumping the gun to a multiple staff approval requirement and outright removal of any take originating from the banned community of this site is a bit of a nuclear option, concurrently. It's rather too drastic a measure in my personal opinion, and that's not to mention the practical limitations of enforcing it (at what point can you no longer tell if someone is proxying, how would people get the proposed number of 3/5 members when even large revisions have trouble attracting that sometimes, etc).

The exception I mentioned earlier being users that are known for being categorically untrustworthy, possibly even resulting in or contributing to their ban. Premier example to mention here being Weekly, rather infamous as you all know for, pardon my language, making shit up all the time. I do not think users such as this should be allowed their say if at all possible. Sure, they can't be wrong/biased ALL the time, even a broken clock being right twice a day and such. However, if their behavior consistently made them an unreliable source while they were still here, I think that's more than enough to assume they will continue to be unrealiable, and thus it is fair to metaphorically chuck the broken clock out the window.

For users who otherwise contributed generally good revisions with a decent passing rate though, and were instead banned for behavioral problems, I see no reason why they should be entirely expunged as a source of information on the wiki. So long as the arguments are restructured/explained by the party that presents them in a way that makes it evident they understand what they're talking about, and so long as transparency is maintained, I really don't care where it's coming from.

If it's accurate, it's accurate. Doesn't matter who said/wrote it, or if you don't like it.

I don't know how exactly my take fits into the ones established here. My two cents are basically just don't be a parrot, and if you're unsure, ask an admin, maybe two.

Anyway, I also felt like replying to two other things.

By that logic it's no different than letting someone like Mckmal back in the wiki at the off chance they might be better at the wiki, and only go back to their old habits that got them permabanned in the first place.

Mickie Mal is the worst possible example you could have used here. He contributed nothing of substance to the wiki even unbanned and engaged in a multi-year harassment campaign against dozens of people. He's about a galaxy removed from anyone we could remotely, reasonably allow input from.

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

Disregarding the fact that I disagree with this take, this is completely impossible to enforce by definition. If they're changing it enough to where you can't tell, how are you supposed to tell? And moreover, does that argument even remain tainted?

How are you to determine that? Is any concrete position untenable if it has been previously espoused by a banned user who has or had contact with somebody else that shares it? It makes no sense.

 

[Agnaa]

I am very open for you or Bambu or DontTalk writing a revised less extreme version of my suggested wording if you wish.

The wording provided in the OP is fine and does exactly what you said.

"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."

It only allows people to relay ideas on a banned user's behalf if the message being posted wasn't largely written by that banned user.

Since I don't understand your issue with that wording (aside from, you seem to think it bans all help from banned users even though it explicitly says it doesn't?????), I cannot say how to change it.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The only difference I see between those is different framing. "You're not allowed to do X" vs "You're only allowed to do it if it's not X". Glass half full vs glass half empty.

To speak on your interpretation. There's at least one notable subtle difference between Ant's position and Method 1, that being that he doesn't really seem to care who wrote a given chunk of text, provided that it is absent of personal commentary.

At this point I am overeager for a conclusion, and will accept not piddling about in the minutiae to achieve it. I think banned users ought to not be permitted to interface with the site; I think Ant's position does a better job of reaching that ideal than Method 1, as it better allows us to benefit from people still wanting to contribute, if we'd have them.

I don't think I'm the guy to rewrite whatever the proposal, but I will if nobody else will.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I was asked to take another look at this. I mostly agree with what Crabwhale has said on the topic.

I don't really understand why this topic has drifted towards restrictions on information gathering: not only do I think there's no good reason to enforce that and that it would pragmatically be a headache to do so, but importantly, I don't think the OP of this thread was ever alluding to this with either method they suggested. Certainly, I wouldn't claim that's what I was supporting when I previously commented on the matter. Outside of particular niche circumstances (like, say, in incidences of serious cybercrime), it's not our business whether a user is in contact with someone who is banned on the website.

I just think that the alternatives to disallowing direct proxying - the act of copying and pasting comments directly from a banned user, to make it as clear as possible - are difficult to argue for. I don't see it as practical at all to enstate an elaborate bureaucratic process to determine if a proxied message should be allowed when that time and resource expenditure could be spent instead on putting the same point in the user's own words. Nor do I think it's particularly appropriate if the input of a single staff member, regardless of the banned user in question, their actions and behaviour, and the staff member's knowledge of that banned user's history, is enough to allow that banned user to interact on the website again. Crabwhale highlighted actual examples where the finer details regarding individual users, of which not necessarily every staff member would or could be made aware of, would impact what we would think of allowing them to post on the site. It's not the same as simply unbanning them, I recognise that - there are practical differences between how a person can interact on the website through a proxy and how they can interact through their own account - but there are reasons why we might not want to enable a user to interact with the website even to that extent that can be done through the current process.

So those remain my thoughts on the matter. Like with what I was worried about in the proposal to sexual content changes I made a while back, this is a discussion that has clearly been marred by spite towards the particular user who triggered the start of the talk. I'll keep up with it because I recognise I'm partially responsible for the topic at hand, but I would rather not comment further unless a specific proposal needs input. If you can do anything for me in your interpretation of these thoughts and others, please think about this not in terms of what you would like to do to Fujiwara, but towards what you would accept doing for all our users if you wanted to see them well.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that Crabwhale made largely good points here. Basically, somebody needs to write a rule text, preferably one better than my initial draft, that allows banned members who were banned for other reasons than falsifying information, to continue to help out with information gathering and analysis outside of our community, after which the final results can then be posted here, as long as their personal irrelevant off-topic comments and provocations are not allowed to be included.

I do not think that the rule text that Agnaa posted seems to sufficiently clearly clarify that part, but I may very well have become confused regarding this thread's purpose due to a few staff members later very actively pushing for absolute bans of any help or interaction whatsoever from absolutely all banned members, no matter what they were banned for, which I personally find sweepingly harmful to the proper functioning of our community, regardless how much they may or may not dislike Fujiwara.

 

[Agnaa]

I see.

So you're fine with text being largely written by banned members, as long as any off-topic comments and provocations are removed.

That would indeed need different wording. And I'm not sure how much of a compromise it would be seen as.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, that is correct. As long as it is just matter of fact rational and reliable information partially or largely from banned members who do not have a history of falsifying information, it seems perfectly fine.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I can't really get behind that. Obviously discussing information with them off-site and such should be perfectly fine (to begin with, a ban on that couldn't even be realistically enforced, not to mention how ridiculous such a ban would be on simple communication), but this approach suggests that we're keeping direct proxying which defeats the purpose of a ban imo

I think most of the admins that have commented here have been against direct proxying

 

[Antvasima]

It isn't direct proxying...

 

[Agnaa]

I think it is fair to say that allowing a large portion of text written by a banned member would be allowing direct proxying. Definitions are arbitrary, but I think that's a decent definition.

 

[Antvasima]

We would only be allowing them to help with information gathering and analysis outside of our community, in cases when they do not have a history of misinformation, not any personal communication within it, which seems like a quite common sense practical and balanced solution to me, so I do not really understand the problem here.

Also, in order to hopefully eventually make progress here, should we restrict this discussion to administrators and bureaucrats only? They are the ones with votes regarding the outcome, and there seems to have been too much disruption here.

 

[Agnaa]

I do support that, and think your suggestion is a step towards some middleground.

Maybe we could ping other staff members that agreed with method 1/2 to see their thoughts?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will do so then.

I also think that Crabwhale made largely good points here. Basically, somebody needs to write a rule text, preferably one better than my initial draft, that allows banned members who were banned for other reasons than falsifying information, to continue to help out with information gathering and analysis outside of our community, after which the final results can then be posted here, as long as their personal irrelevant off-topic comments and provocations are not allowed to be included.

I do not think that the rule text that Agnaa posted seems to sufficiently clearly clarify that part, but I may very well have become confused regarding this thread's purpose due to a few staff members later very actively pushing for absolute bans of any help or interaction whatsoever from absolutely all banned members, no matter what they were banned for, which I personally find sweepingly harmful to the proper functioning of our community, regardless how much they may or may not dislike Fujiwara.

Yes, that is correct. As long as it is just matter of fact rational and reliable information partially or largely from banned members who do not have a history of falsifying information, it seems perfectly fine.

We would only be allowing them to help with information gathering and analysis outside of our community, in cases when they do not have a history of misinformation, not any personal communication within it, which seems like a quite common sense practical and balanced solution to me, so I do not really understand the problem here.

@Mr. Bambu @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @GrathOfLux @Crabwhale @Planck69 @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @LephyrTheRevanchist @Damage3245

Do you agree with Agnaa regarding that my suggested compromise solution seems acceptable? And if so, is somebody please willing to write up a draft for a rule text?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

As I mentioned on my first comment, I see the merit with allowing accurate information to come through, regardless who it comes from. So I suppose the recent proposal would be fine enough (I don't feel strongly either way, which is why I remained neutral initially).

 

[Agnaa]

I think I'd highlight the step of only allowing those if off-topic comments and provocations are removed.

Since that's the main difference between this and the prior disagreement side's suggestion.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

While it is not my ideal (I have mentioned my ideal already, I don't feel the need to go over that again), I will accept this compromise. As I've said, a substantial element of my issue is with those personal comments; as the current proposal is strongly against those, I'll take it.

 

[Damage3245]

I can be fine with that.

 

[Elizhaa]

I am fine with the compromise solution.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm fine with that.

 

[CloverDragon03]

We would only be allowing them to help with information gathering and analysis outside of our community

I would support this, yes. Basically, as long as large chunks or god forbid the whole thread isn't just taken from them and it's actually made by a not banned user who is just using information that the banned user got (and forming their own arguments basically), then I'm satisfied

 

[Agnaa]

I would support this, yes. Basically, as long as large chunks or god forbid the whole thread isn't just taken from them and it's actually made by a not banned user who is just using information that the banned user got (and forming their own arguments basically), then I'm satisfied

Not exactly.

While their functional contribution would be information gathering and analysis.

Ant's suggestion would not forbid posts written in large part by banned users, as long as off-topic comments and provocations aren't included.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Not exactly.

While their functional contribution would be information gathering and analysis.

Ant's suggestion would not forbid posts written in large part by banned users, as long as off-topic comments and provocations aren't included.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that

 

[KLOL506]

Not exactly.

While their functional contribution would be information gathering and analysis.

Ant's suggestion would not forbid posts written in large part by banned users, as long as off-topic comments and provocations aren't included.

Then it defeats the purpose of us wanting to ban direct proxying and it effectively defeats the purpose of a ban to begin with. The idea is to ensure that the entire post or thread isn't a complete or near-copypaste of the banned member's post, to ensure that the ban actually carries its weight, and Ant's prior compromise solution based on mine and Clover's suggestions addressed this perfectly, emphasizing teamwork and originality over mere copy-pasting, which you wrongly claimed to be even more strict than what OP initially implied (If anything it's even more lax than Method 2 as it allows contribution by banned members as long as their argumentations don't exceed that of their peers involved in said contributions and remains on par).

 

[Antvasima]

Look. If banned members who do not have a history of misinformation are allowed to help with gathering and analysing information, it doesn't make a difference if they are allowed to help compile it into a coherent matter of fact text without any personal comments. It seems pointless to add an arbitrary extra step of vainly attempting to force unbanned members to then completely rewrite it in their own words, which we cannot verify anyway.

In any case, it seems like my compromise solution has been accepted, but we still need a draft text for our modified rules regarding this issue.