Banned Users Using Proxies

[Mr. Bambu]

It has come to my attention that certain banned users resort to posting their opinions offsite and using proxy users to post them onsite. In my opinion, this is in violation of their ban and, to put it as another user did, just sockpuppeting with extra steps. So I feel a discussion should be had. Should we introduce policies discouraging this sort of behavior? Some examples of punishments I've thought up off the cuff are below, other examples are of course welcome.

• Extending the ban of the user
• Warnings for proxy users, followed by appropriate actions for ignored warnings
• Topic bans for the banned user when they return (extends to Proxies used)

Please, discuss.

EDIT: I would like to note something, since I'm not particularly gifted in my ability to word things right. What I want is a rule that can be used to prevent banned users from circumventing their ban via using another user to post their exact words to the site. I am aware that some situations would be considered exceptions, and I am absolutely okay with that- but a rule should exist for situations that are not exceptions. As it is, we cannot take any action against a ban evasion of this sort, and it is my opinion that this urgently needs fixed.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I feel like that any banned users who has any quick, valid, and helpful things to post through another member should be fine to an extent.

But doing any full-on debates off-site past that is definitely a big no-no. This all should be judged on a case-by-case scenario, but in general, most anything like this should be disallowed and any banned users who try to puppeteer their way into discussions like this should be punished accordingly.

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

I'm not staff, but I have been around long enough on this site to hopefully speak on this. In addition, I believe I know precisely what you're speaking of in regards to proxies and banned users. Or at least a very specific case.

I agree with extending the ban of the user, possibly even making it permanent as per sockpuppet rules. As you stated, this is sockpuppeting with extra steps and shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances. A banned user should have limited to no presence on the site for the duration of their ban. Simple as that. They're banned, not put into timeout for an hour.

If by chance the proxies are found out, they should be subject to punishment themselves. Topic bans, demotion, etc. As the user has effectively show either complacency or agreement in breaking the sites rules, and effectively allowed another user to use their account as a sockpuppet.

I also agree with topic banning the banned user should they return. However, I'm personally against a user who would do such being allowed back.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Probably a bout of irony for me of all people to be saying this, but I personally this is a bit of a gray area where formulating a specific, all-enclosing set of punishments is difficult.

We don't exactly apply bans to users in order to prevent them from making arguments, after all, but to keep whatever toxic, rule-breaking behavior they exhibit out of the wiki. From a debating-exclusive standpoint, acting as a mouthpiece doesn't inherently perpetuate the behavior that got the original user banned to begin with, since arguments by themselves are obviously neutral, and independent of who exactly is formulating them. Especially so if the circumstances of the ban were unrelated to their participation on threads (Again, from a debating-exclusive standpoint.)

Sockpuppeting is another can of worms entirely, in my view, because it does allow the root of the problem to come back into the wiki, and thus cause a repeat of whatever debacle led to the original ban. Although, obviously, if the proxy user is causing the same problems that the original used did, then we have an obvious problem.

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

I'd say that when you're banned, you shouldn't be allowed to just have someone do your arguing for you. With your words too.

You're banned. You're punished for a bad action. You shouldn't be getting away with having other people just say what you would be saying anyways.

I can understand why banning isn't necessarily to keep people from debating. But this also comes down to a matter of rule enforcement. If someone breaks the rules, they're warned. They keep breaking them, or break a major rule, they're kicked off of the wiki for a set period of time.

Those are the rules. Allowing one to sidestep a ban on technicalities is ridiculous.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There is no rule against sharing conversations or input from banned users, but the main rule is make sure the offsite user is legit trying to be contributive and is providing a combination of valuable input and evidence of their claims. Of course, do not post comments and stuff that basically remind us why they got banned in the 1st place. For example, people like certain former staff who were banned for some things that happen but no one is giving them a platform to repeat those mistakes are fair game. But obvious trolls who were banned for abusing hundreds of socks and some people just blindly copy/paste everything they say on Discord including hostile dialogue in the like should not be allowed. And closing threads just because offsite users are working on revisions are also a can of worms and we aren't going to be holding back threads just for the sake of an offsite user.

In other words, judge offsite conversations based on the content of the posts and/or screenshots rather than who they came from.

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

If there is no rule against this, I advise we make one.

Toxic behavior need not be merely insults. Stonewalling or other issues do not need a user to directly contribute.

And regardless of any of this, a ban is not something you are able to selectively choose to obey. You are banned, and you have lost your ability to comment on the wiki because of your bad actions. That is that.

You can appeal your ban if you wish to come back earlier. But using a proxy is only mildly different from making a sockpuppet. If we do not enforce our own punishments, then why enforce our own rules?

 

[Theglassman12]

Anyone that tries to get by a ban by letting someone else speak their words I agree is a no no. As for the proxies it depends on the context, if they didn't know any better then I'd say a warning is fine, but if they're aware of what they were doing and still let themselves be a spokesperson, then a temporary ban should be in order.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

The obvious problem here is that there's no way to know when someone is arguing in proxy of someone or if the arguments they bring are their genuine ones, unless they state they are acting a proxy. Specially impossible to know that if the person is giving arguments through DMs.

There's also the grey areas to consider. Does a banned user adding to an argument by someone else count as proxying? Is them swaying their opinion off site mid debate worthy of extending a ban? Should we punish people on-site who genuinely agree with what a banned person is saying? What about people not even on the wiki?

I don't think doing a blanket rule or punishment for people arguing with or for people off-site is a good idea. Lot of nuance is lost if it's done.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

These are our current rules for off-site behavior.

• Off-site behavior is usually irrelevant except in cases of:
  • Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself.
  • Threatening someone off-site, be it a threat of violence, hacking, doxxing, sexual harassment, etc.
  • Harassment of users in their immediate surrounding (ex. Someone constantly messaging you with insulting comments via DMs or PMs)
  • Engaging in online criminal activity (Not including piracy).
  • Impersonating someone for malicious purposes.
• We expect a certain standard of behavior from our staff, both within and outside of the site itself, and involving oneself in the harassment of our userbase, extreme hate speech, or advocating genuine bigotry is unacceptable conduct and may lead to demotion. We can take such action against our staff members if they clearly link their behavior outside of the site to the wiki by using the same account or linking to one platform from the other. Take note that less severe off-site cases, such as simply making jokes in poor taste, citing statistics, or using slurs offhand aren't an issue in itself and won't be covered under this rule. Bureaucrats and Human Resources group members can use their discretion when dealing with borderline or uncertain cases.

Anyway, a couple Bureaucrats and HR Group members also said they didn't want to go too far when it comes to talking to banned users; and even they openly admit we might as well demote/ban half of our staff including current Bureaucrats and HR group members if a simply "Sharing conversations from a banned user" at all is a rule violation. Some people are banned from misunderstood contexts and they should be allowed to a chance appeal their ban if that is the case. And others are more so banned out of personal requests or being mentally insecure to the point of being out of control as opposed to legit malice. Also, a person having a malicious personality in itself doesn't mean they're incapable of giving input on threads. Anyway, the site is intended to be a mostly open platform where freedom of speech and open-mindedness are important. Shutting out everyone who's banned period over everything period goes into echo chamber territory as others have pointed out.

So it's more so a morally grey area as Ultima and Crimson laid out. Basically giving honest opinions or providing scans that came to you out of curiosity is by no means rule violation. Spamming threads or making inflammatory posts left and right are different rule violations altogether as are making socks to get around a ban especially. And making multiple accounts just to pretend to be multiple people is also a serious violation as it's an act of deception; which is also something people have been getting away with for years. And it's especially hard to track those people given existence of VPNs and multiple Email Addresses. But there's nothing wrong when a good natured user just so happens to be shared a scan offsite, and happens to be from a banned user. All potential scans shouldn't just be shut down solely because it was a banned user who found it. As the most important thing for any content revision is finding the objectively factual evidence and reaching the most reasonable conclusion. Not to close all doors and create an echo chamber

 

[Mr. Bambu]

You seem to be mistaken. This conversation is not about conversing with banned users. This conversation is about using one's account to post for a banned user, thus sidestepping their ban without actually making a sockpuppet. Crimson is correct in that rules would be hard to enforce- however, a rule should still be had, so we may have something to cite when it does need enforcing.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

Wouldn't stuff be basically the same as taking arguments they give you, though? Or do you just mean someone copypasting an argument word by word?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I'm unsure what you mean by the former, the latter is absolutely an issue in my book, yes.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Is there much more we can do past giving a warning to the person being a proxy to not do such and extending a ban? I think those really are the only things we're capable of. Though, how long would we extend a ban for? Would it be based on what they did to get banned + what they attempted through a proxy? Would we auto extend the ban or warn the banned user to stop & wait out/appeal their ban and extend it if they continue?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Is there much more we can do past giving a warning to the person being a proxy to not do such and extending a ban? I think those really are the only things we're capable of. Though, how long would we extend a ban for? Would it be based on what they did to get banned + what they attempted through a proxy? Would we auto extend the ban or warn the banned user to stop & wait out/appeal their ban and extend it if they continue?

Ignoring warnings is grounds for a ban. Topic bans would be applicable in situations where a user was banned for issues revolving around a singular verse (or small group of verses)- we could simply block them and their proxies from appearing in such threads. I think it would ultimately be discussed in the RvR each time- this thread's intent is simply to make it known that these are offenses that can be punished.

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like that any banned users who has any quick, valid, and helpful things to post through another member should be fine to an extent.

But doing any full-on debates off-site past that is definitely a big no-no. This all should be judged on a case-by-case scenario, but in general, most anything like this should be disallowed and any banned users who try to puppeteer their way into discussions like this should be punished accordingly.

This seems like a balanced approach to me.

However, we obviously cannot apply punishments retroactively for this.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Of course.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Alright, no discussion has been had, so I'll make a proposition I think covers people's concerns. Mind you, much like any rule, specific action being taken would be discussed on a case-by-case basis in our Rules Violation Reports thread.

• Using other users to circumvent bans or topic bans is strongly prohibited. This includes sending unblocked users arguments to post onto the forum on your behalf. Doing so may lead to an extension of your punishment and that punishment being extended to proxy users. Exceptions may be given to genuinely helpful users- this will be considered before any action is taken.

If anybody has adjustments, do mention them- I've mentioned before I don't really have a way with words, so I expect there can be issues of clarity and such.

 

[Theglassman12]

That looks fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that we should ban members who are just trying to be nice and help out by posting a few useful arguments for others.

 

[AKM sama]

Probably a bout of irony for me of all people to be saying this, but I personally this is a bit of a gray area where formulating a specific, all-enclosing set of punishments is difficult.

We don't exactly apply bans to users in order to prevent them from making arguments, after all, but to keep whatever toxic, rule-breaking behavior they exhibit out of the wiki. From a debating-exclusive standpoint, acting as a mouthpiece doesn't inherently perpetuate the behavior that got the original user banned to begin with, since arguments by themselves are obviously neutral, and independent of who exactly is formulating them. Especially so if the circumstances of the ban were unrelated to their participation on threads (Again, from a debating-exclusive standpoint.)

Sockpuppeting is another can of worms entirely, in my view, because it does allow the root of the problem to come back into the wiki, and thus cause a repeat of whatever debacle led to the original ban. Although, obviously, if the proxy user is causing the same problems that the original used did, then we have an obvious problem.

I agree with this take.

A user can be banned for behavioral reasons. The arguments are still neutral. I am pretty sure banned users like Everlasting, Aeyu, Fan, etc. have posted contributive arguments in the past by proxy even when they were banned.

Plus, it is something that a person can easily refute and it's very hard to prove that they are exactly copy-pasting arguments. If I am accused of doing this, I can simply say, "no, they are my own thoughts".

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I agree with this take.

A user can be banned for behavioral reasons. The arguments are still neutral. I am pretty sure banned users like Everlasting, Aeyu, Fan, etc. have posted contributive arguments in the past by proxy even when they were banned.

Plus, it is something that a person can easily refute and it's very hard to prove that they are exactly copy-pasting arguments. If I am accused of doing this, I can simply say, "no, they are my own thoughts".

I am aware it is difficult to prove. This should not dissuade us from having a rule against it if such a thing can be proven, no? If we don't have a rule, we can't really take action, per FANDOM's rules. Ergo, it should be explicitly mentioned in the rules to account for the potentiality of proof.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I do not think that we should ban members who are just trying to be nice and help out by posting a few useful arguments for others.

A warning should come first, as always. Discussion is always had regarding the specific punishments doled out in these situations. I would only advise grievous action being taken in the event that they acknowledged these warnings and continued to do so anyways.

 

[Antvasima]

A warning should come first, as always. Discussion is always had regarding the specific punishments doled out in these situations. I would only advise grievous action being taken in the event that they acknowledged these warnings and continued to do so anyways.

Okay. That is more reasonable then.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I agree with Bambu's proposal. As I said, nothing is malicious about posting comments, especially helpful ones, from people who cannot present them themselves. The only malicious thing in this instance would be said user trying to circumvent their ban in this fashion by having full-on debates while they are quite expressly not allowed to do so until their bans are finished.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Bambu's proposal. As I said, nothing is malicious about posting comments, especially helpful ones, from people who cannot present them themselves. The only malicious thing in this instance would be said user trying to circumvent their ban in this fashion by having full-on debates while they are quite expressly not allowed to do so until their bans are finished.

This is my view as well.

 

[AKM sama]

I think mentioning in the rules that it is supposed to be a case-by-case thing would be a good option as it will give us more freedom to take decisions.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Do you have any specific adjustments you have in mind in regards to wording?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As it has been some time, I'd like to ask that this be added, or any suggested revisions be stated now.

 

[Antvasima]

Probably a bout of irony for me of all people to be saying this, but I personally this is a bit of a gray area where formulating a specific, all-enclosing set of punishments is difficult.

We don't exactly apply bans to users in order to prevent them from making arguments, after all, but to keep whatever toxic, rule-breaking behavior they exhibit out of the wiki. From a debating-exclusive standpoint, acting as a mouthpiece doesn't inherently perpetuate the behavior that got the original user banned to begin with, since arguments by themselves are obviously neutral, and independent of who exactly is formulating them. Especially so if the circumstances of the ban were unrelated to their participation on threads (Again, from a debating-exclusive standpoint.)

Sockpuppeting is another can of worms entirely, in my view, because it does allow the root of the problem to come back into the wiki, and thus cause a repeat of whatever debacle led to the original ban. Although, obviously, if the proxy user is causing the same problems that the original used did, then we have an obvious problem.

I agree with this take.

A user can be banned for behavioral reasons. The arguments are still neutral. I am pretty sure banned users like Everlasting, Aeyu, Fan, etc. have posted contributive arguments in the past by proxy even when they were banned.

Plus, it is something that a person can easily refute and it's very hard to prove that they are exactly copy-pasting arguments. If I am accused of doing this, I can simply say, "no, they are my own thoughts".

I agree with Bambu's proposal. As I said, nothing is malicious about posting comments, especially helpful ones, from people who cannot present them themselves. The only malicious thing in this instance would be said user trying to circumvent their ban in this fashion by having full-on debates while they are quite expressly not allowed to do so until their bans are finished.

Well, I think that somebody should preferably write a draft for a regulations text based on the above posts.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As with any rule, the exact results are discussed beforehand. No other rule has these caveats in place, even if the same caveats are applied. We already mention in this rule that exceptions exist (thus that it is a case by case situation, as is every single rule).

As for the statement AKM made about the rule being hard to prove, as said previously, this should not dissuade a rule from being made. I addressed this previously.

As for what Ultima said, sockpuppeting without being caught similarly does not inherently perpetuate the behavior. Are you implying that bans should be readily evaded if the user in question can avoid that behavior? This seems like an excessively slippery slope. In either case the root of the problem is on the wiki, in the current case the root of the problem is merely speaking through someone else.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that we should preferably draw the line at using others to have entire conversations per proxy in content revision threads and the like.

 

[Agnaa]

Even though my views on bans are usually too extreme, I'll post them regardless. I disagree with implementing such a rule. If no rules are being violated in the copied messages, why does it matter? All we'd be doing is having less substantive argumentation on the wiki, thus making the site worse, to spite a banned member, or for perceived consistency with other rules.

I view our rules on sockpuppeting as an easy excuse to stop a user from, well, just making another account the day after they're banned with no change in their behaviour. Cases where their bad behaviour immediately returns far outweigh ones where they actually learn to avoid such behaviour. Essentially, I view it as a time and energy-saving technique, and would be fine if users returned on sockpuppets and did genuinely return to good behaviour. Unless, of course, their bad behaviour is something fundamentally difficult to detect, such as faking evidence or privately harassing users, since in those cases we can't actually be sure that they've returned to good behaviour.

As such I wouldn't be against a rule specifically targeted at users banned for hard-to-detect bad behaviour.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Even though my bans are usually too extreme, I'll post them regardless. I disagree with implementing such a rule. If no rules are being violated in the copied messages, why does it matter? All we'd be doing is having less substantive argumentation on the wiki, thus making the site worse, to spite a banned member, or for perceived consistency with other rules.

I view our rules on sockpuppeting as an easy excuse to stop a user from, well, just making another account the day after they're banned with no change in their behaviour. Cases where their bad behaviour immediately returns far outweigh ones where they actually learn to avoid such behaviour. Essentially, I view it as a time and energy-saving technique, and would be fine if users returned on sockpuppets and did genuinely return to good behaviour. Unless, of course, their bad behaviour is something fundamentally difficult to detect, such as faking evidence or privately harassing users, since in those cases we can't actually be sure that they've returned to good behaviour.

As such I wouldn't be against a rule specifically targeted at users banned for hard-to-detect bad behaviour.

Is it not a rule violation to circumvent one's ban? That is what it is happening, if a banned user is simply puppeting another individual. Thus a more specific rule should be made for that instance- even if it is hard to prove, if we can prove it, it needs a rule.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that we should preferably draw the line at using others to have entire conversations per proxy in content revision threads and the like.

This is still my personal view regarding this issue.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Even though my bans are usually too extreme, I'll post them regardless. I disagree with implementing such a rule. If no rules are being violated in the copied messages, why does it matter? All we'd be doing is having less substantive argumentation on the wiki, thus making the site worse, to spite a banned member, or for perceived consistency with other rules.

I view our rules on sockpuppeting as an easy excuse to stop a user from, well, just making another account the day after they're banned with no change in their behaviour. Cases where their bad behaviour immediately returns far outweigh ones where they actually learn to avoid such behaviour. Essentially, I view it as a time and energy-saving technique, and would be fine if users returned on sockpuppets and did genuinely return to good behaviour. Unless, of course, their bad behaviour is something fundamentally difficult to detect, such as faking evidence or privately harassing users, since in those cases we can't actually be sure that they've returned to good behaviour.

As such I wouldn't be against a rule specifically targeted at users banned for hard-to-detect bad behaviour.

I would also like to put forward another issue with this take.

If we do not enforce the rules, then there is no incentive to follow the rules in the first place. In effect, rules become optional that any user may shrug off at any time and later simply stop breaking them when they've had their fun. Under Agnaa's take, rules serve only to punish those that follow them. Even if the user in question isn't breaking the rules with their posts via proxy, it provides incentive to just allow others to do the same. Our punishments should actually stick.

Based on this, I cannot reconcile with Agnaa's point of view.

As for Ant, yes, I agree that should be blocked (if proven).

 

[Antvasima]

I also disagree with Agnaa.

I don't think that we should ban members who are just trying to help out by posting conversations for others though. We should give them warnings first.

 

[Agnaa]

If we do not enforce the rules, then there is no incentive to follow the rules in the first place. In effect, rules become optional that any user may shrug off at any time and later simply stop breaking them when they've had their fun.

Even if the user in question isn't breaking the rules with their posts via proxy, it provides incentive to just allow others to do the same. Our punishments should actually stick.

The incentive is accessibility. Having to go through someone else for every post is pretty inconvenient.

In fact, we've enforced rules in this manner in other areas. If someone consistently makes bad profiles, they're no longer allowed to make profiles on their own. However, they are allowed to present profile drafts to other people for those people to check and post. If a user's only troublesome in certain threads, they're banned from those types of threads.

I don't think this has encouraged users to make bad profiles or act obnoxious in a certain type of thread.

Under Agnaa's take, rules serve only to punish those that follow them.

If a user feels like not being able to post ****, fake scans, or encourage others to commit suicide is a "punishment", then that is a perfectly acceptable punishment imo.

You can frame my position in a horrible way by ignoring parts of it (that having to go through people is an inconvenient punishment, that some rule violations are so hard to detect that such people shouldn't be allowed to have messages forwarded onto the site period, how stopping bad behaviour is a worthwhile result), and I can frame your framing in a horrible way by ignoring parts of it (you're probably imagining the more intrusive rules around tone or formatting/evidence requirements that people only get banned for after repeated violations/ignored warnings, and not the obvious insta-ban rules). I don't think that sorta thing's very fair, so let's not do it aye?

Based on this, I cannot reconcile with Agnaa's point of view.

I also disagree with Agnaa.

Welp, understandable. As I (meant to, I forgot a few words) say at the beginning of my earlier posts, I'm aware that my views on bans are particularly extreme.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If we do not enforce the rules, then there is no incentive to follow the rules in the first place. In effect, rules become optional that any user may shrug off at any time and later simply stop breaking them when they've had their fun.

Even if the user in question isn't breaking the rules with their posts via proxy, it provides incentive to just allow others to do the same. Our punishments should actually stick.

The incentive is accessibility. Having to go through someone else for every post is pretty inconvenient.

In fact, we've enforced rules in this manner in other areas. If someone consistently makes bad profiles, they're no longer allowed to make profiles on their own. However, they are allowed to present profile drafts to other people for those people to check and post. If a user's only troublesome in certain threads, they're banned from those types of threads.

I don't think this has encouraged users to make bad profiles or act obnoxious in a certain type of thread.

Under Agnaa's take, rules serve only to punish those that follow them.

If a user feels like not being able to post ****, fake scans, or encourage others to commit suicide is a "punishment", then that is a perfectly acceptable punishment imo.

You can frame my position in a horrible way by ignoring parts of it (that having to go through people is an inconvenient punishment, that some rule violations are so hard to detect that such people shouldn't be allowed to have messages forwarded onto the site period, how stopping bad behaviour is a worthwhile result), and I can frame your framing in a horrible way by ignoring parts of it (you're probably imagining the more intrusive rules around tone or formatting/evidence requirements that people only get banned for after repeated violations/ignored warnings, and not the obvious insta-ban rules). I don't think that sorta thing's very fair, so let's not do it aye?

Based on this, I cannot reconcile with Agnaa's point of view.

I also disagree with Agnaa.

Welp, understandable. As I (meant to, I forgot a few words) say at the beginning of my earlier posts, I'm aware that my views on bans are particularly extreme.

Inconvenient, but not terribly hard. I don't really think this situation is comparable to bad profiles. Bad profiles are not a sign of bad behavior- just ignorance or incompetence that can be overcome by learning. It is not a malicious breakage of the rules, which I feel is extremely important.

I'm not really ignoring parts of your argument, or at least I don't feel I am. I just don't agree with it.

Fair enough.