Rule Revision Regarding Banned Users and Proxies.

[JoshSSJGod]

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

Proxy Rule:​

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

What does this rule do?​

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

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

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

​

Why does this rule not work?​

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

- Being too loose

- Being easy to exploit

Being Too Loose:​

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

​

Being Easy to Exploit:​

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

​

​

How this can be improved?​

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

​

Conclusion:​

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

Agree but does not Specify which Method: SPYHe5D, Omnificience,

Agree with Method 1: TheGlassman12 (Can also accept Method 2), Emirp sumitpo, AbaddonTheDisappointment

Agree with Method 2: Speedblitzer50, Twilight-OP (though wants the requirement to be lowered)

Disagree: Tllmbrg (Believes the Proxy rule should be removed except for stating who it is)

Neutral:

 

[SYPHe5D]

Agreed.

 

[Theglassman12]

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

 

[Omnificence]

Mark me down as agree.

 

[Speedblitzer50]

Agree with method 2

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

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

 

[Damage3245]

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

 

[JoshSSJGod]

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

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

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

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

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

 

[Speedblitzer50]

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

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

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

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

Yeah this should be moved to staff forum .

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

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

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

 

[JoshSSJGod]

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

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

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

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

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

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Moved this over to staff threads

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

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

 

[JoshSSJGod]

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

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

 

[Tllmbrg]

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

 

[JoshSSJGod]

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

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

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

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

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

My opinion is pretty much the same as Emirp’s

 

[GarrixianXD]

I share the same sentiment as Glassman.