Ban-Evader General Policy Discussion

In order to not clog the Ban-Evader Reversion Thread with policy discussions, a thread has been created to specifically discuss policy.

This is the place to discuss policy as it relates to handling ban-evader edits.

If you have any suggestions for new policies, or wish to contest an old one, do it here.

If you have any concerns which have yet to be resolved, please do not hesitate to ask us. However, all we ask is that you maintain civil discourse when doing so.

Edited by SkyCat32 on Jan 25th 2024 at 10:40:10 AM

To bump, previous discussed were these topics:

• Edits of ban-evaders still belong to the wiki by the site's hosting claim. As long as they're not misinformation or violate other policies, they can stay as-is if someone pitches in. Admins were against reverting edits just to spite ban-evaders, but understand that if they are serial ban-evaders then they act in bad faith and the legitimacy of their edits is suspect.
• The definition of "serial ban-evader" was proposed to be pushed to "more than twice". If someone ban-evades, there's some benefit of a doubt they don't understand they can't just make another account. If they make a third account, then they can clearly be considered malicious actors.

To be clear: it's three bans, not three accounts?

Because I'm a Real Name as an Alias case and there are times I don't want edits traced to my real-world identity, I'm considering making a separate username for those particular edits (while the admins would still know it's me).

The first ban evasion occurs when a user (1) edits/posts using an alt account while suspended, (2) registers an alt account while suspended. That is considered one case regardless of how many accounts are initially involved, and results in a bounce for all such accounts.

After this first attempt, should the user create additional accounts or sneak past our detection measures with additional accounts, they become a serial ban evader and get the full treatment.

We track, internally, when users have multiple accounts. If you get suspended for any reason, don't try to pull any fast ones. We will catch it.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 5th 2024 at 10:24:14 AM

I understand the ambiguity in "second ban-evasion". While ban-evading always implies a bounce, the policy need to be more specific what it applies to.

1. A troper is edit-banned, then uses meatpuppeting or some other ways to bypass to apply edits (1), bounced, creates an account (2), caught and bounced, then creates an account (3), caught and bounced
2. A troper is edit-banned, then bounced in appeal, creates an account (1), caught and bounced, then creates an account (2), caught and bounced
3. A troper is forum-banned, then uses meatpuppeting to weight in in the forums (1), bounced, creates an account (2), caught and bounced, then creates an account (3), caught and bounced

I believe the current state is to revert edits from 2 (inlcusively) in each of these cases, while previously it was 1 in each, and IIRC kory said mass-reversion cleanup is doing a lot of work when edits of the first ban-evasion may not be problematic.

I think the initial confusion came from me tackling some vids uploaded by a dotheroar sock when Kory made me stop. Dotheroar being a serial evader, it made me wonder what metrics we were using for that.

Granted, I don't know if Kory even knows who dotheroar is.

For videos I think there could be an argument that if we're reviewing videos anyway, if they fit the tropes then it doesn't matter.

I was rejecting older ones. Because precedent told me to rejected ban evaders videos, which we do every time Sayaka uploads.

Now I don't mind not having to go and remove the pages of videos uploaded under Amour Le Fou, but it's just an objective fact that I was dealing with a serial evader there.

Kory doesn't track our day-to-day moderation activities, so wouldn't be familiar with many of the serial ban evaders. His position (and that of the admins) is that good examples shouldn't be removed simply because they were made by a ban evader.

I can understand this, of course. Fortunately, most serial ban evaders submit bad examples, so there's no conflict.

That all makes sense, but then Sayaka specifically became an exception which is why the serial evader stuff got brought up to begin with. It was confusing to have an exception for one case that didn't otherwise match up with our rules, unless the rule wasn't exactly what I thought.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 5th 2024 at 11:46:21 AM

We persuaded Kory that we had good reasons for wanting to prohibit editing by serial ban evaders. He still wants us to consider the quality of examples rather than issue a blanket reversion rule, though.

I think for a first-time sock-puppeteer, how much of their edits are changed (if necessary) should depend on other factors beyond them evading their suspension.

Those factors would include:

• Is their formatting and grammar correct?
• Is their information correct?
• Is there a better way of rewording their edits?
• Are their edits inflammatorily worded?
• Do the edits invoke an agenda?
• Do the edits have sufficient context?

Edited by SkyCat32 on Mar 6th 2024 at 2:20:37 PM

Anyone have input on my previous post? Anything they want to add?

I think some of that should be summarized as "Do the edits have any problem that can't be readily detected?" On Wikipedia we sometimes have sockpuppeteers who post copyright violations or carefully disguised misinformation - in these cases, one needs to revert all their edits.

I personally think we should err on the side of making it as easy as possible to clean up after a persistent ban evader. As such, I'd suggest a policy of "assume the edit is bad unless you can quickly establish that it isn't." For example, imagine that a hypothetical persistent ban evader adds a Jerk with a Heart of Gold entry to Bob's section of the character page for Alice and Bob: The Series. If you've seen the show and know that the example is accurate, then it can stay. Similarly, if the other information on the character sheet in question makes it clear that the example is accurate, it can also stay. If neither of those things is true though, then it should be deleted. Our hypothetical ban evader could be leather pantsing an unrepentant asshole, or Ron the death eater-ing a nice guy who got angry one time in episode three. Sure, it might be accurate, and any ordinary troper would get the benefit of the doubt, but persistent ban evaders have established that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Continuing from that, it would be perfectly fine to re-add entries that have been removed like this (preferably re-worded though) if another troper comes by later who can verify that the original entry was accurate.

I don't see how assuming edits are bad would be "easier" for the cleanup, but, if someone is a "persistent ban evader", all their edits are naturally considered in bad-faith because they've made an account in bad-faith and edits would need to be vouched for.

Edited by Amonimus on Mar 15th 2024 at 9:43:29 PM

What would happen if someone else made an edit building upon the edit by the sockpuppet? Should that edit be annuled as well?

Min, I would argue that the very act of building upon a ban-evader's edit (if it's accurate) constitutes "rewording". Anyone disagree with that assessment?

Edited by SkyCat32 on Mar 15th 2024 at 3:17:33 PM

That's fine, broadly speaking. If someone has already "adopted" the edit, then there's no need to revert it.

Thanks for weighing in on my comment, Fighteer.

Should I make a note to that effect in the reversion thread?

That sounds good, SkyCat.

Updating the thread with the following "Resolved Items" note, then:

• Rewording can be as simple as expanding on a ban-evader's existing edits, especially if it means adding sufficient context.

Is there a policy regarding TLP proposals (or launched tropes created) by ban evaders? R8ings Guy was just discovered to be one and got bounced. They’ve left behind a bunch of TLP proposals, most of which have serious problems and likely aren’t salvageable. Can they (or should they be) nuked, especially the poor quality ones?

Until recently, we automatically reverted edits made by ban evaders, and still do in several cases. Was wondering if that held for the TLP also.

Thanks.

If the drafts are unusable, they'll get nuked on their own naturally, no need to do anything more. If someone wants to give it a go, they should be free to adopt one. (Not an official statement)

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 3rd 2024 at 3:42:42 PM

Not an official policy statement: If the sponsor of a draft is banned, that draft automatically becomes Up for Grabs. I agree with Amonimus that this doesn't necessarily mean they must be discarded, but that would follow naturally from their poor quality.

Edit: There's a simple logic here — if they're that bad, there should be much better drafts that we could be spending our time on.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 3rd 2024 at 8:42:05 AM