Requests for Comment/Allow exception to LP ban

Allow exception to LP ban
Greetings Miraheze community,

As many of you probably know, I am the sister of User:Lawrence-Prairies who has been Community banned for repeated disruptive behavior and spamming.

Over the past week or so, myself and User:John have been having email discussions back and forth about a possible exception to the ban. I don't like the fact that the ban on LP has been extended to cover myself too, because I have never been disruptive. The only real things that I have done on Miraheze is help out while LP was in the hospital back in December 2016. Furthermore, recently I have taken actions to stop the spamming by LP. I talked with the IT director at the apartment complex where we live, and he was able to blacklist certain IP ranges that were confirmed to belong to LP's specific apartment. This strategy appears to have worked, because I haven't seen anymore spam in the last few days.

You can see a full archive of the email discussions here. Note that one email is excluded because it contains sensitive information. (I included the email, but removed the actual sensitive data).

Given the above information, I would like to request that the ban on LP be directly modified to allow me to use Miraheze services, as long as I do everythign in my power keep LP out. I invite all users to comment on this, however Comments that contain personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory material will be removed on sight. I will accept negative feedback, but only if it is polite and civil.

Proposal 1
I, Amanda, the sister of Lawrence-Prairies, herby propose the following:

Effective immediately following the closure of this RFC, the Community ban on Lawrence-Prairies will be exempted from impacting me, on the condition that I do everything in my power to keep LP out.

Support

 * Of course. Amanda (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * this is more of a "we can't go for highly restrictive to no restrictions" so quickly in my view oppose. John (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments
What assurance do we have that the spam will not continue? Seeing that we have been spammed for the past 3 months since you have been banned, I don't see how can know that it will just stop now. I am also afraid that if something happens on your account that disrupts the community you'll use the excuse that "LP used my account" or similar. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 04:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't like the fact that this makes it seem as if I am the spammer, when that is not true at all. You have referred to the spammer as "you" as if you are talking to me. Also, for the record, LP never used my account. What happened is that LP somehow managed to compromise my DigitalOcean router. However, I have rest the router encryption key and reset the password to my online DO account to prevent this from happening again. You have to realize that I not only did not engage in spam, but I actually took measures to stop the spam. Amanda (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that you are not moderating the discussion. Trying to do that will result in your re-block. As said in your unlock message, if you edit anything unrelated to appeal, the original lock will be enforced again. Again, per here, your removal of any other's comment will also result in lock, again. &mdash; revi  04:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter what, I will not tolerate insults or other derogatory comments. Amanda (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2
Effective immediately following the closure of this RFC, all accounts related to User:Lawrence-Prairies will remain blocked and banned and nothing will change.

Support
One does not need to be a professional writer to notice that the edits to this page so far by "Amanda" match edits to previous threads by "Lawrence-Praries" in style, tone, phrase choice, and subject matter. Some examples: The simplest conclusion to reach is that "Amanda" is "Lawrence-Praries", who is under permanent ban on this wiki farm. Maintain the status quo. --Robkelk (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Comments that contain personal attacks, insults, or other derogatory material will be removed on sight."
 * revi's comment under Proposal 1 that the proponent deleted a comment that he/she did not post.
 * the referencing of a Wikipedia policy as if it applies to Miraheze.
 * the use of "anymore" for "any more".
 * As pointed out below, this isn't the status quo. More so the status quo is a lot more damaging to Miraheze than an unban - for whom ever the target is. Further, the status quo wasn't a ban but a lock to the account in target only - not the "Amanda" account and so on. John (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I interpreted the statement "Their IP address should be globally hardblocked" in Requests for Comment/Community imposed ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies as a ban. --Robkelk (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you think that two sisters who live in the same apartment complex aren't going to have similar opinions and similar writing styles? Insufficient evidence. Amanda (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes beyond "similar" and into "identical". At this point, you're going to have to show me that "Amanda" and "Lawerence-Praries" actually are two people, and I have no idea how you would be able to do that. --Robkelk (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * the wording is poor. "banned and nothing will change" - the original RfC didn't actually ban so this would change the original decision. John (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As John states below, technically only LP is banned. Neither myself nor MatthewPW are officially banned so in theory, we shouldn't even be here. I'm tempted to remove this entire proposal as invalid, but I won't in order to do my part to remain civil. Amanda (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 3
This is a clear conditional option - the wording below should be sufficient and clear enough to cover basics. (and since italics are popular apparently here.)

Effectively immediately following the closure of this RfC:
 * the community imposed ban remains as-is. Wording of the ban address the account "Lawrence-Prairies" only.
 * the account "Amanda" remains unlocked and shall be treated as a clean start under several conditions:
 * there is no disruption from the account (disruption is classed as spamming, abusive language directed at anyone else, harassment etc.) as judged by a Steward,
 * there is explicit agreement to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use prior to the end of this RfC,
 * there are no other accounts used that can be connected back to the user without disclosure to Stewards and explicit approval from a Steward,
 * when using Phabricator, GitHub or IRC the user acknowledges they must listen and respect requests made by the relevant team that runs and operates the platform (sysadmins, sysadmins and IRC operators respectfully),
 * the user agrees to avoid badgering over the same issue over and over again (stewards, global groups etc.) it will be up for a steward decide whether it amounts to disruption above after sufficient warnings are given and not heeded to.


 * any of the above not being either a) agreed to by the user or b) violated after agreed to will see the unlock voided and a return to a locked account.
 * it will be noted the above (unless amended) does not prohibit gaining of rights such as administrator, bureaucrat, wiki creator etc., the creation of new wikis, contributing as a normal user to Miraheze, creating new RfCs for points that may be valid like policies and so on,
 * any amendments that may be passed in a separate proposal will be applied if this proposal passes,
 * this may be amended even after enactment of this RfC by way of a community vote.

Support

 * the ban previously imposed has done nothing. It has caused a lot more harm than was previous present, it has taken up a significantly larger portion of time than the ban was trying to reduce as well. On the best basis of assuming good faith for someone, this ban solves not but only makes things worse for everyone. A conditional-unban imposed on a user who was previously caused in hastily done blanket ban. On review of the initial RfC closure, it does not ban the user, in fact it doesn't even address this user's account in question. A poor original ban which has caused more trouble than it was worth has to be addressed either with this proposal or another one which actually makes a ban. Proposal 2 here states "nothing will change" yet changes the original decision. John (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per below. Amanda (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain
Not going to officially vote on this until my comments below are addressed. Amanda (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments
I would be willing to support this, as long as we are in agreement that:
 * On whatever new wiki of mine, I will have access to  all  features, permissions, and installed extensions EXCEPT steward, oversight, and checkuser (although I will have the authority to request oversight and/or checkuser rights if needed).
 * Niether stewards nor system administrators will take any technical action on my wiki without my explicit permission, unless an emergency arises. In this situation, technical action is defined as blocking, protecting, deleting, etc, as well as CentralAuth global actions and CU/OS actions. Violation of this will result in a block.
 * Both stewards and sysadmins will be allowed to contribute to the wiki as normal editors, but will be subject to blocks if they violate local policies while doing so. Amanda (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In regard to point 1 you will have the same ability as everyone else does. This means all features not limited for technical or privacy reasons, no access to CU or OS until explicit policies govern their use and appointement (globally) or an appropriate valid reason with minimum requirements of a sizable community election. This is again, the same as afforded to everyone else - you will get nothing extra or nothing less than is expected/available of/to everyone else.
 * Point 2; this is the expectation of stewards and sysadmins currently.
 * Point 3; again, this is the expectation of stewards and sysadmins currently. John (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to point 2, I'm fine with it, so long as you agree to let Miraheze personnel access your Wiki's content, change your Wiki's configuration, and remove or modify content in violation of Miraheze policy, for the purpose of providing service and subject to our Privacy Policy. Labster (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you really just more or less copy-paste lines from the privacy policy directly? In any sense, I agree as long as config is not changed without my approval. I just think that a admin should be able to paraphrase global policies. Amanda (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You say you will be "civil" but just a few hours ago you reverted a sysadmins warning and called it "crap" which I find unacceptable. The warning was legitimate and was not meant to "insult" you in any way. If you cannot be "civil" maybe not interfering on Meta should be added to this proposal. Reception123 (talk) ( contribs  ) 05:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)