Requests for Comment/Allow exception to LP ban

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I am closing this RfC effective immediately. Since I did not engage in this discussion in any way (on-wiki, IRC, mail, etc.), a conflict of interest was avoided here. While I have a clear opinion on the so-called "LP ban", that does not mean that same opinion applies in this RfC as well.
Proposal 1 is declined for the reason it does not impose any restrictions to Amanda. It would allow Amanda to do everything they want (including wasting the time of stewards and system administrators by talking about the same restrictions (technical wise or due to our Terms of Service/Privacy Policy), which was one of the issues staffers and non-staffers were worried about), which is a bad idea, since it would end up in a second RfC, shall Amanda decide to discuss the same issues over and over again.
Proposal 2 is declined, because the proposal would not effect Amanda but rather keeps the Lawrence-Prairies lock intact, which is out-of-scope.
Proposal 3 is passed for further discretion, since it allows Amanda to edit on the Miraheze Sites while imposing restrictions on the user. These restrictions will allow Stewards to lock Amanda's account in the case of project disruption (up to the judgement of a Steward). In this way an RfC can be avoided, unless anyone feels a need to override a Steward's decision there (which is completely fine with me, community support is important).
Proposal 4 is declined. Too vague how the standard offer can apply without a block.
Proposal 5 is identical to proposal 2, but explicitly mentions Amanda. As this is the only proposal left where it is requested that Amanda's account will be locked, this is passed for further discretion.
Proposal 6 is declined. I am against paying for the Services due to using staff resources, that is against "Our commitment" (as seen on the Main Page). While exceptions can be made if really needed (after discussion between such user and Miraheze's system administrators/Stewards), create two different types of Miraheze clients with two different sets of rules applying to them is not my plan.
Proposal 7 is declined, since it is not mentioning whether Amanda should be (un)locked or not, thus out-of-scope.
Proposals 3 and 5 are the only ones left so far. Respectively, 'keep unlocked, but implement restrictions' or 'relock immediately'.
At first glance, locking all accounts related to Lawrence-Prairies and Amanda seems like a straightforward and easy task (apart from the disruption to Meta, it can be very little or a lot of work for Stewards). Having one problem less, so we can focus more on getting things done (I know that there is a lot of work for the system administrators, including myself). However, it shouldn't be forbidden to give people a new chance. Amanda hasn't been as disruptive as Lawrence-Prairies, and I am sure I am not the only one who could be fine with giving Amanda a second chance.

As such, proposal 3 will be effective immediately. I do want to make a few comments, though:

  1. Amanda must avoid wasting the time of system administrators because they don't like any of the technical restrictions. Constructive ideas to improve the Services for everyone are always welcome;
  2. Amanda must be aware that our policies will always override the wiki policies. If a staff member decides to perform actions (e.g. editing, blocking) on their wiki in compliance with the Miraheze policies, they should not be overridden by Amanda;
  3. I hope the community and Amanda agree with the outcome of this RfC. If anyone feels necessary to change the outcome, a new RfC can be made.

Southparkfan (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This page is being moderated by: Stewards

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 nature of the discussion a forward looking summary is critical from all parties.

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 all comments must be civil. 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. This discussion is to be moderated by stewards and not by the proposing/appealing user. Please do not remove the strikes. -Reception123

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

  • Strong support Of course. Amanda (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • 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)
  • Oppose Per above. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Mostly just because of the wording. It's technically difficult to differentiate between sanctions on the two users, and the community ban technically only applies to LP and their single IP address, not all the VPS ranges :/ -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: 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)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: 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. — 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)
Sure, except that is strcitly speaking not our policy here. — revi 06:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


I need to see 3 summaries here:

  1. Amanda's version of events
  2. Miraheze's version of event
  3. Places where Amanda and Miraheze agree

Rsterbal (talk) 02:16, 15 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

Strong 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:

  • "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".

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)

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)
@Robkelk: 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)
If you want direct proof, you should send me an email and I will email you a photo of each of us. Note that LP does not like having her picture distributed, so me doing this could open up a whole new personal firestorm that would take away my time from Miraheze. Amanda (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • You can't claim you're civil when you're saying incivil way. My full support here. (I am bothered to leave oppose to all other proposals, treat this as such.) — revi 06:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Strong support. Per Revi on the diff situation + robkelk. The constant contempt that you/LP (if we are to grant you two are different individuals, which tbh I'm not feeling generous there) have for the most basic guidelines regarding holding yourself to any account or others to any decency. The fact that you're still trying to dictate how RfC's are handled shows you have learnt nothing.

BTW the reason we post "duplicates" is because they apply to various proposals. If you think you are getting the rude/insulting side of me, you really will like to take a look at how I handle this at Encyclopedia Dramatica; where we don't entertain this bollocks. I still remember that ShoutWiki you guys created impersonating Miraheze.

This is not even funny anymore. Why are we still talking about this? LulzKiller (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

We're talking about this because we need to move forward. May I remind as well, the original proposal wasn't a ban - it was a lock. One which doesn't cover a person but an account. As such if this proposal passes, it wouldn't affect the account Amanada. John (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
"I still remember that ShoutWiki you guys created impersonating Miraheze." - I must be missing something here, because I was not aware of any attempt to impersonate Miraheze. That must have been on the effort of LP alone, or (perish the thought) someone completely different just trying to have fun. I also don't like the fact that there is a repeated negative connotation with the word "you". Again, I have never been involved in any of the disruptive behavior. Also note that even if the original RFC was a ban (which per John it's not), the "ban" was only to apply to LP - not myself nor MatthewPW nor anyone else who happens to be related to LP. I actually have never been involved in Miraheze except covering while LP was in the hospital back in December. Amanda (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • 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)
  • Strong oppose 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)
  • Not opposing the idea, but even though I wrote this one myself the wording isn't too clear. Users that supported this can always make a proposal 5 with better wording. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Per the fact that it implies things about the original ban that aren't exactly true. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

We should have a conference call about this issue. Rsterbal (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rsterbal: I actually tried to call you once using the number you've provided multiple times, but when I called it said "this number is currently unavailable. The mailbox is full so you cannot leave a message. Goodbye". Amanda (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Amanda: - Please contact me by email - robert@sterbal.com or phone 412-977-3526 (call/text)
If you are concerned about giving out your phone number we can arrange for a conference call. Rsterbal (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Rsterbal: As noted above, I did try to call that number a while ago and got no answer, and an automated message saying that the voicemail box was full and thus I couldn't leave a message. Amanda (talk) 14:12, 14 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

  • Strong 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)
  • Strong support Per below. Amanda (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I want to support this policy, but I want @Amanda: to realize that it's not okay to just trash other users because they want her banned or because they said things towards her first. If you see abuse comments, let Stewards handle it. If they don't, please privately bring it up with them. Reverting a user's fair warning that your account was only unlocked to appeal the ban and calling it 'crap' is not very respectful at all. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. As I stated below, I am interested in finding a way to move forward. However, given the reactions of other users to this discussion, I still believe it is too soon to allow Amanda to interact with these users even with the listed restrictions. I strongly believe we need to put preceding events several months behind us. The tensions right now just seem like they could put us right back where we started. -- Void Whispers 19:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Would have been neutral, except that Amanda is dictating terms in the first comment in this proposal. That is unacceptable. (The fact that this proposal would make @John's life easier is not really relevant to the proposal - John could just as easily learn how to use the "block by IP address" function of MediaWiki and block the spamming that way.) --Robkelk (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't make my life easier, it makes everyone's easier. Also I know how to use the block function, I think the 187 blocks I've made show that. John (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Why are we still talking about the spam? If you haven't noticed, the spam has stopped, largely thanks to me. For that, you should be happy and willing to let me use Miraheze services rather than harassing me repeatedly over my identity. I'm getting tired of this - enough is enough. Amanda (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
"If you haven't noticed, the spam has stopped, largely thanks to me." Please explain exactly how you (singular or plural) are connected to the spam and its cessation, keeping in mind the comment of 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC) under Proposal 5. --Robkelk (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robkelk: I am NOT dictating anything. Rather, I am clarifying the conditions of terms that John originally excluded in his proposal. Amanda (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Then your account needs to be secured, because somebody used it to post the phrase "Niether stewards nor system administrators will take any technical action on my wiki without my explicit permission, unless an emergency arises." That counts as dictating terms. --Robkelk (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robkelk: I've explained my connection (or lack thereof) to the spam multiple times, and yet you are just ignoring me. At this point, I am ready to self-impose an interaction ban between myself, Robkelk and LulzKiller if you don't start listening. For the LAST TIME: I did not engage in nor encourage any of the spam. Rather, I reported the spam to the IT Director of the apartment complex where LP and I live and he blacklisted several IP ranges that had been confirmed to belong to LP. This prevented LP from accessing the Internet from those ranges, and that appears to have stopped the spam. Also, no one has hijacked this account. The comment regarding stewards was just to clarify. Read @John:'s comment underneath it, please. Stewards and sysadmins do not have the authority to take actions without cause on wikis other than Meta anyway, but I just wanted to make sure that it was set out in writing. I will not respond to further queries regarding the spam nor will I respond to further queries regarding me "dictating terms" as I have made my point abundantly clear. It is now up to you and LulzKiller if you want to accept it or risk a self-imposed interaction global ban between us three. Amanda (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain Not going to officially vote on this until my comments below are addressed. Amanda (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain I am in the middle of these two proposals as I would like to see Proposal 4 implemented and what is written in proposal 3 can be implemented after the expiration of the 6 months in proposal 4. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: 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)
@Labster: 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: 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)

Proposal 4

Effective immediately following the closure of this RFC, the "Amanda" account will not be globally locked. However, Amanda will agree to not participate in any Miraheze affairs for at least 6 months, following the Wikimedia "standard offer" procedure.

Support

Weak support I like this proposal and think that this is the way to go. After 6 months, what is written for Proposal 3 should be applied. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Support I think is a fair proposal and allows time for Amanda to spend time establishing and developing her wiki. I agree with Reception123. Borderman  talk | contribs | email 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong support Per Borderman's comment below. I think that if Amanda can take 6 months to develop her wiki without disrupting Miraheze as a whole for 6 months that that would show a lot of initiative and would be a huge step in the right direction. Any disruption or violation of policies would of course result in new sanctions, at Steward discretion. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Strong support. I think it is necesary to find a way to move forward, and I feel that this is the best way for Amanda to prove that:
  1. She is acting in good faith
  2. She has managed to prevent further disruption to the site from her end
However, despite this, I'd also suggest that this proposal be applied with the restrictions of proposal three in order to avoid a situation where we may wind up in a similar situation. -- Void Whispers 19:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain Not ideal, especially with the fact that SO generally applies to users who are blocked/banned (where I am technically not). However, I would be willing to do this as a compromise if proposals 1 and 3 both fail. Amanda (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I really wish everyone would just get along. I really would like to see this come to an end because I abhor all this community negativity, especially as Miraheze is second to none in it's field. Overall I believe @John: has been quite accommodating so far regarding the emails and this RfC, and the Stewards and CVT involved in dealing the long-term abuse has been superb in swiftly removing foul-mouthed language and the generally damaging effects of what is quite frankly very immature behaviour in response for not getting one's own way. A decision needs to be made either way because far too much time has been wasted already on dealing with the negative actions of a single person.

Whilst I am being open (and this applies generally not to this specific proposal) if one sibling cannot request the other to just stop and move on from this whole debacle then the sibling doing all the damage obviously doesn't have enough respect for her sister to comply with those wishes. If one sibling has done all these things behind the other's back just to spite Miraheze, then make it look like the other sister's fault then she doesn't sound like a nice person at all. Sibling rivalry or any related issues do not have a place on Meta or any Miraheze wiki. That said though, if Amanda is allowed to continue then it should be done just like any other user who has to comply with ALL Miraheze policies WITHOUT any additional powers. This proposal seems fair to me.

@Amanda: I am not attacking your personally but you know how Miraheze operates. Please do not try to change it. You know the policies in place. Please do not try to apply conditions that personally favour yourself over others. If you don't like any aspect of how Miraheze operates then you really shouldn't be here. But maybe given a chance you could create a great website, which I sincerely hope establishes itself and grows into a resourceful wiki. However, and there can be no stipulation on this, if further disruption of any kind occurs (and this also includes repeatedly asking/arguing for something that Miraheze will simply not allow) then an unequivocal lock and/or ban should be put in place. I apologise if that sounds harsh but if you really do have a sister who has caused so many problems over the last few months, then she is clearly the root of the problem, not Miraheze for trying to protect against her incessant negative actions. Because of identical written mannerisms and vocabulary, plus your Digital Ocean hijacking etc., LP's actions have reflected badly on you, which is no surprise and you cannot blame members of the community if they do not trust you. Prove to the community you are a valued member by simply creating a great wiki. With time you may be able to garner trust and further support. Good luck. Borderman  talk | contribs | email 15:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: @Amanda: I would also like you to be more clear on the "not participate in any Miraheze affairs" which is kind of vague. Does this mean you will not participate on Meta discussions as well as Phabricator? (you should be allowed to open tasks for your own wiki but not interfere in other tasks that do not concern you). Is this what you meant? Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Reception123: What I mean by that is my activity will be limited to my wiki primarily. I will not be involved at all in Meta, I will not be involved in Phabricator at all, and I will not be involved in IRC at all. The only activity outside of my wiki would be making GitHub PR's for my own wiki (I don't need to open tasks as I know how MediaWiki config works). Amanda (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. That's what I thought. My support comment remains the same. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
@Reception123: I believe what Borderman mentioned above was that I take 6 months to only be involved with my wiki and to develop it. During those 6 months I should have no involvement outside of my wiki, and after those 6 months I can return to Miraheze as a normal user. Would you be okay with this? Amanda (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 5

Status quo: All accouts related to User:Lawrence-Prairies (and User:Amanda if this is a person different from User:Lawrence-Praries) continue to have the status they have now, and Miraheze stewards continue to use the tools that are part of MediaWiki to prevent abusive actions from affecting the wiki.

Support

Strong support Supporting as the proponent of proposal 5. If LP and Amanda are the same person (which I believe from long experience on the internet), then the accounts would both receive the same treatment. If Amanda and LP are different people (a photograph would prove nothing; I know how easy it is to find photographs of two people on the internet), then actions taken regarding LP's accounts should already not be affecting Amanda. Either way, @John said in Proposal 2 that actions changing LP's account "wouldn't affect the account Amanada". (Also, the spamming is obviously not damaging Miraheze as a whole, although it is making more work for the stewards - which is not the same thing at all.) --Robkelk (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Weak oppose Procedural oppose only. This is basically the same thing as proposal 1, except that it contains language that still questions my identity. Please stop that. Amanda (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • You won't be able to convince me that you are not LP - even a face-to-face meeting would be inconclusive at this point, since I didn't know you (singular or plural) before all this started. I may as well ask that you (singular or plural) stop the spamming that has been going on. If you (singular or plural) do not accept that people are going to disagree with you (singular or plural), then Miraheze might not be the right place for you (singular or plural). --Robkelk (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I may as well ask that you (singular or plural) stop the spamming that has been going on. That language still appears to be that you are calling me the spammer. Please stop right now. As noted many times above, I did not engage in the spam but actually took measures to stop it. Amanda (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
You are projecting your own biases onto my words instead of reading what I actually wrote. Please stop right now. --Robkelk (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although there's not anything super wrong with maintaining the status quo in and of itself, there are a few important things to consider. The initial ban doesn't cover Amanda or any of the blocked ranges. The NOP policy and most of the hard rangeblocks currently in effect are (in my opinion) a overly harsh reaction to combat masses of spam. I don't want to give in to someone's demands just because they abuse us when they don't get their way, but I think if all of Proposal 4 is followed that would be a huge step in the right direction. It would allow Amanda to do what she wants, and it would allow Miraheze to do what it wants, which I think at least partly is to foster communities. This isn't entirely related to this ban, the status quo, or any proposal, but I feel it's worth mentioning that all Stewards are System administrators and we have not been getting things done that need to get done while dealing with all of this. If we can get a win/win for the user and the community, that would be optimal. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 19:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I have been a sysadmin in the last few decades on much larger minicomputer clusters and server farms than Miraheze; I know what the job entails. And I know that it includes taking unpopular steps to ensure that the provided service and the infrastructure does not suffer. If Miraheze gives one person certain treatment, then to be fair Miraheze has to give the same treatment to every other user - this is the same as a single person dictating Miraheze policy, and IMHO that is damage to Miraheze as a whole. --Robkelk (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@NDKilla: The NOP policy and most of the hard rangeblocks currently in effect are (in my opinion) a overly harsh reaction to combat masses of spam. - funny that you say that, because the majority of the web host rangeblocks made by you are hardblocks. John is really the only one who preventively blocked a lot of web hosts, but followed the policy and softblocked them. Amanda (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Robkelk and Amanda: it is funny and I pointed it out because I don't like the blocks I made. The problem is that all of those blocks were basically done in my capacity as a Steward to combat spam. None of the traffic creating spam was actually putting an unacceptable load on our servers. Thus being a sysadmin isn't really important in that regard, but at the same time, the more time I spend doing Steward things is the less time I have for sysadmin things. Sysadmins make it technically possible for the service to be provided. Stewards do all of the community and administrative stuff. That's why I said this is really only problematic because all Stewards are sysadmins so unless somebody else gets approved to be a Steward and has 24/7 response to dealing with what we've been dealing with, I think letting Amanda edit productively on her wiki alone will be in the best interest of Miraheze as a whole. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

Proposal 6

The result of the previous RFC is repealed. AmandaQuad's account is reinstated with standard privileges, along with all others at the same IP address. They may request wikis as normal, and interact with the community as normal. For each wiki that is created by them and not in a closed state, AmandaQuad agrees to pay Miraheze 7USD per month per wiki. So long as all wikis are paid up, the accounts remain in good standing; failure to pay will result in both their accounts and wikis being locked until payment is made. This is an at-will contract that can be terminated by either party at the end of a month, though AQ would need to agree that these accounts are otherwise be bound to the ToU, including prohibition on spamming, etc.

Support

  • Support This isn't an attempt to turn Miraheze into a pay site, but just a recognition that this particular set of users uses far more staff resources than any other wiki. Other large communities more than compensate for their use financially and through volunteering, but AmandaQuad et al. do not. Because their behavior hasn't been modified, I'm proposing this as the only way to make an equitable balance for the organization. --Labster (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Because their behavior hasn't been modified - again, for the last time, STOP referring to me as the disruptive user. I've taken measures to stop the disruptive behavior, and for that you should be thankful. Amanda (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support I'm not sure if this is the best option but I think it would be one that works as well. Labster has a good point with resources, maybe if a user uses up a lot more resources, like in this case they should donate a sum to Miraheze. This is not really full support for this idea, but I'm saying it could work. Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. This is not my preferred option but it would be the one that I would accept if such passes. LulzKiller (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@LulzKiller: When you say that this is the one you would accept if such passes, and that's it's not your preferred option, are you trying to say that I should be caught up in the collateral damage caused by my sister and that I should not be allowed to use Miraheze just because my sister wreaked havoc? Sounds like discrimination to me. You and Robkelk need to get a sense of respect for others. Amanda (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
(I know the above comment is incivil and could be taken as a personal attack, but it's the only way I can respond right now to users constantly attacking me. I apologize in advance if anyone is offended by it.)
Disagreement is not synonymous with disrespect. Also, respect is something that is earned. --Robkelk (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Strong oppose No way no how. This is still using language that seems to be referring to be as LP. Enough of that. And I would not pay a "free" service under any circumstance. Also note that "AmandaQuad" is just my email address - please call me by "Amanda". Amanda (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This would create two different types of Miraheze clients with two different sets of rules applying to them. --Robkelk (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The only way that I would be willing to pay for a wiki would be if I could have checkuser and oversight access on my wiki only, as well as any other restricted access that doesn't affect global accounts (i.e. any other feature currently restricted to stewards/sysadmins that does not involve CentralAuth). However, I know that nobody is going to be willing to grant me such access, and therefore this proposal is basically null. Amanda (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 7

  • Amanda contacts Bitnami and hosts her wikis on their cloud service.
  • The community creates a wiki page Hosting alternatives for Amanda to consider.

Support

I support this proposal since we help Amanda with establishing a wiki.Rsterbal (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Strong oppose Plain and simple. No. The whole point of this RFC is to allow me to use Miraheze services the same way as everybody else, and this proposal is essentially just kicking me out. Amanda (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as this does not address the ban itself. -- Void Whispers 19:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain We should not be dictating which alternate service anyone should be using, no matter how much it would help Miraheze to have a "problem" be moved to a different alternate service. --Robkelk (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

We should do everything we can to help her publish elsewhere. Rsterbal (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: @Rsterbal: No, we should not do everything we can to help me establish my wiki elsewhere. We should do everything we can so that all Miraheze users, not just the stewards and sysadmins give me some respect and allow me to use the excellent services of Miraheze. Amanda (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Table of Proposals

Proposal Description # For # Against Notes
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.

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.
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.

4 Effective immediately following the closure of this RFC, the "Amanda" account will not be globally locked. However, Amanda will agree to not participate in any Miraheze affairs for at least 6 months, following the Wikimedia "standard offer" procedure.
5 Status quo: All accouts related to User:Lawrence-Prairies (and User:Amanda if this is a person different from User:Lawrence-Praries) continue to have the status they have now, and Miraheze stewards continue to use the tools that are part of MediaWiki to prevent abusive actions from affecting the wiki.
6 The result of the previous RFC is repealed. AmandaQuad's account is reinstated with standard privileges, along with all others at the same IP address. They may request wikis as normal, and interact with the community as normal. For each wiki that is created by them and not in a closed state, AmandaQuad agrees to pay Miraheze 7USD per month per wiki. So long as all wikis are paid up, the accounts remain in good standing; failure to pay will result in both their accounts and wikis being locked until payment is made. This is an at-will contract that can be terminated by either party at the end of a month, though AQ would need to agree that these accounts are otherwise be bound to the ToU, including prohibition on spamming, etc.
7 *Amanda contacts Bitnami and hosts her wikis on their cloud service.


Table of Proposals

Comment: This should either be maintained by one of the moderators of this page or deleted outright. --Robkelk (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to "moderatate" the table. The contents of the table are based merely off of the Support Oppose and Symbol neutral vote.svg Abstain votes and any user is welcome to check my tallies and correct them if need be. Amanda (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it as it provides zero insight into the discussion. -- Void Whispers 18:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Rsterbal (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC) It provided a useful view for me. Please put it back or let me know that I should

It served as a scoreboard for the proposals - those tend to encourage people to post "votes" for their desired outcome instead of actually taking part in the discussion. Which of those two processes do the thread moderators want taking place here? --Robkelk (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreeing with Robkelk on this one. RfC closures are intended to be based on arguments made by all commenters regardless, not just a tally of votes. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 03:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

@Amanda: You said before the lock: "I've explained my connection (or lack thereof) to the spam multiple times, and yet you are just ignoring me. At this point, I am ready to self-impose an interaction ban between myself, Robkelk and LulzKiller if you don't start listening." First, you (singular or plural) kept saying that you (singular or plural) had nothing to do with the spam. It was only when you (singular or plural) claimed to have a role in stopping the spam that I asked you to explain - how could you have a role in something that you had no connection to? And how could I have known enough to ask that if I had been ignoring what you (singular or plural) were posting? As for the rest: Since you (singular or plural) are refusing to actually read what I write, it would give me great pleasure if you (singular or plural) were to stop reading and twisting my words. --Robkelk (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_Comment/Allow_exception_to_LP_ban&oldid=69303"