Requests for Comment/Amanda ban appeal

From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki

Amanda ban appeal

Greetings to the Miraheze community,

I’m not thrilled that I’m having to do this again, but it seems that I will need to. So I will. I would like to appeal and request a repeal of a ban against me that was implemented here. Unless I’m missing something (and I very well may be), I take that the ban was applied to me for two reasons:

  1. LP compromised my account and made nonsense wiki requests with it, as well as destroyed WikiCanada
  2. CheckUser was not able to differentiate between LP and myself due to IP similarity (which was to be expected)

However, both of these terms are no longer applicable. I have completely replaced my Internet routers and VPN servers (both), and configured both of them with a totally different security algorithm and encryption keys then before. Additionally, I configured my router so that no Internet sites can be accessed without entering the encryption key. Therefore, LP won’t be compromising anything in the near future.

The other main factor to be considered is that LP has been arrested. According to what I know, she was arrested on 1 charge of cyberharassment and on 1 charge of illegal stalking. Both are small charges in Canada, but this still means that she won’t be around to cause trouble.

While I am not happy that this has occurred, I think that this would be an opportunity for me to try and revive my Miraheze reputation without having to worry about LP compromising my account or other nonsense like that. Since my Amanda SUL account has been compromised, I would prefer to start fresh with this account. I would probably still want to do WikiCanada or something similar, although I haven’t really thought about it much.

Also, I previously provided the Miraheze Staff Team with copies of both my photo ID and LP’s photo ID to prove that we were two separate people (this was done at the request of @NDKilla:). However, nobody from the staff team ever acknowledged them or even made any attempt to do so. The ID’s that were previously submitted have now expired, but new ID’s have been issued. As such, I am still willing to provide a photo ID upon request. However, I cannot provide LP’s ID since she is in prison.

TL;DR The conditions from which I was collaterally banned from Miraheze (compromised account and technically indistinguishable from LP) both no longer apply. Additionally, the fact that LP has been arrested should be considered new evidence. As such, I am appealing the community ban.

Statement by CnocBride

I can only describe this discussion as a septic tank of hostility and ignorance by both parties. I have made my position clear that I am on neutral ground and I believe that Amanda deserves the right to have her own wiki but isolate her. The community have been steadfast in their proposal to completely exile Amanda from the community and frankly I would too if it would stop all this drama, but the fact is, it won't. If Amanda is banned we all know she will find some way back to make another appeal and even if it is annoying she still has a right to make ban appeals. I proposed Proposal 5 as a way to end this pool of toxic discussion once and for all and the community just can't grasp on to the idea.

Many people are opposed to her coming back and believe that Proposal 5 will reintroduce back into the community. What I think we should do is we should isolate her from the rest of the Miraheze community and give her one wiki to grow her own semi-autonomous community. The community has restrictions on feature requests and she is almost in semi-prison. I believed that the community were more lenient then they are but they just didn't latch on to the idea. This discussion has turned into a horrible mess of constant arguing and calling each other "rude" and "annoying" which frankly isn't a fair way to treat a ban appeal. Amanda and the community need to end the fighting and begin civilized discussion were everyone is respected.

Amanda does have a right to a wiki and proposal 5 will end this crap of appeals and more RFQ's. I ask the entire community that you put your faith in Proposal 5 as it is the best option for both parties (better for Miraheze). CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 15:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So long as we can reasonably dispel all doubt Amanda is NOT LP, I would find this perfectly acceptable. GethN7 (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
And I’ve offered proof that I’m not LP, but yet it has been rejected by the staff team. Especially considering the fact that it was @NDKilla: (a member of the staff team) who originally suggested photo ID as a way of proof, the issue is now in their hands to accept it, not in my hands to provide it. Amanda123 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Proposal 2

Proposal 3

Proposal 4

Proposal 5

Proposal 5A

Closing remarks

Well, Proposal 3 had more supports than any other proposal. As such, Amanda will be banned but with some caveats.

I'll be doing something a little more extreme but I think well deserved, and I'm doing such based on community input.

As an Operations member it's my responsibility to ensure the smooth operation of this site and the appropriate use of resources, including the time of our volunteers. I think I can say without a doubt that far too much time has been wasted going over this (and similar) proposals, but I wanted the community's nod on this.

As much as I wanted to give Amanda a chance and as much as I want to agree with John, CnocBride, and some of the other supporters, I just really don't want this to be a debate ever again.

I'm well aware of the fact that trying to ban Amanda will probably result in a backlash from /them/ and cause a headache for Miraheze staff but at least this wont have to be debated anymore.

Anyways, based on community feedback regarding the entire situation, I'm invoking clause 8 of our current Terms of Use, which allows Miraheze to restrict access to the site at it's sole discretion.

I recommend to all staff members that any accounts believed to belong to Amanda or anyone related to them should be indefinitely globally locked and any IP addresses believed to be usable by them to be globally hard blocked. Instances of collateral will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I won't put forth the effort to cite specific examples but the reason I'm going to go by the ToU to enact this is to keep things simple when it comes to dealing with future popups related to this.

Reasons for the ToU based lock (in no particular order) include:

  • Community input, as seen in this RfC and all previous RfCs.
  • Amanda's attempt to discredit staff by posting a negative review of Miraheze on our official Facebook page. Amanda & co. did not go through the correct channels trying to get these matters resolved and posting a negative review of us with 1 / 5 star rating when you even say you think we deserve a 3 or 4 star rating is stupid.
  • Your repeated attempts to control various aspects of this site.
    • Removing or editing other peoples messages, especially to shine the light in your favor.
    • Removing or editing other peoples messages, especially to shine the light in your favor.
    • Removing or editing other peoples messages, especially to shine the light in your favor.
    • Attempting to circumvent various global policies.
    • Your attempts to control staff.
    • Your insistence that people can't do what they want and that their opinions don't really matter because they're not relevant, when they are, in fact, completely relevant.

Anyways, thanks for discussing guys. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( TalkContribs ) 05:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I too believe hope this is the last time this topic is discussed. I am sad to see that the community seen no hope in my proposal as I believed it was the best option for both sides but I would like to thank all participants in the discussion and I accept the communities decision :) CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@CnocBride: I don't think it was anything inherently wrong with your proposal, in fact, I liked your proposal. However I think most of the staff is aware of how Amanda/DeltaQuad/MatthewPW act. If I thought they would be fine in isolation I would have done something like that but I don't think they'd actually keep quiet and I think it would be more work for the same (if not more) ammount of headache. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( TalkContribs ) 21:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Because 'Amanda' seems they are not understanding correctly, let me clarify this - "This is not a community ban but an invocation of terms of use clause (which you have agreed by using our sites)" and "we will not consider appeals in a foreseeable future" for their disruptive behavior. Thank you. — revi 02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)