I can provide infrastructure to store sensitive data as well.

Posts that are determined to have broken site rules may be BLANKED or DELETED, based on their content and/or severity of their rulebreaking nature.

• A post may be BLANKED if it is considered by staff to be low-level trolling or spam (i.e., "SCP sux", "FUCK STAFF", "ha ha scp r gay", etc). If a thread is spammed by low-level troll posts by one or more users, only one offending post per user may be BLANKED, with the remaining offending posts DELETED. Notes as to the content of these deleted posts will be left on the user's 05 thread; detailed notes are not required. In the event of a post containing excessive spam ("FUCK YOU" repeated for 15 lines), it may be DELETED instead of BLANKED, with a simple note as to its contents on the user's 05 thread.
• A post may be DELETED if it contains severe rule-breaking behavior, such as harrassment of a user, illegal/unwarrented graphic content, links to a virus or other potentially harmful destination, or is designed to alienate others based on their race, sex, sexual identity, religious beliefs and/or political affiliations. A screenshot of these offensive posts will be kept, and either placed under a collapsible in the user's 05 thread, or uploaded to a private section of the 05 forums, where it will be made available to users upon valid request, (such as serious concerns over a user's banning). Links to objectionable or potentially harmful content may be edited out of publically-available versions of these screenshots for general user safety. If a conflict of interest occurs between the HARRASSMENT TEAM's protection of victimized users and the need to keep records, the needs of the HARRASSMENT TEAM will take priority.

The moderation of above will be granted to members of the DISCIPLINARY TEAM, as allowed by the functions of Wikidot and their respective status as OpStaff, ModStaff, or Admin. Misuse of this power will be treated as per existing policy for article moderation.

I haven't gone with M_E's nuclear option (deletion of all troll posts), mostly because variations of "blanking works just fine" was one of the two major reasons the prior proposal failed in a 12-to-4 vote (12 nays vs 4 ayes). Unless something changed in the 6-7 months since, there's no guarantee that it would still pass. The other major reason (treating Mods as if they couldn't be trusted with this authority) is not relevant with the above draft, nor would it be relevant if this draft was changed to reflect M_E's nuclear option.

The "blanking posts" strategy seems like it would be much more viable if post history wasn't visible, or could somehow have the option to not be visible on certain posts. But it isn't, so a harassing comment is always going to be there, and it'll always suck. I'd really hate venturing into any discussion thread, especially ones for my own articles, where someone told me to go kill myself if the post is still gonna be there for the world to see. As far as the harasser is concerned, they've done their job, because there will still be a post there, whether it's blanked or not.

It's good policy to blanking troll comments, to a degree, but if a troll is telling someone to neck themselves, then that post should be fine to delete (provided someone saves a record of it).

I recommend people here take a second look as to what they think the text is saying and what the text is actually saying. Otherwise what is being supported here is policy that does not support the way people plan to execute it.

Furthermore, the way people plan to execute policy in this thread is not only not spelled out in policy, but there has been no real consensus on how things should be stored. And also there's no explicit definition that approves of all the ways people here are proposing to use it to be right now. As a result I cannot state any sort of broad support, as it seems the majority of the support and the implementation plans are low on real, significant detail(e.g. actually effective definitions to cover the cases staff wish to cover). This is a lot of anger, and expressed disgust, but none of that anger or disgust is being used to present anything that will address it.

If we were to actually address this with the belief that deleting a post is an appropriate thing to do in specific context, and we also want to uphold transparency, I propose the following:

• We include 'offensive behavior explicitly performed to alienate minority demographics based on gender, sex, or race' as one of the reasons posts are deleted
• Posts that are deleted are saved on a thread on 05 if no further behavior (banning, warning) is done, or alongside the disciplinary post in both image and text copies (as we know image hosts do go down).
• I would also propose that this is suggested as a behavior all disciplinary staff may perform, not just admins, with similar cultural notions that inappropriately deleting posts should be taken with the same seriousness as inappropriately deleting articles- it's grounds for a warning or demotion dependent on severity.

Zyn

As a former member of Anonymous, I can tell you that's one of the most common insurgency tactics they use.

As another former member of Anonymous, I can confirm that this is the case. ProcyonLotor brings up the point that deletions are easy to do, but it may still require significant bureaucratic leg-work. You need a witness, a screenshot — you might even need confirmation as to whether or not a post should be deleted! All that being said, there's a really easy workaround here: Just blank the posts, revoke their membership, and figure it out later.

The thing about the tactic you're describing: It's something anyone could do right now. The only way this policy 'makes' it a problem is if staff always drop everything to delete these posts. But staff aren't like those obsessive vampires from that one X-Files episode (Bad Blood); they aren't forced to stop whatever they're doing and count sunflower seeds every time someone spills some on the floor. If they're not sure, they can just treat these posts like they have in the past — blank 'em, revoke 'em, move on. You can always come back and delete them later.

It's true that the policy might encourage more people to try this tactic, but keep in mind (and again, I'm speaking as a former Anonymous myself): This is because they think staff are like those vampires. They think staff behavior is deterministic, and therefore exploitable — hackable. And they're wrong.

With this, a slew of low-level trolls can flood in (from RPC, that YouTuber who made the LGBTSCP or whatever-it-was video, etc.), shitpost a bunch of ‘ur fagit’, and preoccupy a large swathe of staff who are now off dealing with that crap as even more commit vandalism and whatnot throughout the Wiki.

First, notice the word "typically". That is typically how things go. We can and have reacted differently to different troll attacks in the past.

Secondly, this argument is based off the assumption that running permission to delete troll posts can't be granted in the case of a flood. Such has been done for articles in the past and I see no reason such permissions can't be granted here should it come to it.

Thirdly, this assumes that deleting posts is any harder than blanking them. It's not. It's easier. Deleting posts is so trivially easy I'm often worried I'm going to do it by accident. Even with screenshots I am certain that I can screenshot and delete at least as quickly as I am able to blank.

The concerns here are based on a model of staff behavior and Wikidot structure that simply does not exist.

With this, a slew of low-level trolls can flood in (from RPC, that YouTuber who made the LGBTSCP or whatever-it-was video, etc.), shitpost a bunch of ‘ur fagit’, and preoccupy a large swathe of staff who are now off dealing with that crap as even more commit vandalism and whatnot throughout the Wiki.

I don't see how this is a problem solved by 'not deleting troll posts' and not a problem solved by 'promoting more admins'. It is generally difficult to address a large amount of problems when only one or two people are online to actually address them at any given time (admins generally being busy with irl and other such things).

Broadly agreeing with M_E's proposal. Yes, there's a sliding scale of troll posts, but nowhere on that scale is anything of any value.

On a related note, I don't see why more serious trollposts like death threats and hate speech should be immortalized on O5 if we're removing them from the site - noting that the removed post was graphically violent/racially disparaging/ inappropriately personal/ whatever seems sufficient. There's no reason to give a platform to the specific words.

Agreed. I feel like the "records available to staff per request" route makes sense here, and we can keep a repository somewhere of the screenshots in question should we ever need to access those archives.

Full disclosure, I PMd Zyn with my concerns regarding this and asked permission to post. Zyn's comments have been ported per her request.

My recommendation is that we reserve deletion for actually harmful posts. Threats of violence, doxxing, incitement to harm oneself or others. "ur all gay" can be blanked out.

I also agree with this, there is absolutely no use in allowing things like this to stay!

Ok, so I personally think that we are seeing this a little too one-dimensionally (click here for my full opinion on a deletions of all troll posts). But basically, I think we should be looking to let writers know that trolls get repercussions, while also not giving any ammunition to these morons. I suggest we just edit these troll posts to say that the user was permabanned and state why (along with a recording of the post of course). This would let writers know that we are not letting them get harassed, while also helping to show why we chose to ban them and blank the post (which helps to refute these troll's arguments somewhat).

This conversation should not be "should we start banning these posts or change nothing?", but rather "what would be the most effective way of alleviating the core issues of the problem: hurt feelings and potential ground for trolls?" It is obvious that something should be done here, but I personally think there are better ways to do this than just delete all troll posts. I think we may want to be thinking up something that makes everyone happy here rather than catering to either the side that wants to ban all troll posts or the one that only wants to ban harmful posts. I think finding a good middle point here is our most effective way to actually change things.

On a related note, I don't see why more serious trollposts like death threats and hate speech should be immortalized on O5 if we're removing them from the site - noting that the removed post was graphically violent/racially disparaging/ inappropriately personal/ whatever seems sufficient. There's no reason to give a platform to the specific words.

My recommendation is that we reserve deletion for actually harmful posts. Threats of violence, doxxing, incitement to harm oneself or others. "ur all gay" can be blanked out.

In support of this, though also adding excessive spamming to the list. If someone posted a bunch of repeat/similarly trollish comments in one thread, we don't really need to keep all of those beyond a screenshot.

I'll keep this thread open for the weekend to accumulate more responses, and start a proper proposal thread by Monday, Tuesday at the latest.

EDIT: Also, an article takes up "space." While it exists, you can't place another article with the same name. That limitation doesn't exist with posts.

Keeping harrassment blanked in order to deter people stirring shit offsite about SJW corrutption is absolutely fucking laughable. I don't know how many of you spent a lot of time offsite, in 4chan, and on our various platforms over the pre ious months (or like, spend any time on the internet at all), but there's jack shit people need in terms of evidence to rile folks up.

I distinctly remember finding one user in countless discussions (multiple sites) getting people rage-fuck mad over "mod corruption" because their scp about rape was deleted. Not because it was poorly written and people didn't like it, but because it was unilaterally removed by sensitive admins who can't deal with something so edgy in their precious safe space.

Point being, let's not give scumsuckers a platform or a legacy, because this is the internet, and people are dumb, and will believe their sensationalist bullshit no matter what we do.

I'll echo others in that the "trolls might cry free speech!!!!1" argument is so wanting as to be hardly worth our consideration.

"Malicious content, such as links to viruses, sexually explicit material, spam, advertising, and illegal content are all grounds for summary deletion. If a member of Staff believes a page to fall into one of these categories, they will bring it up for consideration in the admin chat channel where, after review, if three members agree, the page may be summarily deleted. Copies may be retained for record-keeping purposes."

Our standards for summary page deletion should apply to trollposts. We should not leave blanked trollposts on places like the harassment policy, as that just leaves the trolls with a harmful legacy that would be instantly deleted in any other well-run forum on the internet.

We have a perfectly reasonable guideline right here and we should use it.

For a more recent quote, I think this bit from Taffeta succinctly summarizes the situation:

I reiterate that this argument prioritises the views of the people who continue to conduct baseless harassment campaigns over the victim of these campaigns, and because of that I'm frankly fucking sickened we have to have this discussion in the first place. I fail to see a cogent argument for letting death threats remain on the site no matter how poorly-spelt they might be.

I'll be blunt, not allowing any troll comment deletion because a couple of corrupt staff members abused this ability almost a decade ago is a piss poor reason and creates a massive double standard towards our treatment of troll article posts. We have a system for articles that would work perfectly as well for troll comments.

Proposal to delete obvious troll posts vs blanking them: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-6186498#post-3848679

Vote on afore-mentioned proposal: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-6231350/voting-thread-deleting-troll-posts

User disciplinary thread where the issue came up again: http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-10074047/disciplinary-c45

I guess the driving question here is how to balance keeping a record/evidence of troll posts and/or severe user misbehavior easily accessible while keeping the main site free of toxic and/or harmful posts.

This is probably a necessary discussion, as after the Social Media fiasco, we have to now deal with not only run-of-the-mill shitstirring trolls, but also trolls seeking to push an agenda against the SCP site, its staff, and/or cerain articles, users, or groups in the site (such as SCP-2721).

Obviously, we shouldn't ignore these toxic posts and allow them to linger on the site, but deleting them outright without some manner of keeping evidence that they existed may only aid whatever agenda a troll may be pushing, which is undesirable.

Thoughts?