The Brigading of Articles (defined as the malicious downvoting of multiple articles)

I'm not sure this is a good definition of brigade - under this definition, the 2721 downvote raid wouldn't count as a brigade since it was only one article being maliciously downvoted.
A more accurate definition might be (defined as the malicious downvoting of an article by multiple users).

Regarding the question about users calling for brigades on unrelated sites using unrelated platforms, I think those can be used to extend disciplinary measures (like a revoked user can be permabanned if we learn they are organizing brigades on unrelated sites from other platforms) but I do not think they should be used to open disciplinary measures.

The Brigading of Articles (defined as the malicious downvoting of one or more articles by multiple users) is prohibited on the SCP Wiki site, and will result in a ban. Discussion of performing such on official SCP Wiki platforms is also prohibited, and will result in a ban. Additionally, discussion to perform or instigate Raiding (defined as the Brigading of Articles, purposeful malicious conduct, or other forms of trolling on another site) over official SCP Wiki platforms is also prohibited, and will result in a ban.

Examples removed as I feel they are unecessary at this time.

-Edited to reflect Soulless' feedback.
-Edited to refine the definition of a brigade and cleaned up the "raiding" clause a bit for clarity.

If the user had malicious intent, but the site & actions had no connection to us, then we should do nothing.

I disagree; this could easily be interpreted as us "harboring" trolls against another site and portray us in a negative light.

Saying "yes, we know this user is harassing your site, but we can't do anything to them because it was on their own time and has no connection to us" reflects poorly on us, no two ways about it.

What about public forums, reddit, or other non-private communication?

Depends on the context and language, but most likely, yes, that would be an obvious attempt at a brigade.

It's admittedly a little disheartening that the current circumstances have made this update necessary

Made this update necessary? As far as I know, there has been zero evidence, even circumstantial, that the SCP Foundation was used as a basis for a brigade on another site (the laughably tiny "five-people brigades" mentioned in complaints are just as easily explained from the pushing of said site on /x/).

That said: I feel this is a good and necessary rules change. I'm fairly sure this was always supposed to be a rule since Kondraki was removed from admin (one of many, many errors in Site Rules).

EDIT: By which I mean, the exact same rule that is currently present for Chat should have been on Site since at least 2010 (but in different style/tone & with clarifications.)

That said, this seems to be focused on the RPC situation, drama which staff seem overly engaged in. (I'm a hypocrite, but still.)

Brigading should explicitly be in the rules — but starting with no brigading our articles, and defining brigading from there.

More ways the current update does not address the issue:

• If a user downvotes every article on a rival wiki because they genuinely disliked them and it's clear they were (or could reasonably be seen to be) poor quality, this is not a raid, or malicious downvoting, or a downvote brigade. (This would not be possible on our wiki currently, but would have been very possible back in 2008 — which is where RPC is right now.)
• If a user does exactly the same thing in our name, or using us as a "base", or with malicious intent (often as admitted when confronted by staff per a complaint), then this is brigading / raiding and should be disciplined for.
• If the user had malicious intent, but the site & actions had no connection to us, then we should do nothing.

EDIT: Major omissions above ^, sorry!

It was correct to confront this user. This is standard with disciplinary complaints, regardless of their origin.

But if they had actualy downvoted all the articles based on the quality of the content alone, and then gave us a good, non-bullshit explanation of this, in no way would I support that being worthy of disciplinary action.

Removal from staff would be merited, but that's because it's "conduct unbecoming of staff" to do something that might reflect badly on us, this obviously. But rules for staff are much harsher by design. We shouldn't be trying to police our users' behavior so closely.

The same goes for anyone who downvoted in the recent downvote brigade, even though they were objectively part of a brigade.

We already kind of say that (malicious downvotes), but if we're making it clearer for 'no targeting outside sites', may as well make it clearer for us too. We should also NOT make the focus of the rule whatever any random offsite user's demands are.

(edit: for clarifications)

We should also think through our definition of "brigading" more carefully and more officially.

After that, place a clause saying something like, "Users may also face penalty (up to and including a permanent ban) for using SCP Foundation forums, chats, or websites as a means to organize a brigade on other web sites." That should cover it.

This would include all downvotes on any article.

Caught that, stuck it into the exceptions clause.

A single user spamming a site with a large number of crap articles (or a user who can write well spamming deliberately poor-quality articles) would clearly be a raid, because it would also be trolling

My concern was focused mainly on the fact that some of the focus here seemed to equate "brigading/raiding" with "spam that downvote button".

This example doesn't work because there shouldn't be anything wrong with that if said in an individual (non-mass) PM, or indeed in any side chat.

What about public forums, reddit, or other non-private communication?

Refining the language after posting this.

or otherwise bring harm to other sites

Too vague to be enforceable, and too draconian to be viable. Any site can define literally anything as "harm" (see below).

and/or negatively impact articles (on or offsite)

Again, too vague to be enforceable, and too draconian to be viable. This would include all downvotes on any article.

Is better? I know that at least some attempts by trolls on the RPC have (or are claimed to have) involved coldposting crap articles (which is against their rules), which would not be covered under a strict definition of vote brigading.

And it shouldn't be covered. Coldposting crap articles is just something people do on any wiki that mechanically allows it. A single user spamming a site with a large number of crap articles (or a user who can write well spamming deliberately poor-quality articles) would clearly be a raid, because it would also be trolling.

but attempts to circumvent this rule by citing this clause is.

This can easily be interpreted as "defending yourself against a false accusation = ban".

"Hey, look at this peice of shit article! Link here!

This example doesn't work because there shouldn't be anything wrong with that if said in an individual (non-mass) PM, or indeed in any side chat. This is because that's not a brigade. It would, however, be bannable if said in #site19, or in a place with a large population.

Attempts by site users to brigade, raid, or otherwise troll other sites or articles (on or offsite) is a bannable offense. Discussion by users to perform such actions on any platform, on or offsite, is a bannable offense. Discussion about articles/sites where one holds or expresses a negative opinion and/or downvoting based on an article's merits are not bannable.

Examples; "I don't like this article, downvoting./Yeah, that site sucks" is not bannable. "Hey, look at this peice of shit article! Link here!/Everyone, let's go downvote a bunch of articles on this site!" is bannable.

Is better? I know that at least some attempts by trolls on the RPC have (or are claimed to have) involved coldposting crap articles (which is against their rules), which would not be covered under a strict definition of vote brigading.

Also gave examples due to the fact we're getting into murky waters about what can/cannot constitute bannable discussion.

-Edited 'cuz I accidentally implied downvoting was bannable under this language.
-Edited again 'cuz I accidentally made innocuous discussion about other people doing raids bannable.
-Edited to reflect TDM's feedback. Further edit on crossout section pending more feedback; will be addressed once I wake up.

Possibly something like this:

Using any platform (onsite or offsite) in order to incite or participate in a brigade (in this case, a concentrated effort by a group of users to negatively affect a vote count) of an article onsite is a bannable offense. SCP Wiki members who participate in these actions on other sites are subject to disciplinary action as well.

Do not specifically suggest or otherwise imply to take any action either in the forums, chat, or offsite that would influence the vote count of an article. This includes all articles on the site and any future pages. Standard disciplinary procedure will be followed regardless of site membership, staff status, or intention.

?

Additionally, we could also state that SCP wiki members who participate in the brigading of other sites will be banned as well if we want to make that rule clearer.

Brigades: Do not use #Site19 as a base for bothering people on other sites. No one cares. Do not use #Site19 to get an SCP you hate downvoted. You'll be banned.

Obviously, I would prefer a more professional wording. It's admittedly a little disheartening that the current circumstances have made this update necessary, but things are as they are.

Do we have any recommendations for specific wording for an addition to the site rules? Or any objections to updating the site rules?