I agree with Ais on wording.
I agree with Cass that we should explicitly ban hosting translations from banned users.
On retroactive application: No. We don't retroactively apply any other rules, even ones that were prompted by an action people disagreed with. The rules for AHT banned users making edits may have been put up in response to the 2137 edits, but staff at that time still allowed those edits to go through. Furthermore, it would be logistically infeasible.
We don't delete a banned user's work once they get banned, unless they were already banned and used a sockpuppet or some other untowards means to get their content onto the site.
That said, I could see some number of translations by banned users being posted in the next week or two — the duration of this discussion + the voting period — in order to take advantage the grandfathering of older translations. I propose that should this rule go through, it applies to all works with a timestamp later than that of the parent post of this discussion (https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15843791/discussion-translations-of-works-posted-by-banned-users#post-6076837)
Devil's Advocacy:
Banning translations by banned users from being posted on -EN would, in effect, be freezing banned users out of interacting with -EN entirely. As a result, this could be seen as a way of forcing anyone who wants their writing/work/content on -EN to have to follow -EN's rules. This in turn could be argued to be overreach.
I will admit I make this overreach argument on shaky grounds. The rule, if implemented, would essentially end with -EN's authority, and users banned from -EN would remain free to participate in any other -INT communities that don't view the ban as valid and so don't mirror it. But if someone wants to participate in the -EN community, they should be not banned from it. (Without the context of INT, this statement would be completely uncontroversial.) Other branches would still be free to translate banned users works from -EN to their sites regardless of membership status, or choose to erect reciprocal rules in kind.
To be frank, I take very minimal issue with requiring contributors to this site to not be banned from it. At the moment, the site rules strike me as largely reasonable and culturally neutral. If any of them aren't, it would be more fruitful to fight to change those specific rules that could lead to spurious banning as opposed to standing in the way of what strikes me as a largely common-sense policy. I have said in the past that I prefer rules-based systems on the SCP Wiki, mainly because I can't trust the staffers of 5 years in the future, because I don't know them because half of them probably haven't even joined the community yet.
I think staff at the moment is reasonably transparent, and that there are almost none, if not no spurious bans currently in effect. I think in its current state the disciplinary team can be trusted given how it's addressed the worst abuses of the past.
We don't allow monolingual people who are banned to cowrite things with their friends and have those friends post. I feel polyglots shouldn't get an exception.
