O5指揮部

本帖发布较急。后续会补充细节。
如无特殊说明,此贴时间戳使用GMT+8。

事件上下文可见:

O5 Command - 封禁记录

论坛讨论贴 - 关于7月22日凌晨SCP基金会英文站对具有本站身份成员进行的大规模封禁

SCP-268-J - 投票记录

由于CN是翻译大站,翻译文档不可能不构成曝光,许多用户亦私下提出对翻译后带来的曝光度和可能的违规之担忧。出于此,我们向参与处分的EN站务发送了邮件,希望协助澄清。
邮件内容公开留档于此。

I know it's been a busy time recently so first of all, thanks for addressing this message.

We have received reports from users regarding a recent incedent that, a translation of an SCP article posted on the CN site led to a noticeable number of votes casted by CN users unto the original page. According to the staff post provided, those actions were deemed as "brigading and vote manipulation" based on the voting history and an extra clarification "voting on the translation of an article on a different branch, and then coming to EN to mirror that vote en-masse is considered brigading on EN."

We have no intentions of interfering EN's staff judgements when it manages its own platform, yet as translation is one of the main activities of the CN branch, and to reduce future confusion or misunderstandings, I am seeking to open a dialogue with EN staff out of good faith on how we can better coordinate regulations and best practices regarding translation works and voting behavior following.

It is to be noted that due to the CN branch's large user base, translated articles often receive a sudden increase in visibility after their publication and, CN members who are also EN members may vote on the original pages as per the standard voting procedures. Without a clear guidance or notice in place, a resulting "en-masse" voting is almost impossible to completely avoid and may easily and unintentionally overlap with standard community participation.

We would be sincerely grateful to inputs regarding the following questions.

1. What is the best practice for an EN member who also happen to be a CN user to vote on an article after reading the CN translation?
For instance, should users avoid voting immediately after the translation is posted? Is there a time delay recommended? Should users avoid cast votes that mirrors those on the CN article? We are seeking to provide a clear and accurate guidance to our community.

2. For translated articles - especially the time sensitive or competitive ones - is there a definition to distinguish organic exposure from vote manipulation?
We would appreciate clarity on where the line is drawn so we can help translators avoid unintentionally triggering the measures.

3. Is it possible to more explicitly outline the boundaries on Site rule or FAQ basis?
For instance, as for the rule "voting on the translation of an article on a different branch, and then coming to EN to mirror that vote en-masse is considered brigading on EN", we are wondering if there is an existing definition on the site rule basis regarding the notion prior to the disciplinary act? We believe it would significantly help multilingual users understand the boundaries as they vote and prevent similar misunderstandings in the future if the clarification are visible.

We do, fully respect the EN staff's efforts to maintain the fairness of the voting system, and also acknowledge malicious or coordinated voting behaviors did occurred in the past. We do understand there are difficulties in making such judgements on whether user's vote is based on malicious reasons. We are yet deeply concerned by the recent decision that presumption of bad faith may have solely based on user's branch origin or language without a clear evidence of actual coordination or calling for a brigade. We would kindly hope the possibility be considered in the future that users may be voting based on their individual aesthetic judgement without intentionally calling for group actions or disrupting the voting order, and that culture and aesthetical difference be taken into account when handling incidents where CN users hold a different voting pattern as the EN mainstream - in the wish of reducing future confusions.

Thank you again for you time and consideration. We sincerely hope working together to a mutual understanding and collaboration in the future.

Sincerely,
W Asriel, Administrator
Holy_Darklight, Administrator
MScarlet, Administrator
SCP-CN Staff Team

信件翻译:

首先感谢您百忙之中查看这条消息。

我们收到用户报告,最近发生了一起事件。CN网站上发布的一篇SCP文章的翻译导致大量CN用户将投票投给了原始页面。Staff Post提到,根据用户的投票历史,和一条"在其他分部对文章的翻译进行投票,然后集体来到EN进行镜像投票,这在EN上被视为集体投票"之额外说明,这些投票被判定为了"操控投票和集体投票"。

我们无意干涉EN站在自身平台内的管理判断,但由于翻译是CN分部的主要活动之一,为减少未来的困惑或误解,我们本着善意寻求与EN站务展开对话,就如何更好地协调翻译工作和随后的投票行为探讨这方面的法规与最佳实践。

需要注意的是,由于CN分部的用户基础庞大,翻译文章在发布后,曝光度往往会突然升高。同时拥有EN成员身份的CN成员可能按照标准投票流程对原页面做出投票。如果没有明确的指导或通知,由此产生的"集体"投票几乎无法完全避免,而且很容易在无意中与标准的社区活动相重叠。

若能就以下问题做出解答,我们将感激不尽。

1. 对于恰好是CN用户的EN成员,在阅读CN翻译后对文章进行投票的最佳做法是什么?

例如,用户是否应该避免在翻译发布后立即投票?是否推荐延迟一段时间投票?用户是否应该避免投出与CN翻译相同的票?我们希望能提供清晰、准确的投票指导给我们的用户。

2. 对于翻译文章,尤其是存在时效性或竞争的文章,是否有一个定义来区分自然曝光和投票操纵?

我们希望了解明确的相关判断界限,以便翻译者在今后避免无意中触发类似问题。

3. 是否可能在站规或FAQ等页面中对相关界限进行更明确的说明?

例如,关于"在其他分部对文章的翻译进行投票,然后集体来到EN进行镜像投票,这在EN上被视为集体投票"这一规则,我们想知道这一概念是否在纪律处分前已明确表述于站规中?若能将此类界定公开透明地呈现,将极大地帮助多语言用户理解与遵守规则,也有利于预防此类误解的再次发生。

我们充分理解与尊重EN站务在维护评分系统公正性方面所做出的努力,同时我们也承认,过去确实曾发生过恶意或协作式投票行为。我们理解在判断用户投票动机是否恶意存在困难,但我们仍对近期处理方式深感忧虑:是否可能仅仅依据用户所属分站或语言背景即推定恶意,而非基于存在组织化或号召行为的确凿证据。我们诚挚希望在今后能考虑这样一种可能性——用户可能仅基于个人审美判断进行投票,而非有意参与组织投票或破坏投票秩序,并在处理诸如CN用户与EN主流投票倾向存在差异时考虑文化和审美之差异,从而减少类似的混乱。

再次感谢您的时间和考虑。我们真诚地希望未来能够携手合作,增进理解。

此致,
W Asriel,管理员
Holy_Darklight,管理员
MScarlet,管理员
SCP-CN站务组

现等待回复,后续随时跟进。

已接到Rounderhouse Rounderhouse 回信,

Hi W_Asriel,

It's nice to hear from you and I appreciate the thought-out message. Areyoucrazytom also sent me a message asking to clarify these issues. I understand and appreciate you wanting to clarify what is and isn't allowed behaviour by EN standards so we can avoid incidents like this in the future. To limit confusion or miscommunication, EN staff has decided to focus communication through our Ambassadors on INT (currently Jerden), and I believe he will be posting a statement there in a few hours to address your concerns and explain the process and evidence we used to come to the decisions we did. On a personal note I appreciate you reaching out to handle this so diplomatically, as I know this situation has raised tempers. I'm hoping we can figure out a good solution.

Best,
RNDRHS

翻译见此:

嗨,W_Asriel,

很高兴收到您的来信,感谢您深思熟虑的留言。Areyoucrazytom也给我发了一条消息,要求我澄清这些问题。我理解并感谢您希望澄清EN标准下被允许和禁止的行为,以便我们避免将来再次发生类似事件。为了避免造成混淆或沟通不畅,EN站务决定通过在INT的大使(目前是 Jerden)进行沟通,我相信他会在几个小时后在那里发布一份声明,解答您的疑虑,并解释我们做出这些决定所依据的流程和证据。就我个人而言,我很感谢您采取外交手段处理此事,因为我知道这件事确实激怒了大家。我希望我们能找到一个好的解决方案。

此致,
RNDRHS

已代表站务组做出确认,且后续会继续与Jerden跟进。

Hi Rounderhouse,

Thanks for the late night update on the matter! We will follow up with Jerden as advised.
We also appreciate the willingness to clarify the evidences and process involved - the transparency means a lot in helping prevent future misunderstandings.

Looking forward to further conversation!

W Asriel
SCP-CN Staff Team

翻译如下,

嗨,Rounderhouse,

感谢您深夜更新此事!我们将按照建议与Jerden跟进。
我们也感谢贵方愿意澄清相关证据和流程——这种透明度对于避免未来出现误解至关重要。

期待进一步沟通!

W Asriel
SCP-CN站务组

更新:于07-23 01:24收到Queerious Queerious 之私信回复。

Hi all,

Thank you for reaching out directly. The ongoing situation is one that we would like to resolve and prevent from happening again in the future. As such, we are happy to clarify anything, and answer any further questions that you might have.

In regards to the questions you asked:

1. What is the best practice for an EN member who also happen to be a CN user to vote on an article after reading the CN translation?

If you would like to vote on an EN article on the merits of the EN article as a member of EN that's fine. In situations like with 268-J, voting patterns were clear that people were voting on the EN article in an effort to prevent the deletion. This is shown by comments on the translation tracking the score, and various messages encouraging people to vote on the main site. The issue that we are focused on here is not about a user who is an EN member and a CN user; there were a number of CN users who did not receive bans, despite voting on the article. Those bans were based on the fact that the users in question never voted on the EN wiki, and only did so as part of a larger group, as with this piece in question.

2. For translated articles - especially the time sensitive or competitive ones - is there a definition to distinguish organic exposure from vote manipulation?

This is an issue we are aware of, but it is not a problem unique to CN. We regularly have to make the determination on EN for EN articles whether attention focused on them is organic or the result of vote manipulation, doubly so in contests. We can't provide a clear-cut, 100% solid answer here because it depends on the situation. In regards to how we determine voting manipulation it is a combination of details, such as being directly encouraged to vote, despite not routinely engaging on the EN wiki. When we see a vote in isolation, from a user who never votes otherwise on EN articles, but routinely votes on the translated articles on CN, we interpret that as intentional manipulation, rather than organic exposure.

3. Is it possible to more explicitly outline the boundaries on Site rule or FAQ basis?

At this time, we are not going to modify the rules, but I think it would be a good idea to work with all INT branches and create a resource that explains how we approach these situations. However, even then, we will only be able to give general examples of what is considered a brigade, or general indicators that show a user is voting based on something other than the merits of the article itself.

We can't give a detailed answer, because it isn't possible to list every edge case of vote manipulation or brigading. We need the flexibility to adapt to new situations, like with that happened during 6kcon and 8kcon, as well as ensuring that we are not restricting ourselves with a single definition. Additionally, to ensure that we can accurately identify brigades, we cannot overtly list all the signs we use, otherwise, people will have guides to avoid said detection. We are also willing to further discuss clarifying on the rules page that voting en-masse, as with what occurred today.

We are yet deeply concerned by the recent decision that presumption of bad faith may have solely based on user's branch origin or language without a clear evidence of actual coordination or calling for a brigade.

In regards to this, we want to clarify that the presumption of bad faith was not based on a branch origin or language, rather, it was directly based on a pattern of voting that showed the votes in response to SCP-268-J were part of vote manipulation.

I would love to continue this dialogue, and find a resolution. We will be making a statement later today, and continuing our discussions with you directly. We will, however, be issuing further bans for continued brigading. As a part of this, and to ensure that we avoid further issue, we will be more detailed about how the determination was reached.

Thanks so much for reaching out, and hope to hear back soon.
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain
AriadnesThread - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

06:23补充回复:

I also wanted to pass along to the CN administrative team that Disciplinary has posted a statement regarding this, explaining how the decision was reached.

https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-17169469/disciplinary-team-statement-regarding-the-ongoing-issue-surr

We are adding context to each of the threads, and hoping that by providing this transparency, we can resolve any misunderstandings.

Thanks,
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

07-23 17:07 CN站务回复:

Hi Queerious and AriadnesThread,

Thank you very much for you willingness to engage in the conversation and provide detailed clarification regarding our questions and the standards as in the recent decision.

As site administrators ourselves, we do understand the difficulties in determining malicious voting, and thus respect the necessity of allowing flexibility in vote pattern analysis. We have also carefully read your statement in O5 Command and sincerely appreciate your commitment to transparency.

As mentioned in your reply, users who engage in normal site activity as EN members are fine. We are grateful for such efforts to ensure user's fair participation and voting rights. However, since a number of users has expressed their concerns that they may have been misjudged during normal engagement, we do hope we could further explore the detailed standards so that we may provide actionable guidance to the users in the future.

It is also mentioned in the reply that user are banned based on whether they are voting as part of a larger group and that not all CN users are banned. We appreciate the staff team for investigate each case as individuals, however also noticed that most non-CN users who also upvoted the same article are not subject to disciplinary actions. We wonder if there are further clarification on the case: When deciding whether someone is acting as a part of a larger group and therefore deemed malicious, is the user's branch origin taken into consideration or is it based solely on evidence such as user statement and comments that they were voting in coordination with others? As noted in the staff post, "these users were frequently participating in discussions and voting on the same branch" and thus became clear to the Disciplinary Team that the vote influx is a direct result of brigading. I.. failed to comprehend how this pattern logically justifies the conclusion.. after all, user behavior within any branch - be it EN, CN or others - are similar. Shared branch participation does not automatically concludes coordination. We are sincerely concerned that such standard, if applied, may increase the structural risk resulting in international users being unintentionally misidentified as a part of coordinated groups simply due to their shared branch background. While we do not intend to interfere with EN staff's standards we respectfully hope that this risk might be further considered to prevent future misunderstandings.

The staff post also mentioned that those banned user have little activity on EN compared to their activity on the CN site. We'd like to understand whether this standard has been applied equally to all low-activity users regardless of origin, and/or is activity comparison a standard procedure for international users. For CN users in good faith we would appreciate the clarity: Must a user maintain a certain level of engagement to safely carry out their voting rights? What's the best practice for a newly joined EN user to cast their first few votes?

We are especially thankful for the clear criteria you provided:

When we see a vote in isolation, from a user who never votes otherwise on EN articles, but routinely votes on the translated articles on CN, we interpret that as intentional manipulation, rather than organic exposure.

This might expose a potential root of misunderstanding - a possible difference in the voting norms which we might both benefit in exploring. For clarification purposes - if that helps in judging the user's intentions - in the CN community, there is a common held belief that if someone reads and understands the content of an article and holds the membership in the original site(be it CN or EN), they are entitled to cast a vote as an member. It is also not uncommon for users to be reminded that they may do so if they hold the membership. If this understanding or comment contradicts EN policy, we would greatly appreciate clarification so users may understand the boundaries as they vote.

Regarding contest periods, we are also aware of previous incidents in 6kcon and 8kcon as you mentioned. During such events users would naturally spike in activities and translated works are frequently posted soon after the originals. Users would want to support it on the EN site as a part of the contest voting process based on their aesthetic judgements as a part of contest voting process. We understand that some ambiguity must be preserved to prevent boundary testing activities, but contests is still a fairly common and reasonable situation so any concrete examples, guidelines, clarifications or best practices you could provide would still help users to avoid further missteps and incidents.

Lastly we would like to explore if there is a more fundamental difference in our belief of votes involving translation, as the staff post mentioned the influx was related to the translation. We would like to kindly add that since most CN users are native Chinese speakers, we would naturally tend to reading in our mother tongue - articles with translation available. I wonder if there is a difference in procedures, standards and motivation presumptions between a user that has low activity in EN site and CN membership who reads the translation, holds an aesthetic judgement and votes, with that of a user without CN membership and reads the English original. Based on current standards and judge cases, it appears the former faces a higher risk of being flagged, investigated or mistakenly taken actions on. It is because the former may be identified as a part to the collective or the former is often concentrated after a short period time after the translation is posted? We would also be grateful for your corrections if we have misunderstood anything here. Since translation is a major activity of international sites, we'd also appreciate clarification on, under the current framework and standards, are translations, and the attention they draw from international users thereof, considered a form or organic exposure or potential brigading and manipulation.

Thank you again for your continued communication and effort to clarify the rules and raise visibility. We sincerely believe that answers to those concerns would help prevent further misunderstandings for both sides. Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
W Asriel, Administrator
Holy_Darklight, Administrator
MScarlet, Administrator
SCP-CN Staff Team

07-23 01:24收到Queerious Queerious 之私信回复。

各位好,

感谢您直接联系我们。我们希望能解决当前的情况并预防它再次在未来发生。因此,我们很乐意澄清和回答任何贵方会有的问题或内容。

回答您的问题:

1. 对于恰好是CN用户的EN成员,在阅读CN翻译后对文章进行投票的最佳做法是什么?

如果用户想就一个EN文档的优缺点,以EN成员身份做出投票,这没有问题。在268-J的情况中,票型明显显示人们是出于尝试规避删除而给EN文档投票。这体现在翻译下一些跟踪原文分数的评论,和一些鼓励人们去主站投票的消息。这里我们关注的问题并非用户既是EN又是CN成员,也有CN成员没有被封禁,无论其投票情况如何。封禁是基于用户们之前没有在EN站投过票,并且仅仅是作为一个更大群体的一部分来投票,就像涉事文章一样。

2. 对于翻译文章,尤其是存在时效性或竞争的文章,是否有一个定义来区分自然曝光和投票操纵?

我们确已了解这个问题,但这并非是一个只存在于CN的问题。我们经常需要在判断EN上面的EN文章突获关注是自然的还是投票操纵,竞赛中更是如此。我们没法提供一个清晰的界限和100%确定的答案,因为这视情况而异。当我们判断投票操纵时,是综合诸多细节,诸如用户平时不在EN活跃却被鼓励去投票。当我们看见一个从未在EN投票却时常给翻译投票的用户投出单独的投票时,我们会将其视为有意操纵而非自然曝光。

3. 是否可能在站规或FAQ等页面中对相关界限进行更明确的说明?

目前我们不会修改规则,但我们觉得和各个INT分部合作并创建资源解释我们如何处理这些情况是个好主意。然而,就算如此,我们也只能给一些一般的例子来说明什么会被判定为抱团投票,或者显示一个用户基于文章优劣以外的原因而投票的一般指标。

我们无法提供细节的答案,因为不可能给出所有投票操纵或抱团投票的边界情况。我们需要一定的灵活性来适应新情况,就像6k和8k大赛一样,确保我们不会局限于单一的定义。此外,为了确保我们能准确识别抱团投票,我们没法公开列出我们使用的所有特征,不然,人们就有如何避免被检测到的指南。我们也很愿意进一步讨论在站规页澄清何为集体投票,以及今天发生的事情。

但我们仍对近期处理方式深感忧虑:是否可能仅仅依据用户所属分站或语言背景即推定恶意,而非基于存在组织化或号召行为的确凿证据。

对此,我们希望澄清恶意推定并不是基于用户的语言分部,而是直接基于用户的投票模式,该模式显示对SCP-268-J的投票是投票操纵的一部分。

我很乐意继续这次对话并找到解决方案。我们今日稍晚也会发布一则声明,并继续和您的直接对话。但,我们未来还是会对抱团投票做出封禁。作为其中的一部分,也是为了确保我们能避免未来的问题,我们会更详细地说明这一决定是如何做出的。

非常感谢您与我们联系,希望很快收到回复。
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain
AriadnesThread - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

06:23 PT 补充回复:

我也希望向CN站务组传达,纪律小组已经就此发布了声明并解释决定是如何做出的。

https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-17169469/disciplinary-team-statement-regarding-the-ongoing-issue-surr

我们正在向每个帖子添加上下文,希望提供这部分的透明度,我们可以解决任何误解。

感谢,
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

07-23 17:07 CN站务回复:

您好Queerious和AriadnesThread,

非常感谢贵方愿意沟通,并就我们的问题和近期决定的标准给出了细致的澄清。

作为网站管理者,我们也确实明白判定恶意投票时的难度,尊重在为此分析票型时允许一定弹性。我们也非常认真地阅读了您的信件和O5指挥部的后续声明,诚恳感激站务对透明度的重视。

您提到若用户以EN成员身份正常参与网站活动没有问题,我们也对站务保障用户的公平参与和投票权的努力深表感激。不过,因为已有许多用户报告称他们可能已经在正常网站活动的过程中被误判,我们仍非常期望能就具体的考量标准做出探讨,以便在今后向用户提供可行的指导。

回信中也提出,判断依据是用户是否是更大集体的一部分,并非所有投票的CN用户都被封禁。我们感谢EN站务团队将每个人作为独立个体调查,但也留意到同样给出up票的大多数非CN用户并未被处分。我们想请教有没有进一步说明:当决定用户是否是"作为更大群体的一部分"而投票并定罪的依据,是将用户的CN成员资格纳入考量,还是基于用户确有声称或评论自己是协同投票的实质证据?职员帖提到由于"这些用户在同一分部经常参与讨论和投票",所以纪律小组认为票量增加明显是抱团投票导致的。我......无法理解这个理由是如何在逻辑上支持结果的......说到底,无论EN、CN还是其他分部,用户的行为都是类似的,不会因参与同一分部就自动存在协同关系。我们也真诚地担忧这一定罪依据若被实行,会不会在制度上增加风险,使得国际用户会在正常投票过程中无意仅仅因国际身份被误判为某个协同集体的一部分。我们无意干涉EN站务的处置标准,但衷心希望能更多考虑这一风险,以避免未来的误会。

职员帖同时提到,被封禁的用户相比在CN的活跃度而言,均在EN维基活跃度很低。我们也希望了解,这一判断机制是否已经平等应用于所有的不活跃用户,无论来源,和/或,对国际用户的活跃度比较是一个标准流程。对于善意的CN用户,我们也会感谢您说明:是否需要同时确保自己维持一定水平的活跃和参与度,才可以安全地履行投票权。一个新加入EN的用户最初几票该如何投下是最好的?

我们很感谢您给出了一个明确的标准界定:

当我们看见一个从未在EN投票却时常给翻译投票的用户投出单独的投票时,我们会将其视为有意操纵而非自然曝光。

这可能暴露出了双方误会的根本来源之一:双方的投票理念或许存在差异,对此探讨或许对我们都有好处。为了澄清——如果这能够对判定用户意图有所帮助——在CN社群中,社群共识是如果有人阅读并理解文章内容,并持有原始网站的资格(无论是CN还是EN),他们有权作为成员进行投票。用户也时常会被提醒,若他们有成员资格,就可以这么做。如果这种理解或评论违反了EN站规,我们也会很感谢您做出澄清,方便用户了解到投票时的边界。

就竞赛期间,我们也有所了解您提到的6k和8k大赛期间的事件。在类似活动中,用户活动量会自然激增,翻译也常会在原文后不久就被发布。用户会希望在EN站就自己的审美判断而做出投票,作为比赛投票流程的一部分。我们理解为了防止测试边界的行为,必须保有一定的模糊性,但竞赛的确是一个比较常见而合理的情形,因而如果您能提供任何具体例子、指南、澄清或者最佳流程,都会帮到用户避免未来的误操作和事件。

最后我们希望探讨我们对于有关翻译之投票是否有更核心的理念不同,因为职员帖提到票量涌入和翻译有关。我们希望补充一点,因为大部分CN用户的母语是中文,我们会自然倾向于使用母语阅读,也就是已经有翻译的文章。我好奇一个在EN活跃度较低的、有CN成员资格的用户,阅读了翻译,有审美判断并做出投票,相比一个没有CN成员资格并阅读英语原文的用户,在流程、标准和动机推定上会有差异吗?基于现有的标准和判例,似乎前者会面临更高的被标记、审查和误罚的风险。这是否是因为前者更容易被认为是一个集体的一部分,还是说前者时常会集中在翻译后的短时间内发生?如果我们有任何理解错误的地方也很感谢指正。鉴于翻译是国际站点的一项主要活动,我们也会感谢您说明:在当前的框架和标准下,翻译,及其引来的国际用户的关注,是被判定为自然曝光,还是可能的投票抱团与操纵。

再次感谢您持续的沟通,和澄清规则与提升透明度的努力。我们诚恳希望回答以上担忧可以帮助双方预防未来的误会。期待您的回复。

此致,
W Asriel,管理员
Holy_Darklight,管理员
MScarlet,管理员
SCP-CN站务组

07-24 01:10 收到Queerious Queerious 之私信回复。

Hi all,

AriadnesThread and I are happy to help clarify some of the concerns and confusion that you noted in your response, working towards a happy resolution for all parties. We'll start by addressing specific aspects of your message:

When deciding whether someone is acting as a part of a larger group and therefore deemed malicious, is the user's branch origin taken into consideration or is it based solely on evidence such as user statement and comments that they were voting in coordination with others?

When we are evaluating a user, their home branch is not a factor in determining if they are part of a brigade or engaging in vote manipulation. In the past, we have had brigades exclusively from EN users, who have also received disciplinary bans. Branch membership will only be weighed when first attempting to understand if a brigade is taking place, and as one of many metrics we evaluate normal activity patterns.

I.. failed to comprehend how this pattern logically justifies the conclusion.. after all, user behavior within any branch - be it EN, CN or others - are similar. Shared branch participation does not automatically concludes coordination.

This is a fair point, allow me to clarify what we meant there. When we say 'coordinated', we mean that the voting activity was centered around a specific idea. In this case, that was seen as 'an attempt to prevent deletion on SCP-268-J'. It was never our goal to characterize international users as a larger group of coordination, that was a mistake in my phrasing; we used it as a notable indicator of potential brigading, which triggered our further investigation. In this case it is an unfortunate situation of all abusive users coming from a single location, which resulted in assumptions about the branch acting as a whole. We will work to avoid confusing language in the future.

We'd like to understand whether this standard has been applied equally to all low-activity users regardless of origin, and/or is activity comparison a standard procedure for international users.

In this situation, we evaluated every user that voted on the page, to look for a break in standard voting pattern that would indicate vote manipulation. This applied to both users who upvoted and downvoted, and evaluated their frequency of activity, voting patterns and further community interactions, for all users, regardless of home branch. During this review, we identified a user from KO who met our criteria, but have not given any further bans on this topic until we ensure that there is a full understanding of how we evaluated and made our decision based on evidence.

For CN users in good faith we would appreciate the clarity: Must a user maintain a certain level of engagement to safely carry out their voting rights? What's the best practice for a newly joined EN user to cast their first few votes?

When we are evaluating voting activity, the biggest indicator that a user is engaging in good faith is that they have left a comment that is more substantial that a single joke, or noting how they voted. As an example, if a user had left a comment expressing what they felt about the article, and did so each time they voted on a translated work, we would interpret that as engaging in good faith on the EN wiki.

As a specific example, the CN user Kanie Ja Kanie Ja , was banned for vote manipulation based on a sporadic voting pattern, and having voted on works that were the target of previous brigades. Yesterday, the user appealed, and upon further investigation, they had left substantial comments for the EN pages that they voted on, and had a regular, consistent, cadence of voting. Seeing this, Disciplinary realized that they were caught in the initial wave of bans by mistake, and accepted the appeal, unbanning them from the wiki. Conversely, several other accounts were only active in previous suspected brigades with two or three votes per year on controversial or contest-entry pages, and later appealed with insulting language towards the English staff members. Good faith engagement is ultimately the primary indicator, just as it would be for any branch (presumably).

When we are trying to see if a user is participating in vote manipulation, if they provide a reasonable comment, we will most likely consider them engaging in good faith — in the event that they are banned, but were trying to engage in good faith, we highly recommend that they reach out to a member of Disciplinary to appeal their ban. We will always approach an appeal without bias, and investigate further based on the contents of their appeal.

We believe that if you can encourage your users to provide a comment that is more substantial than just saying 'I like this', expressing what or why they liked it, and that, in the event of a ban, they should appeal to the Disciplinary team, we feel that we will be able to avoid issues like this in the future.

There is a common held belief that if someone reads and understands the content of an article and holds the membership in the original site(be it CN or EN), they are entitled to cast a vote as an member. It is also not uncommon for users to be reminded that they may do so if they hold the membership. If this understanding or comment contradicts EN policy, we would greatly appreciate clarification so users may understand the boundaries as they vote.

Neither of these statements is incorrect. A user who is a member of EN is entitled to cast a vote, and users reminding each other to vote on the original is also allowed. In this case, the specific behaviors of issue with voting were, as detailed above, voting without commenting, and voting in a manner that breaks a pattern (for example, voting after a long gap, or only voting on a few pages). In terms of the reminders to vote, the specific issue in this case was the user who tracked the current vote total on EN; for the Disciplinary team, that was a clear indicator that it was not a simple reminder to vote, rather, a direct call to vote such that the rating would be reversed.

Concrete examples, guidelines, clarifications or best practices you could provide would still help users to avoid further missteps and incidents.

I can speak to part of this, as the rest is handled by the Contests team, who I can forward specific questions to if that would be helpful. For what I can say, the indicators we look for during contests include the above detail regarding comments and activity; in addition, we also look if the user has voted on any other contest entries, leaving their thoughts.

When we are evaluating vote manipulation during a contest, one of the biggest indicators is voting exclusively on a single contest entry: when we see this, it is much more difficult to interpret the behavior in good faith. If users from INT branches want to vote during a contest, voting on multiple entries and providing comments will assist in our determinations.

Since translation is a major activity of international sites, we'd also appreciate clarification on, under the current framework and standards, are translations, and the attention they draw from international users thereof, considered a form or organic exposure or potential brigading and manipulation.

Translations are considered a form of organic exposure. EN has no policies that would disallow translations, and we fully believe it to be an important aspect of the collective SCP culture. However, behavior around translations, such as calling for reversing a rating, or calling for giving votes so a content entry might win by only voting on that one is considered potential brigading. As another example, frequently positively discussing and commenting on the translated pages, but only voting on one of the original EN pages would also be considered potential brigading or vote manipulation.

We hope that the above clarifies any confusion and concerns that you and your users may still have, please let us know if there is anything that we can communicate further.

I think, based on this conversation, I would like to work with CN, INT ambassadors, and the other EN Admins to create a guide, defining best practices for engaging in good faith between international wikis. Having a resource, that applies to all users, regardless of home branch, and explains how to respectfully and properly participate in these discussions, voting and more would be useful for all branches, helping to avoid situations like this in the future.

Thanks again,
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain
AriadnesThread - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

07-24 09:14 第二封跟进:

I just wanted to inform CN admins that, for each of the users who were banned during the initial wave, we have gone through and added specific evidence used during our deliberations. Over the course of this review, two users were identified who we believed had been engaging in good faith, and decided to reverse the ban.

Our priority is getting to the resolution, and hopefully, this helps demonstrate that.

Best,
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

07-26 03:18 CN回复:

Hi Queerious and AriadnesThread,

First of all I apologize for the delayed response. It took us some time to carefully consider how to respond. We are deeply grateful for your patience in addressing our questions and answer one by one, with clear and actionable suggestions and standards provided, which we'll pass on to the CN community accordingly.

Thank you as well for clarifying that the presumption of bad faith is not based on user's branch origin and your willingness to re-evaluate each case individually based on the careful investigation of past activities and made them visible in each staff post. We've read through the post and noticed that, the fact that a user has significantly lower activity and little comments in EN compared to that of CN is a major factor of being considered malicious. While we would rather believe this may be due to user's preference for using their native language and therefore being diverted, we understand that if your team would use this as an continuing standard in the future it is not our place to assess that decision. We only hope that this level of transparency and clarity can help resolve the current concerns from the community.

We also appreciate your openness to carefully review appeals and reconsider certain bans. We are also actively informing users of the related rules and instructions of the EN appeal process and encouraging them to explain their situation truthfully.

At the moment we don't have any further questions, and thank you again for your detailed response to them. Our Master Admin Areyoucrazytom mentioned that he is willing to continue the communication in private to resolve some of the remaining disputes, and may reach out to you shortly.

We are especially grateful for the clear and actionable voting guidelines and risk indicators you provided - particularly those regarding contests which might have historically been a high-risk period of potential incidents (as in the future). Regarding your suggestion that user provide substantial comments, and that this is considered an important factor for presumption of good faith, we also found it a very constructive suggestion. Considering that, I am personally planning to write a guide about English terminologies and comment tips for readers who are interested in giving feedback on the original page.

That being said, I believe the motivation and underlying logic of such initiative is to enhance user communication, mutual understands and positive interactions by aiding them more conveniently expressing thoughts and their aesthetic judgments in a second language - rather than because specific users need to carry more responsibility in proving their innocence and spending more time and energy to reach certain level of engagement. Ultimately we hope this effort leads to a more inclusive and integrated community so that specific users will not have to face more risk of being flagged, self-restraint and unnecessary misunderstood in the future.

Please forgive us for some sharp questions in those earlier messages. Those were indeed several common situations that need considering and concerns raised by users, so we do believe that openly facing those concerns and potential institutional risks would help resolving them properly, and may prevent larger misunderstandings in the future. Thank you again for addressing and respond.

If you are willing, we would also welcome more example cases or risk indicators to share with the CN community for their reference and answer confusions, and help them participating in the EN community without missteps. However since the policy enforcement and interpretation lies with EN, user may expect and trust to receive the info directly from the EN wiki. As such, I would personally suggest the resources be posted on the EN wiki too to best increase transparency and credibility.

Once again, thank you again for your willingness to communicate and clarify.

Sincerely,
W Asriel, Administrator
Holy_Darklight, Administrator
MScarlet, Administrator
SCP-CN Staff Team

翻译会稍后补上。

07-24 01:10 收到Queerious Queerious 之私信回复。

诸位好,

AriadnesThread和我十分乐于说明您在回复中提及的担忧和困惑,寻求一个让各方都满意的解决方案。我们会从解答您消息中的具体方面开始。

当决定用户是否是"作为更大群体的一部分"而投票并定罪的依据,是将用户的CN成员资格纳入考量,还是基于用户确有声称或评论自己是协同投票的实质证据?

在我们评估用户的时候,他们的原分部并不是判定他们是否参与抱团投票或投票操纵的因素。在过去,我们也发生过仅来自EN的成员的抱团投票,他们也被处分。只有在首次尝试了解是否存在抱团时,我们才会考虑分部成员身份,作为我们评估常规活动模式的诸多指标之一。

我......无法理解这个理由是如何在逻辑上支持结果的......说到底,无论EN、CN还是其他分部,用户的行为都是类似的,不会因参与同一分部就自动存在协同关系。

这说得对,允许我澄清一下我们那句话的意思。当我们说"协同",我们的意思是投票活动围绕着一个特定的想法展开。在这个案例中,该想法是"试图防止SCP-268-J被删除"。我们的目的从来不是把国际用户看作一个更大的协同的集体,那是我的表述错误;我们把这看作了可能存在抱团投票的显著指标,因此触发了更多调查。在这次案例中,很不幸的是所有不当用户都来自同一个地方,因此导致这个分部被假定作为集体而行动。我们会努力避免在未来使用令人困惑的语言。

我们也希望了解,这一判断机制是否已经平等应用于所有的不活跃用户,无论来源,和/或,对国际用户的活跃度比较是一个标准流程。

在这个情况中,我们分析了每一个对页面投票的用户,并寻找投票模式中提示存在投票操纵的破局点。这适用于upvote和downvote的用户,我们分析了他们的活动频率、投票模式和更多的社群互动,对所有用户都是如此,无论来自哪个分部。在审理过程中,我们发现一位来自KO的用户也满足条件,但并没有就此对其做出进一步封禁,除非我们能确认用户能完全理解我们是如何基于证据评估和做出决策的。

对于善意的CN用户,我们也会感谢您说明:是否需要同时确保自己维持一定水平的活跃和参与度,才可以安全地履行投票权。一个新加入EN的用户最初几票该如何投下是最好的?

当我们评估投票活动的时候,用户善意参与的最大指标之一就是他们留下了比单纯玩笑或者表示投了什么票更有实质内容的评论。举例而言,如果用户留下评论表达他们对文章的感受,并且每次对有翻译的作品投票时都是如此,我们会将其理解为善意地参与EN维基。

具体举例而言,CN用户Kanie Ja Kanie Ja 先前因为投票方式零散并且在过去投了被认为遭遇抱团投票的文章,而被认定为操纵投票并封禁。昨天,用户提出申诉,并且在进一步调查中发现,用户在其投过票的EN页面留下过有实质内容的评论,并且投票具备一致性和规律性。故此,纪律团队意识到用户被错误地卷入了最初的封禁潮,并接受申诉将其解封。相反的是,有几个其他账号仅仅参与了过往的疑似抱团投票,每年仅投两三票,目标是争议页面或竞赛页面,并且在之后的申诉中对英语站务说了侮辱性的言语。善意参与是最首要指标,对任何分部大概都是如此。

当我们试着判断用户是否参与投票操纵的时候,如果他们提供了合理的评论,我们很可能会认为用户是善意参与的。如果用户被误封但确实试着善意参与,我们十分建议用户联系纪律团队提出申诉。我们会始终秉持公正处理申诉,并就他们申诉的内容做出进一步调查。

我们相信如果您能鼓励您这边的用户们留下比单纯的"我喜欢这篇"更有实质性的评论,解释他们为何喜欢、喜欢哪些地方,并且如果被封禁,他们该向纪律团队提出申诉,我们认为我们可以在未来避免类似于这样的问题发生。

在CN社群中,社群共识是如果有人阅读并理解文章内容,并持有原始网站的资格(无论是CN还是EN),他们有权作为成员进行投票。用户也时常会被提醒,若他们有成员资格,就可以这么做。如果这种理解或评论违反了EN站规,我们也会很感谢您做出澄清,方便用户了解到投票时的边界。

两种说法都没错。EN站的成员有权做出投票,用户提醒别人可以对原文投票也是允许的。在本次案例中,投票的具体问题是出在,正如上文所述,投票而不评论、投票但打破一定常规(比如说隔了很久才投票或者只对极少页面投票)。至于提醒投票,本次案例的具体问题是出在,有用户在追踪EN页面的投票数;对于纪律团队,这清晰显示了此并非简单地提醒投票,而是直接呼吁他人投票来改变分数走向。

任何具体例子、指南、澄清或者最佳流程,都会帮到用户避免未来的误操作和事件。

我可以谈一部分,剩下一部分是赛务组处理的,但若有帮助我可以将具体的问题也转交给他们。就我能说的部分是,竞赛期间我们观察的指标包括上文所述的评论和活跃;此外,我们也会看用户是否会给其他竞赛页面投票并留下看法。

当我们就竞赛页面评估投票操纵时,最大的指标之一就是用户只对单篇竞赛作品投票。当我们看见这种情形,很难将其解读为出于善意的行为。来自INT各分部的用户若希望在竞赛期间投票,多就几个页面投票并提供评论会帮到我们的判断。

鉴于翻译是国际站点的一项主要活动,我们也会感谢您说明:在当前的框架和标准下,翻译,及其引来的国际用户的关注,是被判定为自然曝光,还是可能的投票抱团与操纵。

翻译是被认为是一种自然曝光。EN没有禁止翻译的政策,我们也完全相信翻译是SCP集体文化的重要方面。然而,与翻译有关的活动,例如呼吁改变评分走向,或者呼吁仅仅对某个可能获胜的竞赛页面投票,都会被认为是可能的抱团投票。作为另一个例子,频繁对翻译后的页面积极讨论和评论,却只对其中一个的EN原文投票,也会被认为是潜在的抱团投票或操纵投票。

我们希望以上内容可以澄清您方用户可能还会有的疑惑和担忧,如果还有任何我们需要继续联络的内容,请让我们知道。

我觉得,基于对话,我想和CN、INT大使们以及其他EN管理们合作创建一份指导,定义国际维基之间如何善意参与的最佳实践。有了这份适用于所有用户、不分分部,能够解释如何尊重且恰当地参与讨论和投票的资源,有助于避免将来再发生类似情况。

再次感谢,
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain
AriadnesThread - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

07-24 09:14 第二封跟进:

我希望告知CN管理员,对于第一波被封禁的每一名用户,我们都重审并加入了审议期间使用的具体证据。在审议期间,有两名用户我们发现应是出于善意参与,并决定撤销封禁。

我们的首要任务是尽快解决问题,并希望这能帮助说明这一点。

此致,
Queerious - EN Admin, Disciplinary Captain

07-26 03:18 CN回复:

您好Queerious和AriadnesThread,

首先为延迟回应致歉。我们花了一些时间来考虑如何做出回复。非常感谢您耐心阅读我们的提问,并逐一给出答复,提出了具体可行的建议和清晰的判定标准。我们后续也会将其转达给CN社群。

也非常感谢您方澄清恶意推定和来源分部无关,并愿意重新审理每个用户的案子,细致调查他们的过往活动历史并在职员帖公开透明记录。我们也认真阅读了职员帖,留意到所有被判定为恶意的用户的主要依据均为,他们在EN的活动远低于CN的活动,且评论量极少。这我更愿意相信是因为用户倾向于使用母语并因此被分流。但若您的团队有意继续将此作为今后的制度性标准,我们也明白此事我们不便评价,谨希望此种透明性和清晰度能够有助于解答当前的社群争议。

也感谢您方愿意认真考虑申诉并和重新审理他们的封禁。我们也在积极提醒用户们EN申诉流程的相关规定和须知,并鼓励他们如实说明情况。

目前我们也没有更多的疑问,再次感谢您对问题的一一回应。我们的主要管理员Areyoucrazytom提到有意与您方继续私下沟通以解决一些仍然存在的冲突,他稍后可能会发起联络。

尤其感谢您提到的诸多清晰可行的投票建议,以及可能的风险点——尤其是关于竞赛的部分,因为竞赛可能是过去诸多误会的高发期(未来也是)。就信中提到的建议用户"对原文留下具体评价",并提到这是善意推定的重要依据,我们也认为这是一个相当有建设性的提议。故此,我个人有计划撰写一封英语术语对照和文章评论指南,供有意对原文表达反馈的读者参照。

话虽如此,我相信,这一举措的动机和底层逻辑是增进用户间的沟通和相互理解、社群的良性互动,协助用户更便利地使用第二语言发布观点、表达审美判断——而不是因为特定用户在参与正常社群活动时天然需要承担更高的自证清白责任和时间精力来达到一定的参与度。这一努力的最终目的,我们希望,也是为促进社群多元和融合,使得特定用户在未来不必遭遇更多的风险标记、自我约束和不必要的误会。

请原谅先前信件中,我们提出的一些问题较为尖锐。它们的确是常见且需要考虑的情况和用户的担忧,所以我们相信,正视问题和制度中可能存在的风险有助于妥善解决它们,也能避免未来更大的误解。再次感谢您方愿意一一解答、反应。

若您后续愿意提供,我们也非常期待更多案例和风险指标,并转达CN社群供其参考、答疑解惑,协助其在今后正常地参与EN社群而不致出错。不过由于政策执行和解释权在EN,用户也许更期望和信任能从EN维基直接获取这些信息。因此从个人建议而言,若以上资源能也被发布在EN维基本站,也许最为有助于制度透明和用户公信力。

最后,再次诚挚地感谢您愿意对话和澄清。

此致,
W Asriel,管理员
Holy_Darklight,管理员
MScarlet,管理员
SCP-CN站务组