Rule Violation Reports (New forum)

[Theglassman12]

@GarrixianXD Yeah even with this "staff approval" this isn't enough, especially when most staff members aren't familiar with every single banned member on the site and just assumed it's fine, but it snowballs down to the users on site to copy and paste their entire arguments onto the site in the first place. Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I have some issues with these conditions, and I know I'm not the only one, but they are what is currently allowed and disallowed. I am aware that Topaz, at least, did receive permission from Antvasima to post the main CRT. However, I can't see any evidence that Topaz received any evaluation or permission for this post, which is just Fuji's own words copy-pasted, complete with all the side-notes and tangents therein.

This is plainly just direct proxying. Direct proxying of this sort has effectively the same consequences as temporarily unbanning a user for the purpose of letting them post what they want on the wiki - the fact that we already allow this on the basis of the judgement of an individual staff member is, in my opinion, extremely unrestrictive, but this isn't even that. This instance is effectively no different from just sharing their account with Fuji, and I don't believe our rules - unrestrictive as they are - even allow for this.

I would endorse a strict warning.

Oh, yeah, Topaz didn't even show Ant what they wanted to post which is a red flag. Worth consideration.

Edit: especially since they straight-up pasted Fuji's comments off-site.

@GarrixianXD Yeah even with this "staff approval" this isn't enough, especially when most staff members aren't familiar with every single banned member on the site and just assumed it's fine, but it snowballs down to the users on site to copy and paste their entire arguments onto the site in the first place. Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.

I agree with you. Though, I'd think it'd be unfair to put this burden on Topaz; the issue shouldn't lie on him because it wasn't discussed by multiple staff.

@Topaz404 Reminding you that don't act as a proxy for Fuji now; you'll be informed once things are settled.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I would endorse a strict warning.

Instead of it being just one staff member this should've been a group vote, as it can easily be manipulated for banned members to get away with proxies just because they ask the one staff member not familiar with their behavior.

@Topaz404 Reminding you that don't act as a proxy for Fuji now; you'll be informed once things are settled.

To be honest this isn't even the first time that Topaz was warned for being a proxy.

I think this is worth a consideration.

 

[GrathOfLux]

To be honest this isn't even the first time that Topaz was warned for being a proxy.

I think this is worth a consideration.

Yes, it is. Considering I can't find evidence that Topaz received permission for that comment, that they were warned at the time by a staff member about doing this, and they stated afterwards they would not do it again, this is actually quite marked.

This is also not even just the second time I can find of Topaz doing this directly, but the third, though that instance was from prior to receiving their warning.

I would still settle for a strict warning on this matter, but all the information should be on the table.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.

 

[GrathOfLux]

As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.

You've misunderstood. I do think Topaz's latest comment on the thread does violate our rules on proxying, and that Topaz has violated our rules in this respect twice before now.

I'm advocating for a warning not because they don't violate these rules, but because I would rather we resolve this issue and prevent further issues without moving towards a ban, and I think that is feasible.

 

[Topaz404]

Whooopie, ive been reported, who wouldve seen that coming-

Alright yeah. Im just going to post this that i've acknowledged my warning, and ill have to be sure to not partake in proxying again-
Im presuming it's already been applied, but yeah

 

[Antvasima]

Pretty sure we allow people to type out stuff banned users have said as long as it is stated to be by that user and isn't toxic.

Another requirement is that a high-ranking staff member should accept that a revision is posted and that it seems to be genuinely constructive for the reliability of our wiki pages.

 

[Antvasima]

As much as I agree with you that Fuji should absolutely stay off the site and users here shouldn't act as her proxy, I don't think Topaz is deliberately violating the rules here. Though, don't take this as me agreeing with Crabwhale's explanation of the guideline.

Our official guideline says:

We're allowed to be proxies for banned members, as long as staff members approve of it. Topaz provided that they had permission from Ant to post Fuji's arguments as a proxy. Judging by how we implemented our guidelines, I think it'd be natural for Topaz to think he fulfilled the criteria of staff approval to be a proxy, which you can say he did in a sort of sense. I don't recall there being a set number of staff approvals needed to permit proxy comments onto the site.

However, I'll say that Ant did make quite a hasty decision, and it would be much more preferable if he asked us about the Fuji proxy issue in the staff chat for our opinion on it, instead of entirely making that decision himself. However, perhaps better to not discuss it here.

Well, I only intended to allow posting matter of fact analytical arguments in the initial post and possibly for later relevant rational clarification purposes and the like, not anything beyond that, so I do not really see the harm in that, but maybe I should have asked our administrators about it first in private.

Regardless, I do not think that Topaz has done anything bad here.

 

[Antvasima]

As Grath has said. While the discussion is theoretically open to further developments, it has been determined that our rules are not opposed to Topaz' current actions. A warning, and an acknowledgement to be very careful when playing with fire, is the most that could be done.

Yes, that seems fine, in case Topaz did not just post matter of fact logical arguments and evidence, but posted personal attacks or other to the topic irrelevant content from Fujiwara.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

In the case of Topaz, I believe the conclusion was the OP did not break any rules, but arguments posted afterwards were literally just repeated copy/pastes from the same banned user. Which a staff permission should at best be limited to one post as the standard assumption; and more or less each and every post would require permission if it comes to that (Though I doubt giving full permission for a banned user to debate as if they were never banned would be accepted). I agree a warning and agreeing that he should avoid copy/pasting any further comments on the thread.

 

[Antvasima]

In the case of Topaz, I believe the conclusion was the OP did not break any rules, but arguments posted afterwards were literally just repeated copy/pastes from the same banned user. Which a staff permission should at best be limited to one post as the standard assumption; and more or less each and every post would require permission if it comes to that (Though I doubt giving full permission for a banned user to debate as if they were never banned would be accepted). I agree a warning and agreeing that he should avoid copy/pasting any further comments on the thread.

Yes. My intention was mainly to just allow an initial post with useful logical arguments and linked evidence, not any personal comments.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm fine with requiring mod review/approval to post threads with arguments from a banned user. The main issue for which Fujiwara was banned was her temper. Her revision threads have always been sound and well reasoned and good contributions to fixing profiles and cleaning up the wiki. I'd feel differently if it were a user who was banned primarily with regard to their behavior around a specific verse like the Tokyo Revengers people from last year.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm fine with requiring mod review/approval to post threads with arguments from a banned user. The main issue for which Fujiwara was banned was her temper. Her revision threads have always been sound and well reasoned and good contributions to fixing profiles and cleaning up the wiki. I'd feel differently if it were a user who was banned primarily with regard to their behavior around a specific verse like the Tokyo Revengers people from last year.

Thank you. Strongly agreed.