Thread:TheSecondEdgeOfTheBlade/@comment-32730499-20170903022602/@comment-26273552-20170903155226

Let us first begin by saying this: The staff team has been granted the rights that they have because they are trusted to know and enforce the wiki policy as properly and effectively as they are reasonably able. They have proven their trustworthiness and knowledge through months of service and good behavior.

That being said, I am happy that you have taken your concerns about Fred's enforcement of the policy to me, as opposed to angrily continuing to fight with him over this.

However, as Fred has pointed out, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever. I quote my past self on this (albeit from a separate wiki from this one): "Link everything you're making reference to.1" It is also a part of our Wiki Policy2, and on my Message Wall FAQ3 that you must provide sufficient amounts of evidence to back up your claims.

Now, I believe that is enough of an intro. It is now time to tackle the actual content of the report, and the issue we're facing here. The alleged violation of the Wiki Policy's illegal action clause4.

Let's begin from the very beginning of the apparent issue. The beginning might actually be a bit surprising, because it occurred a month ago. The issue starts with one of IPR's first threads in which stalking is mentioned casually and jokingly5, and nobody is bothered by it. Three administrators (including myself) replied to that message, and no warning was given for that statement. This set up an expectation that such conduct was absolutely fine, even encouraged, as Yossi played along with the joke6.

The next chronological installment in this escapade happens much more recently, with IPR's Message on Yossi's wall where there is an alleged death threat7 in the form of a short poem8. To me, this is does not constitute as a death threat, but rather as a failed attempt to spark conversation. The reason I interpret it this way is the stylization of the background, and the person receiving the message. In this thread, Yossi complimented IPR's CSS skills9, and this could be seen as a cute extension to that. Additionally, if indirect "threats" or references to murder in poetry are going to be grounds for warnings, I've certainly got some explaining to do about poetry I've previously hosted here, which alludes to the murder of an unfaithful groom10.

Now, finally to the root of the reported issue: this thread, in which IPR greets Thatone with the problematic statements11, and is warned by Fred12. Fred's judgement of the situation was a fair one, given the lack of context and research into the situation. "Fair" does not necessarily mean "right" but I often lean towards trusting the judgement of my admins unless my attention is directed towards a possible fault in there judgement in a case such as this one. From Fred's point of view, he was most certainly upholding and enforcing the policy of the wiki to the letter, as well as preventing possible out-of-wiki drama from spilling over. All in all this is an appropriate response for the available context.

However, something that needs to be made clear here is that "stalking" people on FANDOM is a common joke used by many users all across the site. I have even done this myself13 for a long time without a second thought to the possible illegal nature of it. This running joke is even used by one of the better known users on FANDOM, Undertale Wiki admin Kocka on his message walls14, which, by the way were an issue would have likely resulted in a nice long block for violating that section of FANDOM's Terms of Use15.

It would take forever for me to find and dig up more of these references, so you'll have to trust me that they exist in large quantities. You can probably surf around FANDOM and find quite a few on your own.

Now, onto the final installment of the issue leading up to this thread. In Thatone's thread on Fred's wall, there is an attempt to explain the situation16, a needlessly judgmental comment17, and an explanation behind Fred's actions18. Fred then closed the thread, leaving absolutely no room for further discussion, and threatening to block for something that is NOT against our policy19.

I am not going to pretend for even a moment that I am not disappointed with references 17 and 19. Being snarky when contesting a warning is incredibly counterproductive, and only makes you look like trouble. Users are allowed to contest warnings they believe to be unfair, and should not be warned for or prevented from doing so. Now, as for the actual content of this thread, both users involved provide a reasonable argument to defend their case, and I don't think I need to make any more comments on that thread in particular.

And, truly finally, this thread we are on right now. The initial message is an embellished recounting of the actual happenings. Please keep things factual when reporting issues, and as mentioned before, provide evidence. Fred's reply is overly long. Next time you want to defend yourself, present the facts and a bit of explanation, not a whole essay please. If the issue has been escalated to me, it's my turn to interpret the data, and the more and the larger opinions I have to sort through the more difficult that becomes.

Now, I'm getting tired of writing this, so I'll wrap it up now. As Ash said, "Honestly, I think we just have a big misunderstanding here." The source of the misunderstanding is quite simple, and is often encountered in much larger, and much more important battles, so I can see how it could affect us here. The source is the difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. Fred was, quite obviously, obeying the letter of the law, while almost everyone else involved (including myself) was following the spirit of it.

The intents of these jokes were never meant to be threatening or encourage actual stalking in any way, and were simply misinterpreted that way. In my eyes, the policy was not actually broken, so the warnings may be disregarded. Fred acted in a perfectly reasonable manner, however, so there will be no punishment for him either.

In future, I hope we can all agree to uphold the spirit of the policy, and always assume good faith in our users.