6 for no action
3 for censure is inappropriate
2 for a month-ish censure.

Prismal will accordingly receive no formal censure.

Disciplinary voted 6-0 (with three recusals) for Prismal's removal from the team, with no restriction on applying in the future. Prismal was notified and acknowledged both decisions.

Firstly: echoing others that the plagiarism was not malicious and that the actions already taken are sufficient. It was a mistake and the consequences were in line.

The main issue appears to be Prismal’s behaviour in staffcord afterwards. I can have sympathy for her emotional response here, but I do feel there were moments that were either on or over the line. I do not get the impression she was acting in bad faith or with intent to cast doubt on Disc on a whole. However, I can see this as a situation where the work atmosphere has been affected, and for that alone removal from Disc is understandable. Other than that, I feel that’s Disc’s own call here.

As far as censure: I do not feel this is appropriate. And if a majority would decide for it, I’d argue for a short one (max 1-2 weeks).

I do want to say this, and I hope you forgive me for being a bit annoying here:

I respect the work the Disc team does and the unpleasantness that comes with it, and have full trust in the team and their intentions! That doesn't mean that for the receiver, there is little difference between “Disciplinary running amok” and “a busy weekend resulted in less than ideal communication”, to reference Ari’s post here (sorry, not calling you out here, just referring back to it). Taking a day more to make sure the message is put forward correctly would’ve benefitted this situation imo. Communication and timing are sometimes less than perfect, but for a staff team like Disc I'd argue it could use with more care.

And on that note on communication and timing: I have some issues with this thread being opened during the posting period for 8kcon, where the minds and energy of a lot of people are elsewhere. I think this could’ve waited a week and have it be given the attention it deserves. I only just got around to really working through this thread and I feel that it was a disservice to this case.

Obviously, we can't completely eliminate bias or emotion or any of that other stuff, and no one would ever expect anyone to do so. What was raised as a problem in this case is that as a member of Disc, you've seen from the other side how complicated matters can get if we deviate from procedures, particularly when we're trying very hard to *fix* these procedures so it's as effective as possible. Going into the public staff channels to try and litigate the situation when we were still trying to untangle it just made it seem like Disc was on a witch hunt without cause, resulting in having to explain the nature of the original complaint in order to justify what was going on before we had finalized anything on our end.

What I was saying (and I believe the others are saying as well) has nothing to do with 'biasing a jury' so much as upending procedure unnecessarily by bringing it up publicly in 19cord. This is not a trial of opinion, this is staff acknowledging that things got messy and how to best rectify it. I understand that this is uncomfortable and it's bound to make anyone defensive, but we're not trying to make you look good or bad or anything. All that is being stated is that as an admin and a long time Disc member, this was something that could have been handled better with your knowledge of these situations. That's it.

Mostly it seems people are concerned about my behavior in staffcord and believe the best course of action is removal from Disc.

I'll attempt to briefly respond to this below.

On removal from the Disc Team:

0. Something I'm surprised hasn't been asked or clarified yet: What does the removal entail?

Would I be able to potentially rejoin later? If so, after how long? Or would I be blacklisted from Disc? If a blacklist, is a blacklist appeable? Would it be an appeal to admins or Disc? If so, after how long? Would I still be considered to be in good standing if removal is decided upon?

In the past there have been issues due to a lack of clarity on recommendations in Censure threads. Best not to repeat that, I think.

1 . I recognize I may be shooting myself in the foot here, but:

If I can't be trusted to be a member of Disc, why trust me to be a member of AHT or an Admin?

Surely there's some overlap in function there and a similar, if not greater, degree of trust.

Can you trust a member of AHT who has behaved this way and been removed from Disc? Can you trust an admin who has behaved this way and was removed from Disc?

Why or why not? I could be said to have acted in an admin capacity as much as I could be said to have been acting in a Disc capacity, or any staff capacity.

Frankly I'd rather get that all out in the open rather than potentially fostering discontent in some about my continued membership in staff or some such.

Concerns on my behavior:

1 . I acted childish and irrationally

Absolutely. I should have known better, I have no excuse and can only apologize, especially to torcsandantlers..

I will say, in a bid to explain my behaviour (though it absolutely doesn't excuse it) I had recently stopped taking mood stabilizers, a change which unfortunately affected me far more negatively than expected.

I hesitated to mention this, because it is embarrassing and potentially sounds like I'm abdicating responsibility.

Let me be clear: I am the only one responsible for my actions.

I mention this only because I think it's a relevant factor as to why this is, in many ways, a unique circumstance unlikely to reoccur. (Unless you count the other time I had to take a break from staff when starting a new medication, though I'd say the situation was somewhat different.) and I feel like I have to scramble to attempt to explain why I shouldn’t just be removed forms taff wholesale. Nonetheless I should have known better.

It is each person’s own responsibility to only enter staffcord if they are in a state to do so. I failed at this and it's only right I be held responsible. But it's very unlikely for these circumstances to happen again, and I would like to think they played a big part in my reaction. A big change in my medication,the , for me very stressful change, re: resuming classes after multiple years (wasn't going to mention this on 05 but since Disc already has, I suppose there's no harm in repeating it), overly stressing regarding potential consequences of the plagiarism accusation, and having it all come to head on one of the two days I was expecting not to hear about it.

TLDR: my fault. Be reassured it won’t happen again, in part because of external factors.

2. I should have known better than messing with the Disciplinary process to bias the case in her favor,

I’m going to be honest, before reading stormbreath and Ari’s comments I didn't really get this aspect of people's concerns. I’m still not sure I totally grasp or agree with it.

If I've got this right you’re saying this is essentially like biasing a jury before a trial? That you ideally want a jury with no previous knowledge of the case or bias?

If that's the case then I'm sorry but I have trouble seeing it that way.

We're a community, there's always going to be bias. Both in regards to the authority (Disc, AHT, admins etc), in regards to the accused and when relevant in regards to the victim. Plus, admins and Disc members, who likely have a more complete picture, are part of the “jury” too and they had, in this case, an additional few weeks to make up their minds.

I've seen people talk freely about Disc and/or AHT cases where they are the accused in public or in private, whether ongoing or concluded on social media, DMs, etc.

I haven't seen these folks face consequences for doing so, but what I have seen and felt is the frustration it has at times caused staff members.

I don’t know, I had more to say on the topic but i was starting to lose the thread which would make me look more bad than anything point is I don’t understand really, Mann mentionned something about explaining how it was harmful after the fact and really i would quite like that and I don’t think that makes me manipulative it’s just sometimes hard to understand unwritten rules for some even if it seems obvious to some people.

I don’t know, I worry trying to explain that is just going to make me look worse when really all I’m trying to say is I still don’t understand that but I’d like to

I had more to say but I’m going to have trouble articulating that and given the importance of not miscommunicating i won’t yet.

I do agree with removal from disciplinary due to her actions afterwards. I don't think we need to go as far as a censure, but I think we should address why those actions were incorrect, and how they could hurt the credibility of the disciplinary team.

(I do want to clarify for readers of this thread that this does not mean I necessarily agree with the rest of the comment regarding my behavior, which I elaborated upon in my initial post in this thread.)

If that is the case though why not discuss more in detail with me before the piece was deleted (the 19th or the 20th)? Unavailability? (If so no worries, just seeking to clarify). Or why not proceed with discussing more in detail afterwards, but before this censure thread, since the third paragraph of the censure post mentions my explanation as pertinent to decision making regarding the initial charges.

Certainly I would have appreciated being able to refute the accusation of mockery prior to this thread's existence. I had heard from stormbreath, in 19cord, on the 21st of January, that it was viewed mockingly by the author, and thus I supposed that might be at issue in any eventual censure, but upon DMing Zyn on the 4th of February I was told that, regarding Maga Zine, purely the uncited material was the concern. Or at least that was my understanding.

Given Zyn is a member of Disc and gave me more recent information while stormbreath is not on Disc and claimed to not have any stake in the case I assumed that this was not a concern to Disc.

Now however, I am unclear on if Disc agrees that the piece was mocking (and if so which part and in what manner) and thus I am unclear on if I need to be concerned when reposting Maga Zine of potential Disc action even if the piece complies with Licensing's requirements.

Further, even mentioning the mocking in a non-comital manner, I feel, frames even my original action of writing the Art Exchange piece as potentially malicious to readers of this thread.

Apologies for the extensive elaboration, I just feel it is relevant for me to mention one of the reasons why I sought multiple times to speak to Disc regarding the case.

I recognize that Prismal did not have bad intent in her actions. I recognize she didn't think she was doing anything wrong. I do not think that matters in the slightest. At a certain level — such as being an admin, a member of the Disciplinary team, or both — where you can't just operate on good faith and vibes. You need to know better. When you make these missteps, doing them in good faith doesn't excuse anything — your faith being there is the problem! To that end, I can only see Prismal's actions as deliberately messing with the Disciplinary process to bias the case in her favor, or being so far removed from appropriate action that she thought it was fine — which is a problem in and of itself! Even if there was no malice, the lack of awareness required to fit that is telling, and indicates that maybe someone isn't a good fit for Disc.

I agree with the punishment of removal from the Disciplinary team. I don't think censure is necessary, but do want to second rounder's opinion that it is not as significant as some in this thread are making out to be.

• Prismal committing plagiarism
• Prismal’s actions following the work deletion

1 reads like an honest mistake to me — a bad mistake, but not a malicious one and not an abuse of position. 2 is dicier. Her initial reaction makes sense — I’d be pissed and upset too if one of my things got deleted with no explanation. Here I think it is a bit Disc/Licensing’s fault; should’ve told her before rather than after.

But that doesn’t justify or excuse the behavior after, which strikes me as monumentally childish and irrational — the refusing to move chats, the badgering of torcs and then a clear misrepresentation of what he said to the chat. The entire incident reads like someone unaware they’re basically giving themselves a leg up in their own Disc process, contrevening team policy to ensure their opinion is heard. It smacks of November 2020 shit.

I think a removal from Disc is the absolute bare minimum; Prismal has, if nothing else, displayed a remarkable lack of awareness about her position on the team and the responsibilities of conduct that entails.

I’m indifferent to a censure on top of that, but I will say that anyone who says a censure is “overly punitive” is ridiculous. It’s a 3 month vacation and when you come back, you haven’t been demoted, lost any privileges, received a ban of any kind, and it doesn’t interrupt your ability to use, write, read, vote, or comment on the site in any way. It’s a slap on the wrist; be serious.

The first point is that a lot of the original post (specifically the incident regarding the complaint about the article itself) is given here so that complete context may be understood for what followed. Licensing has handled the initial complaint, the article has been removed, and the nature of the complaint has resulted in some specific policy votes to codify the recommendations previously made to remove issues of plagiarism from Disciplinary purview in the future. While it is 'part' of the complaint in the sense that it was provided as context, the incident itself is not what prompted the Censure thread.

Censure itself is called for by the charter in order that complaints against staff members may be addressed publicly, not just punishment for punishments sake. In this particular case, Disciplinary did not wish to pursue it until after the incidents in the Staffcord public channels, specifically because the plagiarism issue had been handled correctly (if awkwardly and going through the incorrect hands, which we wanted to correct for next time). As Bleep stated, this particular incident left almost everyone on Disciplinary in a very uncomfortable position of once again being seen as acting grossly out of proportion with a complaint. Disciplinary had already discussed at length the need to make sure that these sorts of complaints were handled properly in the future, from the start we had members specifically pointing out that it wasn't something we should be dealing with, and at no point was was anything harsher on the table than a possible Censure thread (as by this point, it was known that Prismal had asked about the need for citation ahead of posting and had failed to include it in the final draft, which was seen as a needless risk by an Admin). By framing the incident in public channels as 'Disciplinary running amok' instead of 'a busy weekend resulted in less than ideal communication', a lot of us ended up feeling once again like the absolute worst of arbitrary meanies. I'll admit to almost quitting the team over this one, just because it can feel like we can do nothing right sometimes.

I completely understand that Prismal was also really anxious, upset, and worried and I'm sympathetic as well, but I also know she's seen these situations escalate before from the other side and had to realize that continuing to push the issue in public channels (with admittedly stepping back when requested until Torcs was able to get online) would only work to further complicate the issue, especially since it resulted in a complete rehashing of the investigation which had already taken place about the plagiarism itself. We're all of us human, we all might mess up, but I don't believe anyone in this situation was acting in bad faith. Prismal was reacting to a situation that was frustrating and emotionally charged, Disciplinary and Licensing were trying to handle a situation that was publicly raised and very serious, but ultimately the end goal was just trying to correctly resolve it. As Pris said herself, the process needs to exist no matter how onerous because consequences for behavior need to be fair for everyone. We should never just be seeking punishment for punishment's sake nor just sweeping behavior under the rug because that's how staff thinks it should be.

All that being said, I think a censure for more than a month is too severe. We put the scope of possible punishments available on this thread, but three months is simply not in scale with the incident. Prismal knew that the citation was needed, forgot the citation, and the page was removed. Ultimately, that should have been the end of the incident, but by shifting the conversation to Public Staffcord and attempting to cast the Disciplinary Team as out of line, we're once again confronted with a lack of trust in Disciplinary procedures. I can't in good conscience say that this should be no action, because I do believe that an Admin of the wiki should know better than to escalate, particularly one who has admitted to being a little burned out and needing to go on reserve. However, I also know that Prismal is a great person, writer, and staff member on the whole and no one should be raked over the coals for an error in judgment. I'm perfectly fine with a month's censure, and I would like to reiterate that Disciplinary has created a new policy that will go up to vote soon so that hopefully we never have a situation that's quite this messy in the future.

The initial complaint was taken in MASTcord (and ported to Disciplinary, which is where the confusion about who should be handling the situation sprung up from) on 1/18/24 and ported to Staffcord that same night. While the discussion of purview as well as Licensing's suggestions took place that night, the initial accusation was made publicly in MASTcord and prompted Prismal to reach out to Torcs directly the next day (while the discussions of purview were still going on in Staffcord). In particular, she let Torcs know that:

I'm aware of the plagiarism allegations from the other day (given they were public in MASTcord someone informed me). Contacting you specifically since I'm aware it was initially reported to you, and since your status notes you as online. Haven't been contacted about that quite yet which feels a mite irregular, though I might be being slightly paranoid.

Contacting you to let you know that I'm going to have limited availability on Sunday and Monday (family member birthday and my first day of resuming college courses, respectively),

So if for some reason this is going to be a big thing hopefully it would be acceptable for me to request it commence before or after that point? Or perhaps some indication of when or if something is indeed occurring on that front?

This is why we believed Prismal to be out of contact during this time period, and as we were still trying to sort out purview, procedure, and what the charter stated we needed to do for an accusation against an Admin (as well as the interaction with previous plagiarism issues that were handled poorly), it was decided on the 19th that we would follow the licensing directive to remove the work at the request of the original author and proceed with any other actions afterwards. Due to personnel obligations (irl), the deletion order was given on 1/21/24.

I just want to clarify where this belief came from, and apologize if we misunderstood.

I generally agree with Naepic that the disc action for the plagiarism proper has been already served. I do not think anything further should be done on that front as the offending piece was deleted as per request of the original writer.

In regards to Prismal's behavior what we all need to understand is that, frustration or not, botched communication or not, as an administrator and member of disciplinary team Prismal took to publicly viewable channels to cast doubt and suspicion on the process of how Disc was handling this case, instead of using the many channels (Admin level complaint about a team, private communication with members of the team, etc.) they had access too. In a vacuum, this would not mean much, but many of us have seen what public disparaging of a staff team (AHT is what I'm referring to) can do to the public's ability to trust and approach members of that team for disciplinary matters (private complaints, so on and so forth). As an administrator Prismal should be aware of this. As a member of disciplinary and AHT Prismal should know that taking something of this magnitude into a public sphere will have downstream consequences for the team. I'm sympathetic to a degree, having experienced communication gaps myself in a similar manner in the past, but the integrity and public perception of these teams is crucial for them to be able to function. That's what confuses me about how Prismal reacted in this circumstance, taking it to public staff chat rather than approaching members of Disc to clear up any miscommunications. Prior to that incident I felt like the deletion was all that was needed, but after these events I have a hard time seeing a lack of censure being a good thing in this instance.

With all that said, I believe 3 months censure is incredibly harsh for what happened here. 2-4 weeks max is more appropriate, and I could even be talked down to 1-2 weeks. Prismal skirted Disciplinary procedures and threw suspicion/doubt onto Disc's processes being fair, but they didn't commit the level of power abuse that I think a 3 month censure would be appropriate for.

I don't think she should be censured, though if disc wants to remove her from the team for how she handled the situation, I have no qualms with that. Like Naepic, I believe the public embarrassment and deletion of a work ought to be punishment enough.

tl;dr: I'd prefer that punishment, if any, be centered around Prismal's actions surrounding the Disc side of things and not any interaction with me or the plagiarism aspect.

For transparency, I was asked to review this to see if the information on the aspects relating to licensing and my involvement in this case was correct. I asked for a minor correction but otherwise assented to this post. I think it's important to have this information, even if I do not agree that it should be weighed against Prismal for this specific punishment.

I brought up in sensitive that my consultation for any punishment for the plagiarism, if any, should be limited to just being required to delete and repost the work without the plagiarized contents. My thoughts on that have not changed. When presented with the line that was meant to be a citation, which failed to meet that qualification, my thoughts still did not change.

My opinion on punishment for this matter is that Prismal has effectively served her penance for the plagiarism with both the deletion of the work and the public embarrassment surrounding this incident (though I'd argue the latter was brought on more by her publicly discussing this). That said, given that we have not officialized moving plagiarism matters to Licensing's hands, I cannot (nor would I) attempt to scrub this from the censure post.

Is it bad that a high-ranking staff member committed plagiarism? Yes, but frankly I'd hold the same candle to any person on a writing website, not just an administrator. Given that we live and die by the license, I think it's something that should be seen as a part for us to improve on, rather than beat down on her for - especially since we don't actually have proper guidelines on citations, and have to be having this conversation over 15 years after the site's creation.

As for Prismal continuing to discuss the matters in public staff discussion as opposed to sensitive, I won't deny that it was annoying as I wanted to be able to explain why the decision was made before more discussion was happening based on incomplete information - however, I recognize that Prismal's frustration over what happened may have clouded her judgment. I don't think it's my place to consider this enough for absolution, but it makes me sympathetic at the very least (and frankly, I'd be a hypocrite to say that I have not done or said stupid things while angered). Perhaps my own self-consciousness is being biased here, but given that this relates directly to interactions with me, I'd like to request that this too not be counted against Prismal for discussing punishment.

Again, though, I am limiting my scope strictly to the licensing/myself parts of this censure thread. I do not intend for this to affect what judgment may be provided for the Disciplinary set of affairs, nor will I comment on them.

The three month censure on top of that feels rather arbitrary. From what I can tell, the only relevant problem is that Prismal didn’t follow disc procedures and if she’s removed from the disc team that problem is in the past. Any further action feels less like preventing a further incident and more like revenge, which isn’t helpful.

If my understanding is correct, had Prismal not forgotten the proper citation initially, we wouldn't even be having this discussion to begin with. Can Naepic correct me?

Yes

Before getting started, I want to thank the Disciplinary Team for their work.

I know firsthand it can be thankless, especially when dealing with a Disc case against a staff member. Of course, I'm going to be playing my part as the accused and speak in my defense, and to an extent that means critically examining the Disc procedure and decisions that brought us here, but I am happy that this is a system where an admin can be held accountable if need be. Of course I may grouse about this case and any subsequent consequences imposed on me, but I am legitimately glad that we are in a situation where those consequences are possible.

That said, before even beginning my defense I have to disagree with how Disc has chosen to lay out the facts:

DISAGREEMENTS

THE PIECE (MAGA ZINE)

THE AFTERMATH (STAFFCORD)

PUNISHMENT

END

That's about all I have to say for the moment. Thank you for sparing the time to read my defense and to consider this case, I know many of us are busy these days. (Happy Lunar New Year, hope you enjoy the superbowl and 8kcon, by the way.)

Obviously my preferred outcome would be one of "no action". That said, please know that there will be no hard feelings on a personal level, no matter what action you vote for. Downvote your friends, VONC your colleagues, etc. Use your best judgement. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Please let me know if there's anything y'all would like cleared up or elaborated on and I will do my best.

Thank you for your consideration, and a big thank you once again to the Disciplinary Team.

P.S. Please remember that you can absolutely both condemn my actions and vote “no action”

With regards to the initial lack of citation, this is problematic as our license is CC 3.0, and we live and die by properly crediting outside sources. Not only that, but failing to cite a passage from a source can have dramatic consequences for the site and its staff should a copyright holder choose to pursue litigation.

This is completely out-of-scope with how we've course corrected in recent years given the Metaphyscian situation, so I really can't take this censure as being plagiarism over forgetfulness. A failure of citation may technically be plagiarism, but under our common-principles-and-assumption-of-good-faith, we only ask that the author correct their citation, images or other materials.

I understand that the deletion of the work is due to licensor request and certain other sensitive matters of Licensing, but the immediate escalation to Disciplinary was neither well-communicated or even known to be involved at that stage, is my perception.

Prismal entered staffchat to speak at length about their own disciplinary proceedings

— either she does know better and was acting intentionally, or has a level of familiarity with Disciplinary process considerably beneath the trust given to her.

Except that this entire situation is a novel case to begin with, and were I to be in Prismal's position, I would not have assumed that Disciplinary, a team who wouldn't typically come into play until repeated, noticeable plagiarism happened first, became involved.

Aside from her subsequent actions, that Prismal is being censured for not being aware of a unique edge case involving Licensing blackbox and crossover with Disciplinary discussion at an incredibly early stage in uncharitable.

This specific case is problematic because it wasn't just some random person they lifted passages from, but a moderator and major contributor to the wiki where the original content was posted. The author is someone who has a direct line to a Fandom rep. Had they not been able to get ahold of staff, that could have escalated to Fandom itself getting involved instead of that contributor.

If my understanding is correct, had Prismal not forgotten the proper citation initially, we wouldn't even be having this discussion to begin with. Can Naepic correct me?

Look, if the censure is about the disregarding of Disc procedures and not keeping a cool head, then fine, but all the other factors are at least mitigative, and we shouldn't pretend as if this situation isn't inherently frustrating and too-carefully-worded-to-communicate.

I vote for No Action.

Prismal

As the original complaint was ported as a disciplinary issue, Pedagon suggested that this was more accurately a case that Licensing should handle completely, while other members of the Disciplinary team asked that Licensing weigh in before any further action was taken. Naepic was brought in, and agreed that it was in violation of the current Licensing stance on citations. Additionally, as the original author had requested its removal, the first step of the response would be to remove the work as a whole, and then remove the plagiarized text from the article before reposting.

Censure was first mooted as a possibility at this stage, though without support from most of Disciplinary as no one had been able to speak directly to Prismal about the incident (as she was out of communication at this time). There was also a reminder that the codification of an admin's breach of trust was the only thing really implied by a censure request here, as it was eliminating a closed-door action by replacing it with an open discussion. There was an agreement to follow Naepic's directive to delete the article in full as requested by the author, and hold on further decisions until Prismal was able to provide her explanation for the oversight.

In addition to other concerns, Prismal's actions after the initial deletion was carried out (at the behest of Licensing) are in question. Prismal entered staffchat to speak at length about their own disciplinary proceedings — which were still ongoing at the time. Disciplinary is raising the following claims against Prismal regarding her actions in the public ⁠staff-discussion channel in SOSS on 1/21/2024:

• Prismal's bringing of the matter to a public staff channel for discussion, in what appears to be deliberate contravention of standard policy for Disciplinary cases (which, having engaged in Disciplinary team proceedings in the past, she was expected to be aware of).
• Ignoring repeated calls for sensitivity in this discussion, and not moving the matter to any more sensitive channel, despite requests from the Captain of Licensing to do so
• Egregious misrepresentation of communications received from Disciplinary team members during the above, both in their explicit content and implicit meaning.

With regards to the initial lack of citation, this is problematic as our license is CC 3.0, and we live and die by properly crediting outside sources. Not only that, but failing to cite a passage from a source can have dramatic consequences for the site and its staff should a copyright holder choose to pursue litigation.

This specific case is problematic because it wasn't just some random person they lifted passages from, but a moderator and major contributor to the wiki where the original content was posted. The author is someone who has a direct line to a Fandom rep. Had they not been able to get ahold of staff, that could have escalated to Fandom itself getting involved instead of that contributor.

As such, it is the recommendation of the Disciplinary team that the following consequences be received for Prismal's actions:

• Removal from the Disciplinary team.

Or

• Removal from the Disciplinary team, and a 3 month censure, with removal from any authoritative staff positions during this time.

Per the charter, the punishment (or more lenient action) given to Prismal will follow the consensus determined by staff present for the discussion.

This thread will be open for seven days and is open to OS+.