I've a question because of post #2492882, post #2491269 and post #2491099
The question is simple: When is it ok to flag one of those posts and when it isn't ok?

Post number 2 from the three even has a source and it is easy to see that the artist is banned. Was approved by a Janitor (stupid @ function doesn't work)

Do note that the second post was tagged with banned artist 4 hours after the upload.
Might have been approved during that time.

Then maybe EB knows more for this post, too.

This is another one of those slippery subjects that tends to slide all over the place in its enforcement. Essentially when a post becomes Status:Banned it enters the same realm as loli, shota, and toddlercon posts; only users with a paid account can see them. When this method came into effect many users for quite a while took that to mean that uploading banned artwork was fine since it's "locked up." Others feel that since the artist requested it to be gone, that it should be completely gone. Sometimes one happens, sometimes the other; howto:upload's statement that they'll be deleted "unconditionally without notice" doesn't really hold true and even that has been misinterpreted as some think the post being hidden is what it means by "deleted."

OOZ662 said:

This is another one of those slippery subjects that tends to slide all over the place in its enforcement. Essentially when a post becomes Status:Banned it enters the same realm as loli, shota, and toddlercon posts; only users with a paid account can see them. When this method came into effect many users for quite a while took that to mean that uploading banned artwork was fine since it's "locked up." Others feel that since the artist requested it to be gone, that it should be completely gone. Sometimes one happens, sometimes the other; howto:upload's statement that they'll be deleted "unconditionally without notice" doesn't really hold true and even that has been misinterpreted as some think the post being hidden is what it means by "deleted."

Agreed. Though the last time this subject was brought up, I believe jxh and some mods came to the consensus that it was fine since it was behind a paywall.

So is it actually okay to post banned artists? I personally avoid consciously ever doing it but there are one or two artists I really love that are banned here and would love being able to upload them. Personally I think this practice should be prohibited because an artist will find out and make more demands (like delete my content from the server).

I think once an artist has expressed that we not host their work that should be it; end of story. The reasoning that 'it's behind a paywall so it's okay' only makes it seem more to outsiders like danbooru is profiting off of the work of others.
While perhaps purging banned_artist images from servers is a bit extreme, we should at least be judicious enough to respect the creators by discouraging uploads from those artists who have contacted the site.

Elfaleon said:

While perhaps purging banned_artist images from servers is a bit extreme...

I think this isn't done so that IQDB/Similar Search still work, to prevent the image from being reuploaded to this site.

The banned status is entirely separate from deletion, so there is absolutely no need to flag a post from a banned artist for deletion. If it's not yet banned, it should instead be reported in topic #10525.

EB said:

The banned status is entirely separate from deletion, so there is absolutely no need to flag a post from a banned artist for deletion. If it's not yet banned, it should instead be reported in topic #10525.

What is with approving such a post if it is known that this artist is banned?

Provence said:

What is with approving such a post if it is known that this artist is banned?

Because some people don't want to bother to go into their Pixiv and instead stranded on Danbooru.

Sacriven said:

Because some people don't want to bother to go into their Pixiv and instead stranded on Danbooru.

Eh what?
Let me pose this question differently: Should we (Janitors) approve posts that are banned or not @EB ?

I consider the issue of banning a post separate from whether it meets my quality standards. So my opinion, at least, is that approving it in the queue is fine, as long as the approver makes sure the post is properly banned.

That seems the most sensible approach. And respecting the artist's rather odd wishes ( odd since if I didn't want something copied or seen, I wouldn't put it on the internet --- any more than I would lay out gold sovereigns on a pavement with a sign saying 'Do Not Take' and expect to find them in the morning ) in no way means the images should be removed from the archives: otherwise unknowing people will keep uploading them time after time.

I'd say that what people are really seeking out in this topic is an official stance on whether uploading art from banned artists is condoned or discouraged.

Elfaleon said:

I think once an artist has expressed that we not host their work that should be it; end of story. The reasoning that 'it's behind a paywall so it's okay' only makes it seem more to outsiders like danbooru is profiting off of the work of others.

What if viewing and editing status:banned posts were limited to moderators/admins? Nobody would be able to claim that Danbooru profits from art that was hidden even from paid users.

CodeKyuubi said:

I'd say that what people are really seeking out in this topic is an official stance on whether uploading art from banned artists is condoned or discouraged.

Multiple users have received negative feedback for doing so, and in the case of user #425477, it eventually led to a permanent ban (though that was in part because they stopped tagging the artist and source). Even if the Terms of Service and howto:upload don't explicitly say not to upload banned artists' work, it's being treated as a hard rule nevertheless.

Your edit is correct. This user was banned, I think, because they deliberately didn't tag the artist (see post #2383270).
So I don't think that it is really a hard rule, since even moderators are uploading banned artist's art.

Finally, someone brought this up. I had been paying attention to that user and noticed the problem, and brought it up to @Apollyon. I think he should be summoned to speak up about it.

I also agree with iridescent slime, remove the profit motive and you'll fix it, at least partially. Though, the user that was posting those Reiq, Paul Kwon and Sakimichan posts was themselves not able to see them without the tag omission, which makes me wonder if they understood that the posts would be tag gardened and they'd lose access to them, making their endeavour pointless.

The idea of a Banned Artist is that they don't want their works posted here; for one, sakimachan's Wiki entry literally says "NO-POST ARTIST". So users shouldn't post them. But there's usually going to be differing elements in each case.

Uploading them by accident is one thing. Maybe a user found it on a message board, Twitter, or some other site and wasn't aware that said artist doesn't want their works posted here. If it's a legit accident, that's fine as long as the user knows what they did wrong after being instructed, and doesn't repeat it again later. Unlike the following situation.

In the case of Arshole, he posted works from a banned artist, but deliberately skipped on including sakimachan's artist tag for posts after being warned about banned artists 3 times. One of these negatives included a link to the Wiki entry about them. This is something where there's no room for excuses.

To sum up, in regards on what to do with users that post artwork from Banned Artists, the reasons why should be investigated and followup actions should handled on a case-by-case basis.