FANDOM


Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > After Report on my Chat Ban
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki

After 3 weeks of waiting, I have decided to compile a report myself over the undesirable results that were born after my exonerated chat ban, which includes everything from back-room decision making, to violations of policy:

Improper procedure involving the chat ban itself
  • I was never warned in chat before being banned, nor was I ever left a chat-ban notice. Still to this day, I have not received an official notice as to why I was chat-banned.
  • When asked why I was never told the reasons as to why I was banned, I was told it was because they did not have access to the chat-room at the time. However, this is directly contradicted by the fact that both Chad and Slinger reported that I was banned after Slinger spoke with Chad in another chat-room, and Chad gave him permission to chat-ban me.
  • In private chat, I was told this personally by Slinger himself in private chat: "I did. Leon, I don't care. I don't care about this wiki right now. I did something I shouldn't have because I was pressured, basically told to and now they say I made shit up." I was not originally going to share this information, but the fact of the matter is that even after patching things up with Slinger, whom I hold no grudge towards and we are (hopefully) still on friendly terms, these past two weeks have been filled with non-transparent deliberations, and the farcical actions that have led to this entire incident being swept under the rug.
Improper procedure involving the investigative committee
  • Over Skype, the initiator of the second committee formed was removed due to the fact that he was considered a bias source, as he is a close friend of mine. In his stead, however, Follower was personally asked to replace Skire, even though Follower is a well known close friend of Slinger's. While I have no issues with Follower being on the committee, it does bring into question the hypocrisy seen.
  • Continuing from the previous point, all members of the second committee were told to personally report to Gunny and Chad, even though Chad had the most personal stake in the matter, aside from Slinger himself.
  • Neither me nor Slinger were ever asked any questions. In any formal investigation, it is considered gross incompetence should any person of interest never be given a chance to share their side of the story.
  • No public notice has been given in 3 weeks.
  • As revealed a short while ago on Skire's talk-page, the committee appears to have been following odd assumptions, which defeats the purpose of a committee, and makes the entire process a farce: "...my assumption was that both Chad and Gunny were not going to enforce our decision even if we had reached a consensus to take action, based on our conversation. I had assumed that they would make some form of public announcement to belay any confusion."
Violations of policy
  • In our policies, it is stated that so long as the Sysop in question have a good reason, they are allowed to overturn another Administrative action. This clause can be found here: "Administrators are allowed to undo each other's administrative actions. However, it is expected that the one who reverts an action explains the reason for the revert." Yet, when Limmie overturned Slinger's chat-ban with a clear rationale of proper procedure not being followed, the Bureaucrats broke this policy by reverting her revert, and then threatening her Administrative position.
    • For further clarification on how they broke policy, please see: "In addition, if the admin whose action was undone disagrees with the revert, they should contact the reverter and discuss instead of simply reverting the revert. If consensus cannot be reached, a third admin should be asked to mediate."
    • This chat-log can be found here.
  • When this matter first came to the attention of our Bureaucrats, a committee was brought in to determine whether Slinger did anything wrong, as our policies dictate. Yet, for reasons not publicly given, this committee was broken down even though the question of proper procedure not being followed was still up in the air.
  • In the case that a committee is formed to investigate a special rights holder, our policies clearly state that either party may appeal the committee's findings. This clause can be found here as well: "Either party may appeal the board's finding. In the event of an appeal, all sitting bureaucrats will determine final disposition of the complaint. The accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request at any time during this process." Yet, the committee never released their findings, meaning they violated the policy by not giving us a chance to appeal their findings. Not only this, but at least 1 of our Bureaucrats specifically told the committee to report their findings to them privately.
  • The claim was made after the ban, that Chad had misinterpreted the report Slinger gave to him, which led him to an impression that I was trolling via the logs, and gave Slinger permission to chat ban me. However, Slinger's chat ban summary specifically states that he banned me for trolling via the chat logs, which has been proven false and was only forgotten about because allegedly it was miscommunication.
Conclusion

I do not care about the chat-ban. I have already spoken with Slinger about this, and we have both come to terms and agreed the ban was a mistake. But I have a serious issue with the points I outlined above, and they need to be taken into consideration by the community, as to help avoid these problems in the future instead of sweeping it all under the rug and pretending nothing ever happened. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:32, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I am sick and tired of some choosing to sow division where it is not needed.

  • I was never warned in chat before being banned, nor was I ever left a chat-ban notice
My understanding is you had an explanation of this (and admit so), Slinger had wiki connection issues that prevented him rendering the chatroom, and had to leave before he could complete message. The chat platform, as you have pointed out in the past is "Experimental" and you know damn well it doesn't work properly sometimes - hence you using the opportunity of its frequent failure to promote your other site.
That isn't a contradiction. It actually backs up me believing what I was doing was not a wiki ban, but reinstating a chat ban.
  • I was told by slinger....
I think its inappropriate of you to bring up comments left by slinger to you in private chat expressing how exacerbated he is by this process. Maybe a witch-hunt against him and posts like this have a little something to do with how he was feeling then?
  • "the initiator of the second committee formed was removed due to the fact that he was considered a bias source"
This is not correct. Skire removed himself after I expressed concerns based on his past, and his questioning of me; and if memory serves, He suggested follower as the replacement. In any case don't you think its hypocritical do run an investigation/comittee into some alleged bending of policy when flying directly in the face of it?
  • "...my assumption was that both Chad and Gunny were not going to enforce our decision even if we had reached a consensus to take action, based on our conversation. I had assumed that they would make some form of public announcement to belay any confusion."
The committee had not, and has not reported. In a pre report discussion we said clearly that proof of bad faith would be required in order to look at any type of disciplinary action. Misinterpreting a policy is not enough to warrant any kind of disciplinary action - there is not a special rights user on this wiki I could not take immediate action against, including against some people who were in the chatroom that night when a certain prominent user posted a you tube video showing a simulated sex act. I've chosen to let that go as I felt it was best for the wiki that this whole damn event was put behind us.

For someone who doesn't care about this... You are showing an awful lot of care. I've had enough of the division being sowed over this. You supposedly accepted its a mistake. Its time for you to move on, and everyone else too. Agent c (talk) 00:48, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. That is all well and good, but still does not explain why Slinger left chat after I was banned, which is what confused everyone, not just me. Also, your irrelevant point on the Moose is noted, yet ignored, seeing as in how it has nothing to do here except act as a strawman.
  2. How?
  3. You like throwing around that term, do you not? Which is funny, seeing as in how in this forum, I have specified my issues here do not lie with Slinger, and we have even made up over this. What I have issues with are the numerous mistakes and violations preceding the incident in question.
  4. Removing Skire was not the issue. The issue was the hypocrisy seen in his personal replacement.
  5. Why have they not reported in 3 weeks? And in either case, Follower seems to believe everything is finished: "Hey Danny. I relayed Ryan and I's position to both Chad and Gunny some time ago. I was unable to get in contact with Jakov before some personal issues for me took hold, so I can only assume that his views are unchanged from what he conveyed on your talk page. If the committee requires a majority, then that was achieved and the information relayed regardless of Jakov's position as Ryan and I had agreed on a recommendation. If consensus is required, that did not occur."
  6. The issue is not that there was not disciplinary action. In-fact, I want to say now that I do not believe Slinger should gain any repercussions for the ban. What I have a problem with is the fact that the committee was personally told to report to the Bureaucrats privately, and then never making their findings public even though that violates policy.
  7. You are putting words in my mouth. I do not care about the ban. What I do care about is the incompetence seen since the ban. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:01, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:00, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I am with Leon on this, the whole situation seems fishy. As we have been told many times it is not our job to ban, it's to stop people from breaking the rules. Bans are not so much for punishment as they are to stop people from breaking the rules at that point in time. More to the point, if someone is not told what they are being banned for, then the whole point of banning them goes out the window. Leon didn't actually break any rules, as we have already been over.

Leon is right to bring this up, as it does seem to have just been swept under the rug as if nothing happened when, at least in my eyes, it has. Looking at all the evidence we have it at the very least appears that Gunslinger showed you edited chat logs in order to make it appear as if Leon said things he did not, then backtracked by saying "no, that was me saying hi" which doesn't really make sense.
You say that you would need evidence of bad faith, well there is some right there. Not only did Slinger ban him without warning or explanation for not even breaking the rules, but he also falsified evidence. As for what he said in PM, without anything more than Leon's word to go on that is not valid info, so shouldn't be considered unless Slinger confirms it (or a evidence is provided).
Even if we're not going to be taking disciplinary action against him at the very least Slinger clearly doesn't understand the policies he was elected to follow and enforce. And it feels like this is just being ignored because it's easier than having to deal with it. This situation is important enough to have warranted a committee in the first place, so saying "it's time for you to move on, and everyone else too" sounds like you either don't realize that this may be a serious issue or just want to hurry it out the door.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:04, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

As a note to tack onto this, I made note of what Slinger said to me in private for a singular reason: for either a denial or acceptance of the alleged quote. I was almost thrown under the bus, and now the entire incident is being swept under the rug. So I want to know by revealing that quote, whom I can trust or not. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:07, June 4, 2014 (UTC)


  1. No, its not a strawman. Its proof you know the chat system isnt reliable. We expect to have problems with it and for it to do strange things (like randomly lock out all non admins, or sometimes not load at all for some users). As such any refusal to offer good faith in this circumstance without any evidence to the contrary is a breach of our "Assume good faith" guidelines.
  2. Read the comment. I am talking about a ban war. Is there a ban war on the wiki side? Nope. There is a ban revert on the chat side. Everyone else seemed to pick up that this was an accident, but you are instead choosing to see malicious intent. Again, a breach of assume good faith.
  3. "What I have issues with are the numerous mistakes and violations preceding the incident in question.", no, its sowing discord where its not needed or required. Supposedly you're over the event, but you want his conduct investigated because you refuse to accept his good faith explanation. Pick one.
  4. No it is the issue as you have spun it in a way that gives a completely false impression. UNlike yourself, I will offer you good faith and assume this was unintentional or just plain misinformed. Here's the real issue, this committee to investigate potential rule breaking was in contracdiction with the rules. When I expressed this to danny, highlighted his history with slinger, and highlighted some concerns that I had, he himself recommended Follower. If you have no problems with Danny, you must therefore have no problems with who he recommends... Unless its no longer convenient
  5. Ask the Committee.
  6. What Incompetence? Supposedly you accept that its a mistake. If its a mistake the correct action is to correct the mistake. The mistake has been corrected, just like it was with all other non malicious incorrect bans.

The only thing I see here is the choice of yourself, Danny, and a few others who are refered to but who never seem to stick their head above the trench to make a big deal over what is by your own words a mistake that you allegedly have come to terms with (but clearly haven't). Agent c (talk) 01:12, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

You say that you would need evidence of bad faith, well there is some right there. Not only did Slinger ban him without warning or explanation for not even breaking the rules, but he also falsified evidence
For the first, a good faith explanation was give and the second was not actually true, he did not falsify evidence, that was a mistake in communication. I will also offer you the assumption of good faith in assuming you have been misinformed. As such, we are left with a good faith mistake just like Vic's ban of Dead Gunner. Agent c (talk) 01:14, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I believe it is interesting to note that if the committee just posted its findings/recommendation to the community instead of to the bureaucrats privately and without evidence of having done so in the first place, this would be all over. I have no intention of beating a dead horse, but it seems that little to nothing has been done properly over this entire course of farcical events.

I will try to comment on the events in which I myself had a role. When I convened a committee (with approval from many members of the community in chat), along with two other members (once again with approval from said members in chat) I had an honest intention of getting to the bottom of this -- sorting out that entire night of havoc and presenting some recommendations to the bureaucrat team. However, I was soon contacted by Agent c via Skype, who informed me that the committee was illegitimate. As I began to see his point, I allowed him to take over (although it is worthy to point out that he was far more involved than I was). Follower was chosen (I brought up that he was already looking into the matter) to take my place and that was that.

Several weeks passed, and not a single peep from the committee. I did get some reassurance from TwoBears, but other users have told me they have heard nothing. No interviews, no recommendations, nothing. I went ahead and asked Follower what was going on and he replied with the message Leon reproduced in an above post.

I'd also like to state that Limmie's overturning of Gunslinger's ban is indeed within policy, although one may argue it is poor administrative etiquette. A revert is not an edit war -- a revert of a revert is, and that's definition. --Skire (talk) 01:16, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  • I believe it is interesting to note that if the committee just posted its findings/recommendation to the community instead of to the bureaucrats privately and without evidence of having done so in the first place, this would be all over
For that to happen there has to be a report to report to anyone. There isn't a report to report, in secret or otherwise.
  • I will try to comment on the events in which I myself had a role. When I convened a committee (with approval from many members of the community in chat),
In breach of policy, a breach that hasn't been investigated. Agent c (talk) 01:19, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
The Investigating parties are expected to gather all evidence that is reasonably accessible. If it is found that there has been a misuse of rights, they will recommend action based on established guidelines. Either party may appeal the board's finding.— FW:AP
Should someone want to appeal, wouldn't it help slightly to know that committee's recommendation? And Follower clearly said he reported this to you and Gunny.

Also, I never actually asserted the board was legitimate, just that we planned on investigation. You called it illegitimate, and eventually I agreed. There is no violation of policy to investigate. And if you think there is, by all means, investigate it. This thing hasn't been farcical enough yet. --Skire (talk) 01:25, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. Me knowing that the chat is unreliable was not the strawman. It was the fact that for some reason, you felt inclined to bring up the Moose in a negative context. Either way, that still does not address why Slinger left minutes after I was banned. Three users off the top of my head that can confirm this are Richie, Limmie and Kas.
  2. If that is the case, then I will believe you. But at the time, you told me and everyone else that you accidentally hit the ban button. So when I saw that there was also a ban rationale, it becomes easy to see how I connected the discrepancy.
  3. Yet I have listed proof towards multiple violations of policies, which by themselves, are enough to warrant this forum.
  4. Danny has told me over Skype he never recommended Follower - just made note that Follower was already looking into the incident. So what I have right now are the both of you telling me different stories.
  5. They have been asked. And what has been discovered is that none of their findings have been reported publicly to allow for appeal, which is a part of the policy, and the fact that it has been 3 weeks now.
  6. I point you to the policy violations again. Any violation of our policies is incompetence. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:21, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware that that was allegedly "a mistake in communication" however, that does not mean I
  1. need to believe it is one
  2. need to act like it didn't make things look worse for Leon
Even if it was a mistake in communication it's one which, at the time, made Leon look more guilty than he was. He either tampered with evidence or contaminated it by accident. Either way, it makes me lose faith in his abilities as a moderator, this whole situation does. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:23, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. Its not a negative context, its proof of your knowledge. Slinger backdoor banned you, so clearly wasn't able to act in chat when you were banned.
  2. So you admit I said that it was an accident that I banned you on the wiki at the time. Thank you for wasting everyones time on something we already knew and dragging my name through the mud.
  3. So you're not over it. Be honest. You're either over it and want this as dead as I do, or you want to drag it out because you want your drama of the week. You're clearly not over it or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
  4. I actually suggested a different name (Bleep). Skire Suggested Follower. I am more than happy to provide a screenshot if required.
  5. There has been nothing reported to report. The only "report" (which wasn't a report) I'm aware of was a discussion between me, Gunny, and follower, where a consenus position had not been found, but discussed some preliminary findings. We did communicate at that time proof of malicious intent is required for any administrative action; the only relevant action for a mistake is to correct the mistake.
  6. Violation of our policies is not incompetence.

And Jasper, you are required by the rules of the Wiki to assume good faith, that doesn't mean you get to invent bad faith because you don't want to believe the good answer. It means you accept the good answer unless there is a reason not to believe it. Agent c (talk) 01:30, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

So we always believe what people say? Okay great. But I don't think this is a good answer. The way I see it, it either makes him seem malicious or incompetent. Which would you rather our mods be? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:34, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
Should someone want to appeal, wouldn't it help slightly to know that committee's recommendation? And Follower clearly said he reported this to you and Gunny.

No, he did not. He reported there was no consenus position, and he was told to come back with it. He was given guidance as to what is required for administrative action. Agent c (talk) 01:33, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. Clearly nothing. He was in another chat, speaking with you to get permission or whatever. Chat did not bonk out for anyone else, and he was seen in chat long after I was backdoor banned.
  2. I admit nothing. If you did not want there to be confusion, you should have been specific before. It was your inability to provide the necessary details that led to me noting a discrepancy in the first place. Either way, no one's time was wasted, because that was one of the most minor points on this entire forum.
  3. Stop being such a sensationalist and grow up. I have listed clear violations, and it would be irresponsible of me to just be silent and pretend they never happened. Want to know what happens when incompetence goes unchecked? It becomes the standard.
  4. That is not what Skire's Skype logs reveal:

[5/14/2014 17:43:14] Dan: I'm no longer on the committee. Please let Energy and Ry know, ok? [5/14/2014 17:43:26] Dan: And you can go ahead and ask Bleep. Paladin was in chat at the time (albeit afk) [5/14/2014 17:43:43] Dan: Or follower. He said he's already started looking at it [5/14/2014 17:44:05] Chad H.: If follower's looking into it, I guess that makes more sense than bleep who may or may not be around.

  1. I do not care if there was nothing to report. Even if nothing was drudged up, it was still the committee's job to update everyone involved on what the deal was, as the policy clearly states we have the right to appeal whatever they report/agree on. Not to mention that Follower even mentioned that they have spoken with you two about it in private, which means that no matter how you make it look, there was information that was not publicly revealed to the other parties. Even Slinger complained in chat about how no one has said anything to him since the ban.
  2. Yes it is. Even accidental violations are incompetence. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:39, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
Consider:
I relayed Ryan and I's position to both Chad and Gunny some time ago.— A Follower

as well as

Either way, my assumption was that both Chad and Gunny were not going to enforce our decision even if we had reached a consensus to take action, based on our conversation.— A Follower

Not only was the committee's recommendation not even going to be regarded before it was announced, but clearly there was some discussion between the committee and the bureaucrats announcing the committee's views (although this is only a majority view as Energy X was absent).

I said, "And you can go ahead and ask Bleep. Paladin was in chat at the time (albeit afk)... Or follower. He said he's already started looking at it." This is clearly not a recommendation, just merely pointing out the options we had. And even then, this is another one of the countless red herrings present here. --Skire (talk) 01:43, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. I have been in a chat multiple times unable to open another successfully. He wasn't able to act in chat, otherwise he wouldn't have backdoor banned. Its that simple.
  2. Instead for something you're supposedly over (but not) you're here demanding a pound of flesh for something that is a mistake and you supposedly accepted as a mistake. For a supposedly minor point you went into it with just as much gusto as everything else, and made an accusation where everyone else on the planet figured out it was a mistake... Is this incompetence too? Hypothetical example, if one admin involved in a dispute took evidence of a video involving a sex act being posted in chat by the other admin in the dispute, is a failure to act maliciousness or incompetence?
  3. Skire's Skype logs reveal exactly what I said they would. It was Danny who suggested Follower when I was planning on approaching bleep. The rationale for the suggestion made sense, so I went with it. You now have your answer about why the "evil conspiracy against Leon selected him" - because Danny brought him upon the basis that he was investigating it already.
  4. Then please explain how you can report findings of an enquiry without a report to report?
  5. The Committees recommendation was going to be considered. However we did say that we would not take administrative action without proof of malicious intent. If Follower interpreted that as we weren't going to follow their recommendation, then you logically have a result - that they were unable to find malicious intent, exactly what I said hours ago. This wiki does not take administrative action against those who make a simple mistake on the interpretation of a policy, repeated action or malicious action only. The correct response to a mistake is to correct the mistake, not to turn them into a criminal or go on a witch hunt.

And Danny, that was a recommendation. I asked you if I should approach Bleep. You then brought up Follower on the basis he was looking into it. That is you recommending him. Not me, not some conspiracy, but you. Had you have said nothing, I would have approached bleep.

Don't you two have something better to do than demand a pound of flesh over something you supposedly accept was a mistake rather than just let a healing wound heal? Why are you two pushing this? Supposedly you accept its a mistake and have made up with Gunslinger, so why are you trying to force us to take action for a mistake? What do you hope to achieve out of all of this?Agent c (talk) 11:38, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

So we always believe what people say? Okay great. But I don't think this is a good answer. The way I see it, it either makes him seem malicious or incompetent. Which would you rather our mods be? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 01:34, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't "Always believe them", we give them the benefit of the doubt where it exits unless there is something flying in the opposite direction. It isn't malicious if someone else reads your comment the wrong way, and if someone accidentally puts a comment from you thats placed next to a quote from someone else, that clearly isn't malicious. Do we start throwing around blocks and rights removals for all mistakes? Was it incompetence or maliciousness when vic banned dead gunner? Agent c (talk) 11:54, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

It is remarkable how many red herrings have been created instead of focusing on the actual issue at hand. First of all, the "sex act" you allude to is pyramid head playing with mannequins. Take action as you see fit. Also, I fail to see what Vic has to do with any of this. We didn't even have the rights misuse policy we have today back then. In any case, it is an incident entirely independent of the matter at hand; it is yet another distraction. --Skire (talk) 12:47, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I am going to be clear: I created this forum not for actions to be taken, but to make sure the community knows exactly what went wrong, and how the entire process was handled improperly. Otherwise, it would have been swept under the rug completely, and would have been forgotten by everyone. So I am going to go over the important parts, and I am no longer even humoring irrelevant points:

  • Standard procedure was not followed, and I still have not received a ban notice, which I should get even if the ban was exonerated.
  • Policies were broken. None of these violations have been refuted.
  • Hypocrisy was seen by the fact that one of our Bureaucrats was involved in the banning, and yet has personally taken charge of this entire matter, even deciding to tear down the first committee, and then making decisions for the second committee.
  • One of our Administrators was threatened, even though they did nothing wrong.
  • It has been 3 weeks since Slinger and I have heard a peep, and now a member of the committee has even said during private discussions with the Bureaucrats, that he was given the impression that the Bureaucrats already made a decision regardless of what the committee said and/or found. This all equals out to a run-of-the-mill sweeping under the rug, instead of dealing with the issue head-on and transparently.

Those are the important points here, and are serious enough for discussion. If any rights holder honestly does not see how this makes the entire wiki look bad, then to be frank, they are acting poorly for their position. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC) ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts.

  1. Leon should have received a ban notice. I still have no idea why he was even banned.
  2. Where does it say that a public disclaimer has to be released after three weeks following the incident? I keep seeing that pop up yet I have no idea where it's coming from. If it is indeed a policy, then yes, there is absolutely no reason why it's not present.
  3. How was Limmie, "Threatened"? I feel a quote from her talk page indicating this would not only suffice, but be necessary from the start.
  4. If we all truly assumed good faith, there would be no character assassination going on. At all.
  5. I feel there is more incompetence and unfamiliarity with procedures here than malice, but that there is some malice, otherwise, I feel, this situation would've been resolved clearly and quickly.

If I were to have approached this personally, I would've levied all the evidence I could and made my intentions very and redundantly clear, simply to avoid any misinterpretations. Sure it's not the writer's fault if the readers glance over a few things but if your intentions are not to entertain one another's misinterpretations by volleying character assassinations at one another, then why do it? I still have no clue what point #3 is truly about because I still have no idea what policy mandates a 3-week report. I hope my points are addressed and we can conclude this quickly. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 17:33, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I cited policy, but wanted to keep a few other points vague. Here is a bit of clarification:

  1. In the policy I cited above, it is clearly stated that either party may appeal the committee's findings. By restricting their thoughts to private chats with Bureaucrats, and leaving both parties in the dark for 3 weeks, they have effectively declined us our policy-protected right to possibly appeal. And if they are still not finished after 3 weeks, then that raises questions of why it is taking them so long? Especially when they have not asked anyone any questions.
  2. Limmie was faced with a threat of rights removal for reverting Gunslinger's chat-ban due to improper procedure, when she was arguing with both Gunny and Chad after they broke policy by reverting her revert.
  3. No character assassination has been going on at all from our end, as character assassination implies we are spreading rumors and making false accusations. Last time I checked, everything stated here was a fact, with the only possibly subjective point being my concerns for why I was never warned or left a message after I was backdoor banned, even though Slinger was in another chat-room speaking with Chad, and was also seen in Nukapedia's chat-room after he back-door banned me. That and 'witchhunt' are just sensationalist terms being thrown around to destabilize the forum. What I have wrote here are facts, and the facts all point to multiple policy violations, and downright ineptitude. Only one point has been removed from this list, and that was only done because Chad failed to provide the necessary details beforehand.
  4. I am not even necessarily stating there was malice involved, although Gunslinger's quote leaves a lot to be desired. The whole purpose of this forum is to call out the policy violations, hypocrisy, and to keep this matter from simply being swept under the rug instead of being officially acknowledged.

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:46, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. I understand they need to publish their findings, or lack thereof, but where does it state that 3 weeks is the benchmark for a deadline? Unless it's stated in policy that 3 weeks is the deadline for a report, then I'm afraid I cannot agree that they are in the wrong for taking this long to report although I will agree that they do need to report something.
  2. I like how I have to ask twice for a quote (not necessarily coming from her talk page, I assumed she was "Threatened" there) in order to get results. If you can't provide one, then I can't believe you. I also find it poor form for you to throw stones at Chad for failing to provide the necessary details regarding your chat ban and accidental wiki ban beforehand when you are doing that with me right now with this point. Please, if you have evidence, then link it. Note that I agree Limmie was within policy for what she did and any "threats" levied against her are misplaced as I have seen Danny shared the same perception of Limmie's actions earlier in this forum.
  3. To combine the last two points, malice is being assumed in that there apparently is a continued belief that A Follower's involvement and Skire's removal from the second committee was hypocritical. Danny himself summed it up hours earlier with this quote:
However, I was soon contacted by Agent c via Skype, who informed me that the committee was illegitimate. As I began to see his point, I allowed him to take over (although it is worthy to point out that he was far more involved than I was). Follower was chosen (I brought up that he was already looking into the matter) to take my place and that was that.Skire
Hypocritical or not, Danny seemingly complied.

Chad thinks there is no need to report any findings and I think this would all clear up if you convince him that there is one, then he can (and I assume he will) provide them. Accusing them of sweeping this under the rug and being hypocritical in their committee forming instead of simply and redundantly requesting a report of their findings is counterproductive regardless of how long you've been waiting for one to appear. If they prove to be uncooperative with the request after substantial evidence arises that they should provide one, -THEN- the accusations are appropriate.

Is it right for Chad to believe there isn't a need to report the committee's finding? No. Is it right for Chad to claim you are sowing discord for requesting official acknowledgement of the ban? No. Is it right for you to assume they're sweeping this under the rug if there is no official policy stating that they have to within 3 weeks. No. Is it right for you to accuse them of hypocritical committee formation after the committee has not only been formed but also convened on top of the fact this forum is about requesting the report from said committee? No. So please, both of you, get this over with. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 19:35, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. Why are you so hung-up on that one point? Let me try and reiterate again: a member of the committee has stated that they already sent their thoughts to Chad and Gunny, and due to the conversation had, were under the belief that the Bureaucrats had already made up their mind with or without the committee, and that they would publicly release the committee's thoughts/findings on the matter. So yes, a wrong has been made here, as the Bureaucrats have already made their decision without releasing any information from the committee publicly, nor allowing us our right of appeal, should we want to.
  2. I thought it was proof enough that no one has denied it. But if you want a quote, then fine. It is in the chat-logs, so I will search for it in a moment and update you.
  3. That is not an assumption. It was indeed hypocritical to remove Skire, because he was a friend of mine, for Follower, who is a known friend of Slinger's. But that is not the major hypocritical point I was raising. What made this entire incident completely hypocritical, is that the person that caused for me to get banned, and had a personal connection since it involved his girlfriend, was the one who point himself in charge of the entire process, and then goes around accusing others of being bias or unable to be impartial.
  4. They have swept this under the rug. As Chad even said in this forum, he was hoping this would just die off, and that me bringing it back up was just my "Drama of the week". Not to mention no one has still given us public knowledge as to what the committee had to say on the matter, even though Follower confirmed they had already expressed their thoughts.

ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:48, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

A log can now be found on Ever's talk-page, for those interested. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:58, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
Why not just link the logs from the time in question here as opposed to Ever's talk page? Because frankly it's borderline unintelligible there given the way the text is just lumped together. Richie9999 (talk) 20:10, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. The reason I'm so hung-up on that point, is that you seem to think that because you and Follower think they should release it soon means that they have to release it soon. There is nothing stating that they have to release it soon and they could technically take as long as they wish. Do I think they should release it relatively soon? Yes, but I don't think it will make them release it any sooner than they please.
  2. That's all I ever wanted.
  3. That's between you and Chad, and a bit late I'm afraid.
  4. When you say, "They", do you mean, "The committee", or "Chad"?

It seems to me that Chad thinks the BCs have determined that there was no reason for you to be banned and you were wrongly banned and no official report was necessary. You officially disagreed with the report part by creating this forum, and he officially gave his rationale on the chat log that he then linked in this very forum. What exactly do you wish to see from him beyond that? --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:17, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

  1. Using that logic, you are supporting the notion that committee information can be released whenever they feel like it - meaning they can wait years if they so choose. What this means, is that you support bastardizing common decency, competency, and our policies. Because essentially, you are playing lawyer and manipulating the policies to serve an outcome that was never intended when created by the community. So yeah, you are technically right that they can wait as long as they want. But I will disrespect anyone that follows through with that logic.
  2. Added a link as well.
  3. It is late. But this forum is not a call for action: it is a call to recognize what went wrong, and how it can be avoided in the future instead of making it a standard to sweep mistakes under the rug.
  4. A or the Bureaucrats - sorry about that. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:22, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. I don't support it, but that's how the policy is worded and that's how I read it.

If there is a different intention than how a policy is worded, then why is a policy worded the way it is, and how am I, or anyone else for that matter, supposed to know what the intention of a policy is if it's not listed in the policy? --The Ever Ruler (talk) 20:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Ever, thats is a good question and one with a long answer.

Rules, policies and laws are written down to try and make them as clear and as unambiguous as possible when done right... But people can and do stuff read thing differently, sometimes misunderstand stuff, and make good faith mistakes. I could give you a seminar on legislative interpretation, but rather than do that I would just suggest you read the chat rules and think about what do the words "Administrator" and "Moderator" mean when you read that. In some cases the policy talks about "Moderators" and others about "Chat Moderators" and in some about "Chat Moderators" and "Administrators" but not "Moderators". If you tried to read that truly literally you'd go nuts... I think it turns out that only one class of user has the right to interpret the chat rules, and only 2 others can do bans, and bureaucrats cant do anything.

A lot of what is done here is on convention... especially when we look at the rules that I've bemoaned as rules of convenience - Don't be a dick or troll g... Well it explains what those are, but how far to we let people go... Clearly we don't ban all insults as good natured ribbing goes through unremarked 99% of the time.

Sometimes people misinterpret or misread, or just think a different standard applies to what has been done in the past. We could go nuts trying to write a policy that covers 95% of the issues unambiguously, but there would still be that 5% where "legislative interpretation" is needed.

Wikipedia has more here. Agent c (talk) 20:52, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

I was going to write a response, but that actually just about covers it. All I know is that I would be very disappointed in whomever decides we can bastardize this policy to the point where technically, the committee can wait their entire natural lives to release that information, so long as they promise to release it on their deathbeds. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:00, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

BreakEdit

After 7 edit conflicts I will finally post this: Here are a few actual facts: Follower, and Follower only, talked to Agent c and I in PM. He relayed his, and TwoBears (by proxy from an email as I understand it) current positions. I asked for their rationale behind the positions. It was stated there was a "personal belief" of malicious intent. I asked him to lay out the proof of this. It was stated that there was no proof, only that there was a "feeling" it was malicious intent. I asked about Energy's position. It was stated that they had not gotten that, only the initial message he had left on a talk page. I told them I would act on their recommendation if, and only if, proof of malicious intent was brought and only after they had input from the third member. This is as the situation still stands. I have not had any report, which I expect on a talk page, not in a PM in chat, informing me of all 3's consensus. We're talking about the possible removal, temporary or otherwise, of people's rights here, folks. That's what this committee is supposed to investigate and recommend. I would hope that everyone here respects my right to demand proof of any allegations, and suppose that all of you would want that if you were in a position of the question of having your rights removed. I never stated that I would communicate anything about the finding, because I made it clear the findings were incomplete without Energy's input. Also, in contradiction of statements above, I have not made my mind up about anything, other than that I will not act without proof of accusations.

I can clear this whole bit up in one sentence: A Follower, TwoBearsHigh-Fiving and Energy X, please conclude your investigations and report, on a bureaucrat's talk page, your findings as soon as possible. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:23, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

That is all we ask of in regards to that matter. All Gunslinger and I have known is that in 3 weeks, we have not heard a peep from anybody. We have not been asked questions. We have not been told any of the committee's findings. We have not even been told if the committee was in contact with the Bureaucrats yet, and only learned that Follower and Ryan considered their part done after reading about it on Skire's talk-page. And most importantly, depending on possible outcomes, neither of us have been given our right to appeal. Public knowledge is more than enough to clear up this particular matter. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:27, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. Despite you counting to allege that this is some secret, I think I've told you 3 times now exactly what was said. Follower was told that the standard of wrongdoing for any administrative action is malicious intent. We do not, nor have we ever, banned or removed rights for good faith attempts to apply policy. Gunslinger said that is what he believed he was doing, he was mistaken in his understanding of what constituted harassment. We do not remove rights simply because someone else was upset that someone made a mistake. The correct course of action in a mistake is to correct the mistake. What evidence and recommendation the committee make with this guidance on the appropriate use of administrative action - as it has always been - is up to them. If they can find malicious intent that cannot be explained with the assumption of good faith, then yes, we would apply that recommendation.
  2. If we want to talk about Hypocracy, lets start with this so called first committee. You, Danny, and the others involved chose to ignore policy. You chose to appoint Danny yourself. You leon choose to ignore the policy in the case of a dispute and go to a bureaucrat yourself to ask for one. As for Danny, as no committee existed within our rules at that point, he wasn't removed. Even if a committee could be said to exist, he removed himself. I did express to him concerns based on his history with slinger, but this was only 1 of the items we discussed and wasn't even the most pressing in my mind. The other items being that his questions to me had already indicated that he had a prejudice towards slinger (calling his statements dubious, hardly impartial), and that he was in direct communication with yourself during the event, and had to be told not to act to remove my ban of you - meaning his only position in any investigation should be that of witness, he is an involved party.
  3. No, I didn't appoint myself in charge of the process. I actually created a committee to take charge of the process, in line with the rules. Had I been truly acting on my bias I simply would have ignored your so called investigation as being completely illegitimate.
  4. There is no report as you have been told. You have been told several times what was discussed.
  5. The so called "Threat" against Limmie is an exaggeration. No permanent rights removal was threatened just a temporary measure to prevent the situation escalating further into ban-unban-ban-unban. Given your exaggeration here, and on other things, it does make me question what Follower told you. Agent c (talk) 20:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
From where I sit, with no communication in a forum or on a talk page of the committee's consensus finding, there are none. When it is given to us, I will make sure it's promptly discussed with J and Clyde and determine if we will act on the finding. I repeat: I will not remove a users rights, temporarily or otherwise, without proof of malicious intent. If a mistake was made in application or interpretation of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, our expectations of how those policies/guidelines should be administered will be communicated. I await the committee's findings. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:36, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. When have you told me that? Ever? I was completely unaware of what the committee has come up with, until Gunny's message. We also have not spoken on Skype, or in chat. So what you are suggesting is that you have told me either on this forum, or on my talk-page. I cannot find an instance of you revealing that information to me on either.
  2. "You"? You do realize I had absolutely nothing to do with the first committee, right? Or are you going to continue throwing around baseless accusations? The only thing I ever "told" Danny to do, was not to remove my site-ban, as I was content with waiting for an explanation first.
  3. I have not been told what was discussed, and Follower's message to Skire is directly stating that they have spoken with the Bureaucrats in private, which is a report. It might not have been the final report, but it was still a report by definition, as they were reporting to the Bureaucrats in private.
  4. You were the one that told Slinger to ban me. You were there when Limmie unbanned me, and decided to ban me afterwards. You were the one that threatened Limmie over it. You were the one that single-handedly that both made, and decided to remove the first committee. You are the one that chose Skire's replacement. You are the one the committee has been reporting directly to, alongside Gunny. You have been an active presence in this entire incident, since day one.
  5. You can call it an exaggeration, but I find it very troubling to see a Bureaucrat threatening to suspend someone's rights when they were the ones breaking policy. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:45, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. Then I apologise. I was under the impression that you had.
  2. You have. Its been posted here 4 times now. It isn't a report. A report comes at the end of the process. It is a discussion, not a report. There can be no report without consensus and there was no consensus.
  3. No, I said that if he felt the rules have been breached then he should. There was no committee to remove, and danny removed himself from the not-a-comiteee. I chose Skire's replacement on Skire's recommendation as follower had been looking into it. The committee reports to bureaucrats, and no discussion has happened to the best of my recollection with only one bureaucrat being involved. If it weren't for me actually following policy, there would be no legitimate investigation, and don't you forget it.
  4. I did not break policy. If Limmie didn't break policy then I cant have either as I did exactly what she did. Agent c (talk) 20:59, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
  1. Just the general jist that Follower had gotten in touch - but nothing regarding the actual information relayed, until Gunny stepped in. As for it being a report, I make that argument because of its definition: "A report or account is any informational work (usually of writing, speech, television, or film) made with the specific intention of relaying information or recounting certain events in a widely presentable form."
  2. There has to be an investigation - that is not up to anyone. Our policies dictate that in the event of possible rights abuse, a Bureaucrat must bring together a committee of three neutral Administrators.
  3. Policy dictates that an Administrator may revert another administrative action, so long as they provide a reason, and that if there is a problem with this, a discussion must take place, and a possible neutral party may be brought in to diffuse the situation and come to a conclusion. Limmie reverted the chat-ban, with reason, and this is protected by our policies. But then her revert was reverted, which counts as an edit war. Even more, you yourself, said that you were not instating a new ban, but was reinstating the original ban. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:07, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
I will explain what I understand of the pertinent policy: "Administrators are allowed to undo each other's administrative actions. However, it is expected that the one who reverts an action explains the reason for the revert. In addition, if the admin whose action was undone disagrees with the revert, they should contact the reverter and discuss instead of simply reverting the revert."
Admin A takes an action. Admin B reverses that action and as above is expected to explain that reversal. Admin C then reverses Admin B's action, as outlined above, which he is allowed to do once. Had Admin B's action been a reversal of Admin C's action, then Admin C would not have been able to reverse it. But it wasn't. Now, if Admin B reverses Admin C's action, that would be in violation of the above highlighted section. In the specific episode in question, no one broke policy. If anyone had, I would have acted immediately. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:12, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
The policy is written the same as edit-warring. And in edit-warring, if a revert is disagreed with, other editors are not just allowed to come in and revert during the discussion/mediation process. In-fact, if I recall correctly, this exact same scenario was what led to Tag getting into so much trouble before. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:14, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
I'm simply reading the policy, as written, and explaining my understanding of it, as written. It seams pretty clear to me. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:50, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
I s'pose it might just be two separate opinions on the same subject. But to me, it seems silly the other way. A scenario I am seeing in my head with that technicality in place: Paladin bans Ghost. Follower removes ban. Jspoelstra reinstates ban. Chad removes that ban. Gunny reinstates ban. Skire removes that ban. Clyde reinstates that ban. See where I am going with this? It just makes no sense to allow that sort of scenario. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:55, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you point out. Unfortunately, the policy, as written, allows that. I did not write that policy, nor was I around here when it was put in place. I can only interpret what it says now. Also, my apologies to everyone. I went back to look at the chat ban log and realized I misspoke in my comment 2 comments above this. Limmie did reverse Chad's action. In this specific case, I explained my understanding of the policy to her, as you can see in the chat logs, and was prepared to act if anyone further reversed an action in violation of that policy. To be clear, no one did. Sorry for the mis-information. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 22:02, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
That opens up an entirely new question: how far can one bend the policies until it becomes clear abuse? And by abuse, I mean using the policies in a way that ultimately does more harm than good. In this case, it does harm, because it is throwing mediation and discussion out of the window, which are replaced by a revert that removes the purpose of the original revert: to instigate a discussion/explanation. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 22:32, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, that's a very good question. I can answer some of that, as it applies to this specific situation, since I was there whole time, mostly watching in an attempt to make sure things didn't get out of hand. It's my understanding, based on comments Limmie made in the log and in chat that she disagreed with the ban and was reverting it on the grounds it was "illegitimate" and that she was there the whole time and didn't see anything ban worthy. It's my understanding from her words that she was taking unilateral action to revert the ban without the intent to discuss it or clarify it, simply to reverse what she considered an incorrect action. Chad's actions to reinstate the ban was explained, IIRC, in both the edit summary and in chat, to put the ban back and to discuss the ban properly before removing it. I'm not saying Limmie abused her powers to remove the ban, but I don't believe it was her intention to discuss it, based on her own words in chat. Chad's intention, stated clearly, was to put the ban back to it's status quo, and to have it discussed before any other actions were taken. I fully supported this. Not removing the ban in the first place and discussing the "why" is what is more in line with the spirit of the policy, as you state above. After it's discussed, if it warrants removal, then it's removed. At least that's my recollection of, and interpretation of, the events as they unfolded.

I was actually a little more worried that I had 3 rights holders in chat that allowed a (then) chat banned user to stay in chat, and I appreciate you leaving when I finally brought the subject up. Regardless of the eventual outcome, we have rules, we have to act on them. As it was, as soon as information came to us that the incriminating part of the "offense" was not your own words, but words of Gunslinger's greeting copied along with them, it was reversed and you were allowed back in chat. I question what the chain of events would have been had it not been a well known user. What if it were a relative unknown? Did anyone act differently with prejudice or favoritism because it was you? Either of those are bad, and should not happen. We have folks looking into Gunslinger's actions to determine prejudice. Should we also have folks looking into everyone else's actions for favoritism or prejudice also? I was shocked when I saw you had been banned, and I instantly wanted to inform my self of the "whys". I also attempted to remain as neutral as I could, and make sure everyone was adhering to policy. I didn't want anyone else to get themselves in a position where we were questioning their actions. I was relieved when things stabilized and we had the opportunity to find out the "whys" and properly remove your ban, without anyone else getting in trouble. Again, I appreciate your mature response to this as it happened and hope that understanding continues until such time our 3 admins make an official response. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 23:15, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense - I have been against it, because I was left with the impression Limmie wanted an explanation due to the fact that Slinger backdoor banned me, but never gave a warning, nor a message through chat/on my talk-page. I continued thinking this, because Limmie also left a message for Slinger, wanting to know what motivated it in the first place when no reason was ever given.
As for the rest, I will continue being understanding - what motivated this forum is two-fold:
  1. A lot has been handled in an unorthodox manner.
  2. Usually, decisions are made within a reasonable time-span. Initially, I might have been more patient after 3-weeks, but this was exasperated a bit over no questions being directed towards me and Slinger, and everything just seeming hush hush, which is a usual indicator that people are attempting to forget what happened - out of sight, out of mind.

In a final clarification, this forum was never made to call out for rights removal or any other actions of an Administrative nature. I simply believe it needs to be acknowledged when mistakes are made, and to make sure there is tangible closure so Slinger and I can officially bury this incident in the past. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:30, June 4, 2014 (UTC)


(...) there is not a special rights user on this wiki I could not take immediate action against, including against some people who were in the chatroom that night when a certain prominent user posted a you tube video showing a simulated sex act. I've chosen to let that go as I felt it was best for the wiki that this whole damn event was put behind us.— Agent C

I'll go out on a limb and assume this is directed at me and my posting of the Pyramid Head video. First, I have to say that claiming that this somehow violates the TOU's ban on pornography is laughably ridiculous. I literally laughed out loud when I read it, and I would be really amused to watch someone make a fool of themselves by seriously trying to make such an argument. So if you or anybody else wants to volunteer themselves for comedic release status, by all means, consider this an open invitation. I even posted it a second time here to make things easier. It does bother me though at you actually considered this a violation but chose to turn a blind eye to it. I'd hope that a BC who witnessed a sysop commit a violation of policy would at the very least call said sysop out in PM, instead of pretending not to see it in order to bring it up later as a red herring.

It's my understanding, based on comments Limmie made in the log and in chat that she disagreed with the ban and was reverting it on the grounds it was "illegitimate" and that she was there the whole time and didn't see anything ban worthy. It's my understanding from her words that she was taking unilateral action to revert the ban without the intent to discuss it or clarify it, simply to reverse what she considered an incorrect action. Chad's actions to reinstate the ban was explained, IIRC, in both the edit summary and in chat, to put the ban back and to discuss the ban properly before removing it. I'm not saying Limmie abused her powers to remove the ban, but I don't believe it was her intention to discuss it, based on her own words in chat.— Gunny

Your understanding is wrong. Upon reverting, I immediately left a message to Gunslinger, as per policy. I also wrote on the the reversal's summary: "Suspending the ban until the situation is clarified". If I overlooked any way to make clear my intentions to discuss it, apart from posting "LIMMIEGIRL WANTS TO DISCUSS GAROUX' BAN WITH GUNSLINGER" on the mainpage, by all means, enlighten me please.

Chad's intention, stated clearly, was to put the ban back to it's status quo, and to have it discussed before any other actions were taken. I fully supported this. Not removing the ban in the first place and discussing the "why" is what is more in line with the spirit of the policy, as you state above.— Gunny

The status quo is no ban. The fact the the second reversal was made by a third person is immaterial, and to argue otherwise is ghastly disingenuous. The obvious purpose of the rule is to make sure that the discussion happens on the last previous uncontested status. But this is a matter for a clarification forum, not here. The real issue here is that C was both procedurally (he was consulted previously by gunslinger on the issue of the ban) and personally (it involved his girlfriend) involved. Him getting involved in a provable ban war with the issue, and threatening to use his bureaucratic powers to force his way, is poor form to say the least.

I was actually a little more worried that I had 3 rights holders in chat that allowed a (then) chat banned user to stay in chat (...)— Gunny

Since I had (rightfully, as per policy) suspended Garoux' ban, he had no reason to leave.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 01:38, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Although you may have had the right in the policy, you were still in the wrong by best practice. Doctrine of good faith would be to extend that to the ban-placer until such time as you have established that it isn't correct to do so. Every other special rights user that has disagreed with a ban to my knowledge has done it that way, and I don't see any overriding reason why you shouldn't have. I had no intention of "forcing my way" any more that you forced your own way. Agent c (talk) 02:07, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Why did Leon not get this "assumption of good faith"? For him it was guilty until proven innocent, which isn't "best practice" last time I checked. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:11, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Its a balancing job. Not only does leon get good faith, but also you get good faith in your actions when you take them Jasper. No admin goes around removing your chat bans until you become available to give an explanation for them, and nor should they - this would be undermining your position and equally not acceptable. When an action is taken we back the person who did the ban, until its clear that its wrong. Agent c (talk) 02:17, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
It was clear that it was wrong. Why should we be punishing Leon for breaking rules he didn't break just so we don't hurt gunslingers feelings? If there is a disagreement over one of my bans and people feel it was unjust they should overturn it immediately, so someone isn't prosecuted unjustly.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 02:21, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
That is not how a revert works. Otherwise, you are suggesting that it is best practice to allow questionable content in our article-space until after the user chooses to explain themselves, or should enough time pass to consider it bad faith. And I think we all know that if this is what you are suggesting, then nearly everybody on this wiki has been "...in the wrong by best practice." What a revert is actually for, is to keep the status quo on a questionable action, so that a discussion/mediation can take place, and decide whether or not the action remains questionable, falls under bad faith, or falls under good faith. The act of reverting itself is not taking the action in bad faith, but is instead there to make sure nothing questionable is lingering around while a discussion is underway. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:26, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Was it Jasper? Other than the fact it was Leon was there any clue to say that it was clearly wrong - no; an example of Clearly wrong would be Billy Ocean's retirement party where he banned everyone, that was clearly done in bad faith and contrary to the rules. At the time you, nor anyone else knew the reason for it, and when the error was established at that point then it was removed. Agent c (talk) 02:29, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there was a clue: there were multiple users in the chat with me the entire time I was in chat, and absolutely no one could find anything I said that broke our chat rules. Then, Slinger never left me a warning, or a ban notice. And yes, he could have: if he could go onto my talk-page, and backdoor ban me, then that also means he had access to my talk-page in a manner in which he could have left me a message. So the entire ban was done questionably, and multiple users were questioning the ban. And we did know the reason for it: Slinger clearly stated in his ban rationale that he banned me for trolling via the chat logs, which has been proven never happened and was a fabricated reason. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:36, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, now remove the hindsight from that, and what do you have... a few people wondering what happened wondering if maybe they might have missed something. No obvious sign of an obvious issue in the billy ocean vein. And please dont call it fabrocated, that implies that it was intentional act, which it was not. Agent c (talk) 02:41, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
A questionable action is a questionable action. We had around half a dozen users scratching their heads, and clearly noting the improper procedure behind the questionable action. This is not hindsight: this is exactly what happened after we discovered my mysterious chat ban. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:46, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

The correct response to a questionable action is to question it, not presume it is wrong until the demanded explanation is delivered. Agent c (talk) 02:52, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
You are the one making assumptions: Limmie did not revert Slinger because she thought he was wrong. She clearly has stated multiple times that she reverted his ban because of the improper procedure being followed, and lack of evidence in chat itself. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:56, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
How can there be no evidence when she didnt even know what she was reviewing? All she knew was a ban had been placed. She didnt wait to find out what it was, she instead acted instead. No assumption there at all. Agent c (talk) 03:00, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
You are not really paying any attention. Slinger's chat ban summary clearly stated he banned me for trolling via the chat logs. Since that was the first day I had been in chat for quite some time, we looked at what had been said that night, and nothing was to be found. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:06, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
I am. She didnt know what statement was the alleged trolling. She should have questioned first, and acted later. She had no basis to believe that Slinger had acted in bad faith. Agent c (talk)
The act of reverting is the questioning, until a proper reason is given for the action. And you are placing a made-up definition of reverting: as I said before, the act of reverting is not inherently an act of bad faith, as reverting simply means restoring something to its original state. I also gave a pretty good example above as to why using your logic would be detrimental to the entire wiki. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:26, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Missed PointEdit

I have added a new point to policy violations: "The claim was made after the ban, that Chad had misinterpreted the report Slinger gave to him, which led him to an impression that I was trolling via the logs, and gave Slinger permission to chat ban me. However, Slinger's chat ban summary specifically states that he banned me for trolling via the chat logs, which has been proven false and was only forgotten about because allegedly it was miscommunication." ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:44, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Here is the chat-ban summary: "03:48, May 14, 2014 The-Gunslinger (Talk | contribs) banned GarouxBloodline (Talk | contribs) from chat with an expiry time of 3 days, ends 03:48, May 17, 2014 (Trolling via logs/Harassment through logs)" ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:48, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
Miscommunications work both ways. Slinger asked what he should put in the log. Since the event I belived slinger was refering to being actionable was the statment that was was misattributed to you, it only follows that the advice as to what to put there was based on that statement. Really, I'm confused as to why you bring this up as it really does just seem to follow that. Agent c (talk) 02:52, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
That is equally as bad. -.- That means you were banning through a proxy - even going so far as to tell Slinger what to put as his ban rationale. That raises a huge integrity issue. That also means that Slinger knowingly used a ban rationale that did not fit his reasons for banning me. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:54, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
No ban by proxy at all - the opposite. Slinger presented a log (with a misattributed statement). He asked if he should ban. He was told if he thinks he should ban then he should ban and I cant make the decision for him. The advice given was given after he had made his own decision to ban. Not only was there no ban by proxy, but a request by Slinger for me to ban you by proxy was denied by me. He informed me that he was unable to get into the chat room, asked me to do it, and then was reminded about the other option, and that as it had been his decision to ban, he needed to own the ban if at all possible. Also, why did you remove parts of your original complaint the other day? Agent c (talk) 03:00, June 7, 2014 (UTC)


Continuing from the previous point, all members of the second committee were told to personally report to Gunny and Chad, even though Chad had the most personal stake in the matter, aside from Slinger himself.

Also this is not true at all. We did not tell anyone to personally report to us. Agent c (talk) 03:03, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

  1. That still does not clarify why Slinger used a false ban rationale. If not for trolling/harassment via the logs, then that means the only thing he could have possibly banned me for, was the whole 10 second time-span in which I mentioned Mel, in a direct response to a question asked of me. Absolutely nothing in that situation can even be humoured as trolling/harassment via the chat-logs, which means an invalid ban rationale was used in my chat-ban. That would be the same as banning someone for trolling/harassment via the fora/blogs as my rationale, just because Richie was asked what he thought of Skire's hair, and said he thought it was ugly. Is it negative? Yes. Is it breaking some policy such as flaming? No. Is it trolling or harassment by literal definition? No. So that still brings to question why a false ban rationale was used.
  2. Read my edit summaries. I only removed one point, and I specified why I did that. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:20, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
  3. That still does not clarify why Slinger used a false ban rationale.
No, it does. He believed that it was the case. Whether or not it was is completely irrelevant. He used the rationale that he thought was valid for the offence he was making a good faith attempt to act on. As for edit summaries... Thats not open on the page and is a very convenient way hiding something you no longer want people to see, potentially giving a false impression on how this conversation has developed. Agent c (talk) 03:25, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that Slinger did, in-fact, ban me for trolling/harassment via the chat-logs.
And troll somewhere else. I clearly left the discussion on this forum, and in no way will I entertain your poor attempt at making it seem as if I am covering something up. All I did was merely remove a point that became subjective. And, I reiterate, I left the entire discussion that was born from it in place. Nice red herring, though. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:29, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I am not trolling, I am trying to calmly address your points. You have removed something from the conversation, and I think you would have been better served by either striking it out, or noting that you were satisfied, rather than just removing it and leaving parts of the conversation broken. If you are going to just throw around words like trolling, or red herring, or otherwise attribute malice to myself, or anyone else, then I see no reason to continue. Agent c (talk) 03:33, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

I do not see a reason to either, now that the suggestion that I am covering something up has arisen from the ashes of irrelevance. If I was truly attempting to cover it up, then I would make the worst politician ever, seeing as in how I left the entire conversation in place - not a broken conversation. Striking it out probably would have been better, but maybe that should have been suggested instead of your insinuation. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:42, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
I have reread my statement; I did not intend to insinuate that you were hiding anything, just to indicate the problem with doing that is that it can be used that way. I apologise for the confusion. Agent c (talk) 03:47, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Summing upEdit

I'm going to put this all in one place so there is no confusion

  • I was never warned in chat before being banned, nor was I ever left a chat-ban notice. Still to this day, I have not received an official notice as to why I was chat-banned.
My understanding is slinger was in a rush to go to his place of emplyoment. However, I agree that there should have been one. However when it was expunged there was no need for it to be placed. There is also no written policy that says there must be one that I can locate, it seems to be unwritten best practice.
  • When asked why I was never told the reasons as to why I was banned, I was told it was because they did not have access to the chat-room at the time. However, this is directly contradicted by the fact that both Chad and Slinger reported that I was banned after Slinger spoke with Chad in another chat-room, and Chad gave him permission to chat-ban me.
Access to another chatroom doesnt mean that slinger is able to successfully enter our chatroom. The action was only taken as slinger had no other choice and I refused to place the ban for him as it was his decision to ban.
  • In private chat, I was told this personally by Slinger himself in private chat: "I did. Leon, I don't care. I don't care about this wiki right now. I did something I shouldn't have because I was pressured, basically told to and now they say I made shit up." I was not originally going to share this information, but the fact of the matter is that even after patching things up with Slinger, whom I hold no grudge towards and we are (hopefully) still on friendly terms, these past two weeks have been filled with non-transparent deliberations, and the farcical actions that have led to this entire incident being swept under the rug.
I dont see any relevance at all in Slinger's statement except that he is clearly frustrated by the pressure that this whole process is placing on him. He has continued to show this stress which did lead to rule 9 being invoked in chat the other day.
Improper procedure involving the investigative committee
  • Over Skype, the initiator of the second committee formed was removed due to the fact that he was considered a bias source, as he is a close friend of mine. In his stead, however, Follower was personally asked to replace Skire, even though Follower is a well known close friend of Slinger's. While I have no issues with Follower being on the committee, it does bring into question the hypocrisy seen.
In looking at Improper proceedure, it seems to have been forgotten that the first comittee was called through an improper proceedure. Skire was informed of the faults of this, and the concerns I had regarding his position given his prior negative history with Slinger (which included slinger calling skire a witch hunter, and Skire not taking that too well), Skire's current description of Slinger's comments (Calling them dubious whilst being an impartial investigator), as well as him being in direct communication with yourself, meaning he was if anything only suitable as a witness. Skire saw the merit in these and when asked if I should approach bleep to lead a comittee he replied yes, and then suggested Paladin and Follower (as Follower was already investigating on his own), Paladin was also present during some of the events and was unsuitable as he was a witness to the event.
  • Continuing from the previous point, all members of the second committee were told to personally report to Gunny and Chad, even though Chad had the most personal stake in the matter, aside from Slinger himself.
This is not correct. The only individual member we've had discussions with is Follower. Follower sought to discuss it with me, and I then insisted that Gunny be there also. Nobody has at any point been told whom to report to.
  • Neither me nor Slinger were ever asked any questions. In any formal investigation, it is considered gross incompetence should any person of interest never be given a chance to share their side of the story.
I would have to refer this to the committee as to their investigation method.
  • No public notice has been given in 3 weeks.
Public notice of what? There has been no report to
  • As revealed a short while ago on Skire's talk-page, the committee appears to have been following odd assumptions, which defeats the purpose of a committee, and makes the entire process a farce: "...my assumption was that both Chad and Gunny were not going to enforce our decision even if we had reached a consensus to take action, based on our conversation. I had assumed that they would make some form of public announcement to belay any confusion."
This is an odd conclusion for follower to make. He was simply informed that administrative action is only appropriate where bad faith is shown.
Violations of policy
  • In our policies, it is stated that so long as the Sysop in question have a good reason, they are allowed to overturn another Administrative action. This clause can be found here: "Administrators are allowed to undo each other's administrative actions. However, it is expected that the one who reverts an action explains the reason for the revert." Yet, when Limmie overturned Slinger's chat-ban with a clear rationale of proper procedure not being followed, the Bureaucrats broke this policy by reverting her revert, and then threatening her Administrative position.
    • For further clarification on how they broke policy, please see: "In addition, if the admin whose action was undone disagrees with the revert, they should contact the reverter and discuss instead of simply reverting the revert. If consensus cannot be reached, a third admin should be asked to mediate."
    • This chat-log can be found here.
However best practice has been in the past in every other case I can recall that we talk first, and act later, except in obvious cases of bad faith (like Billy Ocean's retirement). Limmies position of administrator was not threatened, just a temporary removal to prevent the situation from escalating. The same policies being invoked would not permit us to remove anyones rights (permenently or long term) without proof of bad faith/malicious intent.
  • When this matter first came to the attention of our Bureaucrats, a committee was brought in to determine whether Slinger did anything wrong, as our policies dictate. Yet, for reasons not publicly given, this committee was broken down even though the question of proper procedure not being followed was still up in the air.
This committee never officially existed in our policies. The policy clearly states that a bureaucrat will appoint a neutral board of administrators investigate. We to date have still not received any request to do so. The only reason a legitimate committee exists to date is because I chose to call one.
  • In the case that a committee is formed to investigate a special rights holder, our policies clearly state that either party may appeal the committee's findings. This clause can be found here as well: "Either party may appeal the board's finding. In the event of an appeal, all sitting bureaucrats will determine final disposition of the complaint. The accused shall retain the right to demand a user-rights removal request at any time during this process." Yet, the committee never released their findings, meaning they violated the policy by not giving us a chance to appeal their findings. Not only this, but at least 1 of our Bureaucrats specifically told the committee to report their findings to them privately.
One cannot appeal what does not exist. There have been no findings, and no report, to appeal. We look forward to receiving it.
  • The claim was made after the ban, that Chad had misinterpreted the report Slinger gave to him, which led him to an impression that I was trolling via the logs, and gave Slinger permission to chat ban me. However, Slinger's chat ban summary specifically states that he banned me for trolling via the chat logs, which has been proven false and was only forgotten about because allegedly it was miscommunication.
Slinger brought a log to me which included a misattributed statement. Slinger asked if he should ban, to which we was told if he thinks he should ban, he should. After he made that decision he asked what the reasoning should be. He thought he saw harrasment, but I thought the issue was the misattributed statement, as such the advice offered was based on that mistattributed statement (which would have been misuse of logs had it actually have come from Leon). Slinger then informed me that he couldnt get back into the chatroom, and asked me to apply the ban. I refused to do so as it was his decision to ban, and reminded him that chat bans can be placed outside of chat if required, he then acted on this. The only things I'm seeing about a so called "False" rationale, are based on hindsight - knowing that the offence he was acting on wasnt correctly attributed or described.

I think thats everything. Agent c (talk) 03:23, June 7, 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Sub-HeaderEdit

Firstly, I will fully admit that I have been negligent in seeing this through to conclusion, largely due to extremely sensitive personal matters which have permeated my life for the past few weeks. I will not apologize for my absence, as those things must and always will take precedence. I will however commit fully from this point forward to compiling the report I was charged with in the beginning. This process, depending on timeframes, should take no longer than 48 hours from the time of this post, should the community still wish myself, Ryan, and Jakov to investigate.

Furthermore I would like to clarify my statement I made on Skire's talk page which has been quoted here multiple times without proper context. I approached Gunny and Chad regarding this issue several weeks back and told them Ryan and I's recommendation based on our discussions and findings. I had not been in contact with Jakov as our schedules (him being in Europe and myself in Western Canada) do not often line up. Regardless, what I was told made me feel as though a decision to not take action had already been made by the bureaucrats, thus rendering the committee futile in it's endeavor. Chad stated the following in relation to our conversation:

This is an odd conclusion for follower to make. He was simply informed that administrative action is only appropriate where bad faith is shown.Agent c

This is misleading. What was made abundantly clear to me was that the only way administrative action would be taken is with proof of bad faith. Hard proof does not exist in this case, and if it does, I have been unable to find it. Does there exist sufficient circumstantial evidence that bad faith played a part in the whole affair? In my opinion, yes there is, and based on our discussions, Ryan concurs with me on this point as well. Assuming good faith is a tenet I abide by when operating on this site, but requiring proof of bad faith before taking action will make most policies of ours unenforceable. Since I could not find any 'proof' of bad faith, it therefor became my assumption that regardless of the committees recommendation no action would be taken unless we presented proof. As other things began to take precedence in my life I departed from the issue, and I would have hoped other users may take up the mantle or the community would find another way to resolve this. Clearly, that did not happen.

I have therefore compiled a report of the incident in relation to all users involved, not just Slinger and Leon. If after discussions with Ryan and Jakov we all consent to what I have uncovered, I will publish said report in a public forum. I hope this will satisfy any discontent that has arisen surrounding this whole ordeal. If anyone would like to speak with me regarding this, be they involved directly or indirectly, message me on my talk page or send me an email to andrew.wikia@gmail.com. Thank you. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  00:46, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate that, Follower. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:05, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
That was perhaps the most progressive response from anyone (including myself) yet. Thank you Follower. --Skire (talk) 01:40, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

My statement is not misleading in any way. We communicated that there must be malice or bad faith shown - not just suspicion or some previous disagreement that might give someone motive. Agent c (talk) 13:05, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

Showing bad faith is not the same as proving bad faith. I can detail numerous instances which combined cast reasonable doubt on the assumption of good faith is this case. Proving it is another matter entirely. Circumstantial evidence is often enough to reach consensus for juries - I would caution anyone not to assume that simply because there exists no proof of malicious intent, they can get away with anything. On another note, it seems that the earliest I will be able to speak with Jakov will be Tuesday, so I will have to delay my original 48hr timeframe somewhat. Rest assured the investigation is complete on my end and contact with both Ryan and Jakov is the last thing required before everything is made public. Thanks to everyone involved for their patience. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  23:03, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
I gave up using the fact that absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence here long ago - so it is nice to see someone else understanding the same as I do. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:05, June 8, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+