Forum:After Report on my Chat Ban

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

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.
After my chat-ban was removed, I was given a site-block. I was told by the blocker (Chad), that the site-ban was an accident after he clicked the wrong button. However, this is directly contradicted by the fact that Chad also left me a rather drawn out ban rationale. The rationale is as follows: "I do not consider ban warring to be any different from edit warring. You have an issue with the ban and the reason it was placed, you discuss it and get consensus FIRST. You do not just remove on your own whim."
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."
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.

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. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:32, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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.

However, this is directly contradicted by the fact that Chad also left me a rather drawn out ban rationale. The rationale is as follows: "I do not consider ban warring to be any different from edit warring. You have an issue with the ban and the reason it was placed, you discuss it and get consensus FIRST. You do not just remove on your own whim."

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)

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.
How?
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.
Removing Skire was not the issue. The issue was the hypocrisy seen in his personal replacement.
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."
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.
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. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:01, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

^{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?" 01:04, June 4, 2014 (UTC)