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.
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.

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)

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.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:07, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

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.
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.
"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.
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
Ask the Committee.
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)

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.
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.
Yet I have listed proof towards multiple violations of policies, which by themselves, are enough to warrant this forum.
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.
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.
I point you to the policy violations again. Any violation of our policies is incompetence. ^{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

need to believe it is one
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?"

01:23, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

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.
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.
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.
I actually suggested a different name (Bleep). Skire Suggested Follower. I am more than happy to provide a screenshot if required.
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.
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?"

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)

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
Yes it is. Even accidental violations are incompetence. ^{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)

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.
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?
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.
Then please explain how you can report findings of an enquiry without a report to report?
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?"

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. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 16:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC) ^{Some Assembly Required!} 16:37, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts.

Leon should have received a ban notice. I still have no idea why he was even banned.
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.
How was Limmie, "Threatened"? I feel a quote from her talk page indicating this would not only suffice, but be necessary from the start.
If we all truly assumed good faith, there would be no character assassination going on. At all.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 17:46, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

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.
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.
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)

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.
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.
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.
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.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 19:48, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

A log can now be found on Ever's talk-page, for those interested.

^{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)

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.
That's all I ever wanted.
That's between you and Chad, and a bit late I'm afraid.
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)

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.
Added a link as well.
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.
A or the Bureaucrats - sorry about that. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:22, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

Break

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 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.

^{Some Assembly Required!} 20:27, June 4, 2014 (UTC)

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.
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.
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.
There is no report as you have been told. You have been told several times what was discussed.
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

20:36, June 4, 2014 (UTC)