Topic on User talk:Derivative

Jump to navigation Jump to search
John (talkcontribs)

I do read the forum and I wish to clarify a few things here. "remind John that the community has spoken" I have at no point ever said the community is wrong or ever attempted to override the community. The view of the community is exactly my view.

"If he decides to then throw another fit" I haven't thrown a fit - I'm reacting to labster releasing private logs on a public forum in an attempt to discredit me and make it look like I'm the anti-community person here. I am 100% for the community, labster is against giving the community a voice and prefers being the one to make decisions in banning people and then feeds the lies to everyone else.

Going further back to this, "basis of telling John to grow some genitals" the fact I am speaking up against labster's ideals of being a dictatorship shows I have more guts than anyone else in the sysadmin team.

"Labster, John is now blaming you for this whole situation, which is really nice of him considering how much work and money you provide to Miraheze." Again, lack of facts. I have given far more time and work to Miraheze than labster does as from Day 1 I have continuously made an effort to keep the site up and running. Contribution graphs also show this respectively: .

So please actually check facts and understand what people want before you go around blindly accusing people of wanting to overrule the community and revoke their say as sometimes its the people you least expect.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

He didn't release the logs to discredit you, he released them in a show of transparency and an attempt to try to get an understanding of what you were trying to say.

You seem to have this conflation of "the community" with one/two people. Community driven is when everyone gets to talk, which is what happened. Dictatorship is when DQ tries to get global policy changed just to suit him.

There is a difference between stopping a user from going overboard and dictatorship. My experience so far the last few months is that Brent has always been willing to hear the views of others. My only experience with you so far is that you don't.

I'm not interested in playing the game of who has the biggest cock when it comes to who contributes more. Brent contributes a lot, i'm sure you contribute a lot, I believe you should be grateful of those who do and work alongside you. Note how you can't refute the financial aspect. You contribute a lot on the code side, I get it.

I'm almost 19. You're likely at least a decade or two older. The fact that you are engaging in even more emotion than I am is not on. Calm down. You're in the process of causing a massive upending of major progress in terms of Miraheze on something that is a complete non-issue. I want ATT to stay with Miraheze for the record. I don't like how you are making ultimatums.

Sort your differences out with Brent in a civil and calm manner. Just a week ago everything was peaceful. Don't let your hubris get in the way.

John (talkcontribs)

DQ attempted to change the policy through the community - labster however over the past few weeks has been trying to change it by just getting someone else to agree to his actions. I've told him for several weeks now that if he wants to resolve the situation then he should do it through the community but he has refused to do so and instead continued to attempt to handle it through a dictatorship.

John (talkcontribs)

That is not my reason for commenting here anyway. My reason is that you (and others) are basing your arguments on what labster has said - which distorts reality and doesn't check up with facts.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Well, from where I'm sitting, community has spoken, and I will go along with the majority on this.

FYI, John, I wanted to hear both sides before I even weighed in on any of this, and having fully examined this situation, I am ever so grateful the community has decided to reject DQ's changes.

Assuming DQ is willing to honor that and this doesn't turn into another reheated debate that causes another firestorm, I just hope this all becomes water under the bridge so we can all get back to business.

John (talkcontribs)

We should all hope that.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I basically vote for NDKilla to become to go-between between ATT and John.

Labster (talkcontribs)

"I'm reacting to labster releasing private logs on a public forum in an attempt to discredit me and make it look like I'm the anti-community person here." I'm going to ask you to explain that in more detail. If my asking and you explaining a policy could discredit you, what does that say about the policy?

"the fact I am speaking up against labster's ideals of being a dictatorship shows I have more guts than anyone else in the sysadmin team."

Jesus Harold Christ, dude.

John (talkcontribs)

I'm not going to discuss specifics anymore as my point has been made. The request that you don't post private IRC logs without permission is common decency.

John (talkcontribs)

We're back at square now with http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/142127/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-VIII#.WO-tNoWcHxM

If you view is clearly I am not welcome here, then what is the point in staying here. My time will be much more valued elsewhere and I'm sure Miraheze will be fine, considering as of late I'm the only one who has been putting time into keeping this service up. If that is you view, please write it clearly and I'll make you happy and get out of your way of abusing volunteers. Thanks.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Stop with this ego-serving self-pitying, LP impersonates and continues to abuse you and your colleagues while you continue to bargain and validate his/her/their attacks by doing so.

Threatening to take your toys home is an attempt at emotional blackmail which has become your hallmark trait and I'm not interested.

Also the fact that you hover around the thread just waiting for someone to mention you shows a lot to your own emotional maturity.

I get along with every other volunteer.

John (talkcontribs)

I am not at all validating their attacks. The ban has done nothing helpful but has done a lot of damage to Miraheze. Since the ban was imposed, three volunteers have had no time or motivation to be here, over the past few weeks 100% of our time has been dedicated to enforcing an ineffective RfC's decision which doesn't even ban the user but just locks their account.

I do not hover the thread for your pathetic attacks, I hover it because in the past it has been extremely useful in debugging issues on one of the largest wikis here.

I am not threatening to take my toys home, I asked a simple question to you. Maybe you do get along with every other one, but you clearly don't with me and chose to attack and question me at every opportunity you get.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

To Lulzkiller: My advice is to let this go and let John go on with this decision, for good or ill. If it works out, fine. If not, then that will be for John to handle. There is no need to lose your cool over this, John does have final say here.

To John: Frankly, I personally feel this is headed for nothing by disaster and sympathize with LK on how this is an ill wind that will blow no one, least of all you, any good whatsoever.

However, you're the boss. I will not try to oppose this, but I must add if this turns out badly, I hope you will be prepared to deal with the fallout. That concern aside, do whatever you feel is best for Miraheze, you do have the final word here regardless of my concerns or anyone else's, but I repeat I consider this move ill advised.

Regardless, follow your conscience, I can ask nothing less of you or anyone else regarding this matter.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

There's a lot to say. I'll let Geth's words bounce around though.

John (talkcontribs)

Reading your comments again, you're not getting an apology just because my views don't agree with yours. If anything, I em expecting one from you for the countless comments you've made about me which classify harassment and how you still think it's smart to continue doing it.

Emails are private and will remain as such until both parties agree for public release of them. Amanda's emails were public with mine and NDKilla's permission so your continued statement of private collision is null - what do you expect someone who only has emails to do?

Further, you are free to demand me to resign but I wont under any circumstances that aren't my own and arent final for the sake of miraheze. If you want me out, there's a process so follow it.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

The fact that you continue to hold yourself unaccountable to this entire situation and refuse to even give credit to the fact that multiple people were trying to protect the very wiki farm that you lead and to not even apologise for the way in which you conducted yourself shows a lot of your own "smart" and inability to take responsibility for your own actions.

You know perfectly well what I meant by emails, I mentioned the other individual by name.

The separate case with the emails with Amanda weren't published until people actually asked for them. The initial conversations were held without the prior knowledge being given to the community, that is the fucking definition of collusion, you disingenuous liar.

Back to what you and I both know what I meant; I like to call bullshit in how you and Reception hold that view on emails. If they are private between two people, why the fuck did Reception think it was perfectly acceptable for himself to give what was a private conversation to your own personal unauthorised viewing so that you could then try to silence dissent. "You now understand the situation better". Yes I did understand the situation better, I understood that you were both fucking slimy backhanded cunts who think that it's perfectly understandable to willingly lie to someone in order to gain more information in a claim that your lackey said it was his own personal "curiosity" when he sent me an unsolicited email pleading me to "tone down attacks" AKA call you out on your bullshit. Utterly spineless, how fucking dare both of you.

Your reply to the fact that I am not interested in tolerating this happening a third time and that I would recommend action taken if it does proceeds to make it absolutely clear that your previous messages here, where you having a bruised ego based on one person's opinion of you threatening to fucking resign from you entire duties here shows that they were utterly toothless from the beginning and was your attempt at trying to pull muscle and force others to carry out your fucking will and shut up. I am free to state my position on what I will demand on you if this happens again, one of the few sentences you've ever said that actually is correct. Congratulations.

Well done on displaying exactly the kind of personality that led to the actual downfall of your previous project in Orain once you abandoned that as well.

This is my victory lap, fuck you.

John (talkcontribs)

I am not going to hold myself accountable for a community consensus. I made a proposal, it got accepted. I am not responsible then, the community is. Just because the RfC closed against your view does not give you the moral ground to act like you have.

"initial conversations were held without the prior knowledge being given to the community" I do not have to tell the community who I email or who emails me at all. The community was told when it become relevant to the community.

I had nothing to do with Orain in the end, it demised 6 months after because of the current staff. I do not appreciate you leading into blaming me on that under any circumstance.

Your entire attitude is poor and if anything, echos back what this whole situation is - the incitement of hatred and distrust all because your view isn't what is happening. You have no victory lap - if anything the behaviour of you and others have taken away any meaning of victory of making matters worse and destroying the friendly aspect of the community. You insist on blaming people and you chose the easy method of blaming the person who made the proposal that passed.

Again, stop the abusive language directed at volunteers. It is disgraceful and only reflects poorly on yourself. It is also unacceptable and will not be tolerated any more.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Notice how you skirted around the entire issue of the shared email (because you know you have zero defence for that) and then just used the almost entirety of this comment to just morally lecture me on language.

The RFC was made with your specification that number of votes didn't account and your own personal view of what was best would pass. You admitted to such on the RFC. Your attempt to than absolve yourself by blaming everyone else shows your utter inability to be a community leader.

Because the way you let Amanda act and alienate other users and drag them into this mess really helped build the "friendly aspect" eh? My attitude towards you is fully justified and has been based on the way you have acted. Your constant interventions have been nothing but self-serving, and now you want to talk about my attitude? LOL.

I'm a "volunteer" too. This bullshit that I have to brownnose you because you DO IT FOR FREE (congrats on falling right into that meme btw) just like everyone else; is ludicrous and I treat it like such. We both hold each other as malicious.

This is my victory lap because I helped contribute to saving this place from your own hubris.. twice.

Again, as a matter of principle, fuck you.

EDIT: nice "won't be tolerated any more" that you edited in while I was making this response, nice attempt at trying to censor again. Will work really well in your favour.

John (talkcontribs)

I didn't skirt around it. How Reception acts is none of my business. If he shares an email with me and asks for a response/opinion - I'll give it. Any reasonable request for another person I will respond to.

The number of votes never account - its a discussion where arguments are what matter not how many people say something is good. The best proposal will always pass - I didn't force it through at all. I share my view and others share their view. If other believe my view is accurate then that's up to them.

I never let Amanda act like anything I wouldn't let anyone else act like. If anything, the constant interventions from people like you which have always lead to trouble and entrapment by pushing Amanda into doing something wrong. Hounding works well at getting your way, but not at letting things go how they want to go.

You did nothing to save this place - no one did anything to save this place. In fact this place doesn't need saving. It needs people pushing it in the right direction which can't happen when people are in the back constantly pushing harassment around and always trying to make their view the normal. Amanda was being dealt with as appropriate - it didn't need people like you getting involving escalating matters and driving the project further away from a welcoming place.

Again - stop with abusive language. This is the final warning I am going to give you now. As I said before, it's unacceptable and it is doing nothing to save the place like you so claim you're doing.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

I'm getting tired of giving long responses that you'll just ignore and deflect with vacuous bullshit anyway so i'm just gonna respond with curt points relating to paragraphs

#1 so when it's me acting with the community it's wrong but when it's Reception it's cool? nice double standards

#2 you're not addressing https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Requests_for_Comment/Allow_exception_to_LP_ban&diff=prev&oldid=20686 , but I don't expect you to, we know your track record here.

#3 So I forced LP to do all the bad stuff and you never gave special treatment. LOL OK.

#4 Various people did, that's why I said helped contribute. Letting run amok is not appropriate dealing. Your charges that I am not making this project welcoming are purely how I deal with three people; you, a person who shared private communication of mine to others without my permission; and LP/Amanda.

#5 Stop making threats and just fucking leave me be to work on ATT, which was what I wanted all along, and what the initial attempts by LP into installing security-threatening extensions was putting at risk. If conversations with me are so toxic for you, go through a middleman.

John (talkcontribs)

1. No, I never said that.

2. I indeed said that. SPF closed it when he wanted to. I can not control what he does and I find it funny your using his actions as a way to negative portray me.

3. I never gave special treatment at all.

5. I am not making threats - you are. If you wanted to just work here, why then barrage and attempt to force us to ban someone who isn't where you want to be and has no affect where you want to be. LP didn't install anything - anything being installed has to go past Labster. There were no deliberate attempts to do anything to compromise security or anything else. Clearly you only care about manipulating things to make it look like you're are correct.

Derivative (talkcontribs)
  1. You make claims that you can't control what other people do and then try to control what I can do when talking with you. Of course when they do things it happens to benefit you. Oh well.
  2. You continue to dance around the point that the institutional nature means that those who report under you will naturally side with you and see your arguments more favourably.
  3. Compare the actions of LP to myself without rose tinted glasses. I don't create socks calling for your death, or impersonated you. I don't claim i'm going to hack you either, I could go on. You're threatening to ban me for using language you don't like.

5. You made the clear inference you were threatening to ban me. The rest of your paragraph is shit we've been through endlessly before, and is approaching the banality of talking to a brick wall.

John (talkcontribs)

1. I am not controlling at all what you can do. 2. No one reports under me. 3. I am not threatening to ban you at all. I am simply asking you to stop using abusive language contrary to the Code of Conduct and harassing language and statement contrary to the Terms of Use you agreed to.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

Define what you mean by final warning then, if there is no control or ban.

If no one reports to you, why should I care about following you or better yet, why are you designed a bureaucrat?

John (talkcontribs)

Final warning means what it means, a final warning that your behaviour is unacceptable. It's in no way a threat of a ban at all just a warning that the behaviour is contrary to expectations, fall sub-standard of what is expected and ruins the friendly aspect of a community.

I am a bureaucrat on Meta so I can implement any community consensus on meta. It is not a social standing - it is a role of extra privilege to use as the community expects. There is no social order at all expect ones people fabricate. If people want to respect me and listen to me - they can. Again I don't tell people what to do they just listen if they want.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

You're not answering the main point. What happens after the final warning.

The other point remains, why do I have to consider you an authority on anything then, wouldn't I merely be able to talk to and get along with the other bureaucrat and stewards? Why are you giving final warnings to non-staff members? Why have the vast majority if not all of your communications to me been demands of one kind or another or making statements about what Miraheze is or isn't?

There's this funny post-modernist sense radiating from you where any word can mean anything.

John (talkcontribs)

If behaviour continues, then it will be dealt with by someone else as appropriate. I'm not going to intervene on a matter where I am personally involved. So you are free to disregard that if you want - doesn't bother me.

Again, you're free to. I am talking to you because you insist of continually abuse and harass me specifically for my views simply because they do not match yours. And now you decide to do the same to Reception without even attempting to talk to him you just launch into abusing him because it suits you.

All of my comments about what Miraheze is or isn't is based on what Miraheze does stand for. Abusive language directed to others is strictly not one of them. If you're expecting me to not ask you to stop creating a negative environment then I don't know what you expect. If you want to ignore then, then do so. But don't talk abusively about me or make comments that are designed to harass me on a forum and not have the guts to make them to me.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

As I note below, you're a member of that very same forum, and have the same ability to post there that LK does.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I'd like to reply to both John and Lulzkiller here, because someone has to be the mediator.

Lulzkiller, you've more than made your point, I think the glass has been ground in enough and John is bleeding from every pore of his flesh at this point. Throwing salt on the wounds is just sadistic at this point, so I suggest you just let it drop here.

John, I think a nice way to put what LK has been trying to say is that you've made some errors in judgment and that he doesn't buy your stance you are not responsible for letting someone even I knew was a troublemaker in a bad disguise a second chance. Granted, this is not all entirely your fault, I'll give you credit, but you did go to bat for someone that turned out to not be worth the trouble at least more than once. It's an error in judgement, but I'm not a vindictive person, I forgive you for that, and I hope you accept at least my acknowledgement I consider this matter resolved.

As for the both of you, please, let the matter drop, it's over, and hopefully will not repeat itself for a third time.

Derivative (talkcontribs)

So you are going to make someone else ban you for me? So you're threatening my ban by proxy. I'm sure getting other people to do dirty work for you is a completely perfect practice with no consequences or downsides.

I am free to. If I posted private communications that occurred between you and me to someone else without my permission, you wouldn't like me very much, same counts reverse wise per Reception; if he merely disagreed with me like he did with the initial email and decided to keep private convos private, you wouldn't hear a peep out of my mouth. I let him knew privately at the time what a disgusting human being he was for doing so. I just waited for now to make it fully public, once LP got dealt with. I didn't say anything to you for your views but your actions. Because they are more clear cut than words, especially in your case.

Lack of guts?, I've said a lot about you that you are well aware is publicly viewable, like here or on Yuku. I stand for principles and transparency, neither seem to be present in what I'm being shown here. You and I have a difference of opinion in what harassment is, and remember that I don't make you come into conversations with me, you're the one who comes here based on your ego being wounded by my forum posts to other ATT members.

John (talkcontribs)

I have never said someone will ban you. I just said I will let someone else review this and act how they see fit.

I am not coming here because of a wounded ego - I am coming here to correct facts. From the discussions I've seen I'm seeing very little facts in the Amanda/LP discussions but rather made up points to justify everyones actions and thoughts. I've been waiting for months for evidence to over half the statements made and to date people only skirt it. Example being the security issues. There has been none but everyone uses it as argument number 1.

John (talkcontribs)

I do not think it is an error judgement at all. I made a proposal, I was happy with it. It ended badly, but my judgement was 100%. However this is no longer a topic about Amanda much rather a topic of "how much can one get away with harassment" one which seems unanswered and is still getting pushed a bit.

I am still expecting at least some small sign of remorse of acknowledgement of the comments made by LulzKiller with complete disregard to others which they made because they were unhappy with others. Disagreement isn't an excuse for harassing people.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

A note to everyone involved: In my opinion, All The Tropes is not the place for a discussion that affects all of Miraheze. This should be taking place on Meta, where everyone can see and participate.

Please, let's stop having such discussions where people don't know to look for them. That indicates we want the conversations to be kept secret (whether that's what we really want or not).

Conversations on the forum are for the people on the forum. Conversations on Meta are for Miraheze.

John (talkcontribs)

This isn't a discussion that affects Miraheze at all. This is the only way I can reply to LulzKiller's comments on the forum. This is the only place I know where he actively looks.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Then perhaps you should come to the forum and discuss the matter there, in a neutral space where LK can express himself without worrying about falling afoul of Miraheze language standards, and you don't have to worry about your perfectly innocent phrasing being misinterpreted as a ban threat, because he can't be banned for violating Miraheze standards in a venue well outside of Miraheze.

In fact, as the owner and host of said forum, I offer an express invitation for you to do so in the interests of keeping all communications here at the utmost level of civility. We certainly know he's actively reading the very thread he's posting in there, after all. After all, I gave you proper contributor access to the forums a month ago.

John (talkcontribs)

I acknowledge the invitation but gratefully reject. Based on how this has gone, I don't feel like accepting an invitation to be harassed is a smart idea to me.

This isn't falling sort of language standards, it's rather falling short of the agreed Terms of Use for using the platform which explicitly states harassment isn't permitted on wiki. Plus the Code of Conduct states guidelines for engaging in discussions.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I have two public comments to make.

First, to LulzKiller and the ATT admin team:

I am not happy about somebody gloating about being correct.

I am doubly unhappy about being associated, however indirectly, with someone who would gloat about being correct.

In my opinion, LulzKiller crossed the line.

If I had bureaucrat rights here, I would have removed myself from the admin team in protest.

Second, to the Stewards:

I see that LulzKiller has been globally banned on all Miraheze wikis.

https://meta.miraheze.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=globalauth&user=&page=&year=2017&month=5&tagfilter=&subtype=

This is exactly what I was worried about when I asked what I did during the RfC for Miraheze's Code of Conduct.

https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Talk:Code_of_Conduct#Definition_of_Harassment:_Who_decides_what_is_.22Offensive.22.3F

There was only one reply to my question and proposal, in which revi stated "Enforcement section says System administrators decide on case by case. Also this is mostly targeted towards Meta (where the coordination is happening), IRC, and Phabricator, so each wiki community is free to have their own standard on their expectation for their users."

As I pointed out earlier, All The Tropes is not Meta. ATT does not have any policy against strong language, and does have a published policy encouraging users to call out the people in charge when users think the people in charge have erred.

https://allthetropes.org/wiki/All_The_Tropes:Policy_for_Wiki_Staff

In my opinion, banning LulzKiller appears to be a violation of Miraheze's Code of Conduct.

John (talkcontribs)

NDKilla's lock rationale was "Terms of Use lock for repeated harassment after several warnings." which means he's backed it up under the Terms of Use and not the Code of Conduct specifically. Also to clarify, it is not a ban to my knowledge (NDKilla has said he will fully clarify).

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Speaking of clarification, then, how does a lock differ from a ban, since absent an extension of which I might not be aware, there is nothing called a "lock" in MediaWiki that I can find?

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Let's not resort to sophistry, John. Can LulzKiller post, or is he banned from posting? There is no middle ground. A lock is a ban.

John (talkcontribs)

While a lock and a ban are technically the same, the difference is a lock can be undone without any discussion while a ban is designed to only be overturned by a decision by the community. A ban is taken as a more permanent "you are not welcome here anymore" while a plain lock is a preventative measure taken on a steward's own intuition.

They're not "banned from posting" by wording.

@Looney Toons, the lock is a part of CentralAuth. There is nothing in MediaWiki called a "ban" likewise however. A lock is a block, just on every wiki. A ban is deemed an indefinite prohibition from contributing to Miraheze and using all services for an indefinite period of time until it is reversed.

Labster (talkcontribs)

I'm certainly not going to defend LulzKiller or John in this thread, both of whom acted extremely dumb here.

The problem with NDKilla's lock is that it's a violation of Staff Policy #2, which means we're in a whole new ballgame here. We're going to need to decide if we're going to willing to accept this, or move to a new wiki host. Or change our policy, but that's doubtful given the circumstances in which we all got here. A circumstance in which a member of our community is permanently banned for disagreeing with site policy is not tolerable in my point of view.

@RobKelk: Well, there is ATT:SLUR but it doesn't 100% apply.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

I think we need to discuss this off the wiki, back in the forums. But I thoroughly dislike the idea that one of our users can be banned from the wiki for behavior the wiki explicitly permits, just because it rankles someone higher up. It seems to me that perhaps Miraheze should have looked at our policies and told us what they did not find acceptable before letting us settle in here and start feeling comfortable with the place.

@John -- Potato, potahtoe. A ban is a lock is a block is a denial of participation. You're putting lipstick on a pig and claiming it's Angelina Jolie.

John (talkcontribs)

@Labster However the circumstances of NDKilla's decision is through the Terms of Use. Which means ATT policy can not override it under any circumstance. Everyone using the service is bound by the Terms of Use - one which you made official and enacted.

@Looney Toons Section 8, point 2 of the Terms of Use I believe is the basis of NDKilla lock which overrides all policies on all wikis.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

While I cannot speak for the other administrators of ATT, to me this smacks of the very same high-handed authoritarian behavior which led us to leave TV Tropes to begin with.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Section 8, point 2 of the Terms of Use: "Posting illegal content or harassment on a Wiki".

How were LulzKiller's comments covered there? Disagreement is not harassment. And, as I already mentioned, we don't have a policy against strong language.

EDIT: Asking for clarification, not disputing. I will check back later. Right now, I'm taking a break from this whole mess.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Nor is gloating, even if it was excessive.

Labster (talkcontribs)

@John: Right. And we're not disputing Miraheze's ability to do this, we're talking about possibly asserting ToU 9d because we don't think following Miraheze's ToU is the right fit for this community. (Yes, I realize I wrote both documents lol.)

EDIT: Well, I guess some people are disputing ^

@Looney Toons: Right. Wouldn't want another admin to get banned for disagreeing here.

John (talkcontribs)

@LabsterUnderstood.

@Robkelk There has been a lot of on-going harassment from LulzKiller directed towards me and NDKilla looked at this discussion and decided some statements amount to harassment on the wiki. I'll leave his full rationale to him however.

Reception123 (talkcontribs)

I've decided that I should provide my version of the story. If you're wondering, no I was not "asked" to write this or "encouraged", I have decided to write this upon reading a few things which I don't find to be fully correct.

First of all, I will address the email situation that was pointed out. I agree that I should have not forwarded the email without permission from the author, and that was a mistake. Just to point out, I was in no way trying to cause more tensions between users, I was just trying to get the situation understood in the best way possible, which obviously turned out to be a big mistake. Despite it being my mistake, I do not appreciate and I don't think it was at all necessary for me to be called a "disgusting human" and insulted based on assumptions.

For the whole Amanda thing, I will give my view. As you can see on the RfC, I proposed a version where Amanda would not be able to interact with the community for 6 months, but that proposal did not pass. I have to admit that I did not particularly like that decision, as I thought my proposal was the best option, but I accepted the decision based on votes and arguments that were presented. I am not trying to take anyone's defence here, but I personally don't really understand where the issue with John was. What he proposed was something proposed a user, not as a steward and I don't really see much influence from a "staff" point of view. Southparkfan is the one that made the final decision from the RfC, so any remarks or concerns should or should have been directed to him, not to John. I had concerns about Amanda too, and I did not appreciate what she did, and how she removed comments but I think despite any problems I tried to be calm, and especially civil.

I see that the issue now is "Why did LulzKiller get locked, but not Amanda". (I might be repeating myself, or other user's comments) but the main reason is that Amanda was already locked, until the community voted for her to be unlocked. I personally think it would not be fair for staff members to simply override the community vote and lock her. For LulzKiller, he was not locked permanently (as said above) and the lock was simply because of clear harassment and violation of the ToU. As Justin said above, this lock can be lifted at any time, and we'd be happy to under the conditions stated above.

Maybe this is out of place, but I don't understand why we are still dwelling on the past here, since Amanda has been permanently locked now. Mistakes were made, that doesn't mean that grudges need to be help. This argument is based on something that no longer is put in question, as nothing can change now anymore, she is locked/banned and she will not be returning at any time. What is the point of this argument? What does anyone achieve by continuing this discussion back and forwards?

"And if I get banned because I won't risk getting banned, well, maybe that just means Miraheze wasn't a place I should have been in the first place." - I understand that LulzKiller getting locked was a surprise, but I think we can agree that it was not a "random" lock, and that it did have some sense. From what I saw, stewards don't just go banning people for no reason, all bans are issued under some policy, so maybe LK should have been familiar with the ToU before he went and insulted users. Users should not fear that they will get locked, as that will not happen without a good reason.

Finally, I respect the people here at ATT that expressed their opinion civilly and who kept a calm tone whatever the situation was.

Reception123

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

I have a been in communication with Lulzkiller, and he would like to discuss the ending of the lock, but he wishes to do so in a manner that is public and transparent.

He has two rationales for this, both of which seems not only reasonable and ethical, but in line with policy of Miraheze.

1. Lack of transparency is something he finds abhorrent because he believes this whole sorry state of affairs was aggravated by parties on all sides not being fully transparent, and he would like to have everything on public record so no one on either side can accuse the other of doing things in secret to backstab anyone.

Speaking for myself, this seems not only reasonable, it's also ethical and sensible.

2. He would prefer to have the discussion of his return put to a vote. Given LP/Amanda was given the same process, and since he was unceremoniously and without warning thrown out by contrast, he would like a vote as to whether his lock can be undone in full, and if so, what prohibitions, sanctions, and whatever other requirements might be necessary spelled out in a public fora where all can comment would be desired because, again, transparency should be pursued to prevent further accusations of power plays and acting in violations of the rules by either side.

Again, I find this reasonable and sensible, and in the line with the policies of Miraheze.

To this end, I propose, for the purposes of having this RFC, a limited unlocking on Meta takes place so he can comment there on the RFC, if nothing else, and per the results of a transparent discussion via said RFC, whether the lock is undone in full and under whatever restrictions are applicable or not can then take place afterwards, we can have this affair put to rest in a manner all can call fairly discussed and voted on, and we can put this sorry affair behind us.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

I'm going to go ahead and unlock LulzKiller's account with the following things in mind:

  1. Sanctions directly regarding the Terms of Use or Privacy Policy are not left to community discretion
  2. If the community (ATT or global) wants to place sanctions on LulzKiller, such as an interaction ban, to decrease the likelihood of future violations, that can be brought up in an RfC

Additionally, future violations can still result in sanctions. Like I've now said several times, even a few people from ATT agree with the fact that how LulsKiller was acting was unacceptable. It will continue to be unacceptable.

LulzKiller is welcome to come back and edit on ATT, or any other wiki, including Meta Wiki to discuss the lock, so long as he does not return to harassing any users (whether it be John, Reception, myself, or anyone else). Note that 'harassment' is still really Steward discretion, but the specific examples quoted above qualify in my mind. If you want an uninvolved look, anyone can request that Void or Southparkfan review this, or you could go ahead and start a vote of confidence against me.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)
NDKilla (talkcontribs)

FWIW you guys are talking about forcing John to step away but he has already resigned and given up his operations access (ongoing removal) and Steward access (gone).

Me and Void are basically the only active Stewards. Can't speak for him but I probably won't be continuing the discussion off of here.

As far as I'm concerned *this* particular matter is resolved.

However I do possibly like the possibility of proposals drafted after the fact, and may support them depending on what they are.