Topic on User talk:Derivative

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

Hi all, NDKilla here.

TL;DR:

  • I feel that LK was harassing multiple people and locked him because of what I read on his talk page, not because of anything john said to me.
  • Also, I see no reason the lock should be permanent, but I think something obviously needs to be done about this that nobody seems to be doing
  • GethN7 and Robkelk seems to be the only ones at ATT that are acting decently even though they still disagree with me/John/etc.

Longer post:

Time for an explanation regarding the locking of LulzKiller's account. I'll be giving my opinion of the situation as a user, and my opinion as a staff member which led to the lock.

Opinion as a user

Since in the long run this doesn't matter, I'll keep this short and sweet. A lot of people have been creating a lot of global drama ever since MatthewPW showed his face around Miraheze. I think a lot of people handled this badly. However I think it's very important to realize that people can disagree (even about locking accounts) without things having to get heated or get personal. I think that LulzKiller crossed a few lines in his discussion with John and others.

I was pretty irritated reading about him dragging Reception123 into this situation, when Reception123 is a (more or less) uninvolved system administrator who has contributed more to Miraheze than most.

Also, I understand that LulzKiller is, probably, a respected contributor on All The Tropes. I however feel that this situation got entirely out of hand, and I'm personally putting most (but not all) of the blame on him.

Also, there are venues for removing access from people. I'm not just going to turn around and lock John's account if a conversation with him gets heated. If you want John's rights or my own rights removed, follow the procedure.

Opinion as a staff member

Although the posts on the Drunkard's forums weren't taken into consideration when deciding what actions to take regarding LulzKiller, I would like to say that it's ridiculous to think that you can hide there. Just because we can't remove you from that forum, and probably won't remove you from Miraheze because of things said there, doesn't make it any better. If you look like a bad guy over there, we're still gonna think you're a bad guy over here. (Not calling LulzKiller a bad guy, just saying we're aware of whats going on there and it doesn't help things).

About the actual lock: The following are things that I consider unacceptable to be stated towards other people:

  • "Again, as a matter of principle, fuck you."
  • "This is my victory lap, fuck you."
  • ", you disingenuous liar. "
  • "Utterly spineless, how fucking dare both of you."

And although "I'm sure getting other people to do dirty work for you is a completely perfect practice with no consequences or downsides." isn't really going into the 'harassment' label, I wanted to point out that's not how things work. I locked LulzKiller's account of my own volition after reading User_talk:LulzKiller on ATT wiki.

Also, miscellaneous point: I read and love ATT's policy for staff. However, by using Miraheze, all users agree to abide by the terms of use and all other global policies. So the whole thing about 'violating ATT policy' is moot as Global > local policies always.

Moving forward

Although I cited both the Terms of Use and the Code of Conduct in the global account log, there is no indication or requirement that the lock remains permanent. However I would like a few things to come out of this:

  1. LulzKiller should seriously take a moment to go over all of Miraheze's global policies, as excessive violation (of which repeated harassment after several warnings may constitute) of global policies is grounds for 'restricted access to services'
  2. I would also like to see either:
    1. LulzKiller unlocked but restricted to just editing ATT and commenting on Meta (RfS, RfC) on things *started by other users*
    2. LulzKiller unlocked, but an interaction ban placed between LK and John
      1. Obviously the interaction ban will be ignored for time-critical situations that John is handling in his capacity as a Steward or System Administrator

NDKilla (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC) System Administrator & Steward

Labster (talkcontribs)

I just want to publicly thank you for posting a public explanation for this action. I'll refrain from commenting further for a while, to let the community have time to digest the situation.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I am still considering my reply to this (and, in order to make a more informed reply, would like more evidence of harassment than what was shown in a single thread started by John). However, I take exception to this statement:

"Although the posts on the Drunkard's forums weren't taken into consideration when deciding what actions to take regarding LulzKiller, I would like to say that it's ridiculous to think that you can hide there."

John has an account on that forum and was specifically invited to take part in that thread; John has declined the invitation. At no point was anyone hiding anything there.

John (talkcontribs)

@Robkelk Evidence as requested:

The links below go to single post threads view where LK has said or made comments that are can be considered harassment under the EU/NL definition of repeated unwanted behaviour which is abusive or intends on causing distress with no legitimate purpose.

http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/140325/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-VIII

http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/140336/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-VIII

http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/142127/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-VIII

http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/142854/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-IX

http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/142878/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-IX [again, repeated obsession over some conspiracy over I have the ability to control everyone here]

[Off-topic: http://drunkardswalkforums.yuku.com/sreply/140344/All-The-Tropes-Wiki-Project-Part-VIII from this post, I love the double standards. When LK gets his way, the community has spoken. But when LK doesn't get his way, I have manipulated everyone to get my way or the community is just deemed plain stupid to him.]

And yes, that thread was started by me, to address points that LK made on the forum which were lacking in real facts made with the one-eye viewed because I had an opposing view. There was zero malicious intent by me and originally, none by them. Over time. LK's actions become clear they were intent to cause unwanted distress or otherwise directed towards me beyond any reasonable doubt. I asked LK to stop multiple times but they came back with more thinking it was either smart or to test me. Small actions build up to a result in the end and unfortunately over time, there was too much to tolerate it anymore in NDKilla's view even considering he ignored everything before yesterday.

Also a thing to keep in mind is NDKilla's rationale took into account LK's behaviour and decision to harass Reception as well. Someone who was 100% uninvolved on the matter. This shows a clear intent and not one you can put down to "baiting" or "provocation" at all in any regards.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

I acknowledge the existence of those posts made to a site that is not on Miraheze.

How many times were we told during the discussions about the various MatthewPW / I Love Bridges / Lawrence-Praries / Amanda accounts that posts made to a site that is not on Miraheze did not matter?

EDIT: Also, your putting the words "baiting" and "provocation" in quotes is an odd choice. I did not use either of those words here or on the external forum; what I said was that both of you were goading each other. There is a non-subtle difference in meaning.

John (talkcontribs)

They don't matter - hence why there was never any action until the abuse became on wiki. You asked for evidence this was an on going matter and it was provided. Behaviour translates very strongly especially when it is word for word how it happens.

The quotes were around Labster's accusation I forced LK to behave this way.

Labster (talkcontribs)

Every single link you posted fails to meet the definition of harassment you posted above. They are all about a specific policy, which meets my definition of a "legitimate purpose". It served the purpose of rallying other people to agree with his cause. It probably wasn't effective at that, but this is clearly speech about policy and leadership.

The rules are different for people who have power, and for better or worse you have the most power at Miraheze. Most of it is soft power -- staff, including myself, defer to your judgement quite often on matters concerning the community, or software choice, or other things. I get that we're all equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Were LulzKiller's statements bad? For sure. But we were dealing with it already before you triggered this crisis. What you did here is the opposite of moderation. And what NDKilla did was not moderation either, because instead of stepping in to defuse a conflict, he issued a lock and only supplied the logic for it six hours later. So I feel like we have a crisis at the steward level.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

Just a PS that I intentionally waited to action until after John gave another warning. Not every Steward should always agree or not every Steward should have to act. My warning would have been the same as John's and just wasted more time.

Anyways, maybe John and/or myself over reacted, but I haven't seen anyone on ATT's side actually saying 'LK was in the right' just more 'John is bad' and 'NDKilla is a meatpuppet' (maybe in nicer terms).

Like I said, moving forward, I have no real objection to unlocking LK. At the least though I would like him to awknowledge what his fellow tropers have said in that he crossed lines, and hopefully that he will try to avoid this situation in the future.

Not telling him not to express his opinion, but calling un-involved users 'spineless' is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure I speak for most Stewards when I say it wont be tolerated.

John (talkcontribs)

They certainly do not meet "legitimate purpose". You can put a point across with because excessively abusive and trying to provoke a conflict despite being asked multiple times to stop. Also his cause was harassment - nothing more, nothing less. I never triggered any crisis. I never said "hi, please abuse me, please swear at me, please harass Reception too" - you're just trying to justify his actions by blaming me. I didn't need to moderate anything - I acted civilly and asked them to stop being abusive multiple times. They listen or they don't - if they choose not to, not my fault. Moderation clearly would not have worked otherwise your attempts would have worked. NDKilla acted as he decided was appropriate and employing the ToU was appropriate to him. If you think there is a crisis - as has been said multiple times as well now - there is a process. Follow it or don't. Your choice.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

John, I have explicitly asked LK to stay away, mind his P's and Q's, and asked him to see if he couldn't work on our Wikia fork of this wiki for awhile to give him something productive to do as opposed to further inciting you.

He has agreed to do so and has even admitted he kicked off a firestorm to me. He still believes he was correct in principle (as in, he believed his underlying points were salient, just as you believe yours are) while acknowledging the method used to get them across (purposely grinding glass into your wounds just to be a dick) was not bound for an end that would be anything other than disastrous.

Assuming he keeps his head down for a period of time you deem fit, I was wondering if you would be amenable to allowing him back on a probationary basis, pursuant to NDKilla's suggestion the two of you do not interact except when absolutely necessary.

On our end, we have agreed to punish him for acting in manner unbecoming of an ATT staff member and thus even if he is allowed back he will be a regular user only for an indeterminate period (whether he earns his sysop flag back will hinge on how faithful he is to NOT antagonizing you in any way nor repeating such actions with anyone else), and if he repeats that mistake with you or any other user during his probation, I will personally toss him out on his ear, and bear in mind, I'm likely one of the most sympathetic guys in the room to his side of things, but I agree the antagonism was very, very stupid, it should not have escalated like it did, and I have personally reprimanded him for burning bridges as spitefully as he did as incredibly foolish no matter how justified or not the underlying message was in his mind.

John (talkcontribs)

The lock was never meant to be permanent ever. As soon as LK made an admission his behaviour was inappropriate, any steward would be free to unlock. Though it is something I'm leaving to NDKilla to deal with because of impartiality, I never advocated a lock, I just wanted his behaviour to stop as it was, as it wasn't constructive to be throwing abuse around at everyone (especially extending it towards Reception). I don't feel any sort of interaction prohibition is necessary as long as the return to making abusive comments doesn't return as especially over a long period of time (as it was ~5 months) is not acceptable.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Well, given how you two are basically oil and water, I'd still advocate for one myself, if only to prevent a repeat of this happening, but if you are confident enough that won't be an issue, I'll respect your judgment.

Whenever the lock is rescinded, do let us know, or whomever undoes it we ask please give us notice.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

Geth, I'd like to see replies from some other people maybe, as out side of this context I don't really know him too well.

No problem unlocking, but if the same (imo?) abusive language returns, I will probably reinstate the lock without warning.

I do realize he can't reply to this thread, but I'd like him to at least awknowledge this somewhere I can see? Nothing from him here or on Yuku has been good, and he hasn't tried to appeal to staff@ or stewards@ yet.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Technical question: Is somebody whose account is locked/banned/blocked/whatever capable of making such an appeal?

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

Although the message was cut off, it's still readable that it says "Please propose any appeals to Staff via email," so yes, people can appeal.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Separating this from the previous post intentionally.

NDKilla, you flat-out stated in the original post "GethN7 and Robkelk seems to be the only ones at ATT that are acting decently even though they still disagree with me/John/etc." Given that, why would anyone else want to reply to you? You already have a non-zero number of ATT admins worried that their accounts will be locked/banned/blocked/whatever for disagreeing with the stewards (an activity that was known to have accounts locked at TVTropes just before the wiki fork that created All The Tropes); until you made the original post in this thread, I was one of them.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

Again, sorry for the delayed in (detailed) explanation for the lock.

People should want to reply to me because I would like everyone to be on the same page (if possible) and for anyone to acknowledge what was going on.

If people don't talk, why would anyone think things will change?

PS: Please don't point out that I didn't 'talk' about the lock, or that people already we're talking as I don't really think either of those are valid points. Although I delayed my detailed explanation for the lock because of $dayjob, the lock reason itself had a brief explanation and the user was warned before it even happened. As for already talking, I wouldn't call any of what was happening very meaningful conversation.

It's not disagreement with the Stewards that led to the block. I stated "harassment of multiple staff members" as the lock reason, although the fact that we're staff doesn't really matter.

You are free to think Amanda should(n't) be locked or have disagreeing opinions on anything you want, however everyone is obligated to follow our global policies, and the tone of the conversation was generally unacceptable (specifically quoted/linked text).

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Everyone being on the same page is a completely rational position to take for wanting people to join in the discussion, and I agree with it completely.

The problem is that we need to work with a non-rational reaction.

Once burned, twice shy - they've had accounts locked because they disagreed with the people who ran the show elsewhere, and they're afraid that the same thing will happen here. I know some of them well enough to identify the signs.

I suspect that saying completely true and rational things to the contrary won't really help. You've frightened them away.

NDKilla (talkcontribs)

@Robkelk and @LulzKiller

Well that may be an unfortunate truth. I'm just stating that LulzKiller's word choice when conversing with other users was unacceptable. They were not banned (locked) for disagreeing with anyone.

They are free to return when they acknowledge this. If they choose not to appeal and just stay away, that is their choice.

This post was hidden by NDKilla (history)
NDKilla (talkcontribs)

To clarify "hiding" on DW, I understand it's publicly readable and both myself and John can post there.

The point wasn't really that you're literally hiding conversation, like we were accused of doing, but more so the fact that we shouldn't have to move outside of official venues. Staff already dedicates time to watching almost 2000 wikis, email, irc, Facebook, and twitter. We shouldn't have to move to another forum to discuss our actions.

We can discuss this here, and if/when LK wants to join the conversation he can send us an email.

Also, I only pointed it out because DW was specifically brought up because it was implied you wouldn't be banned for talking there, which might imply you'd be banned for talking here, but that's not true. (Assuming it doesn't escalate to the same point.)

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

According to John's earlier posts on this wiki, the stewards are already monitoring the conversation on that forum. You have already chosen to spend that time there. Nobody forced you to do that. When we discovered that John was doing that, we invited John to take the last step and make replies there to the posts there. John declined.

You shouldn't have to - but you have already chosen to.

I extend the same invitation to you that Bob extended to John: since you are already reading the forum, I invite you to take that last step and reply in the venue where the comments you are reading are being made.

TBeholder (talkcontribs)

While he's obviously fowl-mouthed, right now the accusations seem to boil down to this:

  • LK commits "repeated harassment" of someone, specifically, it's done on LK's user talk page.
  • LK is nefariously hides something and conspires, which the mind-reader NDK caught him on, except not, and it turns out he in fact does the exact opposite of hiding.

Do you understand why this looks laughably fake and ridiculous?

Derivative (talkcontribs)

As a final note several months later for casual observers; I don't think my behaviour was inappropriate per se like John was insinuating I supposedly admitted, I just understand that it played into his hands in silencing dissent and that my lack of telling ATT staff beforehand did not help endear them to what they saw as a two-sided shit-flinging contest, hence my 2 month loss of admin rights.

My opinions and views remain the same. All this did was prove myself right.

I'll lock this because it's inactive at this point.