Hello everyone, Memphi here taking my time from my work to handle a little thing. So Guy failed my probation and as such he is banned and I successfully complited my experiment. I got all the data I need so that policy will be voted on later. Anyways I am here for the confidence call made on Kagi made by Guy. This blog will be giving both points. If I see any bias votes they will not be counted. Have a good day.
Guy's side (copy pasted from original blog)[]
So let's start with the summary of my ban.
Now my ban came about through a "democratic vote". Now I don't need to tell anyone this but there's no such thing as a "democratic vote" when discussing the banning or unbanning of a user; there has never been such policy when this has been needed or even made in the entirety of the wiki's history. Believe me, I know. The reasons given on my ban (Harassment, insulting the wiki, etc) were things I either did off the wiki or things I've done and been banned for previously. Now, things that happen off the wiki or not affiliated with the wiki cannot be used to prosecute someone on the wiki and that's a fact. Second, being tried for something you've already been tried for is "double jeopardy", which is actually an offense itself. Not only that but not only was I refused a right to attest to the ban but there was agreement that any admin (base that in mind, "admin") who tried to unban me would be banned themselves. All of this is a gross misconduct or even violation of given policies.
So these are the points I'm using against Kagi;
- You held a democratic vote which is in violation of ban procedures and, not only that, tried to IMPEDE the same thing on Memphis when he unbanned me.
- You banned me for things that you had no evidence of, did not happen here, or were for things I was banned for before. Not only was that a misuse of authority but also a case of double jeopardy, explained above.
- I was refused the right to testimony to my defense which, before the policy revamp, was a given benefit. And when I tried to, people ignored me.
- You pretty much held a gun to people's heads and told them that "if you were to unban Guy then you'd be banned yourself". You haven't the power nor the authority to do that, and that itself is a huge violation of policies, namely under bannable offenses.
Now let's finish with Shou's.
Shou was given a hasty and baseless permaban (Permanent bBan, by the way) because he went on the chat and asked people if they would be okay with me being unbanned. Now bare in mind previously where the thing about unbanning me resulted in a ban was directed to ADMINS only. Shou's not an admin, of course. Secondly, he only asked the question (So I've been told) and never actually tried to get me unbanned; those who are to the contrary can please correct me or whatever. So that's how Shou was banned despite him being a great person and very helpful member to this wiki which I and many others can agree to. So when Shou went to the Xat chat to attest the ban, because only God knows why that's the only way you can do so, he was told that he'd been warned before which, as far as most people are concerned, is a lie. He was then blackmailed by Kagi that the only way he'd be unbanned is if Shou stopped talking about my ban. Naturally Shou had no choice but to do so.
So here are the points made;
- Shou was permabanned for something he could not have known about nor was it in the policies; a gross misconduct of power.
- His ban time was unjust by ALL stretch of the definition, especially when compared to White who, after breaking every conceivable behavioral policy in the book, only got a week ban. Do you honestly want someone who can't even prioritize ban lengths as an admin?
- Shou was then blackmailed to be unbanned for a ban he did not even deserve in the first place. Now I don't know about you guys but I certainly don't want an admin who goes around blackmailing people on a Xat chat where you HAVE to go to if you want to appeal your ban.
So there you have it. That's my call.
Kagi's side[]
1) The vote-ban didn't even start out as such. One admin had made a statement about why we were taking insulting or demeaning comments from you that amount to harassment, and we decided this needed to be talked about. Eventually and through no active attempt of my own, it turned into a discussion of whether or not to ban you. The only thing I did was make sure that all admins were aware of this discussion and took part if capable. Quite frankly I thought it should have been as simple as "ban you, be done" and that the whole vote wasn't necessary. Oh and by the way, it was pretty much unanimous with all active admins, aside from one vote of neutral from Jon. So no, I was not the sole reason you were banned, I was simply the one to carry it out.
2) I once again refer you to the aforementioned vote, and how people were sick of your attitude towards them. I believe I also explained reasonings for the ban on someone's talk page, and I'll get a link to that one later.
3) That one was simply the fact that no-one else is allowed to edit their talkpage while banned. At least, I pick that option while doing any bannings.
4) Funny thing, that was Memphis who said that. It was said to ensure that you didn't talk your way out of the ban through one of the admins by making them aware that there would be consequences, and to keep Users from inciting drama over the matter. I was merely the messenger boy who told everyone Memph's ruling.
Now, the point about Shou:
1) I explained it to him not once, but twice. It came down to three strikes, simple as that.
2) White not only got a week-long ban, but he was also demoted. Plus, the "every conceivable behavioral policy in the book" was cursing. If he should have gotten a demotion and a permanent ban for swearing, than a lot of other people would get the same. Long story short, when it came to Shou that was a matter of enforcing what I was told by Memphis, which Memphis confirmed for me during Shou's second strike.
3) Shou was unbanned when he said he would stop bringing up the subject. To be quite frank I didn't want to ban such a promising User who by all means seemed to be a decent person, and when he said he would stop trying to bring up the matter I was more than happy to reduce his ban to a single day and then let him be on his way. Given his devotion/admiration for you I was both surprised that he was on SFW to do more than preach your case and impressed that he was willing to let the subject drop.
Say what you will Guy, but the majority of the information you have brought up against me is almost entirely based on my actions to uphold a group decision by the wiki's admins or enforce a ruling by one of the wiki's three crats. Admittedly, apparently that ruling was only done to "shut me up" or as a courtesy. Whether that was truly the case at the time Memphis made the ruling or not, I have no idea. In fact, as far as I knew it was a completely legitimate ruling by a bureaucrat that should be enforced, pure and simple. If I was honestly as corrupt as you make me out to be, you would have been gone the moment I got my adminship, regardless of admin vote or otherwise.
For demotion[]
- .
Against demotion[]
- .
op there you have it. Vote on what evidence is presented and nothing more. Ciao.