FanPost

Banning mikev - a Tragicomedy in (now) Five (f)Acts

EDIT: After I posted my FanPost, it was deleted by someone about two minutes after I posted it. Fortunately, I had the text saved. I am not sure for how long this one will be up, though.

(f)Act One

November 24th

Nico announces he will take a two month sabbatical from AN.

I am taking a leave, or "sabbatical," through the end of January.

...

I will continue to serve officially as blogfather, even in my ghost-like form...

* * *

(f)Act Two

December 9th

Nico posts a front page story, effectively ending his sabbatical.

* * *

(f)Act Three

December 10th

  • Leopold Bloom and mikev comment on Nico´s unexpected return

15 days.

by Leopold Bloom on Dec 10, 2011 2:27 AM EST

NOTICE ME! NOTICE ME!
by mikev on Dec 10, 2011 2:47 AM EST

  • Nico and another moderator flag mikev´s comment
  • Nico uses a warning button* to log-off mikev
  • Nico claims to have sent a message to mikev, demanding he contacts him. He never specified in which form such a request was sent. Mikev acknowledges he was logged off and saw that he was warned for inappropriate comment, but claims not to have received any additional messages from Nico.
  • Mikev´s e-mail address is stored in his account, visible to all moderators and the address is current and functioning.
    * A warning is a built-in mechanism used in situations where a user runs out of control and needs to be cooled off immediately. The moderators usually only use it if someone's being disruptive in a time-sensitive situation where the usual flag/review/mod discussion process will take too long.

* * *

(f)Act Four

December 22nd

Nico, through his powers as "The Chief Administrator" bans mikev from AN

Autoban_medium

* * *

(f)Act Five

December 30th

Nico sends an e-mail to Mike, saying that he is reaching out for dialogue. In it he demands Mike comes to his place for a talk, or, if he is unable to do so calls him.

He declines to give Mike even the faintest hint to the reason of his banning. Mike says he is open for dialogue, but feels that e-mail is a good medium to do that, as this was exactly what Nico demanded in the past.

Nico declines to do that, citing his frail health (pain when typing), e-mail as a poor medium to convey emotions and his fear that what he writes might become visible to public (as did some of his threats to other users).

Mike doesn´t see a reason to have the dialogue outside of the aforementioned and requested e-mail, and doesn´t agree to visit Nico or call him. He thus remains banned.

Nico breaks silence and informs AN community that he has reached out but that Mike declined to engage in a dialogue.

Nico discusses the reasons for Mike´s banning in public. Mike has still not received a single word from Nico on why he is being banned.

Blez breaks silence and fully supports Nico´s actions.

These are the facts. They are all either publicly visible or have been confirmed to me by multiple moderators.

So, allow me to sum the facts up.

  1. Mikev is one of the longest tenured and most active members of the community.
  2. To the best of everybody´s knowledge, he has never received a strike in all the years of participating in the community.
  3. The comment that triggered the warning and the subsequent ban is not of a CGV quality
  4. The comment that triggered the warning and the subsequent ban is directed at Nico, "The Chief Administrator" (TCA)
  5. TCA was obviously offended by the comment and although he claims that all he wants to do is talk, he never contacted mikev through a mail, although he had the means to do so.
  6. TCA banned mikev using the following provision of the CG

The site’s chief administrator may, at any time, choose to bypass the three-strikes process and ban a user if he feels the circumstances warrant it. If a user’s offense is judged to be exceptionally grievous in nature, that user may be banned immediately and unilaterally.

And one more time, without any bullets.

A moderator has levied the highest possible penalty and expelled a valued member of our community over a combination of a non-CGV comment and very questionable failure to answer a message that might or might not have been received and acknowledged. The moderator insists on not lifting the ban, until the user who appears to have done nothing wrong by community standards fulfills his explicit demand to be contacted, although the moderator has the means to contact the user all along, if he wishes so. The moderator has circumvented the standard procedure for banning the users and used the powers that should only be used in the case of most egregious offenses. As of right now, said user is still banned.

Whatever your feelings for Nico and mikev might be, stop for a second and think - is this how you want this place run? Do you feel this was a proper way to handle the situation or abuse of power?

Don´t let this one just go - this affects all of us.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

Join Athletics Nation

You must be a member of Athletics Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Athletics Nation. You should read them.

Join Athletics Nation

You must be a member of Athletics Nation to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Athletics Nation. You should read them.

Spinner

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9351_tracker