Most of this is backed-up by the #miraheze-staff log, starting from around 9:30 AM PDT from uh... however many days ago this was. I can't really share the evidence because it's considered private.
You can argue that my impressions were uncharitable. If we give the benefit of the doubt, we can say that staff considered banning LK at the beginning, but decided he couldn't be involved in that decision. Everyone took their time to finally arrive at the conclusion that in fact LK needed to be locked. After repeated warnings to a person obviously acting outside of acceptable decorum, they finally locked the account two hours later on reaching staff consensus.
The uncharitable view is that John started the wiki discussion with the expectation that LK would backtalk in a profane way. John started the admin conversation with talk about locking LK himself, and continued to steer the discussion towards a lock after he realized he would need to have someone else cover his action. On wiki, John trolled LK to keep him talking, but was also acting as staff. No one presented any alternative actions as a consequence for LK's behavior. And a lock was finally actioned after people felt a second of their friends was insulted. An explanation was put together far after the fact to explain why the lock was taken.
I think the evidence that I have could support both views, and that the truth is likely somewhere in-between. That's why I want a bit of procedure here, to reduce the ambiguity. If someone has to stop and ask, "What are the steps I need to do to accomplish this disciplinary action?" then it slows down the thought process just enough to make sure that you've justified in writing that you're doing the right thing, not just that you believe that you're doing the right thing.
-- ∇×V
You can argue that my impressions were uncharitable. If we give the benefit of the doubt, we can say that staff considered banning LK at the beginning, but decided he couldn't be involved in that decision. Everyone took their time to finally arrive at the conclusion that in fact LK needed to be locked. After repeated warnings to a person obviously acting outside of acceptable decorum, they finally locked the account two hours later on reaching staff consensus.
The uncharitable view is that John started the wiki discussion with the expectation that LK would backtalk in a profane way. John started the admin conversation with talk about locking LK himself, and continued to steer the discussion towards a lock after he realized he would need to have someone else cover his action. On wiki, John trolled LK to keep him talking, but was also acting as staff. No one presented any alternative actions as a consequence for LK's behavior. And a lock was finally actioned after people felt a second of their friends was insulted. An explanation was put together far after the fact to explain why the lock was taken.
I think the evidence that I have could support both views, and that the truth is likely somewhere in-between. That's why I want a bit of procedure here, to reduce the ambiguity. If someone has to stop and ask, "What are the steps I need to do to accomplish this disciplinary action?" then it slows down the thought process just enough to make sure that you've justified in writing that you're doing the right thing, not just that you believe that you're doing the right thing.
-- ∇×V