In response to Estel's request, we have completed the first section
1. In relation to Article 9 - Persistent posting of objectionable content.
First, How many board members PMed the rangers to object about Hals posts, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?
Second, in the current instance, when was the behavior first noticed and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the initial act to remove permissions from the Symposium was taken?
Third, when was the behaviour outside of the Symposium noticed, and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the decision was made to remove all permissions other than that of the Bike Racks?
First, How many board members PMed the rangers to object about Hals posts, how many multiple complaints there were, and how many board posted complaints there were?
In the "Sensitive Information" hidden forum, two Rangers (excluding Holby, River, and Rebecca) posted complaints. One was in regards to hal, the other to drama in general.
In the Krispy Kreme thread, Dawnnamaria responded to hal
here and further in the thread. Most other posters responded sarcastically to hal, but did not expressly complain. This thread was later split
to here.
In the Coverage from around the world thread, hal came in and began arguing over politics. Freddy, the thread starter expressed his displeasure with the direction the thread had taken in
this post. The majority of hal's post in this thread were not on-topic, despite Freddy's request. Later Eru
also asked that the thread stay on topic. Later, dawnnamaria
posted requesting they stop: Hal, sf, anyone else... PLEASE stop. If you guys want to discuss this stuff please take it somewhere where I can ignore it because I'm trying to keep myself away from things that annoy me and it's hard when they appear in a thread that I'm interested in. You've been asked a couple of times, both by Freddy and others. Ara-anna also asked why he
bothered to bring up certain issues.
In the
Obama day Jan 20. thread,
Estel voiced her displeasure of the negativity. As did Jewelsong and Eruname on the same page as was linked to. On page 5 of the same thread
Eruname again voiced her displeasure.
The thread continued to devolve from there and was eventually split off. We have provided specific links and examples, but a truer picture can be seen by reading the entire thread and seeing the recurring comments.
hal started The Era of Bipartisanship thread, where Alatar
requested they stop arguing:
Ok, I've had enough. As an ordinary member I'm asking that the Rangers consider suspending posting rights for both SF and Hal in the Symposium until they BOTH agree to act like grown ups. He repeated his request
here and some discussion with hal followed.
Holbytla (with regards to complaints about this incident received via the PM feature) - Personally I will not reveal any information regarding pm's sent to me. To me that would defeat the entire purpose of the pm feature. People use pm's rather than post in threads to protect their anonymity and I won't endanger that. So I will not release any pm's from anyone even with their permission. I will tell you that the amount of pm's I have received during this incident are numerous and are from no less than 6 individuals. It is up to you whether you want to take me on my word for that or not as I will not provide any proof other than my testimony.
----------------------------------------------------------
Second, in the current instance, when was the behavior first noticed and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the initial act to remove permissions from the Symposium was taken?
The behavior was first noticed on Jan 19 in the
Pretty'n up Palin thread. It subsequently spread to the
Obama Day thread (linked is what River split off), the
Krispy Kreme thread (again, linked is what River split off), the
California thread, and on Jan. 23 hal opened up a
bipartisanhsip thread that fell apart before it even began. This was the day he and sf were locked out of the Symposium.
River asked hal to stop
here.
Rebecca reminded hal to post to the topic
here.
Holbytla twice urged sauronsfinger and halplm to disengage or face consequences:
Holbytla's
first warning.
Holbytla's
second warning, which was
repeated here to make sure they saw it.
Holbytla's
third warning was posted almost immediately after.
Another warning was found by
Holbytla here
----------------------------------------------------------
Third, when was the behaviour outside of the Symposium noticed, and how many warnings, both in PM and out in the threads, were given before the decision was made to remove all permissions other than that of the Bike Racks?
Yes, the disruption continued outside of the Symposium. Some of them were concurrent with the disruptions in the Symposium and others continued after. This was because we told hal that his posting rights were restricted, but due to difficulties with the Administrator Control Panel, he still had the ability to post in the Symposium.
These were posts made by hal:
Suspension of Posting Rights RE: Halplm and Sauronsfinger -- He posted many times in this thread after this post.
Need to Contact a Ranger? -- He posted many times in this thread after this post.
He also posted in the Charter Committee 2008 thread, despite not being a member of the committee. River split the post into the
hal's place thread to keep the committee on track. hal also posted a nasty note in the Charter itself. River deleted that post. She did not take a screen capture or make any other record. She subsequently locked the Charter.
These were threads started by hal:
The Abuse of Power thread started in the Turf.
He received no warning regarding his behavior outside the Symposium. We had reason to believe he knew what he was doing. We felt a restriction was necessary to prevent further disruptions. Riverthalos restricted halplm to the Bike Racks following his posting of a thread in the
Turf which was moved to the Bike Racks. She did not feel it necessary to give warning as fellow board members had requested hal to disengage in the Business Room and she felt it was more important that the disturbance be contained as quickly as possible.