For example, WAMcKinley posted:
LEM was a former mod at this forum. If I recall her story correctly, she resigned and then was banned, for no discernible reason. (Refer to forum history: "Bad Ol' Days") Maybe she was accorded amnesty. If so, it would be justly deserved, IMHO.So Clix Pix, who had been banned, heard about it and decided to see if she could rejoin. But her account had not been deleted like LEM and Luz, so she was not able to rejoin using her old name. Clix Pix (user id = 3614) was still present in the database and shown as “banned”.
userid | usergroupid | username |
3614 | 8 (banned) | Clix Pix |
So she tried registering under a slightly different name; ClixPix (no space). That user name was accepted and she was given a new user number. The account was activated at 9:31 PM EST. Here is a screen cap from July 18 showing the user name and number, ClixPix (user id = 8107).
When someone is unbanned, the steps shown in the admin log are liftban and doliftban. None of those actions occurred on July 18. The admin log shows that not a single ban was lifted on July 18th.
She was never “unbanned” as Clix Pix. She rejoined as a new member with a similar, but not identical, name. There is no record of the account ever being approved. No one let her in.
But some questions remain. Why were staff expecting the return of banned members? Pickled Tink posted in the staff room on May 16 that “The DJG'ers are already talking about bringing back banned members.”
Why did she say that? It was not true. No one at Susahumor had suggested bringing back banned members. So where did she get that idea? Were her spies at that forum unreliable? Inventive?
The timeline is also interesting.
- 3:38 PM EST Luz activates her account by replying to the welcome email
- 8:18 PM EST LEM activates her account
- 8:59 PM EST UKSusanfanAnn notices LEM reading the thread
- 9:00 PM EST Hulapig declares that “banned and resigned members are being let back in”
- 9:06 PM EST Hulapig: “A banned member. YOUR staff is not doing this.”
- 9:31 PM EST ClixPix activates her account
Some members recognized LEM, some didn’t. But Hulapig made it clear that she believed it to be a return of the banned. Note that Hulapig was posting about the “banned” being re-admitted before ClixPix activated her account.
Clearly, creating panic about “banned” members was on someone’s agenda. Why? Who originated the lies about banned members returning? And who was spreading them?
Another area of concern are the actions of Pickled Tink, an admin at the forum and Chairperson of the Board. Tink included a deliberate lie in the official report. (Had there been a real investigation, they would have found, like I did, that no banned members were re-admitted.)
From the report of the Board, Nov. 14, 2010:
Clearly, creating panic about “banned” members was on someone’s agenda. Why? Who originated the lies about banned members returning? And who was spreading them?
Another area of concern are the actions of Pickled Tink, an admin at the forum and Chairperson of the Board. Tink included a deliberate lie in the official report. (Had there been a real investigation, they would have found, like I did, that no banned members were re-admitted.)
From the report of the Board, Nov. 14, 2010:
We have explored the issue of the banned members. It seems that in actual fact only one banned member was readmitted, and that one of the temporary admin appointed by Lchris has said she admitted this person as she thought that the amnesty which had been discussed by PT, Kalua, and Lchris towards previously banned members had commenced.
What she wrote was not true. If this was simply a mistake, it would not be so bad. But there is reason to believe that at the time the report was written, Pickled Tink knew that Citroenlady had not admitted Clix on July 18th.
Citroenlady was not a mod at the time Clix Pix rejoined and therefore in no position to admit her. That fact had been discussed at two meetings in which Pickled Tink participated. In a chat meeting on July 29, 2010, at 3:35 pm, lchris told her that CL was "let in later". Tink responded, "yes I checked your log to see what time she was let in".
On August 12, the Tech team had a chat meeting, attended by Pickled Tink, Danileo, JudyOkla, Truus and lchris. One of the things discussed was the supposed “unbanning”, which took place the 18th. JudyOkla asked about Citroenlady being the one who had unbanned and lchris replied that her access was not changed until the next day.
Citroenlady was not a mod at the time Clix Pix rejoined and therefore in no position to admit her. That fact had been discussed at two meetings in which Pickled Tink participated. In a chat meeting on July 29, 2010, at 3:35 pm, lchris told her that CL was "let in later". Tink responded, "yes I checked your log to see what time she was let in".
On August 12, the Tech team had a chat meeting, attended by Pickled Tink, Danileo, JudyOkla, Truus and lchris. One of the things discussed was the supposed “unbanning”, which took place the 18th. JudyOkla asked about Citroenlady being the one who had unbanned and lchris replied that her access was not changed until the next day.
Judy says: and how do you know it wasn't cl since you gave her admin permissions?
Chris says: CL's admin permissions were given July 19th...Pickled Tink was made aware of that fact at least two times, yet she chose to lie about it. That was foolish because publicly available information (the Transparency thread) could be used to debunk Tink’s claim by showing that no temporary mods were yet on duty at the time. After that was pointed out, that lie was removed from the report.
This naturally begs the question of why Tink would write it in the first place. Why did she think it necessary to smear Citroenlady? Why does the Board have a person who would do that as its leader?
