h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hello! Like I said, here I write a message to say that I support you, LeKZ, I will keep talking to people here, please have good courage, be patient, and be happy, and when you come back, please do not be hesitant to talk openly! We will really do our best to make sure that all misunderstandings get resolved peacefully! This kind of thing must not be allowed to happen again! We must stand up for each other!

Other people, please add your own messages of support, understanding and upliftment!

i offer my condolences for your being suspened from h2. i have to wonder if this is the result of some kind of insidous m*****tion. they have been taking away free spech here ever since they got here, i would not be surprised at it at all. it would be terrible if no one could express an opinion openly for fear of reprisal by the ptb. hang in there, a week is not so long!

Suspension? Oh LeKZ, how horrendous.

I can only imagine how being silenced once more must feel. Not being allowed freedom to be yous, in a place that represents sanity and freedom and life-saving-ness (there's a nice new word) to you all.

I leave you many for when you return - and hope that you do. You will be much much missed in the interim.

I would also like to register my support, and my conviction, based on my observation of the goings on here, that this particular unfortunate incident is motivated in no small way by prejudice. We've made efforts throughout the community, in the past, to integrate people who would otherwise be maligned... we make exceptions for the young, we exhibit tolerance for our writers who are dyslexic or are not native English speakers, and we welcome marginalized sections of society, like gays and (in the case of my native country) atheists.

Many of us here have welcomed LeKZ into our midst, and have shown her patience and a willingness to understand. I feel that the suspension came about because of an *unwillingness* to understand, and a lack of patience caused by previous events surrounding her.

No long speech, no arguments. No objectivity. Not here, not from me. This is for me to tell you that I will still be optimistic and hopeful, even in the face of injustice, and that my optimism and hope are here to support you. Whether you are on h2g2, or not, please know that there are many of us to support you fully and completely.

x x Fenny

Well, I suggested that a break from h2g2 might be a good idea - though it feels a lot different having an *enforced* break, rather than a voluntary one. The world is a harsh and unfair place, it seems, and I expected better of h2g2, I have to say. How rudely one's illusions are shattered.

I would not blame you for giving up on h2g2, I really would not. There are many other places on the web, many other places to share your wisdom and knowledge. There are many places just like h2g2 - that aim to realise Douglas Adam's vision - you have many options here. But I recognise you will not want to be seen to have fled, and I think I understand that.

I really hope you will be OK. And I hope that after this short holiday you will come back to h2g2, and remain, content and happy. And left alone by the vultures of doom. In the mean time - I believe you have a heavy sleep debt to catch up on. Here's wishing you a dreamless night.

From all of us, who all care for you very much

Before this develops into the sort of thread where inaccurate assumptions turn into quoted facts, perhaps I should make some points. * Peta warned Arpeggio that her onsite behaviour was offending a reasonable number of people, and asked her to be more careful, or we'd have no choice but to suspend her for a week. Arpeggio's response was "If there is any further trouble centred around me, instigated by me or anyone to whom I cannot react appropriately, please do not hesitate to close my account." You can see this at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F67082?thread=121719 (posting 2). * In http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F43348?thread=122449 (posting 24) Arpeggio totally overreacted to an innocently jocular posting by Niwt, clearly creating "futher trouble centred around" Arpeggio. The ban followed this. * The reasons behind the multiple styles and attitudes shown in Arpeggio's postings are not relevant here in any way whatsoever; the controller of Arpeggio's account has either been posting rude material or allowing rude material to be posted, and this breaks the rules of the site. This account is therefore suspended. The rules apply to everyone: we can't and won't make one rule for one person and one rule for another. Arpeggio offended a number of people on site, we warned her well in advance that this was not acceptable, and she completely and utterly agreed with us. She then broke the rules again, and we banned her. We have been very patient with her, especially given the number of justified complaints we have received about her activities, and we have on many occasions warned her that she can't continue posting rude content to h2g2. This suspension is completely above board, has been conducted totally in the open (we have had *no* private communication with anyone on this matter, and will not enter into any) and was done with the full knowledge and understanding of Arpeggio. We hope she returns to h2g2 and stops offending people, and spends more time nurturing those of her talents that would be constructive within h2g2 - writing, reviewing and so on. But she *must* obey the rules of the site; she must not be rude to people. It's a very, very simple concept to get one's head round. As with *every* case of suspension, we have applied the rules that every single one of you has agreed to when joining h2g2, and we have applied them fairly and without prejudice. We have only ever permanently banned two people since launch in April 1999 (Saint Petunia and Mike A - nobody else), and have temporarily suspended maybe two or three others, all of whom are either still with us, or are welcome to come back. If you genuinely believe we haven't been fair in suspending Arpeggio, despite what I've said here, then please let us know *how* we've been unfair, and we'll enter into a dialogue about it. Currently, though, throwing out accusations of prejudice and insidiousness without any kind of justification is totally out of order. Just because an online friend of yours has been suspended, it doesn't mean that that suspension was unfair. This thread is your soapbox - use it. If we've been unfair, please justify your accusations. If we've been fair, then please, no false accusations. It isn't nice at all. Thanks. Mark

Mark - thank you for clarifying the specific reasons for the suspension, though I do understand that there were many factors in Peta's decision. That is helpful.

Thanks Lucinda, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'though I understand that there were many factors in Peta's decision', when I've just explained that there was *only one* factor behind the decision to suspend Arpeggio. It was that she continued to post rude material after being specifically asked not to do so - and that's it. End of story.

So can you please explain what the 'many factors' were that you refer to? Thank you.

(I should also point out that all decisions like this are taken after lengthy discussion among the whole team. This is a serious issue, and we don't take decisions like this lightly, or unilaterally, so it's more a joint decision than Peta's. I don't think I made this clear above - sorry.)

I feel that this is largely a response to my posting, and I should explain myself in greater detail. Let me find my objectivity hat... there it is...

Mark, it's quite possible that I don't have all of the information. Based on the information I *do* have, I think there is prejudice involved. I'm not talking about a prejudice about a stereotype, like those based on race, nationality, beliefs, or possibly mental condition. I'm not trying to imply that she is being singled out because of her multiple personalities.

The prejudice I'm talking about involves the events that surrounded her related to the Playboy Reporter incident. I've read through the PR thread that started it, and I don't understand how she took all of the blame for that one... in my opinion, hers were not the most inciteful statements made (but I won't name any names as to who I found to be worse). The reason she took all the heat, I suspect, had less to do with her statements than the fact that she critiqued it line-for-line, which some blamed for Playboy Reporter's departure.

At that point, she was a victim of a synchronized jumping session, something we're discussing elsewhere. Given those circumstances, I find it difficult to blame her for blowing her top. I've been in a similar situation, and my general coolness was nowhere to be seen. I don't see how anyone could fail to react emotionally under those circumstances. I feel that this situation unfairly biased future perceptions of her activities, in two situations:

1) Mother of God threw the "Intelligence" PR thread back in her face with a "yet another thread where Arpeggio tells us we're wrong" comment, then violated threadiquette by barging into a longstanding conversation on her homepage, among friends, and castigating her. Some of us decided to give the "self-policing community" idea a try on this one... trying to work out a truce between the two, while offering constructive criticism to Arpeggio that might prevent this sort of outbreak in the future. I think that would have produced good results. And I don't suppose MoG is under any sort of censure for her part in that fiasco...

2) The Niwt episode: They seemed to work that one out between the two of them. Both issued each other apologies, and continued the dialog. If the two of them could agree to work it out among themselves, then I am shocked that she would be punished for it. In this case, I can only conclude that this episode is not being viewed in its proper context, and that the reaction was heavily biased by previous events.

I would very much like Arpeggio to be better integrated into the H2G2 community. She has an awful lot to offer. The fact that she has touched so many people in such a short time, all offering their support here and in other threads, says something strongly in her favor. She has expertise in certain fields that she gives out freely and honestly... her advice to Archangel Galaxy Babe on her son has been extremely valuable to her, and she has also given me some very valuable and thorough advice on pharmacology. She's displayed a high caliber of writing, so she has something to offer the Guide. I should hope we can keep her value to the community and to the Guide in mind when considering other aspects of her presence here.

I, too, would like to see these unpleasant activities come to a halt. I think constructive criticism from people she knows and trusts is the best way to accomplish that. And if that strategy fails to win good results, and she continues to be a problem, then I can understand cancelling her account. But everyone, on occasion, has a bad moment. I've had them. You've had them, too. We're only human, after all. I'd hate to see someone driven off site for being human. That Niwt incident looks like just that... a bad moment, smoothed over quickly by the participants.

That's how I perceive things, anyway, as objectively as I can. If there are other complaints, or other situations, then I'm not aware of them. I think I've said all that I need, so I will pass the soapbox on to someone else. Thank you for taking the time to look into this matter, and for considering my viewpoint.

Hi Colonel.

Let me tackle the issue of whether Arpeggio deserved to be suspended - this is the bit where the staff are involved, and the bit I should answer for. The discussion about the Community's treatment of Arpeggio is a separate one (albeit a very valid one), and I think your points are good. This is one of the reasons we aim to be as unprejudiced as possible in *our* decisions, when all around is great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

When people complain about others, they very rarely do it in public, for obvious reasons. They tend to use email (if they know how to get hold of us) or, most often, the Yikes button. We never divulge these private communications, but please bear in mind that what you see on site often doesn't paint the whole picture; just because people appear to 'work it out among themselves' in public does not mean that serious distress has not been caused unduly, or that the situation is done and dusted. It also means that the site does not reflect the complete picture of someone's relationship with the Community, just the aspects of that relationship that are posted to h2g2 (lots of inter-Researcher communication is done on ICQ/AIM or email too, so this doesn't just apply to Researcher-Editor communication). Having reviewed the various complaints and contexts in this case, I'm being completely honest when I say that Arpeggio did cause distress with her recent behaviour. I also should say that a number of the complaints about her were *not* upheld by us as well.

Given this, the situation still stands that two weeks after we asked Arpeggio to stop being offensive, she was again being offensive, even if it looked like nothing more than a 'bad moment' (and you're right, we *all* have those ). The decision to suspend her was a simple and pure consequence of that, and in no way does it contain prejudice on behalf of the in-house team. If you genuinely think it does, I'd really like to know why. The factor here isn't what happened to Arpeggio when she first joined h2g2, it's the fact that she offended someone unnecessarily *having been warned that we would suspend her if she did*.

I should also add that this Community thrives on colourful characters - without them it would be bland as hell. But colourful characters must obey *exactly* the same rules as everyone else. Do you dispute this?

Got to leave the office right now, but I'll pop back to check out this thread tomorrow.

Come back soon Arpeggio and the rest of LeZK! Or I shall have to take my turn being the King of Norway. We miss you.

NL Cricket

> "It also means that the site does not reflect the complete picture of someone's relationship with the Community, just the aspects of that relationship that are posted to h2g2 (lots of inter-Researcher communication is done on ICQ/AIM or email too, so this doesn't just apply to Researcher-Editor communication)"

I think I already know the answer to this question, but I'll ask anyway. As far as I'm aware, my behaviour on email, ICQ, AIM, telephone, letter, chat in the pub is not bound by the h2g2 house rules, and will not be taken into account when deciding if I should be moderated, suspended, or banned. Has this changed?

one further query - So, if LeKZ had not posted a reply to Niwt, she would not have been suspended? All her behaviour except for that post was fine, within the house rules, and perfectly acceptable within h2g2? Or have I overstated your position? It seems that of many complaints made against her behaviour, this is the only one that you have upheld, though that may be my personal illusion.



I'd like to juxtapose these two statements by Mark:

> "This suspension is completely above board, has been conducted totally in the open (we have had *no* private communication with anyone on this matter, and will not enter into any)"

> "When people complain about others, they very rarely do it in public, for obvious reasons. [snip] We never divulge these private communications, but please bear in mind that what you see on site often doesn't paint the whole picture"

I have to ask, have you had any private communication with anyone on this matter, or not? I understand if you would not like to comment, given the confidential nature of any such communications, but you do appear to be contradicting yourself somewhat...

Xanthia (waiting to be told that she's taken things out of context )

Oh, what the heck... I just want to know if Niwt's age had anything to do with the decision. I'm guessing no, since (as Mark has said clearly here), there are no special rules or exceptions for *anyone*. But I feel I should ask so that it can be stated plainly, or I can be corrected if I am assuming wrong.

{for what is it one says about asses, u, and me?}

Support's fine, but please let's not eulogise LeKZ. She'll be back next week (I hope!).

x x Fenny (no offense to anyone who wants to canonize anyone else!)

To answer the first question on everybodies mind, "Who is this person and what is s/he doing here?" I'm a newbie to h2g2 and LeKZ's parter in crime... errr... life.

For now, I just have three quotations and a question.

From Peta's Final Warning, "...You're breaking the rules of this site, it doesn't appear that you're intending to stop breaking the rules, and if you continue to break them, I will close your account down...."

From LeKZ's reply, "I have asked you, a few times, for feedback regarding mixed signals. I would still be grateful for any clarifications you can take the time to make on that subject."

From Peta's response to LeKZ's reply. "I really don't want to get into discussing 'rules', because they aren't the core of h2g2."

This exchange does give me the impression that a specific request for specific clarification on a warning that specifically stated that LeKZ must stop breaking the rules resulted in an outright refusal to clarify those rules that were not to be broken.

I'd like anyone else's opinion on this.

Thanks to all of you who have so greatly helped me help see LeKZ through this.

There does seem to me to be a lot of inconsistencies here. I honestly would also like to know the answer, whether 'off-h2g2 communications' can have anything whatsoever to do with suspensions based on the House Rules.

Oops... I just figured out that I didn't end my last post with a question, as I said I would. I guess the question is, "Does a person who is given a final warning not to break the rules have the right to receive clarification on those rules?"

Second item. LeKZ is concerned that some people might think that I am them and that she will be accused to violating her suspension. When I created my account here, I provided my email address. Any person in authority is at liberty to request, via email, my home and work telephone numbers, and then call me to confirm that I am not, in fact, LeKZ.

Oops, In my last posting I misspelled LeKZ... Sorry, I would not want to do anything considered by the h2g2 staff of being inflamatory so I am making a quick correction before being suspended myself.

NL Cricket