LukaszM: Public Disclosure

[Adamm]

I know some people will consider this biased and not correct, but I remark it anyway, because imo it´s relevat here: Poles are known throughout history to be obstreperous, at least notably over average. I think this statement is also not rejected by most Poles. I´ve the impression there have been bannings of Poles more than one time ultimately because they have been obstreperous when it comes to exact application of rules. As a wild guess I guess this is was also the case when Tomenable (he was not rude in expressions afaik) was banned. This is somewhat a pity. I appreciated very much the substantial contributions of both lukaszM and Tomenable.

I´d promote applyling some kind of a (restricted) "Pole-excuse" for obstreperousity when it comes to perfectly obeying rules. This would maybe help to avoid not really necessary losses of good contributions to this forum. :-)

The contributions of Lukasz to the 'genetics/DNA' community are great and a lot, he's putting a lot of effort in this. I think a reconciliation would be a great thing where everyone gets together and make the necessarily excuses and go back to normal.

[JMcB]

Personally, I think the moderators have shown a lot of restraint in this case and have acted appropriately. Routing unknowing people to your own website while impersonating Vahaduo, is in my opinion deceptive and unethical. And frankly, a disservice to Vahaduo. Who has been incredibly generous in suppling of all his tools for free. One can only wonder why Lukasz was doing it. Sneaking onto anthrogenica to spread unfounded rumors about one of your financial competitors, while impersonating a supposedly uninterested person, is also in my opinion unethical. I’m sorry, I have nothing against Lukasz but in my opinion, he’s had plenty of chances already.

[Administrator]

[ADMIN]

Several replies to specific points raised in the member-based discussion we've observed so far in this thread.

As a reminder: This thread was primarily created to publicly disclose the multiple instances of communicative and behavioral subversion that this ex-member had undertaken to the community at large. In addition, we highlighted the rationale for our actions and the predominantly reactive nature of said actions.

We have not created this thread to solicit community feedback as to the future of this ex-member on our platform. The totality of their misdeeds on this site (at least 7 sockpuppets, recent self-beneficial behavior of unknown direction, complete failure of accountability on said user's part) has sealed their fate.

We also remind the community that public criticism of administrative actions are against our Terms of Service (section 6.7).
Those of you intending to lobby on this individual's behalf are advised to heed this reminder.
In this particular instance, we've agreed to view those sentences treading close to breaching 6.7 in good faith.

Finally, we remind users to interpret our decisions based on the revealed facts about this individual's peri- and post-ban misconduct and not his activity up to the initial ban.
One's 2018 memory of their activity (or the perceived, historical informativeness of their activity) does not override the slew of bad faith actions they've undertaken since.

I mean, should we really erase from history someone whose ''crime'' was bumping one or a few threads, then not being patient enough to wait out his original punishment? As far as I remember, he wasn't an agressive or disruptive user.

Please re-read the original post. Your implied summary is incorrect.
His initial ban is summarized at the top of the original post and was in full accordance with our Terms of Service (as are all bans).
This ex-user's post history will remain completely intact, as our Mod 'passenger' summarized.
It is those recent sockpuppets of his that specifically promoted his Vahaduo based-site that have been completely pruned from the forum.
This public disclosure and the downstream proactive measures we've taken are the result of over 1.5 years-worth of bad faith behavior.

Since the initial ban, the user you're passively defending created at least 7 sockpuppets within our community, committed anti-free market rhetoric against a competitor through at least one, posed as different ethnic groups, and interacted with many of you under false pretenses.

Their initial tenure on this site was both reasonable and productive.
However, as should be clear from our summary of events, this individual broke numerous Terms of Service sections in rapid succession leading to their initial ban, with a slew of further breaches since. This is disruptive behavior.

Besides, can we really consider his advertisement of the Vahaduo calculators as something wrong? As far as I know, there is nothing monetized about those pages, nor are they linked to his business site.

We are not in a position to explain or speculate as to why 'LukaszM' was promoting his Vahaduo related sites with such dedication through his multiple (usually Turkish-posing) sockpuppets.

I feel like the community as a whole has been worse off with the exclusion of an important member. If we gave him another chance, I suppose there would be no need for his fake accounts, right?

It is true that he could have been more patient after the initial punishment, but everything that followed has been too strict in my opinion.

Please re-read the original post.
'LukaszM' had already received significant leeway prior to the commencement of his initial ban.
We had granted him clemency through a three month suspension instead of a permaban.
Further, we even hinted at reversing the decision if he provided us with compelling evidence that his initial justification was substantiated. This second instance was not cited in the original message, but the relevant extract from our email communication to him (dated Dec 6th 2018) is attached in the 'Spoilers' below.
Instead of accepting these opportunities, this user escalated matters further without any apologies.

You (and other users) may like the immediate gratification afforded by this user's variant of activity in the broader community.
However, we cannot consider said gratification as a basis to give extraordinary leeway to individuals that willfully breach our Terms of Service.
This is particularly acute in 'LukaszM''s case, as we never received an apology for any of his actions. Instead, further escalation on his part.

Our faithful application of our Terms of Service is precisely what separates our community from other, less orderly and more dysfunctional, communities.
By granting any serial offender with extraordinary leeway, particularly one with a self-demonstrated attribute as a bad faith actor, we (the administration) fail you (the community).

I don´t know if the administration is aware of that -?

We are aware.

I´d promote applyling some kind of a (restricted) "Pole-excuse" for obstreperousity when it comes to perfectly obeying rules.

Unclear as to whether this is an earnest suggestion or not.

We will not apply any bigotry of low expectations on any particular subgroup of our community under any circumstances.

Further, this apparent stereotype (be it justified or otherwise) does not explain the other self-evident issues with this user (subversive interactions and behavior, failure of personal accountability, willful disregard for the community and administration they're interacting with).

As a wild guess I guess this is was also the case when Tomenable (he was not rude in expressions afaik) was banned. This is somewhat a pity. I appreciated very much the substantial contributions of both lukaszM and Tomenable.

Tomenable was suspended and not banned.
Please PM us for specific details regarding his suspension.
I confirm Tomenable will be returning to Anthrogenica within the next few weeks and the community will likely welcome his return.

The contributions of Lukasz to the 'genetics/DNA' community are great and a lot, he's putting a lot of effort in this. I think a reconciliation would be a great thing where everyone gets together and make the necessarily excuses and go back to normal.

Please refer to the disclaimer at the top of this post and the response to 'MatAust21'.

We hope that clarifies the situation further and rectifies some of the misconceptions following the original post.

Thanks all for your attention,

 

Dec 6th 2018
[Admin note: Following his attempt to rescind his suspension with a cash payment, we received accusations of bias and subversive behavior from 'LukaszM' towards us. Factor this in when noting the rather direct communication we sent him in the correspondence below.]
...
We granted you some leeway by suspending you for three months rather than proceeding with a straight ban. Most members don't get such favoritism. Your accusation of bias against you is both unsubstantiated and is easily refuted on that basis. It doesn't look like you understand you got yourself banned permanently here.

You're again demonstrating your ignorance of our Terms of Service - Members asking about your ban will be fully informed in private about it (including your missteps). They will not be banned for it (unless they break our other Terms).

Don't message us again unless you can provide evidence substantiating the improbable scenario you purported several messages ago ("vasyl", the account you denied any knowledge of, ended up being a colleague?). We might be able to work something out there
...

[Erikl86]

I know some people will consider this biased and not correct, but I remark it anyway, because imo it´s relevat here: Poles are known throughout history to be obstreperous, at least notably over average. I think this statement is also not rejected by most Poles. I´ve the impression there have been bannings of Poles more than one time ultimately because they have been obstreperous when it comes to exact application of rules. As a wild guess I guess this is was also the case when Tomenable (he was not rude in expressions afaik) was banned. This is somewhat a pity. I appreciated very much the substantial contributions of both lukaszM and Tomenable.

I´d promote applyling some kind of a (restricted) "Pole-excuse" for obstreperousity when it comes to perfectly obeying rules. This would maybe help to avoid not really necessary losses of good contributions to this forum. :-)

I will go off topic here and say that, despite being an extremely sarcastic person myself, and have absolutely no regard to modern political correctness or moral lecturing, I think that as a person of German ethnicity and from Germany, you should think twice before stereotyping against Poles of all people, considering the relatively recent atrocities your country and your people have inflicted upon the Polish nation. Also, I allow myself to raise history in that context as you yourself use the Imperial German flag rather than the modern German flag - while from a different era than when said atrocities occurred of course, still shows me you are no stranger to history.

[Administrator]

ADMIN

This thread has served it's purpose and will be closed shortly.

Any members wishing to receive additional info about this subject - Please PM one of us and we'll gladly oblige per our TOS.

Thanks all for your input and consideration.