To be frank, looking through the scans of Weekly's Discord chats, I don't see why there has been a report and such a heated argument over the report. This issue has been blown far further out of proportion than it should've been.
We are typically quite heavy and strict on what constitutes punishable off-site behaviour. To set a precedent here, consider the past incident regarding the user who spammed people on Discord about how much they wanted to "ra-e lo-is" (for the purpose of not writing it directly, I've redacted some letters - you can likely piece it together). Despite a long debate on the RVT about what to do in regard to that user, we eventually decided this behaviour wasn't worthy of punishment. Regardless of people on the wiki being made drastically uncomfortable by their behaviour, this was decided to not be enough to justify a punishment - someone has to be either indirectly damaging the wiki, harming other users, or doing something explicitly illegal to justify punishing them on-site for off-site behaviour.
Back to this situation, the scans show Weekly asking for people to defend him on a CRT. In doing so, he was fairly persistent and people were annoyed by his behaviour. This annoyance, however, is clearly not a precedent to punish a user for off-site behaviour - if just being annoying was enough to punish a user for "harming users" off-site, what standard were we upholding in the prior situation? The only argument for punishing Weekly here is neither rooted in harming users, nor illegal behaviour, but rather the perception that it damages the wiki. Particularly, this appears to mainly be dependent on this aspect of the off-site rules:
"Off-site behavior is
usually irrelevant except in cases of:
- Actions that lead to the destabilization of the site (such as videos, forum posts, Discord chats, etc. that create drama), whether or not it was systematic. To determine what counts as destabilization of the site one should mostly look at the consequences of said act rather than the individual act itself."
The only proper argument you could make under the off-site rules, therefore, is that Weekly should be punished because he was doing something off-site that could lead to an unjustified change for profiles on-site, thereby damaging the stability of the wiki.
With all due respect, if this argument is actually the basis we have for bringing a punishment here, it's extraordinarily contrived. Weekly wasn't trying to create drama - directly asking people to support him is improper, but not nearly the same as actively attempting to cause problems. Furthermore, as the off-site rules themselves state, we should look at examples of such behaviours in regard to "the consequences of the act rather than the act itself"; Weekly doing this had little to no consequences for anyone or anything, did not result in a change on the profiles, and was easily dismissed by everyone who saw the messages. The only drama to come from this was from this very RVT report, which begs the question of why it was reported in the first place. His Discord messages by no means "destabilised the site".
So we have someone saying something off-site that annoyed the users involved, and otherwise had no consequences. The wiki was not "destabilised" in any form by this, it wasn't anything illegal, it wasn't harassment or harm to other users, none of our off-site rules were broken. And going by past precedents, off-site behaviour needs to be very severe before we will consider taking on-site action for it. We have an example of someone saying something off-site of no major consequence or severity, and we've made a mountain out of a molehill from it. If we were to treat this by the same standard as we would any other report, it wouldn't warrant anything more than politely telling the respective person not to do it in the future. I don't endorse any of the punishments suggested for this, and I believe nothing more is needed here than for Weekly to be more tactful in the future.