In addition, there is a statement in an answer that says There is a perception that requests directed at SE staff typically get ignored for long periods of time. Are you saying this is due to the massive amount of sites that your team oversees? Is there anything you see that could improve that?

+1, great feedback, and indeed, ..If you're not willing to pitch in, then expecting anyone else to do it for you is irresponsible.

@ChrisS congrats on the job! way to sneak in here ;) Hope to hear from you in chat.

@ScottPack that's a fair assessment, in addition though: There's no harm in posting this question early, everyone can wait for SE to weigh in before giving their thoughts if they like. I guess it could get pushed down meta's front page :(

@Reaces no we're good, I read you loud and clear, I'm actually hoping Shog and some others will chime in here as well, we just have to give (at least Shog) some time. What I didn't want though is to bring this up ages from now after its been forgotten.

@Reaces I remained impartial when presenting the facts of both sides. Everything presented from the Community Managers point of view was taken from his own meta post, and his own comments.

I hope you both will agree though there are some things that can immediately be taken away though in regards to what has happened thus far.

I agree @Ward, these points came straight from his post though, I tried to leave out any drama or emotion that wasn't relevant.

Well there was some concern of people using questions that should've been closed as justification to ask OT questions, so there's that. I think it went to zero after elections.

@RobertHarvey When current data shows he already knew about it. So there is no question of accountability, those in the community who were active on this meta were aware and approved of what was going on, and n00b was arguably elected on a clean up campaign. The core community here is in agreement with off topic Q/As and what should be done about them.

@RobertHarvey I've read your comments here, but I'm not sure you know the whole story. In fact, I'm convinced you don't, because no one here does, we know n00b's side, and we're currently waiting for Shog's post mortem. That being said, Shog assumed the worst, which is fine if one suspects a hacked account or a rogue mod or whatever, however after dialog w/ n00b confirming this was not the case, n00b was called a liar and Shog "promised" to "get to the bottom of this"

and he mentions closing 800 questions in a week, far steeper slope than the 500 in two months that has happened here. It seems that is really where it all started. Can you include the difference between what happened then and what happened last week in your post mortem? I just want to make sure in the future, if anyone wants to do something similar, they know what they should do.

@Shog9 You two had dialog about this tag a couple of months ago, is the tag cleaning here not related? He had to clear the questions out of off-topic before deleting it, b/c of a tech error it ballooned to 10.8k,

Well, the interesting this is this dialog between Shog and n00b a couple of months ago, where n00b informed Shog what was going on w/ the off-topic and Shog approved of the tag cleanup, he just didn't like the tag itself. And n00b obliged, but said it had to be cleaned before the tag could be deleted, for technical reasons it ballooned to 10.6k, and n00b closed 800 questions that week, nobody batted an eye, I'm curious why the blow up now.