Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20151024212230/@comment-10789912-20151024222558

Wulfharth wrote:
 * "You are saying he should be banned even if proven innocent."

He is not innocent if we are talking about his behaviour, which is completely relevant to this as it is the reason for the initial 2 week ban.


 * "Much of what you speak about here, you do to him. Not less than 20 minutes ago were you making an argument completely based on not liking him, and even calling him a prick. By your logic, we should ban you as well." 

Nope. The argument is actually based on facts from his CT posts, chat and talkpage - which anyone can read. Its not bias - in fact its completely objective to say he insults users and does not handle critisism well. Its documented all over the wiki.

The fact that I called him a prick in chat is seperate, and that's my own opinion. But I do recognise that in the moment I lowered myself to his level - so if a punishement based on the chat policy is in order, I'll gladly take it without reservation, because fair is fair. Your entire argument was opinion based, and when anyone questioned it, you refused to stop. No matter whom told you to stop, you continued. If I was still a chat mod, you'd have been banned. But, they chose not to ban you, and that's their choice.

I have to leave. I'll be gone the rest of the day. Sort this out among yourselves. I have to drop out of this.