Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20151024212230/@comment-18750685-20151029193917

Bronkiin wrote: CynicalEarth wrote: It's like saying an incarcerated man shouldn't be emprisoned because it may have been a misunderstanding.

You don't incarcerate someone without proof.

Oh, dear. You didn't understand that, did you?

When you incarcerate someone, evidence has already been provided. Saying you should release him because he may be innocent is basically saying Sajuuk should be allowed to create even more drama and arguments because he may be a good guy, in the end. Also, notice the italics.

Plenty of other users whom both witnessed and participated in "Sajuuk-related drama" between mid-2014 and early-2015 have pointed out twice over that Sajuuk's behaviour merits blocking. This isn't about "proving otherwise" anymore than this wiki -- and every other under Wikia -- practice democrary: this is about whether or not we should allow a proven drama queen run amock simply because the minority say the convicted may or may not have used a sockpuppet -- his history and inability to learn from it more than suffice.

Read Wulfarth's exemple.

You don't wait until cancer overwhelms the entire body -- you treat it as soon as you notice it. Thankfully, Sajuuk hasn't yet destructed our community, thus warranting action.

The evidence provided by the "court", shall we say, outweigh that of the "defense".