Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20151024212230/@comment-1738746-20151025020811

I'd just like to add my observation on the discussion here, as I'm still trying to hold neutral ground, but hope this will help with the progress others are attempting to achieve.

I notice the greatest issue coming from the criticism of "bias". While the definition of bias alone makes it quite clear as to what it means ("inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."), the usage of bias is actually situationally dependent. I think the confusion here stems from the situation. Users who are against Sajuuk's blocking are defending it on the grounds solely of the sockpuppeting event, whereas the users who are supporting Sajuuk's block are defending from an "overall" standpoint, in that he is/was causing trouble for the community in the past.

For the latter, the criticism of bias is invalid. A person's actions and attitudes are an important part of being involved in a wiki's community, simply because that's the nature of a community. To judge whether someone is fit to be a part of a community unfortunately requires the review of a person's attitude and actions against others on said site. This is not bias, this is simply how such a review must go. This was the case when Sajuuk applied to be an admin- a lot of people complained that the opposes were "biased" because they were based on people not liking him because he said X, Y or Z to that person or someone else. This isn't bias- this a judgement on how trusted and respected someone is within a community, something that comes from how the user conducts themselves online. (Note that I said "conduct themselves online"; this is not a personal attack because he may or may not be like this in real life too, I don't know. We can only go on his actions online rather than generalisably saying "he's a bad person". Please keep in mind this difference.)

TL;DR: You guys need to decide whether you're arguing for or against Sajuuk's block based on the sockpuppeting act alone or for that in combination with his general conduct on the wiki over the years. Frankly, I feel only the admins can really answer this as they issued the block, and should be the ones to clarify on what grounds they issued it rather than have members bickering and going around in circles.