Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20140808194933/@comment-3186827-20140811131736

Well this started off as a kangaroo court and degenerated into a train wreck...

What we essentially have here is an argument complaining about policy is being enforced. Some chat mods complained to the admins that people were not respecting their word/chat policy, and that they need an admin present in chat to help. I tried to help fix the drama and clear up some of the policies - specifically, the basic etiquette policy. A popular user of chat was blocked for breaking it, and his friends didn't like that at all - Smash the system!!!

The first two bullets in the original post about the blocks are the only relevant ones. The rest are filler that are either falsehoods, exaggerations or completely irrelevant. I'll break those down first anyway:


 * Shockstorm point: While I agree that I could have handled the situation better, this 1+ year old discussion was sorted when we agreed that locks should not happen as much. The lie from SuperSajuuk is that this caused him to leave the wiki. It didn't as seen here, he was editing up until this year. In fact his very last edit gives a more accurate picture. The irony is hilarious, but it seems what drove him away from the wiki was a CT started by no other than SuperSajuuk himself about removing staff members: "a lot of people are busy bickering over hypothetical policies and trying to position themselves to be promoted, with few actually editing the mainspace."
 * Flightmare point: This 1+ year old discussion was valid. I may have been blunt, but if Flightmare believed I was being rude, he certainly would have told me and set me straight.
 * Winnersusedrugs point.: From January 2012? I was not even an admin then. This point is irrelevant.
 * Censoring chat: Given the drama in chat, We ALL agreed on a new rule to stop people complaining or even talking about moderator's decisions in main chat. It can be read about here. Now here is the funny thing. SuperSajuuk was one of the people who agreed with this rule as seen here. However he is now complaining in this CT about being insulted and censorship when I reminded him not to talk about blocks etc in main chat? Did the rule not apply to him? The hypocrisy is delicious.
 * Banning of constructive criticism: Zero evidence or links in this one I notice. Looks like this one was added on to pad out the CT. In short, a lie.
 * Introducing the Etiquette policy: The policy was discussed with active admins. In fact, we always followed an unwritten etiquette policy. We just never felt the needed to write one up until now, as until about a year ago, people on the wiki were generally civil. So another lie.

Several dubious points to base a CT on. Add on the fact that SuperSajuuk has received two warnings about his behavior from myself (Warning 1 and 2), and the motives of this CT are brought into question. As a person who has a history of rude behavior, its not really believable to now suddenly play the victim card.

Regarding the first bullets about the blocks of Zipper and Shawn:


 * Zippertrain: User with a long history of conflicts, not only on this wiki, but other places too (such as TESmods wikia). Constantly I would get complains from mods and users in PM chat about him (most notably by SuperSajuuk who would call for his block). And also the first user in this wiki's history to have an Interaction Ban actions against him (by SuperSajuuk). This 2 week ban was a culmination of all this issues from before. The straw that broke the camel's back. The comment I left on his talk page sums it up. This block was completely valid and appropriate - and I won't apologize for it.
 * Shawn: User who believes himself to be above the rules. Most people grow out of their "rebellious against The Man" phase in their teens, but Shawn believes his "brutally honest" attitude is ok on a wiki with a policy against it. Its not. I calmly reminded him in PM not to attack other editors as "Lazy bastards" but it was ignored and he threw a little fit and posted some other classy statements in the main chat, including comments like "Women don't have to be beautiful, objectifying is gross, never call a girl ugly? How about you go fuck yourself with a cattle prod". Do you really need to ask why I banned him for a week? Other wikis would probably throw the book at him. Lets be clear - it was not for what he said in private chat, as he seems to be claiming. He said it in main chat. Also of note that other chat mods seemed to be fine with these comments - policy seems to be irrelevant in chat. This block was completely valid and appropriate - and I won't apologize for it.

Actually, after the blocks I contacted wikia staff to discuss the matter further - and the staff member I spoke to felt I was within my bounds. Weird, right? So what have we learned? SuperSajuuk literally went dirt digging into my talk page archives, desperately searching for year old discussions that would support this CT, because his main argument about the blocks was lacking teeth. Its the definition of "scraping the bottom of the barrel". And some people fell for it hook, line and sinker. For the people who already had a problem with my enforcement of policies, this was the perfect opportunity to get everyone whipped into a frenzy.

...Now that that was just the OP. The comments that have followed are a disaster and really shows what an farce the entire thing is. Too much to list, but my top 5 moments are at follows:


 * 1) I especially like how SuperSajuuk was concerned about the integrity of this consensus - but started it off by trying to stop me not only voting, but even commenting? He changed it later when it became evident how absurd that was. Even Saddam Hussain was allowed to defended himself at his trial. I also like how eventually someone remembered it might be a good idea to invite me to my own trial 200 comments deep.
 * 2) SuperSajuuk's assertion that I have not replied until now because I'm in hiding. Actually, of all the people here, SuperSajuuk is one who is well aware that I am not around on weekends as I have other commitments. I know this because we talked about it in chat, when he was fishing for an sysop nomination due the low number of active admins we have now. Its very convenient that this CT went up on a Friday night, and not after the blocks.
 * 3) The suspicious removal of comments that question the basis of the CT - under the guise of "off topic". Things like this, this and this. Yet, actual off topic comments about Michael Kirkbride and reddit stay. And I'm the one censoring?
 * 4) The fear of advertising UESP.net. Like that is what would drive users away. Lol, trust me - they have things covered and the last thing they need is drama.
 * 5) The fact that this is no longer an Elder Scrolls wiki. Its a social club where roleplays, arguments and drama take up 90% of the activity. The mainspace is mostly dead (apparently my fault) - despite a new Elder scrolls game just out. We have always had WikiPrincesses, but they are no longer a minority in this community and I can't see it improving.

When you pick and choose a few of worst interactions on record, but ignore the countless times a person has helped, you can make anyone look like bad. In any case this joke has run its course. There is no need to drag out the CT, so I'll simply remove myself as sysop and consider the matter closed. If this wiki was worth fighting for, I would. In its current state, it's not. Of course, there is no need for me to remain as a member of this wiki/community/social club/4chan. Go wild. Its obvious where I'll be from here on out. And since someone invented the rule that you cannot vote on your own CT, this one's on the house:

lel, Teh adminz r c0rrupt0rz!!11