Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-9062114-20151024212230/@comment-26896471-20151029123001

Leea wrote: ''I can assure you that almost anyone with a year ban will forget about said wiki, as it says on his talk page. Comparing Sajuuk to an anon who only has a few good edits does not suit the situation, since Sajuuk has made more than a "few" good edits.'' Oh? The example I made is perfect: No one would let an anon run around with an attitude like Sajuuk's, and yet vouch for him because he "makes great edits." Yet, Sajuuk can do it, and only get a small ban?

To quote from a character in Fallout: New Vegas: "A murderer who does good deeds is still a murderer, and he'll still get his judement." - Boone

Sure, he's done good things for the wiki, but should you continue giving him "slaps on the wrist" if his behavior never improves? Just because he's been a "good editor," everyone should let him do as he pleases? A year long ban from all editing is hardly a slap on the wrist. It does seem that people want to justiffy a ban which may on may not be unjust on the basis of the guy's personality and history. Frankly, being a rude user, which seems actually to be the most common accusation, is hardly cause for a ban from editing. That's why we need to establish whether or not the Sock was definitely him. Have they confirmed it definitely is a Sock or just that the IP addresses are the same? IP addresses aren't unique in the UK, I'm pretty sure. If we can't know for sure whether the sock was his, we should work out how to adjust the block appropriately. As much as he may have 'history', you need a pretext, (surely?), to block someone for such a substantial period of time.