Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-1251315-20140808194933/@comment-12.23.90.195-20140810000052

Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:

12.23.90.195 wrote: It might also be valid to point out that the original thread creator has recieved warnings and citations in the past few weeks for being vindictive in a CT thread, from Jimeee. That, along with another editor warning the Original Thread Creator about being hateful and working his friends from the chat into a frenzy (which appears to have happened here) I would say that this is personal rather than a drive to improve the wiki. The entire thread seems to have be started in a biased way by a biased person for the sole purpose of revenge against Jimeee. I maybe be reading more into the his talk page sections that is really there, but it seems fairly clear to me what is happening. This seems to be a matter of perspective. For example, where do you come from again? From UESP, right? You said Jimeee was kind and collected there, but that doesn't seem to be happening much here. Could you take a look at all sides to work out your insight? I do understand why this all seems like a chat conspiracy, but the evidence is all here. I'll admit I haven't been present in your chat, but whether someone is reasonable and willing to listen to other people's arguments doesn't seem like it would change depending on where he was. Knowing Jimeee from UESP, I find it much easier to believe that the bans were justified, as stated by several people here, than to believe that he randomly banned people he didn't agree with. It is entirely possible he was enforcing rules more strictly than they are typically enforced, but my point with the talk page info was that you have to look at the WHOLE picture. An immediate 2 week ban for someone the first time they personally attack someone is excessive, but an immediate 2 week ban for someone who has been attacking someone for weeks (as it appears zip was) isn't excessive. In fact, it is entirely justified. I can't speak to the others, but I know that the original poster had an interaction ban with zip a little while back, which tells me that this likely wasn't the first time zip had personally attacked someone. Thus I can easily infer that if I looked into it, the other people banned might also have a history of attacks, and thus the bans would be considered appropriate, and not an overreach of his powers.