FANDOM


  • EbonySkyrim
    EbonySkyrim closed this thread because:
    Done as Jimeee has resigned
    19:34, September 1, 2014

    Hello

    This thread is to come to a community consensus regarding "Jimeee", who is a sysop (aka an administrator) on the wiki.

    The wiki has uncovered various amounts of evidence that indicate that this user is no longer suitable to be a sysop of the wiki and therefore, should be demoted.

    To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss. Votes by Jimeee will be removed to ensure the consensus remains unbiased and not influenced by the aforemented user. If Jimeee closes this thread, it shall be reopened by an unbiased moderator and will remain open.

    The following evidence has been uncovered:

    • Two days ago, Jimeee blocked a user for two weeks based on a comment the user made on a blog. The comment indicated that another user of the wiki should stop acting like they are trying to suck up to sysops. This comment is very minor and doesn't break any rules at all: why was a 2 week block imposed on said user for such a minor transgression? You can see the supposed bad comment here: User blog:Zippertrain85/All Namespaces are important! (A response Blog)#WikiaArticleComments (the comment is under Jimeee's comment in the blog).
    • On the same day, Jimeee blocked a user from the wiki for 1 week based on a supposedly insulting message made on the chat. The exchange was not hostile and at one point, transferred to a PM. Bans are only permitted to be handed out for rule infractions that actually occur in the main chat, the only time that a ban can occur for something in PM's is if the user is making deaths threats: Shawn was clearly not breaking any rules, was clearly being honest and was blatantly censoring another user from the chat. You can see that exchange here: http://pastebin.com/mt77TSvY. You can also see Jimeee's message to Shawn on his talkpage: User talk:ShawnHowellsCP#Block
    • After Shawn was banned, Jimeee ignored community requests to explain what was breaking the rules. 5 minutes later, the user left the chat and has not yet been seen on the wiki thus far. Zippertrain85 left a wall post to Jimeee on the Community Central wiki (see here: w:Thread:714958) asking to be unblocked as the reasons given were inappropriate and not worthy of a 2 week blocked: Jimeee refused to respond. The next day, Zippertrain85 then made a new wall post pointing out that Jimeee ignored the orignal post, which you can see here: w:Thread:715408.
    • Jimeee has a history of insulting users, as well as trolling. On 1st February 2013, he insulted and demeaned another user to the point that said user actually left the wiki. You can see that exchange here: User_talk:Shockstorm#Locks. As you can clearly see, Jimeee deliberately provoked Shockstorm with rude and condescending messages and didn't apologise for doing so.
    • The day before the above exchange, Jimeee was rude for no reason to Flightmare over a consensus about the infoboxes. You can see that exchange here: User talk:Flightmare/Archive/3#Weapons.2C armor.2C items. As the exchange details, Jimeee did not like that Flightmare went around updating the infoboxes, despite a consensus. His responses were incredibly rude and condescending.
    • On 10 January 2012, Jimeee was again incredibly rude and condescending, bordering on trolling, another user for an edit that the other user posted. You can see that conversation here: User_talk:Jimeee/Archive2#Your_Two_Cents
    • Back in June 2014, Zippertrain85 had made a block on a user who he had suspected was an alternate account for a known vandal. The block was removed as it was incorrect and I made my observations known in the chat when I saw the post. Jimeee promptly told me to not talk about it, despite the chat being mostly empty and it being a basic observation. I found this highly insulting and bordering on censorship: the post which I had noticed is here: User talk:Zippertrain85/Archive 5#Hi this is plasma from cc.C2.A0
    • Jimeee bans users and silences anyone who makes any talkpage or forum post that criticises him, even if it's constructive, claiming that such criticism is a "personal attack". This counts as full blown censorship and is not tolerable.
    • Jimeee introduced an Etiquette policy that he neither follows himself, nor discussed with any other user of this wiki. Introducing policies without some sort of discussion or consensus is inappropriate, especially as he does not follow his own policies when he converses with other users.

    In the past, the argument for Jimeee to keep his sysop flag was due to his contributions that occurred in the past. This argument is null and void, because his contributions in the past are what got him to become a sysop, but his contributions now are what's more important. Please don't use this as an argument to oppose, since contributions he may or may not have made in the past are not valid when discussing his most recent edits. In the past, he also left the wiki entirely and has edited largely on the UESP, a direct competitor to our wiki: he seems to have kept his flag solely for other reasons.

    Thank you for your time. Please vote below using the voting templates:

    Voting-support Support
     
    Voting-neutral Neutral
     
    Voting-oppose Oppose
     
    Voting-support Support {{VoteSupport}}
    Voting-neutral Neutral {{VoteNeutral}}
    Voting-oppose Oppose {{VoteOppose}}
    Voting-comment Comment {{VoteComment}}

    Regards
    - SuperSajuuk

      Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      2 week blocks for comments that aren't really that bad is a bit unfair, not to mention hypocritical since he bullied a contributing editor away before as shown. 
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      As creator of the thread.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Pretty much what Scholar said.
        Loading editor
    • "Posts by Jimeee will be removed to ensure the consensus remains unbiased and not influenced by the aforemented user."


      Pretty sure you can't forbid a user from commenting due to the nature of the thread. Jimeee should be allowed to give his own argument and views on the incidences, and give his defense.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Jimeee is overreaching his power. He needs to be demoted.
        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis
      Ghost Anubis removed this reply because:
      Author request.
      20:05, August 8, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      No comments
        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis
      Ghost Anubis removed this reply because:
      Author request.
      20:05, August 8, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support

      Jimee has multiple issues, that I am glad to be pointing out.

      He banned/blocked me primarily for somethign said in PRIVATE MESSAGING (you can't ban for pms unless it is harassment). Thus, he broke the rules and abused powers.

      He ignored all of the comunity respose after my black/ban, and left chat still not to be seen. Thus, he abused power and ignored the comunity.

      He ban-hunts. This meaning if he does not like you, he will put together small reasons to ban you. Hence why my ban is for all really small things, and not even one bannable thing. Thus, he broke the rules and abused powers.

      Jimee is known to close threads/give punishments for things against him, or something he doesn't agree with. Thus, he broke the rules and abused powers.

      Jimee is hardly active on the mainspace, and is incapable of doing his job without causing mass drama. How many users have left this week because of Jimee as their main reason? 4? 5? It was somewhere around there, and this week isn't even done with.

      His personal vandettas get in the way of his job. Also, when was it a practice to use BLOCKS and not a BAN, so forwarth not allowing a user to edit the mainspace? You are asked never to do that. Blocks are for their own service.

      If I broke the rules by signing out to vote, to bad. This needed to be done.

      -ShawnHowellsCP

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Only one thing to do with a rabid dog.

      He banned two users and directly intimated another. I asked for explanations, but said user was too arrogant and too self-absorbed to respond. What is even more hilarious, is that I am known for calling this entire community "immature", "hypocretical" and even "irrelevant".

      Hell, I even once said their very existance were irrelevant and they should "get a life". Yet, I am not even warned. Jimmeee only bans users who undermine his personal authority, but does not even remotely care if I boldly insult, demean and provoke other users by throwing harsh insults at them.

      Said Administrator is nothing but a parasite to this Wiki. He infects the community by abusing his authority. Plagues require a purge. His demotion is obligatory. Any Admin / Sysop deservant of his or her title will uphold their duty and remove this error from our system.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support

      We need mature Sysops, not ones that kick and scream when they don't get what they want. This weeks incidents alone should warrent a demotion for Jimeee - as he has obviously acted on behalf of his feelings, instead of the wikia's rules. Its good to act on instinct, but not when that instinct is to ban anyone who doesn't agree with you, or kick and scream when you don't get your own way.

      Although while Jimeee has done a lot of good things for this wikia, to myself it seems that Jimeee has done too much bad recently, and not enough good.

      Thanks,

      -Emperor Johnson

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      No comment yet...
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This behaviour is not appropriate for a sysop of a serious Wiki. But I believe the admin should have the right to defend himself.
        Loading editor
    • What's up with you guys and demoting sysops?

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      The problem here is that Jimeee outright banned them without a warning for their actions, correct? Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite by outright demoting him rather than giving him a second chance?

      Anyways, that's not the point anyways. Jimeee may be a little hot-headed, yes, and what he did was wrong, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is one of the wiki's best contributors to the mainspace, (which is undoubtedly the most part of the wiki) and has put countless hours of his time into this place. If that doesn't prove his love for this place, as well as his loyalty, I don't know what does.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I didn't quite like how he blocked said users, although I was unsure of a consensus. I saw how many wanted him gone, and frankly, I have been convinced by the information put out here. I have nothing more to say.
        Loading editor
    • DubiousPeddler wrote:
      What's up with you guys and demoting sysops?
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      The problem here is that Jimeee outright banned them without a warning for their actions, correct? Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite by outright demoting him rather than giving him a second chance?

      Anyways, that not the point anyways. Jimeee may be a little hot-headed, yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is one of the wiki's best contributors to the mainspace, (which is undoubtedly the most part of the wiki) and has put countless hours of his time into this place. If that doesn't prove his love for this place, as well as his loyalty, I don't know what does.

      This is atleast his 20th chance. He stopped editing the mainspace as much. That is a point made in the thread. Please, re-read.

        Loading editor
    • DubiousPeddler wrote: What's up with you guys and demoting sysops?

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      The problem here is that Jimeee outright banned them without a warning for their actions, correct? Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite by outright demoting him rather than giving him a second chance?

      Anyways, that's not the point anyways. Jimeee may be a little hot-headed, yes, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is one of the wiki's best contributors to the mainspace, (which is undoubtedly the most part of the wiki) and has put countless hours of his time into this place. If that doesn't prove his love for this place, as well as his loyalty, I don't know what does.

      Voting-comment Comment
      Didn't I actually say in my opening post NOT to use his previous mainspace contributions as a reason to oppose? You obviously just opposed based on the thread title. You obviously didn't bother to read any of the evidence given as to why this consensus was made. Jimeee does NOT contribute to the mainspace as much as you seem to believe he does. Please read evidence before you give a vote that is clearly biased. He has had far too many chances and he still continues to abuse his position.
        Loading editor
    • Please cite the policy where Jimeee cannot defend himself on a reconfirmation forum. If a policy cannot be cited, then I move for this forum to be closed until proper revisions are made.

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote: Please cite the policy where Jimeee cannot defend himself on a reconfirmation forum. If a policy cannot be cited, then I move for this forum to be closed until proper revisions are made.

      No, this thread won't be closed. The purpose is to ensure the vote has integrity and doesn't consist of oppose votes because the user under question made a convincing post that people believe.

      However, I have updated my post that only disallows voting by Jimeee.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Didn't I actually say in my opening post NOT to use his previous mainspace contributions as a reason to oppose? You obviously just opposed based on the thread title. You obviously didn't bother to read any of the evidence given as to why this consensus was made. Jimeee does NOT contribute to the mainspace as much as you seem to believe he does. Please read evidence before you give a vote that is clearly biased. He has had far too many chances and he still continues to abuse his position.

      Calm down there, farmer Brown!

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      GarouxBloodline wrote: Please cite the policy where Jimeee cannot defend himself on a reconfirmation forum. If a policy cannot be cited, then I move for this forum to be closed until proper revisions are made.

      No, this thread won't be closed. The purpose is to ensure the vote has integrity and doesn't consist of oppose votes because the user under question made a convincing post that people believe.

      However, I have updated my post that only disallows voting by Jimeee.

      Just remember, for the future, to follow policies when going through affirmative action forums such as this one. All it does is make you look incompetent, to be frank, and brings your points into question - even should they be legitimate.

      I have seen way too many hastily thrown together forums, and it is getting utterly tiresome. This one was worse, because you were fabricating rules to keep Jimeee from defending himself.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
       Same reason as Greeno.
        Loading editor
    • Camoran the Usurper
      Camoran the Usurper removed this reply because:
      Accidental
      20:39, August 8, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support
      I can't believe he did that stuff.
        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:
      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      GarouxBloodline wrote: Please cite the policy where Jimeee cannot defend himself on a reconfirmation forum. If a policy cannot be cited, then I move for this forum to be closed until proper revisions are made.

      No, this thread won't be closed. The purpose is to ensure the vote has integrity and doesn't consist of oppose votes because the user under question made a convincing post that people believe.

      However, I have updated my post that only disallows voting by Jimeee.

      Just remember, for the future, to follow policies when going through affirmative action forums such as this one. All it does is make you look incompetent, to be frank, and brings your points into question - even should they be legitimate.

      I have seen way too many hastily thrown together forums, and it is getting utterly tiresome. This one was worse, because you were fabricating rules to keep Jimeee from defending himself.

      Here you go : involved admins It's common knowledge that you don't somebody into a discussion or debate when they have a clear conflict of interest...

        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
      GarouxBloodline wrote:
      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      GarouxBloodline wrote: Please cite the policy where Jimeee cannot defend himself on a reconfirmation forum. If a policy cannot be cited, then I move for this forum to be closed until proper revisions are made.

      No, this thread won't be closed. The purpose is to ensure the vote has integrity and doesn't consist of oppose votes because the user under question made a convincing post that people believe.

      However, I have updated my post that only disallows voting by Jimeee.

      Just remember, for the future, to follow policies when going through affirmative action forums such as this one. All it does is make you look incompetent, to be frank, and brings your points into question - even should they be legitimate.

      I have seen way too many hastily thrown together forums, and it is getting utterly tiresome. This one was worse, because you were fabricating rules to keep Jimeee from defending himself.

      Here you go : involved admins It's common knowledge that you don't somebody into a discussion or debate when they have a clear conflict of interest...

      Are you ignorant? We are not Wikipedia, and we do not follow their policies. This is TES wiki, and we are a part of Wikia with our own community policies and guidelines.

        Loading editor
    • Yup I knew that would be your comeback, just go into denial when you got shown up. It's okay though, because while you claim I'm in denial the very person you're defending pulls these same policies out of his ass & enforces them lol.

      Maybe you should you know, actually be a member of this community so you would know these things eh? Not to mention the fact that nearly every one of our policies do in fact come from wikipedia, so again resort to a personal attack because you got shown who's really the ignorant one around here.

        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
      Yup I knew that would be your comeback, just go into denial when you got shown up. It's okay though, because while you claim I'm in denial the very person you're defending pulls these same policies out of his ass & enforces them lol.

      Maybe you should you know, actually be a member of this community so you would know these things eh? Not to mention the fact that nearly every one of our policies do in fact come from wikipedia, so again resort to a personal attack because you got shown who's really the ignorant one around here.

      I am a widely known member across a rather large portion of Wikia, and until a resigned, I was an Administrator on one of the largest and most successful gaming wikis under Wikia. I know what I am talking about - you clearly do not.

      Do not believe me? Go ahead - try and trump community policies here, with Wikipedia policies we have not voted on here. Your actions will be reverted.

        Loading editor
    • I'm very impressed Garoux congratulations on that. You're right though, why not let somebody who completely  has a clear conflict of interest involved into their own consensus. You know, considering the fact that the blocks he gave was because of that very reason...

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
      Yup I knew that would be your comeback, just go into denial when you got shown up. It's okay though, because while you claim I'm in denial the very person you're defending pulls these same policies out of his ass & enforces them lol.

      Maybe you should you know, actually be a member of this community so you would know these things eh? Not to mention the fact that nearly every one of our policies do in fact come from wikipedia, so again resort to a personal attack because you got shown who's really the ignorant one around here.

      I am a widely known member across a rather large portion of Wikia, and until a resigned, I was an Administrator on one of the largest and most successful gaming wikis under Wikia. I know what I am talking about - you clearly do not.

      Do not believe me? Go ahead - try and trump community policies here, with Wikipedia policies we have not voted on here. Your actions will be reverted.

      Coming back with "I'm bigger, badder and more experienced than you* doesn't exactly help your argument. I'm just saying.

        Loading editor
    • ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:
      GarouxBloodline wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
      Yup I knew that would be your comeback, just go into denial when you got shown up. It's okay though, because while you claim I'm in denial the very person you're defending pulls these same policies out of his ass & enforces them lol.

      Maybe you should you know, actually be a member of this community so you would know these things eh? Not to mention the fact that nearly every one of our policies do in fact come from wikipedia, so again resort to a personal attack because you got shown who's really the ignorant one around here.

      I am a widely known member across a rather large portion of Wikia, and until a resigned, I was an Administrator on one of the largest and most successful gaming wikis under Wikia. I know what I am talking about - you clearly do not.
      Do not believe me? Go ahead - try and trump community policies here, with Wikipedia policies we have not voted on here. Your actions will be reverted.
      Coming back with "I'm bigger, badder and more experienced than you* doesn't exactly help your argument. I'm just saying.

      Not going to argue about it anymore. You guys attempt to use policies that have not been voted on, specifically at this wiki, and you will be reverted once found out. I have also asked an Administrator to set the record straight, as you two clearly do not understand how indepedent Wikia wikis work, and how we are independent from Wikipedia.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I've personally said worst insults on this wiki in the past, a few times against Zipper himself, without even a warning. Then Zipper gets a 2 week ban within the day for calling someone a kiss-ass? It does seem like Jimeee is doing it because he has a personal issue with Zipper, not because he's enforcing policy. Blocking without warning is reserved for trolls or the like, which Zipper is not.
        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
      I'm very impressed Garoux congratulations on that. You're right though, why not let somebody completely who has a clear conflict of interest involved into their own consensus. You know, considering the fact that the blocks he gave we because of that very reason...

      Hope you realize that what you are saying is that Jimeee cannot defend himself, and that somehow the forum creator is not being a hypocrite by fabricating rules that have never been voted upon by our community.

        Loading editor
    • Go ahead & tell TombRaiser in fact I'm glad you did, maybe we can actually get an uninvolved admin on this thread now cheers Garoux.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Well, This is surprising and certainly not appropriate behavior for an Admin.


      Voting-comment Comment
      Still, How exactly do you demote him, Isn't he at the top?
        Loading editor
    • Nelthro wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      Still, How exactly do you demote him, Isn't he at the top?

      He's not at the top as there's no hierarchy. Someone with the bureaucrat flag (aka, Timeoin, TombRaiser, Deyvid Petteys or Elchzard) can revoke the sysop flag, he can do it himself, or Wikia Staff can intervene if a crat is not available.

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
      I'm very impressed Garoux congratulations on that. You're right though, why not let somebody completely who has a clear conflict of interest involved into their own consensus. You know, considering the fact that the blocks he gave we because of that very reason...
      Hope you realize that what you are saying is that Jimeee cannot defend himself, and that somehow the forum creator is not being a hypocrite by fabricating rules that have never been voted upon by our community.

      The thread was edited to match the wikia rules and policy WAY back, at your first request. There is nothign for you to complain about.

        Loading editor
    • 72.95.199.103 wrote:
      GarouxBloodline wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
      I'm very impressed Garoux congratulations on that. You're right though, why not let somebody completely who has a clear conflict of interest involved into their own consensus. You know, considering the fact that the blocks he gave we because of that very reason...
      Hope you realize that what you are saying is that Jimeee cannot defend himself, and that somehow the forum creator is not being a hypocrite by fabricating rules that have never been voted upon by our community.
      The thread was edited to match the wikia rules and policy WAY back, at your first request. There is nothign for you to complain about.

      I was addressing his behaviour advocating the fabrication of TES guidelines and policies. You will notice I have not said anything further on the fabrication of rules ever since that was addressed.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      If we could get back to the topic at hand instead of claiming people are fabricating rules, that would be great.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      While I have never personally had any run ins with Jimeee & we have both been respectful to one another, his past mistakes has cause valuable users to leave the wiki. He has stopped actively editing here for the most part as he spends most of his time at UESP now, which is okay to do. But that wasn't the duty of becoming an administrator, this wiki should be first on his priorities. 

      He does seem to have a clear distaste of criticism whenever any is thrown his way, whether constructive or not. He was one of the users spearheading the no criticism rule in chat, that caused a mod to resign, & that I personally feel users have the right to do.

      He seems to let his past conflicts & present conflicts cloud his judgement & makes rash decisions, there is no doubt that he did do some great things in the past, & for that the wiki is grateful. But those days are no longer relevant in my opinion, & it's time to move on both for the wiki & for Jimeee. 

        Loading editor
    • As I've never really followed one of the consensus threads before, what exactly is the goal of this one? To have Jimeee removed as Admin? To start a discussion about how he can change?

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      As I've never really followed one of the consensus threads before, what exactly is the goal of this one? To have Jimeee removed as Admin? To start a discussion about how he can change?

      Removal of rights

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      As I've never really followed one of the consensus threads before, what exactly is the goal of this one? To have Jimeee removed as Admin? To start a discussion about how he can change?

      He's had a long period with many chances to change, this is for the removal of his admin rights.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This is no way an admin should behave.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This is inappropriate actions for any administrator to perform.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Personally, I have never had any troubles with Jimeee or any member of this community (as far as I know, if not please let me know). But just by scanning through the reasons why this consensus has been brought up and some experiences from other Wikias in the past, is enough for my support. This is clearly not an appropriate behaviour for an administrator. Although, I can still understand that it must be hard to prevent personal feelings and interests from interfering with the role as an administrator.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      In what was said in the post. Also, he banned Shawn from the entire wiki for something he said on chat, which in that case, even if what Shawn did had warrented a ban, it should have been a ban from chat, not from the wiki.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
       This one is from Zip, I'm doing it for him as his votes are not showing


      [[1]]

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I am very sure that personal conflicts with a certain user, especially if it is from the past, should not cloud one's judgment. Specially if that person is an important member of the community, like Jimeee himself is an admin. Admins have to stay mature and professional, these two traits have not been exhibited by Jimeee as of late.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I'm quite surprised to see this type of behaviour come from a sysop.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Okay, first off, I know a lot of you users don't like me. Whatever, I couldn't really care. I have a lot of points to make on this subject, and the wiki as a whole, in the terrible state it's in. But, I'm only going to make this point as of now. Why does it matter if Jimeee edits on the UESP? Yes, it is a direct competitor, but he has the right to do so if he wishes. It is also very unnecessary to even bring this up within this topic of demoting him, as most of the users voting in this consensus don't even edit at all. Yeah, I know, "I'm such a terrible person for saying these things."

      At this point, I don't care at all, how many of you are going to bash me and hold a grudge against me for "offending" you. Most of the users who frequent this site don't edit at all. And editing the wiki is more important than watching a forum and thread. I don't care who you are, that is just the truth. When a new game in the Elder Scrolls series comes out, people don't come here looking to RP, no they come here to find info on the games. Most of the users only use the forums and sit on the chat all day, arguing back and forth with each other on who should be banned and who shouldn't. Its hilarious to watch actually, as users create threads trying to ban and demote other users because one user said they were going to kill another, over the internet!

      This wiki needs a lot of growing up, and it doesn't start with threads trying to remove one of the only users that edits on the wiki. A wiki revolves around information, not role-playing threads and chats about everything, besides the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      While Jimeee is harsh, and even extreme at times when he bans people, The major points you are using are not fully valid.

      Zippertrain85 called LLT an ass-kisser and ShawnHowellsCP said, and I quote, "other users should have more brains than a bag of dicks." both are attacks on other users, and deserved bans. The question should focus more on is the ban to harsh, not were they valid.

      As for him editing on UESP. SO WHAT? he isn't the only one and they have had editors work here as well. To use that as a reason to punish anybody is wrong.

      I can also see that a few comments where removed, and at least one opposed Jimeee being demoted as well. Why was this vote removed? If you are asking us to ignore his past works on this, then you are asking us to ignore evidence in his defense. I have never held back when I called Jimeee an ass at times, but every large wiki I have worked on had at least admin one like him, who acts and talks like him. But every one put in three times more effort to the main page then anybody else, and Jimeee is no different in that regard.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      - I don't appreciate the blocking for very minor offenses.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      -im shocked hed do that, never expected an abuse of power like that from him.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I truly must say that this is a shame. Jimeee has always been friendly to me, and I personally believe that he is a good person. But sadly, he cannot accept opposition, which is a very large flaw for Admins. 
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      We have disagreed with Jimeee in the past, he has always acted in a professional manner to us. Also, we feel that if his past "offences" can be used to justify this action, then his past contributions should also be taken into consideration.
        Loading editor
    • Cheatcodechamp wrote:

      I can also see that a few comments where removed, and at least one opposed Jimeee being demoted as well. Why was this vote removed? If you are asking us to ignore his past works on this, then you are asking us to ignore evidence in his defense. I have never held back when I called Jimeee an ass at times, but every large wiki I have worked on had at least admin one like him, who acts and talks like him. But every one put in three times more effort to the main page then anybody else, and Jimeee is no different in that regard.

      That's true, one of the  "Oppose" comments was removed. Could be that the person who commented deleted it, though.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:

      Cheatcodechamp wrote:

      I can also see that a few comments where removed, and at least one opposed Jimeee being demoted as well. Why was this vote removed? If you are asking us to ignore his past works on this, then you are asking us to ignore evidence in his defense. I have never held back when I called Jimeee an ass at times, but every large wiki I have worked on had at least admin one like him, who acts and talks like him. But every one put in three times more effort to the main page then anybody else, and Jimeee is no different in that regard.

      That's true, one of the  "Oppose" comments was removed. Could be that the person who commented deleted it, though.

      That is correct, DubiousPeddler removed his own vote from the thread, see the thread history: http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:741359?action=history

        Loading editor
    • Fire Wolf Pup
      Fire Wolf Pup removed this reply because:
      Already said.
      13:33, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • DarthOrc wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      We have disagreed with Jimeee in the past, he has always acted in a professional manner to us. Also, we feel that if his past "offences" can be used to justify this action, then his past contributions should also be taken into consideration.
      Voting-comment Comment
      Darth, it's his past contributions. Contributions should not excuse large flaws such as corruption. Let us take Michael Kirkbride as an example.

      MK wrote tons of lore, but he is a gigantic douchebag and even was banned on the TES subreddit because he was, well, being a douchebag.

      People should not be treated differently just because they did something great in the past. Everyone deserves the same judging. 

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Darth, it's his past contributions. Contributions should not excuse large flaws such as corruption. Let us take Michael Kirkbride as an example.

      MK wrote tons of lore, but he is a gigantic douchebag and even was banned on the TES subreddit because he was, well, being a douchebag.

      People should not be treated differently just because they did something great in the past. Everyone deserves the same judging. 

      What wait? MK got kicked from TES subreddit?

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Darth, it's his past contributions. Contributions should not excuse large flaws such as corruption. Let us take Michael Kirkbride as an example.

      MK wrote tons of lore, but he is a gigantic douchebag and even was banned on the TES subreddit because he was, well, being a douchebag.

      People should not be treated differently just because they did something great in the past. Everyone deserves the same judging. 

      What wait? MK got kicked from TES subreddit?
      • Banned

      And yes. 

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      • Banned

      And yes. 

      Do you have a link for that by any chance? I'd like to see what he did to get himself banned from the subreddit his work created XD

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      • Banned

      And yes. 

      Do you have a link for that by any chance? I'd like to see what he did to get himself banned from the subreddit his work created XD

      Nope, sorry. 

      But as I already said, he got banned for being a douche to noobs. Afaik, he constantly told noobs to get away from the subreddit and that only loreexperts should be allowed on it. 

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:

      Nope, sorry. 

      But as I already said, he got banned for being a douche to noobs. Afaik, he constantly told noobs to get away from the subreddit and that only loreexperts should be allowed on it. 

      I checked but couldn't find anything, was be banned from /r/ElderScrolls or /r/teslore?

        Loading editor
    • /r/teslore, I think. 

      But let's get back on topic. This isn't about MK being banned. 

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Draevan13 wrote:
      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      • Banned

      And yes. 

      Do you have a link for that by any chance? I'd like to see what he did to get himself banned from the subreddit his work created XD
      Nope, sorry. 

      But as I already said, he got banned for being a douche to noobs. Afaik, he constantly told noobs to get away from the subreddit and that only loreexperts should be allowed on it. 

      I think we're heading into off topic territory here.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, back on topic... all that confusing TES lore I read looking for Kirkbride made my head hurt XD

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      For reasons stated above, and the fact that his immense work on the wiki far outweighs these small amounts of "evidence". And, I will use his contributions as a reason for opposition, contrary to what the thread says to do, because if his edits in the past don't count towards opposition, then all "evidence" from last year or two years ago should be null and void as well.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Call me hypocritical, but I find it hypocritical that you're calling someone hypocritical while you're being hypocritical.

      Allow me to explain. You are consensusing Jimeee. One of the three active admins (or sysops, whatever) on this site, with the other two being Elchzard and EbonySkyrim. Elchzard was consensused (a failed consensus, might I add) because of what? Breaking the etiquette policy and being rude and condescending? And now Jimeee is being consensused for (PLOT TWIST!) being rude and condescending? Sajuuk, you are perhaps the rudest moderator on chat, and can be quote condescending. When are you bring consensused, hm? I'm being rather condescending right now, where's my consensus? How dare I be so tired of all this drama!

      I agree with AutoBlood, the forums and chat are not as important as the mainspace. The forums are important, yeah. I'll give them that. And I think the Forum Moderators are doing a great job, and I appreciate their work. But the majority of forum activity is roleplaying, and roleplaying is irrelevant and does not help the wiki. Same thing with the chat. We don't need a chat room. My job here is to moderate the chat (sorry that if I'm not doing a great job, I'm trying my best to stop all this petty drama), and even I, a chat moderator, feel like the chat is unnecessary. The majority of conversations there are unrelated to the wiki, and unrelated to TES in general. I'm fact, quite a few of the conversations there are rather vulgar, and certain moderators (like myself) are often berated and insulted for doing our jobs (a fellow moderator actually called me fascist for trying to stop the use of homophobic slurs). Quite a few users only roleplay and chat, and that's their choice, and I will respect it. However, if you only roleplay or chat, don't complain about users that actually contribute.

      Back on topic, why exactly shouldn't Jimeee be allowed to defend himself? So it doesn't make the thread "biased"? Not letting him state his case makes this thread very biased, as he wouldn't be allowed to explain his reasoning. That's like taking a criminal to court, not not letting him state his case, not letting him have a lawyer, and removing any jurors that disagree with the prosecutor. Seems kinda.. what was it? Biased? Yeah, it's biased. Very biased.

      As for saying Jimeee censors users on his talk page, what is this[1]? Kinda hypocritical, huh?

      Also, as AutoBlood said, since we're not counting what he's done positively in the past, I refuse to acknowledge anything he's negatively done in the past.

      Zipper deserved his block, he has a long history of insulting users, the fact that he was blocked for what he said to me is irrelevant. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back. As for Shawn, I don't know. I can only say that one faulty block is not enough to remove the rights of one of the three active administrators.

      This has to be the most biased, one sided, and hypocritical consensuses I've ever seen. This thread was specifically made to show Jimeee in a bad light, just like how Elchzard's was. Zipper did not say that I need to stop "trying to suck up to sysops", he said "Anyway LTT, I am getting really sick of all the Admin ass-kissing you do around here." If we're going to say what people said is different and more polite than how it truly is, then I'd like to say that Jimeee was telling Shockstorm that he has beautiful eyes, and Jimeee then proceeded to give Shockstorm cupcakes. Because after all, we're allowed to change evidence to make our side look right, right?

      Due to all the hypocrisy, lying, and utter crap in this thread, I
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      this consensus. If we're taking Jimeee's rights, take my rights. Take Sajuuk's. Take AutoBlood's. He's done nothing worse than what any of us have done.

      Call me an ass kisser, call me a suck up, call me fascist, but you all need to stop with this petty drama. If you would all just work together instead of constantly trying to take the rights of admins, this Wiki might actually get something done.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk
      SuperSajuuk removed this reply because:
      Nothing more than obvious personal attacks. You are not helping the thread whatsoever.
      15:59, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand will simply be removed from the thread. This is not a thread intended for you to make personal attacks and play sysop because you don't like someone being consensus'd. If you cannot contribute to the thread, don't contribute to it.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      Posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand will simply be removed from the thread. This is not a thread intended for you to make personal attacks and play sysop because you don't like someone being consensus'd. If you cannot contribute to the thread, don't contribute to it.

      My post did have to do with the topic at hand. I did not make any personal attacks. I stated it "as it is", something that you, yourself, are an advocate of. I was not playing sysop, I wasn't even "playing". Yeah, I don't like Jimeee being consensused, but I brought up perfectly valid flaws with this thread. I contributed to the discussion, and my post should be restored.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand will simply be removed from the thread. This is not a thread intended for you to make personal attacks and play sysop because you don't like someone being consensus'd. If you cannot contribute to the thread, don't contribute to it.

      "Jimeee bans users and silences anyone who makes any talkpage or forum post that criticises him, even if it's constructive, claiming that such criticism is a "personal attack". This counts as full blown censorship and is not tolerable."

      Congratulations for doing exactly what you are complaining about in this very forum. Kudos.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment

      Wanna know when censorship is different, tail? When someone is blindly insulting and threatening you, and maybe you need your rights taken away if you cannot use the powers you've been given correctly (may I add, after asking people for votes on your mod thingy, yes I know about that :) )

      Another major thing to add is that, most if not all of the opposes here state "Oh well you've done what he's done there, so I'm not supporting you." Which doesn't make sense at all, if you disagree with someone doing that said thing so much - why aren't you supporting but also labelling the faults in the consensus, or ya know - staying bloody neutral.

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:
      SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand will simply be removed from the thread. This is not a thread intended for you to make personal attacks and play sysop because you don't like someone being consensus'd. If you cannot contribute to the thread, don't contribute to it.
      "Jimeee bans users and silences anyone who makes any talkpage or forum post that criticises him, even if it's constructive, claiming that such criticism is a "personal attack". This counts as full blown censorship and is not tolerable."

      Congratulations for doing exactly what you are complaining about in this very forum. Kudos.

      Garoux, please stop harrassing SuperSajuuk and get back on topic. I will delete any posts in which you continue harrassing him.

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:
      SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Posts which have nothing to do with the topic at hand will simply be removed from the thread. This is not a thread intended for you to make personal attacks and play sysop because you don't like someone being consensus'd. If you cannot contribute to the thread, don't contribute to it.
      "Jimeee bans users and silences anyone who makes any talkpage or forum post that criticises him, even if it's constructive, claiming that such criticism is a "personal attack". This counts as full blown censorship and is not tolerable."

      Congratulations for doing exactly what you are complaining about in this very forum. Kudos.

      Congratulations for repeatedly insulting someone and almost harassing them because "I have more experience than you, so I don't have to be nice to you because well, I don't give a fuck." Thats the kind of attitude you've been expressing since this thread started, and I'm so sorry that I won't give you the 'respect' you think you deserve.

        Loading editor
    • Please get back on topic. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
       No comments
        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      16:34, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • HEY GUYS IM BACK.....wtf happend here ?!

      Voting-support Support
      adimns trolling and bulling useres...you cant explain that !!
        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      16:35, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • I shall now delete every new Off-topic comment. If you want to make a comment debating something in the Opening Post or in somebody else's reason for support/oppose/neutral, then please use the Comment Template or make it explicitly clear that you want to comment on it. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Regardless of the editing he's done in the past, Jimeee is an admin and people look at him as a community leader. When said leader doesn't moderate his own words in order not to offend other users, the wiki itself becomes hostile. I'm not going to say Zipper and Shawn did not deserve their blocks (although Shawn should have been given a chat ban instead), but having Jimeee hold such rights any longer is harming the wiki in the long term.

      Remember, you need not to look at his past contributions to evaluate the kind of admin that he is, for he can still edit if he's demoted. This is about Jimeee's conduct and how it harms the admin example, and how his rights should be removed, as a consequence. Having a lot of edits is not the only requirement to become an admin, you know.

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      17:10, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Whatever happened to the whole "Change how consensus is reached" plan, did we just forget all about that? This seems like the perfect time for that kind of consensus to be used. I mean seriously, if we are consensusing on the removal of Jimeee's rights at least give him a chance to defend himself first before you scream guilty.

      And "trolling"? Are you feaking serious! Sure some of Jimeee's arguments have been heated but they certainly weren't trolling.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Whatever happened to the whole "Change how consensus is reached" plan, did we just forget all about that? This seems like the perfect time for that kind of consensus to be used. I mean seriously, if we are consensusing on the removal of Jimeee's rights at least give him a chance to defend himself first before you scream guilty.

      And "trolling"? Are you feaking serious! Sure some of Jimeee's arguments have been heated but they certainly weren't trolling.

      Voting-comment Comment
      This is a demotion thread, though. The thread you linked was mostly directed at CTs for discussing a feature, etc. 
        Loading editor
    • CynicalEarth
      CynicalEarth removed this reply because:
      Oh. Sorry, misread. :P
      19:24, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss. Votes by Jimeee will be removed to ensure the consensus remains unbiased and not influenced by the aforemented user. If Jimeee closes this thread, it shall be reopened by an unbiased moderator and will remain open.

      Voting-comment Comment
      Just so you know, he can defend himself, he just can't vote on it.
        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      This is a demotion thread, though. The thread you linked was mostly directed at CTs for discussing a feature, etc. 

      Well it seems like it would work pretty damn well in this situation. I mean look at this thread, 26 supports, ridiculous, Jimeee mine as well not even defend himself now. This consensus isn't fair at all.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      This is a demotion thread, though. The thread you linked was mostly directed at CTs for discussing a feature, etc. 

      Well it seems like it would work pretty damn well in this situation. I mean look at this thread, 26 supports, ridiculous, Jimeee mine as well not even defend himself now. This consensus isn't fair at all.

      The consensus is completely fair. And Jimeee had the days between when he blocked Shawn from the whole wiki (losing yet another editor) and this thread being made to defend himself, but he's taken to hiding on Central Wiki and hasn't bothered to come here to explain himself. He's also made no effort to defend himself in the time this thread has been up.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      This is a demotion thread, though. The thread you linked was mostly directed at CTs for discussing a feature, etc. 

      Well it seems like it would work pretty damn well in this situation. I mean look at this thread, 26 supports, ridiculous, Jimeee mine as well not even defend himself now. This consensus isn't fair at all.

      Look, Jimeee (or anyone else) can make a case for himself should he choose to do so; the original post doesn't forbid him from doing that. He just can't vote against his own demotion, as that would not make any sense.

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within
      Sky Above,Voice Within removed this reply because:
      Harassing, Dovah has no "point", he's just trying to set thigs straight,
      19:37, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • EmperorJohnson wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      How doesn't that make it fair? Your comments aren't making any sense at all, Dovah. Maybe you need to learn the definition of fair, Dovah - since you are obviously trying to pull stuff out of your ass to support your point.

      The definition of fair being;

      without cheating to achieve an unjust advantage.

      No, need for rough language there, mate, but I agree. 26 people have supported, that's the majority of it and it's fair. If 26 people would have opposed it, it would still be fair.

        Loading editor
    • The consensus is completely fair. And Jimeee had the days between when he blocked Shawn from the whole wiki (losing yet another editor) and this thread being made to defend himself, but he's taken to hiding on Central Wiki and hasn't bothered to come here to explain himself. He's also made no effort to defend himself in the time this thread has been up.

      My point in saying it's not fair is that there are now 26 support votes on this thread and Jimeee hasn't even defended himself yet, 26 supports basically guarantees his rights will be removed. Though you do make a good point in saying that maybe Jimeee just doesn't care.

      Look, Jimeee (or anyone else) can make a case for himself should he choose to do so; the original thread doesn't forbid him from doing that. He just can't vote against his own demotion, as that would not make any sense.

      That's not my reasoning for saying this thread isn't fair.

      How doesn't that make it fair? Your comments aren't making any sense at all, Dovah. Maybe you need to learn the definition of fair, Dovah - since you are obviously trying to pull stuff out of your ass to support your point.

      Maybe you should look up the definition of fair buddy. Last time I checked, having a bunch of people say a person is guilty before they have even defended themselves isn't fair at all.

        Loading editor
    • Lazarus Grimm wrote:

      EmperorJohnson wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      How doesn't that make it fair? Your comments aren't making any sense at all, Dovah. Maybe you need to learn the definition of fair, Dovah - since you are obviously trying to pull stuff out of your ass to support your point.

      The definition of fair being;

      without cheating to achieve an unjust advantage.

      No, need for rough language there, mate, but I agree. 26 people have supported, that's the majority of it and it's fair. If 26 people would have opposed it, it would still be fair.

      I'd hardly this consensus "fair" sense the evidence is specifically put to make Jimeee look like a monster instead of someone just trying to help. Help that this wiki needs, considering that it's falling apart.

        Loading editor
    • Fair enough. Are two weeks enough for Jimeee to defend himself?

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within wrote: Fair enough. Are two weeks enough for Jimeee to defend himself?

      I think Jimeee can defend himself in a week or so. It's plenty of time, but he had plenty of chance to answer to the community in the time span between him blocking Shawn from the wiki and this thread being made. He's just hiding on Central Wiki and not facing us for why he blocked users.

        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:

      Lazarus Grimm wrote:

      EmperorJohnson wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      How doesn't that make it fair? Your comments aren't making any sense at all, Dovah. Maybe you need to learn the definition of fair, Dovah - since you are obviously trying to pull stuff out of your ass to support your point.

      The definition of fair being;

      without cheating to achieve an unjust advantage.

      No, need for rough language there, mate, but I agree. 26 people have supported, that's the majority of it and it's fair. If 26 people would have opposed it, it would still be fair.

      I'd hardly this consensus "fair" sense the evidence is specifically put to make Jimeee look like a monster instead of someone just trying to help. Help that this wiki needs, considering that it's falling apart.

      Voting-comment Comment
      When people have been recommended for mod, the recommender has never stated the things wrong with the person he has recommended - so why should it be different from a consensus to demote someone? Jimeee has really, just edited and been an asshole to most users of the chat and wikia in general. The evidence speaks for itself, and if any of the supporters had a problem with how the consensus is set out, why haven't they stated? Oh..because they don't.

      Helping is good an all, but helping an old women across the road can't be used to help you in court if you assaulted two people in the middle of the street

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      I am neutral
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk
      SuperSajuuk removed this reply because:
      ruka updated his post.
      10:34, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • SuperSajuuk
      SuperSajuuk removed this reply because:
      ruka updated his post.
      10:35, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Likes-That-Tail
      Likes-That-Tail removed this reply because:
      Tried to remove pyramid quote, broke my comment. Whoops.
      20:04, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • There are currently 26 supports, 3 neutrals, and 5 opposes in this thread, and Jimeee hasn't said a word. He hasn't even gotten to defend himself yet, and there are 26 supports. This is like taking a person to court, letting the prosecutor tell their side of the story to the jury, and then having the jury vote whether the defendant is guilty or not. It just isn't fair.

        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:
      There are currently 26 supports, 3 neutrals, and 5 opposes in this thread, and Jimeee hasn't said a word. He hasn't even gotten to defend himself yet, and there are 26 supports. This is like taking a person to court, letting the prosecutor tell their side of the story to the jury, and then having the jury vote whether the defendant is guilty or not. It just isn't fair.

      This is the gist of what I've been trying to say.

        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:
      There are currently 26 supports, 3 neutrals, and 5 opposes in this thread, and Jimeee hasn't said a word. He hasn't even gotten to defend himself yet, and there are 26 supports. This is like taking a person to court, letting the prosecutor tell their side of the story to the jury, and then having the jury vote whether the defendant is guilty or not. It just isn't fair.

      That's why we've said we're giving him a week or two.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      He's not saying a word because he refuses to. It's his choice, he's been given chances to explain himself to us directly, but he spends his time hiding behind other sysops and Central Wiki. He had two days between him blocking Zipper and Shawn, to the time of this thread being made, to now, to explain why he blocked them and yet he won't come to the wiki. Is that someone who sounds like he actually cares at all?
        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote: There are currently 26 supports, 3 neutrals, and 5 opposes in this thread, and Jimeee hasn't said a word. He hasn't even gotten to defend himself yet, and there are 26 supports. This is like taking a person to court, letting the prosecutor tell their side of the story to the jury, and then having the jury vote whether the defendant is guilty or not. It just isn't fair.

      Except the person courted isn't showing up. If he doesn't show up at one point or another, the consensus will go on as usual. Calm down Tail, this kind of voting takes one to two weeks, he has plenty of time.

        Loading editor
    • To be fair, it could be Jimeee's just not on. It does happen he's off for a week or two. If there any proof he's been here since but is ignoring this?

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:

      Likes-That-Tail wrote:
      There are currently 26 supports, 3 neutrals, and 5 opposes in this thread, and Jimeee hasn't said a word. He hasn't even gotten to defend himself yet, and there are 26 supports. This is like taking a person to court, letting the prosecutor tell their side of the story to the jury, and then having the jury vote whether the defendant is guilty or not. It just isn't fair.

      That's why we've said we're giving him a week or two.

      It's 24 hours in and and here are 26 supports. The consensus turning around is highly unlikely, as most users won't change their votes. The train has run its course.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      He's not saying a word because he refuses to. It's his choice, he's been given chances to explain himself to us directly, but he spends his time hiding behind other sysops and Central Wiki. He had two days between him blocking Zipper and Shawn, to the time of this thread being made, to now, to explain why he blocked them and yet he won't come to the wiki. Is that someone who sounds like he actually cares at all?

      Jimeee is rarely if EVER on during the weekends. When exactly was he on community central? Hm? Please link what makes you think that he's "hiding" on community central.

        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      He's not saying a word because he refuses to. It's his choice, he's been given chances to explain himself to us directly, but he spends his time hiding behind other sysops and Central Wiki. He had two days between him blocking Zipper and Shawn, to the time of this thread being made, to now, to explain why he blocked them and yet he won't come to the wiki. Is that someone who sounds like he actually cares at all?

      Jimeee is rarely if EVER on during the weekends. When exactly was he on community central? Hm? Please link what makes you think that he's "hiding" on community central.

      He was on there yesterday. Try his contributions on Central Wiki and you'll see he wanted to talk with specific users on Central Wiki chat. He also hasn't shown up here since he blocked Zipper and Shawn, not even making an edit whatsoever since then.

        Loading editor
    • To make this consensus even remotely fair, you should make 2 separate consensuses, 1 putting forward your argument for his demotion, and his (whether he choses too or not) defense. The next consensus should then ask people whether they feel his demotion is necessary or not, and have people vote on their final decision.

      Either way, the fact that you've said he can't comment is biased, and frankly, you can't control the people commenting.

        Loading editor
    • Flugsmith wrote:
      To make this consensus even remotely fair, you should make 2 separate consensuses, 1 putting forward your argument for his demotion, and his (whether he choses too or not) defense. The next consensus should then ask people whether they feel his demotion is necessary or not, and have people vote on their final decision.

      Either way, the fact that you've said he can't comment is biased, and frankly, you can't control the people commenting.

      "To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss."

      He can comment. 

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk
      SuperSajuuk removed this reply because:
      not relevant to topic at hand.
      20:37, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Flugsmith wrote:
      To make this consensus even remotely fair, you should make 2 separate consensuses, 1 putting forward your argument for his demotion, and his (whether he choses too or not) defense. The next consensus should then ask people whether they feel his demotion is necessary or not, and have people vote on their final decision.

      Either way, the fact that you've said he can't comment is biased, and frankly, you can't control the people commenting.

      "To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss."

      He can comment. 

      Oh, sorry. Yeah, Jimeee shouldn't be allowed to vote. But, I feel the 2 consensus thing would improve the integrity of this argument even more.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I know a lot of you won't understand this or it won't really affect you, but how do you think this wiki will manage with pretty much two active admins? This thread is ridiculous and shouldn't even exist. Where is a thread calling for the demotion of SuperSajuuk? One surely needs to be made. I said it before, and I guess I have to say it again, almost 80% - 90% of the users voting on this consensus do not even edit the wiki. So many CT threads have been about demotion of users for "attacking" people and banning. I was banned from the chat for "trolling", which it wasn't at all. I was telling the truth and my opinion, which obviously is null around here, as majority sadly rules. Calling the staff out and criticizing is not a personal attack, it is showing what is wrong with the wiki. The chat mods act like tyrants who kick and ban just because someone "offended" them. Grow up! If someone says you do a poor job at moderating, show them why they are wrong. Don't kick and ban them, showing that they are right.

      SuperSajuuk, creator of this thread, wants to get rid of one of the only users who edits and maintains the wiki. There are about 4 active admins, and that is a low amount, especially for a wiki of this size. He has said that he edits the wiki and the mainspace, and more than I do. The only editing he has done recently is delete "personal attacks" off of his talkpage, and incessantly complain about me creating a disambig. Big help there. This is not a personal attack on Super anymore than this thread is a personal attack to Jimeee. Getting rid of Jimeee will not fix and issues with banning and censorship, as many users already do it, and continue as "personal attacks" are made. What constitutes a personal attack and criticism needs to be clarified, as it has been used as a cop out way too often.

      I wouldn't be surprised if more threads are made until every user who edits here is demoted/banned, and then this wiki will become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki. Its borderline that right now. Elder Scrolls Online is out, and roleplaying is talked about more than the game series that this wiki is made for! At the rate this wiki is headed, it will turn into a joke, and I can only see UESP getting the active editors here as members there. Good job forum and chat mods and other users. I can't wait to see how this consensus and further consensus turn out. Hate on me all you want, I'm just another user here who's opinions are invalid it seems.

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote:
      Flugsmith wrote:
      To make this consensus even remotely fair, you should make 2 separate consensuses, 1 putting forward your argument for his demotion, and his (whether he choses too or not) defense. The next consensus should then ask people whether they feel his demotion is necessary or not, and have people vote on their final decision.

      Either way, the fact that you've said he can't comment is biased, and frankly, you can't control the people commenting.

      "To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss."

      He can comment. 

      He said "you've", which is past tense - he did, indeed, say at one point that Jimeee could not even comment.

      In which way is that relevant again? I would appreciate it if you could keep the minor details out of this and actually discuss the demotion.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Likes-That-Tail wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      He's not saying a word because he refuses to. It's his choice, he's been given chances to explain himself to us directly, but he spends his time hiding behind other sysops and Central Wiki. He had two days between him blocking Zipper and Shawn, to the time of this thread being made, to now, to explain why he blocked them and yet he won't come to the wiki. Is that someone who sounds like he actually cares at all?

      Jimeee is rarely if EVER on during the weekends. When exactly was he on community central? Hm? Please link what makes you think that he's "hiding" on community central.

      He was on there yesterday. Try his contributions on Central Wiki and you'll see he wanted to talk with specific users on Central Wiki chat. He also hasn't shown up here since he blocked Zipper and Shawn, not even making an edit whatsoever since then.

      His last post on community central was approximately 28 hours ago. This consensus was made when? 24? 25 hours ago? What makes you think that he has seen this consensus? He was offline when it was created, and he's rarely on during the weekends. I highly doubt that he has seen it.

        Loading editor
    • AutoBlood wrote:

      SuperSajuuk, creator of this thread, wants to get rid of one of the only users who edits and maintains the wiki. There are about 4 active admins, and that is a low amount, especially for a wiki of this size. He has said that he edits the wiki and the mainspace, and more than I do. The only editing he has done recently is delete "personal attacks" off of his talkpage, and incessantly complain about me creating a disambig. Big help there. This is not a personal attack on Super anymore than this thread is a personal attack to Jimeee. Getting rid of Jimeee will not fix and issues with banning and censorship, as many users already do it, and continue as "personal attacks" are made. What constitutes a personal attack and criticism needs to be clarified, as it has been used as a cop out way too often.

      I've said before and I'll say again, removing Jimeee's ability to block people will not remove his ability to edit.

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:

      AutoBlood wrote:

      SuperSajuuk, creator of this thread, wants to get rid of one of the only users who edits and maintains the wiki. There are about 4 active admins, and that is a low amount, especially for a wiki of this size. He has said that he edits the wiki and the mainspace, and more than I do. The only editing he has done recently is delete "personal attacks" off of his talkpage, and incessantly complain about me creating a disambig. Big help there. This is not a personal attack on Super anymore than this thread is a personal attack to Jimeee. Getting rid of Jimeee will not fix and issues with banning and censorship, as many users already do it, and continue as "personal attacks" are made. What constitutes a personal attack and criticism needs to be clarified, as it has been used as a cop out way too often.

      I've said before and I'll say again, removing Jimeee's ability to block people will not remove his ability to edit.

      He also does edits in maintaining the wiki, and demoting him will leave an even smaller amount of admins that can do so. There are many behind the scene edits that need to be made weekly at the wiki and it is relied on that admins perform these edits to maintain the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • AutoBlood wrote:

      He also does edits in maintaining the wiki, and demoting him will leave an even smaller amount of admins that can do so. There are many behind the scene edits that need to be made weekly at the wiki and it is relied on that admins perform these edits to maintain the wiki.

      Or we could get a new Admin if we're short. And before anyone says it, no, this isn't a thinly veiled attempt by myself to be promoted. I prefer to be one of the common folk.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:

      AutoBlood wrote:

      He also does edits in maintaining the wiki, and demoting him will leave an even smaller amount of admins that can do so. There are many behind the scene edits that need to be made weekly at the wiki and it is relied on that admins perform these edits to maintain the wiki.

      Or we could get a new Admin if we're short. And before anyone says it, no, this isn't a thinly veiled attempt by myself to be promoted. I prefer to be one of the common folk.

      That's a whole other thread in itself, and Jimeee has been an admin here for a long time. This user would need to be a patroller, be highly respected, and know their way around code and other things necessary to the wiki. Its not that simple, and demoting Jimeee will only create more work to be done.

        Loading editor
    • I just want to mention that, as an editor of UESP (Someone posted on Jimeee's talk page there informing him of this thread), I have never had any issues with Jimeee. In fact, he's always been reasonable, kind, and willing to listen to opposing arguments. Also, we'd gladly take any editors from here who feel they are being forced out (as was mentioned above). It just seems a little crazy that the reasoning behind not letting him respond from the thread creator was that he might defend himself with evidence and then the thread creator wouldn't get his way. That just seems crazy to me. Also, those who supported didn't seem to read that the bans he gave out were justified, which defeats the whole premise of the original argument.

        Loading editor
    • Alador1666
      Alador1666 removed this reply because:
      (Insert random reason here)
      18:03, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • 12.23.90.195 wrote:
      I just want to mention that, as an editor of UESP (Someone posted on Jimeee's talk page there informing him of this thread), I have never had any issues with Jimeee. In fact, he's always been reasonable, kind, and willing to listen to opposing arguments. Also, we'd gladly take any editors from here who feel they are being forced out (as was mentioned above). It just seems a little crazy that the reasoning behind not letting him respond from the thread creator was that he might defend himself with evidence and then the thread creator wouldn't get his way. That just seems crazy to me. Also, those who supported didn't seem to read that the bans he gave out were justified, which defeats the whole premise of the original argument.

      Jimeee can comment on this thread. It's voting he can't do.

      And yes, we did read the ban reasons. We don't feel that a wiki-wide ban for an opinion spoken in a private chat or banning a user without a warning for speaking his mind (especially when what he said is rather tame compared to what's been said here in the past) are justified bans.

        Loading editor
    • The original post stated he could not respond. It was edited later to allow him to respond. I was simply pointing out the fact that it ever said he couldn't respond, coupled with the reasoning from the thread creator, would indicate an unbiased basis for the entire thread. 

        Loading editor
    • 12.23.90.195 wrote:
      I just want to mention that, as an editor of UESP (Someone posted on Jimeee's talk page there informing him of this thread), I have never had any issues with Jimeee. In fact, he's always been reasonable, kind, and willing to listen to opposing arguments. Also, we'd gladly take any editors from here who feel they are being forced out (as was mentioned above). It just seems a little crazy that the reasoning behind not letting him respond from the thread creator was that he might defend himself with evidence and then the thread creator wouldn't get his way. That just seems crazy to me. Also, those who supported didn't seem to read that the bans he gave out were justified, which defeats the whole premise of the original argument.

      If people want to go edit at the UESP that's their choice but can you not advertise it, please?

        Loading editor
    • ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:

      If people want to go edit at the UESP that's their choice but can you not advertise it, please?

      The contributor is just noting that he/she came from the UESP because I left a message on Jimeee's UESP talk page notifying him of this consensus.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:
      ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:

      If people want to go edit at the UESP that's their choice but can you not advertise it, please?

      The contributor is just noting that he/she came from the UESP because I left a message on Jimeee's UESP talk page notifying him of this consensus.

       "we'd gladly take any editors from here who feel they are being forced out"

        Loading editor
    • ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:
      Dovahsebrom wrote:
      ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:

      If people want to go edit at the UESP that's their choice but can you not advertise it, please?

      The contributor is just noting that he/she came from the UESP because I left a message on Jimeee's UESP talk page notifying him of this consensus.
       "we'd gladly take any editors from here who feel they are being forced out"

      I think the UESP stuff is not as important as the rest of AWC 12.23s comment.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss. Votes by Jimeee will be removed to ensure the consensus remains unbiased and not influenced by the aforemented user. If Jimeee closes this thread, it shall be reopened by an unbiased moderator and will remain open.

      You cannot have an unbiased consensus by censoring the half of the argument you do not agree with. If you wish to have an unbiased consensus, both the prosecution and defence must present their full arguments and must be subject to the same rules. If you are allowed to vote as prosecutor, Jimeee should be allowed to vote as defendant.

        Loading editor
    • 91.84.72.210 wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      To ensure the integrity of this consensus, Jimeee is not permitted to make any votes but he is permitted to discuss. Votes by Jimeee will be removed to ensure the consensus remains unbiased and not influenced by the aforemented user. If Jimeee closes this thread, it shall be reopened by an unbiased moderator and will remain open.
      You cannot have an unbiased consensus by censoring the half of the argument you do not agree with. If you wish to have an unbiased consensus, both the prosecution and defence must present their full arguments and must be subject to the same rules. If you are allowed to vote as prosecutor, Jimeee should be allowed to vote as defendant.

      Or at least have a good attorney. Otherwise this could be compared to lynching or even just a plain execution.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      AWC 91.84.72.210: Jimeee is perfectly free to comment in this thread. However, it is NOT allowed for him to vote in it because it's about him. That's silly, you know that he's going to oppose, nobody is going to support a consensus that removes their own flags from the wiki, you wouldn't do it either if you were a sysop here and were being consensus'd.
        Loading editor
    • Everybody, please get back on topic. 

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      AWC 91.84.72.210: Jimeee is perfectly free to comment in this thread. However, it is NOT allowed for him to vote in it because it's about him. That's silly, you know that he's going to oppose, nobody is going to support a consensus that removes their own flags from the wiki, you wouldn't do it either if you were a sysop here and were being consensus'd.

      You do not know that.  We have had votes like this before, and the admin in question voted, and (in that instance) stepped down.  It doesn't matter either way, I am just mentioning that you cannot know a persons stance if you forbid him to make it. The wiki may not be a democracy but we do not tell people they don't have a say because we are talking about them.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Sajuuk, I really think this is not a wise way to campaign against Jimeee. I think if it was done in a private setting where you confronted Jimeee and asked him for an explanation instead of taking it to the streets and raising a riot, a compromise could be made. Is it just (as in, morally correct) to strip him wholesale of all of his powers? Has he done enough harm to outweigh the benefits he brings to the wiki? Some of the evidence provided is over a year old. That must also be considered. That bit about Jimeee not being allowed to vote is rubbish. As stated above, that's unfair to him. I think that there are other ways to go about this issue than making a consensus. Then things tend to get out of hand, and what might have been fixed with something like an official warning have turned into a widespread call for blood. Only without the blood. Statements about him censoring those that oppose him seem very paranoid and pointless. If he had some sort of influence over others with his position, then maybe, but I really don't think there would be a reason for him to censor things.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      AWC 91.84.72.210: Jimeee is perfectly free to comment in this thread. However, it is NOT allowed for him to vote in it because it's about him. That's silly, you know that he's going to oppose, nobody is going to support a consensus that removes their own flags from the wiki, you wouldn't do it either if you were a sysop here and were being consensus'd.

      Thats interesting. Jimeee is allowed to comment on this consensus but doesn´t? Does he even know about this? If he does then i´d say it seems like he doesn´t care if he has admin status or not. That alone could be taken as a sign that he doesn´t take his position seriously and be grounds for a demotion.

        Loading editor
    • HahnDragoner523 wrote:

      Thats interesting. Jimeee is allowed to comment on this consensus but doesn´t? Does he even know about this? If he does then i´d say it seems like he doesn´t care if he has admin status or not. That alone could be taken as a sign that he doesn´t take his position seriously and be grounds for a demotion.

      I'm pretty sure he's just not on, he does stay off for a week or two periods from time to time.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      HahnDragoner523 wrote:

      Thats interesting. Jimeee is allowed to comment on this consensus but doesn´t? Does he even know about this? If he does then i´d say it seems like he doesn´t care if he has admin status or not. That alone could be taken as a sign that he doesn´t take his position seriously and be grounds for a demotion.

      I'm pretty sure he's just not on, he does stay off for a week or two periods from time to time.

      Oh, ok. Then i´ll guess he´ll be very surprised once he comes back on and sees this.

        Loading editor
    • HahnDragoner523 wrote:
      SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      AWC 91.84.72.210: Jimeee is perfectly free to comment in this thread. However, it is NOT allowed for him to vote in it because it's about him. That's silly, you know that he's going to oppose, nobody is going to support a consensus that removes their own flags from the wiki, you wouldn't do it either if you were a sysop here and were being consensus'd.
      Thats interesting. Jimeee is allowed to comment on this consensus but doesn´t? Does he even know about this? If he does then i´d say it seems like he doesn´t care if he has admin status or not. That alone could be taken as a sign that he doesn´t take his position seriously and be grounds for a demotion.

      It was mentioned earlier that Jimeee is often not around on weekends. Just because he hasn't commented in the day or so that this thread has existed does not mean that he knows about it and is purposefully ignoring it. Added to the fact that him being allowed to comment happened several hours AFTER the thread was created, there has not been anywhere near to enough time to come to the conclusion that he doesn't take his position seriously.

        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      HahnDragoner523 wrote:

      Thats interesting. Jimeee is allowed to comment on this consensus but doesn´t? Does he even know about this? If he does then i´d say it seems like he doesn´t care if he has admin status or not. That alone could be taken as a sign that he doesn´t take his position seriously and be grounds for a demotion.

      I'm pretty sure he's just not on, he does stay off for a week or two periods from time to time.

      At this point, most (if not all) the admins know about this.  Jimeee has as much right to take a step back during this as he has a right to defend himself.  As for the others, they are either watching or unable to remark.  A few are out of town from what I understand and I know of at least a few admins being told about this.

        Loading editor
    • Also, we shoudl return to topic, I am sorry for my part in pulling it away.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Since nobody noticed me mention it earlier, I'll rehash it. Jimeee banned Shawn and Zipper on Wednesday. After his blocking of Shawn, in which many chat users called him out on it, he left. He did not come back on Thursday (the following day) or even the day after that, but he made every effort to go to Community Central Wiki and leave messages to about 3-4 users (who are ALL members of this wiki) and asking them to go to Community Central Chat to talk about the wiki. Does that sound like someone who wants to come to THIS community and explain why he blocked those users? Answer me that.
        Loading editor
    • Can we please stop arguing over whether or not Jimeee is coming back. The only way we'll truly know is if we give it time.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Since nobody noticed me mention it earlier, I'll rehash it. Jimeee banned Shawn and Zipper on Wednesday. After his blocking of Shawn, in which many chat users called him out on it, he left. He did not come back on Thursday (the following day) or even the day after that, but he made every effort to go to Community Central Wiki and leave messages to about 3-4 users (who are ALL members of this wiki) and asking them to go to Community Central Chat to talk about the wiki. Does that sound like someone who wants to come to THIS community and explain why he blocked those users? Answer me that.

      Why should he, both users attacked other editors and he blocked them.  Then people got riled up and decided to go after him, some even wen to the other wiki to harass him. We both know if he came here to defend himself (as is his right) he would only be attacked more unless the people here where kept in line by other ranked members of the TESW (as him doing anything in his defense could only make it worse.)

      I am under no obligation to answer for Jimeee's response to what has become a lynch mob. He is under no obligation to defend bans (Shawn and Zipper) that where justified. The only problems with the bans where how long they where.

      And as a reminder as to why they where banned Zippertrain85 called LLT an ass-kisser and ShawnHowellsCP said, and I quote, "other users should have more brains than a bag of dicks."

        Loading editor
    • AutoBlood wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I know a lot of you won't understand this or it won't really affect you, but how do you think this wiki will manage with pretty much two active admins? This thread is ridiculous and shouldn't even exist. Where is a thread calling for the demotion of SuperSajuuk? One surely needs to be made. I said it before, and I guess I have to say it again, almost 80% - 90% of the users voting on this consensus do not even edit the wiki. So many CT threads have been about demotion of users for "attacking" people and banning. I was banned from the chat for "trolling", which it wasn't at all. I was telling the truth and my opinion, which obviously is null around here, as majority sadly rules. Calling the staff out and criticizing is not a personal attack, it is showing what is wrong with the wiki. The chat mods act like tyrants who kick and ban just because someone "offended" them. Grow up! If someone says you do a poor job at moderating, show them why they are wrong. Don't kick and ban them, showing that they are right.

      SuperSajuuk, creator of this thread, wants to get rid of one of the only users who edits and maintains the wiki. There are about 4 active admins, and that is a low amount, especially for a wiki of this size. He has said that he edits the wiki and the mainspace, and more than I do. The only editing he has done recently is delete "personal attacks" off of his talkpage, and incessantly complain about me creating a disambig. Big help there. This is not a personal attack on Super anymore than this thread is a personal attack to Jimeee. Getting rid of Jimeee will not fix and issues with banning and censorship, as many users already do it, and continue as "personal attacks" are made. What constitutes a personal attack and criticism needs to be clarified, as it has been used as a cop out way too often.

      I wouldn't be surprised if more threads are made until every user who edits here is demoted/banned, and then this wiki will become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki. Its borderline that right now. Elder Scrolls Online is out, and roleplaying is talked about more than the game series that this wiki is made for! At the rate this wiki is headed, it will turn into a joke, and I can only see UESP getting the active editors here as members there. Good job forum and chat mods and other users. I can't wait to see how this consensus and further consensus turn out. Hate on me all you want, I'm just another user here who's opinions are invalid it seems.

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Agree with you AutoBlood! This wiki will surely become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki if we don't do something about it. And we need Jimeee. 
        Loading editor
    • Everyone, get back on topic now. 

      Discussing if Jimeee will return and stuff like this is off-topic. Keep to the core of the CT please. 

      @The Snow Prince, yes you only have to edit your old comment to change your vote. 

        Loading editor
    • The Snow Prince wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Agree with you AutoBlood! This wiki will surely become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki if we don't do something about it. And we need Jimeee.

      changed it for you

        Loading editor
    • Everybody needs to just chill out. Jimeee has every right to post his defense on a blog, that anybody could go read, but see nobody seems to realize that. They're picking at straws because they don't like how the consensus has turned out. Notice that Jimeee hasn't even been on in a few days anyways? It surely isn't because he can't "defend" himself on this thread. Get over it people.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:
      The Snow Prince wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Agree with you AutoBlood! This wiki will surely become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki if we don't do something about it. And we need Jimeee.
      changed it for you

      Thank you Dovah!

        Loading editor
    • Cheatcodechamp wrote:

      And as a reminder as to why they where banned Zippertrain85 called LLT an ass-kisser and ShawnHowellsCP said, and I quote, "other users should have more brains than a bag of dicks."

      I see the ShawnHowellsCP ban as unjustified. What he said wasn´t directed at anyone in particular. You can´t get banned without warning if you don´t even insult anyone specific.

        Loading editor
    • Agree with you AutoBlood! This wiki will surely become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki if we don't do something about it. And we need Jimeee.
      Voting-comment Comment
      No, the wiki will not become "TES Chat and Forum Wiki".
        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake wrote: Everyone, get back on topic now. 

      Discussing if Jimeee will return and stuff like this is off-topic. Keep to the core of the CT please. 

      How is it off-topic? This discussion is about Jimeee's admin rights, and activity (and therefore the case of whether he will or will not return) is a valid part of that discussion.

        Loading editor
    • It is clearly disrupting this thread. If Jimeee returns and leaves a comment, good. But we shouldn't discuss this as it has already been made clear that he clearly is allowed to post his opinion in this thread. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      If Jimeee is still active on the community central wiki, I left him a message on his talkpage.

      Link: http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Jimeee

        Loading editor
    • EmperorJohnson wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      If Jimeee is still active on the community central wiki, I left him a message on his talkpage.

      Link: http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Jimeee

      Voting-comment Comment
       He was active on August 8th on the Dark Souls wiki as well.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I've asked a moderator to inform him, incase he joins their chat.
        Loading editor
    • The Snow Prince wrote:

      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Agree with you AutoBlood! This wiki will surely become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki if we don't do something about it. And we need Jimeee. 

      This talk of which namespace is the most important is driving the wiki to madness. All of the sections are important, trash-talking one or the other is unproductive, and even Timeoin has said he'd prefer to have Elder Scrolls roleplays happening here. You need not to undermine the forums and chat like that, the forums were the only reason I joined the wiki, and now I have well more than seven thousand mainspace edits. If you could please forget about this talk of role reversal and help the wiki grow, everyone would be a whole lot happier.

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:

      This talk of which namespace is the most important is driving the wiki to madness. All of the sections are important, trash-talking one or the other is unproductive, and even Timeoin has said he'd prefer to have Elder Scrolls roleplays happening here. You need not to undermine the forums and chat like that, the forums were the only reason I joined the wiki, and now I have well more than seven thousand mainspace edits. If you could please forget about this talk of role reversal and help the wiki grow, everyone would be a whole lot happier.

      Voting-comment Comment
      Not to mention it's irrelevant to this discussion. This thread is about Jimeee's Admin rights, not which namespace is the most important.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I'm just suggesting the Snow Prince to reevaluate his reasons for opposing.
        Loading editor
    • HahnDragoner523 wrote:
      Cheatcodechamp wrote:

      And as a reminder as to why they where banned Zippertrain85 called LLT an ass-kisser and ShawnHowellsCP said, and I quote, "other users should have more brains than a bag of dicks."

      I see the ShawnHowellsCP ban as unjustified. What he said wasn´t directed at anyone in particular. You can´t get banned without warning if you don´t even insult anyone specific.


      From what I could tell from the link provided (this one) it was mentioned right beforehand he should refrain from any attacks, by Jimeee. I can think of few admins who would not take this as a challenge or an attack.

      I will agree that ban between the two is a little more questionable, but I would say justified, but perhaps to harsh. Jimeee may have been heavy handed, but that doesn't meant we should demote him. He is harsh, he has always been harsh, but when an editor puts a lot of time into the wiki, they become protective of it. This is not the worst problem to have, and it can be fixed, but not by demoting him. I have no doubt we could find an alternate solution.

        Loading editor
    • Cheatcodechamp wrote:

      Jimeee may have been heavy handed, but that doesn't meant we should demote him. He is harsh, he has always been harsh, but when an editor puts a lot of time into the wiki, they become protective of it. This is not the worst problem to have, and it can be fixed, but not by demoting him. I have no doubt we could find an alternate solution.

      Perhaps. If he could work out his harshness and the way he deals with other users, a demotion would not be necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      23:46, August 9, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Okay, any more off-topic comments attacking the OP or any other persons (including Jimeee) will be immediately removed now. 

      You CAN discuss about the CT and reason for support/oppose/neutral, but going in and claiming that it's somekind of feud is something you can't do. 

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      00:03, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      00:03, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support

      Even though I am not a regular contributor to ES wiki, I love the series and used to come here regularly during the Skyrim days. I stumbled upon the thread opened by Zippertrain85 on Community Central about the unreasonable block he got from this wiki. I decided to look into the issue, since I myself have been a victim of abusive admins such as Jimeee in the past. And *shockingly* enough, I came to the discovery that Jimeee is nothing more than a bully. Sure, he is a bully who has a massively inflated ego that he got from being an admin on Wikia, but he is still a bully and should not be treated as royalty on this wiki when he treats other users so disrespectfully. For all the reasons mentioned, Jimeee is not fit for admin rights, that much is clear as day. I am glad that finally someone decided to make a thread advocating his removal from admin, while also exposing him for what he truly is. Thank you, SuperSajuuk.

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Off-topic
      00:11, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • I'm really not inclined to listen to anyone who threatened me, personally insulted me, and attacked Jimeee repeatedly with very little knowledge of the situation. All this happened in the Not Responding thread on Community Central.

        Loading editor
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      Voting-support Support

      Even though I am not a regular contributor to ES wiki, I love the series and used to come here regularly during the Skyrim days. I stumbled upon the thread opened by Zippertrain85 on Community Central about the unreasonable block he got from this wiki. I decided to look into the issue, since I myself have been a victim of abusive admins such as Jimeee in the past. And *shockingly* enough, I came to the discovery that Jimeee is nothing more than a bully. Sure, he is a bully who has a massively inflated ego that he got from being an admin on Wikia, but he is still a bully and should not be treated as royalty on this wiki when he treats other users so disrespectfully. For all the reasons mentioned, Jimeee is not fit for admin rights, that much is clear as day. I am glad that finally someone decided to make a thread advocating his removal from admin, while also exposing him for what he truly is. Thank you, SuperSajuuk.

      I am sorry to disagree, but the block was not unreasonable. He was warned on July 10 by LLT for harassment, and Ebony had to step in when he argued, so this is not the first time he caused trouble. He called another user an ass kisser and Jimeee banned him. If we are going to go after Jimeee, lets not lie about how "unreasonable" his bans are.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support

      But how are we competing against UESP?

        Loading editor
    • U.F.B. wrote:
      Voting-support Support

      But how are we competing against UESP?

      I don't understand your reasoning for support...

        Loading editor
    • U.F.B. wrote:

      Voting-support Support

      But how are we competing against UESP?

      We are not. Also, you may want to actually give a reason for supporting...

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      Coming at this from the outside, I find this entire thread laughable in its prejudice against Jimeee based largely on hearsay about conversations that took place in private. I've looked at the evidence presented, myself, and I can see quite clearly that there are two sides to this story. This CT is premature and the motivations for it seem a little bit suspicious to me.

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote: ...going in and claiming that it's somekind of feud is something you can't do. 

      That sounds rather suspiciously like suppressing evidence. If this thread started as the result of some kind of feud or vendetta, that's very relevant to the case at hand, all the more so if there's any suggestion that the OP is meat-puppeting. The fact that undesirable replies are now being removed, many of which were quite on topic, really tells me everything I need to know here.

        Loading editor
    • Just for your information, this was agreed on by two other Forum Moderators. 

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:

      U.F.B. wrote:

      Voting-support Support

      But how are we competing against UESP?

      We are not. Also, you may want to actually give a reason for supporting...
      Voting-comment Comment
       I supported because of the evidence provided. I pretty much thought it went without saying. Oops.

      Also:

      "In the past, he also left the wiki entirely and has edited largely on the UESP, a direct competitor to our wiki" -OP

        Loading editor
    • RobinHood70 wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Coming at this from the outside, I find this entire thread laughable in its prejudice against Jimeee based largely on hearsay about conversations that took place in private. I've looked at the evidence presented, myself, and I can see quite clearly that there are two sides to this story. This CT is premature and the motivations for it seem a little bit suspicious to me.

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote: ...going in and claiming that it's somekind of feud is something you can't do. 

      That sounds rather suspiciously like suppressing evidence. If this thread started as the result of some kind of feud or vendetta, that's very relevant to the case at hand, all the more so if there's any suggestion that the OP is meat-puppeting. The fact that undesirable replies are now being removed, many of which were quite on topic, really tells me everything I need to know here.

       
      Voting-comment Comment
      Just because most (as in, not all) of them were private, doesn't mean it's OK for him to abuse his powers.

      Then again, I can't say that deleting opposing comments here is OK, either.

        Loading editor
    • U.F.B. wrote:
      Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:

      U.F.B. wrote:

      Voting-support Support

      But how are we competing against UESP?

      We are not. Also, you may want to actually give a reason for supporting...
      Voting-comment Comment
       I supported because of the evidence provided. I pretty much thought it went without saying. Oops.

      Also:

      "In the past, he also left the wiki entirely and has edited largely on the UESP, a direct competitor to our wiki" -OP

      What a traitor. You mean to tell me that the guy who wants people to believe he is the big shot admin here actually helped the competition? That in and of itself is reason enough to demote him.

        Loading editor
    • RobinHood70 wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Coming at this from the outside, I find this entire thread laughable in its prejudice against Jimeee based largely on hearsay about conversations that took place in private. I've looked at the evidence presented, myself, and I can see quite clearly that there are two sides to this story. This CT is premature and the motivations for it seem a little bit suspicious to me.

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote: ...going in and claiming that it's somekind of feud is something you can't do. 

      That sounds rather suspiciously like suppressing evidence. If this thread started as the result of some kind of feud or vendetta, that's very relevant to the case at hand, all the more so if there's any suggestion that the OP is meat-puppeting. The fact that undesirable replies are now being removed, many of which were quite on topic, really tells me everything I need to know here.

      Only one "oppose" reply was removed, and it was removed by the opposer himself, not the OP. All other removed comments were off-topic or personal insults directed at one person or another. Even off-topic and insult comments agreeing with the demotion were removed. It's not a conspiracy.

        Loading editor
    • 12.23.90.195 wrote:
      U.F.B. wrote:
      Voting-support Support
      But how are we competing against UESP?
      I don't understand your reasoning for support...
      Voting-comment Comment
       Sorry. It's because of the evidence. I think it seems viable.
        Loading editor
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      RobinHood70 wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      Coming at this from the outside, I find this entire thread laughable in its prejudice against Jimeee based largely on hearsay about conversations that took place in private. I've looked at the evidence presented, myself, and I can see quite clearly that there are two sides to this story. This CT is premature and the motivations for it seem a little bit suspicious to me.

      Pelinal Whitestrake wrote: ...going in and claiming that it's somekind of feud is something you can't do. 

      That sounds rather suspiciously like suppressing evidence. If this thread started as the result of some kind of feud or vendetta, that's very relevant to the case at hand, all the more so if there's any suggestion that the OP is meat-puppeting. The fact that undesirable replies are now being removed, many of which were quite on topic, really tells me everything I need to know here.
      Only one "oppose" reply was removed, and it was removed by the opposer himself, not the OP. All other removed comments were off-topic or personal insults directed at one person or another.

      I disagree (as several of my comments were removed). One was removed justly, I'll admit. A second was removed that outlined my reasons why Jimeee didn't overstep his bounds, which is entirely on topic. The last one removed I tried to explain why the second one was on-topic and should not have been removed. I don't see how the second two should have been removed.

        Loading editor
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      U.F.B. wrote:
      Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:

      U.F.B. wrote:

      Voting-support Support

      But how are we competing against UESP?

      We are not. Also, you may want to actually give a reason for supporting...
      Voting-comment Comment
       I supported because of the evidence provided. I pretty much thought it went without saying. Oops.

      Also:

      "In the past, he also left the wiki entirely and has edited largely on the UESP, a direct competitor to our wiki" -OP

      What a traitor. You mean to tell me that the guy who wants people to believe he is the big shot admin here actually helped the competition? That in and of itself is reason enough to demote him.
      Voting-comment Comment
      Uh... Are you joking? We're both providing info on the ES, so if anything, some cross-referencing wouldn't hurt.


      Then again, I'm new to this sort of thing, so I may be wrong.

        Loading editor
    • Only one "oppose" reply was removed, and it was removed by the opposer himself, not the OP. All other removed comments were off-topic or personal insults directed at one person or another. Even off-topic and unsult comments agreeing with the demotion were removed. It's not a conspiracy.

      I remember reading a reply here posted within the last 20 minutes or so that was similar in nature to my own and there was no vote on it. It's no longer here. It was from "A Wiki Contributor", which isn't exactly enlightening, I know. The fact that it was removed set off some huge alarm bells. I would suggest that, at most, only clear-cut personal attacks be removed to avoid any appearance of this being a drumhead trial.

        Loading editor
    • Stay on topic guys.

        Loading editor
    • What a traitor. You mean to tell me that the guy who wants people to believe he is the big shot admin here actually helped the competition? That in and of itself is reason enough to demote him.

      No, not a traitor, and not a resion to demote him.  He is not the only one who works there, I was once invited to join them. And they have had people who came from there to help us.  Its not about one of us being beter, its about us showing love to a game series we love.

      UESP has a lot of good going for them, they have more info on the older games then we do, while we have more on the newer games, there is no reason we should have any fued with them and we have no reason to punish Jimeee for working on another site.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Why can't be just let votes be votes and not reply on those votes with unnecessary side comments that do no good for this thread?
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Just to clear something out, this claim of UESP being "competition" is childish fallacy. We both have the same purpose: to deliver information. Claiming competition is unproductive and unethical.
        Loading editor
    • 12.23.90.195 wrote:

      I disagree (as several of my comments were removed). One was removed justly, I'll admit. A second was removed that outlined my reasons why Jimeee didn't overstep his bounds, which is entirely on topic. The last one removed I tried to explain why the second one was on-topic and should not have been removed. I don't see how the second two should have been removed.

      Having not seen it, I can't comment. Re-post it. If it's removed I'll gladly switch my vote to oppose, since if your comment is what you claim it should be fair and on-topic.

        Loading editor
    • U.F.B wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Uh... Are you joking? We're both providing info on the ES, so if anything, some cross-referencing wouldn't hurt.


      Then again, I'm new to this sort of thing, so I may be wrong.

      No? Why would I be joking? Can you read what you just typed? You're both providing info on the same content. That makes you direct competitors. And when you say you're new to this sort of thing, are you referring to how the world works?

        Loading editor
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      U.F.B wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      Uh... Are you joking? We're both providing info on the ES, so if anything, some cross-referencing wouldn't hurt.


      Then again, I'm new to this sort of thing, so I may be wrong.

      No? Why would I be joking? Can you read what you just typed? You're both providing info on the same content. That makes you direct competitors. And when you say you're new to this sort of thing, are you referring to how the world works?
      Voting-comment Comment
      By "new", I mean in admin votes and "competition" against large groups.

      Anyway, just because they do the samething, doesn't mean you HAVE to compete.

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom
      Dovahsebrom removed this reply because:
      useless
      00:46, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Draevan13 wrote:
      12.23.90.195 wrote:

      I disagree (as several of my comments were removed). One was removed justly, I'll admit. A second was removed that outlined my reasons why Jimeee didn't overstep his bounds, which is entirely on topic. The last one removed I tried to explain why the second one was on-topic and should not have been removed. I don't see how the second two should have been removed.

      Having not seen it, I can't comment. Re-post it. If it's removed I'll gladly switch my vote to oppose, since if your comment is what you claim it should be fair and on-topic.

      In the second post I pointed out that if Jimeee had just banned the person 2 weeks over one comment, that would be excessive, but it appeared from talk page posts weeks prior to the ban, there were quite a few issues stemming from the bannee (including an interaction ban). This indicated to me that this was not an isolated incident, but the continuation of a previous history of personal attacks. In the case of a history of personal attacks, a 2 week ban is not excessive, nor was it an immediate ban. It is quite regular to get a multi-week ban for a small attack if that attack comes after weeks of other small attacks. The ban wasn't for the one attack it was for the history of them. Thus, because the bans weren't excessive, he wasn't overstepping his bounds and thus shouldn't be demoted. 


      Hopefully this one isn't removed too.

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I'm just suggesting the Snow Prince to reevaluate his reasons for opposing.


      Voting-comment Comment
       To be honest, I don't have any reasons for opposing the consensus now when I think about it. But I agree with AutoBlood's point on where this wiki is going though.   

      On a sidenote, this is my last edit before I delete my account. Note that it has nothing to do with this thread in case any of you wonder. I'm just sick of editing all day long on my computer, that's all. And today I finally gave up. But anyways...happy edits everyone! 

        Loading editor
    • 12.23.90.195 wrote:
      Draevan13 wrote:
      12.23.90.195 wrote:

      I disagree (as several of my comments were removed). One was removed justly, I'll admit. A second was removed that outlined my reasons why Jimeee didn't overstep his bounds, which is entirely on topic. The last one removed I tried to explain why the second one was on-topic and should not have been removed. I don't see how the second two should have been removed.

      Having not seen it, I can't comment. Re-post it. If it's removed I'll gladly switch my vote to oppose, since if your comment is what you claim it should be fair and on-topic.
      In the second post I pointed out that if Jimeee had just banned the person 2 weeks over one comment, that would be excessive, but it appeared from talk page posts weeks prior to the ban, there were quite a few issues stemming from the bannee (including an interaction ban). This indicated to me that this was not an isolated incident, but the continuation of a previous history of personal attacks. In the case of a history of personal attacks, a 2 week ban is not excessive, nor was it an immediate ban. It is quite regular to get a multi-week ban for a small attack if that attack comes after weeks of other small attacks. The ban wasn't for the one attack it was for the history of them. Thus, because the bans weren't excessive, he wasn't overstepping his bounds and thus shouldn't be demoted. 


      Hopefully this one isn't removed too.

      I can see the logic in that but could you be so kind to provide examples or if possible, point it out in the chat log?

        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom
      Dovahsebrom removed this reply because:
      not constructive at all
      01:06, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • HahnDragoner523 wrote:
      12.23.90.195 wrote:

      In the second post I pointed out that if Jimeee had just banned the person 2 weeks over one comment, that would be excessive, but it appeared from talk page posts weeks prior to the ban, there were quite a few issues stemming from the bannee (including an interaction ban). This indicated to me that this was not an isolated incident, but the continuation of a previous history of personal attacks. In the case of a history of personal attacks, a 2 week ban is not excessive, nor was it an immediate ban. It is quite regular to get a multi-week ban for a small attack if that attack comes after weeks of other small attacks. The ban wasn't for the one attack it was for the history of them. Thus, because the bans weren't excessive, he wasn't overstepping his bounds and thus shouldn't be demoted. 


      Hopefully this one isn't removed too.

      I can see the logic in that but could you be so kind to provide examples or if possible, point it out in the chat log?

      Well, the interaction ban is the first post on the Original Posters talk page. However, mentioning the talk page before got a post removed, so I'll say nothing more than to direct you towards that. As I don't have an account here, I haven't been in chat, but I'm sure other people could provide the chat logs of the previous attacks that led up to the ban. 

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above,Voice Within
      Sky Above,Voice Within removed this reply because:
      Off topic and immature.
      01:42, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Dovahsebrom
      Dovahsebrom removed this reply because:
      off topic
      01:43, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Dovahsebrom
      Dovahsebrom removed this reply because:
      off topic
      01:43, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Jimeee, you DO realize you can argee against us with an actual account, right? You're allowed. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      - why do you all think that annon is Jimeee? Because he defends him? Or is it because of replies that got recently removed?
        Loading editor
    • The replies were just me saying I'm not Jimeee. If you want proof, come on UESP webchat. I'll tell you who i am, I just don't have an account, and I thought I would stay consistent with my replies rather than simply cutting in with an account halfway through.

        Loading editor
    • KnightOfAkatosh wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      - why do you all think that annon is Jimeee? Because he defends him? Or is it because of replies that got recently removed?

      You do realize that a simple checkuser would prove whether he really is Jimee or not, right?

        Loading editor
    • Yup.

        Loading editor
    • Could you get back on topic?

        Loading editor
    • PLP had his rights removed when his supports exceeded his opposition by 20 votes. This replicates that.

        Loading editor
    • AutoBlood wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I know a lot of you won't understand this or it won't really affect you, but how do you think this wiki will manage with pretty much two active admins? This thread is ridiculous and shouldn't even exist. Where is a thread calling for the demotion of SuperSajuuk? One surely needs to be made. I said it before, and I guess I have to say it again, almost 80% - 90% of the users voting on this consensus do not even edit the wiki. So many CT threads have been about demotion of users for "attacking" people and banning. I was banned from the chat for "trolling", which it wasn't at all. I was telling the truth and my opinion, which obviously is null around here, as majority sadly rules. Calling the staff out and criticizing is not a personal attack, it is showing what is wrong with the wiki. The chat mods act like tyrants who kick and ban just because someone "offended" them. Grow up! If someone says you do a poor job at moderating, show them why they are wrong. Don't kick and ban them, showing that they are right.

      SuperSajuuk, creator of this thread, wants to get rid of one of the only users who edits and maintains the wiki. There are about 4 active admins, and that is a low amount, especially for a wiki of this size. He has said that he edits the wiki and the mainspace, and more than I do. The only editing he has done recently is delete "personal attacks" off of his talkpage, and incessantly complain about me creating a disambig. Big help there. This is not a personal attack on Super anymore than this thread is a personal attack to Jimeee. Getting rid of Jimeee will not fix and issues with banning and censorship, as many users already do it, and continue as "personal attacks" are made. What constitutes a personal attack and criticism needs to be clarified, as it has been used as a cop out way too often.

      I wouldn't be surprised if more threads are made until every user who edits here is demoted/banned, and then this wiki will become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki. Its borderline that right now. Elder Scrolls Online is out, and roleplaying is talked about more than the game series that this wiki is made for! At the rate this wiki is headed, it will turn into a joke, and I can only see UESP getting the active editors here as members there. Good job forum and chat mods and other users. I can't wait to see how this consensus and further consensus turn out. Hate on me all you want, I'm just another user here who's opinions are invalid it seems.

      Voting-comment Comment
      That is over the top far fetched and rubbish. This will NEVER occur. The wiki has 0 admins that are both very active and hard working, and has been like this since I joined nearly a year ago. If someone missused and abuses power, and breaks MANY rules as Jimee did, then they need to be cut of. Over the top theory or not. 
        Loading editor
    • AutoBlood wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      I know a lot of you won't understand this or it won't really affect you, but how do you think this wiki will manage with pretty much two active admins? This thread is ridiculous and shouldn't even exist. Where is a thread calling for the demotion of SuperSajuuk? One surely needs to be made. I said it before, and I guess I have to say it again, almost 80% - 90% of the users voting on this consensus do not even edit the wiki. So many CT threads have been about demotion of users for "attacking" people and banning. I was banned from the chat for "trolling", which it wasn't at all. I was telling the truth and my opinion, which obviously is null around here, as majority sadly rules. Calling the staff out and criticizing is not a personal attack, it is showing what is wrong with the wiki. The chat mods act like tyrants who kick and ban just because someone "offended" them. Grow up! If someone says you do a poor job at moderating, show them why they are wrong. Don't kick and ban them, showing that they are right.

      SuperSajuuk, creator of this thread, wants to get rid of one of the only users who edits and maintains the wiki. There are about 4 active admins, and that is a low amount, especially for a wiki of this size. He has said that he edits the wiki and the mainspace, and more than I do. The only editing he has done recently is delete "personal attacks" off of his talkpage, and incessantly complain about me creating a disambig. Big help there. This is not a personal attack on Super anymore than this thread is a personal attack to Jimeee. Getting rid of Jimeee will not fix and issues with banning and censorship, as many users already do it, and continue as "personal attacks" are made. What constitutes a personal attack and criticism needs to be clarified, as it has been used as a cop out way too often.

      I wouldn't be surprised if more threads are made until every user who edits here is demoted/banned, and then this wiki will become the Elder Scrolls Chat And Forum Wiki. Its borderline that right now. Elder Scrolls Online is out, and roleplaying is talked about more than the game series that this wiki is made for! At the rate this wiki is headed, it will turn into a joke, and I can only see UESP getting the active editors here as members there. Good job forum and chat mods and other users. I can't wait to see how this consensus and further consensus turn out. Hate on me all you want, I'm just another user here who's opinions are invalid it seems.

      1. Just because he edits, doesn't mean he can be a douche.

      2. There is no one editing the wiki because we figure the admins and mods got it. And it seems that they do.

      And I honestly don't see anything wrong with Sajuuk, other than the exact kind of thing that Jimeee is doing, but only on this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      It is kinda funny that the anon IP thinks the messages on my talkpage are relevant to this CT. If they are relevant, all they do is bolster the evidence in the CT, rather than act against it. Can we stop grasping at straws to find reasons to oppose, it's pretty obvious that people are doing that. Also, I like how some random guy opposes and accuses people of making sockpuppets to vote.

      @U.F.B.: The reason there's few editors is because anyone decent has been scared away by some users of this wiki. Plus, we need to have editors on ESO but hardly anyone here has the game to create content.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      - Pretty much the same reason for everyone else who supports this.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      It is kinda funny that the anon IP thinks the messages on my talkpage are relevant to this CT. If they are relevant, all they do is bolster the evidence in the CT, rather than act against it. Can we stop grasping at straws to find reasons to oppose, it's pretty obvious that people are doing that. Also, I like how some random guy opposes and accuses people of making sockpuppets to vote.

      @U.F.B.: The reason there's few editors is because anyone decent has been scared away by some users of this wiki. Plus, we need to have editors on ESO but hardly anyone here has the game to create content.

      It is absolutely relevant because the interaction ban on your talk page shows it wasn't a one time incident. There was a history of issues with the user and thus they weren't banned for two weeks for one little comment but for the history of comments. In real life if you commit three small crimes, going to jail after each one, the last time you go to jail for a long time, because you have shown you cannot learn from your mistakes. The user was previously warned and continued to use personal attacks. That is why your talk page it relevant, because without it, you don't know the history of the situation. The ban was clearly justified. Other people have posted the same thing about the other ban. Clearly both bans were appropriate once you know the history of the people involved.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      You are incorrect. If you even bothered to read Jimeee's message about the interaction ban, it was with someone else, not Jimeee: why would a sysop enforce such a thing between sysop and user? My talkpage is irrelevant to this discussion, please stop bringing it up, it has NOTHING to do with this CT. Please stop grasping at straws, it doesn't help your case.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment
      You are incorrect. If you even bothered to read Jimeee's message about the interaction ban, it was with someone else, not Jimeee: why would a sysop enforce such a thing between sysop and user? My talkpage is irrelevant to this discussion, please stop bringing it up, it has NOTHING to do with this CT. Please stop grasping at straws, it doesn't help your case.

      Removing my post is not productive. I knew the interaction ban wasn't with JImeee. It is actually irrelevant in this case that Jimeee inforced it. The point was that the person banned had a history of personal attacks. A history of personal attacks means that a 2 week ban is warranted, and thus your original premise, that he overstepped his authority, is false.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      So Jimeee isn't allowed to vote on the consensus thread that would remove his sysop rights, which is fair enough. However, going on that same train of thought used that "Jimeee would obviously vote in opposition" shouldn't the starter of this thread also be barred from voting since "The thread starter would obviously vote in support"? I'm
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      to this whole thread, but I've always been one for keeping things as fair as possible.
        Loading editor
    • Cosmicsilver wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      So Jimeee isn't allowed to vote on the consensus thread that would remove his sysop rights, which is fair enough. However, going on that same train of thought used that "Jimeee would obviously vote in opposition" shouldn't the starter of this thread also be barred from voting since "The thread starter would obviously vote in support"? I'm
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      to this whole thread, but I've always been one for keeping things as fair as possible.
      Voting-comment Comment
      It would be rather redundant if the CT start didn't vote, it's quite normal for the CT starter to support whatever he/she is discussing.
        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Cosmicsilver wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      So Jimeee isn't allowed to vote on the consensus thread that would remove his sysop rights, which is fair enough. However, going on that same train of thought used that "Jimeee would obviously vote in opposition" shouldn't the starter of this thread also be barred from voting since "The thread starter would obviously vote in support"? I'm
      Voting-neutral Neutral
      to this whole thread, but I've always been one for keeping things as fair as possible.
      Voting-comment Comment
      It would be rather redundant if the CT start didn't vote, it's quite normal for the CT starter to support whatever he/she is discussing.

      We may as well just let him vote, at this point I can't see it saving him. It'l stop the bickering.

        Loading editor
    • ScholarOfTheScrolls, that would be quite pointless. 

        Loading editor
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      ScholarOfTheScrolls, that would be quite pointless. 

      This whole argument is pointless, "give Jimeee a right to vote" "no don't" it's just bickering getting nowhere. Hell this thread may as well be closed at this point, vote or not, Jimeee managing to beat the 29 supports is extremely doubtful.

        Loading editor
    • ゆ
      removed this reply because:
      irrelevent
      19:47, August 10, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-support Support
      Sorry Jim, but after reading all the evidence, I wouldn't like it seeing you in the future as sysop.

      Deleted my previous comment.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk
      SuperSajuuk removed this reply because:
      off-topic.
      09:23, August 11, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Goldflame33, your views are your own. Others are allowed to have their own views as well. Stop trying to play this card, as you are failing miserably. Jimeee is not getting demoted because of editing on UESP, but because of all the rest of the atrocities he has commited here, on this wiki. You trying to fabricate arguments out of personal opinions to defend Jimeee is getting really tiresome.

        Loading editor
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      Goldflame33, your views are your own. Others are allowed to have their own views as well. Stop trying to play this card, as you are failing miserably. Jimeee is not getting demoted because of editing on UESP, but because of all the rest of the atrocities he has commited here, on this wiki. You trying to fabricate arguments out of personal opinions to defend Jimeee is getting really tiresome.

      Actually:

      1. Someone actually said that Jimeee was being a traitor for doing that.

      2. Also, Goldflame makes a point. Why would someone give kudos to that? Then again, Sajuuk could have thought of it as a joke.

        Loading editor
    • U.F.B. wrote:
      PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      Goldflame33, your views are your own. Others are allowed to have their own views as well. Stop trying to play this card, as you are failing miserably. Jimeee is not getting demoted because of editing on UESP, but because of all the rest of the atrocities he has commited here, on this wiki. You trying to fabricate arguments out of personal opinions to defend Jimeee is getting really tiresome.
      Actually:

      1. Someone actually said that Jimeee was being a traitor for doing that.

      2. Also, Goldflame makes a point. Why would someone give kudos to that? Then again, Sajuuk could have thought of it as a joke.

      Yes, I was the one who called Jimeee a traitor for working on UESP. That was my personal view on Jimeee. I don't believe that a good administrator abandons the wiki he edits for and goes to edit on another website on the same exact content. That is a traitor to me. You may not agree with my view. Sajuuk may agree with it, since he gave me kudos. Either way, that's irrelevant.

        Loading editor
    • Again, this is seriously getting off the rail with flamish accusations and bickering. I don't know why is getting off the matter at hand so tempting.

        Loading editor
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      U.F.B. wrote:
      PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      Goldflame33, your views are your own. Others are allowed to have their own views as well. Stop trying to play this card, as you are failing miserably. Jimeee is not getting demoted because of editing on UESP, but because of all the rest of the atrocities he has commited here, on this wiki. You trying to fabricate arguments out of personal opinions to defend Jimeee is getting really tiresome.
      Actually:

      1. Someone actually said that Jimeee was being a traitor for doing that.

      2. Also, Goldflame makes a point. Why would someone give kudos to that? Then again, Sajuuk could have thought of it as a joke.

      Yes, I was the one who called Jimeee a traitor for working on UESP. That was my personal view on Jimeee. I don't believe that a good administrator abandons the wiki he edits for and goes to edit on another website on the same exact content. That is a traitor to me. You may not agree with my view. Sajuuk may agree with it, since he gave me kudos. Either way, that's irrelevant.

      OK, then.

      Besides, He hasn't abandoned this one. He still edited here, but not since this thread opened.

      Also, what about others who edit both wikis? Or switched from there to here?

        Loading editor
    • Sky Above is probably going to be pissed and start removing stuff left and right, so I'd rather stop discussing this.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk
      SuperSajuuk removed this reply because:
      off-topic.
      09:22, August 11, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • PersonaOfDeceit wrote:
      Sky Above is probably going to be pissed and start removing stuff left and right, so I'd rather stop discussing this.

      Agreed.

        Loading editor
    • I'd like to remind everyone to remove content from quotes ibside a post they themselves are quoting so as to avoid filling the thread up with text walls with three or four text walls below it.

      I would also ask that the discussion be given a bit of leash. If we are still saying things relevant to points being made, let the discussion continue. If it is no longer related to the original topic, then I would see bringing it back on track. As UESP activity was brought up against Jimeee, exploring that debate is not off-topic. But there isn't really even a point to this anymore. No amount of arguements refuted would be enough to change where this is going.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      Blocking one person for too long is not a reason to demod someone and doesn't really disrupt the wiki, what does disrupt the wiki is yet another consensus like this. The other reasons are old and/or not too bad. I would write more but I can't be bothered right now, because I just read this massive thing.

      Also I find it very funny that PersonaOfDeceit accuses the awc of being Jimeee because his only edits are on this consensus when guess what? (Comment got removed but can still be easily seen, lol) His only edits are on here, and his first edits on community central are on the on the not responding message on Jimeee's wall. What wiki/s are you from Persona? Don't tell me if you don't want to, but it'd help you if you did. You seem to have a lot of interest, and know a lot about this for no apparent reason.

        Loading editor
    • Balagog gro-Nolob wrote:

      What wiki/s are you from Persona? Don't tell me if you don't want to, but it'd help you if you did. You seem to have a lot of interest, and know a lot about this for no apparent reason.

      I assume Shin Megami Tensei wiki. And sorry for dragging it onward.

        Loading editor
    • U.F.B. wrote:

      Balagog gro-Nolob wrote:

      What wiki/s are you from Persona? Don't tell me if you don't want to, but it'd help you if you did. You seem to have a lot of interest, and know a lot about this for no apparent reason.

      I assume Shin Megami Tensei wiki. And sorry for dragging it onward.

      Don't see any edits there.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      Because while the evidence presented can look very damning, I don't want to make conclusions based on such.

      Obviously, nobody wants an autocratic tyrant or a megatroll as an admin, but whether Jimee can qualify as such seems rather contestable. From the evidence, he flirts the line between downright tyrannical and strict, which can swing both ways, depending on how it is presented. Not everyone has the same set of rules and thus what can be highly offensive to some is perfectly fine with others.

      Which is why I don't want to take a side. It just seems that everyone has different qualifiers to make Jimee either an innocent angel or a demonized, depraved person.

        Loading editor
    • 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:

      Voting-support Support
      lel, Teh adminz r c0rrupt0rz!!11
        Loading editor
    • Since I didn't really get a chance to comment on this thread, I should now, and clear up some of what has been said.  In case someone does not know, I was banned for two weeks by User:Jimeee, which myself and some others believe is power abuse, as I did nothing to deserve such a ban, however others have tried to justify Jim. 

      Needless to say, most of it was quite frankly slander, propaganda, and empty criticism, that really anyone could disprove with a tiny bit of research. I also would like to respond to Jimeee's long comment about how apparently he was simply doing his job, and that the whole Consensus was just an attempt for the Mods to overthrow Admins.

      I have a long history of Conflict on the site: Total lie, I may have some drama issues, but those are not confilict per se, nor does it mean I broke any rules. I am going into sections on how this was completely false, as there seems to be multiple instances of "proof" Jimeee and his friends seem to use to justify this claim

      I harassed someone on the chat: No, I did not harass anyone on the chat, the whole issue was actually a misunderstanding, that has now been unofficially cleared up. After discussing it with other Chat users (moderators included), even the person who I "harassed" said it was all okay, and we came to an agreement. LTT is literally one of the only people who still considers it legitimate, while most of the rest has agreed with me that it was totally made out way worse than it actually was. Ask anyone, who the situation was explained to, if you so choose. Did it ever occur to you the reason I arguing it, was because the claim was total BS? This seems like a classic example of Propaganda, someone takes a situation they clearly don't understand, and tries to use it against me to justify Jimeee's poor actions. When really, it's literally just my word against LTTs (that's not considering the people who were there and agreed with me the "warning" was not necessary). 

      Sajuuk got an Interaction Ban against myself: This could even make Jimeee look bad, since Interaction bans are a Wikipedia thing, and there's no rule that says it applies here, so Jimeee was enforcing a rule that literally did not exist, we are NOT Wikipedia and we don't follow all of the rules from there, we cannot just cherry pick which rules from the site we can and can't use here. Now onto the claim against me, this is where research comes in handy. Sajuuk did not do that ban because I insulted him, or went against any site rules. He did it because we disagreed over how the site could be ran, and shortly after I resigned he lifted the the "interaction ban", so clearly if had more to do with mod drama, than me actually attacking people or breaking Wiki rules. Ask Sajuuk, he can confirm this. Again, this is something people didn't understand, but made up BS reasons for me having it and tried to use it as an excuse for Jimeee, pitiful how such blatant distortions of fact can occur, with trusted members of the community no less!

      I went against the Admins: Yes, this is actually been used against me to justify the ban, claming I was too harsh on the site's Adminstrators and therefor disruptive to the overall site, this is bullshit as usual. Maybe after the first Jimeee Consensus I was somewhat radical against the Admins, but through the months I have calmed it down drastically. Only really doing it sometimes in the PMs, amd maybe every once in a while on the Main. Even then, I never adovcated every Admin be removed, only the ones I felt abused there powers, and I criticized some rules I didn't agree with, but that's about it. Are we not allowed to go against what the Sysops say? Should Free thought be discouraged? Do you really want to go on a Wiki where having a negative opinion on site policy or some Admins could get you censored? Anyway, let's say I was bringing it up non-stop and did want every Administrator de-modded, why was I never warned for this? Not on the Chat, or on my Talk Page, the Admins never responded to it, yet apparently that was one of the reasons for my blocking, it doesn't make any sense. What if I didn't know I was being that wrong? What if I stopped after being told? Warning before giving a ban is common practice, not following that can alone be under the view of power abuse. 

      I acted poorly on the Mods Wiki: Now, I coud honestly argue how this is totally false, but I am only going to point out one thing. What does my actions on The Mods wiki have anything to do with how long I am blocked here? It doesn't, what I did on TESM Wiki is my own business, and we shouldn't be using that as an excuse to ban me here, that in it's self shows how desperate Jimeee was to try and get be blocked from this site.

      I called LTT an ass-kisser: Really? Is this what we're now considering terrible personal attacks? How is the term "ass-kisser" even that bad, or a personal attack for that matter? It's just a figure of being, like is saying User:Deyvid Petteys is blonde an insult? No, because he is. LTT, was sucking up to Admins, therefor the slang term for that is Ass Kisser. If Butt-Kisser has been said instead, would it have been okay? Was the fact "ass" is considered a swear the reasoning this being labled a personal attack? Anyway, is two weeks really a good amount of time for calling someone such a small thing? If you look at the blog, Jimeee was acting extrmely condscending and basically called me a liar and an idiot. LTT, did the same thing in his comment to, yet none of that seems to matter, why? Because Jimeee is an Admin and LTT does whatever you say? This reason is very obviously a false reason, that is said to simply hide how Jimeee abused his power.

      I told the Wiki to F-off: On the same thread, Sajuuk told me to "grow the fuck up", so I wasen't the only one. Yet, all he got was a warning. I got my Forum Moderator states removed (without Consensus also, aren't Admins who ignore democracy and don't listen to other opinions wonderful?) It should have been removed, and either both me and Saj should have been de-modded, or we should have both been warned (I personally think the warning one would've been better). Even if you disagree with this, I got punished for saying that to the community already, why is it STILL being brought up? I don't need anymore punishments for simply saying something that might've rubbed some people the wrong way (also, I never did anyhting like that before that incident, and never did it again). Users on here claim that Jimeee's insults to another user are too old, and are therefor not worthy to be used against him, yet apparently they turn around and use something I said NEARLY HALF A YEAR AGO we need to move on, and stop bringing that quote up, I recieved punishment for it, it does not justify getting a block months later

      So, now that this propaganda has been explained, I still need to say more here.

      Why would Jimeee block me?: Jimeee has ALWAYS had a grudge with me, since his first Consensus and has given me a hard time for not conforming to his Admin ideas. It explains why I only got a punishment for swearing, why he left a totally obnoxious comment on my blog, and why he placed together these pathetic lies in order to justify his power abuse. 

      Other instances of Jimeee's power abuse: This was NOT the only way Jimeee abused his power. He also "protected" so many pages, that he did not need not need to be protected, or would just never lift said protection when it was no longer necessary. Most protected pages were created or edited by him commonly, before he would protect them, even pages that didn't get many disruptive edits, he still protected for "High Traffic Page", always with Sysops Only, even when in the occasional instances only Anons really vandalized. Is it possibly, he was trying to just protect HIS work, instead of doing it for the good of the Wiki as he claims, if you still aren't convinced take a look here he protected a page, right after creating it! 

      Shawn did not deserve his block either: Shawn did also get blocked by Jim, for a week. Now, I was not there when it happened, as my block had already started but fro what Jimeee has said, the ban sounds like total crap, since a lot of what Shawn said were in PMs, and there aren't rules in those, unless someone does something very bad, which some swearing is not, and even if he did say bad things in the Main Chat, wouldn't a Chat Ban have been better? Since that's how we treat over users in the chat who act poorly, why does Shawn get a whole Wiki ban? Doesn't make sense, but Shawn has constantly called Jimeee out on his crap, so it isn't surprising Jimeee would come up with some ridiculous excuse to block him. 

      When I tried to reason with him: I have tried to reason with Jimeee through Community Central about the ban, but he ignored me, and refused to discuss it, and instead wanted to only discuss it with the Other Admins on this Wiki, showing he doesn't care what the average users on the Wiki have to say, he only thinks Admin opinions should matter. 

      I cannot see any way Jimeee was a good Administrator, or how these bans were justified, there's just no evidence outside of one-sided, twisted facts that could show it. He very clearly abused his powers, and I personally think this Consensus made the site improve in a way, getting someone like that off (even though the thread did have a lot of arguments). But, I made this comment to try and back myself up since I do not want people to think of me as something I am not.

        Loading editor
    • I'm glad this thread was unlocked. Jimeee posting a response then locking it immediately after is akin to saying "What I just said is irrefutable, might as well lock the page since no one could possibly counter or question what I've just said."

      Might not have been his intent, but it can easily be viewed that way.

        Loading editor
    • I think his intent was to prevent Zipper saying something like above, which is completely un-needed and will only serve to bring this back to the huge ordeal that ran its course and was finally out of the minds of most people.

        Loading editor
    • To quote Tyrion Lannister: "When you cut out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him wrong, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say." 

      Not exactly the situation here, but close enough :P

        Loading editor
    • That's actually not what's going on, did you read the post above?

        Loading editor
    • This thread should be closed. Jimeee resigned, there is literally no reason for it to still be open other than to create more arguments.

        Loading editor
    • I just said "Not exactly the situation here"... but anyways...

      Who exactly re-opened the thread? I remember it was locked by Jimeee as soon as he posted. Zipper couldn't have done it, only a forum mod or Admin could have.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.