I never insisted that every opinion held against the verse was out of bias. This is you misunderstanding me. Look at the thread again. Several people agreed with the crt which I had no problem with because honestly, their votes doesn't matter at the end of the day if they aren't staff members. I only had issues with the OP (because of the quality of his thread), and KT (because he agreed to the thread despite its low quality). I had no issues with others. You're making it seem like I was picking a fight with everyone that agreed with the OP, which is certainly not the case. Me claiming someone is making decisions out of spite or bias is not against the rules, nor is it report-worthy. Might as well just zip every non-staff member's right when they feel a certain way regarding a staff member's abrupt decisions.
I understand, though I think this is a semantic issue. When I said "every opinion held", I was referring to those of Tempest's, not of every user. I get how it can come off otherwise. I'm solely talking about your conflict with Tempest here.
I didn't take it to HR because it wasn't a big issue what taking to HR. This happens a lot with popular verses, and I expected something like that to happen. I just dont dee the need to report him because like I said earlier, I wasn't mad or angry. I was simply observing KT's decision which I felt was a bit malicious. Nothing wrong with me thinking that.
Allow me to preach for a moment, not just to you but to everyone present.
Staff bias is a major issue. It is a significant concern. If it is legitimate, it is a fundamental breach of the contract we have on VSBW. If you sincerely believe it, then it should be an utmost concern for you. It violates the basic premise of the wiki. We choose staff from the userbase to entrust them with the safeguarding of the wiki. If we cannot trust the staff to at least attempt to put aside their biases, then this is a farce.
It falls to witnesses to report crimes. HR is not omnipresent nor omniscient. Issues cannot be rectified if they are never brought to light. If you believe a staff member is corruptly using their rights,
report them.
This comes with a social contract, however. You cannot simply expect a report of "I feel this person is biased" to be met with dutiful action. You have not provided any reason for HR to warn or demote or ban the staff member involved! Most reports to HR, to the best of my knowledge, are insignificant. They lack the receipts. They make vague allegations with no basis to them. HR is overworked for this very reason: most of the reports to HR are invalid, and require more manpower to work through, while only having those members of HR to rely on.
You (the royal you) have a duty, then: it is your role to keep the staff members honest. It falls to you to report shady shit, because
we do not want shady shit going on. It also falls to you to do so responsibly. Pursue your role in this ecosystem with critical thought.
Back to the report at hand:
it is not a rule violation to think some way or the other. We have been extremely careful in outlining that in past cases. If you privately feel a staff member is a vapid piece of shit who only votes to push an agenda, that is your right, and we don't particularly care. We care when this is pushed as an actual, real allegation, baselessly, in the midst of a thread, while openly stating that you have no interest in contributing to the discussion. This is, in fact, a rule violation. There is something wrong with that. You can go about handling your thoughts the right way, or you can keep them to yourself (or, of course, off-wiki).
Oh so I get a ban for "doubling down" even after I was the first to call off my arguments with him, but anyone else against me who also said just as much to me gets a pass, seems kinda wild. My "combative history" has been wildly exaggerated if you look at the circumstances and end results of most issues I've been involved in (for instance, the entire dilemma regarding Wankbreaker).
I think your decision is a bit harsh and unfair because I did nothing other than calling out what I felt was some sort of bias from a staff member. Even if he wasn't trying to be biased, I think I still have every right to express my feelings as long as I didn't curse or insult him. But yeah, whatever goes tbh.
I did look through those, and I do actually agree that the Wankbreaker stuff is generally not-very-bad. But this does not constitute all of your past reports, and your behavior here is to an extent reminiscent of that past behavior. I think it is relevant in making a decision here, even if I do think the number of reports doesn't appropriately relay the significance of the behavior.
My current recommendation is two weeks. After that time is up, my advice would be to simply gather your evidence and speak with HR regarding the matter. I don't know anything about these verses or what goes on in their threads; it is not my aim to incite a witch hunt against KT or any other staff member. But if we are to be kept honest, then honest reports about our behavior are welcome.
This is my end opinion on the matter.
