Board Thread:The Seven Seas Court/@comment-4934912-20131210223143/@comment-3112181-20131211025043

Just going to refute this bit by bit, if I may:

1) First off, just want to say that my username name isn't Lord Jeremiah Garland. Yeah.

2)

" Pearson, as many of you know him, was just banned the other day for not creating a very in-depth blog, (which he clearly stated could take up to a month) in the two week time-frame that was given to him,  after  this two week time-frame expired. There are multiple reasons in my opinion as to why this ban is unjust."

He wasn't banned for not finishing his blog; he was banned for several reasons, one of them being that he failed to abide by our terms, which were that he would be allowed to stay if he worked diligently on the blog in question (due to an amnesty unblock granted by Al). We never discussed any time limits. However, it should not have taken him two weeks to finish the blog. In my opinion as well as the opinions of others, the administration was actually extremely generous in allowing him to stay so long, and multiple reminders were given to him to complete the blog. However, Mr. Wright soon went off on tangents creating pages such as "Paradox War Memorial" et cetera, which of course, was an infracture to our agreement.

Also, I love your quote " There are multiple reasons in my opinion as to why this ban is unjust." Yet you only go on to repeat the same reason but in reiterated language. Just saying.

3)

" Pearson was originally unbanned around 2 weeks ago, with no 'restrictions' on his ban. In other words, he was being let back for good unless he violated the rules."

Wrong both times.

4)

" About a week, or half a week ago, Garland published a blog in which he stated that Pearson was going to be rebanned as soon as he finished 'Top 100 RP'ers of all time'. In my opinion, this is the stupidest act this wiki's administration has made since its founding."

Cool! You have opinions! How do you feel about modern art?

5)

" Reason: Pearson's blog reached well over 100 comments in just a few weeks."

How is that a reason? The number of comments his blog received is completely irrelevant to both his ban and the deletion of the blog.

6)

"After its deletion, the hotspots area went from most edited pages in 3 days, to most edited pages in  30  days. Honestly, are you trying to destroy this wiki? The evidence is there."

Again, activity has nothing to do with his banning.

7)

"I am mostly disappointed in Parax, because he supported Pearson being let back, and initially said nothing about him being re-banned after he finished his blog. He showed no support for Garland's blog stating that Pearson would be banned after his blog would be created, but when Garland threatened Pearson with a ban if he didn't publish the blog quickly enough, Parax went to Garland's aid. However, this request is not directed towards Parax. It is directed towards our dear friend, Jeremiah Garland."

 If the demotion blog was directed at me, wouldn't that make this paragraph superfluous? I'm not certain how Parax initially felt about Pearson being unbanned, but he in fact did endorse my blog (before it was deleted by Al). Parax and I have had many discussions concerning Pearson's status on the wiki, and we both agreed on most accounts. Do not accuse him of anything if this demotion is for me.

 8)

 "I have seen little-to-no positive contributions from Garland since his promotion, if any. I have seen multiple users, including, but not limited to: Jeffrey Blasthawk, John Breasly, Pearson Wright, Albert Spark, George Sailward, and several others express extreme intolerance for what Garland has been trying to accomplish as an administrator."

 Correction: You've seen no contributions from me as an administrator that you agree with. My official administrative role as agreed by Parax and Al is sergeant-at-arms, which means I'm the guy in charge of discipline. I'm responsible for rewriting a large portion of the rules and have cracked down on vandals and ban-dodgers since my promotion. Also, in your list of people, two are banned users and two are partial if not completely inactive from this site. Therefore, I don't see how they can be expressing anything on our site, and if they are, intolerance doesn't warrant a demotion; that just means they don't agree with my decisions. Nobody ever loves the law enforcement, but that's not my problem.

9)

 "Why should someone with a questionable past of vandalism against other POTCO-associated wikis: I.E. - PUNW,"

Look up what vandalism is, because I never vandalised your site. If so, I would like to see proof, please.

"constant expressions of discriminatory attacks against certain groups, I.E. - Spaniards,"

If you'll recall, under the Kat Bluedog administration a legitimate law was passed in which all "fruits", that is, those closely associated with Pearson, were subject to immediate suspension from the wiki if subtle reasons were given. Because, uncoincidentally, it's Pearson's posse (e.g. you) that cause the most trouble and raise the most unnecessary drama (e.g. this). Call it discrimination, but it's well-warranted. Besides, I didn't make the rule, I'm simply enforcing it.

"and semi-inactivity, remain as an administrator on this wiki?"

I was partially inactive two weeks ago because I'm currently in the process of moving to Istanbul, on top of working two jobs, taking nightly classes, athletic practices, and of course, school work; I am currently, however, fully active and check the wiki several times daily.

10)

"To add to all of this, a personal reason for why I'd like Garland demoted; the last time I spoke with him in the United Gamers Wiki Chat, he acted very immaturely towards me, and stated things such as: 'It's Hector, oh no, hide your kids!' 'Hector, get the Hell out of here!'. Why is somebody who uses such a tone towards me, someone who had sparked no instigation of negative response, serving as an administrator on the PFW?"

That's cute: you think how I behave on other wikis should mean I get demoted here. Anybody who has been on Goldvane's wiki chat knows that it's atmosphere is unserious and frankly, ridiculous. That's not a real reason, and is proof that you're squandering for substantial reasons to demote me. It's also proof that this demotion is written out of personal spite, which is enough to have this thread deleted.

Conclusion:

You're fighting a fruitless battle (pun not intended). And honestly, I can't tell whether this thread is an "Unban Pearson Wright!" request or actually is a demotion request, because your reasoning for Pearson's supposed unjust ban seems to be directed at the administration in general, not at me. However, because you can't request the demotion of the entire administration, you choose me due to a personal grudge. As for Pearson, your reasons for his unban are illogical and straight-up farcical. In my personal defense, I never even supported letting him back on the wiki to finish his blog, but because I was in Istanbul at the time, I couldn't prevent it and sort of went with the flow from there on. However, after discussing the whole scenario in depth with Parax and Al, the three of us came to the conclusion that Pearson could not stay, thus I issued his warning. Then, when he's only in the 50s of a 100-subject list after fifteen days (give or take) there's this sudden outburst when he's unbanned. I also find it amusing how he acts like he's doing us a favour by making the blog, when in reality we're being the generous ones for allowing an infinitely banned user to edit here for an extended frame of time.

Pearson's quite impressive repetoire for ban reasonings include, among other things: vandalism, ban-dodging, cursing, cyber-bullying, threats, harassment, false RP information, and openly attacking the administration among other things. He has been infinitely banned multiple times, before being let back to be "given a second chance" (coincidentally, he's been granted about six "second" chances). The administration was more than magnanimous in allowing him back under these circumstances, given his history with the site, and I'm amused that when he's rebanned (after we told him he'd be rebanned) he has his buddy come on over and target a specific administrator. You, Hector, as well as Pearson, need to understand that he in fact was not benefiting our sight, but deteriorating it, thus his ban. Furthermore, I'd very much appreciate it if you fellas, in your unbridled rage from a ban, didn't find the quickest scapegoat, thoughtlessly hoping it would rectify all your problems given the miniscule chance such a notion would be approved.

Cheers,

Jeremiah Garland