FANDOM


  • Bullet Francisco
    Bullet Francisco closed this thread because:
    Resolved
    22:11, January 15, 2016

    Why did you grant Bullet administration rights a day before the last date? I don't think there is a written rule about this so I'm just going by my opinion. You are certainly allowed to do this, but only if consensus is very clear. In this case, I don't think it was.

      Loading editor
    • I didn't realize it was early, I was told it was okay to close it. My bad.

        Loading editor
    • Your poor judgment is a bit surprising. I don't think this is just a mistake. I don't feel good coming up with such an accusation, but this is what I think. I'm hoping to get this clarified.

        Loading editor
    • I was pretty busy that day so I wasn't putting as much thought into it as I should've, I'm really sorry about that. I'll make sure to do better in the future.

        Loading editor
    • I don't want to pick on a mistake. It's just that it doesn't look like one. You tried to close the nomination earlier before, which was reverted. You did the same thing again the next day. The consensus was only on 66%, which is pretty iffy. But you're so sure that Bullet deserves the rights that you've not given it a second thought. I don't think any of the administrator nominations have passed on any number below 75%. From my memory, Metal did not receive his rights on 66%.

      You also happened to close the nomination only a few minutes after two more users voted in opposition. Bullet won 5 more votes on this same day. This would have been a coincidence if it was on the 10th, but it was between 8th and 9th (midnight). It's clear that you were in a hurry. It also doesn't help that Bullet mixed up the timezones to convince me that it was closed on time. This is all too suspicious for me to believe that it's just a small mistake.

        Loading editor
    • I gave Grave the permission that it was fine to promote him a day early since he had something to do the day he would be promoted. I decided to give him the permission because no other administrator was active at that time. It was fine, it's only a day ahead. It's not like it's three days ahead.

      Kyle also had asked various people to vote on his nomination because he wanted more votes. Grave and Kyle both stated that no one else was gonna vote on the nomination, so he asked various people to give their opinions. That's perfectly fine.

      Also, I warned him the day he promoted him too early, to which Kyle told me that he had something to do that day. No need to warn him anymore than what I have.

        Loading editor
    • I didn't mean to say inviting people to vote is wrong. It's that Grave closed the nomination only a few minutes after two more users opposed. It looked a bit suspicious to me because it was the 8th (or 9th, whatever). Not the 10th.

      What did you warn Kyle about?

      Edit: I'm confused. You gave Grave permission before he closed the nomination or after?

        Loading editor
    • Slug-Drones wrote:

      What did you warn Kyle about?

      Blue didn't warn me about anything. He said that he has already warned Grave about closing the nomination before and that you do not "need to warn him anymore than what I have". In other words, Grave has already been given a hard enough time about closing the nomination early and has promised to improve, so you do not need to keep pressing him about the matter.

      Slug-Drones wrote:

      The consensus was only on 66%, which is pretty iffy. But you're so sure that Bullet deserves the rights that you've not given it a second thought. I don't think any of the administrator nominations have passed on any number below 75%. From my memory, Metal did not receive his rights on 66%.

      Metals nomination failed on a different percentage. 60%. That's less than the 2/3 I had. Also I do not appreciate your accusation towards Grave that he did not give it a second thought because he was "so sure I deserved the rights". I was skeptical about the consensus myself, so I approached Sacorguy79 (who I can also bring in as a witness since you seem so dead-set about Grave and I lying. Sacor was also one of the biggest advocates for my demotion prior if you do not recall, so he was definitely a neutral party) about the consensus before the nomination was closed. He approved it and so did Grave so Grave closed the nomination with the result of my promotion.

      Slug-Drones wrote:

      It also doesn't help that Bullet mixed up the timezones to convince me that it was closed on time. This is all too suspicious for me to believe that it's just a small mistake.

      You make it sound like I was using the time zones to cover up. The truth is that I was confused myself because I knew I posted it on the 26th at night so I thought it could be closed on the 9th. Grave thought this as well, which is understandable considering Wikia time is different. I'm insulted that you would accuse me this way when I thought we aired out all the laundry in our personal conversation. Why didn't you just tell me it sounded suspicious then instead of saying that everything was "all good" or whatever reassurance you gave me?

      Slug-Drones wrote:

      It's that Grave closed the nomination only a few minutes after two more users opposed. It looked a bit suspicious to me because it was the 8th (or 9th, whatever). Not the 10th.

      Grave didn't close the nomination because two people had opposed. Blue told him he could close it when the clock turned to the 9th, which is exactly what Grave did. Your accusations are approaching ridiculous levels. What's more astonishing is that I told you this in our conversation. I'm personally appalled by the way you've handled this situation. I specifically asked you if the matter was resolved and you said yes.

      Slug-Drones wrote:

      Edit: I'm confused. You gave Grave permission before he closed the nomination or after?

      BlueSpeeder gave Grave permission to close it BEFORE he closed it. I also told you this in our conversation.


      Now that I've addressed all your accusations and your questions, I'll try and finish this up:

      This is an outline of the events that happened:

      • Grave closes the nomination too early three days in advance
      • BlueSpeeder sees this and warns Grave about it, Myself 123 reverts it
      • Nomination continues, lots more votes
      • BlueSpeeder tells Grave he can close the nomination as the clock strikes the 9th (Grave and I were still under the impression it could be closed on the 9th)
      • Consensus is iffy, so I approach Sacorguy79 before Grave closes the nomination. He says that it can be closed with my promotion. I give Grave my personal thumbs up as well he analyzes the consensus make the final decision.
      • Grave closes the nomination as the clock strikes the 9th, just as BlueSpeeder told him he could do.
      • I am promoted
      • You come in with these crazy conspiracy theories, accusing me and Grave of various rule-breaking and insulting us both in the process.

      Drones, BlueSpeeder has just confirmed the events of what happened to you. He warned Grave about closing the nominations too early before. He also confirmed that he gave Grave the go-ahead to close the nomination. That should suffice. Please do not throw any more accusations towards me or Grave. It is very insulting.

      I have tried to be as civil as possible with you regarding this manner, and I believe that I have been. Grave has also tried to be as civil as possible. Proof that you have been taking it too far can be seen in how BlueSpeeder felt the need to chime in on this conversation to tell you to stop warning Grave. Further proof can be seen in how I felt the need to chime in. I have consulted with another administrator and another trusted neutral user who also agree with what Alex, Blue, and I have said here. They agree you are going too far. If you continue with your accusations, I will call them in to diffuse the situation.

      You have nothing to base your accusations off of. You have THREE administrators telling you the same thing. Unless you are going to accuse us ALL of lying again (I know that you never outright said we were lying, but the fact that you keep doubting Grave and I's word is accusing us of lying) it's time to let it go before the issue escalates and more feelings are hurt (including your own). I know that mine are. Grave's probably are too. The last thing we need is more people to feel this way. Don't you agree?

      On a final note, I would like to remind you that assuming good faith and no personal attacks (which is defined on the policy page as "no accusations") are two of SNN's biggest policies.

        Loading editor
    • I would like to agree with Kyle here in that it seems a little off bringing this up almost a week after he's been promoted, let alone a week since the accidental early-promotion occurred.

        Loading editor
    • What an emotional murky mess that could've easily not been one. Though I don't entirley agree with all of what Drones is saying, this is not a personal attack and you are in no right to "call admins on this because someone is bullying you", Bullet, neither is anyone breaking any rules. "Assuming bad faith" is now being dubbed as "I don't like being questioned, stop talking". Accusing and doubting are different things. These are all opinions and questions, not insults, and you should be civil towards them.

        Loading editor
    • Slug-Drones
      Slug-Drones removed this reply because:
      I don't know what I want to say. Too much on my mind. Can't put to words... lemme think :
      10:50, January 15, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • Dr. Livsi wrote: What an emotional murky mess that could've easily not been one. Though I don't entirley agree with all of what Drones is saying, this is not a personal attack and you are in no right to "call admins on this because someone is bullying you", Bullet, neither is anyone breaking any rules. "Assuming bad faith" is now being dubbed as "I don't like being questioned, stop talking". Accusing and doubting are different things. These are all opinions and questions, not insults, and you should be civil towards them.

      Dr. Livsi you are totally off-base here. I am not calling administrators in on this "because someone is bullying me", and I would appreciate it if you did not phrase it that way. I was not even a part of this conversation to begin with. I said I would call in administrators to diffuse the situation if it this continued much further because as you said, this is an emotional murky mess.

      I never intended to accuse Drones of breaking any rules, the reminder at the bottom served just as that: a reminder. If I had thought Drones broke any rules, I would have called her out on it. I was trying to get Drones to understand my point, and I admit that it sounded as if I was accusing her of breaking the rules. I apologize for that. I tried to sound as civil as possible, I even asked a few people if they thought I was being too harsh and they all said "no", and even then I was still skeptical. They all said I was being "civil" and "unbiased", contrary to what you are saying to me.

      Finally, regarding your point about "I don't like being questioned, stop talking"... Everyone has been pretty cooperative about answering Drones' questions. In my last message, I answered all of Drones' questions and more. I even offered to bring in more witnesses.

      I don't appreciate the way you handled your response, Livsi. I get your point, but nearly all of it is off-base. It's okay if you're trying to defend Drones. I admit that I was a bit harsh in my message, even though I tried as hard as I could not to be. There are simply too many people in agreement with my sentiments here so I had to make sure Drones got the point.

        Loading editor
    • To Drones, since it seems I won't catch you on chat:

      I know you removed your previous reply, but I saw it due to the way Wikia mobile works. I understand how the events could have been seen as shady or suspicious from your perspective. It's fine. If you still have your doubts, I ask you to re-read the outline of events I typed out for you as that is as accurate as it will get.

      I can be defensive of Grave, which is what led to my drawn-out message. I tried not to sound too harsh, I even asked a few people for their input on it, and they said it was fine, but I can see how the bold words and the rule reminder at the bottom made it seem like something it was not. I apologize for that and I apologize for the way this situation turned out. I hope you get my point that there were feelings hurt in this conversation, which is why I needed to be aggressive about it and ask you to stop. Out of the people I asked, they all agreed with me which is why I took the route I did.

      No further discussion is really necessary. I saw your apology. Apology accepted. There are no hard feelings, really.

        Loading editor
    • Okay. I think this is pretty much over. Bullet read the comment I removed but some part of it was also for BlueSpeeder. So I'll write it again I guess?

      If it's true that Blue let Grave close the nomination early because he would be busy on the 10th, it was not a good decision. Grave is not the only bureaucrat. You could have left it to Myself to close it on time. This mistake wasn't small. Can't see how a simple solution was overlooked. I know you realize closing it early was a mistake. But it seems that it didn't occur to anyone yet that this could have been done. That is all.

        Loading editor
    • Slug-Drones wrote:
      If it's true that Blue let Grave close the nomination early because he would be busy on the 10th, it was not a good decision. Grave is not the only bureaucrat. You could have left it to Myself to close it on time. This mistake wasn't small. Can't see how a simple solution was overlooked. I know you realize closing it early was a mistake. But it seems that it didn't occur to anyone yet that this could have been done. That is all.

      From what I'm trying to recall on that day, Myself was active when Grave promoted Kyle three days earlier, but not on the day before Grave promoted Kyle (and left it as that). He needed another opinion from another administrator, and everyone was confused with the dates, so I decided it wouldn't hurt to promote him on the 9th.

      Are we all happy and satisfied with these revelations? Because this is just a big mess of misunderstandings.

        Loading editor
    • Yes. On that note I'll close this discussion since we're all in agreement.

        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.