FANDOM


(Created page with "Gijimu, I think you jumped the gun here. Annabell's concerns regarding the status of those characters she asked about were valid, and she addressed them appropriately. She wo...")
 
 
Line 9: Line 9:
 
I don't need to go into details, but for an example of the accuser's questionability, they claimed my transgression ocurred on Facebook. However, they reported me to FANDOM instead, a site tangential to the matter. Considering how privy Facebook is, the accuser could have reported my profile, and if the accusations were true, Facebook would've been able to ban me and contact local authorities with the snap of a finger. During the time of my block, I researched on my own the conditions under which Facebook could divulge a user's chat log to a third party (FANDOM in this case), and I told Sannse about it, because I had nothing to hide, save for an akward crush confession from 2012.
 
I don't need to go into details, but for an example of the accuser's questionability, they claimed my transgression ocurred on Facebook. However, they reported me to FANDOM instead, a site tangential to the matter. Considering how privy Facebook is, the accuser could have reported my profile, and if the accusations were true, Facebook would've been able to ban me and contact local authorities with the snap of a finger. During the time of my block, I researched on my own the conditions under which Facebook could divulge a user's chat log to a third party (FANDOM in this case), and I told Sannse about it, because I had nothing to hide, save for an akward crush confession from 2012.
   
Furthermore, in the blog post, Nausiated accused the other members of the AdMod team of not taking the situation seriously and said they should've gone to Jamie. And that's exactly what they did. Annabell contacted Jamie and he greenlit the accuser's block. The only action any member of the AdMod team did before informing Jamie was to revert the vandalism to the affected articles. The accuser was loose for almost four hours before he was blocked, which risked he continued vandalizing, but we did it because we treaded the situation lightly.
+
Furthermore, in the blog post, Nausiated accused the other members of the AdMod team of not taking the situation seriously and said they should've gone to Jamie. And that's exactly what they did. Annabell contacted Jamie and he greenlit the accuser's block. The only action any member of the AdMod team took before informing Jamie was to revert the vandalism to the affected articles. The accuser was loose for almost four hours before he was blocked, which risked he continued vandalizing, but we did it because we treaded the situation lightly.
   
 
I hope this has set the record straight.
 
I hope this has set the record straight.

Latest revision as of 23:29, June 7, 2019

Gijimu, I think you jumped the gun here. Annabell's concerns regarding the status of those characters she asked about were valid, and she addressed them appropriately.

She would have abused her administrative powers if she had done something like outright move Impulse's page. Instead, she simply added the move tag and started the discussion in the talk page, like any user should do. She didn't even edit Warbird and Gladiator's respective pages to remove the affiliation you had added that is the matter of debate.

I'm not trying to berate you. I understand being protective of pages one has worked on, and I see this simply as a knee-jerk reaction, especially since I've followed the discussion a little bit and things are calm. Your contributions since your return are appreciated, the work on Old Man Quill, Royals and the Infinity-based What If?, not to mention the tidy-up and creation of galleries for many less specific articles from different parts of the site.

I'm going to take this opportunity to talk about something you addressed tangentially, which is Nausiated's blog. I don't like to talk about this situation because it aggrieves me, but I figure with truthfulness comes transparency. Assuming you've read all of it, I will start by saying that the blog post comes from a place of ignorance. Nausiated made many remarks regarding a situation of which he doesn't have the full picture. Back when I was blocked in December, my situation was monitored by the Director of FANDOM's Community Support, Sannse. I was blocked for 38 days, a time during which she tried the accuser to provide more concise evidence, but nothing came out of it. The situation was treated with severity. Authorities and FANDOM's legal staff were allegedly involved, and back in December 21, when I was blocked I didn't even know why until I submited a report ticket.

I don't need to go into details, but for an example of the accuser's questionability, they claimed my transgression ocurred on Facebook. However, they reported me to FANDOM instead, a site tangential to the matter. Considering how privy Facebook is, the accuser could have reported my profile, and if the accusations were true, Facebook would've been able to ban me and contact local authorities with the snap of a finger. During the time of my block, I researched on my own the conditions under which Facebook could divulge a user's chat log to a third party (FANDOM in this case), and I told Sannse about it, because I had nothing to hide, save for an akward crush confession from 2012.

Furthermore, in the blog post, Nausiated accused the other members of the AdMod team of not taking the situation seriously and said they should've gone to Jamie. And that's exactly what they did. Annabell contacted Jamie and he greenlit the accuser's block. The only action any member of the AdMod team took before informing Jamie was to revert the vandalism to the affected articles. The accuser was loose for almost four hours before he was blocked, which risked he continued vandalizing, but we did it because we treaded the situation lightly.

I hope this has set the record straight.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.