Forum:Proposal to Remove Hfc2x

It has become clear, through my personal conversations and dealings with Hfc2x that the wiki can no longer properly function with this user as a bureaucrat. I present to the community a list of reasons this user should be demoted and leave it up to the community to decide their status. This discussion forum will remain open for 1 week per advice from Wikia Community Support, during which time users with a minimum of 10 edits, who have been a member of this wiki for 1 week, and have never been blocked will be able to vote. All users are open to discuss, but only users meeting these requirements can post “Yes” to remove Hfc2x, or “No” to not remove them at the end of their post. You may discuss as much as you like and at any time over the next week you can vote, you do not need to vote with your first post. Voting is restricted to one per user. If the vote is closed with the majority of voters wanting to demote Hfc2x, then a poll will open asking the community if this user should be blocked and if so, for how long. Of course, if Hfc2x chooses to resign than the discussion will immediately end and the second poll will go up.

A quick note, I respect this user’s privacy and have no intentions of revealing personal information where it is unnecessary. Therefore, no links or screenshots of evidence will be provided beyond simple text. However, if Hfc2x denies something I have written that is true, then I will post evidence to dispute his specific claim. Furthermore, if the community at large doesn’t believe what I have written then I will also post evidence to support my claim.

I. Multiple times this user has valued their personal feelings to the detriment of the wiki.

Case one involves my attempts to be made admin, which on the surface appear nearly perfect but behind the scenes was an unneeded struggle. This user is a fan of the MBTI, a personality test that assigns you letter combination. After taking the test I received INTJ, which is how Hfc2x refers to me. On this user’s Twitter account they wrote “I’m so bored of being a wiki admin.”, “I’d make anyone an admin and bail the fuck out.”, “Anyone besides the motherfucking INTJ who pretends to be my right hand man but talks shit about me behind my back. Kek. He thinks I don’t know.”, and “I’d make anyone an Admin just to piss him off”. There are far more examples in this case where Hfc2x repeated this behaviour.

Clearly, this user valued their personal feelings in regards to the operation of the wiki.

Case two involves Gourgiest’s attempts to make a list of minor characters. There was agreement among myself and Gourgiest that we should consult the other active admin, Hfc2x. The user refused to engage in any discussion with us or was totally silent on the issue. They responded once and refused to offer any further comment after that, and was silent in any subsequent attempt to speak, culminating in deleting me from Skype. This led to an unbreakable gridlock that has restricted the activities behind the scenes on the wiki for far too long. Any attempts to break it have failed, due to Hfc2x refusing to engage in discussion.

II. Multiple times this user has violated the terms of use by attacking and bullying myself and fellow user Gourgiest The users twitter, contains several attacks against both of us and also features screencaptures of our conversations, a violation of privacy in my opinion. I don’t want to go into too many specifics, but suffice it to say this user has disparaged me at every turn. Frequently calling me bad things and, as mentioned above, posting screenshots to their twitter. In addition, on their twitter and to me through Skype, this user has maliciously attacked Gourgiest, calling them a “motherfucking irrational feeler” and saying “I just like to insult him”. They also revealed to me that “I like to insult people and I like it when they feel offended.” There are just a few example of this behaviour that has characterized our interactions from the beginning.

III. This user no longer has a desire to be a wikia admin

A. On this user’s twitter we see the quote “I’m so bored of being a wiki admin.”, followed by “I’d make anyone an admin and bail the fuck out.”

B. This user has declared themselves semi-active and contributed little recently

C. This user has had no desire to improve the wiki when given the chance. As already mentioned, they shunned the attempt to have a discussion about the list of minor characters, and also brushed off attempts to have a discussion about our Manual of Style. These actions demonstrate that the user has lost any interest in being a wikia admin and is instead staying in their position for all the wrong reasons. Some of which may be laziness, a desire to hold ‘power’, or just to spite me.

I hereby request that the community discuss this for the next week and the users allowed to vote do so. --PrelateZeratul (talk) 21:00, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Vote Counter
This is where I will keep track of the votes, please only 'vote' in a reply in the discussion section. After that I will add your vote to this counter.

Should Hfc2x be removed from their position?


 * Yes, they should be removed.
 * 1) --PrelateZeratul (talk) 21:00, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) --JinxTheFunhouse (talk) 21:15, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) --Do1ball (talk) 21:40, February 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) --LCSage (talk) 22:59, February 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * No, they should not be removed.
 * 1) --NeoSuperior (talk) 00:46, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
It is clear to me from reading this that Hfc2x should definitely be removed. --JinxTheFunhouse (talk) 21:15, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Wow, if what you say here is true then yes, I agree Hfc2x should be removed. --Do1ball (talk) 21:40, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Although I am abstaining from voting or taking sides, please highly consider that there is bias on every side in a situation like this. I would allow the accused to explain himself before taking an official vote. — Gourgeist, the Pumpkin Pokémon 21:58, February 19, 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding us of that Gourgeist. Hfc2x has every opportunity to defend himself if he chooses to over the next week, and no votes are binding. People may change their position at any time.--PrelateZeratul (talk) 22:14, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the evidence stated by Prelatezeratul, hfc2x seems unfit to be running the wiki currently. I think this needs to be further investigated. From what was said alone, I vote for the dismissal of Hfc2x. --LCSage (talk) 22:59, February 19, 2015 (UTC)

I have been away for a bit, but this is the first time I hear about this. If you ask me, the person you describe is a completely different person from the one I know (as far as "knowing" is possible purely through the internet). All I can say is that Hfc2x has been a great help to the wiki in the past and I did never experience the things PrelateZeratul claimed had happened, either. Since you mention the Manual of style, why don't you simply contribute to it yourself? the talk page of it is unlocked and you can post your ideas there, so I don't understand why you critisize him for it, although it was not touched by either of you recently. I admit I am not completely innocent either in the regards of doing "behind the scenes administration", but I cannot approve of changing everything from "full private" to "full public" just to bring up what appears to me as "interpersonal matters" under the banner of "improving the wiki". Of course that is only regarding this matter, as I otherwise appreciate PrelateZeratul's hard work very much.

To address the indiviual points:

I. and II. are completely invalid until proven for me, since those are things I have never experienced myself with Hfc2x and I know that user probably for the longest time of all of us. I assume there must have been provocation on both sides, so I will await his own response about this among other things. In regards to point III. until proven otherwise, only aspect B. is valid for me, since aspect A. is completely out of context and I have already explained my reasoning about aspect C. in my earlier paragraph. Due to this I disagree with this proposal until someone manages to convince me otherwise, or if Hfc2x retires by himself. --- NeoSuperior (talk) 00:46, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well Neo, I very much appreciate you coming back at such a critical time. In regards to what I have written and the invalid nature of it, I assure you it is very valid. As I indicated above I don't want to possibly violate privacy where it us unneeded. If you believe that I am distorting the truth here than I will provide my proof since I am being called into question. I never added to the Manual of Style because I don't believe it is right for one user, only recently an admin, to create the entire thing themselves. As mentioned above, hfc2x was unwilling to engage in this discussion seriously and later would have no conversation at all. The current most veteran member of our wiki should have an input on the Manual of Style considering how much it dictates. His bullying and abuse of myself and Gourgiest is well documented. He did refuse to promote me solely for personal reasons, which is not how someone in his position should act.--PrelateZeratul (talk) 00:56, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * I see, but it is still not easy to simply take your word for it, considering I know Hfc2x almost the entire time I have been active here and I just cannot imagine something like this happening. I know very well myself how views can become biased myself, you could become quite biased without relizing, me as well, so I'd have to learn more about those matters regarding your dispute, but we'll see about it some other time. For now I have to mention grave issues with this voting that I have forgotten to mention in my first post: I don't like how the whole debate is mostly based on things that have been "filtered" (excuse this expression) by a non-biased party and cannot be assesed (due to reasons like privacy, etc., aside from III. B.).

--- NeoSuperior (talk) 01:21, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore I must condemn that the "voting phase" has been started, without even an opening statement from Hfc2x, which puts him into a very unfair disadvantage, for example in case people vote against him, but don't log in between the time when Hfc2x writes his statement and the deadline, the validity of the votes would be put into question. Instead I hereby propose that all votes are reset and we give Hfc2x a time period of some days to write his rebuttal and restart the voting phase from zero, so that this issue can be handled fairly.


 * I understand your scepticism considering your relationship with hfc2x and almost complete lack of one with me. If you like, I would be happy to privately prove these things to you, since I trust that you will uphold privacy. In regards to the voting system, this is run in accordance with what wikia staff told me to do. I have already mentioned that everyone is free to change their opinions at any time. --PrelateZeratul (talk) 01:28, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but there are some things I need to address before everything. Bringing up my private tweets, posted in my private Twitter account can be considered violation of privacy too. Whatever I say or post everywhere else that is not the Wiki has no reason to be, and represents my personal opinion, which is left at the door whenever I come here. If I've ever treated anyone in a bad way in here, let me know, because I don't remember.

Second, you have always treated me like I'm the person in charge here, and say I'm a "bad boss" and similar things, when I've tried my best to leave it clear to everyone that I'm not in charge. The reason I'm a bureaucrat is because I'm a normal user trusted to have these rights. Nothing else. I'm not a dictator or anything you're trying to paint me as. I've done my duty as an administrator by reverting vandalism, blocking vandals, granting users who are deemed trustworthy more rights. Perhaps you should read what administrators should not do, because you're forgetting we (or I in this case) are not in charge.

Third, yes, I really dislike you as a person, and even though I won't mention my reasons here (because they are irrelevant), my opinion on you as a person doesn't affect my opinion on you as a contributor, because if it was for that, I would have never given you administrator rights. I know how to separate things, and even though people who know me personally know my attitude, I don't let those things affect my perception of things that happen on the wiki. Long story short, I dislike you, but I recognize you are a valuable contributor, and as wiki contributors, we are advised to keep a NPOV at all times.

Fourth, yes, I've lost interest in being an administrator, but I don't think there's been a contributor trustworthy enough to pass my bureaucrat rights onto and retire. You were the best candidate up until now, because of the quantity and quality of your edits, but given you've made this public decission to "try and take down the person in charge here", I see you're not fit, because you really strike me as temperamental and hotheaded, and that's not good for someone who's supposed to be neutral in regards to this kind of decissions (adding to the fact that you still consider me "in charge" here, so it basically tells me you miss the point of being an administrator).

And last, but not least, I will eventually retire, of course, like every bureaucrat before me. But I'm going to do it once I find someone levelheaded and trustworthy enough.  h fc 2 X  03:30, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well hfc2x, I do appreciate you taking this opportunity to come here and defend yourself. Before I response to your points I want to make it clear that I never wanted this to happen. This was never my first choice, I always wanted to work with you on the wiki. I have made every attempt to be nice, help you, and even try to act like you in an effort to get a long. You have insulted me at every opportunity and have never apologized for it.


 * I wanted to reveal these facts in a way that would compromise your privacy as little as possible, which is why no links to, or screenshots of your twitter were presented. If we're going to throw around abuse of privacy claims then I suggest the exact same of you by posting our conversations in a much more public place than the wiki. I do not believe that you are capable of leaving your personal opinion of me out of making decisions. You never had any intention of making me an admin and were going to deny me, because you don't like me. If you deny this fact then I will present evidence since I see no other way to prove my point. Frankly, the things you have written, no matter where they are, constitute abuse/harassment.


 * I admit in the past I have called you 'boss' and tried to convince you, and Gourgiest, that Admins are the boss. I recognized the error in this long ago and haven't call you that title, or anything similar to it, in a very long time. I understand that you have no legal obligation to the wiki and don't have to do anything. However, I contend that refusing to speak with me or assist me in anyway is a poor decision, which I believe is brought on by your dislike of me. I was left to essentially run every aspect of the wiki myself with nothing but hatred coming from the guy who promoted me. If I needed help with CSS or had a questions that was just too bad for me. I have consistently believed in group decisions and open dialogue which is why I don't want to write the manual of style without your opinion. You have nearly 4k edits and could provide valuable knowledge to me, but you brushed me off. Again, I never wanted it to be this way.


 * I contend that you don't recognize me as a valuable contributor, but more somebody to do work for you. Also, as stated above, you promoting me had nothing to do with how 'valuable' you thought I was to the wiki. You were never going to promote me for the sole reason that you don't like me, and you eventually did for a reason we both know. Please don't make me have to provide evidence for this since we both know it is true. At the very least, cutting off all communication with the only other active admin because you don't like them is not a NPOV.


 * I have defended myself as hotheaded before and will do so again. If you check our entire conversation history I have never violently lashed out at you or used a serious insult. In my entire conversation history with Gourgeist I have repeated my belief in open dialogue and solving problems through words, not by refusing to speak to somebody. That user has defended you countless times and every time I do my best to respond thoughtfully and calmly. I never flew off the handle and gave irrational reasons for our problems, I always championed the same reasons you see above. This is not me "Taking down the person in charge" this is me bringing what I see as abuses to the community on this wiki. Also, please don't try and pretend like I was a strong candidate to replace you up until this point, we both know that isn't true. --PrelateZeratul (talk) 04:02, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

It appears to me that Prelate Zeratul views Hfc2x as a negative source on the wiki. Though Hfc2x may not be in charge, he is the highest standing active admin and final decisions will be left to the person with the most power. I find it incredibly unprofessional to make childish tweets and saying you dislike someone you are supposed to be working with for a better quality wiki. Though you do say you are concerned for the wiki's benefit you are making strides in the wrong direction by causing admin conflicts. Any feels about other admins should be kept to yourself and not posted on twitter which is a public website. The person left with the final decision in changes and edits should not let personal feelings overcome them. I feel by posting publicly and making childish remarks you have dealt with your emotions poorly and should have a more mature attitude for a leading figure. --JinxTheFunhouse (talk) 03:52, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * JinxTheFunhouse, several of your points are incorrect. You stated that "he is the highest standing active admin and final decisions will be left to the person with the most power". This is not true. According to what Hfc2x linked:


 * Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism. Administrator powers should be used to help keep the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and users who make malicious edits, but not for simple disagreements between users acting in good faith. Ideally an admin shouldn't be considered "in charge". The ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the Wikia community.


 * This means that no, the person with the most "power" does not have the final say, but rather they are an editor who is trusted so they have a few extra privileges - the community has the final say in decisions and the community alone, unless it's in the decision to promote a user, although that's a different subject. Not sure why this wiki doesn't currently have one, but all editors are equal is the standard rule of law for wikis. This rule states that:


 * Editors come in all shapes, sizes and powers; from the bureaucrat, to the admin, to the standard editor, to the unlogged IP address. It's also possible that although you do not know it, the editor you're talking to is an actor or a scriptwriter. In addition, a member may consider himself an expert on all things [media]. However, there is no person on this wiki that has more authority than another, no matter what, because all editors are equal.
 * ===Wiki authorities===


 * Wikis are not based on any form of hierarchy. Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the wiki community who are recognised for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments. This does not give them authority over other players in overruling decisions; all major decisions of this kind (such as requesting adminship) must be made by the community, and not by an individual. Editors should also not claim "Admin name here said that we shouldn't do this, so we shouldn't" if there isn't already a clear rule or policy on this. Don't actively ignore it either, though; discuss it. Discussion is a major part of wikis.


 * Remember: Everyone on this wiki is equal. Stay cool, don't get frustrated with other users, and be polite. We're all equal, and with equality comes equal importance.


 * And implying that a leading figure shouldn't be able to express their thoughts off-site on a personal account is wrong as well. Yes, it is public, but this also means that it isn't directed at a certain individual, meaning it doesn't constitute as harassment. Harassment is aggressive pressure or intimidation: he isn't intimidating anyone because he didn't expect "anyone" to be reading his public tweets. He even deleted PrelateZeratul from Skype as to avoid him because he felt his privacy was being invaded. Now that I'm foot deep in this discussion, I should also clear something up: PrelateZeratul is spilling subjectivity into this debate, by saying Hfc2x has bullied us. All that he has gathered as evidence of this is from me and Hfc2x's conversations and Hfc2x's Twitter account, which he didn't even expect anyone to find because his username there is not shared with his username here. I've never felt harassed by Hfc2x: we're good friends actually, and of course friends will call each other rude names and make fun of each other in obnoxious ways, and we aren't expecting those conversations to be used as "evidence" in a situation like this. I have repeated this multiple times to PrelateZeratul but he still doesn't seem to understand, and that is his choice, but I'm consenting in letting Hfc2x call whatever he wants to call me, and me with him. — Gourgeist, the Pumpkin Pokémon 04:31, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

@ Except my Twitter is private, I haven't listed it anywhere, and PrelateZeratul was able to read my tweets because he was following me without me noticing. I would have never noticed he was if I didn't happen to check my followers (which are 14 at this very moment, 16 at most). The fact that he knows what I have posted is because he found it, and happened to follow me in a period which I unprotected my tweets.

@ I don't think I know the reason you seem to know why I made you an admin, but as for me, I gave you the rights because even though I admintely cannot stand you as a person, I cannot deny you were fit for the job (your adminship request). Nobody has been contributing as much as you, and if you think there's another reason, I beg you to let me know, because I truly don't know.

As for anything I've said to you personally, I'm completely sure I haven't said it in my position as a Wiki admin, but completely as a person. If I've ever posted something regarding your capabilities as an administrator, it's, as I've said, my personal opinion, which even I myself disregard when making a decission in my position as administrator, because that's what I'm supposed to do. That's why I'm asking you to please show me evidence when have I been abusive to users in this community (and I'm talking this website, not private ones), or if I've ever broken the rules here.

All I've seen up until now is just personal issues and drama we have with each other. Not something a whole community should need to be dragged into.  h fc 2 X  05:10, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * And when were the two of us going to deal with these 'personal issues'? From what I gathered the answer was never. These 'personal issues' are precisely why I felt the community had to know. Having no communication with the most veteran and experience member of the wiki is not good for the wiki. I can appreciate that you don't like me hfc2x, but I can't appreciate your total refusal to engage in any discussion about the wiki. The two times I tried, you had no interest and didn't even respond the second time.


 * Also, I have no idea what you're talking about with your twitter, I never followed you there. How you came to the conclusion that it was me or that I was even aware of your twitter is beyond me. How did you come to the idea that I knew anything about your twitter? As for the 'other reason' of why you made me an admin, we both know what it is and I plead with you that I won't have to bring it to a public forum. You also said it on twitter "I'd make anyone an admin and bail the fuck out" "Anyone except the motherfucking INTJ who pretends to be my right-hand man".--PrelateZeratul (talk) 06:33, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * "How you came to the conclusion that it was me or that I was even aware of your twitter is beyond me."
 * How I came into that conclussion: simple, I know all the people that follow me. I once noticed I had a follower I didn't know who it was and blocked them. Then you post all these tweets you copypasted from my Twitter. I just concluded a while ago it was you, as it's the only way it makes sense.
 * And you know, there are multiple ways to contact me besides Skype. I didn't feel the need to settle anything with you, since I wasn't even aware you knew and diligently followed my tweets and were so thoroughly offended by them. I wasn't even aware someone actually took the time to read the garbage I write, as Gourgeist correctly pointed out. If there was a problem, you could have used any of the contact methods in my and tell me you wanted to address serious issues. Even though I'm a horrible person (I don't deny it), I'd be willing to have a serious conversation if asked to.
 * So, it is actually becoming more and more obvious that this is just a personal issue between the two of us.  h fc 2 X  07:40, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it transcends a 'personal issue' between the two of us. As I've mentioned before, you let personal feelings interfere with your direction of the wiki. You only promoted me because Gourgeist convinced you to, before that you wrote "I'm never going to make him an admin ever". You also wrote "I needed some retarded idiot to take all the heavier stuff. And he is the perfect candidate". In addition to being very spiteful and mean, these quotes along with your twitter clearly show you were allowing personal interests to interfere with your judgement as a bureaucrat. This also shows that everything you wrote before this about promoting me, was a lie. Also, you have never had a serious conversation with me about anything. Even when I indicated that I would like to, you simply weren't interested. I did go to your twitter and read some of what you posted there after seeing the initial attack against myself, along with the personal bias present. However, I continue to value privacy and only reveal things where I feel the need to, mostly in revealing the truth. I never followed you on twitter and I have no idea who you assumed was me.--PrelateZeratul (talk) 07:49, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * hfc2X seems like an ok person to me. As far as I can tell this a personal matter being posted and displayed for all of us to see. Without actual proof that I can see, I can't honestly vote that someone be "removed". If anything, I'd recommend you both be "removed" temporarily until you two can come to some kind of solution. Like you said "through my personal conversations and dealings with Hfc2x", so this doesn't sound like something our community should be voting on. Instead it's something you two should be working out yourselves. EternalLocket (talk) 07:57, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you voicing your opinion Locket. As I have tried to explain, perhaps poorly, this is not just a 'personal dispute' between myself and hfc2x, it transcends that. By having his personal feelings interfere with his extra duties as bureaucrat, he is impairing the wiki. There is no clause in applying for adminship that allows someone to be denied simply because the bureaucrat considering it doesn't like them. Also, I continue to contend that hfc2x violated the terms of use due to his repeated, personal attack against both myself, and Gourgeist. Lastly, this isn't an issue that the two of us can 'work out ourselves'. Hfc2x has refused all attempts to speak with me and really has/had no interest in resolving these issues. In my conversations with Gourgeist I make it very clear that I want to speak with hfc2x and work these problems out, but he is unwilling. This was never my first option and always something I wished I would not have to, but it has come to this, partially through the advice of wikia staff.--PrelateZeratul (talk) 08:03, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Well someone wanting to remove another member is a serious matter that needs to be discussed. But I am still not convinced this is more than a personal matter. So they don't like you as a person, that sucks but is bound to happen. And according to you they say bad things about you and another person on their own, I'm assuming not related to the wikia, twitter page. That in my opinion makes them a douche. And unless I'm just blind, I'm also curious on how you found their twitter page. I'd like to read it for myself, but can't seem to find it. And from what I read you weren't denied, but accepted by the person you're trying to remove. As for the insults about Gourgeist, I'd rather hear what they have to say about it. I've seen none of these actions on the wiki, so that makes it a personal matter in my opinion. Someone needs to start offering actual proof, because so far this just seems like hearsay. EternalLocket (talk) 08:27, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Hfc2x protected his twitter when he incorrectly believed I was following him, you won't find it. I didn't even know he had a second twitter (linked above) as I had seen a different one. I agree that this is a serious matter which is why I tried to avoid it and spoke with Wikia community support first. I also believe in discussion which is why I opted for it and not a simple poll. My problem isn't with hfc2x not liking me as a person it is the manner in which I am treated by him. The fact that it is behind closed doors makes no difference as I still consider it abuse. As I indicated in my first post, the admin request went fine on the surface. Underneath it, hfc2x revealed that he was never planning to make me an admin and only did so once Gourgeist convinced him. As for 'proof' I contend that everything I directly quoted hfc2x as saying is 100% accurate and will be revealed if I am doubted. Here is the user's twitter page edited to preserve as much privacy as I can LINK TO SCREENSHOT REMOVED --PrelateZeratul (talk) 08:44, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

I have to concur with EternalLocket; I have continuously been silent on the issue but now I'm reluctant as I've noticed an intentional false claim - all of what you claim I said, Prelate, is false. He NEVER said "I don't plan to make him an admin ever". As for the next quote, yes, you are right, he said that - but I shared this because I found what he said very laughable because I found both of your arguments to be hilarious - under the faith that you would not repeat it. And after our feud on Skype, asking you specifically NOT to reveal this information, it is now obvious I was wrong in trusting you.

Here is a screenshot of me and Hugo's conversation, implying he had full intent to fulfill your wishes and become an administrator.



I assumed you wouldn't be as reckless as to fabricate things I did not state in favor of what looks like a powergrab over Hugo - therefore, I vote in favor of keeping Hugo's bureaucrat rights and would mark this against PrelateZeratul's administrator rights - meaning, in short, having his rights removed after this is resolved. — Gourgeist, the Pumpkin Pokémon 08:47, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * I had really hoped you would not stoop to this level Gourgeist, but it appears you have. I contest that what you just said is a complete and total lie and absolutely abhorrent. Since you have incorrectly called me a liar and retroactively edited data to make me appear as one, I will now take steps to clear my name. Here is the actual conversation presented to me unedited in anyway. LINKS TO SCREENSHOTS REMOVED Note the conversation afterwards where Gourgeist does not act like this was a 'joke'. Here is Gourgeist admitting that he will use fabrication and lies to get his way LINKS TO SCREENSHOTS REMOVED --PrelateZeratul (talk) 09:13, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

So, it looks like this is getting completely out of control, and getting all this people involved in something that's clearly just an issue between the two of us (of which you've made a huge deal that you consider needs to be exposed to the public) does no good to anyone, let alone this community. For this reason, I've considered 's solution: to demote the two of us temporarily until we can sort this out. I really think this is the best, and most neutral solution to this problem.

And by the way,, that was a really unnecessary response and earned yourself a block.  h fc 2 X  10:10, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually hfc2x, I happen to believe that the truth does good for everyone. I do apologize that Gourgeist made this decision and decided to do something so foolish, I did try to persuade him otherwise. However, he presented me with two options and was adamant about not talking it out. I do agree with your decision to block him. In any case, this is not a personal issue between the two of us. If you are unable to separate personal feelings from judgement here, then you should be removed. I contend that you are unable to do that and I believe the evidence supports that claim. In regards to the two of us stepping down and working this out, would you have even considered that proposal if I offered it before this went up? No, not at all. You never had any interest in the two of us sitting down and talking about it. I would have far preferred it to having to do this. However you have refused to speak with me until I did this and have treated me poorly for as long as you have known me. The actions you've taken constitute abuse, and I have every reason to believe you would have kept doing it had I not made this proposal.


 * Take this scenario, if you asked for a promotion and found out that the sole person who's decision it was had already privately admitted that they not only would "Never" promote you, but also hated you and had been talking behind your back with incredibly harsh words for a long time. Would you really think that this person was a 'neutral' party who only had the best interests of the organization in their mind, no, you would think they were biased because they are. As I've mentioned before, you were never going to promote me and only did so thanks to the intervention of Gourgeist. I also had a simple request that you message xGlass and ask him about the Facebook/Twitter pages. This is a prime example where your extra experience and time here could have helped the wiki, by giving it a social media function. However, you ignored my message on Jan 23 asking about it. Maybe xGlass never messaged you back, I can accept that but you at least should have told me.--PrelateZeratul (talk) 16:25, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, I wish I could eat popcorn with this drama that's going on right now. After all that I feel for sure that at least two of you need to temporarily step down. I don't know about a block for Gourgeist, but there is certainly something going on between the three of you that qualifies as a personal matter. What's even more hard to believe is that at least two of you are skyping about this whole thing early this morning.

Personally, I don't have any problems with you all as admins and what not. It doesn't even bother me that you all don't really even like each other. As up to this point, it didn't appear to me that it affected the wiki. All that matters to me is that you all can work together in a professional matter when it comes to this wiki. I'd like to think that despite your disagreement with the idea. You all could put your personal feelings aside when working on the wiki. In my opinion what you do outside of this wiki doesn't really matter, so long as you can all act respectfully towards each other on the wiki. As well as keep the drama outside this wiki. EternalLocket (talk) 12:45, February 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * If you check my above statements, and even the links I've provided you will find that I had no interest in turning this into a drama show. I did my absolute best to dissuade Gourgeist from doing this but he was utterly convinced that maintaining friendship with hfc2x was more important than the truth. I've addressed before why this transcends personal matters but I shall do so again. If you follow the evidence provided you will see two accounts, one where hfc2x made every indication that personal feelings were interfering with his judgement, and his claim that none of that matters because he never directly said it on the wiki. He is allowing personal feelings to interfere with his role as a bureaucrat and that affects the entire wiki since he is the only one to consider all promotions. If he had told the person that promoted him that he would allow not promote people because he didn't like them, he wouldn't have been promoted. I don't see why he gets some manner of free pass simply because he is already a bureaucrat. Further, I continue to believe that the things he has written/said constitute abuse or at the very least are incredibly improper given his role here.--PrelateZeratul (talk) 16:25, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still evident you're disguising your personal matters as "something that directly affects the wiki". For that reason, the argument is not going to be over any time soon. Still, mixing statements I've made over other site that make you angry with things that directly affect the wiki have no reason to be, as it's been already agreed upon.
 * I don't have any problem with the truth, but you're not being honest here, by continuing an argument that pertains to the two of us, in a personal level, and masquerading it as a whole-community issue. If you really want to discuss this, I'm willing to unblock you from Skype, or even talk over the wiki chat. You know I can be serious and have a serious talk if you ask for it. And you yourself cannot deny it, since you have proof of that, but for obvious convenience, you won't show any screencaps of it. You will only show instances where I insult you, because it's convenient that I get portrayed as the absolute villain here, isn't it?
 * If we're going to talk about honesty, shouldn't we be perfectly honest then? I have no problem to discuss this, and as I said, go with 's solution by demoting the two of us until we can get this sorted out. The bureaucrat rights will go over to (who I didn't want to promote before, because he was already more inactive than I currently am, not because it was me trying to mantain my "position of power" or something).  h fc  2 X  21:05, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

So, from the way I see it, we cannot continue with this. I thought about the situation and analysed the contents of the discussion, but there is one flaw here: The prequisite that PrelateZeratul hosts this discussion. As you can see in the discussion I already brought one reason up: It's giving Hfc2x the disadvantage due to the way the "votes" are handled. I know that it was explicitly asked to be done in the form of an "open discussion", but this looks too much like a poll to me.

If you take a look at this discussion it becomes blatantly clear: This discussion is not about how severe the things which Hfc2x supposedly has done are, neither it is about whether his actions were wrong or not. The whole discussion is about this discussion itself, about figuring out if the evidence is true or not and whether it can be revealed or not. To give an answer to this question: It is NOT allowed to post conversations from third party platforms or paraphrasing them, unless they are intended for public and/or have the permission of all involved parties to be shown. There are 2 reasons for that:

1. Privacy: When accusing someone by using a private conversation, the accused can in most cases only defend himself by posting even more private conversations, sometimes having to show things he would rather not want to show, but has to because it was somehow mixed up in that discussion, or even worse, it's part of the "evidence" the accuser provides. Also it is generally uncomfortable for many to have their private conversations on display at all. And it's escpacially unfair, when someone completely unrelated to the wiki was involved in the "evidence" by chance.

2. Context: When private conversations are used as evidence, they are usually given as either links or screenshots. If it's the latter case, then the evidence becomes questionable, because there is always the possibily that the "unseen" part, which is not on the screenshot, reveals something about the conversation that critically changes the content's meaning.

From all of the above, it should be clear that this cannot be called an "open discussion" we have had here, as we were mainly discussing whether the "proposal" to remove Hfc2x was even valid to begin with. The accusations have to be taken by word by the one who issued them and unless the privacy of the involved users is infracted, it's impossible for the community to verify the legitimacy of the claims.

Due to this I have sent a report to the wikia staff that we need help to resolve this complicated matter, but the reply did not address any of the points and seemed more like something that was automatically generated instead and it does not help, so it seems we are by ourselves for now and I don't know if I am allowed to quote the text that was sent to me here.

Putting that aside, let me get to the main point of this post: As has already been mentioned during the discussion, the situation described by PrelateZeratul can not be perceived as a "problem of the wiki" as none of those things have actually had any effect on the wiki itself (aside from this discussion and its consequences). Also instead of moving away from the "behind the scenes administering" and putting the focus on the wiki, the first thing that is actually brought up to the community in public is this attempt to remove another user from his position, for reasons which can neither be confirmed nor denied, without revealing private conversations of the 3 involved users. The only thing that can actually be confirmed is Hfc2x declaring himself as "semi-active". Everything else can be the truth, a half-truth, or an outright lie. We, the community, have no way to check on it, so there is no way for us to have an open discussion about it in the first place.

On top of that 2 out of 3 users actually went and posted screenshots containing private conversations. While Gourgeist appearantly posted a private conversation, which according to PrelateZeratul, is edited, PrelateZeratul posted his own "correct" screenshots and some other screenshots supposedly proving that Gourgeist has faked his, which means PrelateZeratul posted even more private conversations that do not belong here, instead of simply deleting Gourgeists supposed fake screenshot(s). Gourgeist has already been blocked for 3 months. I think that PrelateZeratul deserves the same treatment, as he used the community's authority as a whole to resolve something that, no matter how I look at it, is a personal conflict and would have never even been noticed by the uninvolved people.

Due to these reasons PrelateZeratul is demoted from his administrator position and is also blocked for 3 months.

As for Hfc2x: He promoted me to Bureaucrat, as I was the only suitible candidate to take the position at the moment, as I am an Admin and also because I was not involved in the mentioned private conversations. He also announced to me that he would retire from his position by himself to take resposibility for this situation (of course I got permission from him to post that).

As for the "second poll", which is supposed to decide if and for how long Hfc2x will be blocked: There will be none, as the only valid accusation against Hfc2x is him declaring himself to be "semi-active", which is not a viable reason for a block.

so since this matter is resolved, this thread is now locked, if someone wants to ask me something about the result, feel free to write on my talk page.

--- NeoSuperior (talk) 08:44, February 26, 2015 (UTC)