Forum:Indefinite block of Reka12452

Forums: Index → The Impala → Indefinite block of Reka12452

In light of events and conflicts this is a forum of the Indefinite block on user User:Reka12452. I took the initiative to start the topic.

The following list is a list of voting markup choices which should be placed at the beginning of all posts within a nomination section. If you think of a new markup choice which you believe will be useful, add it to the list. the options are from the admin nominations but they work just as well here. Maybe Caleb can alter them to fit the case. --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:35, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Support - a positive vote. Should be well-explained.
Oppose - a negative vote. Should be well-explained.
Neutral - a neutral vote. Should be well-explained.
Comment/Observation/Note - a statement presenting facts or clarifying a disputed fact.
Block but not Indefinite - a negative vote suggesting future support.
Notice of intent - a bureaucrat's notification of an intent to close voting and make a decision on a specified date.
{Decision} - a decision made by a bureaucrat.

~~Oppose~~ - I do not think an infinite block is appropriate for a non-recurring infraction. The user in question has also been editing in good-faith for a while. ~~I also oppose any block at all for the time being, until any evidence of an infraction is brought up.~~ Dtol (talk) 18:40, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
- Block but not indefinite - As the user in question has also been editing in good-faith for a while, I oppose an indefinite block, although due to the cited evidence given by Zane below, Reka's behaviour was extremely childish, inappropriate and should merit a few months or a year-long block. Dtol (talk) 18:43, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Block but not Indefinite - I think a long block is needed. But that a Indefineite one may be to much at this point. I may change my mind on it though depending on what comes out in the talk.--ThomasNealy (talk) 18:42, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to add that as this is the second threat he has made that if it happens again it should be an automatic Indefinite Block. and that the block this time should be no less than one year. --ThomasNealy (talk) 14:40, February 4, 2018 (UTC)
Note - No case has been made as to why Reka should be blocked yet. For any user who chances upon the discussion, it is not even clear what behaviour is being discussed. Thomas, thanks for starting the discussion, but I think we should allow both Zane and Reka to make their cases first before the discussion proceeds further. Cheers. Calebchiam ^Talk 18:45, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I see no reason why this person should be banned. Even if they broke a new policy (and note that it's so new, the page for it is less than 24 hours old and wasn't even properly named), blocking them permanently without any prior blocks is overkill. The reason given also seems flimsy at best, if not outright laughable ("I don't know how close this user lives to me and it is a vague threat, so I am concerned of murderous intent"). -- Orion (T-B-C) 18:53, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I want to add that according to Calebchiam's edit to said policy, it's not even in effect. Though Reka12452 received a warning for it, the policy itself has only been proposed, and is thus not official. Reka12452 effectively received a warning for something that wasn't real. -- Orion (T-B-C) 19:05, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
- Please see this for an explanation of my edit to the policy page. Calebchiam ^Talk 19:11, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
  - Comment - I see it, and it changes nothing regarding what I said. Zane T 69 took unilateral decision in creating a policy, going against normal wiki protocol, then warned a user for the policy he created, and subsequently banned them by claiming he feared for his safety from a user who has no way of knowing where he lives or even what he looks like. At best, this looks like an overzealous admin with an itchy block finger and anxiety issues. At worst, power abuse. -- Orion (T-B-C) 19:33, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
  - Apologies if it was unclear, but I was not rebutting you. I was providing more context to readers. Cheers. Calebchiam ^Talk 19:45, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
  - Comment I would like to point out that the policy such as it is evolved from a discussion several months ago about using the site as an image host. It was decided back then that the images would need to be used on this site not others and that personal images were not allowed. It was also being enforced long before this issue came up. It just never got written down.--ThomasNealy (talk) 19:43, February 3, 2018 (UTC)
    - Not using the Wiki as a personal hosting site has been the practice, yes. But a 24-hour limit to unused images is new, if I'm not mistaken. Calebchiam ^Talk 20:10, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Comment-- Okay, first, explanations. As seen here: [[1]] and Here: [[2]] I thought B-crats could write policy; unlike Admins, that was a genuine mistake that I will correct.

The basis of the infinite block was solely due to the threat to me, which was poorly worded, A ToU violation and in my experience the next level to talk/arguing is violence. I have no knowledge of Reka's skill-set and they could be a talented hacker, finding my location could be all to easy for them. And she does seem quite petty.

Having calmed down some, I am only seeking, at minimum, a one-month block. Reka12452 started out as a well behaved user and was even considered as a Discussion Mod, we got along great until she decided that creatures are all monsters, here: [[3]] She inserted false information in the form of category tags, which I was forced to clean up, and she kept trying to justify and excuse such bad edits. She also considered me categorizing images, which was important and valid work, to be edit harvesting. It was Admin work, that was neglected for years, leaving a huge mess.

As for my warning her about the Images... At the bottom of this: [[4]] section, I had asked her twice about the same thing previous; she has left junk/unused images As previously stated, (first paragraph) I believed that B-Crats could write policy, and the Image Policy greatly needed for this wikis future users, so I warned her.

She childishly responded with insults, as seen in here: [[5]] I worked hard to categorize images, where I also deleted unused duplicates and lower-quality and unused images. Have I sought to have her blocked? Certainly. She is one of the most unpleasant users I have ever had the misfortune of encountering. She just continued, basically throwing a tantrum over the fact that I would dare require her compliance with a rule I thought was valid and law, oh and mocking too. She even ignored the problem, or twisted our words. It depends how you see it. The problem was that the images had been left unused and Thomas believed his work was being undone/made more difficult, so I happily warned her citing a policy and my own past experience with her.

Worst of all? She believed, and seems to still believe that she had nothing wrong. She continually tries painting me as martyr, a bully, and someone obsessed with an edit count. I could get 4000-7000 edits a week if I wanted!

@Orion: As stated above, I was dealing with an unknown and we also live in a sick, twisted world. I firmly believed that I could write Policy due to a misunderstanding. I do not abuse power and anyone can contest/appeal blocks, I have said that several times. I am aware that I am fallible and know that I can and must be challenged and held in check. All someone has to do is find where you live, get a gun and wait until you show your face or fit a profile... and then the theoretically empty threat becomes an action perpetrated.

If I am guilty of a crime, it would be misunderstanding Caleb and misreading a situation. Still, the good I've done far out-weights the bad.

Threatening users, harassing users, and intimidating users is a ToU violation and I acted in what I deemed an appropriate matter. I deemed her/or his, though I find Reka to be feminine, to be threatening. The only reason they weren't blocked previously was because of lenience, which was a huge mistake on my part. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:20, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Hello-

I’m Reka. An infinite block has been imposed on me by Zane for "threatening users, intimidating behavior and harassment."

I enjoy capturing images of episodes and sometimes adding to the Plot sections to accommodate them (“screen-capping”) and have done this for dozens of episodes from seasons 3-5 (my favorites). The way do this is to first load all of the images that i’ve selected to place on the page, then use my sandbox in the editing preview mode to see how the page will look. Sometimes it takes me longer to fiddle with it before i think it’s ready to go live, if you will. This makes it seem to those who may be watching that i have uploaded a ton of photos and just left them there, because i have not actually published the version of the page that i am working with. I do this precisely because I am trying to iron out all possible typos, missing words, etc. before it goes live and thus avoid what ThomasNealy seems to be concerned about - his words: “some people make useless edits or clog the system up with hundreds of small edits on the same page for the only reason of getting a higher edit count”.

My true crime here and what precipitated Zane’s block, i think, is that i did not respond to ThomasNealy’s message board on my talk page re: the uploaded images. In this message, he did not identify himself as anyone who had the authority to do such a thing as delete the images if i didn’t use them in 24 hrs, i knew there was no 24 hr rule, and was not even finished uploading at the time he left the message. I have been away for a while and so had never seen ThomasNealy before. I have been contributing here for quite a while and believe one’s delivery and how one approaches people makes all the difference in the world. If he would have identified himself and maybe asked me if i was planning to use the images soon, that would have been a question that i would have responded to in a reply. What he did instead, in my view, is come out of nowhere with a threat, which i don’t respond well to. So, i ignored him and carried on trying to complete what i started. He did apparently not appreciate that, and started deleting my images (which he has since replaced).

Then Zane jumped on board warning me about new guidelines that did not yet exist and accusing me of edit mining or harvesting, something that i have called him out on, and threats of blockage. We have a bit of history of sparring when i have voiced an opinion with about certain other subjects he has issues with, such as: the edit issue, employing bots to make blanket changes that maybe should’ve been be matters of consensus, pulling admin rank in edit disputes, trigger-finger threatening to block people who’ve made good faith edits, and ‘delivery’ - how users are approached by admins and ordered not to do something without so much as a please or thank you (although on this last point i admit that Zane is not the only one that does it that way)

He has in the past made it clear that he does not like it when i upload images that are not posted on his time table. Again, there was no deadline, and while i may have decided not to place a few images that i honestly forgot about in the past (which were pointed out by Zane and immediately dealt with-evidenced on my talk page) for the most part I have always either used all the images i upload, marked ones i decided not to use for deletion, or actually messaged admins asking them to delete them. No image hosting crimes committed. Anyone who is interested can peruse our communications on my talk page.

You will see that only thing i have said to him that remotely constitutes a threat was that if he tried to block me, i would be taking the matter to another level, meaning Calebchiam. I really don’t think anyone could reasonably believe i was talking about any manner of personal or physical harm. And as far as harassment claims? I don’t even know who he is implying that i ever harassed because he never even says that i harassed *him*. Intimidation? I would like to see what can be produced in the way of proving that.

I was asked to prepare a timeline / sequence of events that led up to my block...that is basically it. This image upload incident that started on Feb.1 that he blocked me as a result of is the only activity i have even had on here in months. I really feel like its just sour grapes. I don’t feel that I have done anything to warrant any block whatsoever, much less an infinite one.

Thanks all for your time,

Reka12452

Comment - for any one wondering this the message he wishes to twist.

Thank You for your upload of images. Please note that all uploaded files must be used on a page. This wiki does not act as a host for images or allow personal images. If the images are not used with in 24 hours, they will be deleted. Thank you for helping to make this wiki a better place. --ThomasNealy (talk) 18:44, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

I have begon deleting your unused uploaded images. Please do not upload images that you have no intention of using. It looks like you were edit harvesting. --ThomasNealy (talk) 19:40, February 2, 2018 (UTC)

I thanked him for his contribution and notified him of what I had thought was policy based off the fact that it had been enforced as such for months. As for identifying myself I did sign the post all he had to do was click, or use common sense and realise that if I was not at least a moderator I would not be able to delete them. I gave you 24 hours and 25 hours later I started deleting them as I said I would. I then waited till each image hit 24 before I deleted it. It took me asking for a warning for you to even respond. a response in which you stated you assumed I was a new admin. I did wait several hours after the first image was uploaded before I posted the message. I really do not like my words being twisted by you for your own bias and slanted view on what happened. By your own words you saw my post and ignored it because you felt like it. Take some response ability for you own mistakes. I re added the images after I saw that you had added them to the sandbox and acted on good faith that they would all be used on a real page once you were done. I did not re add them because I was in the wrong or because I was trying to sooth or appease your ego. And that is the last thing I am saying on here unless asked directly. I will not be drawn in to another toxic debate. --ThomasNealy (talk) 22:52, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Comment-- First of all, Reka. The block was lifted until a consensus could be reached. Yes, you should have replied to Thomas and checked his userpage; user rights are displayed by names, in most cases. No part of what Thomas said could be viewed as a threat. It was a polite suggestion with him seeming to keep his emotion out of it. To say otherwise is an exaggeration. The message in question may be found here: [[6]].

I was asked to give you a warning, and did as requested. As said above, I believed that I did have the ability to write policy as B-Crat, Caleb and I have worked that out and such policies will not be enforced until it actually passes. You wrongly accused me of edit harvesting/mining; I was, and still am, an Administrator and I was working on the Images aspect of the wiki. I deleted personal photos, unused duplicates, and low-quality duplicates. Further more, you wrongly categorized images and didn't deny it. Proof [[7]] I actually gave you a warning there, so you at least deserve a three day block.

I admit, I used the "I'm an Admin" card one or twice. I admit, I can be considered rude, blunt, or coldly detached. The edit issue? If you mean you wrongly categorizing photos and unilaterally deciding that creatures are monsters and that everyone else can deal it; then yes, I object to that. I don't use a bot, I don't know how to use a bot, and as further evidence to prevent potential slander: [[8]] and: [[9]]. I have improved and I'm much kinder, and I word my warnings in a much friendlier way now.

I haven't previously objected on a timeline basis. I admit, I wanted unused photos deleted because I didn't want to add to my then intended future work, which Thomas has taken over.

Also, I have previously conceeded that I misunderstood, but also stated that your skill-set is unknown to me and you could have the skill and means to locate and murder out of pettiness or spite. The threat was intimidating in that I considered it a threat to my life. Why would anyone phrase what is tantamount to going to the principal as "go to another level?" It was vague to the point it could be considered a threat. I've had people pull a knife on me and say "let's take it to the next level" and while a teacher stopped it and he was expelled, it stuck with me. Your words implied escalating a situation, a situation that was harsh words and it was the vagueness of the believed threat that caused the concern.

And you have harassed me and now a Content Mod, ignored justified warnings, and responded with childish defiance. You never admit fault and it is never your fault. Even with my own fault in wrongly interpreting your poor choice of wording for going to Caleb, and my own misunderstanding of my new B-Crat abilities, you still deserve a month long block at minimum for your appalling and anarchic behavior. Your combined offense, ignoring warnings, and generally replying to a kind warning with a tantrum.

For everyone's benefit, here is the warning issued to her: [[10]]

I had previous issues with her and believed that I could make Policy and acted under that belief, due to those previous issues, I gave her kind albeit stern warning. As it stands, I consider not blocking Reka after her falsely categorizing Creature images to be my biggest mistake, and my second biggest is showing someone who outright lies and twists things in what's basically their trial leniency. My third is thinking that she had grown up and would understand that I was doing my duty as an Admin/B-crat.

At this time, I'll focus on refuting further exaggerations and lies. And answering questions, of course. Zane T 69 (talk) 23:49, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Also, this was pointed out to me: "Since the being in debate is in fact - a monster - your 'warning' is null. so if you go all admin on me and pull your blocking thing, we will meet in a different forum. Reka12452 (talk) 00:08, December 19, 2016 (UTC)" Potential threat in bold.

The source: [[11]] That was yet another veiled threat previously made by her. This should add to the reasons that she should be blocked for a month at minimum, or at most infinite or two years. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:13, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I was asked to add this after I mentioned it to Zane.

If someone told me they would meet me in a different forum like that, I would expect someone holding gun outside my house. I used to do tech support for Verizon and I got threats like that all the time. We were required to report it to the FBI if it was cross state or state police if it was in state. they never messed around with threats no matter how vague or seemingly harmless they were. --ThomasNealy (talk) 00:18, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

I think that any reasonable person that reads that last citation in particular will recognize it as an instant where i made a joke, albeit a snide one, that you did not get, and then ran with the notion that it was a serious proposition that i carried out, which I did not. There was a discussion going on at the time about the creature/monster issue and i think that i said my piece in that discussion. If in fact you had grounds to ban me at that time, surely you would have done it. But luckily, cooler heads prevailed.

I don't how you and ThomasNealy can seriously come at me with the "exaggeration and lies" claims when that is exactly what you two are doing. Anybody who reads my talk page that has not already taken your side will be able to discern the truth, if they care to do so. Reka12452

My last comment was directed at Zane's citation number #11. I have no comment about the stuff that ThomasNealy has now posted about threats. Reka12452

Comment- We have cited credible evidence to support our claims, you have not. But by all means, continue. I'm liking how this is going. Zane T 69 (talk) 00:55, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything other than the point that you have blown this way out of proportion, which you have actually very done well in supporting for me. So, I actually like the way it is going as well. Reka12452

Comment - Wait, this discussion is too damn long and I have a headache so please correct me, but did this mess began because of... images that haven't been used within 24 hours...? Touchinos (talk) 02:21, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

The big issue is the vague threats directed my way, twice. Once recent, and once two years ago. I infinite banned Reka because I was threatened and was concerned that I would be found and murdered. Reading my first and second posts only would help greatly, i cited evidence. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:30, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Support - I support Zane on this subject on the infinite block.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 02:37, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - Some last comments from me (i hope) about this: The fact is that I have placed every single image that I uploaded starting Feb. 2 on the Point of No Return page and it was always my intention to do so, i just didn’t get it done quickly enough. I have not “left junk and unused files.”

The creature/monster issue that has been repeatedly mentioned is honestly ancient history as far as i’m concerned. I abandoned the debate a long time ago because it became quite tedious and counterproductive to me and have not even visited the page or categorized any creature monster since. The response to the regrettable JOKE I made about the creature category being irrelevant was responded to by Zane with an immediate accusation of vandalism that he often spouts, but is something which simply did not occur.

Re: Threats - I believe I had a natural reaction: i’m having a low-level conflict with an admin, and he ”threatens” me with blockage because he feels he can. My reaction is to say you can’t block me over this, and “threaten” to take it to the next level if he does. My saying that to him was the reason he backed off from it a year or so ago, not because he was being “lenient” as he is fond of saying. So, fast forward to this week, and he shows up again with renewed “threats” of blockage over the images. This time, should I have actually written out the sentence. “If you block me, I am going to go tell Calebchiam on you!” ?? I guess I should have, because if had, we would not be wasting time on this ridiculous question of whether or not I threatened Zane’s safety. But, I erred and said it in what i thought was a slightly more grown-up voice, maybe because it felt a little less like two children running to daddy to settle a fight, which it basically was.

I don't believe that Zane honestly feels physically threatened by me, but it was an avenue for him to take to try get me banned, because through all the false allegations of vandalism and misuse of images, he had no grounds to accomplish it. We don’t like each other, this is obvious. And he’d love to see me gone, also obvious. But, the suggestion that I am some psycho, inclined to set out into the world on a mission to seek out and assault someone because of a spat over the a TV show fan site, is ludacris. Here, I have been called petty, childish, most unpleasant...i don’t agree, but that’s fine; I am a big girl and i’ll take it. But even if people think that about me, those are not blockable offenses. I will continue to fight back if i feel i am being bullied. There are several instances where Zane has sprinkled lies and presented distorted me to individuals on the wikia which speaks to his character, but one’s personality should not be the issue when we are talking about reasons to block people from participating on the wikia. Reka12452 (talk) 20:56, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Comment-- Yes, you placed every image you used, and didn't leave junk. You did commit vandalism when you wrongly labeled a category, and it did happen, and your continued denial of it makes you liar.

My "threat" was stating the consequence of your rule-breaking; at that time I believed that I could write and implement policy. I was mistaken and Caleb has agreed and my writing of two policies helped him understand that, and I wrote one before you edited again: on December 9th, 2017. So unless you're saying that I can see the future and plotted your downfall with said (non-existent) powers, you can quit implying and saying abuse of power. My so-called backing off went on for over an hour, and you backed off. Proof:

[[12]] Specifically, this comment: Carry on with what you feel is best for SPN and the wikia, Zane.Reka12452 (talk) 01:37, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that I backed off and left you alone is false and you never tried breaking said rule again. Also, threat or poor choice of words, it did cause concern. While i'm not "physically threatened," (I can fight decently and carry weapons) all it takes is one lucky shot from an unknown person. In the real-world, you would be reported to law-enforcement and I'm fairly certain Wikia would global block you. The perceived threat was the chief reason for the infinite block.

I actually use to like, trust, and had a great deal of respect for you, until you lost it all. Once, again. Anyone can verify your vandalism and it did happen and people need merely look; your continued lying is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

You have provided NO links or evidence of my so-called lies and distorted views. On the contrary, I have provided evidence and links for everyone's benefit and everyone is beginning to see your true nature and post accordingly. Everyone can view our talkpages and view our edit histories, you are fooling no-one with your lies, and that is exactly what you are doing. If I have lied, then tell me what I have lied about. I haven't lied because I know better than to do so on wikis, evidence is left and cannot be erased. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:49, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

Any changes i made to creature categories i made because i believed fundamentally that’s how they should have been categorized and argued reasons for that during the debate on the monster page. If i make a change fully believing it to be the right call, and someone else disagrees with that call, that does NOT raise my categorization to the level of vandalism. The term vandalism is when someone makes edits placing clear, blatant, foul, unrelated, offensive elements on a page, NOT when someone categorizes something according to their understanding of the nuances between creatures and monsters! And since I don’t believe it is vandalism, denying that I committed vandalism does not make me a liar, no matter how long and how loud you say it. Your use of the term vandalism here is way distorted, whether or not you realize it, and it does NOT apply to anything that i did.

Lies and distortions example? How about your messages to WarGrowlmon and to Calebchiam on May 3, 2017, trying to get them on board against me. You tell WarGrowlon that I flooded Recent Changes with categorizations when in fact on that May 3 *you* were doing all the categorizing, and on May 2, we were both doing it, as is evidenced by reviewing both of our activity logs on that day: [Zane's] v. [Reka's].

Sneaky little things like that is what I’m referring to when i say lies and distortions. I didn’t really wanna go there, partly because it is a colossal waste of my time, but mostly because pointing out your personality flaws to defend myself has little to do with the reasons of threatening and harassing users which is the ONLY reason you state for blocking me, not just the chief reason among many as you’re now claiming. All of these other issues that you’ve been stewing about are being used to try and flesh out your position, but are really irrelevant to that fact.Reka12452 (talk) 13:35, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

First of all, your posts to the Monster talkpage, which people can view here:[[13]] were made a full month before you took unilateral action and declared them Creatures, and consensus wasn't reached before you did that. Furthermore, you were wrongly placing images in the wrong image category. The point made here:[[14]] still stands. You deciding something, unilaterally, and then changing the wiki to reflect your whims is as much vandalism as people saying SPN God is straight is, and you didn't do it out if ignorance either; you very rudely held your position. If you want to call it "Inserting False information" instead, that's still grounds for a block.

Looking back through our edits, we both categorized Images that day, and you categorized far more. And hours before, and enough to cause wiki activity to glitch again; which nullified any damage I could have done [[15]] To view, go to page; click the 500 to view 500 most recent edits, and type: CTRL+F: May 3, 2017.

For me: [[16]] That should display my much smaller amount of Image categorization. I categorized 33-37 at most and those were likely recent uploads from another user. By that time, any damage I could have done was non-existent, wiki activity was already glitching; most likely. As an Admin, I try to keep newly uploaded images categorized to make finding duplicates and such easier, which you complain about; a lot. It's one of several small duties I took up to help the wiki in whatever way I could.

On May 2, I categorized 10-14 Images. And you did roughly the same number, again, I generally categorized others images because they didn't. And not many have proven trustworthy enough to correctly categorize them.

Once more, you lie in saying that I was doing all of the categorizing that day and since you looked and cited our activity logs... This is yet more proof of lies from you.

Yes, I looked into the possibility of you misbehaving and I seem to vaguely recall deleting several unused photos uploaded by you, but not well enough to say so as a matter of fact.

You are clearly going to keep lying and twisting things and going to be exposed repeatedly, so I will just let others vote on whether or not you get blocked and for how long you do. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:00, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I concur with Reka12452, it does sound like Zane T 69 has a personal issue with her and is trying to find any excuse he can to get rid of her. Whether that personal issue is justified is another matter altogether, but the fact that he went straight for an infinite block when other users have done much, much worse as a first edit and only received temporary ones definitely shows some bias. -- Orion (T-B-C) 15:28, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Neutral - To be honest, I don't care. I'm over it. This discussion is literally going nowhere. I agree with Orion so if you two have a problem with each other then please solve it privately. Don't drag the wiki into your business. Touchinos (talk) 15:51, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Comment- Honestly, Orion, blocking a new user who is inexperienced, unaware of rules, and the manual of style for an indefinite duration would be an abuse of power. Now, I know you were dismissive of my concern for my life, which was the chief reason for the infinite block, but I hope you aren't letting my opposition to your RFA affect your judgement in this matter. If you can't let slights, perceived or otherwise, stay in the past then my opposition to your RFA was even more justified. The mere idea of handing out infinite bans for a first time mistake, unless it breaks the ToU, is yet more proof that you should not be an Admin. I hope you will read over what she's said and my rebuttal, because I have continually disproven all that she has said.

Reka despises me for doing what's basically an unpaid job/volunteer work, and me holding her accountable to the rules only pushes her to use lies and slander, which I disprove and expose her as a liar with. She has a history of ignoring rules, consensus, admin authority, attempting to twist things to her benefit, and making wild exaggerations. She's angry that I categorize images so that they can found easier, and repeatedly insults me and throws tantrums over it. Categorizing images and deleting duplicates if unused or low quality is a worthwhile contribution to this wiki.

People agreeing that she should be blocked isn't because of my (non-existent) charming personality. The infinite ban, as I have said at least four times, was due to the perceived threat and threats being forbidden under Wikia's Terms of Use. I have consistently exposed Reka for the liar that she is, and unlike her, I cited evidence to prove. So, unless you just haven't been following and reading to make informed evaluations of the matter, I can only assume that you are biased against me and that nothing I say will change that.

@Touchinos: I'm sorry that you have been caught up in another unpleasant matter on wiki matters, but the wiki was already drug into it, I won't and can't force you to be involve though. I am sorry though. Reka is mainly typing up lies and getting them disproved, it shouldn't go on much longer. She already has three people against her and no-one supporting her due to her actions. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:20, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I reiterate what I said before: at best, this sounds like an admin with an itchy block finger and anxiety issues. Now, instead of simply accepting that I'm disagreeing with you on the basis that I disagree with you, you're bringing up my RfA, which, had its failure concerned me, would have probably led me to edit a lot less on the wiki, as opposed to making several fixes throughout all its articles. This is paranoid behavior, further supported by your claims that you believed she was threatening your life. I do not believe anyone who commented here believes those statements to be death threats.

If you feel the threats were real, report Reka12452 to Wikia. Death threats are taken very seriously by Wikia. This is something Wikia should be handling, if those threats are real. It's not something to be decided by you, or me, or anyone else. Wiki-specific blocks should be for vandalism and such. Death threats and cross-wiki vandalism are cause for Fandom-wide blocks.

In my opinion, Reka12452's conduct on this wiki is not cause for a permanent block, or even a temporary one. At least not now. If this had been about her taking unilateral decisions about categories, I might've supported you, but that time has passed. Right now, all she's guilty of is triggering your paranoia, which is not cause for anything except you seeing a counselor. To reiterate: if you feel she threatened your life, report her to Wikia. Hell, report her to the cops. It's their job to take death threats seriously.

I also want to point out that if she really did mean harm, blocking her is completely and utterly useless. It serves no purpose to protect you IRL, and you know that. So, again, I think you're just trying to get rid of her, and grasping at straws to do so.

Orion (T-B-C) 16:31, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Comment-- I do not have anxiety issues and I have a healthy level of paranoia, I only told a few family members about the perceived threat and made sure that the unlikely event of me being murdered could be by someone I infinite blocked. I cited evidence, and I didn't do so because I think it's huge fun, evidence, that based on your comment I thought you ignored or disregarded. It was for that reason I deduced bias due to your RFA. I did truly care for my life, I have dreams I wish to fulfill and refused to let someone who could be unstable prevent me from achieving them, and if they did, I wanted them punished.

I talked with [Sannse] on Community Centrals chat, and you can find a copy and pasted version of our conversation here; [link] She agrees with Caleb's assessment of it not being a threat. I think that proves that I was concerned for my life, we do live in a bad world, after all.

Still, others believe that Reka should still be issued a block and I feel that we should open the forum to suggestions and other opinions on the matter. Even if those opinions are no block, I will not pursue an infinite block/ban from this point onward, but people seem to believe that she should be punished for other past actions and behavior, and I agree. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:09, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with banning her for something she did before (over a year ago, in fact) when the dispute is about something she did now. Back then, you already said (or at least implied, given that this incident took place over a year ago) that you weren't going to ban her, and that was the end of it. To ban her for something that happened a year ago, long after the matter was resolved, sets a bad precedent, and, again, just looks like you're trying to use any excuse to ban her. -- Orion (T-B-C) 17:34, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a King or Tyrant, so I can't exactly over-rule three other people. They can change their minds if they want, but I can't over-rule them on a whim. It's out of my hands now. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:44, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Which doesn't mean you're not trying to get her banned by any means necessary. You started this over allegedly perceived death threats. When that was resolved, you brought up events from over a year ago - events that had also been resolved over a year ago. Regardless of the outcome, it will not change my view on your actions. -- Orion (T-B-C) 17:48, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

I do feel that she should be blocked and I regret not punishing her for her past offenses when occurred, as such, I'm thankful that there is no known "Statute of Limitations" for offenses. I would accept no punishment, of course, but I hope she gets a year and I won't deny that. The fact remains, I can't over-rule three others on matters of consensus, I know you disagree with consensus and believe Admins should be able to do so, but I don't and I believe that people with our powers should be held accountable and in-check. I won't waste anymore time with you, we are just loading the page further and preventing new people from getting involved. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:06, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Trying to undermine my argument with ad hominem and misrepresenting my argument? Not surprised. There is actually a statute of limitations for offenses. It's called "when the offense is dealt with". You didn't block her back then and made no effort to do so. The matter was resolved. To block her now serves no purpose except to, y'know, block her, because you want her to be blocked. -- Orion (T-B-C) 18:14, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I'm unfollowing this and getting out of here because this feels to me more like bickering between young children than a forum discussion. I won't be around to see if anyone replies to this message because I am unfollowing this as I post because I have had enough of this.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 18:37, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Honestly, what a mess. I could barely reach half this discussion because it felt repetitive and it's apparent that this is merely a conflict that was blown out of proportion. This wiki always had new users unaware of policies, much less new policies put forward by a lone admin, and while it takes extra work, part of an admin's duty is to educate these new users to avoid them repeating the same mistakes. Respect begets respect. We have talk pages for a reason to discuss what you think are major changes to the wiki, or why you think a user is being unnecessarily abrasive/abusive. Be civil in your approaches and discussion. This isn't a contest on who gets most edits or whatever. I can see valid arguments on both sides but I can also see that emotions have already run high and gotten the best out of the users involved. From my experience, blocking users indefinitely require far more serious offenses than what I've read. Like WarGrowlmon18, I see this as roughly 80% bickering that magnified what could have easily been fixed before things blew up. FTWinchester (talk) 02:36, February 18, 2018 (UTC)