Board Thread:Community proposals/@comment-5843134-20180924090059/@comment-24325645-20180924160420

Sabovia wrote: The only claim I was incorrect on, was the "half a day" claim, I acknowledge that, and apologise. But the rest of my claims are factually correct and have not been rebutted &mdash; simply dismissing them is not a rebuttal, a rebuttal requires proof &mdash;. It amazes me, it really does, how you can actually admit to what you've been accused of, or be presented evidence, and just dismiss it as some "personal vendetta" as if that even neglects the tangible evidence already presented.

Like I said, you don't get to decide who's complaint about you is valid, the community does.

You also accused me and Austenasia of coercion, stating that he'll "only appoint me as an admin again", you obviously lack faith and confidence in Austenasia's objectivity, which begs the question of why you appointed him in the first place.

May I remind you, that you actually did block me until being reminded by User:Austenasia that you shouldn't, because it makes you look back. If you have to be reminded not to block people because of their feelings towards you, then you are unfit for the position you currently have. It is good that you acknowledge that by the way, and I accept your apology. I responded to those claims easily in the following thread here. Every action you've committed thus far with all my responses continues to provide further evidence this is just a "personal matter".

And like I said, Wikia will decide if this removal is valid grounds like they did with the others when I requested knowledge pertaining to them. They were all clear harassment, and baseless personal vendettas. Wikia may say the same of this too.

I have not accused anyone of coercion but was merely getting to the point of what you called a "coup" asking, "So, I wonder, is this the 'coup'?" I have high faith in user:Austenasia, and I appointed him again, for the reasons stated above in my previous comments in this thread. It wasn't because of feelings however, it was because he said it's just better to respond than to block on policy-grounds with allegations as serious as this is (or was).