D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Aarnott2

Aarnott2

Aarnott's Nomination. Failed.

---

Voice your opinion (0/4/1) 0% Approval; Ended 17:00, 27 November 2009 (MDT)

Candidates Prelude

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list on Wikipedia before answering.

2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

General comments

---

Discussion

Support

Oppose

• Oppose — Although I ended up unbanning myself this user lost control and banned the person in charge of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 16:48, 20 November 2009 (MST)

I just so happened to come by here again (looking for a terrible old optimized build I had made) to see this page linked from the Main page. I think it would probably be worthwhile if I clarified my reasoning behind my actions; if only for posterity. It is an unfair accusation to say that I lost control: my actions were deliberate and most importantly, rational. Here is how it played out from my point of view:

• A large majority of the active user base were discussing implementation of a site-wide rating system. This would allow us to have more control on highlighting the highest quality articles and putting the worse ones in a position where they can be improved. This group of people (myself included although not nearly as actively) were very excited about this project to improve the website.
• The proposal went through months of active discussion over how to best implement it.
• A final workable idea sat on your talk page for around 3 weeks.
• A user decided to start implementing the framework for this rating system.
• You deleted the framework.
• He asked (paraphrased) "Why did you delete that?". It was probably phrased a bit abrasively knowing the user, but it was a perfectly legitimate question.
• You banned him and made some response that was difficult to decipher.
• Another user, whom I consider to be both an excellent homebrewer as well as a calm, reasonable person, asked (paraphrased again) "Why did you ban him?". Her question was definitely not worded in an abrasive way and was, in fact, very diplomatic.
• You banned her and made another response that was difficult to understand.
• I saw this activity and entered the chat client to see what was going on. I assumed that the bans had something to do with activity in there because your actions made no sense. Nope, you weren't in the tavern, and you hadn't been in there.
• I realized at this point there were two possibilities: either you had lost control and gone on some power trip or someone had hacked your account somehow (which I honestly believed to be more likely at the time given our history before this).
• I made the decision that by banning you and making an appropriate ban message, I could solve both problems at once. I would stop a hacker from doing any serious damage and I would email you to let you know that your account had been hacked. Otherwise, I could send you a message (which would be in the reason for banning, which you would certainly read) asking you to cool down and come back after you had cleared your head (I knew full well you had database access). If I attempted to post this message on your talk page, I risked the hacker banning me as well, so this solution seemed to be the best one.

I hope that my explanation at least vindicates my actions somewhat. Admittedly, I may have been better off not acting so quickly and let the situation play out more. I'm not sure though. If your password had been stolen, some serious damage could have been done to the site. I was acting in the best interest of the community and that is the job I signed up to do when I became an admin. I don't think I lost control.

I think that is the big misunderstanding all of the active users at that time had with you. We were under the impression that this wiki was a community project like any other wiki is. What it actually is, is a private website that so happens to have media wiki on it. It was a big misunderstanding. We wanted a place where we could create the best D&D homebrew environment possible and have the community decide the best way to do that. It would have been helpful to know that this website is not that.

Have I done some immature things since these events took place? Certainly. I am still upset about the misunderstanding. I devoted a lot of my time and energy to this wiki. All of the stupid stuff I did afterward had to do with Hooper, however.

I have already emailed this information to you before privately and I thought we were on good terms. You choice of words prompted me to reply publicly. I'm not sure why you would want to demonize me; it doesn't really matter. I just hope this stops any future bridges from being burned with other people I may run into in the future. I really don't like burning bridges.

If anyone replies to this, please use the MoI tool to message me. I don't use this wiki anymore except on rare circumstances where I want to look up some old junk I wrote. --Aarnott 12:49, 3 December 2009 (MST)

On all blocks please look at the main reason (current and/or logical reason). Aka 21:09, 25 August 2009 "Edit war on FA main" for Surgo instead of say 21:34, 9 August 2009 "Unacceptable username: Please email me if you are confused about this at all." (unblock at 22:50, 11 August 2009). Please refer to the reasons on Special:Ipblocklist and the block log if needed.

Sure, if that is how you look at it. D&D Wiki, as always, fulfils the to "create the best D&D homebrew environment possible". A democracy is not needed for that; as you should know. This is not a democracy. Stated on wikipedia's policies and seen how by how this is run. Votes are only used when implemented or agreed on by me; although they are used.

As I said countless times the system some people wanted to implement was riddled with failure and would decrease D&D Wiki as a whole; you need to learn to listen and read what others post. Having a large base of people wanting the same thing does not make it more logical or helpful.

"made some response that was difficult to decipher" "and made another response that was difficult to understand." normally should mean to your brain to decipher it — reasons can be complicated. The world is not black and white.

The tavern had, as always, no say in anything on D&D Wiki in any form. You should have known that as an admin.

I never spammed an edit. Please post the edits I did which are in question which you are refering to: I can already tell you you are wrong. If you cannot understand an edit of mine then do not respond as such. I would like to reference the above again ""made some response that was difficult to decipher" "and made another response that was difficult to understand." normally should mean to your brain to decipher it — reasons can be complicated. The world is not black and white." Stupidity should never win; both in this instance and in the "Rating Committee" instances. Also as a rule of thumb.

"If you cannot understand an edit of mine then do not respond as such." should be noted. --Green Dragon 16:12, 3 December 2009 (MST)

Thanks for your reply Green Dragon. I would like to preface this response by saying that what I write is my opinion and I would appreciate it if you would forgo the banhammer until this discussion is resolved (even if what I say is upsetting). I will attempt to avoid being derogatory, but I cannot promise that I won't be accusatory. This is my perspective on a rather difficult situation after all.

Your reasoning concerning the block log is fair enough (although I don't see how Sulacu's ban was considered intimidating behaviour/harassment). That being said, at the time, you did not provide a good reason and from my perspective, that meant your actions could have been from a hacker. Sure, you have updated the reasons now, but it really didn't make sense then.

I also agree that a democracy is not needed to have a successful wiki. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is also not a dictatorship. Dictatorships are fine and all but you should have been up front about that. Wikipedia operates as a community project. Yes, it is not a democracy, but I can certainly tell you that there is not a single person that says "my way or the highway". Keep in mind that my actions were under the assumption that this website ran under the same principles as wikipedia. It doesn't.

I also agree that when a large majority of people say something is a good idea, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. However, when a large majority of active users and admins (the people who run the community) think that something is a good idea, then it would benefit the community to give it a try. We disagreed with your reasons for why it wouldn't work. It was a matter of the opinions of the site owner against the opinions of the majority of the active community. A community driven website would have sided with the community.

I again agree that the Tavern had no bearing of the goings on of the actual wiki decisions. I never said that. The only thing I mentioned about the Tavern is that I went in there to see if you had a more rational reason for banning them. I wouldn't have agreed completely with banning based on activities in the Tavern, but at least I would have understood your rationale.

Now I don't know why you think I accused you of spamming an edit. First off, what is "spamming an edit" mean? I really am doing my best to try to understand what you wrote, but a (nearly completed) degree in English just doesn't seem to be enough. What I did say is that I am upset that you would accuse me of losing control and going wild with my admin rights. I also said that I thought were were on good terms considering that we resolved this properly through email, so I didn't understand your motives for attacking my character.

Concerning my lack of understanding with your edits, I really don't think that is my fault. I work as a technical writer. I understand the importance of clarity when I write, but I also spend a lot of my time fixing work that is unclear. When I run across something I cannot understand at all, odds are, nobody else can understand it besides the actual writer.

To sum up my stance: my actions were reasonable considering my misunderstanding of how this wiki is run as well as the lack of communication on your part concerning your reasoning for banning users. --Aarnott 17:32, 3 December 2009 (MST)

Actually there is a person named Jimmy Wales. Ever heard of him?

And D&D Wiki is not a dictatorship either. As it is not a democracy it is not a dictatorship. There are many an instance where, although I may disagree fullheartedly, that does happen. I am person where, although I may disagree, I will still allow it to happen (the logo cannot be changed by any front-end way) if more logical or so (depending). The logo (the thing in the upper left hand corner) is a prime example. Please see the related discussions and vote, and my votes.

The small group of people related to the strange system are not "majority" to note. I agree people are important, however sometimes other things take precedents. The Tavern, it its current state, is a prime example. Although many people complain about it not being up-and-running (people) logic (immaturity) and money (depending) think otherwise. Do you finally understand?

"I went in there to see if you had a more rational reason for banning them." if it has no bearing on D&D Wiki then why would what I say their do anything as such?

"spamming an edit" since "spam" is not English it can be used for understanding. Spamming (the act of spaming something — the edit; to the best of my knowledge).

I write in English. If you cannot understand my English then maybe a different line of work would be more suited.

It is never acceptable to ban me. If my account was hacked then email me. I can change the password back-end (to note, and very important: although I can change ones password (myself referenced before) ones password is encrypted and scrambled with an algorithm so people with back-end privileges cannot see it — just change it). Rolling back edits (&bot=1) is easier then anything. You as an admin in that time should know that. --Green Dragon 18:18, 3 December 2009 (MST)

It should be noted that this "months of discussion on a site-wide rating system" was not held between as many users as some thing. A lot of those talks were held in the Tavern, and not all users were privy to them. However, much discussion was held on wiki side and can still be found for those looking for it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:38, 3 December 2009 (MST)

Tavern talk is unrelated to any proceeding on D&D Wiki. Actually were was this discussed? I would like links to all talk on the recent changes committee. Also, again again to note no one said anything to:

"Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --Green Dragon 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)"

You need to answer things not skirt around the topic, if I remember correctly. --Green Dragon 18:46, 3 December 2009 (MST)

Jimmy Wales used to be a dictator, but that wasn't useful for a community project. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation. I think this argument is going to go back and forth because we differ in our opinions, so I am going to make my last point and leave it here: when a single person has the power to veto anything and then exercises that power, they are a dictator. Just because you happen to let some issues slide doesn't take away your status as dictator.

"The small group of people related to the strange system are not "majority" to note". I will argue the 90/10 rule here. 10% of the users are responsible for 90% of the activity. This rule is true for almost any active wiki. The users that were in favor of the rating committee were a large portion of that 10%. They represented 90% of the wiki activity. It is my belief that a good community values the decisions of its active members. I understand that you believe differently, so we can also leave this point aside since it will also just go back and forth.

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "spamming an edit". I don't think I accused you of doing it though seeing as I have no idea what it even means. Your explanation has just confused me further. Seriously. This quotation just doesn't make sense:

“	"spamming an edit" since "spam" is not English it can be used for understanding. Spamming (the act of spaming something — the edit; to the best of my knowledge).	”
—Green Dragon

I banned you in order to avoid a hacker causing damage. I assumed more damage can be done than just messing up pages by a user with bureaucrat access. Immediate action seemed both necessary and justified.

Just to briefly respond to Hooper, I barely went in the Tavern. I went in there maybe once a month -- feel free to scour the logs to check that claim. The discussion that went on for months did happen outside of the tavern for most of what I was involved in I believe.

Anyways, I think this discussion has derailed significantly from its initial purpose and that's all I was really interested in responding to. Unless anyone has any further questions about why I decided to ban Green Dragon, I don't have anything else to say. --Aarnott 19:58, 3 December 2009 (MST)

Talk:RC:Nominations

As of 20:36, 3 December 2009 (MST)

• Surgo — 3639
• Lord Dhazriel — 4601
• Rithaniel — 2643
• TK-Squared — 1631
• Jota — 2815
• Ganteka — 2743
• Daniel Draco — 1883
• Dragon Child — 385
• Sam Kay — 9831

Totalling: 30,171

Total as of as of 20:36, 3 December 2009 (MST): 409,040

<math>\tfrac{30171}{409 040}*100=7.3760512</math> That's not 90% of the activity; that's 7%. Do the math or be quiet.

That's barely over half of my edits alone. Why should ones aforementioned, a self-appointed committee of oversight, be in any shape in charge?

"Spamming" ("Spam") is not English; do I need to make that simpler? I don't know if I can...

You never ban me. You should know that. Every admin knows that. You're in the wrong. --Green Dragon 20:36, 3 December 2009 (MST)

Not to question you, Green dragon, but there are a lot more than 90 people on the wiki. If you were to look at the User list there are something close to 4000 registered users. Now clearly some of these users are not active, so we should ignore them. However, I also happen to know that of the group I DM, 9 out of 9 of us (used to) use the wiki, and I am the only one with a registered account. So while 4000 may not be an accurate reflection of the true user base, I can't think of a better way to get one. Taking this into consideration you need to add about 31 more users to the list of contributers up there(10% of 4,000 is 40 users). You only have 9, you need 40 total. Furthermore, I notice a distinct lack of names that should be included (namely, yours with it's >50,000 edits). You forget, Aarnott's point was that 10% of the user base does 90% of the work, which has no bearing on who ended up where after the "schism". Considering this, I think Aarnott's 10% doing 90% is probably close to correct[(30,171+50000+the next 30 highest contributers)/409,040]. Whether of that 10% more than half were in favor of the rating committee I cannot say. Just some food for thought. --Badger 01:54, 5 December 2009 (MST)

I beg your pardon, it is late and my math is horribly wrong. The numbers provided in my previous comment are for 1% contributing 90% to the wiki, not 10%. There should be 400 names on that list, not 40. You need to add another 391 names to the list, not 31. Once again, I beg forgiveness for my previous mathematical error. --Badger 02:21, 5 December 2009 (MST)

Wrong on all accounts. I am discussing edit counts relating to edits as a whole per users related not how much of the whole userbase they represent. Those users above are those who were self-appointed onto the "Rating Committee" (do you see that link above?). There is no discussion about support or non-support for such a committee, it was just implemented by those people for themselves. As a percentage of users of the whole userbase they are of a nominal value. Do you understand? --Green Dragon 14:05, 5 December 2009 (MST)

I don't believe my math is incorrect. Clearly, as owner of the wiki you probably have access to data I haven't got (number of active users, editing users, unique page hits per day, etc), but going on the data I have, my math is correct. If you are to check the top 400 contributers I think you will find they make up 90% of the contributions. Using a list I compiled in about 2 minutes I have determined that about 22 users make up 113,097 of the 409,040 edits. You'll notice at this point I've not discussed the rating committee at all, but rather the top contributers to the site. The next logical step is to examine the top 400 contributers(or, should you choose, the entire user base. I feel however that the top 400 users would be an accurate slice of the user base) and assess whether they would like a new rating system. Following this, the next logical step is to elect a committee to be the rating board. Clearly the board should come from a diverse section of the wiki, each with enough knowledge to make informed decisions. While the link you provided above is no longer working (it would appear you deleted it, on the presumed grounds of it being illogical or unreasonable.) I will assume that the 9 names you provided are the self-appointed committee. Clearly you did not like the committee selection, and as owner of the site logically you should have some say in the matter, but I personally don't feel enough discussion took place before the page and rating template were deleted. Nevertheless, bygones are bygones. What is done is done, and I make no effort to change the past. The owner of the site has spoken. Those who didn't like your ruling, however logical you feel it was, left. What I want to defend here is my math. Math is logical. Finally, if you were not discussing what percent of the whole those nine users represent why did you write this:

“

Insert the text of the quote here, without quotation marks.

”

Why would someone not talking about "how much of the whole userbase they represent" use words like "Total", or do math showing the combination of their edits over the total edits to date. As a logical and reasonable you must know that some portion divided by the whole will provide a percentage, or more simply "how much of the whole userbase they represent". Or am I misunderstanding your meaning? I would be more than willing to redo my math if you want to provide me with more accurate data.

Respectfully yours, Badger 14:33, 5 December 2009 (MST)

"of the activity" not "of the userbase". Do you understand now? --Green Dragon 15:12, 5 December 2009 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Clearly 9 people don't represent 90% of the activity of a 4000 person wiki. However, 9 people might represent the opinions of 4000 people. I point out that 100 senators (and 435 representatives)represent the views of 304,059,724 Americans. Also, sorry if I was suppose to revert the indent, I always forget if it's the 13th colon, or after the 13th colon. --Badger 15:21, 5 December 2009 (MST)

Strawman Argument is all this amounts to. Lets move on to actual editing.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:49, 5 December 2009 (MST)

Right. Those people above amount to 7% of the wiki activity; not 90%. Does this finally make sense to you now? Although voting represents the consensus of the community; there is no D&D Wiki parliament and no need (votes and vote!). 9 people do and will not (although that was not their goal — just for discussions sake). Although, to note, voting does not decide all issues.

Unlike some countries where one votes for a person to vote for them D&D Wiki is a free pure democracy when it comes to issues which can or need to be solved with a vote — each user has the same say as another and all can post their opinions if desired. --Green Dragon 16:01, 5 December 2009 (MST)

Ok, last thought on this page for me (I hope). Those 9 names account for 7% of the edit activity, however they don't correspond to 10% of the wiki's users. They are .2% of the wiki, they should correspond to 1.8% of the wiki's edits. As you mentioned, they account for 7%. Clearly their opinions should be discussed and valued. From what I understand the idea for a rating community sat on your talk page for 3 weeks, without a word from you (understandable, you're a busy guy with stuff to do, and I recall hearing you were on vacation [hope it was nice], or maybe you did comment and I missed it). They then made a template on how they plan to rate things. Discussion and voting on the system should have occurred there prior to implementing the system. from what I saw, the system was never implemented, and was deleted without discussion. Personally, that attitude (the asking you, then coming to the community for their opinions, then agreeing on a system) is exactly the sort of mentality and initiative I would like from an Administrator.(Personally, I'd overlook the entire break-up process, because there were certainly faults on both sides, and he clearly wants to make amends), but it's all moot now, as he didn't get the admin spot. Whatever, time to move on.--Badger 16:17, 5 December 2009 (MST)

Their thoughts started with a new system for rating classes. I commented on that and each and every one of them evaded the logical responses to push their idea forward. That is not done on D&D Wiki. Again:

"Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --Green Dragon 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)" going into how the main system in place is the Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles and no other (logically). Each person can review with that, etc etc. It makes more sense in that time period.

Or later: "I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the Rating System and the Character Class Design Guidelines combined. --Green Dragon 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)"

D&D Wiki and I were never in the wrong in this ordeal. Your wrong saying that.

Each user has a different amount of edits however logic and right prevails over a large user. Since D&D Wiki is a free pure democracy relating to voting it is irrelevant how many edits one has done in that sense. Although I am in charge ultimately on D&D Wiki and for things relating to D&D Wiki as a materialistic thing (D&D Wiki has a home) or non-voted matters it does sometimes. As I stated above "I am person where, although I may disagree, I will still allow it to happen".

Right, the deletion was not fully discussed however the implementation was not at all. The deletion policy is followed for content not for off-the-bat made un-discussed systems. If you want more information on the discussion relating please see User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 15#Rating System. Their is no community discussion; that's it. Please supply a link if there is though and I recant this statement. --Green Dragon 16:58, 5 December 2009 (MST)

And how are the edits during the time frame I was blocked even strange using your logic [1]? --Green Dragon 04:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose — Still to soon after the recent wiki drama. I don't believe Aarnott has regained the trust of the community or Green Dragon at this time. -- Kildairem 01:35, 22 November 2009 (MST)

• Oppose — In both the best interest of the future of this site, and the personal disinterest that Aarnott now has, it would be best for both parties to move on.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:46, 22 November 2009 (MST)

• Oppose — Some of the actions I have noted by this user do not seem to be for the over all good of this wiki. --Starcry 08:32, 24 November 2009 (MST)

Neutral

• Neutral — I've seen Aarnott do some pretty helpful things, but I've also seen what's gone on in the late drama. Either way it works out, I hope it turns out for the best. --SgtLion 02:49, 22 November 2009 (MST)