D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Ganteka2

Ganteka

Ganteka's Nomination. Failed.

---

Voice your opinion (0/3/2) 0% Approval; Ended 22:00, 10 January 2010 (MST)

I am re-nominating Ganteka for adminship since he/she has willfully disregarded D&D Wiki's deletion policies a few times over [1] (more exactly [2]). As can be evidenced on the policy page on Category:Candidates for Deletion it has no correlation to Wikipedia's deletion policies and Ganteka drew a correlation where none is on a number of pages. --Green Dragon 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

A:

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

A:

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?

A:

---

Discussion

I probably did disregard Wikipedia's deletion policies when I made deletions to articles. That would be a problem if the policy given to all admins instructed them to follow Wikipedia's deletion policies. It would also be a problem if those policies were posted on Category:Candidates for Deletion (you may have to check the history of that page to see the exact wording at the time I was an active admin: 4 November 2008 - 10 August 2009). Here's the deletion policy given to all admins taken directly from my talk page in a message from Green Dragon:

• Deleting pages is normally done through Category:Candidates for Deletion. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". They don't want to work on it, and unless it is really well made and fleshed out, just delete it.

Cleaning out the Category:Candidates for Deletion is a pretty thankless job. It takes a lot of hours and a lot of patience. A lot of times, it's a tough judgement call if something is salvageable or not without total re-writes from a blank slate by a new author. Thankfully though, things are archived and can be rolled-back if necessary. To conclude, yes, I knowingly followed the policy given out by Green Dragon and not Wikipedia's deletion policy.

I request that my adminship be removed. --Ganteka 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:41, 27 October 2008. And as an admin you should know any policy on D&D Wiki (implied or not) overrides an off-site policy which is related.

Also what are you talking about?

“

Deleting pages is normally done through Category:Candidates for Deletion. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". They don't want to work on it, and unless it is really well made and fleshed out, just delete it.

”

is not saying "delete whatever someone tells you to delete". Do you understand?

"and unless it is ... fleshed out" Do you understand? --Green Dragon 09:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Warnings are systematic. There are reasons as to when a contributor's actions warrant a warning and there is a systematic approach present to make it so contributors are treated equally. Making it so if one insults a certain given user and is not therefore, systematically, punished would result in a bias on D&D Wiki's part. See also the Warning Policy. I am a user just like you. That person belittled me. Belittling a fellow contributor results in a warning. Warnings are not arbitrary.

Do you understand why what you are talking about would result in a totalitarian state ("a government that subordinates the individual to the state and strictly controls all aspects of life by coercive measures [3])"? D&D Wiki is not such since a system with a systematic approach is in place and the administration makes sure that is used throughout and policies govern all. And policies, the administration, etc can be discussed by anyone.

The D&D Wiki administration does not want an arbitrary warning system in place to result in bias and unfairness. A systematic approach is in place as such. --Green Dragon 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

As stated above. --Green Dragon 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ganteka's statements seem clear that he no longer wishes to be an admin, and as such it is in the best interest of both the site and Ganteka to honor that wish. Thanks for time served.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering Ganteka's statement that he does not wish to remain an admin, I support relinquishing the status. --Harry Mason 09:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

I have no care who is an admin here. I just wish to point out things that some people seem to be missing. Havvy 09:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also ambivalent as to the result of this farce. Given that the nominee has already expressly denied any interest in returning to his previous position (or even to a lesser, active role at this site), this whole thing is little more than an exercise in futility. The same applies for similar votes concerning other former admins who have been renominated and cut down by a hardly unbiased party. -TG Cid 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Given that the nominee has already expressly denied any interest in returning to his previous position (or even to a lesser, active role at this site), this whole thing is little more than an exercise in futility." does not mean D&D Wiki will circumvent the Request for Adminship method. The method is in place and one cannot just circumvent it (that would result in a totalitarian state - which D&D Wiki is not).

Power to the people.

During an RfA the people have the choice.

“

Any editor in good standing may nominate any other editor or him/herself.

”

“

Who may participate: Any user in good standing is welcome to participate in discussions on candidates. Who may comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections: Any D&D Wikian with an account is welcome to comment here, except for the candidate (who may respond to comments by others). Certain comments may be discounted or removed if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors or sockpuppets, as well as meatpuppetry and other activity that may be the result of an illegitimate attempt to shift the balance of opinion.

”

To recap look at the percentages of the renominations. The aforementioned admins have not gotten the needed majority on their renomination. As such they were denominated. Do you understand the process now? Each vote is something. Do you understand the process now?

And a totalitarian state does not have policies discussed by people for themselves, a system where anyone can become in charge and conversely anyone in charge can be demoted because of bad practice, etc. --Green Dragon 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It says at the top of this page that "[Green Dragon is] re-nominating Ganteka for adminship since he/she has willfully disregarded D&D Wiki's deletion policies a few times over." I won't even go back to the fact that Ganteka already refused to accept adminship even if he acquired a majority supporting vote (which he wouldn't, considering the only people still active enough to have an opinion that will actually mean something who remain in "good standing" are yourself and Hooper). Renominating someone for a position from which they have already been denied the benefits on the basis that they violated a responsibility that was already revoked from their rights is not due process. You are claiming to follow due process by creating this page, when in truth you are using it as an opportunity to demean the people who disagreed with you in the first place by making accusations of opposition to your ruling. Persecution of opposition is one of the very facets of a totalitarian state, which is what this place is (not what it should be, but what it is).

The users who were here before the actions that you took to send them away operated under the assumption that you would condone (or at the very least consider) anything that they discussed and agreed upon as a committee. Judging by the response and results of said response, it's painfully clear that this site doesn't have policies discussed by the people. It has your policies, to which there is no flexibility or deviation. That is totalitarian rule.

It's not that I don't understand this process. If anything, the process is a sham because you say you are following a process that has democratic implications (ie the people vote, etc.), which is obviously a falsehood. What I fail to comprehend is the purpose of following through with this alleged "process" when all pretense of fair and just decision-making is thrown away from the beginning. In short, it really doesn't matter that this is a ballot when, in the end, you are the sole purveyor of privilege. You alone have the power to grant and take away user rights, which you use as your "big stick" to cow others into falling into step with you. How is that anything but an iron-fisted dictatorship? - TG Cid 23:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Ganteka is, right now, an admin and was all along. Have you ever taken a look at Special:ListUsers/sysop? See that name there: Ganteka (Administrator). That means Ganteka is an admin (an admin as defined by Special:ListGroupRights - "Administrator"). This is exactly why I am renominating him/her for adminship, since he/she broke policies. Why can I? I am a person like you too.

“

Any editor in good standing may nominate any other editor or him/herself1 (see Requests for Adminship).

”

"(which he wouldn't, considering the only people still active enough to have an opinion that will actually mean something who remain in "good standing" are yourself and Hooper)" obviously not. The votes above are all factored in (e.g. do you see the (0/3/2) above? That means 5 votes have been factored into this so far). When someone is not in good standing (e.g. Sockputtetry, etc) their vote would be disregarded above (and said). Understand?

"Renominating someone for a position from which they have already been denied the benefits on the basis that they violated a responsibility that was already revoked from their rights is not due process." they are still an admin by the way... That is this process...

"The users who were here before the actions that you took to send them away operated under the assumption that you would condone (or at the very least consider) anything that they discussed and agreed upon as a committee. Judging by the response and results of said response, it's painfully clear that this site doesn't have policies discussed by the people. It has your policies, to which there is no flexibility or deviation. That is totalitarian rule." - good point but wrong. The system was discussed - those were people who just did not understand that they have to "win" the argument to have their system considered. They did not - ever. If a system does not logically work then it will not become a system on D&D Wiki. That is a given.

To recap: something has to work to work on D&D Wiki. What defines work? Discussions and logic.

Someone needs to change one's user privileges. If I have overstepped my power then I should be RfB'ed (and/or RfA'ed depending on the power - like in this Ganteka case right here). I have followed the majority rules to the letter so far - so what are you talking about? --Green Dragon 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If he is still listed as an admin, then what is the purpose of this page? You say he has not been stripped of any user rights, yet you make a page that re-nominates him for adminship. This page is essentially ineffectual (merely preserving the status quo) unless you plan on taking these rights away from Ganteka. If that is the case, you have never needed needed a ballot to remove another user's rights before to my knowledge, therefore you would not be following the process outlined by the creation of this page. Unless a process is needed to remove someone's rights, this page serves no real purpose.

As for the previous situation with something that "works", it reflects negatively on you that you deleted the work of your most trusted user base (which I would have to assume they were, since many of them were given adminship) without consulting them beforehand. I understand that you could have reviewed it yourself and found some potential flaws, but that does not justify deletion without an attempt at compromise. It would have been prudent to be more open-minded in that situation, given that the proposal was intended to recognize and deal with the problems in the current Rating System that were agreed upon by some of the most active and comprehensive-minded folks on the site. Any discrepancies you may have had could easily have been dealt with in a manner that would not have provoked such an outburst; surely you could have anticipated that no one would ever react well so such a flat rejection of something that they thought was in the best interests of the collective. Basically (and I do not intend for this to be a personal slight), I think the whole situation was poorly handled and made you come across as a petty and inconsiderate tyrant who is unwilling to listen to the ideas of others. This functional fixedness reflects more poorly on you than most of those who disagreed with you, and the bans made on users who voiced their disagreement increased the perception that you were using the situation as an opportunity to attack the users themselves rather than their ideas. What started as a conflict of ideologies became an embittered series of personal slights, which ended up with the exodus of users and all that jazz. While I understand that you are trying to maintain process, continuing to bring up the past actions of users who have already left the site does not place you in the most flattering light. They have (for the most part) moved on and have little desire to come back to revive old arguments. I think it would be in everyone's best interests if you were to focus on fostering your new user base and cleaning up the lesser quality stuff that has piled up due to the lack of new adminship (the whole purpose of bestowing adminship, after all, would be to divide the workload of managing this site) instead of re-nominating old admins with the express purpose of not reinstating them.

Please do not mistake my intent; I do not want to reopen old wounds. I just want this whole saga to be over with--to get a firm and lasting resolution--once and for all. You can keep any reservations you have about particular users, just as they may keep about you; I am not going to try and dissuade either side from giving up their beliefs. Both parties have basically agreed to disagree, if only indirectly; the fact that they have their site and you have yours (which operate fully independently of each other) is proof enough of that. But publicly dissing someone who is not even active on your site any more makes you appear fixated on the previous conflict than on moving forward. That's not what's best for D&D Wiki, or for any of us. - TG Cid 01:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow... please look more into issues before commenting. This, like many many other nominations of others, is to see if the community deems this person admin-worthy. See Requests for Adminship for a complete list of the nominations (re, repeat, base, etc).

"You say he has not been stripped of any user rights"... no I showed you he is still one.

"you have never needed needed a ballot to remove another user's rights before to my knowledge, therefore you would not be following the process outlined by the creation of this page. Unless a process is needed to remove someone's rights, this page serves no real purpose." so you do not know D&D Wiki's systems and probably do think about totalitarian things. Instead of saying "wrong wrong" you should have brought up that point to see the truth - that would be a totalitarian system if it was so (e.g. "I don't like that person. And... stripped of powers." This page is exactly why it is not like that.). Do you understand what I am saying?

"your most trusted user base". There is no such thing. If you do not know D&D Wiki's uerbase you can take a look at Special:ListUsers. For the most part I (this is not everyone!) just trust a user as much as his/her RfA states.

"I understand that you could have reviewed it yourself and found some potential flaws, but that does not justify deletion without an attempt at compromise.". Template:Delete was added to the page. Like many things during that time, which I regret now, it was speedily deleted. However you can see the top of the page to see that, lo and behold yes, Template:Delete was added. Your untrusting attitude to MediaWiki is bizarre to say the least. Take a look.

"they thought was in the best interests of the collective." key word thought and I refuted it was not. They never refuted that. So no cigar.

"I think the whole situation was poorly handled and made you come across as a petty and inconsiderate tyrant who is unwilling to listen to the ideas of others." as I have said in other places "The blocked users broke rules. The blocked users got punished as a result. Other then that nothing happened. --Green Dragon 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)"

"to attack the users themselves rather than their ideas. What started as a conflict of ideologies became an embittered series of personal slights, ..." Huh? And I have yet to do that... I just talked about their ideas. Research before posting nonsense.

"your new user base". Huh (Special:ListUsers)? "Cleaning up the lesser quality stuff that has piled up due to the lack of new adminship (the whole purpose of bestowing adminship, after all, would be to divide the workload of managing this site) instead of re-nominating old admins with the express purpose of not reinstating them. " Not necessarily. Adminship is a wide range of things. Users can do things too... Do you understand?

"But publicly dissing someone who is not even active on your site any more makes you appear fixated on the previous conflict than on moving forward." - For the last time this person is being renominated for adminsip. Meaning that this person is currently an admin. As such, as with many before (starting with Pz.Az.04Maus) this is the method to see if the community deems them admin-worthy as that decision determines userrights for the individual. I find that this is the main point you are missing. Do you understand what I am saying? --Green Dragon 02:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I do not understand what you are saying. At this point, nor do I care to, since you have repeated it so many times it is like a power drill boring a hole into my temple. But you are also ignoring the point that I am trying to make, which is that this process you are invoking is at this point ineffectual. You have no other users who are qualified to comment on Ganteka's adminship, since they were either not sufficiently involved in any of the previous altercations between yourself and the other admins to understand the significance of Ganteka'a actions or the motives behind them (your explanation, as an partial party, is insufficient evidence, especially since you have already clearly voiced your opinion). Even if someone were of the persuasion to agree to side with Ganteka, your previous treatment of those who have opposed you does not exactly portray you as an accepting and open-minded person. Most users not already committed against you would more than likely be deterred from voicing their opinions. You have effectively alienated anyone who would dare to disagree with you, resulting in a system where despite all your advocating for the opinions of others you are actually propogating a system in which everyone will side with you out of fear of drawing your ire.

Consistently repeating "We use logic here," is hardly a pure condemnation of one's ideas. There's no point in research because there is nothing in those pages worthy of note. You gave no satisfactory reasoning for why the opposition was wrong; you merely insisted that they were in the wrong and you in the right, just as you are doing now.

Posting a list of your users doesn't prove anything. Your "new user base" would have to be a new group of users that you can actually trust to not post utter crap. That's what separated the exiled group from the rest. Despite whatever you might say, they knew what they were doing (that's why people voted for them to be admins). Excommunicating them in the manner that you did has left you without anyone recognized for their ability to bring quality to this Wiki. Without a supply of fresh homebrew, the site will continue to deteriorate (and trust me, it has deteriorated).

Yeah, users can do things, but giving someone adminship status should show that they have your backing. And as far as Wiki maintenance goes, the typcial user can basically post on the talk page and add templates. And...that's it as far as meaningful things go. Without an admin to actively sift through everything, nothing would get done. I think it has shown with the low amount of maintenance that has (or perhaps has not) occurred since.

I honestly was trying to be sincere, but you are frankly being a real cold fish, too entrapped by your misgivings to see that you have essentially killed your credibility. I'll admit freely that there are lots of things I do not understand. The most prominent of which is why you are so stubbornly clinging to the assertion that your actions were in the best interests of your site when it is clear that you have committed (at least as far as this Wiki goes) political suicide. You mentioned earlier that it was odd that I am mistrusting of MediaWiki. Honestly, it's not that I don't trust MediaWiki. I just don't trust you. And based on your previous handling of those who had willingly helped you make D&D Wiki was it was in its prime (a time that probably predates my arrival), it seems difficult to imagine that anyone else will either. - TG Cid 03:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"You have no other users who are qualified to comment on Ganteka's adminship". One I do not "have" users. Users are by in themselves. Also, to the best of my knowledge, users do not comment much on RfA's. The highest users on RfA's was Ganteka's with 18. The average is probably somewhere around 7. So this, at 5 people giving opinions so far, is not too bad off. Still has time too.

"since they were either not sufficiently involved in any of the previous altercations between yourself and the other admins to understand the significance of Ganteka'a actions or the motives behind them (your explanation, as an partial party, is insufficient evidence, especially since you have already clearly voiced your opinion). Even if someone were of the persuasion to agree to side with Ganteka, ..." Discussions are not deleted on D&D Wiki.

"fear of drawing your ire" - I don't think anyone really is... maybe, who knows. I have yet to ban someone without a reason. I mostly only argue (like here) to make people see how things are, etc. Maybe though, who knows. Some people email me when they are confused and I explain things. Maybe though.

About the "do research part". I meant if you are going to say something about someone (me in this instance - like you did above to which I stated the correction) you need to cite areas and prove it. For example - Have I ever sworn on D&D Wiki? Yes, like 2938 times. No, not once. Yes, in a revision history and in a few edit summaries (User Talk: Eiji#Farmer revisions, and see edit contributions for edit summaries - "damn" was used, although not derogatory). Which are you going to trust? You are coming across as the first option right now. Check them all out, see what I mean?

"adminship status should show that they have your backing". Nope. Peoples backing, I only correspond to one vote (one of those number on the top).

"political suicide" - I actually don't care... This site is not "risky" for me, I don't need to step around on tiptoes. I don't care. I own the damn thing. Think of it in a realistic way, since it is. If someone says "No" then so be it. If they hack my account and log in as me and edit away I can change my password back-end and clean it up. Do you understand what I mean by "in a realistic way"?

Mistrust of MediaWiki came from the fact that you seemed to not trust Special:ListUsers/sysop.

You seem to be of the opinion that only admins can change things. One look at modern pages such as 4e Races. Changed mainly only by users (with the pages improved upon), same with All 4e Deities, etc. Admins are not the "doers" of D&D Wiki; everyone is. It's a wiki. Admins serve the functions as described by Special:ListGroupRights; not some arbitrary idea(s) you have in your head.

I suggest you take a look at Requests for Adminship/Aarnott2. These people only contributed to about 7% of the activity of D&D Wiki. That's not "prime" and "perfection" that's 7%. Please, once again, do research before presenting things. --Green Dragon 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not "have" users. Users are by in themselves. How can you say this when the whole site is yours (I refer to when you just said "I own the damn thing."), and is therefore an extension of you? Because the site is yours, you have the power to grant or deny privileges and access as you see fit. Therefore, even though users can choose to join or leave of their own accord, anyone currently present is here because you allow them to be. So yeah, you do "have" users because this site has users and is an extension of you. This site is not an island to which the average person does not have access; it is a Wiki, which means that it relies on the participation of users to contribute information (or, as is the case here, original material). But I digress. The point is you have users and, despite your claims to the contrary, they are only here so long as you deem it so and can be blocked at your whim without any legitimate chance for appeal unless you have a change of heart (which, given your streak of stubbornness, appears highly unlikely).

When I said you had committed political suicide, you claimed to not care. I believe you. But as I outlined above, a Wiki relies on the contributions of the users who frequent it. Basically, you need us (us being the non-privileged users and anyone other than you) whether you realize it or not to actually have a properly functioning Wiki. If people are unwilling to trust you, then they will be more complacent about putting things on the Wiki, and the site will suffer. You can thrust your list of user activity at me all you want and claim that it proves people are still posting, but I would be willing to bet that there has not been one legitimate good quality homebrew article since the mass exodus of your former users. I would like to point out, for the record, that the celestial dire lion--the featured article before last--was made by Aarnott and the rock worm--the current featured article--was only made an FA due to your insistence and your changes (I refer you to the revision history of that page--most of the edits are yours--and the talk page which explicitly states "I [Green Dragon] do not feel this article [i.e. the original version before your intervention] is currently featured article material").

Even though you may claim that adminship only gives someone the people's backing and not yours as well, then the ability to grant and revoke priviliges should be in the people's hands, not yours. If you truly wished to veto the votes of the people, you can, and you have done so (such as when you deleted what would have been a formal proposal from some of your admins and other users suggesting a revision of the Ratings System, which you used your autocratic powers to destroy). There are no checks and balances here; it's your way or the Internet super-highway. I am not advocating that there should be any balance of power (although it would be nice); I am just tired of seeing you flip-flop between 'Here I am, all responsive and letting people vote,' and 'This is my site. Deal with it.'

I am not of the opinion that admins do everything. I know (because it's true) that the task of actually doing meaningful things (like deleting pages and preventing wastes of bandwidth from remaining in existence) falls to admins because normal users lack those privileges.

By the way, go ahead and give me a warning if it suits your fancy. I can see at least three instances where what I said could be construed as rude. Take your pick. - TG Cid 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The "committee" was in all entirely only discussed as a method and the people therein were never discussed. This is comparable to a self-appointed oligarchy and ideas of "people need the power" and "systems should be able to be discussed" (as is the case in this current system) would never work as such. Do you not understand that that in itself that is a contradiction to how you see it? Since D&D Wiki uses democratic ideas with regards to many aspects that was why this, truly, totalitarian state idea was speedily deleted.

"I do not "have" users. Users are by in themselves." meaning people are not slaves and I do not own them. Freedom. Can I have users deleted, etc? Yes. Does this mean that I "have them"? No. More accurately: Would I? No, as I see it everything (and I am of the impression that everything can) should be run openly and changes back-end need to be displayed. A good example is Mythos Specialist (now Danzig Nyttafjell) has been emailing me (and on my talk page) about his user-switch. We came to the conclusion the best course of action would be to have his accounts merged. Would that be okay to just do it? No. People need to know what is going on. I am waiting to create an area dealing with users, etc, and then do the switch and post it there. Do you understand what I mean?

Good quality homebrew is always and has always been added. Each person has something to contribute. They honestly only accounted for 7%, that's 7%. I see no other fair way of looking at it.

Adminship is checked by rules as worded on RfA. A 75% majority is (normally) needed. Maybe you are referring to how a bureaucrat can circumvent this system in instances?

And, currently, with MediaWiki "the people" cannot elect users. Theoretically, does it make sense? I do not think so since I think that users can just oversee and make a point if their is a problem. Could this lead to problems? Yes, I was very worried about such occurrences in the instance where I got banned, unjustly, from D&D Wiki. Will it? No. I have been following the system (75%) and for the most part listen to reason. --Green Dragon 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is not relevant to the issue at hand. Please, lets stay on topic. This is not a discussion forum.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I find what we are discussing to be quite on topic, since we are essentially discussing the reasons for this renomination to be necessary in the first place (i.e. the disagreements over the Ratings Committee and the alleged issue of oligarchy vs free posting). I think (just me, I don't specifically speak for anyone else nor will I on this particular issue) that the idea of allowing anyone to rate, while admirable, is highly impractical. This has been demonstrated by the many ratings that were deleted or nullified due to a lack of justification, disagreements over certain ideas. If that means one or two good users and a slew of internet tough guys making OP content, then yes") or just general idiocy on the part of the rater(s). As good as the site would be if it was so, not everyone is equally qualified to rate stuff. Some people go about it logically and apply it to real game situations that might actually be encountered while others just put down their rating and say "this is OP" or something similar without any reasoning or signs of intelligent thought. The Ratings Committee was meant to address that, and it's not like they wouldn't have been receptive enough to take other people in; anyone who displays adequate reasoning and knowledge could be on the RC. It's just a way of winnowing out the people who are grossly incompetent.

I also disagree with the idea that a Ratings Committee would discount the opinions of the people not on it. If anything, having a select group of people would probably be more receptive since you can get the support of one of them to get a good debate on it. Here, if it doesn't fly with you, it's gone.

I would be inclined to agree that banning you from your own site was a little overzealous, but no one reacts well to being pushed around. No one. So it shouldn't surprise you that they would want to send you a message, especially since Aarnott was almost certainly aware that it would be little more than a minor inconvenience to you (which apparently was the case). I'm not saying I agreed with the action, but I understand the reasoning behind it and I also feel that your reaction, while reasonably vindicated to a degree, was over the top.

Disagree with me all you like. I don't want to have any part of a system that puts down the people who try to make it better, especially considering that one of the key facets of a democratic system is that change is good. Auf wiedersehen. --TG Cid 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You've said your piece. It doesn't matter. Let us move along to stuff that is actually important.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This really is off topic. This discussion is over from my post out. Why? Ganteka is not being renominated for adminship for that reason. See above. You are just discussing D&D Wiki's system as we whole and this is not the place for that.

To let you know you are wrong. On D&D Wiki each user can be (the above) use of this "rating committee". Don't know if you have ever noticed but that's the case. Strange? No. It's correct. Everyone is equal. Rights are only given by consensus and agreement in case of RfA's and RfB's. Why? We just don't want to create an editing environment where people have to beg to a committee/committeeman to get things done. Maybe you like begging? Who knows. Irrelevant. You still can here if that is the case.

You may want to see a psychiatrist (meaning you may not be thinking clearly - not meant rudely I am just worried about you). Why? Your just spouting slander against a democratically influenced system and me (saying I was banned rightfully) and you seem to be developing problems, like not reading posts (stating the same against when it was already told to you, with backup, how it is), having a blatant bias and not listening to others with related issues and backup present, etc. --Green Dragon 23:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)