D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sabre0702

Sabre0702

Sabre070's Nomination. Failed.

---

Voice your opinion (0/4/0) 0% Approval; Ended 18:00, 21 February 2010 (MST)

I am re-nominating Sabre070 for adminship since he/she has asked to resign for adminship. --Green Dragon 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 18#Requests for Adminship Sabre0702. --Green Dragon 14:45, 1 January 2011 (MST)

This is a notice to say that I will not be coming back to this wiki again. The issues you obviously have with control has caused me to lose faith in you and lose interest in the wiki. You have changed so much since I became admin, in more than one way. I would also like to point out that even though you own the physical server doesn't mean you have to be an admin here, you are only the host. Your attitude towards policies (and your need for power) were proven in you deleting your nomination for admin, when it was first posted you had began to fill it out and comply with the existing policy, then when the votes turned against you the policy was changed and the page deleted. You should go back and think about your actions, think about them from another point of view and see why those members left. --Sabre070 10:31, 16 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

Discussion moved from User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 18#Requests for Adminship Sabre0702. --Green Dragon 14:45, 1 January 2011 (MST)

I will RfA you in a bit (with resignation as the reason or somesuch). I, as Blue Dragon (with bureaucratship), are not going to host something for people who got banned, and get annoyed as result, and then came back with just the intent to remove the person who banned them, based off their wrong actions, from adminship. Do you really not see how that is petty? One: This is not a democracy, although it has democratic influences. I don't care about all the democratic ways which things can be. It's not fair. Fairness, to me, is more important. On a different note they would no longer even edit, they may have just found it humorous to remove adminship from one who banned them for wrong actions. Look at it like this: Some people go to prison for committing crimes, they serve their time, they get out. After they are out they go to the town hall and try to impeach the mayor. Although in democracy that does work, I don't care. This is not going to be like that. Do you understand where I am coming from? --Green Dragon 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say "Fairness, to me, is more important" do you mean "In my opinion, fairness is more important" or "It's more important for everyone to be fair to me, Green Dragon"?

EDIT: He means the first one.

Let me try and work through your analogy now:

• Some people go to prison for committing crimes
  • Sabre070 violated policy and was banned was banned permanently because of an inappropriate username without reason with the implied reason that Green Dragon was banned, without reason (see his edits during the time), and was worried something was going on.
  • Later others disregard policies and get banned as a result (spamming the FA, unwarranted deletion, etc etc). While true, it's irrelevant. We're talking about Sabre070 right now. If he did that we can include that in his "crimes". Otherwise, let's try to focus on the important issues.
• They serve their time, they get out.
  • Then Sabre070's ban expired was undone 2 days later and he was allowed back into our open hearts once again, born anew, like a mighty Phoenix
• After they are out they go to the town hall and try to impeach the mayor.
  • Sabre070 doesn't like how you lead, and tried to change that, by removing you from office (with an RfA).
• Although in democracy that does work, I don't care.
  • I don't care about what you think is fair, my word is unimpeachable law open to discussion, as long as we use logic. I, as Green Dragon, will delete that RfA, make new laws prohibiting future RfAs, and pretend nothing happened those are the results of the happenece. The deleted RfA's date and the revision history of RfA can be seen as evidence. This is my wiki, I own the damned thing.

--Badger 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC), with Green Dragon contributing.

I don't think Sabre070 was banned though (save the small time right after I was banned). See also .

Only the first way works, and not fully at that. I mean that fairness, as the idea relating to ownership and hosting with regards to inherent userrights is an important concept for me and how this site it run.

"my word is unimpeachable law" - no. Things are discussed. Logic is used. I do not always get my way. It's just the idea relating to ownership and hosting with regards to inherent userrights. --Green Dragon 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to amend my previous comment to reflect this new information. Until you reveal the true reason he was banned I'm leaving it as "without reason" because we both know there is nothing wrong with the username he'd been editing as since March of 2008.--Badger 22:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I amended it as well, if you do not mind. --Green Dragon 22:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, "...I, as Blue Dragon (with bureaucratship), are not going to host something for people who got banned, and get annoyed as result, and then came back with just the intent to remove the person who banned them, based off their wrong actions, from adminship....". Best cliffnotes ever.

Related note: Should it be required that a person RfAing and the person being RfA's be X amount active on the wiki? I.e. so many edits, meeting a certain edit-per-month count, etc. etc.? I've always thought so. I also don't believe that votes from new or IPs should be counted in RfAs (Wikipedia doesn't count them - arguing that they may very well be single-purpose accounts).   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, facts are important! I think we are approaching the best approximation of the actual events. Can you fact check as to whether or not Sabre070 was involved in the goings on? I don't recall if he was, but he was unblocked 2 days later, so I assume he wasn't involved.

Hooper, to address your question I always thought IPs were allowed to comment and such, but you had to be a registered user to actually vote (newly made voters subject inspection for meat puppetry).--Badger 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a great question Hooper. It needs to be discussed on Talk:Requests for Adminship though; this is not the place.

Was Sabre070 involved? Who knows. If you look at Requests for Adminship/Aarnott2 you can see a list of this so-called "RC Committee" - but not everyone on their was banned. E.g. Sam Kay. People were banned for doing actions against policy and/or violating their positions of authority. Bans are not given out for any other reason. The policy comes from Wikipedia. This committee was never implemented since it was illogical compared to alternatives, which are now in place. --Green Dragon 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The so called "RC Committee"? If you had've looked I am not mentioned on that page once. Also, the reason for my blocking was that Aarnott had blocked Green Dragon for 3 days for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: You are acting out of line right now. Perhaps you should clear your head and come back to this later... Otherwise, this site will lose a lot of its users." and he explains other reasons on his RfA. If I am looking at the block list correctly, you are saying that you are free to intimidate and harass anyone, though others aren't? Also, I like how you always say "we use logic here" (Green Dragon Logic) and also say that it is a wiki and not a dictatorship, yet also say that it is your wiki and you cannot get banned, un-nominated, or treated like any other user.

Also, I was not involved, the only edits I have done can be seen here: Contributions. --Sabre070 01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you guys all grew up or worked, but the person footing the bills makes the rules. You are free to disagree, but in the end it comes down to the owner makes the calls. It is obvious from months of the transientwiki crowd and it's fallout's attempts that you will get nowhere, so just save yourself the trouble and leave. The owner has the final say, whether we agree with it or not. To think otherwise is insane.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   03:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ya, you can trust Aarnott fully, or you can look at my edit contributions during those days. Normal. A policy, which was not agreed upon, was implemented. As such it was removed. Next?

The rest of what you said is not true. Well, I guess that means all of it. --Green Dragon 05:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is from the RfA main page:

How to nominate an editor for adminship

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply on the nomination page to accept or decline the nomination. Better yet, ask them whether they will accept before creating the page. Nominees should read the guide to requests for adminship before accepting."

Although the circumstances, those of nominating an admin for re-admining/un-admining, the basic principle still stands. Sabre pointed out at the time that he thought this useless and pointless, as well as a embarresment to him. There was no notice posted on Sabre070's talk page, and he has shown obvious distaste for this. I would also be interested in knowing, what exactly would of happened should this RfA of succeded? --194.74.22.170 08:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from an IP aren't really taken into consideration during RfAs, and we're currently even debating how new of a user we'll listen to. This RfA was closed, and you've brought it back up. Just leave it be.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That as may be, was it necessary to cross out my statement? Leave it be, if its unwelcome, people won't pay it heed, but crossing it only biases them. --194.74.22.170 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone is not doing a good job as an admin it should not be up to them to say if they can or cannot be RfA'ed. Although that is so in the case for adminship, since it is more responsibly, however when it is less responsibility that is not necessarily the case. Maybe I will add something or change the wording slightly to get that point across better. --Green Dragon 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a needed formal measure so people know what is going on with userrights (other then from the log). I changed the wording to reflect the idea that renominations do not need to be accepted. --Green Dragon 04:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

As stated above. --Green Dragon 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sabre voluntarily stepped down, so this is just really a formality. Thanks for time served and good luck in future ventures.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As stated above, I resigned. This isn't even a formality it is a humiliation/insult. --Sabre070 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, this is a formal measure whenever an administrator enters or leaves a position of power. Since you have "resigned" I am ending this nomination early. Also, this was not extended (even though D&D Wiki was down for a number of days during this nomination) for the same reason. --Green Dragon 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, this is a formal measure required whenever an administrator enters or leaves a position of power, so I can't see it as an insult. Still, take care, Sabre070. Here's hoping for a good future! Jwguy 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral