User talk:Green Dragon
From D&D Wiki
I welcome discussions! Although before contacting me see if your question is not dealt with on Meta Pages.
Among other things, I am looking for Featured Articles, and I want your contributions to support this process!
Disengaging from the Discord Discussion
I don't mean to draw attention to myself with this, rather make aware my intent going forward and help explain in future silence on the topic. The whole thing has become something beyond I could have imagined and daunting to even engage in. Surely I don't mind being asked my opinion for it on my talk page, but I am going to try and avoid the current discussion(s). I hope you can understand and wish you luck with the task. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2018 (MST)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. I hope that the discussion's results turn out to be beneficial for you. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (MST)
What's your problem with me?
You said you had problems with me. Well, I can see the way the wind is blowing and I predict my time left here is short. So, if you want to tell me what your problem with me is, please do.--GamerAim (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- Really, where? I don't appreciate how you tell users what they have done and what they have not done. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I hope you appreciate the part where you said you "could write more about [my behavior."] If you have a problem with my behavior, please write more about it :) --GamerAim (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I will not do such a thing here. These is a place and time for everything, and I choose my actions like I will. Telling other users what to do, or blocking their access through backend sabotaging, is a dictatorship system which we do not have on D&D Wiki. Check Wikipedia for references about what editors are required to do. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I never told you what to do, though? I just invited you to share your feelings if you wanted to. Would you please reread my comments before accusing me of things? Otherwise, I understand if you don't think this is an appropriate place to vent. But I probably won't be checking my D&D Wiki email much anymore, so your window of opportunity to call me out is limited. I'm only trying to help...--GamerAim (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- You're misquoting me, GD. I said, "if you want to tell me" you were free to. I didn't say, if you have a problem, tell me what it is. I said that I was open to hearing your complaints, if you wanted to share them.
- And it means that, if you don't want to talk about it on your talk page, and I'm not gonna be checking my email so much, I don't know how you're going to get in touch with me if/when you want to address your grievances. And to be frank, I'm getting a very strong vibe that I'm not wanted here, by you or anyone else. But hey, I wouldn't want to accuse you of feeling something you don't, so please don't take that as conjecture or accusation or demand. I'm just doubting my longevity in a community that — in my opinion — has it out for me. That's what it means. I just don't want to leave anything unsaid, in the event I am forced — either psychologically or through a block — to leave D&D Wiki. You asked me what I meant, and now I've answered.--GamerAim (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I literally just quoted your exact words from your comment above mine. I answered your initial questions as well, saying that no, I do not want to answer them.
- I understand what you are saying. I don't mind any user, but following consensus, policies, and working in this community are very important for me. I just don't understand how you can be defending sabotage (or maybe the creation of a dictatorship is a better analogy) that did not have any of our underlying values in it. I understand that there are historical examples of sabotage, but they all have their ideas behind them and what has been happening here is using the system to "hack it" into a dictatorship in a sense, and make our users lose the trust in our existing system. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I don't feel as much hostility in your above comment, so I'm glad for that. Maybe we can start to rebuild our relationship? I know I did say those words, but they were rephrasing my initial statement. It looks like you just misunderstood a bit, so we're all good. No hard feelings from me. It also looks like you're upset about SgtLion's RfA and my comments there? If you want to talk about that, we can, but I need you to be clear about that because this had nothing to do with what SgtLion did, for me.--GamerAim (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (MST)
In that interest, let's start from there? I said on the RfA that I didn't necessarily condone SgtLion's underhandedness, but I do understand his motivations. SgtLion felt that there was a problem among D&D Wiki users and he didn't think that you were willing to deal with it the normal way. You say that D&D Wiki isn't a dictatorship and that it's not up to you, but you're the bureaucrat and SgtLion felt that you were absolving users of wrongdoing. In his mind, his only recourse was to do what he did.
Blame SgtLion if you have to. Demote him, block him, whatever you think you have to do. And rationalize your actions (because you are the only one who can demote him) however you think appropriate. But please ask yourself why a trusted, long-time admin would do this. Ask why the conflict-adverse SgtLion would risk his standing. What would bring him to that point after all these years? Did SgtLion change, or did the community? Because for SgtLion, the community got worse and you overlooked it. And please, try not to take that personally. He respects you. But you're not infallible, nor did you interact with these users for months in Discord. All you saw were — in his opinion — the lies the told you here. Their performance of being law-abiding users, while being underhanded in their own right.
That idea that other admins were underhanded and the behavior condoned was why I supported SgtLion's RfA. I'm sorry if that, or he, offended you. I guess he violated your trust? But please, like I asked, try to understand why he'd risk upsetting you.--GamerAim (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- probably the best thing you’ve said since you RfA’d CL. Well said. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I have no idea what "interest" you are talking about. You asked me "What's your problem with me?" and I am letting you know my opinion. I'm not taking anything personally, but my "problem with you" is that you are supporting this ideology. I understand what you are saying, that you find this to be much more complicated than from what I can infer from users on D&D Wiki. I'm not arguing with you about your experience from discord, involvements, opinions, or other matters about this. I'm trying my best to answer your question. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2018 (MST)
Would also like to request an interaction ban from GA
Hey, while we're at it, can I get an interaction ban from Varkarrus, ConcealedWife, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy and Geodude671? Rest assured that anyone who wants a ban from me, I want a ban from them too. I wouldn't think it'd be necessary to get an interaction ban from anyone, much less six people, but here we are \o/--GamerAim (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- It's mostly an informal thing and can't really be enforced. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email) . . 09:29, 9 December 2018 (MST)
- I may have mislead Discord chat when I said request interaction bans on an admin page. While I don’t think there was a consensus, the discussion more or less led to if you don’t want to interact with others then don’t. If a user repeatedly contacts you when you prefer they don’t, then you can discuss with Admins about a harassment policy being broken. I do apologize for any confusion I may have created. This other route while less formal I think was a good suggestion by SgtLion, like almost everything they contributed to us. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2018 (MST)
I understand that Geodude671 closing the RfA was "just a formality" but its another thing that goes along with what GA/SL reference. On its own, no big deal yet these little things build. As you are one asking for examples of issues, this is one to point out. GA, SL, or I haven't logged every little thing that didn't seem right. It wouldn't be fun, it'd hurt relationships with users, be stressful just doing it, and come across as tattling(?). The little things are less and less I think, but then you get something like the RfA closing. Perhaps old fuddie duddies need to embrace the change. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2018 (MST)
- SgtLion himself ended Template:News, which described the result of the RfA. I really don't understand how this is even an issue in your opinion, nor can I condone that it is something as harmful as blocking select users from D&D Wiki through the backend while keeping this work undercover. If you find serious violations of procedure, you may let me know on my talk page. Would this work? I want to keep updated with any problems you find, but this was not one. Changing the user rights is doing the act, not editing a page (or Template:News). --Green Dragon (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2018 (MST)