Thread:Wagwan piffting23/@comment-30706862-20190917190151/@comment-37973629-20190917210249

You seem to have calmed down, at the very least. Welcome back to the wiki.

To address your first point, I understand your argument as to why Bradley Hunt’s overall contribution to Red Dead lore is no different from that of the three poker players, but I personally disagree with it. My reason for this is that the page about Bradley Hunt is not just about him, but also (indirectly) a page detailing an activity of the Night Folk. This is not the case with the poker players, who relate very little to anything else in the game. In fact, they don’t even have any relatives or family to note, whereas Hunt has an unnamed female accomplice to note (not much, I know, but from these two factors, it makes his page more worthwhile than that of the poker players). In your message, you stated that there are pages for characters with no more importance to lore than the poker players. Could you give some examples, please? Other than Bradley Hunt, of course. I’m not sure if you are aware, but immediately before or after (I cannot remember which, although it ultimately doesn’t matter) I deleted the pages in question, I added their names to the trivia of the mission page, "A Fine Night of Debauchery" as the link will show you. This, I think, is fair - their names are still on the wiki as they deserve to be, but they do not have an actual page.

On your second point, perhaps more discussion about the deletion would have been useful, but ultimately, I did what I thought was right. The only people on the entire wiki who have (as far as I know) expressed any opinion whatsoever on this issue are me, you and User:Bigbat39, who flagged the items for deletion. That’s it. Obviously I did not know your opinion before deleting it, but I acted on the only thing I could go on - that being myself and another user believing that the pages should be deleted, and no opposition to it on the talk pages, which is what the “Candidates for Deletion” category recommends for any who oppose the deletion. Now that I do know your opinion on it, the people who have expressed whether or not they support the deletion are two (me and Bigbat39) in favour of it, and one (yourself) against. Obviously this is a small and arguably non-representative group, but what else am I to go on now that the deletion has happened? A 2-1 majority in favour of the deletion is all I have to justify this decision democratically. Is this flawless? No, but as I said, there has been no opposition to the deletion, neither before nor after, except from you, so the opinions of myself and Bigbat39 are more than the opposing ones, so they overrule the opposing one that they outnumber.

I must say that your claim that I am “abusing” my rights, if I look at this impartially, is unfair. I have never said that my opinion has automatic superiority over yours, and nor was my action dictatorial. Even if you had stated your opposition to the pages being flagged for deletion, there would be a 1-1 impasse between you and the one who deleted it. It would then be my job, as an administrator (who are supposed to resolve disputes on the wiki, according to the role's description) to effectively cast my own vote on the matter. With no other input from anyone else, there would be a 2-1 mandate advocating deletion, which would be fair. When I deleted it, it wasn’t even that. They were flagged for deletion, and there was no opposition on the talk pages. This effectively (at the time) gave me a 2-0 mandate (2 because of my opinion plus the one who flagged it for deletion in the first place) to delete it. So yes, there wasn’t a community vote, and no one is perfect, but what I did was not entirely undemocratic. I merely did what I thought was right, with the support of another user. I must therefore conclude that the claim that I am “abusing” my rights is an unfair one.

This is the umpteenth time a page has been deleted without a community vote, done by both me and previous staff dating back years. Even if I was “abusing” my rights, the vast majority of staff on this wiki (and no doubt on other wikis) would be guilty of the same offence. By your definition, there’s a hell of a lot of admins out there who are guilty of “abusing” their rights. Moreover, the fact that I deleted it after it was put into the “Candidates for Deletion” category is something, it’s not uncommon for pages to be deleted purely based on an admin’s opinion and no democratic input (on almost every wiki), so compared to all the other admins guilty of “abusing” their rights, I’m really not so bad.

Now it is my turn to apologise for a hostile tone. It was not intended, and I merely wanted to explain everything to you with the necessary detail.

Au revoir.