To reiterate my points in as neutral a way as I feel is possible:
Your defence for deleting the gamblers’ pages still doesn’t hold up, in my opinion, under scrutiny. There are certainly pages for characters of far less importance towards background lore or any other aspect that have pages (and I’m aware I created the page for Bradley Hunt, but I thought I made it clear why I felt confused by your apparent validation for that character and not for three other characters that are, again in my opinion, equally valid contributions towards the wiki).
Second, my main issue, which I again felt I made clear (sorry you seemed to have misinterpreted my tone) is that you deleted the articles with no community discussion and used the nomination for the articles’ deletion by one (1) other user as enough justification for that action.
And on a final note, my issue with you has evolved into more that fact that I think you are abusing your rights. I pointed out policy that states your opinion does not automically usurp my own. Other policy dictates how vital community discussion is for the site’s growth (and also states you shouldn’t delete messages, but anyway). If you really just wanted me to “cool down” as you put it, I know you got other options. I’ll keep making good edits, as you graciously pointed out, but I fear I don’t operate well under authoritarians
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.
Nothing I say here matters. I’ve made my point that I think the three gamblers should have pages and there should have been a community vote before their deletion. And I get banned for a week to “cool down” when I know for a fact there are 24 hour and 3 day options, but my history of beneficial edits mean nothing when a teenager feels offended
I'm not the best to speak on the editing dispute as I am not an editor or a content moderator, but as a discussions moderator, your tone you took was not the best. It was apparent you were passionate and heated about the topic, which is perfectly understandable. However it's important not to let those feelings come forward as much as they did when dealing with an editing dispute. Whether or not you deserved the ban in the first place or the length of it is not within my power to say as Wagwan has superior authority over me. However, that is in the past and there's nothing we can do about it now but learn from it (not just you, all of us). However Ill have to disagree with you when you say nothing you say here matters. What you said in the past still holds, all editors are equal. The only advice I can give you is to be more professional with your tone, and if you feel Wagwan is abusing his rights or that the dispute isn't finished yet, I encourage you to contact Raziel. Just remember that as long as the dispute still stands and you remain civil, your argument will be taken seriously just as much as any editor or admin. I hope both parties can come to an agreement on this dispute, but that can only happen if both parties remain civil. I wish you luck in your pursuit.
"When a teenager feels offended"? Look who's talking.
But personally, I would suggest letting it go as there is next to nothing besides the names to these characters: no backstory to elaborate on, no notable importance aside from their minor appearance in a mini-game, and no other chances to encounter them. Unlike in the first game, where the players encountered in most side activities also appeared elsewhere (story missions, stranger missions, gang hideouts etc.) these NPCs solely appear there.
Besides, there's plenty of other pages of characters who while are minor, appear more than these aformentioned NPCs and need their existing pages expanded anyways. Why waste the energy on three who have little reason to have them?
Again, there are articles for characters that only appear in one mission and Provide no other contribution towards the main story, lore etc. But whatever. I am far too aggressive for you guys and I must sincerely apologize
@Roosevelt - I felt offended but because a teenager with administrative rights also felt offended I received a week long ban. I hope that clarifies my position a little more for you
@Kerbert - I’ve already messaged Raziel about a separate issue so fingers crossed I’m not harassing him so maybe I have a chance to address that issue as well
I am glad I am allowed to continue this discourse, considering Wagwan has already deleted one of my messages based solely on his opinion that I am aggressive. If he really feels I’m leaving “raging, harassing” comments then they should be left up as evidence that I am indeed a raving lunatic.
I’ve been around this wiki a few times over many years. I would like to point out some of the work done by former admins like Annonnimus, Jack Frost, Hobbes and 2ks4 which I think validated my point, as they went to some lengths to ensure that any Character appearing in, mentioned, or otherwise in the series have a page. I think the pages for the gamblers contributes towards the lore (albeit minimally) of the riverboat robbery. But again, it’s just my opinion and I think it should be put to a public forum. @Wagwan not every user is so familiar with the site that they know to mosey on over the a talk page for a category.
It's not our responsibility to make sure evry editor is well informed of the sites policy. That information is available to them. Whether or not they know and/or follow it is up to them. I also must add that your statement about your relationship with past admins is quite hypocritical being as how you yourself were preaching about every editor being equal. Your past does not make you immune to certain rules, and it does not make your voice louder than others.
@Kerbert - I stated nothing about having a past relationship with former admins. I stated that many of them have contributed towards articles of minor characters because I felt it bolstered my case that the three gamblers deserve articles.
Also, I only mentioned my past as a member of this wiki in an effort to point out I have been a user of this site for several years, with no issue, and therefore a week long ban was unwarranted.
As aggressive as I apparently come across, I have no misconceptions that I am “louder than others” and I’m unsure what rules I’ve even broken.
There’s also rules against edit warring, Kerbert, and on the one (1) occasion I undid Wagwan’s edit (on Uncle’s page), I explained my reasoning and it was immediately undone. When my trivia post to Barbarella Alcazar was deleted, I went to the talk page of the user who removed it to explain why I felt it should remain.