User talk:Brant/The Case for Penstubal

While I'm not going to delete this, I feel like it edges on being an attack page against Chill which is against the rules. Just keep that in mind for the future. -- User:EDFan 12345  23:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out some things from your case. The claim that Chill "would outright refuse to help someone if they needed help" in any circumstance is ridiculous if any article was vandalized, OOC was being ignored, etc. I'd also like to point out that Kermit was made as an article that everyone could get behind and have fun with, but you, Quacker and Stubal decided to make him the antichrist or some symbol of evil for whatever reason, I assume just because you don't like that Ed, Chill and I are the main people having fun with Kermit and you don't like us. Making it seem like the Kermit article or making other articles is some sort of proxy to introduce a dictatorship is also flawed at best, and intentionally misleading fear mongering at worst.

As for his promotion to Administrator some time ago, it was a temporary action decided by the administration to help with Delet this, since it's a lot of work to be done. We chose Chill because we could trust him with the rights, and he was already helping out quite a bit, so making him an admin just allowed him to delete articles too. As I said, temporary action, if he isn't elected as the new admin he'll be demoted once Delet this is over; temporary promotions with valid reasoning does't need the community's approval as far as I'm concerned, like promoting people in emergencies to combat vandalism. If you've been paying so close attention to Chill you'd also notice he hasn't exerted full administrative authority, another reason we didn't ask the community. A majority of what he's used it for is deleting pages, although he's also done some minor things when I've asked him to, such as updating the main page templates which are protected. What his time since being promoted as temporary admin has shown me is that he has respect for the position and the democracy of this site, and that he knows restraint and has shown it quite well in this regard.

It's true that Stubal's answer to the question "What are your good qualities", which opened with "I have always been open to compromise no matter what issue it might be on", is a good answer and would be a good quality if it was true. But many users, including myself and others he's argued and disagreed with in the past, can vouch that he has certainly not "always been open to compromise, no matter the issue". I've known Chill for a long time, and some things I can say for certain he's not are a power hog, corrupt, or the boogeyman out to get you or anyone else.   C  K   Sysop  07:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Literally all of my edits to Kermit have been reverted. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS!   (talk).   Contributions   A link  Quackerpingu2.png 07:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Literally all"; I saw three edits from June, one from May and one from April that weren't reverted or removed and are still on the page.   C  K   Sysop  08:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The X-Antibody thing was changed from "has one" to "is immune" ans when i changed it to "rumored to have one" and "claims to be immune" it was changed to "fake rumors" and "is immune" again. The other edits are possibly the recognizing list ones. --QP.png QUACKERPINGU WITH BIG LETTERS!   (talk).   Contributions   A link  Quackerpingu2.png 08:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to state that I do not, in an way or form, endorse the "case" for me written by Brant, in the sense of - I believe that users should be allowed to write whatever they may so wish, be it in support of me or against me, or in support of Chill or against Chill. I disagree with Ed's judgement that this is an attack against Chill - and I think it ignores the many attacks that were levied against me in the past, irrelevant of whether those attacks were justified or not - they were still attacks and would 'be against the rules' according to your opinion. Brant's 'statement' is not my statement, and Brant is not my attorney or my deputy. The qualities an administrator must have are impartiality, good judgement, willingness to compromise - an administrator, in community-related situations, must be a neutral judge who bases his decisions on facts and evidence provided to him and based on the experiences provided to him by both sides of an argument.

As for CK's claims on my impartiality and willingness to compromise - I cannot and will not say that I have always, at all times, been open to compromise. But I defend my record in regards to that - I have always offered different viewpoints, and they have all always been dismissed, I've been insulted, my ideas called radical (even the times when they really were not, and I admit often they really were), and I personally do not believe you were open to compromise either. In fact, I believe you've always been incredibly uncompromising. I do not like 'spineless' people. I do not like people who just 'surrender' to others. I do not want you or Chill to be 'spineless cowards' and give in to any demands any user, Brant, Quackerpingu and I especially since your primary troubles on this wiki had been with us, I do not like that. But you should strive to be understanding and to seek to understand the other side of an argument - both sides should be open to sacrifice something in their own for the better of everyone, and I repeat once again that I had not always been open to compromise, but I do try to do my best.

So once again, I would like to disassociate myself from Brant's post in either way since I feel like this is already being tied directly to me. I did not encourage Brant to write a post in support of me and I did not tell him what to say. Brant's post is entirely based on his personal experiences and thoughts of me as well as his own personal examination of my views and our discussions in PM, through which he has learned my views. -- Penstubal (Talk) (Edits) 14:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)