Thread:Sannse/@comment-24602967-20151208100036/@comment-4598272-20151208202530

First of all we block Klaus if he breaks the rules, not because some people don't want him here. Also I'm not siding with Dark. He just defended me against TKU, when TKU put once again his unjustified criticism towards me. And as I have told you several times my group has what it takes to run a wiki. We might not have all and fulfil all criteria the ideal leader should have but which leader has that? No leader is perfect as well as nothing in the world is perfect. TKU is not a better admin, he bends rules and makes rash judgements about people. Also he didn't advertise the wiki, didn't create templates, didn't code and also wasn't able to add pages to the wiki sufficiently without my advice. Removing the powers of my group would just be unfair and ungrateful as without us the wiki won't have become what it is today during the last two years. So it is questionable whether TKU or anyone else is better than we. There might be better admins than us, but that doesn't mean that we also don't do good work and deserve to remain in power. As well we are not used as puppets by Klaus or Dark, we watch out all day whether someone has broken the rules. Also as I have told you before several times users left due to Tenkai Knights having ended without a second season and they also might have left because of the heated argument between TKU and me and our followers. We also can take if we are called out for our mistakes, but with remarks such as we were scared before troublemakers and won't be fit to be leaders you cross the line. And as well like any other user Klaus gets blocked if he breaks the rules what you are saying is a pure lie. Also why should you be qualified yourself as admin? You have 1420 edits and only 166 of them are mainspace edits. We also know that you had problems with several users on other wikis. Also you often blocked for very questionable reasons and got demoted for that. You don't have a plan of running a wiki, most of your edits were "good morning"-messages and after thé threads your second most edits come from talk pages, also you never edited a template nor are you often on chat. So it's very questionable whether you are qualified as leader. My group is far more qualified and also more qualified than TKU, even if we don't fulfil all admin ideals. As well you never give counter-arguments to our arguments and seem to just ignore them, which shows that you might not be that intelligent also you have terrible grammar considering you are a 20-year-old Canadian who speaks English as a mother tongue, while my group speaks German. Now let's come to the main issue. I talked to my group this evening and we agreed upon changing the rules again. This will be as follows: All users will get six chances. After blewing every of the first five chances there will be a temporary block which is agreed upon by the bureaucrats. After one user blew the sixth chance users can request a block vote in which it's decided whether the user is blocked for infinite. If the community decides to do so there will be actually an infinite block. However, every year the community has to decide again whether the block should stay or the blocked user should get another chance. If the blocked user is caught sockpuppeting while being blocked the year will restart. If the community has decided to remove the block and the user breaks the rules again there will be another block vote. With this rule we could make sure that troublemakers are blocked for infinite, but on the other hand also scare them off from sockpuppeting and as well not fully exclude redemption. What do you think?