Let me try again
Please summarize the below thread in the editing box. You may use any wikitext in your summary. When you finish, click "Save page".
Removing nominations is counter to the process. If you don't like that someone has been nominated for an award, simply don't vote for it. Nominations are not de facto community condemnations/acclaims. That's what voting is for. Now, let's say there was an awards category for "most inconsiderate." You nominate Human. Nutty Roux and Ace come along and object, as they don't feel Human is inconsiderate and in fact think of him as a good friend. Do you remove the nomination? No. If Human is not considered the most inconsiderate, then he will not be voted most inconsiderate. That's how it works. This is why I protested the removing of nominations. However, there is an exception to the (implied) nomination removal rule. If someone is nominated for an award that unquestionably doesn't apply to them (like, nominating me for best moderator), then that nomination ought to be removed. Also, you stated that a person cannot be nominated for a category if he's won in that category before. That would be another exception. Finally, you can't just remove nominations just because you don't like them. I mean, that seems evident. What's the point of voting for these awards if you have final control of the list of nominees? The results would effectively be decided by you. I get that you like Godot. According to your award description, though, she qualifies for it. She butts into every. single. discussion. And don't mention anything about French or France, because she's the self-appointed expert on the subject and her American ass no qualms against talking down to native speakers. You might not mind that, or even like it, but that's no reason not to remove her nomination, since you don't have to vote for her. So please, replace the nominations you took out, and unblock me. I feel I have given a reasoned explanation of my position, and that the least you can do is hear me out. Then, if you disagree, I would be pleased if you told me why. Thank you.
Last I checked, who was it that largely made site policy on RWW? Was it you? Oh, wait, it's me. And the new policy I have says "Brxbrx can go fuck himself."
Yes, Stabby makes fair and well articulated points. I agree with his appraisal of the situation.
Gee, so much for being reasonable. I guess I'll appeal to Punky McPunkersen, see what he says on the matter.
Man, it seems everyone is hostile to Brxbrx these days. But don't worry, Bricks. I still love you.
It's the hip thing to do. Stabby is just trying to be popular.
Tend to agree with Fallacy here, but, that being said, it would seem that Stabby and Brxbrx are in some sort of battle to out-troll eachother in this case.
Remember that time when you almost killed RWW by making it your own little playground?
Getting rid of a disruptive edit warrior hardly translates into making RWW my playground. My intent is to free up the playground for people other than Brxbrx.
Ever since your
triumphant return, you've been acting like a giant authoritarian dick, throwing out old policy and replacing it with "what Hans says is law", giving out heavy-handed blocks and removing rights while not even bothering to actually look into the situation (you still owe an apology, at least, to UHM), and ignoring the fact that while you were gone, a community started to develop. But you returned and shat on all that.
Remember what happened last time?
Hm. That's a perspective I hadn't considered. I'll have to think about that.